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

[jmartkdr2]

I mean, this argument could literally be turned right around on you: there's no reason not to have a broader, less stereotypical concept of an Orc in something like the MM because you could just have your simpler version that adheres to the classic tropes.

What would that look like, in practice?

I mean this earnestly, since I feel like people are talking past each other about what changes are being proposed, and thus the justifications don't makes sense - not because anyone is crazy, but because person A is trying to justify change A, while person B is arguing against change B, without realizing that they're talking about two different kinds of changes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

What would that look like, in practice?

In practice, a more balance idea of an Orc rather than just as an unthinking killing machine. If you want to spend a full entry on it detailing a more interesting society while keeping the trappings of a raider, look towards a society more closely built around how, say, the Vikings built theirs.

I mean, I'm not prepared right now to give you an actual pitch on "My Orcs" at this moment. But if you need like an immediate idea, one where they are perceived as bloodthirsty raiders but have a much more complex society would be my immediate go-to.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, more good news. You can say during your session 0 "my orcs are different". On the other hand I can have "standard" orcs but then subvert the trope if I want to.

I haven't done that for orcs yet because I don't use them often but there is a good tribe of goblins as a result of a cascade of events from a campaign a couple of decades ago.

I don't want to have to come up with detail for every race, species and monster. I'd rather spend my time on other aspects of the story. I don't see a problem with people having both options.

As @Justice and Rule says, the issue is then with what stereotype you pick. Orcs are really weak example for you I think because the typical culture for them in D&D is just "generic barbarian". Like, literally there's no meaningful culture difference (in some cases no identifiable difference at all) between "violent barbarian" orcs and "violent barbarian" humans.

You can sum that up in one sentence. And it adds very little. It's not really providing value. Why not make the base something more interesting or valuable? You could apply "violent barbarian" to literally any race in the MM (or PHB!). Indeed, I've seen it done.

Whereas Hobgoblins at least have a slightly more complicated culture, and whilst you could probably sum it up as "Like Romans", that conjures up a heck of a lot more potential depth and interest than "generic barbarian".

In practice, a more balance idea of an Orc rather than just as an unthinking killing machine. If you want to spend a full entry on it detailing a more interesting society while keeping the trappings of a raider, look towards a society more closely built around how, say, the Vikings built theirs.

I mean, I'm not prepared right now to give you an actual pitch on "My Orcs" at this moment. But if you need like an immediate idea, one where they are perceived as bloodthirsty raiders but have a much more complex society would be my immediate go-to.

Yup this sort of thing could work well. I mean, Orcs are so generic, people haven't even worked out consistent ways they live. They're personality-free barbarian killers. But even if they are going to be killers, if you're going to bother describing them, and you don't just want to type "generic barbarian", which would save everyone a lot of time, describe something with a bit more depth and nuance. Like the Orsimer in Elder Scrolls, for example. They're not amazing but they actually have a culture and so on, not like, a nonsensical one-dimensional stereotype.

And whenever a race does get this done to it, it becomes more interesting, and more engaging, and usually, more popular (including as an enemy). Without Dragon Mountain doing this to Kobolds, I'm pretty sure they'd have basically fallen off the D&D radar between 2E and 3E, for example, a forgotten monster like so many, which people would question the existence of as just "even weaker Goblins".

 

[Deset Gled]

If the only difference you see between those creatures is appearance, I don’t know what to tell you.

It’s understandable. But I’m not talking about whether characters can be excused for having biases. I’m talking about whether the setting implicitly validates those biases.

I don't want to read a setting, I don't want to look at a picture. I want to look at the stat block or character sheet of a thing. What mechanically sets it apart from other things?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Whereas Hobgoblins at least have a slightly more complicated culture, and whilst you could probably sum it up as "Like Romans", that conjures up a heck of a lot more potential depth and interest than "generic barbarian".

I based mine around Greek City-States.

 

[Mind of tempest]

So if a mind flayer is sentient enough to know that it's survival must come at the cost of other sentient life, the moral choice is then starvation and extinction?

ideally looking into alternate foods and reproduction options and at the minimum look into making the relationship far more symbiotic which I some how have thought about.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, this argument could literally be turned right around on you: there's no reason not to have a broader, less stereotypical concept of an Orc in something like the MM because you could just have your simpler version that adheres to the classic tropes.

Except it puts the burden on DMs everywhere. Unless of course you want Star Wars aliens where 90% of the aliens are just a humans with a mask.

Different species just become set dressing and nothing more. Ooh look! The guy playing the saxophone looks different! See how cool this universe is? If not for the visuals, Mos Eisley's cantina is boring.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't want to read a setting, I don't want to look at a picture. I want to look at the stat block or character sheet of a thing. What mechanically sets it apart from other things?

Its... stats?

I feel like I’m not understanding the question.

 

[Azzy]

Okay, so there are a lot of cultures.

But were those cultures based on physical differences?

Environmental, yes. Technological, yes. But physical? No.

I think you're arguing against something that I didn't say.

So certainly, you can portray the Ogre as coming from a certain style of society. But then the question becomes: Why that culture/society and not another? Why are there no civilized Ogre kingdoms who treat others with respect and rely on trade? Or, why are there not pastoral/druidic Ogre tribes that roam the tundra et al?

What kind of culture/society a particular species has will likely be based on environment and technology first and foremost (or DM fiat, which is more likely). So, indeed, why not any of those things? I agree that any of those things should be possible.

As soon as you say "Well this race is big and strong so of course there gonna act a certain way" this goes into the 'orcs bad' territory.

You cannot have a race's (or more specifically, species) culture be based on physicality. Not and have it be consistent with the ideology expressed and argued here.

Who's saying that it should be based on their physicality? That sounds like a perversion of what I'm trying to convey. I'm saying that it will be impacted by their physicality. Ogres will have different architecture than humans or centaurs, certainly. Them being physically larger will require larger buildings (if they are urbanized) which, in turn, may require different building practices. Centaurs will also need a whole other type of architechture to accomodate them. Also, different species likely have differing nutritional needs and that will impact their cuisine as much of local food sources. Larger species likely require larger portions, too. These are things where physicality impacts culture by, like I said, differing advantages, disadvantages, and needs. Larger species have both advantages and disadvantages from being large and have different needs like larger portions of food and different nutritional needs. Quadupeds have their own issues and benefits. And so on. This is wholly different from what's been done with orcs and ogres being presented as brutish and stupid.

In my humble opinion, this is something each table should be in control of. To ask a company to make their default setting fix all these issues either means races (species) cannot have a single culture, but in fact must be represented in being present in a wide array of cultures. Which, well, means the species loses its narrative ability in the way the poster was worried it would. If you are fine giving up that narrative tool, that's fine. But just recognize that this is one of the side effects of fixing the perceived issue.

I'm actively arguing for different species to have different cultures—it makes no sense that all orcs, spread over a continent to be monocultural. I disagree with this making a species lose its narrative ability—this opens up new narratives.

 

[Oofta]

What would that look like, in practice?

I mean this earnestly, since I feel like people are talking past each other about what changes are being proposed, and thus the justifications don't makes sense - not because anyone is crazy, but because person A is trying to justify change A, while person B is arguing against change B, without realizing that they're talking about two different kinds of changes.

Honestly, that gets me too. Either every race is just human with a mask or they're at least somewhat unique and iconic. How do you do the latter in a way that's significantly different than what we have now?