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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I'm sorry mate, if the burden of choosing a race to apply the cultural template "generic barbarian" to (which is all Orcs have) is too demanding, then I don't think the problem lies in the MM.

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?

Orcs are just "humans in a mask" right now! It's just that they're stereotypically violent, primitive barbarians. Like some humans are violent, primitive barbarians. They have nothing unique or special about their culture.

This is why I pointed out they're so weak for the argument you're trying to make.

Lots of other races have some more complicated stuff going on. But not Orcs.

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.

Exactly. It's valuable.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Do Orcs being bloodthirsty monsters really add that much flavor to you? I mean, I think Ithorians or Givins or Twi'leks or even Rodians are far more interesting than Orcs ever were.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Ironically, when Gygax wanted to put different human cultures in the world of Greyhawk...that's what he did. Frost Barbarians are your "Vikings," not orcs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except it puts the burden on DMs everywhere.

Either option puts the burden on DMs. The difference is, inventing a simple monoculture for a race is a much smaller burden than inventing multiple complex, nuanced cultures. It’s easier to remove nuance if you want that for some reason than to add it.

 

[billd91]

Do mindflayers get racially coded like Orcs?

This is a good question that, I think, this thread is muddling the hell out of. I think there's a big difference between racially coding humanoids with recognizable language applied to real racial/ethnic groups and thinking of the moral outlooks of dragons, angels, devils, demons, and mind flayers -- yet they keep coming up in here as being as questionable as racially profiling or stereotyping humanoids.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sorry mate, if the burden of choosing a race to apply the cultural template "generic barbarian" to (which is all Orcs have) is too demanding, then I don't think the problem lies in the MM.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. How much page count would you add to the MM to have different versions? Double? Triple? How do you do that without having a generic setting across all campaigns?

Eberron has very unique take on orcs. Which is great! You can do that as well! Why is "compromise" always "eliminate what has worked for half a century with campaign specific versions"?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. How much page count would you add to the MM to have different versions? Double? Triple? How do you do that without having a generic setting across all campaigns?

Eberron has very unique take on orcs. Which is great! You can do that as well! Why is "compromise" always "eliminate what has worked for half a century with campaign specific versions"?

I mean, the better question seems to be "Why are people so attached to an older, less interesting version than this new, cool version someone else came up with?"

Like, why don't we just go to what Eberron created as the standard? It's far more interesting and much less problematic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is a good question that, I think, this thread is muddling the hell out of. I think there's a big difference between racially coding humanoids that with recognizable language applied to real racial/ethnic groups and thinking of the moral outlooks of dragons, angels, devils, demons, and mind flayers -- yet they keep coming up in here as being as questionable as racially profiling or stereotyping humanoids.

I dunno if "the thread" is muddling it as much as some posters are attempting to ask questions that are at 45-90 degrees from the main discussion. Not unreasonable questions and often ones that flow out of the main discussion but that aren't really part of it.

And Mind Flayers don't, generally, because they're sufficiently different from humans in biology and behaviour that it's averted into purely fantasy realms. Now, there have been some artists who came dangerously close to coding them as Arabic or Chinese in culture by putting clothes on them (and notably - "exotic" clothes), but I haven't seen that for a while.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. How much page count would you add to the MM to have different versions? Double? Triple? How do you do that without having a generic setting across all campaigns?

Eberron has very unique take on orcs. Which is great! You can do that as well! Why is "compromise" always "eliminate what has worked for half a century with campaign specific versions"?

You're asking for a "generic setting across all campaigns" if I am. The 5E MMs after the first one all contain a ton of extra material of exactly and precisely the kind I'm discussing. All of them except the first. So like those.

I'm saying that's fine to have a "generic setting" btw, but let's make it a more interesting one with Orcs, because good god they're boring to the point where they should probably deleted from the MM. They serve absolutely no purpose. You'd be better off with a generic human tribe of violent barbarians, because it'd take up less MM room.

 

[TwoSix]

Eberron has very unique take on orcs. Which is great! You can do that as well! Why is "compromise" always "eliminate what has worked for half a century with campaign specific versions"?

I think because people are arguing that it didn't actually "work"; or at least it was only barely passable and can be modernized.

I have no problem with racial monocultures in the abstract, but I think orcs code close enough to "people" and are such an integral part of the fantasy zeitgeist that they're probably due for a more novel take.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Like, why don't we just go to what Eberron created as the standard? It's far more interesting and much less problematic.

Same argument applies to switching "devil" to "baatezu."

 

[Justice and Rule]

Same argument applies to switching "devil" to "baatezu."

Ehhhhh kind of but not quite? Similar in abstract, but not quite in severity, I would say.

 

[Charlaquin]

I dunno if "the thread" is muddling it as much as some posters are attempting to ask questions that are at 45-90 degrees from the main discussion. Not unreasonable questions and often ones that flow out of the main discussion but that aren't really part of it.

And Mind Flayers don't, generally, because they're sufficiently different from humans in biology and behaviour that it's averted into purely fantasy realms. Now, there have been some artists who came dangerously close to coding them as Arabic or Chinese in culture by putting clothes on them (and notably - "exotic" clothes), but I haven't seen that for a while.

Also, just going to cut this one off at the pass, because I know it’s coming: Yes, you can present orcs in a way that makes them sufficiently different from humans to circumvent these issues. If your orcs are like a malevolent demon fungus or something, calling them inherently evil is probably fine. It’s pretty far removed from what people traditionally think of as orcs, but it’s probably fine.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, just going to cut this one off at the pass, because I know it’s coming: Yes, you can present orcs in a way that makes them sufficiently different from humans to circumvent these issues. If your orcs are like a malevolent demon fungus or something, calling them inherently evil is probably fine. It’s pretty far removed from what people traditionally think of as orcs, but it’s probably fine.

I don't if it's THAT far removed, since it's pretty much Warhammer orcs.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't if it's THAT far removed, since it's pretty much Warhammer orcs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Same argument applies to switching "devil" to "baatezu."

Honestly they should have stuck with Baatezu, because everything that happened that made Demons/Devils interesting, at all, happened in the Baatezu/Taanri-era.

The Blood War became possible because these were no longer generic-ass mythological demons/devils, but actually D&D beings with a real identity that could be played with.

The only reason we reverted the name change was to please grogs and help signal that the Satanic Panic was finally over. Yugoloths are still Yugoloths you know! Why? Because Daemon was bloody boring name and too similar to Demon.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't if it's THAT far removed, since it's pretty much Warhammer orcs.

Shows how much I know about Warhammer

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Shows how much I know about Warhammer

Wow wait you made that up lol? I thought that was just a Warhammer ref. That's literally what they are there.

Worth noting it's Warhammer 40K lore that got retcon'd into Warhammer Fantasy, for EXACTLY the reasons we're discussing here:

I.e. it was both more interesting, and less problematic. It's practically the poster-boy for this kind of change. It's been extremely popular. You have to work hard to find a Warhammer grog old and grumpy enough to not be happy about the change.

 

[Argyle King]

In theory, I've always been of the impression that Orcs and Elves are thematically intended to be different mirrors of humans: with Orcs being an embodiment of our baser instincts and Elves being some idealized version of what we could be. (In D&D, that's become more blurred over time.)

Half-Orcs were (I think) viewed similar to how some people might now view Tieflings because previous versions of Orcs were (in older versions) viewed as monolithic evil, similar to fiends.

Where I believe that became problematic is when artists and writers started to illustrate those "baser instincts" using elements of real-world ethnicities.

For me, I don't believe the idea of providing reflections humanity is bad, but I do believe how games (and the people who create games) have chosen to illustrate that reflection is a problem.

Years ago, I remember playing the Ultima games. For most of the games, gargoyles were viewed as "evil." However, one of the games turned that idea on its head, as it was revealed that their culture was simply different -and they had been attacking you because actions taken by the protagonist (you) had been harming them.

I wish I could remember which entry in the series that was. It's a game containing ideas which I believe would be applicable to this discussion.


EDIT: I think it was Ultima 6: The False Prophet.

Ultima VI: The False Prophet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Charlaquin]

Wow wait you made that up lol? I thought that was just a Warhammer ref. That's literally what they are there.

I didn’t exactly make it up - I had the vague concept of fungal orcs in my head, I’m sure from some combination of references I’ve heard in passing. I just didn’t know Warhammer was where the idea came from.

 

[Voadam]

Shows how much I know about Warhammer

40K's Orks are an interesting popular take that gives orcs a fairly alien biology and reason for being violent brutes with some comedy.