D&D 5E Orcs and Drow in YOUR game (poll */comments +)

How is the portrayal of orcs and/or drow changing in your game? Check ALL that apply. (Anonymous)

  • Not applicable (both orcs and drow are absent from our game setting)

    Votes: 13 5.9%
  • Not relevant (both orcs and drow are there but very peripheral in our game setting)

    Votes: 14 6.3%
  • Currently, orcs and drow are Any Alignment in our game

    Votes: 64 29.0%
  • Currently, orcs OR drow are Typically Evil in our game

    Votes: 95 43.0%
  • Currently, orcs OR drow are Always Evil in our game

    Votes: 15 6.8%
  • In our game setting, orcs and drow will continue to be Any Alignment

    Votes: 59 26.7%
  • In our game setting, orcs and drow might change from Evil to Any Alignment

    Votes: 10 4.5%
  • In our game setting, orcs and drow will definitely change from Evil to Any Alignment

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • But we want (more) help or guidance from official published WoTC material

    Votes: 9 4.1%
  • But we want (more) help or guidance from 3rd party publishers

    Votes: 6 2.7%
  • But we want (more) help or guidance from online forums/groups

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • And we don't need any help to make these changes; we've already got it covered

    Votes: 80 36.2%
  • I don't know / not sure

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Added: In our game setting, orcs and drow will continue to be Typically Evil Alignment

    Votes: 76 34.4%

  • Poll closed .

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Both the earlier Basic, but also the Expert set of BECMI, which is explicit.
Incorrect. The quote from the Expert set was from the B/X version. The BECMI version looks like this:

1644061491340.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Ah. Go ahead and call me a heretic if you must, but to me B/X and BECMI are pretty much the same.
Meh, they are largely the same. Some of the details, especially the Thief's Skills advancement differ. But, largely the same.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
No, not even a nice try.

Yeah, right, ignore all OD&D, Basic, parts of BECMI, AD&D 1e, the immense part of 2e, the immense majority of 3e, 4e and 5e. Good proof for your stand... sigh

So, please actually quote the rest of the BECMI line where there are mentions of gods, not Immortals or clerics getting their powers from gods. I'll wait.
Yawn. Those "exceptions" entirely undermine your "meddling gods" narrative.

Immortals = Gods and Demigods in all but names. Sorry, it's as simple as that. And extremely meddling ones at that.

After that, fighting a rearguard battle on BECMI after dropping all the rest just proves how globally wrong you are.

For example:

Incorrect. The quote from the Expert set was from the B/X version. The BECMI version looks like this:

And where you not the one who claimed (incorrectly again, by the way) that "Also, see B/X, BECMI, etc. for clerics without gods." See what I mean ? :p
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Yeah, right, ignore all OD&D, Basic, parts of BECMI, AD&D 1e, the immense part of 2e, the immense majority of 3e, 4e and 5e. Good proof for your stand... sigh
Give it a rest. Your strawman about what my claims are is already in tatters. Go make up something else sense you have a way with fiction.

Immortals = Gods and Demigods in all but names. Sorry, it's as simple as that. And extremely meddling ones at that.
In all but names and theological underpinnings and all that jazz. Clerics still get their power from faith.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
The first basic had gods and goddesses, but Mentzer had something against them and removed them from his Basic. After that, other contributors brought them back in in various publications, including in particular the Expert Set which is part of B/X. This is because Mentzer was more or less the only one with that particular aversion to gods, and although a major contributor, his beliefs were not shared. And it's true that, at the time of the Cyclopaedia publication it was retconned in line with Mentzer's views, which did not erase all the previous publications, in particular the modules who almost all have mention of gods (or immortals for the later modules).
This is... an interesting narrative.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Give it a rest. Your strawman about what my claims are is already in tatters. Go make up something else sense you have a way with fiction.

And I have proven you wrong clearly twice, both on B/X and OD&D (But you have admitted only one), as well as now on Immortals, to the point that your sentences don't even mean anything.

In all but names and theological underpinnings and all that jazz. Clerics still get their power from faith.

So what ? There are absolutely god-equivalents in BECMI, in particular in modules, and particularly meddling ones. No-one says that clerics mandatorily have to get their powers from gods, just that it's an exceptional situation, just as no-one says that gods have to get their powers from worship (although it's a common enough situation, both in the fantasy genre and the games).

Arguing by exception is really pointless.

Moreover, back to the thread, meddling gods are, by canon, what made orcs and drows evil to some extent. This is what it's about, not about clerics.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
This is... an interesting narrative.

And this from someone who asked Mentzer about it, if you are interested: "I once spoke to Frank Mentzer about this, and asked him if his change from Gods to Immortals was anything to do with the "angry moms" issues at TSR. He said that it wasn't, and the reason for the change was more to do with his view that any being worthy of the title "God" should be too powerful for stats and rules, and should be remote from the day to day campaign setting. At the start of the BECMI series he didn't deliberately take out Gods knowing he's replace them with Immortals. He hadn't even conceived of Immortals until half way through writing the Companion set and didn't have any rules for them until after he'd finished the Master set. He made the changes he did to the Basic set because he didn't want to reduce Gods/religion to a "shopping list" for Clerics to choose from."

But that's just his opinion, which I totally respect seeing that the DDG from AD&D was turned into a MM by some people, I'm just pointing out that, even in BECMI, when people wrote modules they included gods, clerics and worship, etc. because it's so much a part of the fantasy genre.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
And I have proven you wrong clearly twice, both on B/X and OD&D (But you have admitted only one), as well as now on Immortals, to the point that your sentences don't even mean anything.
Woot, I've been wrong on two things—you've been wrong about what the assertion and counter-assertion between Helldrict and me. And you keep ignoring what those were so you can argue against a strawman. Good grief, if you're going to insert yourself into the conversation of others, at least go back to the sourse of the discussion.

So what ? There are absolutely god-equivalents in BECMI, in particular in modules, and particularly meddling ones. No-one says that clerics mandatorily have to get their powers from gods, just that it's an exceptional situation, just as no-one says that gods have to get their powers from worship (although it's a common enough situation, both in the fantasy genre and the games).
What? What are you even on about?

Arguing by exception is really pointless.
Sure.
Moreover, back to the thread, meddling gods are, by canon, what made orcs and drows evil to some extent. This is what it's about, not about clerics.
Yes, now that you're done, do move on.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
And this from someone who asked Mentzer about it, if you are interested: "I once spoke to Frank Mentzer about this, and asked him if his change from Gods to Immortals was anything to do with the "angry moms" issues at TSR. He said that it wasn't, and the reason for the change was more to do with his view that any being worthy of the title "God" should be too powerful for stats and rules, and should be remote from the day to day campaign setting. At the start of the BECMI series he didn't deliberately take out Gods knowing he's replace them with Immortals. He hadn't even conceived of Immortals until half way through writing the Companion set and didn't have any rules for them until after he'd finished the Master set. He made the changes he did to the Basic set because he didn't want to reduce Gods/religion to a "shopping list" for Clerics to choose from."

But that's just his opinion, which I totally respect seeing that the DDG from AD&D was turned into a MM by some people, I'm just pointing out that, even in BECMI, when people wrote modules they included gods, clerics and worship, etc. because it's so much a part of the fantasy genre.
Source?
 

Lyxen

Great Old One

It's only an internet post, but considering the depth of analysis, I would consider it truthful, see here. I found it very interesting.

Woot, I've been wrong on two things—you've been wrong about what the assertion and counter-assertion between Helldrict and me.

Well, this might be news for you, but everything here is not about your little squabbles, I only came in when you started posting outrageous and easy to prove false claims, here. If you want to have a private argument, just don't do it on the forums.

Otherwise, my point in this discussion and back to the subject of the thread is the obvious and canon influence of gods on the behaviour of orcs and drows, in particular because it draws away the "genetically, inherently evil" part.

What? What are you even on about?

For example, one of the sentence that some people consider problematic was in the original 5e PH:
1644065842798.png
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top