D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Remathilis]

There's a third possibility--one that D&D has actually done in the past. In some of the 3x MMs, the monsters (or at least some of them) would have two sections at the end of each write-up, entitled "Monster in the Forgotten Realms" and "Monster in Eberron."

It seems that WotC could go back to something like that, if they had a "Nentir Vale 2.0." Here's how the monster is generically. Here's the role it plays in this particular setting. It would be particularly useful if those two sections were sometimes quite different, as opposed to "here's gnolls, who are violent ravagers, and here's gnolls in NV2, who are violent ravagers in this particular area." More like "Gnolls are territorial hunters but are willing to let intruders alone if they prove they aren't going to hunt the gnolls' food supplies. In NV2, they are actually demon-spawn who will kill anyone who enters their territory."

How detailed are we asking though? Would a description of Gruumsh orcs in NV2 followed by a "In Eberron, orcs are druidic mystics who fight aberrations" paragraph work? Because that's basically what we have now and I got the impression it doesn't.

 

[Faolyn]

How detailed are we asking though? Would a description of Gruumsh orcs in NV2 followed by a "In Eberron, orcs are druidic mystics who fight aberrations" paragraph work? Because that's basically what we have now and I got the impression it doesn't.

I think it would suffice if it starts at the beginning, like when 6e gets published (or if a section like this was put into each monster in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, which I think is going to replace the MM?). Eberron came late and the first MM (either for 3e or 3.5) didn't reflect Eberron's trends. You had to have read the Eberron books, or at least be familiar with them, to know that their orcs are different.

But imagine the 6e MM, where the first time you read about orcs, you get the following:

* Generic orcs, perhaps writing them as tending towards being very physical but not inherently evil--more "big emotions and very demonstrative about them," that sort of thing. At least that's how I see orcs; I dunno how 6e will write them.​

* Gruumsh's orcs, who are seized by religious fervor and because of that, are incredibly violent and warlike, as Gruumsh demands constant bloodshed in his name. This would be generic, in the sense that it can go in any setting and isn't tied to one published setting. But it's not the norm; it's just one group of orcs.​

* NV2's orcs, unless the generic orcs above are the NV2 orcs.​

And possibly, depending on what settings 6e wants to support:

* Orcs in the Realms or Greyhawk, who are mostly low-threat raiders, mercenaries, except in the cases of Obould Many-Arrows or the orc nation of the Pomarj, which are like this.​

* Orcs in Eberron, who are druidic mystics who fight aberrations.​

And each section would likely only need a few sentences to start with. This would take up a lot of room, yes, but honestly I think they could make it fit. Of course, by the time this hypothetical 6e comes out, they could decide to have a huge online section, or sell extended pdf editions that have all the info they couldn't fit in the printed book.

And this assumes that orcs (and other playable races) are even in the MM to begin with. If there's an extended NPC statblock section and a list of racial templates (akin to the one currently in the DMG), and that's the only place where orcs and other humanoids are listed in the MM, with the idea being that you just slap the orc template on the Commoner or Noble or Thug or Warlord stats, then that'd be fine by me.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it would suffice if it starts at the beginning, like when 6e gets published (or if a section like this was put into each monster in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, which I think is going to replace the MM?). Eberron came late and the first MM (either for 3e or 3.5) didn't reflect Eberron's trends. You had to have read the Eberron books, or at least be familiar with them, to know that their orcs are different.

But imagine the 6e MM, where the first time you read about orcs, you get the following:

* Generic orcs, perhaps writing them as tending towards being very physical but not inherently evil--more "big emotions and very demonstrative about them," that sort of thing. At least that's how I see orcs; I dunno how 6e will write them.​

* Gruumsh's orcs, who are seized by religious fervor and because of that, are incredibly violent and warlike, as Gruumsh demands constant bloodshed in his name. This would be generic, in the sense that it can go in any setting and isn't tied to one published setting. But it's not the norm; it's just one group of orcs.​

* NV2's orcs, unless the generic orcs above are the NV2 orcs.​

And possibly, depending on what settings 6e wants to support:

* Orcs in the Realms or Greyhawk, who are mostly low-threat raiders, mercenaries, except in the cases of Obould Many-Arrows or the orc nation of the Pomarj, which are like this.​

* Orcs in Eberron, who are druidic mystics who fight aberrations.​

And each section would likely only need a few sentences to start with. This would take up a lot of room, yes, but honestly I think they could make it fit. Of course, by the time this hypothetical 6e comes out, they could decide to have a huge online section, or sell extended pdf editions that have all the info they couldn't fit in the printed book.

And this assumes that orcs (and other playable races) are even in the MM to begin with. If there's an extended NPC statblock section and a list of racial templates (akin to the one currently in the DMG), and that's the only place where orcs and other humanoids are listed in the MM, with the idea being that you just slap the orc template on the Commoner or Noble or Thug or Warlord stats, then that'd be fine by me.

So, then the idea is to provide a "pick your orc" option? Present the classic savage-tribal orc alongside the Eberron orc, the Many-Arrows orc, the Ondonti, and scro (spelljammer) orcs. Or provide the Unudrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen and Devkarin in the drow section. Each culture gets a paragraph of explanation and that's it. Then a DM picks the one they are using and it's off to the races.

Its an interesitng options, although, I really detest the idea of any sort of online component required to get the full picture. A lot of 4e material was paywalled behind D&D Insider and in Dragon, and it's lost to time now unless you had the foresight to save it or resort to unsavory means of acquiring it. Put it in the book or don't bother with it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, then the idea is to provide a "pick your orc" option? Present the classic savage-tribal orc alongside the Eberron orc, the Many-Arrows orc, the Ondonti, and scro (spelljammer) orcs. Or provide the Unudrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen and Devkarin in the drow section. Each culture gets a paragraph of explanation and that's it. Then a DM picks the one they are using and it's off to the races.

Its an interesitng options, although, I really detest the idea of any sort of online component required to get the full picture. A lot of 4e material was paywalled behind D&D Insider and in Dragon, and it's lost to time now unless you had the foresight to save it or resort to unsavory means of acquiring it. Put it in the book or don't bother with it.

I think they should really give some sort of core identity to the species. Something you then can hang more specific interpretations to. If orcs are passionate, hardy and love freedom, outdoors and challenges that test their mettle, respect bravery, personal strength and honesty, despise guile and empty gestures, prefer practicality and durability over finesse and finery and glory over wealth, then that at least is saying something. And then you can have examples of different orc cultures expressing those base features in different ways.

 

[Mordhau]

I think they should really give some sort of core identity to the species. Something you then can hang more specific interpretations to. If orcs are passionate, hardy and love freedom, outdoors and challenges that test their mettle, respect bravery, personal strength and honesty, despise guile and empty gestures, prefer practicality and durability over finesse and finery and glory over wealth, then that at least is saying something. And then you can have examples of different orc cultures expressing those base features in different ways.

I have Orcs with a basic trait they were given by their ancestor as a blessing (but many other races consider a curse). They have unstoppable wanderlust. They can not stay in one place for more than a week. Imprisoning an Orc will drive it mad. This puts a kind of unity to different types of Orcs.

They are always nomads; some are steppe raiders, others are peaceful herders or peddlars, but they are always moving, and all Orc cultures are based around it. I even had one single Orc city which is built on a giant gnomish contraption that moves constantly around the plains, although other Orcs tend to think they're extremely weird and the idea of even that kind of city makes them uncomfortable.

This kind of explains something about the traditional attitudes towards Orcs, by linking it to the age-old conflicts between settled and nomadic peoples, while allowing for a variety of different cultural expressions.

 

[Hussar]

People are commenting on what they see WotC actually doing, not on what they in theory could do. Yes, I would love to see D&D species to be expanded to have nuanced deep lore like the Klingons. But that absolutely is not what is currently happening. As noted, all the new species are incredibly barebones, they have next to no lore, to the point that even their physical size is undefined. It is the literal opposite of nuanced deep lore.

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

 

[Hussar]

I like the concept, but Dragon+ is not Dragon Magazine, having a well-earned reputation as a worthless bundle of advertisements. Maybe they can start a web series with ecology articles. Connecting anything you want people to read to Dragon+ doesn't do anyone any good.

One must be careful not to let biases color perception.

After all, the old Dragon Magazine had an audience in the 3e days of maybe 50000 readers. How many downloads does Dragon+ get? How many people does it reach? And, wouldn't adding something like these Ecologies address the notion that it's a worthless bundle of advertisements?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

Yeah, this is accurate. The Unearthed Arcana for the Spelljammer races have more lore than the entirely new races/lineages (Dhampir, Hexblood, Reborn, Owlin, Harengon, Fairy). It's probably because these are new and just not as fully developed as the older races are.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Yes, those. And several of them have appeared in books since UA.

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

All of the PHB races have several pages. They literally didn't even give height or weight to the new races. There is basically nothing. Also, making up this lore is literally the job of the people who write these books. If they can't be arsed to do that, why would we pay for such books?

 

[Hussar]

Wow, height and weight tables are the new hill to die on? Good grief, I didn't know anyone actually used those. And, frankly, everyone ignores it anyway - no one cares that that halfling is the size of the three year old. It has nearly no mechanical impact and no one cares.

Do you really need to know the exact height and weight range of a race for it to be considered to have lore?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wow, height and weight tables are the new hill to die on? Good grief, I didn't know anyone actually used those. And, frankly, everyone ignores it anyway - no one cares that that halfling is the size of the three year old. It has nearly no mechanical impact and no one cares.

Do you really need to know the exact height and weight range of a race for it to be considered to have lore?

It merely illustrates how utterly lacking the content is. They literally are unable to even define how large the species physically is. Doing that would be some sort of obvious bare minimum, but they didn't do even that. Why would I pay for "It is some sort of rabbit person, I guess, make stuff up!"

 

[MGibster]

Do you really need to know the exact height and weight range of a race for it to be considered to have lore?

It's a known fact that the more weight and volume a race has the more lore can fit into it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One must be careful not to let biases color perception.

After all, the old Dragon Magazine had an audience in the 3e days of maybe 50000 readers. How many downloads does Dragon+ get? How many people does it reach? And, wouldn't adding something like these Ecologies address the notion that it's a worthless bundle of advertisements?

I admit I'd love to see the tagline, "Dragon+! Now with content!"

 

[Cadence]

Wow, height and weight tables are the new hill to die on? Good grief, I didn't know anyone actually used those. And, frankly, everyone ignores it anyway - no one cares that that halfling is the size of the three year old. It has nearly no mechanical impact and no one cares.

I care...

 

[Voadam]

But, even if this was true, that doesn't exactly make it any less racist does it?

Even if this was true? You quoted a statement by me of how Watto struck me.

"He struck me as evoking specifically Arab stereotypical traits/caricature."

So yes, even if I was not lying about how Watto struck me as a different derogatory ethnic caricature . . . , correct. A different derogatory ethnic caricature is still a derogatory ethnic caricature.

The way you phrased the question seems like you thought I was arguing that because I felt Watto is not based on a derogatory Jewish caricature but an Arab one that it is not problematic. Which seems to me a bizarre inference out of what I wrote.

The greedy evil slave owning Arab trope seems self-evidently problematic to me.

But I also thought the Orcs of Thar picture of the heavy set dark skinned big lipped woman with a bone was obviously problematic and the OP originally asked why I thought so as he did not want the thread to involve mere criticisms of general silliness. So interpretations of what is obviously problematic can vary.

 

[Mordhau]

It's a known fact that the more weight and volume a race has the more lore can fit into it.

All that unused space Goliaths have more lore!

 

[Faolyn]

So, then the idea is to provide a "pick your orc" option? Present the classic savage-tribal orc alongside the Eberron orc, the Many-Arrows orc, the Ondonti, and scro (spelljammer) orcs. Or provide the Unudrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen and Devkarin in the drow section. Each culture gets a paragraph of explanation and that's it. Then a DM picks the one they are using and it's off to the races.

Yep. Or the DM can pick more than one, or none, or just use them as inspiration. Or even decide that they like the concept of the Devkarin drow, but think it'd be cooler if they were a hobgoblin culture instead. Having them all there in the PH or MM would make it easy for the DM to bring in new people or flesh out a new world quickly. And it would allow for people who like Always Evil races to have them and it'd be just as canon as the more nuanced versions.

And yeah, unless WotC fully embraces the race/culture divide and gives stats to the cultures, I think this would work well. Now, I'm all for the race/culture divide, but how they do it is another thing entirely.

Honestly, though, the scro are really just vampire orcs but are trying to fool everyone by spelling their name backwards. They travel in space because it's always night there.

Its an interesitng options, although, I really detest the idea of any sort of online component required to get the full picture. A lot of 4e material was paywalled behind D&D Insider and in Dragon, and it's lost to time now unless you had the foresight to save it or resort to unsavory means of acquiring it. Put it in the book or don't bother with it.

I agree. But who knows what the future will bring. Maybe instead of extra stuff being online only (which is only a guess on my part anyway) they'll do POD as well.

 

[Hussar]

Even if this was true? You quoted a statement by me of how Watto struck me.

"He struck me as evoking specifically Arab stereotypical traits/caricature."

So yes, even if I was not lying about how Watto struck me as a different derogatory ethnic caricature . . . , correct. A different derogatory ethnic caricature is still a derogatory ethnic caricature.

The way you phrased the question seems like you thought I was arguing that because I felt Watto is not based on a derogatory Jewish caricature but an Arab one that it is not problematic. Which seems to me a bizarre inference out of what I wrote.

The greedy evil slave owning Arab trope seems self-evidently problematic to me.

But I also thought the Orcs of Thar picture of the heavy set dark skinned big lipped woman with a bone was obviously problematic and the OP originally asked why I thought so as he did not want the thread to involve mere criticisms of general silliness. So interpretations of what is obviously problematic can vary.

Sorry, my bad. You called it a trope, so, I misunderstood.

 

[Hussar]

It merely illustrates how utterly lacking the content is. They literally are unable to even define how large the species physically is. Doing that would be some sort of obvious bare minimum, but they didn't do even that. Why would I pay for "It is some sort of rabbit person, I guess, make stuff up!"

Aren't the sizes ranged between small and medium? IIRC, that's the size range of all PC races now. So, IOW, it's up to you to decide how big your individual character is, pretty much the way it has been all the way along. How is this different?

Look, I'll be the first to admit, I haven't really paid any attention to Strixhaven. It's just not my thing, so, for these specific issues, I really don't know. But, I look at what's happened to the drow - massive expansion of lore, the orcs - massive expansion of lore and think, hrm, yeah, we're seeing pretty big explosions of lore based on bringing more nuanced versions of race to the table.

AFAIK, only the Owlin are officially added to the game right? The rabbit person appears in a UA article and not meant as the final product. To be fair - I just took a peek at the Owlin writeup and I totally agree - that's seriously lacking. Wow, that's just a complete non-race. I have to admit that I hope that we'll see more expansion later on down the road.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Aren't the sizes ranged between small and medium? IIRC, that's the size range of all PC races now. So, IOW, it's up to you to decide how big your individual character is, pretty much the way it has been all the way along. How is this different?

Look, I'll be the first to admit, I haven't really paid any attention to Strixhaven. It's just not my thing, so, for these specific issues, I really don't know. But, I look at what's happened to the drow - massive expansion of lore, the orcs - massive expansion of lore and think, hrm, yeah, we're seeing pretty big explosions of lore based on bringing more nuanced versions of race to the table.

AFAIK, only the Owlin are officially added to the game right? The rabbit person appears in a UA article and not meant as the final product. To be fair - I just took a peek at the Owlin writeup and I totally agree - that's seriously lacking. Wow, that's just a complete non-race. I have to admit that I hope that we'll see more expansion later on down the road.

The rabbit-person and the generic fairy are in Witchlight. Just as lacking in lore as the Owlin.

And where is this "massive explosion" of orc and Drow lore? What books is it in?