D&D (2024) The Half Orc. Are they still needed?
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
"Can they be evil?" is a weird litmus test for whether or not a creature can be a playable race.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
It depends on what you mean by "needed."
This is one of the (three-ish) incredibly frustrating standards I frequently see brought up in D&D discussions. Because, if you mean that in its usual sense, absolutely nothing is ever needed in D&D. Ever. There is no such thing as "necessity." Period. We don't need specific classes, we don't need specific rules structures, we don't need specific races, we don't need particular equipment or spells or feats or themes or anything.
But if you mean a specific, niche definition of "need," something like "does this have enough utility that it can't be ignored" or "is this sufficiently fundamental to D&D that getting rid of it is untenable," then it's unlikely that half-orcs are "needed," but there are lots of things present or added over time that aren't "needed." Orcs themselves don't seem to be any more or less "needed" than half-orcs. This means the answer to the question isn't very informative; we would need to ask something further, like "what does half-orc provide?" or the like, to really draw any meaningful conclusions.
That's the key problem with this question. It very, very easily becomes a motte-and-bailey fallacy, even without the author intending such, due to the fluid sense of the word "needed."
Now, engaging with the core premise of the thread assuming that "are half-orcs still needed" should actually be read as "are half-orcs still useful," my answer is unequivocally yes. I still see good things being done with them, and I still see them having a place in various fantastical settings. I don't have literal or figurative "skin in the game" when it comes to racial intermixing, being from a historically privileged ethnic background, so it's hard for me to have clear insight on that front. But I think it's worthwhile to have "child of two worlds" options, particularly given the people in my life who have been of biracial or polyracial backgrounds and who have personally felt a deep desire to explore that identity and what it means for them.
On the flipside, I absolutely, 100% agree that the disgusting and inappropriate backstory information for half-orcs from early editions has died the death it deserves, and will not dignify it with further discussion than this sentence. It should fade into obscurity as nothing more than an annoying quirk of history.
This is one of the (three-ish) incredibly frustrating standards I frequently see brought up in D&D discussions. Because, if you mean that in its usual sense, absolutely nothing is ever needed in D&D. Ever. There is no such thing as "necessity." Period. We don't need specific classes, we don't need specific rules structures, we don't need specific races, we don't need particular equipment or spells or feats or themes or anything.
But if you mean a specific, niche definition of "need," something like "does this have enough utility that it can't be ignored" or "is this sufficiently fundamental to D&D that getting rid of it is untenable," then it's unlikely that half-orcs are "needed," but there are lots of things present or added over time that aren't "needed." Orcs themselves don't seem to be any more or less "needed" than half-orcs. This means the answer to the question isn't very informative; we would need to ask something further, like "what does half-orc provide?" or the like, to really draw any meaningful conclusions.
That's the key problem with this question. It very, very easily becomes a motte-and-bailey fallacy, even without the author intending such, due to the fluid sense of the word "needed."
Now, engaging with the core premise of the thread assuming that "are half-orcs still needed" should actually be read as "are half-orcs still useful," my answer is unequivocally yes. I still see good things being done with them, and I still see them having a place in various fantastical settings. I don't have literal or figurative "skin in the game" when it comes to racial intermixing, being from a historically privileged ethnic background, so it's hard for me to have clear insight on that front. But I think it's worthwhile to have "child of two worlds" options, particularly given the people in my life who have been of biracial or polyracial backgrounds and who have personally felt a deep desire to explore that identity and what it means for them.
On the flipside, I absolutely, 100% agree that the disgusting and inappropriate backstory information for half-orcs from early editions has died the death it deserves, and will not dignify it with further discussion than this sentence. It should fade into obscurity as nothing more than an annoying quirk of history.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
For my part, it's more "can they be moral?" Note that that does not mean "can they be good," because good is only one subset of moral behavior.
If a type of creature is genuinely incapable of having moral behavior of any kind, then I don't really think they're appropriate for players to play. Such a creature is necessarily incapable of a critically important form of reasoning. If a particular creature is incapable of moral behavior, then that creature is a nonsapient animal, construct, or object, and not appropriate for player use.
Not that I think that it is impossible to have sapient animals, constructs, or objects! I totally think that's possible, and can have cool fairytale resonances. (Consider the transformed characters in Disney's Beauty and the Beast.) But it is the sapience that matters here; without sapience, there's a problem.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I don't have a problem with the word 'evil,' or even the word 'moral.' It's the word 'can' that bothers me.
All races can be evil, immoral, depraved, whatever. That's why it's a weird test for playability.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Dogs can't be evil, immoral, or depraved. They are incapable of moral behavior. That's why they wouldn't be a playable option in my game.
That's what people are asking about. Can golems (not warforged, legit actual golems) be moral? In most settings, the answer is "no," because they're literally just magical automata. Hence, in most settings, they aren't a playable-race option. But if you're strongly inspired by Discworld, maybe your golems can have chems that allow them to exhibit moral behavior; such golems would be playable.
No they are not needed. But I still like having them.
Half elves are needed IMO as long as D&D keeps Darkvision; many players take Half Elf just to play a human with dark vision, or just a good looking human with less body hair.
By contrast playing an Elf means you're part of a non-human lineage with its own culture.
Half elves are needed IMO as long as D&D keeps Darkvision; many players take Half Elf just to play a human with dark vision, or just a good looking human with less body hair.
By contrast playing an Elf means you're part of a non-human lineage with its own culture.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The idea of a lineage, as opposed to a race, is you do not have to be "genetically pure" to use those stats.No they are not needed. But I still like having them.
Half elves are needed IMO as long as D&D keeps Darkvision; many players take Half Elf just to play a human with dark vision, or just a good looking human with less body hair.
Thus, half elves are unnecessary. You can still play characters with both elven and human ancestry, but you stat them with whatever lineage best describes what they can do. What you look like has been removed, that is now up to the player.
Curiously, one of 4th editions big points was that any creature can be of any alignment. Gold dragons could be evil, and Red dragons could be good. This extended to player characters as well. Though many Drow were evil, your Drow didn't have to be. No one seemed to mind this at all.
So I was very surprised when, playing in AL, an official document came out with regards to some of the Volo's races, saying what alignments you could be, and which organizations you could belong to. My Orc Cleric, for example, had to join the Zhentarim.
Then when this whole kerfluffle happened with Wizards doing damage control to "fix" this perception that races are always evil, and people got really upset about it, I was like "weren't we past all this anyways?".
It's all dependent on your campaign anyways. Sure, maybe in official content, Hobgoblins are a Fey race that has weaponized courtesy and friendship...but how many people are really going to incorporate that into their home games, where Hobgoblins have been Lawful Evil militants for who knows how long?
Heck, Wizards is going to run into some problems with this with their official settings, I'm sure. Like, why is there a monster-only nation in Khorvaire, and why did the Hobgoblins serving under Lord Toede join with the armies of Takhisis, if everybody gets along and there's no prejudice?
Sure makes the brooding existence of a certain dark elf Ranger seem a bit silly now, doesn't it?
So I was very surprised when, playing in AL, an official document came out with regards to some of the Volo's races, saying what alignments you could be, and which organizations you could belong to. My Orc Cleric, for example, had to join the Zhentarim.
Then when this whole kerfluffle happened with Wizards doing damage control to "fix" this perception that races are always evil, and people got really upset about it, I was like "weren't we past all this anyways?".
It's all dependent on your campaign anyways. Sure, maybe in official content, Hobgoblins are a Fey race that has weaponized courtesy and friendship...but how many people are really going to incorporate that into their home games, where Hobgoblins have been Lawful Evil militants for who knows how long?
Heck, Wizards is going to run into some problems with this with their official settings, I'm sure. Like, why is there a monster-only nation in Khorvaire, and why did the Hobgoblins serving under Lord Toede join with the armies of Takhisis, if everybody gets along and there's no prejudice?
Sure makes the brooding existence of a certain dark elf Ranger seem a bit silly now, doesn't it?
delericho
Legend
Personally, I would prefer that orcs not be added as a playable race in the PHB. If they are added, however, half-orcs should have the same status as half-elves - either both should go or both should stay.
That said, my preferred approach for mixed heritages these days is probably to add an "orc heritage" (or elf, dwarf, whatever) feat to the game. Indeed, make it a feat chain for characters who want to lean in to that heritage. That way, characters can discover a heritage they didn't know about at first, they can mix-and-match to their heart's content - and if everyone gets a feat at 1st level (another thing I'd prefer they didn't, but it looks like we're going that way), half-orcs and half-elves remain viable at creation.
That said, my preferred approach for mixed heritages these days is probably to add an "orc heritage" (or elf, dwarf, whatever) feat to the game. Indeed, make it a feat chain for characters who want to lean in to that heritage. That way, characters can discover a heritage they didn't know about at first, they can mix-and-match to their heart's content - and if everyone gets a feat at 1st level (another thing I'd prefer they didn't, but it looks like we're going that way), half-orcs and half-elves remain viable at creation.
Similar Threads
- Locked
- Locked
