Mercurius
Legend
But good orcs are impossible because Gruumsh made them evil?
Wait, I'm honestly curious: is there a source for this in the D&D books stating that "good orcs are impossible?"
But good orcs are impossible because Gruumsh made them evil?
The issue isn't so much about it being impossible, but of some wanting it to be the only possibility in the book. Having played the game for decades now, I've sampled/played iterations of every race and varying origins from the PHB norm.
They are all valid. Add more, remove none.
Can I drill down on this a bit more? What do you mean "realistic" manner? To me, the realistic view of ancient Rome is pretty evil - slavery, genocide, mass murder, civil wars, pedophilia, and I'm sure I'm missing stuff.
Would a "realistic" portrayal of Ancient Rome present it as a "good" empire?
D&D orcs are not LotR orcs. Additionally, as sapient beings, orcs have the freedom to deny the actions of their god and set out on their own path, unless you're there saying that likewise, elves, dwarves and all those sorts can't go and do their own thing?
This is a legitimate issue that's been raised previously.. This isn't new. This has been something going on for years. Previous editions honestly it wasn't too bad because, they did better than 5E at it. But 5E handles orcs poorly this time around so the issue's hopped up again
And as for certain races being associated with actual real world people? Yes. People have been doing this ever since the first person gave a Scottish accent to dwarves.
Wow, just so much wrong with this. And, @TaranTheWanderer You might find that no, I don't agree with your points, and you certainly don't agree with mine if you're giving a thumbs up to this drivel.
And, HOA? Now that's a new one. Hadn't run across that one before. I love when people decide to dehumanize the other side of a discussion by devolving into three letter acronyms. Just makes it so much easier to sort out those who want to actually have a discussion from the small minded bigots who, as far as I'm concerned, aren't welcome in our hobby.
Fine. Substitute RULES LAWYERS for HOA. You still won't miss the meaning.
Care to expand upon what is wrong with it or you can just stick with your ad hominem.
I don't think so, and I agree that Rome was pretty bad, especially viewed from a contemporary perspective - but I think that can be said about most (all?) empires.
It comes down to how simulationist you want to be. I tend to take the approach of "<insert real world culture>-inspired," which is one of the reasons I'm not bothered by D&D analogs or get in a tiff with how realistic they are. If I'm writing a novel set in ancient Rome, that's one thing, but a "Rome-inspired" fantasy society is quite another.
But if WotC were to publish a series of books covering different real-world societies with the intent of being historically accurate, I would include most of those things and leave it to individual groups as to how to create a campaign.
I'm fairly certain that making a broad sweeping generalizations about the an entire real-world culture isn't appropriate. You might have one or two posts on this thread that states exactly that.
This might be why we can't come to a consensus or have a proper discussion. When you can actually treat all real world cultures (past or present) with respect, then maybe people will take you more seriously when you talk about fictional ones.
Pop-culture orcs, and heck, D&D orcs, have evolved a ton since the LotR days. See them going from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Evil in 3E. They're inspired by LotR orcs, sure, but they've become a seperate thingIin some interview, Orcs were mentioned as being loosely derived from LotR. Plus, the similarities are all too obvious. Tolkien found his inspiration also, from prior works, no doubt.
Orcs are NOT SAPIENT. They don't even exist except in writing and one's imagination. People in the real world are sapient. DM's are acting when portraying orcs as adversaries.
That's like saying, "The Government is after me". Government is a fiction written on paper that people subscribe to. "Government" is not a real person. People acting in the fiction of government, make government real. People - REAL people - acting as an agent of the agency (government) are the ones who come after you.
People tend to personify fiction. Whether orcs or government. They don't exist except on paper and in our imagination and willingness - in the case of government - to accept the authority of people acting in the fiction of government. We give people the agency of government.
Much like we accept a DM's "authority" when the DM plays the part of the fictional Orc(s) in attempting to kill off PC's.
Are orcs real? No. Do they exist on paper? Yes. Have you assigned them real world agency? Yes. As an example of real world problems? Yes. Do orcs cause real world problems? No. The fiction of orcs is now substituted for a real world problem. True. Now, see below.
High Orcs is a questionable thing when just regular orcs works fine. They exist, they're historically playable, why invent a new race? Well, uh, 3E did that a ton but, 3E is 3E. I question why "Invent a new race" is around when just bringing orcs to a better place is availableAgreed. Orcs are handled poorly. Have the DM write up the rules for High Orcs. Even the 1st Edition AD&D DMG had rules for playing Monsters as PCs. Yes, the rules for doing so have been around for THAT LONG. If 5e fails? Consult 1st Edition. Use imagination. It is what it is there for.
It can be done. I should copyright that and publish my own supplement. But I won't. Someone else do it. However...
High Orcs vs. Orcs... Someone will object: Orc on Orc violence!!! GASP! Remind you of a REAL world situation? That's right. Reinforcing stereotypes in the real world. Class warfare, also. "High Orcs" would be the civilized race bringing colonialism to the Orc savages**. Violence as a means to solving disputes. I could go on and on and on with every objection under known to mankind to show why even portraying High Orcs is stereotyping, violent, etc.
Accent is one thing, going further into that. Because I sure have seen people just go full Scottish with their dwarves, to the degree of wearing kilts. Applying an accent though? Nothing wrong with that. Its when you go further into things from thatSome people will associate races in D&D with real world races - MUCH LIKE YOU ASSOCIATED ORCS AS SAPIENT (you have assigned REAL WORLD AGENCY to a word on paper or screen) to the point of giving them Scottish (or other) accents. See it in movies, IIRC. I've never run across a DM giving a Dwarf a Scottish accent. There was one player who gave his character a Scottish accent and terribly so. That player's ancestors actually came from Scotland. Still a terrible accent and yes, a Dwarf PC. Is anyone going to tell him he was being culturally insensitive? They'd be LAUGHED out of the room.
As for accents, we use what we have. It helps differentiate characters and races and cultures and even sub-cultures. Or we can all speak in a dull monotone. Personally - regarding another game - the Troll accent in WoW elevates the Trolls. They are cool as written and portrayed. Maybe they should have given that accent to the Alliance humans though I don't think that would have gone over very well, in believability. Imagine the Orcs in WoW speaking like a corporate executive. Or maybe a Russian accent. Or better yet, a Birmingham accent from England. It can be done. Will people believe it or will such detract from the work? Mostly the latter.
I’m sorry but what was impolite about my post? Strongly worded maybe but impolite?
Funny you call me out for board rules yet ignore the “HOA” comment right above mine.
So, would you care to discuss my point? That people are missing the issue? Slavery in DnD has always been depicted as evil. We’ve got four classic modules A1-4 about how the pcs are meant to go put those slavers in the ground.
Does Dark Sun present slavery as good or just? I don’t think so but as I said I’m not that familiar with the setting.
I’ve never read the 2e Rome sourcebook. How is slavery presented there?
Let's examine the defintion of race (Oxford only).
5. (countable] a group of people who share the same language, history, culture, etc.
6. (countable) a breed or type of animal or plant
Humans beings are animals. Quite frankly, I find number 5. to be inaccurate and objectionable now that science is here to inform us about genetics, but it is Oxford.