D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Scott Christian]

Going through character creation.

Backgrounds are choices. People choose them. There are many to choose from. Maybe making a few that deal with specific ancestry would be a way to help out the problem. For example, the orcs three ancestry backgrounds might be a blacksmith (raised by working class crafters), another military strategist (mother was a general in the military, dad kept track of military supplies), or bohemian (grew up in an artist community with painters and free love). Add three per ancestry.
I mean the reality is it is already there, so to say half-orcs grow up in slums and then the rules dictate they choose shows they don't all grow up in slums. But maybe if you do this, it'll hit people over the head with the explicit fact that they can break the trope.

 

[Bluenose]

Arguing for the Rights of a Fictional Race in a Fantasy Game...

Does the portrayal of a fictional race (bad guys necessary for games) increase abusive behavior anymore than violent videogames produce children who are violent mass murderers?

We are now at the point of The PMRC and Elizabeth Dole being right, that D&D promotes abusive behavior (Satanism). This is an example of how far along The Left is in being the The New Right.

Does the Murderhobo race dislike how it's portrayed in videogames? If so, shouldn't their opinions on why the perspective the game takes on them be considered?

And, since there isn't a Murderhobo race to be offended but there are plenty of monstrous races that stand-in for real ethnic groups and societies, then don't members of those groups have valid reasons to object to being described as nearly always evil, as always likely to turn vicious even when brought up by "civilised races", as notable for their physical prowess but never for their intelligence,as cowardly except with numbers on their side and the various other ways D&D creates its Legitimate Targets for Violence? Especially when those descriptions were (and sometimes still are) routinely used about those groups in real life?

 

[reelo]

.

See, warlike, savage and brutal are all fine. There's nothing wrong there. That's not the language that's the problem. So, you're already done.

What is problematic is half-orcs make better orcs than orcs. Pair an elf with a human and you get the best of both worlds. Pair a human with an orc, and you get a smarter, nastier orc. That's right out of the PHB.

Easy fix, then: remove the parts about Luthic and the encouraged cross-breeding, make half-orcs exceedingly rare and remove half-orcs as a playable option for players.

 

[Aldarc]

I suspect that we are actually just a generation or so removed from orcs being a standard playable option in the PHB of a future edition.

 

[Remathilis]

I suspect that we are actually just a generation or so removed from orcs being a standard playable option in the PHB of a future edition.

I wager the next iteration of the core books removes half-orc (and maybe half-elf) and adds goblin and orc to the list. (Drow is already there).

I also imagine the next RSE will include a homeland for surface drow and orcs. Maybe Many Arrows and Myth Dranoor...

 

[Hussar]

Easy fix, then: remove the parts about Luthic and the encouraged cross-breeding, make half-orcs exceedingly rare and remove half-orcs as a playable option for players.

Largely agreed. I might leave half orcs in, but, change a bit of the verbiage. There has been talk of adding factions in as a replacement for alignment. If that happens, half orcs become a pretty simple addition - they are the children of orc factions that aren't ravaging all around.

I would add, btw, that this is why I've been rather frustrated in this thread and others. The fixes aren't hard or even all that disruptive. We're talking some pretty minor changes (it's not like Luthic is a major element of orcs) that will sort the problem. But people act like WotC is chowing down on puppies for even suggesting making changes.

 

[reelo]

I would add, btw, that this is why I've been rather frustrated in this thread and others. The fixes aren't hard or even all that disruptive. We're talking some pretty minor changes (it's not like Luthic is a major element of orcs) that will sort the problem. But people act like WotC is chowing down on puppies for even suggesting making changes.

I agree. The way I see it, one of the underlying problems is the ever-increasing number of PC options. It used to be just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings. Then gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs got added, then tieflings, dragonborn, numerous "furry" races, etc.
Players constantly push the boundaries of what they can chose. Orcs are savage monsters? Well maaaybeee we can have half-orcs? Gnolls? Drow? Goblins? Hobgoblins?
The more "monstrous" races are opened up for players, the more watered-down they become as tropes.

 

[Umbran]

you know why? Because I'm the DM and I can do that. Because it is a fantasy game with rules that allow me to do that. I don't have to wait for WotC to issue corrections.

You do realize that the bold doesn't make your point any stonger, right? Please stop shouting at poeple.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree. The way I see it, one of the underlying problems is the ever-increasing number of PC options. It used to be just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings. Then gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs got added, then tieflings, dragonborn, numerous "furry" races, etc.
Players constantly push the boundaries of what they can chose. Orcs are savage monsters? Well maaaybeee we can have half-orcs? Gnolls? Drow? Goblins? Hobgoblins?
The more "monstrous" races are opened up for players, the more watered-down they become as tropes.

You say “watered-down.” I say “enriched and multifaceted.”

 

[Sadras]

Easy fix, then: remove the parts about Luthic and the encouraged cross-breeding, make half-orcs exceedingly rare and remove half-orcs as a playable option for players.

I liked Mystara's treatment for half-elves. They were either born human or elven.