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

[Chaosmancer]

You don't realize the hypocrisy of that. You're basically telling someone else, who wants those things in their game, to now have to do the work to add it back to their games.
I don't want to walk 20 feet to my mailbox. I remove it, so now the mailman walks the 20ft for me. People who know what's better for everyone else never truly do. Only themselves.

That is the fundamental issue with it. Because A is right for you, it's right for everyone. Once it's how you want it, people who want B have to do it themselves. Except there's a vastly huge percentage who like B already, far exceeding those who like A.


Which returns to my statement of don't remove anything, just add more variations.

And adding variations removes the simplicity of "orcs are evil minions of evil people, so kill them at your leisure" which people are advocating for. So now what?

 

[Mercurius]

So now, @Curmudjinn and @Chaosmancer , you've (re-)found the solution that works for the majority of folks, or all except those who are intractable on either side of "keep everything exactly the same" or "get rid of everything that someone finds offensive."

Voila, thread goal accomplished!

 

[Eltab]

Adding to that thought:
The resident Grognard would like to point out that Eberron's non-evil orcs have been in the game for about a quarter-century. So this "urgently needed change" happened already, when the modern generation of new D&D players were young children ... and they did not notice.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not true in D&D. There are multiple orcish gods besides Gruumsh. Luthic, Ilneval and a few others. That's true in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.

That's only 'cause Gruumsh hasn't got to them and eaten them yet. He's on his way...

 

[Lanefan]

We're not talking about Drizzt clones. We're talking about how the game punishes you for playing certain characters. The game as a whole, which means that certain downsides should be removed from the core game. Why should orcs have a -2 Intelligence and mostly be evil?

Because they're orcs?

It would be better to have the main races be as open and easy to play as possible

There's the problem: orcs are not (and IMO shouldn't be) a "main race" and freely open to play as PCs.

Also, while you focus on the -2 Int you're conveniently forgetting the bonuses they get on other stats. Giving a bonus without a corresponding penalty only serves to one or both of a) unbalance things and b) add to power creep.

 

[Mecheon]

There's the problem: orcs are not (and IMO shouldn't be) a "main race" and freely open to play as PCs.

We live in the day and age of Warcraft. People want to play orcs and there's sufficient demand out there that they should be a main race, and freely open to play.

Also, while you focus on the -2 Int you're conveniently forgetting the bonuses they get on other stats. Giving a bonus without a corresponding penalty only serves to one or both of a) unbalance things and b) add to power creep.

Orcs aren't kobolds, where their bonuses are so powerful that the -2 they get is conceivably a balancing thing because HOOLY DOOLY FREE ADVANTAGE. They get the same stat boosts as half-orcs (Who aren't burdened with a stat negative). They also lose the Half Orcs extremely powerful abilities for Powerful Build which is.... Not in any way, shape or form nearly equivalent, and Aggressive which is... Okay? Just okay. They're no kobolds or yuan-ti.

 

[Hussar]

I read "myriad possibilities" and it becomes "you never know what is right and wrong, too often any choice is a mixed bag and you can never really do good." Which may be true in the real world. If we arrest a bank robber, who takes care of their kid?

I don't want that in a game, or at least not all the time. If you do, more power to you. It's already the default assumption as spelled out in the MM introduction.

Obligatory note - some of the wording on orcs could and should be changed.

But, see, that's the thing. With extra possibilities, your possibility isn't excluded. You can still play a black/white (yeesh, sorry) game where the bad guys are bad and in need of killin'. That's perfectly fine. What's added though, is now I can play a more nuanced game, where that nuance is recognized by the game itself and I don't have to explain to my players that not all orcs are evil.

It's not a zero sum game. Adding nuance to races doesn't not take anything away.

Honestly, I think that's where the notion of "Faction" comes into play very well. If this group of X is rabidly xenophobic and expansionist (to pick a couple of traits) then casting that faction as the bad guys isn't exactly a stretch. Faction becomes a story template. You could use the PHB 2 from 3.5e as a template here. We've got 18 affiliations right there. Setting agnostic, most of these would be pretty easy to slot into any game.

Personally, I miss the Affiliations rules from 3.5. They allowed a very cool extra tool with which the players could engage the setting.

 

[Mercurius]

As you know, I agree with you on this one, @Hussar . More options doesn't take away from traditional options. It may lead to choice overload, but is probably worth the risk.

As I think I mentioned in one of these threads, my last D&D setting had this built-in, with several orc sub-races. One was standard evil, one was really evil, and two were shades of neutral veering on good. The two most populous ones, which I called Gray and Green, were constantly at war with each other; the Gray Orcs were the traditional brutal orcs, while the Green Orcs were more naturalistic, ruled by shamanic druids and in trade with other races. The Blood Orcs were far to the south and part of an powerful "evil empire," while the Blue Orcs were wizards and alchemists, obsessed with studying the arcane.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Also, while you focus on the -2 Int you're conveniently forgetting the bonuses they get on other stats. Giving a bonus without a corresponding penalty only serves to one or both of a) unbalance things and b) add to power creep.

Yeah, +2 STR/+1 CON needs to be balanced for orcs.

Not like Goliaths, Half-Orcs, Leonin, a few others, I left my list in another thread.

The point being, no, no it doesn't unbalance anything, and in fact even with it gone Orcs are still worse than Half-Orcs and Goliaths.

 

[Oofta]

But, see, that's the thing. With extra possibilities, your possibility isn't excluded. You can still play a black/white (yeesh, sorry) game where the bad guys are bad and in need of killin'. That's perfectly fine. What's added though, is now I can play a more nuanced game, where that nuance is recognized by the game itself and I don't have to explain to my players that not all orcs are evil.

It's not a zero sum game. Adding nuance to races doesn't not take anything away.

Honestly, I think that's where the notion of "Faction" comes into play very well. If this group of X is rabidly xenophobic and expansionist (to pick a couple of traits) then casting that faction as the bad guys isn't exactly a stretch. Faction becomes a story template. You could use the PHB 2 from 3.5e as a template here. We've got 18 affiliations right there. Setting agnostic, most of these would be pretty easy to slot into any game.

Personally, I miss the Affiliations rules from 3.5. They allowed a very cool extra tool with which the players could engage the setting.

Depends on what they do and how they do it. Part of the issue is simply page count, the other is implementation. My concern? They're going to do what they did with the 3 kobolds in a trench coat with no alignment entry at all.

How many sidebars like the one for Many-Arrows do you need to emphasize that you need to make the game your own? Because the more page count you put into alternatives, the less page count and budget you have for other things.

Time will tell.