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

[smetzger]

So... orcs...

Yes, I agree having them created by an evil god is an issue with their free will.
How about make Gruumsh a mythological champion of the orcs that unites them.
I don't think we need an origin story.

Redo orcs in the image of Klingons.

 

[Dire Bare]

Again, is anyone pointing to these as containing descriptions pulled straight from racist screeds? No?

Then it’s not a problem.

Why do people keep trying to broaden the issue to try to force some sort of panacea solution?

You have been shown repeatedly what the issue is. If no one is talking about giants or fae or genies it’s because it’s not the PROBLEM.

Why does this keep having to be repeated?

I would disagree that we shouldn't be talking about other D&D creatures/races beyond orcs and drow. I think we're focused on orcs and drow as they are the most obvious examples of racist tropes embedded in our favorite game, but ANY fantasy race or creature that is described as inherently <insert label> is potentially problematic. Not necessarily to the same degree, and the "proper" response doesn't necessarily have to be the same in each case.

It's a process and a conversation. It took D&D a while to drop some of the more obvious sexist tropes in the game, it took a while to make the game more inclusive with art and world-building, but we still have work to do in those areas plus the focus now on removing racist tropes. It's going to take time, and some of the "old guard" will be dragged along kicking and screaming the entire time. If the biggest change we see this year from WotC is new takes on the orcs and drow, I'd be pretty happy. And then expect the designers and the community to continue the conversation.

I do think that some posters here are playing whataboutism and purposefully trying to derail the conversation. The whole BS "slippery slope" debate tactic, they are not engaging honestly in the conversation. I got no respect for that.

But, I honestly feel that we (as in DM's and also game designers) should be re-examining every single D&D sentient race in the game looking for racist and/or problematic tropes. We don't have to do it all at once, and we should probably start with orcs and drow, and we won't all agree on which races are more problematic and what to do about them . . . . but the conversation is a good one regardless of whether we are talking specifically about orcs, drow, giants, devils, angels, dragons, or awakened squirrels.

 

[Gradine]

I'm fine when peoples or folks. Heck, the latter works for the lizardfolk

 

[Dire Bare]

So... orcs...

Yes, I agree having them created by an evil god is an issue with their free will.
How about make Gruumsh a mythological champion of the orcs that unites them.
I don't think we need an origin story.

Redo orcs in the image of Klingons.

I've always felt that orcs are the fantasy version of Klingons . . . or the Klingons were a sci-fi version of orcs . . . either way, their development has paralleled and we could probably learn a lot about how to improve orcs based on how Trek has evolved the Klingons over time. Not that Trek has perfected how Klingons are depicted . . . I still worry about the "warrior race" stereotype that both orcs and Klingons embody . . . but Trek has done a pretty good job of taking 2-dimensional villains and breathing life into them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since that would clearly be ridiculous, you knew what I meant and posted something that really didn't need to be said anyway.

Did I know what you meant? You tried to dismiss my point by saying "of course they aren't humans" but this was never about being human. It was about personhood.

For centuries across every land on the map, people have pointed to their neighbors and said "these are not people, they are monsters in people's skin, it is kill or be killed". Sometimes they are monsters just because, sometimes because they worship "dark gods" or "evil spirits"

So is it any wonder that if I went to my college aged players, who are taking a class on say, colonialism, and I say "okay, Orcs are a vicious and brutal people, who slaughter civilized folk, all because they worship the evil god Gruumsh" one of my players might think back to the real atrocities they just read about and be conflicted? Because I just spun the exact same narrative that okayed the slaughter of [X].

This has happened at my tables, this discussions have come up, multiple times. And I can't just dismiss them by saying "well, orcs aren't humans anyways, so it is fine."

You are aware that every single orc is a figment of somebody's imagination, right? There are no orcs. There have never been orcs. There never will be orcs. They're made up for the specific purpose of giving made up people someone to kill without feeling bad about it.

And no one can draw any troubling connections right? No one could possibly get drawn out of the fantasy by echoes of the IRL past that I am pulling out?

I snipped a lot, but I left what I think are the major turning points.

What does it get us? Moral plot immunity. Orcs (or whatever) are bad because they are. We don't have to wring hands about whether we should parley or just kill them. Orcs are bad because those are the metaphysical laws of that universe. Orcs raised in a human society may learn to pretend better than other orcs, but they're still inherently evil in a way that can't be changed. And, there aren't immutably good races because they would serve no story value.

Well, you seem to have snipped too much, because your presentation of Orcs being bad because of metaphysical laws is the exact opposite of what I said in that post.

I also find it squicky to say that orcs raised in human society are just "pretending" to be good, and are still inherently evil. That leads to "just slaughter all of them" mentalities. Which are a problem.

That doesn't mean that orcs must be irredeemably evil in every D&D setting. If you want a lot of gray and moral quandary, where every time you raid an orc lair, you need to wring hands about whether you should have negotiated or tried to "redeem" the orc brutes, then you should, by all means, do so. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, it's also not BadWrongFun to have orcs be low-level toons that don't provoke any soul searching when you kill them. They aren't a real-world race and, really, they don't have any particular similarities to any real-world race. They're nothing more than an embodiment of all the brutish nastiness that exists. The real world concept of racism is literally impossible to apply to them, in this form, and it would be nonsensical to try.

I enjoy Greyhawk and play it as irredeemable orcs. I love Eberron and the nuanced orcs. My preference is probably the morally gray because I'm really not into the whole murder-hobo schtick. But, D&D really is geared towards murder-hobos, so having a race that was made up just to be mooks makes a heck of a lot of sense, especially when you talk about defaults.

Okay, firstly, it is not literally impossible to apply real world racism to them. People have posted the links, and while yes, they are a respresentation of many different racist claims, I think that is somewhat more obvious. Orcs are the archetype racists have called other people to dehumanize them.

To the second, man, I get the desire for simple, mindless fun. I do, trust me. I've had PCs rack up big body counts. But, the way you are phrasing things is just ugly. Hand-wringing, Really? Redeem in quotation marks while calling them brutes, implying it is all impossible and a naive dream to get something good out of these beings?

I'm reminded of a movie review I watched recently. You'll probably discount it out of hand, but it struck me. It was a brief study of Newt Schamander from "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." and the reviewers wanted to point out something, something I had forgotten. At the end of the movie, they confront the monster. There is a monster, it is doing all the terrible things it is accused of doing, and a third party kills it. And that is framed as a tragedy.

It was a tragedy that they couldn't save the monster.

And thinking about it, how often have you ever read a story with that moral in it? I realized it was incredibly rare. Sure, I've read about misunderstood monsters, but this thing wasn't misunderstood. It was the terrible force of destruction that it was purported to be. And that makes the issue far more interesting.


Sure, I like my mindless fun, slaughtering cultists or bandits or demons without any real concern about the morality of it. But, at the end of the day, that is the easiest storytelling we can do. "They are other, go kill them."

I'm really curious who is not feeling "included" by a made up, non-human species being imagined as being hardwired for traits that are considered evil. The whole conversation just seems... strange. Why is it more than a shoulder shrug?

Because some people see the language that was used to oppress and kill in the past being used as an excuse to kill things in the game.

Is this really so hard to see?

So... orcs...

Yes, I agree having them created by an evil god is an issue with their free will.
How about make Gruumsh a mythological champion of the orcs that unites them.
I don't think we need an origin story.

Redo orcs in the image of Klingons.

Or, honestly, just redo a few small details.

Make Gruumsh not pure evil. He can be a god of strength and war without being evil, we've got those.

Instead of making orcs kill all people because they are evil, have them be at war with everyone. We can figure out a good reason, but it isn't "just because" they have a goal. Maybe, they are at war with the Elves because they are trying to reclaim Gruumsh's lost eye, and they are fighting everyone else for siding with the elves.

Then, don't have the PCs run into an Orc Village (avoiding the orc babies problem).


Bam, you have orcs that are constant antagonists (you only meet enemy soldiers) but who are not "brutish, low and stupid" or irredeemably evil.

Why do you kill an orc warband? The war part. If you don't take them out, they are going to attack, pillage and burn somewhere, because that is the mission they are on. But there is a reason for it, could you negotiate with them? Maybe. But they are definitely your enemy.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, is anyone pointing to these as containing descriptions pulled straight from racist screeds?

Not yet. However, descriptions pulled straight from racist screeds is not the only problem needs sorting. It's one of (at the moment) several amongst numerous creatures, of which misogyny is the most prevalent other.

Then it’s not a problem.

Not yet.

Why do people keep trying to broaden the issue to try to force some sort of panacea solution?

Because when work needs to be done I prefer to only have to do it (and talk about it) once. An overall solution is far preferable to doing this piecemeal, so let's look at overall solutions and get it right - once.

That way, when - inevitably - things about other creatures or cultures or descriptions or whatever turn up as problematic in the future, a more-or-less blanket solution already exists and doesn't have to be hammered out all over again.

Put another way, instead of just focusing on orcs, let's as far as possible fix orcs and drow and all the rest in one go with a future-proofed solution that can then be applied to any creature (and I can see some waiting in the wings) that raises issues down the road.

 

[Hussar]

Not yet. However, descriptions pulled straight from racist screeds is not the only problem needs sorting. It's one of (at the moment) several amongst numerous creatures, of which misogyny is the most prevalent other.

Not yet.

Because when work needs to be done I prefer to only have to do it (and talk about it) once. An overall solution is far preferable to doing this piecemeal, so let's look at overall solutions and get it right - once.

That way, when - inevitably - things about other creatures or cultures or descriptions or whatever turn up as problematic in the future, a more-or-less blanket solution already exists and doesn't have to be hammered out all over again.

Put another way, instead of just focusing on orcs, let's as far as possible fix orcs and drow and all the rest in one go with a future-proofed solution that can then be applied to any creature (and I can see some waiting in the wings) that raises issues down the road.

Then what you want is impossible. There will NEVER be a one and done conversation on this. It's not going to happen. It will never happen. This is an ongoing process that is going to take a LONG time. So, instead of insisting on the impossible, how about we deal with what's in front of us? Never minding that your presumption of "not yet" presumes a future about which you have zero proof. You have no idea if these changes will be enough or not. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We won't know until we make the changes. Which means that the changes have to be made before we reach the perfect solution.

The reason these threads go around and around in circles is, in part, because you guys are insisting we do the impossible. Resolve all possible racist or misogynistic language in the game BEFORE we make a single change. As if any change made must be 100% perfect before it can be implemented.

Not going to happen.

 

[Eltab]

But in terms of the MM, it does make a statement about the default mode. How to depict that? "Orcs can be whatever you want them to be"...or do you go with examples of different types?

I'm almost 10 pages back so hopefully this is still on-topic.

A section in the MM for monster races that can also be playable characters, with an explanation that this is the monster version and playable versions will appear in an upcoming product.
-Need a catchy name for the new book.- In that book, each race/monster gets its "build a character" crunch. Plus fluff for how that race/monster is handled in each of the 6 biggest D&D settings (or pick 6 settings for greatest variety). Reprint the 'monster' version and any existing 'playable' version - ex: Eberron orcs - as sidebars.
Chapter 1 of the book is information applicable to all the race/monsters in the book, explaining at greater length the MM paragraph about variety. Discuss 'mutually exclusive' options ('always-evil' and 'playable' do not mix). This section should conclude with encouragement to mix-and-match features to get the orcs &c that are your own and fill a niche in your world
The book can conclude with some charts that show the well-known settings of D&D and how they treated each race/monster in the new book. Set in chronological order, the charts would display the changes in the portrayals over time.

 

[BryonD]

Nevermind

 

[BryonD]

xyz