D&D 5E What’s So Great About Medieval Europe?

[Aldarc]

While I prefer having monsters that happen to look vaguely humanoid. It's a game, I like moral clarity now and then; it also makes the moral quandaries stand out as special when I do introduce them.

Good thing we can each do what they want in their own campaign.

Demons, devils, aberrations, and undead exist. It's not exactly as if D&D is short on these things, particularly given how morality is objectified in the planes and associated entities.

And it’s problematic to reduce other human cultures to a killable “other”. It’s literally racism, which is the opposite of “no biggie”.

Holy jump in logic, Batman! I made no such assertion. Only that multiple cultures of orcs exist, just as multiple cultures of humans, elves, and dwarves exist. I would not make orcs a killable "other" as you claim in such as schema.

 

[Jester David]

There's no need to 'solve the problem'. Orcs are only redeemable and whatnot if that's what the DM decides. He could just as easily make them black hats and not worry about it. If he does decide to make them redeemable that isn't then a problem, it's by design. It's not as though orcs exist somehow independently of their use in a specific game, or have traits that aren't changeable.

There is a dilemma though, which I outline here: 5E - What’s So Great About Medieval Europe?

Many people have a problem with “evil humanoids”.

 

[Oofta]

Demons, devils, aberrations, and undead exist. It's not exactly as if D&D is short on these things, particularly given how morality is objectified in the planes and associated entities.

Then it goes back to why is it okay that X is inherently evil while Y is not. If I were going to go with the "sentient creatures have a choice" then I'd embrace it and it would apply to all sentient races.

Feel free to reply with the typical "but [fill in the blank] are different because [fill in the blank]". It's just changing where you draw the line on fictional creatures that do not exist.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure. But as technology advances in England it also advanced in France, Spain, Denmark, and the like. You didn’t have a nation that was just 300 years behind living next to a refined nation.

The question of why orcs are savage remains. And if it’s cultural, than it’s likely the, being oppressed and denied trade and shared opportunity. Forced to live in undesirable locations. Reserves if you will....

Sure you did, just not in Europe. A lack of contact can certainly produce the differential levels of tech side by side. The Inuit of North America are a great example of this. They maintained their traditional way of life, or something very close to it, for hundreds of years after Europeans set up shop in North American. To look at it another way, a culture that spurns the ideas of other cultures, or is enormously traditional in some way, can end up there too - an idea we can see in play in the middle east over the course of the 20th century. In neither above case am I making any value judgement, just providing some examples. It can be done. IN the case of orcs it might not need to be done, but that depends on how nuanced you want your orcs.

 

[Aldarc]

Then it goes back to why is it okay that X is inherently evil while Y is not. If I were going to go with the "sentient creatures have a choice" then I'd embrace it and it would apply to all sentient races.

Feel free to reply with the typical "but [fill in the blank] are different because [fill in the blank]". It's just changing where you draw the line on fictional creatures that do not exist.

So you still haven't learned the difference or do you see the difference but refuse to acknowledge it because it would require reexamining how you use orcs?

 

[Fenris-77]

There is a dilemma though, which I outline here: 5E - What’s So Great About Medieval Europe?

Many people have a problem with “evil humanoids”.

So let them go the nuanced and redeemable route for their game them. That's not the issue though, this is: once you start having problems with my fantasy elfs game because it doesn't fit your moral reading of fantasy elf humanoids then you have much bigger issues than anything related to RPGs. People get to do what they like in their own games, and aren't under any duress to play in a game they find objectionable. There isn't a problem here except the one manufactured by people who enjoy telling other people what to do.

 

[Oofta]

So you still haven't learned the difference or do you see the difference but refuse to acknowledge it because it would require reexamining how you use orcs?

So you still haven't accepted that orcs do not exist? That they are completely fictional and the fiction is up to the DM? You can read my mind?

See how this goes?

Please stop telling me that my decision to run orcs as inherently evil is wrong because I disagree with you. Do you really want yet another thread shut down because people don't share your opinion?

 

[Jester David]

Holy jump in logic, Batman! I made no such assertion. Only that multiple cultures of orcs exist, just as multiple cultures of humans, elves, and dwarves exist. I would not make orcs a killable "other" as you claim in such as schema.

Right. But “multiple cultures” means nothing if one is still “eeeevil”. And the idea of an elf culture that is pure “eeeevil” is what sent us down this rabbit hole.

And it brings up the catch-22 situation I invoked earlier.
If you have multiple orc cultures, and none of them are killable them that skirts the evil humanoid problem but removes the potential for easy villains in a game. You can’t easily kill orcs or goblins anymore than you could just kill humans. Which derails games with unnecessary moral quandaries and makes the PCs into horrible murderers committing ethnic cleansing in Keep on the Borderlands.

It solves one problem but brings in a whole other problem.
And then you still end up with the question of why there are no orc cities or kingdoms. And why orcs live in the wilds. Which just leads to the inevitable answer of “because humans are keeping them there.”

 

[Aldarc]

Right. But “multiple cultures” means nothing if one is still “eeeevil”. And the idea of an elf culture that is pure “eeeevil” is what sent us down this rabbit hole.

Drow? Make multiple cultures of drow. Show complexity. Revel in moral complexity and diversity. Make evil people of the "good" cultures and good people in the "evil" culture. Show moral complexity for what it is. Again, I don't think that D&D is short of easy villains even if one were to go this route. I suspect that most human cultists of Orcus would be pretty kill on sight for most players. Eberron, for example, shows multiple orc cultures and varieties of orc peoples within those cultures that have differing moral allegiances.

 

[Jester David]

So let them go the nuanced and redeemable route for their game them. That's not the issue though, this is: once you start having problems with my fantasy elfs game because it doesn't fit your moral reading of fantasy elf humanoids then you have much bigger issues than anything related to RPGs. People get to do what they like in their own games, and aren't under any duress to play in a game they find objectionable. There isn't a problem here except the one manufactured by people who enjoy telling other people what to do.

That’s fine in a vacuum.
But D&D is a social game.
And when I’m playing at a table with your fantasy elf game and my moral reading at odds, them I’m not having fun. And when someone isn’t having fun at the table, that tends to bring other people down, either intentionally or otherwise.

And if said fantasy elf game is seen as racist or offensively dated it it’s portrayals of ethnicity or skin, then it’s detrimental to the hobby as a whole and reflects poorly on all gamers.