D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Jfdlsjfd]

While I agree that Orcs should not just be green humans, I think you're setting up an unreasonable standard. Bacon Bit's description was fine and at least as distinct than Elves, Dwarfs and other such commonly used demihumans. Do you apply this standard to them as well? Do you not have Elves, Dwarfs or Halflings in your games as they could easily be replaced with humans?

Of course I do apply this standard to other humanoids and I lament their lack of distinctiveness in most settings, where they seem to just be stand-in for another human culture (and infravision). Orcs had the "distinctive characteristics" of being "evil by design" because Gruumsh made them so. It set that apart from many humanoid who were already just "humans with masks" and could be replaced by human, except that players want infravision. In my game, I make elves distinctive by emphasis their long lifespan (no, we won't help you to fight this evil guy, he'll be dead in 100 years, why bother with such a transient problem...) as it plays well with their haughtyness. I frown upon players who just play a human with pointed ear and infravision. Dwarves I try to make distinctive by having their culture emphasize greed to the point of self-destruction, but it's difficult to make it distinctive enough (because human culture tend to be greedy as well). I frown upon players who just play a human with beard, a phony scottish accent and infravision. Halflings I often don't include in worldmaking because I have yet to find a niche for them. I also try to link their cultural aspect to supernatural ones (Ancestor worshipping culture abound, but Eberron's elves, who worship ancestors undead walking around, is not something you could do with real life human culture, so having them be elves is okay IMHO -- they are already distinctive enough and I don't have a problem with certain type of magic being restricted to some races).

 

[Bagpuss]

A few months ago, I'd have said: "Orcs are primitive, savage, violent raiders who take what they want by force and destroy what they can't have." But none of those tropes are going to survive 2020.

I think they will, because that is what they represent. If you actually look at what terminology orcs share in common with racist descriptions of the past it is more the stooped posture, low foreheads, piggish faces. I think those are likely to disappear from new editions of the monster manual.

I think in most games they will remain savage and violent.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course I do apply this standard to other humanoids and I lament their lack of distinctiveness in most settings, where they seem to just be stand-in for another human culture (and infravision). Orcs had the "distinctive characteristics" of being "evil by design" because Gruumsh made them so. It set that apart from many humanoid who were already just "humans with masks" and could be replaced by human, except that players want infravision. In my game, I make elves distinctive by emphasis their long lifespan (no, we won't help you to fight this evil guy, he'll be dead in 100 years, why bother with such a transient problem...) as it plays well with their haughtyness. I frown upon players who just play a human with pointed ear and infravision. Dwarves I try to make distinctive by having their culture emphasize greed to the point of self-destruction, but it's difficult to make it distinctive enough (because human culture tend to be greedy as well). I frown upon players who just play a human with beard, a phony scottish accent and infravision. Halflings I often don't include in worldmaking because I have yet to find a niche for them. I also try to link their cultural aspect to supernatural ones (Ancestor worshipping culture abound, but Eberron's elves, who worship ancestors undead walking around, is not something you could do with real life human culture, so having them be elves is okay IMHO -- they are already distinctive enough and I don't have a problem with certain type of magic being restricted to some races).

That's fair. I try to increase the distinctiveness of the species in my settings as well. But if we are talking about what WotC should do, then it is unreasonable to demand a higher standard of distinctiveness for Orcs than what the other species get. (Also, being 'evil' is a super lame distinctive feature.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s hard for me to imagine a distinction less interesting than making a particular race always evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course I do apply this standard to other humanoids and I lament their lack of distinctiveness in most settings, where they seem to just be stand-in for another human culture (and infravision). Orcs had the "distinctive characteristics" of being "evil by design" because Gruumsh made them so. It set that apart from many humanoid who were already just "humans with masks" and could be replaced by human, except that players want infravision.

I don’t see how this isn’t still “humans with masks” by your standard. You could absolutely replace this role with a tribe of humans. In fact, humans have said similar things about other humans (that they are irredeemably evil, or inferior, or savage, or what have you because they were created that way by God) for millennia to excuse violence and hatred against them. That’s literally the problem.

In my game, I make elves distinctive by emphasis their long lifespan (no, we won't help you to fight this evil guy, he'll be dead in 100 years, why bother with such a transient problem...) as it plays well with their haughtyness. I frown upon players who just play a human with pointed ear and infravision.

So give your orcs a different lifespan than humans too. Maybe shorter.

Dwarves I try to make distinctive by having their culture emphasize greed to the point of self-destruction, but it's difficult to make it distinctive enough (because human culture tend to be greedy as well). I frown upon players who just play a human with beard, a phony scottish accent and infravision.

As you say, this doesn’t make them unable to be replaced by humans. Seems like you’ve set up a double-standard here.

Halflings I often don't include in worldmaking because I have yet to find a niche for them.

Why do they need a niche beyond being small people? Surely their stature would give them a different perspective and life experiences than humans.

I also try to link their cultural aspect to supernatural ones (Ancestor worshipping culture abound, but Eberron's elves, who worship ancestors undead walking around, is not something you could do with real life human culture, so having them be elves is okay IMHO -- they are already distinctive enough and I don't have a problem with certain type of magic being restricted to some races).

Wait, so now the standard is “couldn’t do it with a real-life human culture” rather than “couldn’t do it with humans?” In that case, it shouldn’t be a problem at all to give every race diverse cultures, so long as none of those cultures are the same as any real-life culture.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s hard for me to imagine a distinction less interesting than making a particular race always evil.

It’s also curious to me that being always evil seems to be the thing that people are using to distinguish orcs from humans... So, what about all the other always-evil races? Do the “I don’t want my IRC’s to be humans with masks” crowd leave them all out on the basis of being orcs with masks?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s also curious to me that being always evil seems to be the thing that people are using to distinguish orcs from humans... So, what about all the other always-evil races? Do the “I don’t want my IRC’s to be humans with masks” crowd leave them all out on the basis of being orcs with masks?

Exactly. If being evil is all that makes them interesting...why do you have orca and troglodytes and Minotaurs and bugbears and Drow and Lizardfolk?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Very true. My problem is that the strongest gnome can be as strong as the strongest orc. I don't mind it as far as the modifier is concerned since STR is about your ability to apply raw physical power in 5E as well as how muscular you are. But when it comes to other measures, such as encumbrance, it doesn't make any sense to me. This is another aspect where I feel 5E fell short but whatever... I'm used to it.

Don’t small creatures have reduced carrying capacity?

 

[Charlaquin]

Don’t small creatures have reduced carrying capacity?

Nope. Small and Medium creatures are both encumbered at 5x STR and heavily encumbered at 10x STR if you’re using encumbrance, and their maximum capacity is 15x Str. It’s at Tiny that the numbers get halved and Large that they get doubled.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nope. Small and Medium creatures are both encumbered at 5x STR and heavily encumbered at 10x STR if you’re using encumbrance, and their maximum capacity is 15x Str. It’s at Tiny that the numbers get halved and Large that they get doubled.

Huh. Fair enough. That makes me even more than before want to make dwarves Small with Powerful Build.