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

[Helldritch]

I'd like to point out that I do not advocate for the removal of racial bonuses to ability scores. But the idea of cultural bonuses to ability score does ring a bell to me and with a nice chime at that.

Not agreeing with the proposition of Charlaquin does not mean that part of his reasoning and solutions do not have some appeal. Removing bonuses to races is for me, the equivalent of removing all races thus the analogy of halloween. But adding bonuses for cultural background is a really good idea.

Wrong. This is the fault of many of the PLAYERS.
They don't have to make these choices. They don't have to limit their own RP. They CHOOSE to.

This, this is so right.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, and we can do that without making certain race-class combinations worse than others.

Maybe, but I don’t think we need to make that a primary goal. As it is, no race class synergy whatsoever doesn’t lead to a noticeably “subpar” character in 5e.

It’s fine that some race features are not equally useful to all classes. It becomes a problem when you can’t play a race/class combination you want to play without being at a significant disadvantage (such as having -1 on all attack and damage rolls, and/or -1 on spell attacks and spell save DCs compared to a character of a different race).

I mean...I am fine with making the bonus floating and entirely up to the player at level 1, but...”significant”? I strongly disagree with the idea that it’s a significant difference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I gotta admit, I've been wracking my brain for a way to give any given race some kind of bonus to an ability score that doesn't result in that race being a preferred race for classes with the same primary ability score.

I can't come up with anything.

Each class also gives a +2. If you get the same bonus from race and class, you instead choose a different stat to gain the +2.

 

[squibbles]

My opinion on the whole matter is... conflicted.

In my typical Middle Earth or FR campaign, orcs are an archetype. They are the enemy, the other, the unknown, and the little we know about them is their violence, their aggression, their strength, their pillage, and their numbers. And that's what makes them scary. Reasoning and diplomacy can be attempted, but it will be from a position of fear.

The moment we know everything about them, the moment they stop being the enemy; they stop being orcs. Whether this is a good thing or not is where the conflict lies, because this opens-up the whole morality of the representation of xenophobia in fantasy.

Xenophobia is the fear of The Other, of what we don't know or understand. We all are xenophobic, all of us. That is normal, that is human. What we need as a society is review what we define as "The Other", because as soon as we get to know and understand the other (with a small "o"), it ceases to be the Other (big "O") and becomes one of us. Feel free to apply that to racism, homophobia, etc. This doesn't makes us less Xenophobic however. After we have accepted something as part of us, The Other still exists, and it still instil fear in us. Only, it applies to something else.

The whole concept of monster pivots on fear, and xenophobia is one of them. It is the underlying concept behind the beholder and most aberration monsters, The Great Old Ones, and other alien(ish) entities. Speaking of aliens, the xenomorph of the Alien franchise is the perfect example of it. So playing on Xenophobia is something we do in sci fi and fantasy, and are likely to continue doing; the conflict on the subject of orcs is whether or not they should also represent this archetype. And that is a legitimate question because xenophobia is at the root of racism, and while xenophobia isn't something that can be erased, racism is, and it should be.

Fantasy orcs often fill the role of the feared and unknown blood-thirsty barbarian horde. This is an archetype; not a "race". In a way they are convenient because you can use them in lieu of any human-inspired cultures that would otherwise fill this role in fantasy. You can even make them the enemy of any human-inspired "barbarian" culture highlighted in a setting. But I understand how some can recognise their own culture in a game that otherwise depicts orcs as inhuman enemies, an archetype of violence and aggression. The solution is to make the orc "one of us" and therefore remove it from the xeno, but that only leaves an "archetypical vaccum" in most classical settings that will be filled with another species.

For what it's worth, I feel similarly about dark elves.

So as I said; I'm conflicted.

This is a super interesting and thoughtful answer to the thread's question.

My immediate thought is that it needs to be okay for the "the enemy, the other, the unknown" to be acceptable content in D&D, RPGs and fiction in general. Its cool to subvert that otherness some of the time of course, but it can't be inherently verboten to play the trope straight. The threatening unknown Other--regardless whether its a conquering horde or betentacled thing--is a hugely evocative element of fiction, and especially fantasy fiction.

I guess the critical thing to do in composing game fiction is to be intentional about who the unknown Other is and make sure that it's themes are appropriate. So, for example, it's pretty unproblematic for mind flayers to be an Other, since they treat most sentient creatures as slaves/cattle as a basic component of their life-cycle. The Drow could be a perfect Other too, given the repugnance of their fictional society, i.e. slavery, fratricide, xenophobic militarism, religious fanaticism, human sacrifice, if they didn't have the dark skin=evil and matriarchy=evil themes larded in.

But once something is a playable race, it seems like Othering them can no longer be reasonable, which is a slippery slope if we want the game fiction to contain Others. There's always gonna be the Draco in Leather Pants trope--wherein the evilness of a character is sooo coool that it attracts fans who rationalize themselves past it. Maybe WotC ought to keep a couple humanoids as dedicated evil not to be allowed as PCs, and systematically attach uncontroversially evil themes to them--it seems like they recently went this way with Gnolls, for example.

 

[Bagpuss]

remember, it doesn't even have to apply to the races in general because the PC doesn't need to be a racial exemplar -- why do the attributes for the player races need to reinforce whatever cultural norms those races have in the campaign setting?

Yeah having different rules for PC is at least a compromise. I like the idea of a bonus to a racial stat then another floating bonus the player can assign (but not to double up the racial one).

Don’t get me wrong, I like Klingons. But they’re not completely unproblematic.

Problems make things interesting they give player something to over come or challenge. Completely unproblematic would be tedious.

 

[Bagpuss]

Because your ability to move 5 extra feet is very rarely a dealbreaker in you being a Rogue or Monk. Missing a +2 to Dex and a +1 to Wis because you're playing a Half-Orc instead of a Wood Elf certainly is.

Only if you have to play an optimum build rather that roleplay a character with flaws

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I've been giving a lot of thought about that recently...

The Star Wars universe actually does a relatively good job at dissociating archetype from race/species. It does not completely avoid stereotypes (Twi'lek exotic dancer, brutish Garmorean guard, fascist standardized empire, etc), but these stereotypes are spread around without too much discrimination. Although you need to look into the animated series/novels/comics to have a broader view, characters of different species are given all kinds of roles and archetypes.

Twi'leks for example are also portrayed as pilots, revolutionaries, adoptive/reconstituted families, minion-in-chief, treacherous bounty-hunters, heroes, villains. Not sure about Garmorean however... Anyway, the point is, in Star Wars, it's usually easy to tell whether someone is good or evil - oftentimes at a glance! - but it won't be that character's species that will tell you that.

And Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi, so it's doable for sure. It might be hard to reconcile with most published settings however.

And yet Star Wars also got into hot water during the prequels for the Nemoidians (Nute Gunray) and gungans having "racist" looks and accents that reinforced stereotypes (treacherous Asian businessmen, comically stupid Jamaicans).

I don't believe Lucas is at all racist (his personal life more than absolves him of that) but even he stepped into it on that one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And yet Star Wars also got into hot water during the prequels for the Nemoidians (Nute Gunray) and gungans having "racist" looks and accents that reinforced stereotypes (treacherous Asian businessmen, comically stupid Jamaicans).

Yep. Those certainly earned an raised eyebrow from me and I certainly wasn't the only one who found those depictions questionable. However I have never heard anyone thinking that Wookiees being stronger than humans is problematic.

 

[Oofta]

TLDR: D&D simplifies things to make them easy to grasp (while leaving room for customization), mono-culture races is just one part of that.

I've only been skimming this topic, but something that seems to keep coming up is that culture should be more important than race.

Which ... eh. But let me explain. I have one type of orc in my world because orcs have never played a very big role. Most common are humans, then elves/dwarves followed somewhat distantly by gnomes/halflings. So over the years I've put the most thought into humans then elves/dwarves and so on.

The problem is, I can only do so many cultures and really have them stand out, make them all have fairly identifiable hooks. An RPG does not have, nor is it served by, an encyclopedia full of different tropes and cultures. Start to get a dozen or more and nothing will stand out, nothing will feel particularly different.

So, yes, most non-human races are kind of mono-cultured at least at a high level because that's what people can keep straight. But what are the options? If you have pre-defined cultures and factions, well those cultures and factions may not work for my world. I put my own unique spin on D&D by establishing a world, as does FR or Eberron or Wildermont. It's one of D&D's greatest strengths. Games that have clearly defined cultures and factions seem to define one world and assumes everyone plays in that same fictional world.

So yes, most elves follow a specific trope of stand-offish while enjoying poetry, music and living with nature. Dwarves are nose-to-the-grindstone hard workers who have little time for such frivolities. Both are stand-ins for certain types of people and can be easily envisioned by most people. Elves are kind of like that cousin Ellie with her hippie/back to nature vibe. Dwarves are more like Uncle John with his machine shop and strong work ethic.

Simple to grasp, easy to picture, easy to explain is what makes D&D popular. Add in the ability to customize, tweak and change the formula as needed is part of what makes D&D the biggest TTRPG.

P.S. Sorry for the rambling.

 

[Remathilis]

So I just caught up with this thread again, and I want to address the two ongoing narratives in this thread. First, lets start with ability scores.

Honestly, I am curious what the optional system in X2.0 is going to be. I can't imagine it's as straight as "pick the ability score you want your bonus to go to" because not all races have a +2/+1 breakdown. Mountain Dwarves have a +2/+2 net. Half-elves have a +2 and two floating +1s already. Tritons have +1/+1/+1. Changlings and Warforged have a floating +1, and both types of humans have odd ability mods (6 +1s or 2 +1s). Those races are going to need to be updated if a "pick a +2/+1 for your character" system is implemented.

And honestly, all this is patchwork. They could have changed the point-buy system to allow more points and a cap of 16 and allowed PCs to buy higher strengths for thier orcs, higher dexes for thier halflings, etc to replicate the bonuses. It'd be even more intuitive than giving floating bonuses to everyone. As for rolling scores? I don't think that will be supported much longer; its already been an afterthought in the last two editions and if you want to roll for scores, you just take what you get. Luck of the dice.