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

[Cap'n Kobold]

So orcs would still be a usually evil and violent race of creatures, but they would just be described differently so that it doesn't mimic descriptions that have been used to demonize real world groups of people? I mean, that would be great, but I would be surprised if that were possible. It's just that I would be surprised that there are any words to describe that kind of fantasy race that real world racists have not used.

Think triage principles. When you have an serious set of issues, you don't hold off doing anything until you are sure that it can be done perfectly. You fix the most critical, glaring problems immediately, and then worry about the lesser ones.

Perhaps some examples of the "countless" descriptions that have been used? And I mean for a race of evil creatures that would make for a good guilt free opponent. Sure you can write about an admirable but misunderstood race, but that wouldn't fill the same role that orcs are expected to fill in default D&D.

And yes, I read Mecheon's post about examples of orcs that are not chaotic evil savage raiders, but they are not the problem. The problem is how to have fictional race that is useful for providing enemies to a group of heroic adventurers. Adventurers that don't want to debate philosophy, but just want to go out, defeat the bad guys, rescue the innocent, and win some treasure.

There are two ways of doing this:
1: Have a race like the recent official iteration of Gnolls, where they are no longer really people, but instead actual fiends in human form, and not suitable as a player race.
2: Orcs can still be chaotic evil savage raiders, but make it about being a savage chaotic evil raider, and not about being an orc. It is not OK to kill orcs just because they are orcs, but its fine to kill chaotic evil savage raiders, whether they happen to be orcs or humans.

And a final note about the "it really doesn't matter whether or not you or I think there's a problem with any of this. Because we're not the ones being hurt by it" argument. So we can't decide what the problem is, but we can decide what the solution should be? And note that I am not saying there is NO problem, I am pointing out that the proposed solutions my be trying to fix the wrong thing.

You might not be able to immediately see all the issues that need fixing, but you can at least try to fix those issues that have been pointed out to you.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say it does the exact opposite. It simplifies the choice by making some choices more distinctly better than others. Those closer those choices are to being mechanically equal, the more meaning there is to the choice.

Nope. With bonuses I can choose a race that has synergy with my class(meaning) or I can buck the trend and play a dwarf wizard(meaning). Without bonuses I can blindfold myself and throw a dart a board with race names, and just pick the one hit without making a bit of difference to my class(no meaning at all).

 

[DND_Reborn]

But, no, that's too much to ask. Apparently.

Nope, not too much to ask.

But help them to find the power in themselves and understand their choice to not give power to things that otherwise hurt them.

One of my good friends could easily find distaste and such in orcs given his own background and whatnot, but he chooses to understand it is a game, and those things are only harmful to someone because they force us to look at our own humanity (and frankly, a lot of people don't like what they see!). He gets that and is all in favor of leaving orcs as evil monstrous humanoids, who, because he wants to see the good in them, have individuals (like Many Arrows) who struggle and overcome against all odds to be better. He doesn't need the general populace to outcry against the status quo and have orcs as re-skinned humans.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hardly. They were, quite literally, hurling meteors with spores at our planet...

Which was in response to military action against them by the Federation who previously tried to set up a colony on a world they already inhabited. The colonists found the bugs, and then attempted to kill them. It.... did not end well for the colonists.

Also, remember in the movie we are only ever presented the attack on the Federation, from an 'in universe' perspective via their own propaganda network.

It's no different to how the Nazis (who are the clear inspiration for the Federation) did the same to justify invading Poland, annexing Austria, Operation Barbarossa and similar.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Making the connection between to things that are superficially similar is where you go wrong. What you are doing is the same as going after a modern religion for child sacrifice, because the Philistine religion sacrificed infants on alters and both are religions. There's more of a connection between the religion of the Philistines and a modern religion than there is between orcs and Native Americans.

No, Max. That's not what I'm doing.

What you are doing wrong is equating these two things. As far as I know, there aren't any people suffering today as the result of ancient child sacrifice. There are people...tens of millions of them, just in America...who are still suffering because of lingering attitudes with their roots in dehumanizing beliefs.

 

[Oofta]

To expand on this, demons and devils are clearly derived from mythological creatures...which exist in many cultures...of supernatural non-human enemies, that often are the contrast and counterpart to the "good" supernatural (and still non-human) beings that populate belief systems.

Orcs are clearly derived from an archetype, again that exists in many cultures, of a non-imagined "other people" who want our land and our women, and have all these terrible traits ascribed to them that make it ok for us to kill them.

Crawford didn't make a distinction between fiends and orcs in the statement that started this whole thing. He just clarified what has always been there - the alignments of monsters in the MM is just a default and their alignment is up to the DM. He specifically called out fiends and celestials.

I don't see a difference between one fictional monster over another. What roll they play in any specific campaign is up to the DM and the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

No, Max. That's not what I'm doing.

What you are doing wrong is equating these two things. As far as I know, there aren't any people suffering today as the result of ancient child sacrifice. There are people...tens of millions of them, just in America...who are still suffering because of lingering attitudes with their roots in dehumanizing beliefs.

It's still the same kind of equation. You are forging a link that doesn't really exist, based on superficial similarities. Orcs in D&D do not now, nor have they ever, represented Native Americans or any other minority. PCs do not now, nor have they ever, represented white settlers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nope, not too much to ask.

But help them to find the power in themselves and understand their choice to not give power to things that otherwise [don't?] hurt them.

Please understand what you just said here. (I'm assuming you forgot to negate the "otherwise hurt them" part.)

This is saying that PoC are not actually suffering any hurt today. That it's all in their heads. That the centuries of lies about their bestiality and violence and lack of intelligence hasn't actually caused any real harm; that they're just imagining all of it, and just taking offense where none should be taken.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Orcs in D&D do not now, nor have they ever, represented Native Americans or any other minority. PCs do not now, nor have they ever, represented white settlers.

You're right, they don't. And, like @Oofta, if you still believe that's what anybody is saying, then you clearly have not been understanding a single thing about this whole debate.

 

[Maxperson]

You're right, they don't. And, like @Oofta, if you still believe that's what anybody is saying, then you clearly have not been understanding a single thing about this whole debate.

It was a claim made not too many posts ago by someone on your side of things. Take it up with him.