D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[FlyingChihuahua]

@Oofta - you are 100% right. No one cares what you do in your game. Just like no one cares what I do in mine.

But, and here’s the basic point, when you publicly discuss your game, you are now a fair target for criticism.

You said you wouldn’t play in a game where dark skinned humans are all brutish and stupid. Fair enough. But do you really not see the connection to all dark skinned humanoids are stupid and brutish?

Your intent, to answer @FlyingChihuahua doesn’t really matter. It’s the fact that, intentionally or not, you are still playing into these stereotypes and then trying to defend these stereotypes by claiming that you don’t mean to use the inherent bigotry of the tropes.

Look, what you do in your game is fine. You certainly don’t owe me anything. But at least recognize that you are perpetuating the bigotry when you do this.

The thing I've gotten from him is that, in his world, Orcs are basically a race of Boogeymen, he's just using the term Orc because why not. (sidenote, @Oofta if you are doing that, Bugbears IMO work better, but you do what you do) Aside from sharing a name, they aren't related at all.

Now, if you can find an objectionable comparison of The Boogeyman to something, then you be on to something, but I can't really think of anything aside from getting kids to listen to their parents which could be bad.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

@FlyingChihuahua

I banderhobs for boogeymen

And feral undead

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta - you are 100% right. No one cares what you do in your game. Just like no one cares what I do in mine.

But, and here’s the basic point, when you publicly discuss your game, you are now a fair target for criticism.

You said you wouldn’t play in a game where dark skinned humans are all brutish and stupid. Fair enough. But do you really not see the connection to all dark skinned humanoids are stupid and brutish?

Your intent, to answer @FlyingChihuahua doesn’t really matter. It’s the fact that, intentionally or not, you are still playing into these stereotypes and then trying to defend these stereotypes by claiming that you don’t mean to use the inherent bigotry of the tropes.

Look, what you do in your game is fine. You certainly don’t owe me anything. But at least recognize that you are perpetuating the bigotry when you do this.

All I can say is that I disagree. I don't see a strong association between orcs and colonialism and I doubt many people do. I don't associate green skinned orcs with any particular ethnicity.

I see far more issues with hags, harpies, drow, succubi and so on.

A trope of D&D is that some creatures are inherently evil. I don't play D&D to plumb philosophical foundations of morality and I don't think the origin of orcs has any bearing on what role they should play in anyone's game.

 

[Lem23]

The specific example, though, is making the same mistake. He does what he does because of mislabling. He thinks its "good". The doctor "thinks" hes giving "penicilin".

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. It's not mislabelling.

 

[Eltab]

Trying to communicate via spellbook notation would be like trying to write a letter in Assembly code or COBOL.

00000001
00000010
00000011
to you, good sir.

And I just happen have a COBOL textbook hiding in my garage...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All I can say is that I disagree. I don't see a strong association between orcs and colonialism and I doubt many people do. I don't associate green skinned orcs with any particular ethnicity.

I see far more issues with hags, harpies, drow, succubi and so on.

A trope of D&D is that some creatures are inherently evil. I don't play D&D to plumb philosophical foundations of morality and I don't think the origin of orcs has any bearing on what role they should play in anyone's game.

And that trope is bad.

 

[Tonguez]

Nah, the doc in your example kills by an accident. That's not an evil thing, it was not of his doing, and there was no malice aforethought.

The tyrant in your example who thinks they're doing good but is actually evil is an example of what I was saying - a LE tyrant who doesn't know what their alignment really is.

A better example would be Typhoid Mary, who despite her diagnosis persisted in working as a cook, by which she exposed others to the disease. Thens the guy with Aids her continued to date and have sex with others - are they Evil or just Ignorant?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

And that trope is bad.

It has it's places (fiends, abberrations, undead) but applied to humanoids it's generally bad.

Although I do wonder how you feel about creatures that are inherently good, because sometimes good essentially means "no fun allowed" and sometimes to do serious good you need to do something reprehensible (I'm thinking specifically of something from Pathfinder).

 

[Tonguez]

All I can say is that I disagree. I don't see a strong association between orcs and colonialism and I doubt many people do. I don't associate green skinned orcs with any particular ethnicity.

I see far more issues with hags, harpies, drow, succubi and so on.

A trope of D&D is that some creatures are inherently evil. I don't play D&D to plumb philosophical foundations of morality and I don't think the origin of orcs has any bearing on what role they should play in anyone's game.

No Orcs are very specifically the 'Barbarian' other, they are certainly a bogeyman but they are a bogey developed by casting the Civilised Man against the Savage Brute who molests our fields, pillages our women and slaughters our children. Whether that's Gilgamesh v Enkidu, the Romans against the Huns, the Venetians v the Mongol Horder or Britain against the Natives it is very much a colonial image.

What people conveniently forget about Lord of the Rings is that the Haradrim Oliphant Riders are specifically dark skinned humans who fought beside the Orcs and were called Swertings by the Hobbits (Swarthy Men). My Great Grandfather was in the Royal Madras Fusilier, the parallels between Haradrim and Northern Indians is quite overt.

 

[Charlaquin]

First, that's completely 100% okay.

But ... then it makes orcs a creature that gets attacked on sight* because they look funny and come from a different culture.

Personally I find that more troubling.

*In most fiction anyway. While elves and dwarves may not always get along one thing they do agree on is hatred of orcs as an example.

The analogy was cult members. Last time I checked, the policy on cult members is generally not “attack on sight.”

See ... but that's part of what I have a problem with. Everybody is okay with fiends or beholders or ghouls being evil ... but orcs? Heaven's to Betsy how dare you! Devils are evil because they are! But devils are also intelligent, have a culture. A succubus looks human but we all know she's not because she was made evil. Orcs made to be evil like it says they were in the MM? Nope!

The issue (for me, anyway) is not that orcs look human. Succubi are a great example of a human-looking monster that I have no problem with being inherently evil. My issue is that I don’t see an internally consistent justification for orcs being inherently evil and dwarves not being inherently good. Orcs are humanoids, that’s their creature type. Succubi are Fiends, that’s their creature type. There’s a meaningful qualitative difference you can point to to justify why their alignments are immutable while humanoids’ alignments arent. But with orcs, the only justification I've ever heard is “they were created by Gruumsh,” to which I say “and dwarves were created by Moradin” and then don’t get a response.

Orcs are not real. They can be anything the fiction demands. If you want them to be not CE as listed in the MM more power to you.

Agreed.

I just don't see a reason to change it.

Whereas I do.