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

[Aldarc]

But it goes back to a simple issue. If orcs are not necessarily evil, why are other monsters not necessarily evil? What about red dragons or chokers or beholders? After all they are just more stand-ins for the unknown, for monsters lurking in the dark.

There are a variety of factors at play. Are these creatures considered sentient? Are they extraplanar? To what extent are cultural analogues applied to them? Are there other problematic socio-cultural associations that may be at play that we need to unpack in these myths? Etc.

Since the days of Arcana Evolved and Eberron (so around 2003 or so), my dragons have never been bound to a particular alignment. Beholders are extraplanar aberrations and frequently solitary, lacking cultural societies. They are utterly alien to mortals. Orcs on the other hand are mortal humanoids frequently defined in terms of their culture and collective society.

Overall, I think that you are grasping at false equivalences here so that you don't actually have to reevaluate whether your use of orcs feeds into racist tropes. Your rhetorical strategy seems to draw upon a slippery slope fallacy: i.e., "where's the line?" Because if we can't draw a line then you conveniently don't have to drop or think about whether you are perpetuating racist/colonialist tropes with your orcs.

But also if you make it so that every monster represents "stand-ins for the unknown" then it's somehow not a problem that orcs have a defined history of representing particularized colonial/racist caricatures and not just a vaguely defined "unknown monster." Not to mention the fact that trying to make everything problematic so that nothing is problematic seems like a warped reversal of values here.

And of course many people don't want to drop or reevaluate this because these portrayals and uses of orcs is psychologically safe, comforting, and fun for them. Many people like having your characters kill orcs without regret. And many people also like to think of themselves as a "good (non-racist) person." And if your chaotic evil orcs bring you psychological comfort were somehow feeding into racist tropes of evil "sub-humans," then you would probably be discomforted by the question "am I good a person for using orcs like this?" So how do you resolve the psychological discomfort? (1) You could address the problem by acknowledging the problem and altering how you use orcs, or (2) you can deny that the problem exists at all and resume your psychological comfort by trying to return to that blissful world of ignorance. And this latter strategy is how many people like going about their lives.

 

[Hussar]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm singling out @Oofta here, please, I'm really not. He just happens to be the example in front of us. Let's be honest here, probably everyone reading this has done exactly the same thing as Oofta at some point in their gaming career and most likely, most of us will probably do it again. As far as horrible things we can do as a society goes, this is pretty far down on the list.

But, I do think that it's a conversation worth having. So much of this gets completely unexamined and often treated as if it's "the right way". I mentioned earlier that it's not a surprise that virtually every D&D setting is humanocentric. And, if we're being really honest, it's white, northern European humanocentric. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc. they all lean pretty heavily on the tropes.

And there is value in shining a light on the motives and reasons for those decisions. In the recent Picard show, Picard visits the Romulan refugee camp dressed like he's the Great White Hope. All he's missing is the pith hat. It's a VERY cringeworthy scene. Extremely tone deaf.

So, yeah, do whatever you like in your home game. That's groovy. But, don't pretend that these issues don't exist. They most certainly do. Be aware of the issues. And, frankly, I find that games become a lot more interesting when you move out of the "well they're evil so we can kill them" mode of murder hoboes and into a more nuanced treatment of the various races. There's a reason that in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, you are actually rewarded for NOT fighting the lizard folk. And it makes the game a lot more interesting.

 

[Manbearcat]

The two that have always stuck out to me (and I’ve many times lamented it):

1) That Earth-restricted/modeled martial athletes can somehow (a) defeat Lions with their bare-hands at low levels, (b) Bears at mid-level, and (c) not only survive the onslaught, but slay Ancient Wyrms in melee combat (even if they’re equipped with magical armaments, it’s absurd). The greatest earthly athletes couldn’t dream of doing these things, not even once if you perfectly parameterized a model and ran it 1000 times.

2) Arthropods growing to be the size of apes, all the way up to utility truck size, despite gravity and atmosphere (which restricts their size on earth) being the same as earth.

Neither of those compute on their own and they certainly don’t together. Change 1 or change 2 (really, just change 1).

 

[Oofta]

I was thinking about how to better explain my issue with orcs not always being evil.

The basic argument is that even though the MM says they're evil, it's really just talking about the majority of orcs being chaotic evil barring specific campaign changes.

So:

• Orcs are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
• If you take orcs out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
• You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
• Once they get rid of all that orcish mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

Then say that orcs really represent the "ignorant savage" trope.
Go back and replace "orcs" with "indigenous people".

• Indigenous people are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
• If you take indigenous people out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
• You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
• Once they get rid of all that indigenous people mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

I find that disturbing. I'd rather have orcs be hard-wired to be evil and leave the influence of culture out of it. They are not real, they are not human, they are not Native Americans, First Nation, Aborigines, Inuit or any other indigenous people nor are they a stand-in for them. Because deciding that they are a stand in means I will never, ever, use them in a campaign unless I change them so that the majority are good or neutral like humans*. They just become another race and no longer serve a distinct purpose.

As far as why we have evil orcs and occasionally evil dwarves that's also easy to justify.

Moradin wanted to create children that were happy and had free will. He hoped they would worship him, but he realizes that praise without a choice isn't really praise. Freedom of thought is more important than blind obedience. Unfortunately it does mean that his creations can make mistakes or go directions Moradin does not approve of.

On the other hand Gruumsh didn't want happy and free children. He wanted slaves and minions that would be tools of his will. He wanted yes-men who will never question him and blindly obey. In other words, what all evil dictators want. No dissent, just praise. Except unlike human dictators, Gruumsh created his followers as orcs.

*Yeah, I'm a glass half-full kind of guy. I like to believe that the majority of people are good or at least neutral and not actually evil.

 

[Aldarc]

So your solution to rationalize your use of a problematic trope is to create a problematic strawman position that would be equally terrifying if you applied a similar analog replacement to your use?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

So your solution to rationalize your use of a problematic trope is to create a problematic strawman position that would be equally terrifying if you applied a similar analog replacement to your use?

Are Fiends problematic then? Are Undead just a bunch of swipes at people?

Yes, Tolkien's orcs are problematic. Y'know what isn't Tolkien's orcs? Oofta's orcs.

 

[Oofta]

So your solution to rationalize your use of a problematic trope is to create a problematic strawman position that would be equally terrifying if you applied a similar analog replacement to your use?

I explained my reasoning, no straw man here. To me the horrifying thing about this is that people thinking that "other" can be "fixed" by cultural acclimation. We did that with Native Americans, tried to eliminate their cultural identity. It's a blight on my country's history.

I'd rather have no orcs (or bugbears, drow, goblins, gnolls, grimlocks, hags, harpies, goblins, troglodytes, were creatures, trolls or evil giants and so on) than have orcs just be human with makeup where the majority are evil because they haven't been assimilated.

 

[Oofta]

One other thing. Most cultures have a bogey man or other goblin-like creatures. Some are good, some are mischievous, some are evil.

I've never considered orcs (or other monstrous humanoids) to be a stand in for indigenous people. I'm not the one who made that connection.

However, if we do assume that connection then it's really troubling to say that "if they were raised in a loving home and not in that stinky orcish culture they wouldn't be evil" or "if they just abandon their religion they wouldn't be evil".

 

[Aldarc]

Are Fiends problematic then? Are Undead just a bunch of swipes at people?

We could certainly talk about problematic elements in the historical tradition and depiction of these various monsters, but (1) that doesn't erase the problematic elements of orcs in D&D, and (2) I don't see what trying to deflect the conversation to other monsters is meant to accomplish.

Y'know what isn't Tolkien's orcs? Oofta's orcs.

This is a truism that doesn't actually refute anything.

I explained my reasoning, no straw man here. To me the horrifying thing about this is that people thinking that "other" can be "fixed" by cultural acclimation. We did that with Native Americans, tried to eliminate their cultural identity. It's a blight on my country's history.

I'd rather have no orcs (or bugbears, drow, goblins, gnolls, grimlocks, hags, harpies, goblins, troglodytes, were creatures, trolls or evil giants and so on) than have orcs just be human with makeup where the majority are evil because they haven't been assimilated.

Sorry, Oofta, but I'm not sure why you think that explaining your reasoning somehow makes your strawman less of a strawman. A strawman isn't dependent on how much text you write or whether you explained yourself, but, rather, on how faithfully you present the argument of the opposition, and this is certainly not a position that I have espoused, nor can I recall @Hussar arguing as much either, so it does come across as a strawman. So your outrage about how this position represents the poor treatment of Native Americans comes across as feigned for the purpose of deflecting from how depicting orcs as immutable chaotic evil subhumans is problematically rooted in historically racist tropes.

Would you like to know why orcs are far less problematic in Eberron when CE orcs also exist in their setting? Because there are multiple cultures of orcs with a variety of indigenous religious practices and beliefs and not inherently predisposed to evil. There is not just a singular orc indigenous culture that is contrasted to a "civilized" culture. There are multiple orc cultures in the Shadow Marches and the Eldeen Reaches. The orcs that reside in the Mror Holds have a different culture than those that reside in Droaam who have a different culture than the orcs that reside in the Demon Wastes.

 

[jasper]

Here are some pet peeves which have changed due new edition or new research or I got over it.
Armour hurting dex. While in the SCA I came to terms with a better AC hurting Dex was just a game choice.
Every one knows and read common. I got over because it took too long and did not move the game forward if no one understood the NPC. I so use to this I some times give monsters common because it is second nature.
World changing spells which would change history, economy etc, not do so. Hey is an adventure game not a sim.
Everyone knows your class due to how you dress.
Material components are always easy to get to in the pouch. Even Batman and his belt is not this effective.
Easy of cashing in your loot.
The horror of the equipment price list.
There is always a blank spot on the map. Or the detail is a three sentence paragraph.