Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8034445" data-attributes="member: 6803643"><p>I think one of the issues arises from treating some humanoids as monsters. </p><p></p><p>Orcs, Drow, Eladrin, Goblins, etc should all be in a separate section of the book, much like NPC class templates are in the back of the book. </p><p></p><p>I could just as easily create a campaign where the Elves are the tyrannical empire lording it over a peasant class of Dwarves, with no humans in sight, and that could be a fun game, in the right context. But that is not the default assumption of D&D. The default is that Elves and Dwarves have their differences, but by and large they're the heroes of the game, while Orcs are villainous cannon-fodder/mooks/nameless enemies who speak in strange grunt-like languages whose main role is to be slaughtered when the party kicks in the door. </p><p></p><p>Now, the term "Orc" as the Professor Tolkien understood it came from an Anglo-Saxon variation on the continental underworld god Orcus, often treated as a sort of demonic figure, especially once darker mythological figures were all turned into demons by medieval European religions (not, as the Professor would emphatically state, from Orca dolphins). These in his mind were essentially a lesser form of demonic entity, akin to cavern goblins in their least state but terrifying, monstrous demon warriors among the greatest of their armies where regimented. This "people," if we may call them that, is the main source material for D&D's Orcs, but also for the game's Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears. There are other mythological and narrative roots for the latter three, but those are roots that Tolkien too drew upon when he made them all the same thing in his setting. They were specifically a demonic army of the villains of his world, whose cruel origins were obscure and subject to his lifelong revisioning of the narrative. </p><p></p><p>That said, Tolkien, a dead man, had racist elements in his books. I do not believe he realised this, or ever intended them as such; he wrote passionately about the evils of racism and related discriminatory efforts. But he was also writing at a time and within an insular environment, and bad things snuck into his text. The men like half-trolls from Harâd are one of these; the Orcs are another, and one that Tolkien would wrestle with in his later life. If Orcs had free will, then they should be capable of good and choice to do differently than the slave-driving masters of Angband, Mordor, Angmar, etc. That doesn't mean they couldn't be twisted and corrupted into serving evil purposes: the narrative of LotR shows what can happen even to the best of people when under these influences (in his setting). And these are people born into a culture of cruelty. The problem arises that they're darker appearing entities, that there are no good or neutral communities of Orcs in the narrative, and that we have a White European-stand-ins vs Dark Orcs + their Asian & African stand-in ally cultures forming the main sides of the core conflict of LotR. The problem also arises that, especially since 2001 (but really with every attempt prior, too), adaptational choices have led to this white vs BIPOC conflict within the world. From a reading of the book, Sam himself could be BIPOC, and there's good evidence to say that the Numenoreans were at least a multicultured people (with a more Pan-Mediterranean story for their culture than the more Nordic stories of the 1st and 3rd Age heroic communities). Worse, there's a whole lot of blackface going on in the films, and it just hammers in this stereotype of Orcs as demonised BIPOC (or even call to mind racist ideas of BIPOC as the descendants of Cain when it comes to their history as fallen Elves and/or Men). These choices didn't have to happen this way; notice how the Hobbit films instead have Pale Orcs & Goblins for their story; it works just as well without demonising BIPOC. </p><p></p><p>What does this all mean for D&D? We need more settings, and more exploration of cultures that nuance the game. No people in the game should be all one alignment or serve solely as meatbags for the players to smash. Some settings could have evil Orcs, but if you're going to publish that setting, it has to be in context of other material you're churning out with good Orcs as a regular people. All common and uncommon Humanoids should be in the next version of the Player's Handbook. That means Orcs & Goblins for sure. The assumption should not be that they're evil. it can be a trait of a particular setting, but humanoids don't belong in the assumed alignment parts of any book.</p><p></p><p>Rare Humanoids can be kept back for books like VGtM and MTF, but such books in the future should place less emphasis in their titles on it being a book of enemies to smash. These are books of cultures to add to your game, good, evil, and in-between, and the conflicts between them (or between them and the cultures of the PHB). </p><p></p><p>Demons and Devils and Angels and Dragons and whatnot are all powerful and intelligent entities that are not humanoids, but can have complex story relationships with humanoids. These are archetypes that can and should exist to tell certain types of stories (a Dragon is a fantastically powerful archetype for heroes to overcome after all), but they can and should be subverted regularly. Not often, but regularly. if Angels can fall from grace and become Devils or consumed by abyssal rage and become Demons, then Demons and Devils can have changes of heart too. But any of that should be extremely monumental moments because they're not the norm. And most importantly, they must NEVER stand-in for a minority culture of the world. Tolkien's demonic Orcs became a muddled mess of a question in-part because they became a stand-in culture in lieu of the presence of any positive BIPOC peoples, and because he felt the need to explore their degeneration from Elves and/or Humans in the background lore of the setting. D&D Orcs are not demons. They are humanoids, and have explored tropes other than the demonic ones. They can be separated. If Tanarruks continue to be highlighted in the game, then other Demon-Humanoid crosses need to be highlighted as well, not just as the singular Cambion monster. </p><p></p><p>Dark Elves can and should be inspired just as much from Warcraft's Night Elves, TES's Dunmer, and other positive BIPOC elf interpretations. Faerûn's darker-skinned Sun Elves are a great start in that direction, as are non-evil Dark Elves in Wildemount. Some of these cultures inhabit stories about what it means to be different from the baseline Elven communities, but others are just heroic and positive cultures that happen to have darker skin. D&D has room for both types of storytelling, but regardless, it should be empowering BIPOC players, rather than telling them that these characters are evil by default.</p><p></p><p>WotC are listening to us. This is good. We can keep on the pressure, and we should. It's certainly uncomfortable for the WotC devs, but it's okay and normal to feel uncomfortable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marandahir, post: 8034445, member: 6803643"] I think one of the issues arises from treating some humanoids as monsters. Orcs, Drow, Eladrin, Goblins, etc should all be in a separate section of the book, much like NPC class templates are in the back of the book. I could just as easily create a campaign where the Elves are the tyrannical empire lording it over a peasant class of Dwarves, with no humans in sight, and that could be a fun game, in the right context. But that is not the default assumption of D&D. The default is that Elves and Dwarves have their differences, but by and large they're the heroes of the game, while Orcs are villainous cannon-fodder/mooks/nameless enemies who speak in strange grunt-like languages whose main role is to be slaughtered when the party kicks in the door. Now, the term "Orc" as the Professor Tolkien understood it came from an Anglo-Saxon variation on the continental underworld god Orcus, often treated as a sort of demonic figure, especially once darker mythological figures were all turned into demons by medieval European religions (not, as the Professor would emphatically state, from Orca dolphins). These in his mind were essentially a lesser form of demonic entity, akin to cavern goblins in their least state but terrifying, monstrous demon warriors among the greatest of their armies where regimented. This "people," if we may call them that, is the main source material for D&D's Orcs, but also for the game's Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears. There are other mythological and narrative roots for the latter three, but those are roots that Tolkien too drew upon when he made them all the same thing in his setting. They were specifically a demonic army of the villains of his world, whose cruel origins were obscure and subject to his lifelong revisioning of the narrative. That said, Tolkien, a dead man, had racist elements in his books. I do not believe he realised this, or ever intended them as such; he wrote passionately about the evils of racism and related discriminatory efforts. But he was also writing at a time and within an insular environment, and bad things snuck into his text. The men like half-trolls from Harâd are one of these; the Orcs are another, and one that Tolkien would wrestle with in his later life. If Orcs had free will, then they should be capable of good and choice to do differently than the slave-driving masters of Angband, Mordor, Angmar, etc. That doesn't mean they couldn't be twisted and corrupted into serving evil purposes: the narrative of LotR shows what can happen even to the best of people when under these influences (in his setting). And these are people born into a culture of cruelty. The problem arises that they're darker appearing entities, that there are no good or neutral communities of Orcs in the narrative, and that we have a White European-stand-ins vs Dark Orcs + their Asian & African stand-in ally cultures forming the main sides of the core conflict of LotR. The problem also arises that, especially since 2001 (but really with every attempt prior, too), adaptational choices have led to this white vs BIPOC conflict within the world. From a reading of the book, Sam himself could be BIPOC, and there's good evidence to say that the Numenoreans were at least a multicultured people (with a more Pan-Mediterranean story for their culture than the more Nordic stories of the 1st and 3rd Age heroic communities). Worse, there's a whole lot of blackface going on in the films, and it just hammers in this stereotype of Orcs as demonised BIPOC (or even call to mind racist ideas of BIPOC as the descendants of Cain when it comes to their history as fallen Elves and/or Men). These choices didn't have to happen this way; notice how the Hobbit films instead have Pale Orcs & Goblins for their story; it works just as well without demonising BIPOC. What does this all mean for D&D? We need more settings, and more exploration of cultures that nuance the game. No people in the game should be all one alignment or serve solely as meatbags for the players to smash. Some settings could have evil Orcs, but if you're going to publish that setting, it has to be in context of other material you're churning out with good Orcs as a regular people. All common and uncommon Humanoids should be in the next version of the Player's Handbook. That means Orcs & Goblins for sure. The assumption should not be that they're evil. it can be a trait of a particular setting, but humanoids don't belong in the assumed alignment parts of any book. Rare Humanoids can be kept back for books like VGtM and MTF, but such books in the future should place less emphasis in their titles on it being a book of enemies to smash. These are books of cultures to add to your game, good, evil, and in-between, and the conflicts between them (or between them and the cultures of the PHB). Demons and Devils and Angels and Dragons and whatnot are all powerful and intelligent entities that are not humanoids, but can have complex story relationships with humanoids. These are archetypes that can and should exist to tell certain types of stories (a Dragon is a fantastically powerful archetype for heroes to overcome after all), but they can and should be subverted regularly. Not often, but regularly. if Angels can fall from grace and become Devils or consumed by abyssal rage and become Demons, then Demons and Devils can have changes of heart too. But any of that should be extremely monumental moments because they're not the norm. And most importantly, they must NEVER stand-in for a minority culture of the world. Tolkien's demonic Orcs became a muddled mess of a question in-part because they became a stand-in culture in lieu of the presence of any positive BIPOC peoples, and because he felt the need to explore their degeneration from Elves and/or Humans in the background lore of the setting. D&D Orcs are not demons. They are humanoids, and have explored tropes other than the demonic ones. They can be separated. If Tanarruks continue to be highlighted in the game, then other Demon-Humanoid crosses need to be highlighted as well, not just as the singular Cambion monster. Dark Elves can and should be inspired just as much from Warcraft's Night Elves, TES's Dunmer, and other positive BIPOC elf interpretations. Faerûn's darker-skinned Sun Elves are a great start in that direction, as are non-evil Dark Elves in Wildemount. Some of these cultures inhabit stories about what it means to be different from the baseline Elven communities, but others are just heroic and positive cultures that happen to have darker skin. D&D has room for both types of storytelling, but regardless, it should be empowering BIPOC players, rather than telling them that these characters are evil by default. WotC are listening to us. This is good. We can keep on the pressure, and we should. It's certainly uncomfortable for the WotC devs, but it's okay and normal to feel uncomfortable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes
Top