TheRPGSite

I saw the latest video from ClownFish channel on YouTube.  The topic was the removal of Orcs from the Monster Manual for current day D&D.


I'm ok with this.  It will drive fans away, and D&D has had too much of a monopoly on the tabletop RPG industry.  Go play other games.

Free games: Olde Swords Reign, Mini-Six Bare Bones, Pocket Fantasy, Basic Fantasy, Castles and Crusades 7th printing.

Paid games:  Shadowdark, Old School Essentials, Kogarashi/True D6 Printable Edition, Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool edition.

Just, for the love of all that is normal, don't play D&D from the current idiots.

Weren't the Mexican orcs in one of the 2024 books? How can they get rid of half-orcs and Orcs and still have that picture?

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 31, 2025, 10:45:09 PMWeren't the Mexican orcs in one of the 2024 books? How can they get rid of half-orcs and Orcs and still have that picture?

"Because they're stupid", for the win!!!

The Mexican Orcs, are in the 2024 PHB.

Didn't they just move the stat blocks for a bunch of humanoids (like Orc) to a big "humanoid" section?  Like now we have a whole slough of blocks for Orcs where as before we had like 3.  Not sure what all the fuss is about if new DMs are given 30 different flavors of Orc to send at PCs.

Orcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Oh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

Quote from: krillin on January 31, 2025, 11:41:00 PMDidn't they just move the stat blocks for a bunch of humanoids (like Orc) to a big "humanoid" section?  Like now we have a whole slough of blocks for Orcs where as before we had like 3.  Not sure what all the fuss is about if new DMs are given 30 different flavors of Orc to send at PCs.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

Right. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human". And as of 5E (2014), we also didn't have separate stat blocks for "elf", "dwarf", "halfling" and so on. Instead, we had stat blocks for different types of NPCs based on profession like "bandit", "cultist", "guard" - and it was noted that the GM could add racial traits to them.

krillin suggests that now there are multiple humanoid stat blocks. How many are there? Does this mean that there are humanoid templates like "soldier", "scout", "captain", "war chief" similar to NPCs in the 2014 rules? I can see the sense of having more variety that way.

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:39:08 AM

Quote from: krillin on January 31, 2025, 11:41:00 PMDidn't they just move the stat blocks for a bunch of humanoids (like Orc) to a big "humanoid" section?  Like now we have a whole slough of blocks for Orcs where as before we had like 3.  Not sure what all the fuss is about if new DMs are given 30 different flavors of Orc to send at PCs.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

Right. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human".

https://archive.org/details/tsr02102mc1monstrouscompendium/page/n91/mode/2up

Quote from: krillin on January 31, 2025, 11:41:00 PMDidn't they just move the stat blocks for a bunch of humanoids (like Orc) to a big "humanoid" section?  Like now we have a whole slough of blocks for Orcs where as before we had like 3.  Not sure what all the fuss is about if new DMs are given 30 different flavors of Orc to send at PCs.

IMO "Humanoid" is too broad a category for the Monster Manual. Each entry should give stats, lore and ideas on how to use that specific monster in the game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 02:53:09 AM

Quote from: krillin on January 31, 2025, 11:41:00 PMDidn't they just move the stat blocks for a bunch of humanoids (like Orc) to a big "humanoid" section?  Like now we have a whole slough of blocks for Orcs where as before we had like 3.  Not sure what all the fuss is about if new DMs are given 30 different flavors of Orc to send at PCs.

IMO "Humanoid" is too broad a category for the Monster Manual. Each entry should give stats, lore and ideas on how to use that specific monster in the game.

You fool. You've already spoiled the surprise! The future 6E edition "Profession Portfolio"!

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

Yeah, as a Jew I always found the use of the word jarringly incorrect, but never offensive.

What does offend me is some goy telling me that the word needs to be removed for my sake. Trust me, "some of that guy's best friends are Jewish."

"A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come."

D&D fans only had to say "no" once to these screeching harridans. Only once. They will lose everything, and they will deserve it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AMTo be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

It is not that it has changed but the reason why. WotC may later hide behind the smokescreen that phylactery wasn't an accurate term but we all know the real reason why it was changed.

Mind you, given the current Jew hate on the left, I wouldn't have been surprised if they continued to call it a phylactery.

It seems strange not to include the orc merely because it is now a playable race. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, & halflings have always had a MM entry. Very strange and very stupid.

Quote from: Zalman on February 01, 2025, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

Yeah, as a Jew I always found the use of the word jarringly incorrect, but never offensive.

What does offend me is some goy telling me that the word needs to be removed for my sake. Trust me, "some of that guy's best friends are Jewish."

I think it needed to removed for the same reason I don't like seeing claymore or zweihander or brigandine in fantasy equipment lists (unless it's literally historical Earth). In terms of the historic users and their languages they're 'Big Sword' and 'Two-Hander' and 'soldier's armor' (though for clarity I'd call it a 'coat of plates').

So to actually have the feel of a native in the fantasy society (where common isn't actually English except by convention for the audience) those things should be called what they would in the vernacular.

Spirit Jar just feels like what it should be called in a vernacular fashion.

Nah. D&D is not flavour-neutral, it just draws on a zillion distinct cultural influences, including Clerics that are vaguely Christian but cast Old Testament spells, Druids that are mostly Celtic, mummies that are Egyptian, treants which are Tolkieneque, and polearms that are pure Swiss autism. All these can coexist in one place in a normal D&D milieu while looking exactly like what they are based on.

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

My guess is a lot of kids are calling them Horcruxes anyway.

Quote from: Zalman on February 01, 2025, 05:19:31 AMYeah, as a Jew I always found the use of the word jarringly incorrect, but never offensive.

What does offend me is some goy telling me that the word needs to be removed for my sake. Trust me, "some of that guy's best friends are Jewish."

Right now at WOTC HQ...

Golems will be removed next for your safety.  You're welcome.  *tosses purple side shaved hair back in arrogance*

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:17:32 AMRight now at WOTC HQ...

Golems will be removed next for your safety.  You're welcome.  *tosses purple side shaved hair back in arrogance*

No doubt Golems are on the chopping block, at least in name.

Any grounding in actual myth is appropriation!

Quote from: Zalman on February 01, 2025, 09:33:32 AM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:17:32 AMRight now at WOTC HQ...

Golems will be removed next for your safety.  You're welcome.  *tosses purple side shaved hair back in arrogance*

No doubt Golems are on the chopping block, at least in name.

Any grounding in actual myth is appropriation!

That might be the best case scenario given what happened with the Sphinx with the 2025 MM.

(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/da06ab8e00af66d6d007663713c5e6997acbf5a5/hub/2025/01/13/54685feb-f50c-4c33-86b2-7ffa0875beed/336304-sphinxes-of-wonder-hazem-ameen.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)

*Insert Godfather "Look how they massacred my boy!" meme here*

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2025, 09:15:35 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

My guess is a lot of kids are calling them Horcruxes anyway.

Horcrux sounds cooler too, but I guess "soul jar" gets points for literal functionality.

I don't understand why they don't rename the lich too. It's also linguistic appropriation. The word is a real word in English meaning a regular old corpse. The monster should be renamed to Undead Wizard King or something.

Meanwhile, the name zombie is cultural appropriation from Voodoo. The zombie should be renamed to lich, matching the work of Clark Ashton Smith. Or perhaps animated corpse?

If they keep this up their won't be any conflict left. How does one play a Tea-Party RPG?.  I should not even ask that as their is probably a whole game for it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 01, 2025, 10:48:50 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2025, 09:15:35 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

My guess is a lot of kids are calling them Horcruxes anyway.

Horcrux sounds cooler too, but I guess "soul jar" gets points for literal functionality.

I don't understand why they don't rename the lich too. It's also linguistic appropriation. The word is a real word in English meaning a regular old corpse. The monster should be renamed to Undead Wizard King or something.

Meanwhile, the name zombie is cultural appropriation from Voodoo. The zombie should be renamed to lich, matching the work of Clark Ashton Smith.

I went with Wight (corporeal) and Wraith (incorporeal) for my setting. A wight mage or necromancer is your "Lich", a wight wrapped in diseased burial wrappings is a "Mummy," etc.

Similarly, a vampire is a wraith employing illusions and its spectral grip to appear mortal so it can hunt and consume the life force of its victims... which is why it can seemingly fly, dissolve into mist, doesn't appear in mirrors and is virtually invulnerable to conventional weapons.

Frankly, I think D&D suffers a lot in its mythos from having subdivided so many creatures to the point that a skeleton, zombie, ghoul, wight, mummy, etc. (or kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, orc, ogre, troll) are each their own entirely separate species.

I get making the mechanical distinction for building encounters, but a lot of things would be a lot more coherent if that's all the distinction was; mechanical. That in terms of fluff the "hobgoblin" is the default... basically an Unseelie elf... and goblins and bugbears and many other sundries are all just the same critter in the same way Andre the Giant and General Tom Thumb are both humans.

I'll fully admit to it just being my personal preference, but I think it's a good preference that aids world-building... a way to make a fantasy kitchen sink feel much less so.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 02:39:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:39:08 AMRight. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human". And as of 5E (2014), we also didn't have separate stat blocks for "elf", "dwarf", "halfling" and so on. Instead, we had stat blocks for different types of NPCs based on profession like "bandit", "cultist", "guard" - and it was noted that the GM could add racial traits to them.

https://archive.org/details/tsr02102mc1monstrouscompendium/page/n91/mode/2up

Ratman_tf, that's exactly what I'm saying. You linked to a Monstrous Compendium section that has six separate stat blocks for "Aborigines/Cavemen", "Adventurers"*, "Bandits/Brigands"*, "Barbarians/Nomads", "Berserkers/Dervishes", and "Farmers/Herders". (And the two starred ones have a lot of stats that are "variable" based on description.)

There's never been a stat block for plain "human". It depends on the type, because humans are too variable.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 01, 2025, 08:18:35 AMIt seems strange not to include the orc merely because it is now a playable race. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, & halflings have always had a MM entry. Very strange and very stupid.

Exploderwizard, as of the 5E (2014) Monster Manual, they no longer had separate stat blocks and entries for "elf", "dwarf", and other demi-humans along with "human". Instead, they had an "NPC" section that had one stat block each for things like "soldier" and "wizard". A human wizard and an elf wizard used the same "wizard" stat block, rather than having one stat block for "human wizard" and a different stat block for "elf wizard".

It was always clear from the PC rules that an elf wizard and human wizard are very similar. This was acknowledging that to have variety of NPCs of different races without enormous page space.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

I'm just assuming in these times with this company, it was either to 1) avoid any mention of something Jewish so they wouldn't be seen as supporting Israel, or 2) considered it part of D&D's 'racist' past.

I know a person's first thought will be on the Torah meaning, but as a reliquary or protection amulet it does sort of work.  This is not a hill I choose to defend to the death tho. I was just pointing out another change in the book.

Re: humanoids, I get that, but if WOTC is trying to get new folks in who haven't played, they might not think to adjust the stats for different creatures. I'm hoping that there's at least advice to do so and perhaps examples.

With the change from using the term phylactery, did they also change the term for golems as well? If not, that feels like a strange oversight. I haven't purchased the book and haven't been able to find if that was another change while googling.

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:41:33 AM(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/da06ab8e00af66d6d007663713c5e6997acbf5a5/hub/2025/01/13/54685feb-f50c-4c33-86b2-7ffa0875beed/336304-sphinxes-of-wonder-hazem-ameen.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)

*Insert Godfather "Look how they massacred my boy!" meme here*

A rainbow cat with danger hair. Ok. I feel you, Godfather.

Quote from: MattfromTinder on February 01, 2025, 02:21:39 PMWith the change from using the term phylactery, did they also change the term for golems as well? If not, that feels like a strange oversight. I haven't purchased the book and haven't been able to find if that was another change while googling.

Did anybody ever complain about golem being used this way?

I couldn't resist doing a short video about all of this nonsense.
https://youtu.be/vj9kNnWqwlc?si=grPoUCn-4c5RtKhq

Perfectly predictable.  On one hand, I love it.  Anything that will kill WotC faster is objectively a good thing.

If this change had been made for a game-related reason, it would still be stupid, but not obnoxious.  But the reason behind this change is what makes it over-the-top obnoxious and vile.  And we don't have to guess at the reason; they've told us.

The idea that demi-humans in general should not be assigned a hard and fast alignments and should be treated as ordinary characters (because "muh good drow!", et al.) is a purely ideological one.  It has no history in the game (or outside of it).  There's no mechanical or balance problem that it solves.  WotC has done this because they see everything through the lens of their religion politics.  They feel that demi-humans like orcs are racial stand-ins (because they are not capable of seeing other humans through anything other than a racial lens, and therefore assert that no one else is capable of doing so, either).  So orcs must be exactly the same as every other demi-human (and human) race, lest WotC be accused of the racism that is actual within them.

Also, the people at WotC identify with evil.  I'm being dead serious.  They identify themselves with evil, but in a "good" way.  I guarantee that if you asked the average employee of WotC, they would be proud of rejecting Judeo-Christian norms and values.  These kinds of leftist danger-hairs are up front about their antipathy to Christian morality (lesbians and gays, abortion, trans grooming of kids, etc.).  On that quality alone, they would tend to view "evil" races as just misunderstood or with a valid culture (from alternate points of view), because that's how they place themselves into Western culture.  Any kind of absolute judgment is anathema to them (just like many of the leftists that post here).  So any kind of absolute is wrong when applied to orcs, or any other intelligent creature.

Granted, it's a stupid worldview.  But I have to give them credit for consistency, because that's usually not a hallmark of leftist though...

Quote from: Tristan on February 01, 2025, 02:24:53 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:41:33 AM(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/da06ab8e00af66d6d007663713c5e6997acbf5a5/hub/2025/01/13/54685feb-f50c-4c33-86b2-7ffa0875beed/336304-sphinxes-of-wonder-hazem-ameen.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)

*Insert Godfather "Look how they massacred my boy!" meme here*

A rainbow cat with danger hair. Ok. I feel you, Godfather.

I'm not saying products with this art style and color palette should be banned or anything, but it does absolutely nothing for me personally. Art can be both vibrant and have some hair on its chest, so to speak. The most recent D&D Player's Handbook is a big, bright, garish warning sign to continue avoiding the product line.

Playable orcs are something where I genuinely don't understand the outrage.  There have been orc and other demi-human protagonists in popular fantasy media for at least 30 years. If anything D&D is late to the party. I don't see how it's an inherently woke idea either. It's just that WOTC's execution of it is, as with most things they do, laughable.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 05:31:02 PMPlayable orcs are something where I genuinely don't understand the outrage.  There have been orc and other demi-human protagonists in popular fantasy media for at least 30 years. If anything D&D is late to the party. I don't see how it's an inherently woke idea either. It's just that WOTC's execution of it is, as with most things they do, laughable.

I think the issue seems to be more that they're just being homongenized into 90% the same mould as other playable character races as the rule rather than the exception.   Think Drizzt being the single good drow for every thousand evil ones whereas now it's more like 100:1 in the opposite direction for player characters.   I don't really have any issue with it but I'm not a fan either.  Also, the addition of half-orcs back in 3/3.5 laid the obvious groundwork for this decades in advance so I'm not surprised.   The exclusion of them (or any playable race) from the MM though is a mistake in my opinion.   Being a playable race doesn't preclude you from being a monster in your life choices (see real life humanity over recorded history for proof) and their removal feels like yet another hamfisted attempt at enforcing THE MESSAGE.

Am I making it up or did orcs also change from being pig-faced to being a more green human +tusks look? I believe it was when Warcraft I came out that orcs got primate faces?
Anyway, I think its a bit silly and pedantic too, but as folks point out D&D is more than Wizards and lots of 5e players are moving to OSR style games as they get older (like me!)

Quote from: bardiclife on February 01, 2025, 05:51:03 PMAm I making it up or did orcs also change from being pig-faced to being a more green human +tusks look? I believe it was when Warcraft I came out that orcs got primate faces?
Anyway, I think its a bit silly and pedantic too, but as folks point out D&D is more than Wizards and lots of 5e players are moving to OSR style games as they get older (like me!)

They've never had a consistent look from artist to artist/decade to decade/setting to setting.  For a while in 3/3.5, they accounted for that with different subraces of orc (mountain, grey, etc)   But, yeah, they're basically now just buff humans with oversized canines and pointy ears.

Doesn't surprise me. It is said that Tolkien embedded everything from racial stereotypes to critiques of organized religion in his works, which obviously D&D is based on. It is curious however, that by removing well-known fantasy races it only makes people focus on the issue even more, assigning fantasy races to actual cultures, which is an undesirable end result since it is meant to be fantasy.

Edit: To be clear, he was said to be anti-racist but pulled from Victorian myths which themselves may have contained stereotypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_race

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:39:08 AMRight. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human". And as of 5E (2014), we also didn't have separate stat blocks for "elf", "dwarf", "halfling" and so on. Instead, we had stat blocks for different types of NPCs based on profession like "bandit", "cultist", "guard" - and it was noted that the GM could add racial traits to them.

Which is weird because BX, A and 2e had stat blocks for humans, dwarves, etc.

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:41:33 AMThat might be the best case scenario given what happened with the Sphinx with the 2025 MM.

(https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/da06ab8e00af66d6d007663713c5e6997acbf5a5/hub/2025/01/13/54685feb-f50c-4c33-86b2-7ffa0875beed/336304-sphinxes-of-wonder-hazem-ameen.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)

*Insert Godfather "Look how they massacred my boy!" meme here*

That is supposedly a sphinx?

wow. And here I thought they could not botch art assignments any worse than 4e D&D GW.

They look like normal sized cats, with wings. The Tressym? Think originated in maybe Planescape? Keeps popping up in 4 and 5e? wotc keeps adding them at odd intervals.

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:02:06 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 02:39:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:39:08 AMRight. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human". And as of 5E (2014), we also didn't have separate stat blocks for "elf", "dwarf", "halfling" and so on. Instead, we had stat blocks for different types of NPCs based on profession like "bandit", "cultist", "guard" - and it was noted that the GM could add racial traits to them.

https://archive.org/details/tsr02102mc1monstrouscompendium/page/n91/mode/2up

Ratman_tf, that's exactly what I'm saying. You linked to a Monstrous Compendium section that has six separate stat blocks for "Aborigines/Cavemen", "Adventurers"*, "Bandits/Brigands"*, "Barbarians/Nomads", "Berserkers/Dervishes", and "Farmers/Herders". (And the two starred ones have a lot of stats that are "variable" based on description.)

There's never been a stat block for plain "human". It depends on the type, because humans are too variable.

But they weren't lumped in with "Humanoids". Because humans are distinct from Orcs and Elves and Dwarves. Or at least they weren't.

Quote from: Omega on February 01, 2025, 08:37:29 PMThat is supposedly a sphinx?

wow. And here I thought they could not botch art assignments any worse than 4e D&D GW.

They look like normal sized cats, with wings. The Tressym? Think originated in maybe Planescape? Keeps popping up in 4 and 5e? wotc keeps adding them at odd intervals.

According to the source, it's a "sphinx of wonder".   I have no idea what that means in 5.5

https://www.enworld.org/threads/more-new-monsters-from-2025-monster-manual-revealed.709584/

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 05:40:11 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 05:31:02 PMPlayable orcs are something where I genuinely don't understand the outrage.  There have been orc and other demi-human protagonists in popular fantasy media for at least 30 years. If anything D&D is late to the party. I don't see how it's an inherently woke idea either. It's just that WOTC's execution of it is, as with most things they do, laughable.

I think the issue seems to be more that they're just being homongenized into 90% the same mould as other playable character races as the rule rather than the exception.  Think Drizzt being the single good drow for every thousand evil ones whereas now it's more like 100:1 in the opposite direction for player characters.  I don't really have any issue with it but I'm not a fan either.  Also, the addition of half-orcs back in 3/3.5 laid the obvious groundwork for this decades in advance so I'm not surprised.  The exclusion of them (or any playable race) from the MM though is a mistake in my opinion.  Being a playable race doesn't preclude you from being a monster in your life choices (see real life humanity over recorded history for proof) and their removal feels like yet another hamfisted attempt at enforcing THE MESSAGE.

Half-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.

Quote from: bardiclife on February 01, 2025, 05:51:03 PMAm I making it up or did orcs also change from being pig-faced to being a more green human +tusks look? I believe it was when Warcraft I came out that orcs got primate faces?

The pig faces have been gone since 2nd edition, and the look has been semi-consistent since then. Here are the orc illustrations from the Monster Manual across the 5 editions of AD&D:

(https://i.postimg.cc/mrQbhqms/Orc1e.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/t46bmwQx/Orc2e.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/kMhdMq7S/Orc3e.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/8CTYB01D/Orc4e.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/JzQ8LJ0r/Orc5e.jpg)

Up through 2014 5th Edition, I couldn't call that much of a change. They get more or less hairy, the tusks get longer or shorter, colors change, but the basic face is pretty similar. Still, it's probably fair to say that the look gradually came more in line with Warcraft and/or Elder Scrolls orcs. Not surprising, since those were the two biggest fantasy franchises during that time period.

The art I've seen from the 2024 version looks like the biggest departure since the change between first and second edition, but I don't have that book.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AMAlso worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

And whales in Rifts.  Don't ever forget the whales!  :)

Orcs were made a playable race in 5e in Volo's in 2016.  They were still in the MM along with other humanoid races including humans.

From what I have read, they have gone for generic humanoid statblocks that the DM is supposed to flavor to be various races like orcs.  I haven't see any mention of guidelines of what makes the generic statblock an orc or a drow or whatever.  You just give them what you think they should have I guess.  I have also seen nothing about any guidelines about how these charges would affect the creature's CR.  Giving the generic warrior statblock pack tactics to make it a kobold would make them considerably more dangerous in numbers.  Pack tactics is a nasty ability at low levels.  I have seen some people saying that you can add significant extra abilities like pack tactics or innate spellcasting without mipacting the creature's CR.  How does that work? 

I don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

Can't say I'm a fan either.

My personal favorite version of the half-elf is actually the 4E version who wasn't a straight 50/50 average, but had a bonus to Constitution to reflect the concept of hybrid vigor (ex. how ligers are often bigger and stronger than a lion or tiger, or how mutts are often healthier than purebred dogs).

The official 2024 way to do a half-elf or half-orc is pick either a human, elf or orc and say you're a half-elf or orc (your traits just favor one parent or the other). Which... works... I guess... if you have to.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Orcs were playable as effectively an unlockable race if a player could recruit them as henchmen first. OD&D orcs could be Neutral or Chaotic. Contrary to what the SJWs love to claim. Half orcs indeed were in AD&D and Orcs and a other monster races made it in 2e. Motr in BX/BECMI with the Creature Crucible series.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

But who really plays a Half-Orc now that they no longer have the Strength bonus?

Dragonborn are the new hotness; because they breath fire.

When their fire breathing ability eventually gets taken away, people will move on to the next new hotness...

We also really need to see the physical MM before we start digging at WotC over the Orc listing.

Knowing WotC they will have it 'listed' in some indirect fashion so they can say: "See, look, right there, Orcs are were not taken out of the MM." "Suck it CHUDS!!"

But if they really did take them out...

Quote from: Jaeger on February 03, 2025, 12:09:38 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

But who really plays a Half-Orc now that they no longer have the Strength bonus?

Obviously, biracial latinx folx.   Did you not see the orc pride month gallery picture!?!  :)

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

Phylactery was a word that existed before that.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

I call it Tolkien-esque for not having playable orcs because the races were originally limited to those of the Fellowship of the Ring; humans, elves, dwarves, hobbitshalflings. Everything else was initially NPC-only (Gygax had a bit on how you could play as other things; a Balor was an example; provided you made it have a level progression and certain other restrictions, but there were no actual rules for how to do this; at least until later editions).

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:27:44 PMPhylactery was a word that existed before that.

The word dates to the 12th Century AD. I guarantee the Jews were using the item before that name got assigned to it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 08:43:25 AM

Quote from: Zalman on February 01, 2025, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

Yeah, as a Jew I always found the use of the word jarringly incorrect, but never offensive.

What does offend me is some goy telling me that the word needs to be removed for my sake. Trust me, "some of that guy's best friends are Jewish."

I think it needed to removed for the same reason I don't like seeing claymore or zweihander or brigandine in fantasy equipment lists (unless it's literally historical Earth). In terms of the historic users and their languages they're 'Big Sword' and 'Two-Hander' and 'soldier's armor' (though for clarity I'd call it a 'coat of plates').

So to actually have the feel of a native in the fantasy society (where common isn't actually English except by convention for the audience) those things should be called what they would in the vernacular.

Spirit Jar just feels like what it should be called in a vernacular fashion.

No they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 01, 2025, 10:48:50 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2025, 09:15:35 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

My guess is a lot of kids are calling them Horcruxes anyway.

Horcrux sounds cooler too, but I guess "soul jar" gets points for literal functionality.

I don't understand why they don't rename the lich too. It's also linguistic appropriation. The word is a real word in English meaning a regular old corpse. The monster should be renamed to Undead Wizard King or something.

Meanwhile, the name zombie is cultural appropriation from Voodoo. The zombie should be renamed to lich, matching the work of Clark Ashton Smith. Or perhaps animated corpse?

Every word and every concept that currently exists was invented by someone who is dead.
There is no such thing as cultural ownership. Cultures aren't real things that exist in the world, and neither is appropriation. A culture is just a group of people who happen to believe similar ideas about various topics, and appropriation is just people exchanging ideas with each other.

When someone else says a word, that doesn't prevent you from also saying a word. Ideas can't be appropriated. They aren't real. Expressing a preference for a particular aesthetic choice or a way of behaving is morally neutral.

Communication and trade are good.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AMTo be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

The term "phylactery" is most closely associated with Jewish tefillin, but that's most likely a result of English translations of the New Testament using the term that way.  It's also used to describe amulets (ranging from hollow pendants to inscribed spells or prayers), small Christian reliquaries, Native American medicine bags, and probably more things beyond that (e.g. the Dumbarton Oaks phylactery (https://museum.doaks.org/objects-1/info/111447), the phylactery of St. Margaret (https://oignies.collectionkbf.be/en/phylactery-saint-margaret), this early Byzantine example (https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/287323), or this pendant (https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1999.237)).

I don't have the time or inclination to research this in depth, but it seems like the original ancient Greek term was used to describe a protective, as opposed to curative, amulet (we get the term "prophylactic" from the same root: "to guard").  The Greek word entered Latin, where it acquired the connotation of an amulet containing something magical or holy (this is presumably when it came to be associated with tefillin and small reliquaries), and then in the late 14th century it entered English either from Latin or from a French word derived from Latin, where it became associated with tefillin but also retained its other meanings.

Given that the term "phylactery" doesn't just mean tefillin, and it carries with it the connotation of a container for something magical or holy, it's actually not a bad fit for an object that can house the soul of a lich.

What's interesting is that in the original Monster Manual, a phylactery is mentioned as one of the things that allows a lich to maintain its undead existence, but what a phylactery is or what it might do isn't explained.  The idea of an object being prepared for the soul of the lich to flee to when defeated is introduced in a 1979 Dragon Magazine article that uses the term "jar" not "phylactery".  So the precedent for "soul jar" is there, too.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 03, 2025, 04:47:14 PM

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.  Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

QuoteI call it Tolkien-esque for not having playable orcs because the races were originally limited to those of the Fellowship of the Ring; humans, elves, dwarves, hobbitshalflings. Everything else was initially NPC-only (Gygax had a bit on how you could play as other things; a Balor was an example; provided you made it have a level progression and certain other restrictions, but there were no actual rules for how to do this; at least until later editions).

That doesn't make any sense. The game you were talking about earlier also had Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Halflings, plus some others. That's a Tolkien thing. Orcs are also a Tolkien thing. Adding more playable races doesn't mean that you've somehow moved past it, you're just adding other fantasy stuff on top of it.
Balors are also a Tolkien thing, they're Balrogs. Treants are Ents. They actually had these original names, including Hobbits, earlier on.

QuoteThe word dates to the 12th Century AD. I guarantee the Jews were using the item before that name got assigned to it.

As Quasquetonian just pointed out, the name was "assigned" to it hundreds of years later in the King James Bible.

Guys, the point is WoTC removed the word "phylactery" and also Orcs as a monster for one reason:

WoTC is retarded.

And we all know....

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/EHak5eV_md.jpg)

Quote from: Spobo on February 04, 2025, 07:40:07 AMAs Quasquetonian just pointed out, the name was "assigned" to it hundreds of years later in the King James Bible.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, the first English use was in the Wycliffite Bible, which I think was about 200 years before the King James Bible.

Quote from: Domina on February 03, 2025, 11:57:07 PMNo they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

They're not actually speaking English, so arbitrarily pulling words from other languages is nonsensical. If I was doing the worldbuilding, then I would have their speech rendered as Anglish (https://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/anglish.htm) to give the desired feel to readers. So no words from Romance or African languages.

Therefore, the Anglish translation would be "soul jug", "walking lich" (reanimated corpse), and "undead wizard king".

EDIT: and "bewitched boneframe (https://wordbook.anglish.org/)" (reanimated skeleton). More examples here: https://anglish.fandom.com/

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 04, 2025, 09:59:59 AM

Quote from: Domina on February 03, 2025, 11:57:07 PMNo they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

They're not actually speaking English, so arbitrarily pulling words from other languages is nonsensical. If I was doing the worldbuilding, then I would have their speech rendered as Anglish (https://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/anglish.htm) to give the desired feel to readers. So no words from Romance or African languages.

Therefore, the Anglish translation would be "soul jug", "walking lich" (reanimated corpse), and "undead wizard king".

I wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

That said, the majority of day-to-day and even a lot of technical discussions outside of specific terms rarely employ vocabulary above about the 6th grade level and so the majority of the English used when trying to present it as basically a "localized dub" should also be about that level.

The place for particularly obvious  loan words is for genuinely foreign elements. If some merchant from another land has a big sword of a particular style then you might see that sword called something specific like a zweihander or claymore... but any big sword locally produced is just going to be called a greatsword or two-hander or similar.

One thing I do in my own world-building is decide upon a specific real language to associate with each foreign culture. For something near I'll tend to go with European languages, for very foreign I lean to transliteration of various Asian languages for words. For ancient locsl places and names I use Latin and a bit of Greek.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMI wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

Okay, sure. But I'm definitely changing the D&Disms. If it was invented by D&D and subsequently cargo culted into self-referential word salad, then I'm not using it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMOne thing I do in my own world-building is decide upon a specific real language to associate with each foreign culture. For something near I'll tend to go with European languages, for very foreign I lean to transliteration of various Asian languages for words. For ancient locsl places and names I use Latin and a bit of Greek.

I use something similar for monsters taken from non-European folklore. For example, I refer to genies of different elements as Afrit (fire genies), Leriah (sky genies), Baharia (ocean and waterway genies) and Siadna (land and underground genies). These names are used in Ars Magica, but they seem to have been taken from the research book "Legend of the Fire Spirits".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 04, 2025, 11:05:29 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMI wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

Okay, sure. But I'm definitely changing the D&Disms. If it was invented by D&D and subsequently cargo culted into self-referential word salad, then I'm not using it.

No arguments there really.

That said, some terms have achieved sufficient vernacular use that I'll use them regardless.

Ex. I'm going to use Minotaur for my race of bovine humanoids despite their having nothing to do with the singular Minotaur of Greek myth other than body shape because damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMbecause damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like

Do they have cattle-like hooves or human-like feet?

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMEx. I'm going to use Minotaur for my race of bovine humanoids despite their having nothing to do with the singular Minotaur of Greek myth other than body shape because damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like.

There's more to the Greek Minotaur than just appearance, and the D&D Minotaur makes several key divergences.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 04, 2025, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMbecause damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like

Do they have cattle-like hooves or human-like feet?

Are they centaurs? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minotaurus.gif

The conversion list in the back says that 2014 Orcs are now equivalent to a "tough"
"Bodyguards, belligerents, and laborers, toughs rely on their physical strength to intimidate foes."
The have a Pack Tactics ability where they gain advantage against a foe if they've got a buddy within 5 feet.

All the other 'goblinoids' are now fey creatures. Humanoids are now things like toughs, cultists, bandits, guards, mages, performers, etc. each with their own stats.

It's like the older Monster Manuals where dervishes, or bandits, or whatever had their own stat blocks, just that they may not be pure strain humans as Gamma World might say.

Due to a substance-abuse disorder centering around horse meat, Orcs have been persecuted for millennia.

They are not monsters. They are victims!

We listen, we do not judge.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/CK3smvJ4EJlug/200.gif?cid=6c09b952xffqujp6q7ieqvz1i5ottqa5of9y4naeldgx1hx9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 04, 2025, 06:20:33 PMWe listen, we do not judge.

Your ableist post is triggering to hearing impaired halflings like myself.  Do better, Theory!   :)

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Oh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

The word 'phylactery' is an English word derived from Greek.  It can refer to amulet or charms that provide spiritual or magical protection.  It can also refer to a case use to store Catholic relics.
The word 'tefillin' is derived from the Hebrew used in the Talmud referring to the leather box and strap you mention.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 05, 2025, 12:20:39 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Not in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

I created a separate thread to note this in more detail.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/npc-stat-blocks-in-dd/

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 12:52:15 AMNot in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

Wasnt that a thing in 3 and 4e too?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 12:52:15 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 05, 2025, 12:20:39 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Not in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

I created a separate thread to note this in more detail.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/npc-stat-blocks-in-dd/

And the difference is?

Are you postulating one CAN'T have Dwarves, Elves or Halflings as antagonists?

In my understanding "Monsters" is an all encompassing term for anything NOT the PC's, IIRC there were even humans in the Bestiary.

Now, if it was any Non-Woke publisher and created the distinction I might not think it relevant enough, unnecessary but not something to have a lengthy conversation about.

But it's WotKKK, and anyone not ideologically captured KNOWS why they are doing this.

Oops... wrong thread!

Yeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/CK3smvJ4EJlug/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952bciiuda59d29fe9cd4iw4o85gvg7ah3rcu703n06&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

The original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana years before the first Drizzt book was published.

AD&D didn't assume that the PCs were always shiny good guys. It was understood that the PCs might be neutral or evil-aligned mercenaries trying to loot and collect as much gold as they could. Paladins were powerful, but ever since the start they had the reputation of being a pain in the ass compared to normal adventurers. Gygax wanted to make sure that monsters and/or evil didn't take over as the default for PCs, but he wanted it to be an option.

That's consistent with the wargaming roots - sometimes you play the good guys, sometimes you play the bad guys, and sometimes there are no good or bad guys.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

While AD&D specifically says it's a bad idea:

Quote from: AD&D Dungeon Masters GuideA gold dragon can assume human shape, so that is a common choice for monster characters. If alignment is stressed, this might discourage the would-be gold dragon. If it is also pointed out that he or she must begin at the lowest possible value, and only time and the accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age), the idea should be properly squelched. If even that fails, point out that the natural bent of dragons is certainly for their own kind — if not absolute solitude — so what part could a solitary dragon play in a group participation game made up of non-dragons? Dragon non-player characters, yes! As player characters, not likely at all."

OD&D is the opposite:

Quote from:  Men and Magic"There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."

Both ideas are branches of D&D.

Quote from: Tristan on February 05, 2025, 05:57:13 PM...
While AD&D specifically says it's a bad idea:
...
OD&D is the opposite:
...
Both ideas are branches of D&D.

The correct order is this:

OD&D Gygax let the players do what they want:

Quote from: Men and Magic"There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."

A few years later...

AD&D Gygax learned from his mistakes:

Quote from: AD&D Dungeon Masters GuideA gold dragon can assume human shape, so that is a common choice for monster characters. If alignment is stressed, this might discourage the would-be gold dragon. If it is also pointed out that he or she must begin at the lowest possible value, and only time and the accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age), the idea should be properly squelched. If even that fails, point out that the natural bent of dragons is certainly for their own kind — if not absolute solitude — so what part could a solitary dragon play in a group participation game made up of non-dragons? Dragon non-player characters, yes! As player characters, not likely at all."

"Monsters as PC's" has always been a mistake.



And like clockwork, the typical but, but, but (insert 'muh exception' here) response...

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 02:47:01 PMThe original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana ...

AD&D half-Orcs were specifically noted as able to pass as human.

Drow were also specifically noted as being viewed with suspicion and hostility by other races. As you well know from the Racial Preferences Table p.12 Unearthed Arcana, that no race is more hated or treated with antipathy.

i.e. There were supposed to be enforced in-game social implications to playing a Drow.

All that has long since been yeeted from the game, contrary to the original intent.

Hence the current well-deserved disdain for allowing Drow to be PC's.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 05, 2025, 09:54:09 PMAnd like clockwork, the typical but, but, but (insert 'muh exception' here) response...

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 02:47:01 PMThe original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana ...

AD&D half-Orcs were specifically noted as able to pass as human.

Drow were also specifically noted as being viewed with suspicion and hostility by other races. As you well know from the Racial Preferences Table p.12 Unearthed Arcana, that no race is more hated or treated with antipathy.

i.e. There were supposed to be enforced in-game social implications to playing a Drow.

All that has long since been yeeted from the game, contrary to the original intent.

Hence the current well-deserved disdain for allowing Drow to be PC's.

Don't read anything to the order I presented, obviously AD&D came later.
My comment about branches of D&D is that there are players who didn't jump to AD&D because of the increased restrictions. The basic line of D&D was way more 'free form', being tied to OD&D.

It wasn't just Drow tho. Deep Gnomes, Grey Elves, etc. were also added so there was some call for expanding the playable roster.

Gygax talks about his AD&D thoughts in the Half-Ogre article in Dragon #29.

QuoteConsider the various factors which must be taken into account when designing a race for game purposes. Remember that last part, game purposes; AD&D is, first and foremost, a game. Races, just as with classes, must be in relative balance with each other, as well as with the game as a whole. Setting this balance is a difficult and delicate operation!
So we have

• character class limits due to race
• level limits due to race
• ability adjustments due to race
• racial minimums and maximums of abilities
• racial preferences, and
• special characteristics of racial types, i.e. magic resistance, saving throws, combat versus specific monsters, visual and other sense capabilities, and "sixth-sense" or innate skill capabilities (such as detection of grades, and underground conditions, etc.)

It's not so much that they were a bad idea, just that getting the balance right as he saw it was nearly impossible.

QuoteIf these six factors are considered only as single entities, not as multi-faceted ones, there is still plenty of work to do in setting up even a single additional character race, for each must be meshed with and balanced against all other such races. Now consider the possible cross breeds, and multiply your DMing woes by a thousand!

Starting with 3e, those class rules started being chipped away. By the time 5.5 came out the only thing left was #6 and it wasn't exactly for balance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the wandering menagerie parties. It sucks when I hear people talking about D&D and I have no idea what they're talking about, but some of that started with Planescape in 2e.

Regarding Drown: hey now, my pre-Drizzt Drow dual wielding longswords was really cool. Until he fumbled in his first attack and cut off his own leg with our houseruled fumble chart.

Quote from: Tristan on February 06, 2025, 12:33:17 PMIt wasn't just Drow tho. Deep Gnomes, Grey Elves, etc. were also added so there was some call for expanding the playable roster.

I agree, that there was always a noisy minority faction in the hobby agitating for a menagerie of playable PC races.

And it is always a mistake to cater in any fashion to that minority faction.

Because this:

Quote from: Tristan on February 06, 2025, 12:33:17 PMStarting with 3e, those class rules started being chipped away.

They always want to have their cake and eat it too... 

Although the phrase was coined by a crpg guy, it absolutely applies to real RPG's: "Given the opportunity players will 'optimize' the fun out of a game."

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

Hate to burst your bubble... but Drow were a playable race 6 years before Drizzt was even created. Fiend Folio.

Hate to burst your other bubble... but players were playing monsters from the get go practically. It was pretty common to "unlock" new PCs by recruiting monsters into the retinue. AD&D curbed this quite a bit.

Gonna burst another bubble... Gygax himself portrayed monsters as potentially not always hostile well before that with modules like Keep on the Borderlands and so on. Which follows through on BX's ideal that anything could be good or bad.

Also Quag Keep had amongst the party a wereboar and a lizardman back in the late 70s.

Drizzt was merely a byproduct of something already a thing long before he was created.

Play what you want. It's your game. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 07, 2025, 02:07:03 PMPlay what you want. It's your game. 

Theres an unhealthy number of fuckwits here who think otherwise and have it in their walnut sized brains that no one ever never evwer played anything but the dwarvsis and the elfsies and the hobbitsis. This seems to pervade the lOSR as well.

And some who despise anyone playing anything but humans.

So now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

(https://media.tenor.com/0moEwsoYZfsAAAAM/lmao-crying-laughing.gif)

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:10:40 PMHate to burst your bubble... but Drow were a playable race 6 years before Drizzt was even created. Fiend Folio.

Hate to burst your other bubble... but players were playing monsters from the get go practically. It was pretty common to "unlock" new PCs by recruiting monsters into the retinue. AD&D curbed this quite a bit.

Gonna burst another bubble... Gygax himself portrayed monsters as potentially not always hostile well before that with modules like Keep on the Borderlands and so on. Which follows through on BX's ideal that anything could be good or bad.

Also Quag Keep had amongst the party a wereboar and a lizardman back in the late 70s.

Drizzt was merely a byproduct of something already a thing long before he was created.

Two things can be true at the same time.  A thing can exist in the periphery of a hobby as a niche choice for years and then something similar can then later breakthrough to the relatively mainstream audience years later making it much more popular.  Comic book films existed for decades and were even memorable, profitable, and popular to a degree depending on the film/franchise... But the MCU tweaked that basic formula and took it to an entirely different level.  I think the same can be said of a certain good Drow ranger and playing "monster" races.

To me, these are orcs doing typical orc things.

We kill orcs on sight.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMDRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

You missed Council of Wyrms by about two decades.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

(https://media.tenor.com/0moEwsoYZfsAAAAM/lmao-crying-laughing.gif)

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2025, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

That was how they got rid of elves and dwarves in 2014, so it fits that they would do the same to orcs.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2025, 09:30:38 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2025, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

That was how they got rid of elves and dwarves in 2014, so it fits that they would do the same to orcs.

Keep in mind marketing pushed that players are stupid and can not understand things like PC races being in the MM.

Demons and Devils are next cuz what is a monster anyway?

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/b0yzpWnpTUDTlWnIZe/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952f6sj7ppzksqsduerr0exjiscve57zekb62awj8c1&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 08, 2025, 12:38:32 PMDemons and Devils are next cuz what is a monster anyway?

Well, that would follow the mainstreaming off full orcs via half orc in 3e as a PHB core race.  Iirc tieflings were PHB core from 4e on so playable full demons/devils in 6e?

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 08, 2025, 12:38:32 PMDemons and Devils are next cuz what is a monster anyway?

The original Planescape beat you to it long long ago. The setting blurred the lines, not massively. But enough that you could treat these things as kinda-sorta people sometimes. Much like Spelljammer did with a few monster races.

fuck sake somethings been off with the forum for a few months now and either it tells me I double posted when I did not. Or DOESNT tell me Im double posting when I am. This being one.

Quote from: RNGm on February 08, 2025, 01:40:19 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 08, 2025, 12:38:32 PMDemons and Devils are next cuz what is a monster anyway?

Well, that would follow the mainstreaming off full orcs via half orc in 3e as a PHB core race.  Iirc tieflings were PHB core from 4e on so playable full demons/devils in 6e?

Half-orcs were first introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual, and then introduced to the core rules with the 1978 Player's Handbook. Orcs became a core race in 2024. So that's 1 year for the half-race to become core, and then 46 years for the full race to become core.

Tieflings were first introduced in the Planescape book in 1994, and then made into a core race in the 4e Player's Handbook in 2008.

It's quite possible core races will expand, but they'd probably expand to the most popular of the existing optional races - like Aarakocra or Goliath.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

(https://media.tenor.com/0moEwsoYZfsAAAAM/lmao-crying-laughing.gif)

Are there any guidelines on what giving the generic humanoid stat block the extra orc abilities does to its CR? 

I think all this inclusive stuff deprive games from all fun (like species instead of races : so no more half-elf, half-orcs ?)

Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2025, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: RNGm on February 08, 2025, 01:40:19 PMWell, that would follow the mainstreaming off full orcs via half orc in 3e as a PHB core race.  Iirc tieflings were PHB core from 4e on so playable full demons/devils in 6e?

Half-orcs were first introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual, and then introduced to the core rules with the 1978 Player's Handbook. Orcs became a core race in 2024. So that's 1 year for the half-race to become core, and then 46 years for the full race to become core.

By "introduced to the core rules" do you mean simply mentioned, got an NPC or enemy stat block, or were a playable standard race choice for players that didn't require special DM permission?

Quote from: RNGm on February 09, 2025, 08:46:06 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2025, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: RNGm on February 08, 2025, 01:40:19 PMWell, that would follow the mainstreaming off full orcs via half orc in 3e as a PHB core race.  Iirc tieflings were PHB core from 4e on so playable full demons/devils in 6e?

Half-orcs were first introduced in the 1977 Monster Manual, and then introduced to the core rules with the 1978 Player's Handbook. Orcs became a core race in 2024. So that's 1 year for the half-race to become core, and then 46 years for the full race to become core.

By "introduced to the core rules" do you mean simply mentioned, got an NPC or enemy stat block, or were a playable standard race choice for players that didn't require special DM permission?

The latter. The half-orc was in the 1978 (1e) PHB as a base race requiring no more permission than playing a human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, or half-elf.*

* by which I mean the GM is free to ban any race for any reason... one campaign I had a GM declare that all humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs had gone extinct in a massive war and only half-elves, half-orcs, and half-dwarves (using the base dwarf stats) were allowed as PCs.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2025, 11:23:46 AMThe latter. The half-orc was in the 1978 (1e) PHB as a base race requiring no more permission than playing a human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, or half-elf.

I wasn't aware of that so thanks for mentioning/clarifying it.

Quote from: RNGm on February 08, 2025, 01:40:19 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 08, 2025, 12:38:32 PMDemons and Devils are next cuz what is a monster anyway?

Well, that would follow the mainstreaming off full orcs via half orc in 3e as a PHB core race.  Iirc tieflings were PHB core from 4e on so playable full demons/devils in 6e?

   No, they'd be too hard to balance and too 'speciesist.' Expect them highlighted more as patrons for clerics, warlocks, and paladins champions.

Quote from: RNGm on February 09, 2025, 12:29:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2025, 11:23:46 AMThe latter. The half-orc was in the 1978 (1e) PHB as a base race requiring no more permission than playing a human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, or half-elf.

I wasn't aware of that so thanks for mentioning/clarifying it.

No problem.

If you came in during the 2e period you wouldn't have seen half-orcs (or demons/devils) to appease the Satanic Panic types (half-orcs because "rape as backstory" was a common element).

Without access to the 1e material you'd be forgiven for thinking half-orcs were original to 3e. If you never got into 2e Planescape you'd be unaware of that being the first place Tieflings were a playable race (setting specific).

Orcs were built to be a balanced player option from the start of 3e (indeed, full write-ups for use as PCs for many of the monstrous humanoids were included in the Monster Manual... so in the core rules, but placed to be optional with GM's permission in the same way prestige casses were supposed to be).

Similarly, while 4e bumped dragonborn and tieflings to the core Players Handbook, the "missing" 3e races along with the monstrous humanoids (orcs, goblins, lizardmen, kobolds, bugbears, etc.) got fully PC compatible write-ups in the 4e Monster Manual... so again core but positioned so that GM permission was presumed to be needed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2025, 02:31:13 PMNo problem.

If you came in during the 2e period you wouldn't have seen half-orcs (or demons/devils) to appease the Satanic Panic types (half-orcs because "rape as backstory" was a common element).

Without access to the 1e material you'd be forgiven for thinking half-orcs were original to 3e. If you never got into 2e Planescape you'd be unaware of that being the first place Tieflings were a playable race (setting specific).

Orcs were built to be a balanced player option from the start of 3e (indeed, full write-ups for use as PCs for many of the monstrous humanoids were included in the Monster Manual... so in the core rules, but placed to be optional with GM's permission in the same way prestige casses were supposed to be).

Similarly, while 4e bumped dragonborn and tieflings to the core Players Handbook, the "missing" 3e races along with the monstrous humanoids (orcs, goblins, lizardmen, kobolds, bugbears, etc.) got fully PC compatible write-ups in the 4e Monster Manual... so again core but positioned so that GM permission was presumed to be needed.

In my case, I bought some 2e books just to get into the lore but didn't really start playing until 3e.  I didn't realize early D&D was as different from 2nd as 2nd was from 3rd. 

Quote from: RNGm on February 09, 2025, 03:02:16 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2025, 02:31:13 PMNo problem.

If you came in during the 2e period you wouldn't have seen half-orcs (or demons/devils) to appease the Satanic Panic types (half-orcs because "rape as backstory" was a common element).

Without access to the 1e material you'd be forgiven for thinking half-orcs were original to 3e. If you never got into 2e Planescape you'd be unaware of that being the first place Tieflings were a playable race (setting specific).

Orcs were built to be a balanced player option from the start of 3e (indeed, full write-ups for use as PCs for many of the monstrous humanoids were included in the Monster Manual... so in the core rules, but placed to be optional with GM's permission in the same way prestige casses were supposed to be).

Similarly, while 4e bumped dragonborn and tieflings to the core Players Handbook, the "missing" 3e races along with the monstrous humanoids (orcs, goblins, lizardmen, kobolds, bugbears, etc.) got fully PC compatible write-ups in the 4e Monster Manual... so again core but positioned so that GM permission was presumed to be needed.

In my case, I bought some 2e books just to get into the lore but didn't really start playing until 3e.  I didn't realize early D&D was as different from 2nd as 2nd was from 3rd. 

Less different than you'd think... more absences (and some renaming) than mechanical changes.

The Assassin class for example was pulled along with the half-orc (of note as well, assassin was the only class a half-orc could advance in without level limits) and the Monk removed too as I recall.

Similarly, the Bard was reworked from a special multiclass setup (you needed levels in fighter (5th but no more than 8th), thief (5th but no more than 9th) and then druid. They also had to be human or half-elf and have a 15+ in Str, Dex, Wis, and Cha, a 12+ in Int, and a 10+ in Con) to a thief subclass.

But overall the changes from 1e to 2e were probably the least extreme between any of the other editions.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 09, 2025, 04:05:05 AMAre there any guidelines on what giving the generic humanoid stat block the extra orc abilities does to its CR? 

a 'tough' has a CR of 1/2  it doesn't have any extra orcy abilities.  A tough boss has a CR of 4.

A tough is a tough, just depends on the costume its wearing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2025, 03:40:56 PMBut overall the changes from 1e to 2e were probably the least extreme between any of the other editions.

 1E to 2E, 3E to 3.5, and 5E 2014 to 5E 2024 are the ones that would qualify as what the rest of the industry calls "edition changes." OD&D to AD&D 1E, 2E to 3E, 3.5E to 4E, and 4E to 5E are closer to "total redesigns" or "completely new games," although Gygax is the only one to admit/claim that for his changeover, for numerous reasons.

Incidentally, has anyone actually run/played an Orcs of Thar campaign? Seems like it could be fun.

Quote from: Ombre29 on February 09, 2025, 04:12:04 AMI think all this inclusive stuff deprive games from all fun (like species instead of races : so no more half-elf, half-orcs ?)

Might even be the intention.

Quote from: Tristan on February 09, 2025, 03:43:45 PMa 'tough' has a CR of 1/2  it doesn't have any extra orcy abilities.  A tough boss has a CR of 4.

A tough is a tough, just depends on the costume its wearing.

Then it's just a human with a mask on.

Sargon of Akkad has a really good take on this topic:

With that being said, the removal of orcs as a monster has removed a key element from D&D 5e: a race of protagonists. From the orc point of view, their way of life is justified by this bit of lore from Dragon Magazine Vol III, originally from Dragon issue 62 (note this isn't official lore, but a lore to be used that fits within the game)

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/M8DdQKv_md.GIF)

Now, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

I'm sorry, but this is much more compelling than having orcs "just like us".

That's boring.

Having orcs, goblins, gnolls, etc. out there in the wilds, not knowing where they may be, promotes tension and a sense of fear/dread to motivate players and their characters to eliminate them.

Orcs are the imminent threat, just like zombies in the Walking Dead.

Now before you say, "well, the humans who aren't infected are sometimes worse than the zombies." Maybe. But you're missing the point. The uninfected are still human. Zombies are not human anymore. They can't be reasoned with. They can't be bought off, or shamed, or feel.

Orcs, for the most part, should be treated the same way. But instead of being a mindless horde of zombies, they are motivated by a religious fervor by Grummsh, their god, to eliminate all good races of the world, which quite frankly might be worse that the aforementioned zombies.

Orcs don't care about you. They want to kill you, take you stuff, and piss upon your grave...and you family's grave...and the family next door...you get the idea.

It's a matter of survival.

That's why orcs are evil. That's why they're to be eliminated. It's either you or them. No parlay. No quarter. It's kill or be killed.

Remember what King Theodin said: "How can we fight such reckless hate?"

What was Aragon's answer? He didn't say parlay, or wave the white flag of truce. These were orcs and uruk-hai they were facing. He KNEW the threat. There was no option but to...

"Ride out with me! Ride out and face them!"

Damn right you will. Men, hard as steel by war, facing orcs countless times, know the truth.

A force of orcs, filled with evil and "reckless hate" are upon you.

"When you put your hand in a pile goo that used to be your best buddy's face!...You'll know what to do."

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 10, 2025, 02:35:57 AM

Quote from: Tristan on February 09, 2025, 03:43:45 PMa 'tough' has a CR of 1/2  it doesn't have any extra orcy abilities.  A tough boss has a CR of 4.

A tough is a tough, just depends on the costume its wearing.

Then it's just a human with a mask on.

And what were the orcs in prior editions of D&D really? 1 HD humanoids with darkvision... as distinguished from humans (1 HD humanoids without darkvision) or goblins (1D-1 HD humanoids with darkvision)?

Most of the humanoids, even the monstrous ones, in D&D aren't statistically much more than humans in masks. They may have different cultures, but so would a human culture based on Scandinavia or the Eastern Steppes or the Middle East relative to Western Europe in the medieval period.

I get the "they changed it, so now it sucks" impulse, but even at the height of racial differences (3e) the difference between a no-name orc and a no-name human warrior was a couple points of strength for the orc, a couple points of intelligence and charisma for the human, nightvision for the orc and a few more skill points for the human.

Why do those need two entirely different statblocks really? Is a GM incapable a remembering that orcs can see in the dark and might use more direct tactics than a human tough will without a completely different stat block?

Now, if this still 4E where humanoids got multiple stat blocks each tailored to default cultural trends and racial traits (ex. kobolds having slingers that slug debilitating pots of goo at enemies combined with skirmishers who could shift every round and had bonuses for flanking) then maybe I'd have more of an issue with orcs being relegated to generic humanoid NPC profiles.

But it's not. In terms of mechanical weight "orc" in 5.5e means about as much as it did in the 1e days... when the important details weren't the fairly generic 1HD humanoid stat block, but the bits on organization (i.e. they organize into tribes of XdY individuals. The tribe will have a Z level chief and a AA level shaman) and the sort of equipment and tactics they'd use.

The 5e material (even before the 2024 version) in general doesn't care about any of that. You get maybe a page of generic lore, a generic statblock and have to either make up or use a module for anything else.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMNow, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

I'm sorry, but this is much more compelling than having orcs "just like us".

You still have that, and it's hardly unique to orcs to feel like they've been slighted and oppressed and want to lash out at all that keep them down. Look hard enough, and you might see parallels with some human groups, so they really can be 'just like us' and yet have the background you like.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 10, 2025, 11:43:33 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMNow, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

I'm sorry, but this is much more compelling than having orcs "just like us".

You still have that, and it's hardly unique to orcs to feel like they've been slighted and oppressed and want to lash out at all that keep them down. Look hard enough, and you might see parallels with some human groups, so they really can be 'just like us' and yet have the background you like.

Sure, there might be some human groups that manifest in a similar way. The Easterlings themselves allied with Sauron and were counted along with orcs in their ranks.

Some. That's the key word.

Orcs, as a RACE, either depicted by Tolkien or within D&D (where it was influenced heavily by Tolkien's Orcs) are entirely warlike, without remorse or compassion.

Their whole way of thinking is literally alien to us right down to the core.

Hence why you don't see any orcs as an ally of the West in the War of the Ring.

Therefore, why should it be any different in D&D, where the Orcs in the game are clearly influenced by Tolkien's works?

Could you make all orcs, "just like us"? Sure you could, but that should have been an OPTION left up to the players and DMs of the game. Not dictated by the DEI rainbow-haired shitlords of WoTC.

EDIT: cross-posted with blackstone's previous reply #113

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMThat's why orcs are evil. That's why they're to be eliminated. It's either you or them. No parlay. No quarter. It's kill or be killed.

Remember what King Theodin said: "How can we fight such reckless hate?"

What was Aragon's answer? He didn't say parlay, or wave the white flag of truce. These were orcs and uruk-hai they were facing. He KNEW the threat. There was no option but to...

"Ride out with me! Ride out and face them!"

Damn right you will. Men, hard as steel by war, facing orcs countless times, know the truth.

Are you suggesting that if Sauron had only sent Easterlings and Haradrim and Corsairs (instead of those plus orcs), that Aragorn would have behaved differently and waved a white flag? Hell, no.

The war was not against orcs. It was a war against the hatred of Sauron. Tolkien was even clear in his letters that orcs were not irredeemable (letter 153).

---

In D&D... Even moreso than in Tolkien's Middle Earth, Gygax's Greyhawk doesn't have orcs as an existential threat to humanity. There is no Mordor filled with only orcs. Rather, the evil nations of Greyhawk are human-dominated, like the Great Kingdom, the Horned Society, and the Land of Iuz. Pomarj is a backwater that is ruled by humanoids like orcs, but even it still has many renegade humans and human mercenaries who work with them. The primary enemy of good humans is evil humans.

If one wants to make a setting where humans are all good and the primary struggle is humans against orcs, that's fine too. But that's not Middle Earth or Greyhawk.

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2025, 12:52:52 PMAre you suggesting that if Sauron had only sent Easterlings and Haradrim and Corsairs (instead of those plus orcs), that Aragorn would have behaved differently and waved a white flag? Hell, no.

The war was not against orcs. It was a war against the hatred of Sauron. Tolkien was even clear in his letters that orcs were not irredeemable (letter 153).

No, of course I wasn't suggesting that. Why are you always so goddam obtuse?

And no, Tolkien didn't say that at all. In fact, it more ambiguous:

Did Tolkien believe the Orcs of Middle Earth could be redeemed. (https://www.looper.com/1030418/did-tolkien-think-that-middle-earths-orcs-could-be-redeemed/)

I'll be that guy (for once) and confess monsters were never more than experience points. A means to an end. And I'm probably not the only one.

Since middle school I've never been at a table or in the company of gamers who were wringing their hands over the families of those undead monsters. "These zombies require a proper funeral"? NEVER.

I've never seen or heard of a party attempting to negotiate a peaceful agreement with kobolds. Or goblins. Or Orcs. Where's the diplomacy? "I refuse to fight these noble creatures"? NEVER.

(https://media.tenor.com/YD4NHdBWKjMAAAAM/stop-it-get-some-help-just-stop.gif)

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2025, 12:52:52 PMIn D&D... Even moreso than in Tolkien's Middle Earth, Gygax's Greyhawk doesn't have orcs as an existential threat to humanity. There is no Mordor filled with only orcs. Rather, the evil nations of Greyhawk are human-dominated, like the Great Kingdom, the Horned Society, and the Land of Iuz. Pomarj is a backwater that is ruled by humanoids like orcs, but even it still has many renegade humans and human mercenaries who work with them. The primary enemy of good humans is evil humans.

If one wants to make a setting where humans are all good and the primary struggle is humans against orcs, that's fine too. But that's not Middle Earth or Greyhawk.

Great. Wonderful. Have cookie...

But the point I ultimately made was this: the choice to make Orcs a monster or not should be left up to the players and DMs, not up to WoTC. Furthermore, in this day and age of DEI rainbowed-haired shitlords, I'm most certain that if you play them other as written in the current rules, you will be called a racist.

Therein lies the problem. Players are not given a choice in the current edition.

Don't you agree we as players and DMs should have a choice, or do you support WoTC's decision?

No nuanced BS, just a straight fucking answer. YES or NO.

The more I think about it, the more I think I like the idea that Orcs (and other goblinoid races) are corrupted humans, elves, dwarves, etc. Goblinoids can reproduce like other races, but their origin is in humans and demihumans who were forcibly corrupted or volunteered in the hope of getting power but instead just got turned into thugs for evil powers.
It's a lot more mythical and a bit fairy tale-ish.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMNow, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

Another version from one of the D&D books is that the orcs are pretty much mandated by god, Grummsh, to lay ruin to civilization and enslave all other races. Think that was for Forgotten Realms? Fits as in that setting orcs periodically sweep down south and completely devastate everything they come across until either beaten back or destroyed.

Sure theres plenty who reject this. But they arent orcs anymore as far as the core is concerned and could end up destroyed or enslaved as well.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMWith that being said, the removal of orcs as a monster has removed a key element from D&D 5e: a race of protagonists. From the orc point of view, their way of life is justified by this bit of lore from Dragon Magazine Vol III, originally from Dragon issue 62 (note this isn't official lore, but a lore to be used that fits within the game)

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/M8DdQKv_md.GIF)

Now, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

I'm sorry, but this is much more compelling than having orcs "just like us".

IIRC that's pretty close to what their lore in more recent (pre-2024) D&D says. Based on the Forgotten Realms wiki, it looks like that Dragon article got canonized in the 2e Monster Mythology book.

It works, but it does open the door to doing the Drizzt Do'Urden narrative again. "This race has been brainwashed by its evil god into a self-destructive inferiority complex, but our hero (for some reason) sees through the lies and finds a better way." R.A. Salvatore might have actually done that already. I lost interest in his books ages ago, but he was doing an unusually smart and organized orc as the major antagonist around the time I stopped reading.

Or worse, WOTC could decide to reveal that story is actually true and the orcs are justified, which would turn them into a ready-made anticolonialism narrative.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 10, 2025, 11:39:35 AMwith darkvision...

That's a significant mechanical difference.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 10, 2025, 11:39:35 AMMost of the humanoids, even the monstrous ones, in D&D aren't statistically much more than humans

These are humans in masks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 10, 2025, 11:39:35 AMI get the "they changed it, so now it sucks"

That bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 12:27:10 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 10, 2025, 11:43:33 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 10:33:29 AMNow, I don't know about you, but that's a hell of a compelling tale to justify the orcs behavior. They as a race that feel betrayed and will continue to wage war against all other goodly races, until all are all killed.

I'm sorry, but this is much more compelling than having orcs "just like us".

You still have that, and it's hardly unique to orcs to feel like they've been slighted and oppressed and want to lash out at all that keep them down. Look hard enough, and you might see parallels with some human groups, so they really can be 'just like us' and yet have the background you like.

Sure, there might be some human groups that manifest in a similar way. The Easterlings themselves allied with Sauron and were counted along with orcs in their ranks.

Some. That's the key word.

Orcs, as a RACE, either depicted by Tolkien or within D&D (where it was influenced heavily by Tolkien's Orcs) are entirely warlike, without remorse or compassion.

Their whole way of thinking is literally alien to us right down to the core.

Hence why you don't see any orcs as an ally of the West in the War of the Ring.

Therefore, why should it be any different in D&D, where the Orcs in the game are clearly influenced by Tolkien's works?

Could you make all orcs, "just like us"? Sure you could, but that should have been an OPTION left up to the players and DMs of the game. Not dictated by the DEI rainbow-haired shitlords of WoTC.

Not every game (or version of a game) needs to follow Tolkien. I personally prefer the orks from Earthdawn over any version of Tolkien or traditional D&D orcs. OTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 10, 2025, 07:39:10 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 10, 2025, 11:39:35 AMwith darkvision...

That's a significant mechanical difference.

Significant enough it needs an entirely separate stat block? Really?

Are you really saying you need a completely separate statblock to remember that orcs have darkvision?

How about just a line? "Note: depending on race, the Tough might have low-light or darkvision?"

Orcs (and most of the other monstrous humanoids like hobgoblins, etc.) have always just been humans in masks statistically (notable exception being 4E because of racial powers, but that's not real D&D) and you're bitching because they changed the layout by putting their statbocks in with the other humans in masks. That's literally "they changed it (the layout) so now it sucks" thinking.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 02:15:06 AMNot every game (or version of a game) needs to follow Tolkien. I personally prefer the orks from Earthdawn over any version of Tolkien or traditional D&D orcs. OTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

That's fine, but irrelevant.

The point is WoTC should have made orcs as a player race an OPTION left up to the players and DMs of the game. Not dictated by the DEI rainbow-haired shitlords of WoTC.

Unfortunately, this is the lame ass stance they took, and anyone who does otherwise will be labeled as a racist by the social justice warrior brigade.

This is what happens when you have a whole generation raised on cellphones who never played outside or used their imagination take over.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 02:15:06 AMOTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

Love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit that Warhammer's Orks are practically labratory-designed to avoid all the debates around Tolkien Orcs. Orks are mushroom men that reproduce asexually through spores, so no questions about orc babies. Their life cycle is directly reliant on violence for growth, they're almost immune to pain, and they're too stupid to understand their own mortality. They have goblins to do their agriculture and manufacture their weapons, and as a species they were manufactured by Lovecraftian Old Ones to be war machines. You couldn't ask for more justifications for how there can be a species that just fights and nothing else. No questions about whether they can be redeemed, either. They almost fall under the animal category where they don't have enough moral agency for issue to even arise.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 11, 2025, 07:34:34 AMAre you really saying you need a completely separate statblock to remember that orcs have darkvision?

No, he's not.  And you know it, and are being disingenuous (and if you truly don't know it, you are apparently to stupid to breathe without help).

He's saying that orcs deserve a separate stat block because they are monsters, with abilities that human player character's don't have by default. If we look in the 2015 PHB, half-orcs have the following:

QuoteDarkvision.
Menacing (free intimidation).
Relentless Endurance (don't automatically drop at 0).
Savage Attacks (extra die on crits).

In the 2015 MM, various orcs have the following abilities:

QuoteDarkvision.
Aggressive (extra move towards enemies).
Greataxe proficiency.
Gruumsh's Fury (extra 1d8 on all attacks).

This is also ignoring the five different types of orcs in Volo's, each with their own special ability.

Now, even you should be able to see that the abilities granted to the monster orcs and the player half-orcs are different.  This is because the monster orcs are capable of different things, even in WotC's previous iteration of them.  They aren't just "humans in masks."  Now, that's the way that DMs with little imagination might treat them (and I'm beginning to have my suspicions...), but both mechanically and effectively (through motivation and behavior) orcs aren't the same as humans, elves, dwarves, etc. with masks.  That's just a bad-faith attempt to minimize the changes WotC has made.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 07:51:08 AMWoTC should have

The point is that your opinion is no more or less valuable than any other. WoTC doesn't have the same view as you, and that's OK. You can use their materials as is or adjust them to your wants. This is how it *is* (fact) so there's no need to declare how it *should be* (opinion).

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 10:25:44 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 02:15:06 AMOTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

Love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit that Warhammer's Orks are practically labratory-designed to avoid all the debates around Tolkien Orcs. Orks are mushroom men that reproduce asexually through spores, so no questions about orc babies. Their life cycle is directly reliant on violence for growth, they're almost immune to pain, and they're too stupid to understand their own mortality. They have goblins to do their agriculture and manufacture their weapons, and as a species they were manufactured by Lovecraftian Old Ones to be war machines. You couldn't ask for more justifications for how there can be a species that just fights and nothing else. No questions about whether they can be redeemed, either. They almost fall under the animal category where they don't have enough moral agency for issue to even arise.

I certainly agree that they are distinct and alien. I just don't find them all that interesting to read about or roleplay with (whether as one or, more likely, in opposition to them).

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 10:58:29 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 07:51:08 AMWoTC should have

The point is that your opinion is no more or less valuable than any other. WoTC doesn't have the same view as you, and that's OK. You can use their materials as is or adjust them to your wants. This is how it *is* (fact) so there's no need to declare how it *should be* (opinion).

And that's why they lost me and thousands of others: they stopped listening to the majority of customers/players and listened to a minute portion of the fanbase.

And don't give me that crap about sales numbers, which we all know D&D 5e numbers are inflated and bullshit.

But please, keep espousing how it's ok for WoTC to go against the majority of the players.

We all know you're a schill for WoTC.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 10:58:29 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 07:51:08 AMWoTC should have

The point is that your opinion is no more or less valuable than any other. WoTC doesn't have the same view as you, and that's OK. You can use their materials as is or adjust them to your wants. This is how it *is* (fact) so there's no need to declare how it *should be* (opinion).

Funny, I don't remember you saying the same thing to the folks that wanted female space marines.  Or is this something you just say to try and justify the changes you do like and avoid those you don't?  So we should never criticize what is?  You first...

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 11:00:56 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 10:25:44 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 02:15:06 AMOTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

Love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit that Warhammer's Orks are practically labratory-designed to avoid all the debates around Tolkien Orcs. Orks are mushroom men that reproduce asexually through spores, so no questions about orc babies. Their life cycle is directly reliant on violence for growth, they're almost immune to pain, and they're too stupid to understand their own mortality. They have goblins to do their agriculture and manufacture their weapons, and as a species they were manufactured by Lovecraftian Old Ones to be war machines. You couldn't ask for more justifications for how there can be a species that just fights and nothing else. No questions about whether they can be redeemed, either. They almost fall under the animal category where they don't have enough moral agency for issue to even arise.

I certainly agree that they are distinct and alien. I just don't find them all that interesting to read about or roleplay with (whether as one or, more likely, in opposition to them).

That's fair enough. There's a reason why even Tolkien-esque or traditional D&D orcs are rarely more than secondary antagonists. If you design a creature to be an uncomplicated killing machine, you necessarily limit its narrative potential. I was mostly just making the point that if you want that kind of orc, Warhammer pretty much perfected the concept.

Personally I think you can keep orcs as villains and still make them more interesting, but you do have to give them more complicated motivations than just a love of violence.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 11:31:55 AMAnd that's why they lost me and thousands of others: they stopped listening to the majority of customers/players and listened to a minute portion of the fanbase.

And don't give me that crap about sales numbers, which we all know D&D 5e numbers are inflated and bullshit.

That's actually an interesting question. What do WOTC's current customers want from orcs?

I don't think there are reliable stats, but based on what I see around the internet, I'd guess that what the majority of role-players under around 40 years old expect is a slightly modified version of the Warcraft orc. A big, muscly noble-savage type with a vaguely shamanistic vibe and an oversized weapon. The males are an avatar for those that want to play a dumb meathead and the females are a fantasy for those with a muscle-mommy fetish. 

If so, then the direction 2024 D&D is taking them in is probably pleasing neither the grognards nor the core 5e audience. I'd be curious what approach Tales of the Valiant takes with them. Kobold Press seems to have its finger on the pulse of current day RPG trends.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 01, 2025, 04:04:17 PMPerfectly predictable.  On one hand, I love it.  Anything that will kill WotC faster is objectively a good thing.

If this change had been made for a game-related reason, it would still be stupid, but not obnoxious.  But the reason behind this change is what makes it over-the-top obnoxious and vile.  And we don't have to guess at the reason; they've told us...

Also, the people at WotC identify with evil... identify themselves with evil, but in a "good" way.  I guarantee that if you asked the average employee of WotC, they would be proud of rejecting Judeo-Christian norms and values.  These kinds of leftist danger-hairs are up front about their antipathy to Christian morality (lesbians and gays, abortion, trans grooming of kids, etc.).  On that quality alone, they would tend to view "evil" races as just misunderstood or with a valid culture (from alternate points of view), because that's how they place themselves into Western culture.  Any kind of absolute judgment is anathema to them (just like many of the leftists that post here).  So any kind of absolute is wrong when applied to orcs, or any other intelligent creature.

Totally agree with the first bit. It's a helpful reduction to absurdity. And it shows no sign of abating. Let them have that game.

But these 'leftists' are not on the left in my view. They have long since slipped into a fever dream, tilting at windmills and slaying imaginary dragons. Whilst largely ignoring matters of genuine political importance, like the growing gulf between the rich in the poor, rampant drug prices, pollution, etc. It's a kind of everyday madness.

So yeah, we agree on this issue. You presumably on to the right and me on the left. And we both love good games.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 12:09:24 PMPersonally I think you can keep orcs as villains and still make them more interesting, but you do have to give them more complicated motivations than just a love of violence.

No, you don't have to give them more motivation than love of violence. That choice is up to the DM. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most horrifying.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 12:09:24 PMThat's actually an interesting question. What do WOTC's current customers want from orcs?

I don't think there are reliable stats, but based on what I see around the internet, I'd guess that what the majority of role-players under around 40 years old expect is a slightly modified version of the Warcraft orc. A big, muscly noble-savage type with a vaguely shamanistic vibe and an oversized weapon. The males are an avatar for those that want to play a dumb meathead and the females are a fantasy for those with a muscle-mommy fetish. 

If so, then the direction 2024 D&D is taking them in is probably pleasing neither the grognards nor the core 5e audience. I'd be curious what approach Tales of the Valiant takes with them. Kobold Press seems to have its finger on the pulse of current day RPG trends.

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/9kqa8du_md.jpg)

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 12:21:06 PMI don't think there are reliable stats, but based on what I see around the internet, I'd guess that what the majority of role-players under around 40 years old expect is a slightly modified version of the Warcraft orc. A big, muscly noble-savage type with a vaguely shamanistic vibe and an oversized weapon. The males are an avatar for those that want to play a dumb meathead and the females are a fantasy for those with a muscle-mommy fetish. 

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/9kqa8du_md.jpg)

(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/why_not_both.gif)

In all seriousness, I think you basically described the 4e and onward orc (and possibly a bit of 3.5 mixed in) but I'm not sure WOTC sees that player base as their audience or, more accurately, their desired audience.  Judging from all the cosplayer wannabe O-face art I saw throughout the PHB, I think their intended "modern" audience are the theater kids/cosplayers who watch livestreams of games rather than play them themselves.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 12:19:29 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 12:09:24 PMPersonally I think you can keep orcs as villains and still make them more interesting, but you do have to give them more complicated motivations than just a love of violence.

No, you don't have to give them more motivation than love of violence. That choice is up to the DM. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most horrifying.

(bolding mine)

Of course it is, and there's certainly a place for simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!" monsters for the heroes to fight. I occasionally use them in my games. I just don't find them all that interesting as main villains. They work better as instruments in the hands of a Saruman type character.

Quote from: RNGm on February 11, 2025, 12:45:59 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 12:21:06 PMI don't think there are reliable stats, but based on what I see around the internet, I'd guess that what the majority of role-players under around 40 years old expect is a slightly modified version of the Warcraft orc. A big, muscly noble-savage type with a vaguely shamanistic vibe and an oversized weapon. The males are an avatar for those that want to play a dumb meathead and the females are a fantasy for those with a muscle-mommy fetish. 

(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/9kqa8du_md.jpg)

(https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/why_not_both.gif)

In all seriousness, I think you basically described the 4e and onward orc (and possibly a bit of 3.5 mixed in) but I'm not sure WOTC sees that player base as their audience or, more accurately, their desired audience.  Judging from all the cosplayer wannabe O-face art I saw throughout the PHB, I think their intended "modern" audience are the theater kids/cosplayers who watch livestreams of games rather than play them themselves.

Not trolling. Possibly being a smartass.

I'm genuinely interested in trends in popular fantasy, even if they aren't to my taste, and I think it'd be amusing if WOTC does manage to alienate the  existing 5e audience. "WOTC alienates grognards" is a dog-bites-man story. "WOTC alienates the reddit zoomers" would be a case of man-bites-dog.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 01:28:18 PMOf course it is, and there's certainly a place for simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!" monsters for the heroes to fight. I occasionally use them in my games. I just don't find them all that interesting as main villains. They work better as instruments in the hands of a Saruman type character.

I think it's what we interpret as "villains".

Saruman is a villain. An Orc is a tool to be used by a villain. At least for me.

But you touched on the simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!", and maybe you'll understand my point of view a bit better:

I look at orcs and other goblinoids as kind of a force of evil to be utilized by villains. They're single minded in the goal: to wage war and cause as much destruction of the world of Good races. That's their life. You can't reason with it. You can't bargain with it. Everything they do is to that goal, and Orc society is structured to achieve this goal. They're evil to the core.

IMO, that's much more frightening than any rational opponent. The only thing that reigns it in are the more rational evil villains that lead them.

That's just me.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 10, 2025, 02:54:27 PMIt works, but it does open the door to doing the Drizzt Do'Urden narrative again. "This race has been brainwashed by its evil god into a self-destructive inferiority complex, but our hero (for some reason) sees through the lies and finds a better way." R.A. Salvatore might have actually done that already. I lost interest in his books ages ago, but he was doing an unusually smart and organized orc as the major antagonist around the time I stopped reading.

Nearly all the FR races have good and bad gods and all the predominantly evil races have at least one good god puttering about the edges. Probably the same for other settings. Or gods outside the race occasionally poach a few promising candidates for goody-goodyness. The evil ones sure are doing it from the other direction.

Also keep in mind that either the AD&D DMG or MM states that alignment is not set in stone. What is listed is just what you are most likely to encounter.

People keep conveniently forgetting this so they can push their moral busybody agendas.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 10:25:44 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 02:15:06 AMOTOH, I really don't much like the orks from Warhammer (Fantasy or 40K) and only find mild interest in the AoS Kruleboyz (the rest of the AoS orks do nothing for me).

Love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit that Warhammer's Orks are practically labratory-designed to avoid all the debates around Tolkien Orcs. Orks are mushroom men that reproduce asexually through spores, so no questions about orc babies. Their life cycle is directly reliant on violence for growth, they're almost immune to pain, and they're too stupid to understand their own mortality. They have goblins to do their agriculture and manufacture their weapons, and as a species they were manufactured by Lovecraftian Old Ones to be war machines. You couldn't ask for more justifications for how there can be a species that just fights and nothing else. No questions about whether they can be redeemed, either. They almost fall under the animal category where they don't have enough moral agency for issue to even arise.

40K Orks are a joke race. They were a satire of british soccer holligans, and any rationalizations are like coming up with elaborate backstory about the chicken who crossed the road. The punchline is, whenever someone spends too much time thinking about Ork Kultur, the the Orks bash them over the head and take their stuff.
Having said that, there are Orks who can be parleyed with. Blood Axes are notorious for dealing with other races in non-violent ways. And Freebootas sometimes work as mercenaries. Some gretchin on Gorkamorka have rebelled against the Orks, going against their genetic programming to be a servant race to the Ork ecosystem. Even the 40K orks are more nuanced than just being bad guys. Because that's boring and no fun.
They are pretty damn close though. And that's part of the charm of the race. They guys who are just in it for a good fight. 

Quote from: Omega on February 11, 2025, 01:48:15 PMAlso keep in mind that either the AD&D DMG or MM states that alignment is not set in stone. What is listed is just what you are most likely to encounter.

As per the AD&D Monster Manual (1977):

QuoteALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil, or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

Nowhere does it state that alignment can be modified or changed. Also, behavior is different that alignment.

Also, nowhere in the AD&D DMG pgs 23-25 (1979) does it state anything about monsters' changing alignment. Only in regards to characters.

Did I miss something?

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 01:47:32 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 01:28:18 PMOf course it is, and there's certainly a place for simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!" monsters for the heroes to fight. I occasionally use them in my games. I just don't find them all that interesting as main villains. They work better as instruments in the hands of a Saruman type character.

I think it's what we interpret as "villains".

Saruman is a villain. An Orc is a tool to be used by a villain. At least for me.

But you touched on the simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!", and maybe you'll understand my point of view a bit better:

I look at orcs and other goblinoids as kind of a force of evil to be utilized by villains. They're single minded in the goal: to wage war and cause as much destruction of the world of Good races. That's their life. You can't reason with it. You can't bargain with it. Everything they do is to that goal, and Orc society is structured to achieve this goal. They're evil to the core.

IMO, that's much more frightening than any rational opponent. The only thing that reigns it in are the more rational evil villains that lead them.

That's just me.

I don't think we're that far off of each other. I don't usually use orcs in my game world, because goblins and trolls make them redundant. I run those more in line with their folkloric portrayals, so while they're usually bad news and definitely chaotic, they're not a great fit for the "footsoldiers of evil" role. When I need to fill that role I usually go for something like beastmen or demons, but they still basically fit the description you gave there.

I think the big difference is that I just don't have a lot of use for that role. I run most of my campaigns at street level. I don't do big cosmic good vs. evil, conflicts, so I don't often have an evil overlord type villain which I need an army of goons for. My players are more likely to be dealing directly with the main antagonist and his immediate associates.

Greetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 11, 2025, 07:34:34 AMSignificant enough it needs an entirely separate stat block? Really?

I am talking about how the additional abilities affect the creature's CR.  Try to keep up with the conversation.  Also, if you look at the PHB, that's not the only ability that orcs get. 


-Adrenaline Rush: You can take the Dash action as a Bonus Action. When you do so, you gain a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to your Proficiency Bonus. You can use this trait a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a Short or Long Rest.
-Darkvision. You have Darkvision with a range of 120 feet.
-Relentless Endurance. When you are reduced to 0 Hit Points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 Hit Point instead. Once you use this trait, you can't do so again until you finish a Long Rest.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 03:55:04 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 01:47:32 PMI look at orcs and other goblinoids as kind of a force of evil to be utilized by villains. They're single minded in the goal: to wage war and cause as much destruction of the world of Good races. That's their life. You can't reason with it. You can't bargain with it. Everything they do is to that goal, and Orc society is structured to achieve this goal. They're evil to the core.

I don't think we're that far off of each other. I don't usually use orcs in my game world, because goblins and trolls make them redundant. I run those more in line with their folkloric portrayals, so while they're usually bad news and definitely chaotic, they're not a great fit for the "footsoldiers of evil" role.

I've seen orcs in a bunch of different roles. A few possibilities include:

• Warhammer orcs are mushroom-inspired war machines
• Orcs in Harn have an insect-like life cycle and social structure. They have hives based around a queen. They aren't footsoldiers for dark lords, but they are a common hazard.
• World of Warcraft orcs are evidently savage but honorable warriors like Klingons
• Orcs in the Sovereign Stone RPG (1999) are a warlike seafaring race that take to the water, taking some traits from killer whales (orcas)

For comparison, orcs in my "Land of New Horizons" setting are one of the four core races of the Solar Empire: dwarves, elves, humans, and orcs. This is inspired by the Incans - who were like the Romans in that they repeatedly turned their enemies into their subjects/allies. Orcs are inherently warlike, but under imperial leadership their tendencies are channeled into good. I think of _Dark Knight Returns_ where Batman recruits the biggest gang to work for him.

I don't think any of these are the one true orcs. People can and should adapt orcs to be different in different worlds.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 02:13:40 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2025, 12:52:52 PMIn D&D... Even moreso than in Tolkien's Middle Earth, Gygax's Greyhawk doesn't have orcs as an existential threat to humanity. There is no Mordor filled with only orcs. Rather, the evil nations of Greyhawk are human-dominated, like the Great Kingdom, the Horned Society, and the Land of Iuz. Pomarj is a backwater that is ruled by humanoids like orcs, but even it still has many renegade humans and human mercenaries who work with them. The primary enemy of good humans is evil humans.

If one wants to make a setting where humans are all good and the primary struggle is humans against orcs, that's fine too. But that's not Middle Earth or Greyhawk.

Great. Wonderful. Have cookie...

But the point I ultimately made was this: the choice to make Orcs a monster or not should be left up to the players and DMs, not up to WoTC. Furthermore, in this day and age of DEI rainbowed-haired shitlords, I'm most certain that if you play them other as written in the current rules, you will be called a racist.

Therein lies the problem. Players are not given a choice in the current edition.

Don't you agree we as players and DMs should have a choice, or do you support WoTC's decision?

I think this is a bullshit question. The 2024 D&D books don't have mind control chips in them. If I were to buy the 2024 books, then I'd have a choice about what orcs are like in my campaign.

Fundamentally, D&D is not a universal system with generic mechanics for any possible game world. There has always been a default for what creatures like elves and dwarves and orcs are like. But it's also true that the GM always has the ability to say that elves in his campaign are different than standard elves, or orcs are different than standard orcs.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 02:32:29 PMAs per the AD&D Monster Manual (1977):

QuoteALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil, or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

Nowhere does it state that alignment can be modified or changed. Also, behavior is different that alignment.

Also, nowhere in the AD&D DMG pgs 23-25 (1979) does it state anything about monsters' changing alignment. Only in regards to characters.

Did I miss something?

The term "characteristic bent" is different than absolute. If I say that elves have a characteristic bent towards Chaotic Good, then that means that most elves are Chaotic Good, but that individual elves may have different alignment.

Indeed, in the 1E MM, elves are listed as "Alignment: Chaotic Good" - but it's also true that when someone makes an elf PC in 1E AD&D, they have their choice of alignment. Likewise, half-orcs are included in the "Orc" entry in the MM. They are listed as Chaotic Evil. However, if someone makes a half-orc PC, they have their choice of alignment.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 03:55:04 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 01:47:32 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 01:28:18 PMOf course it is, and there's certainly a place for simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!" monsters for the heroes to fight. I occasionally use them in my games. I just don't find them all that interesting as main villains. They work better as instruments in the hands of a Saruman type character.

I think it's what we interpret as "villains".

Saruman is a villain. An Orc is a tool to be used by a villain. At least for me.

But you touched on the simplistically evil "Waagh! Me Smash!", and maybe you'll understand my point of view a bit better:

I look at orcs and other goblinoids as kind of a force of evil to be utilized by villains. They're single minded in the goal: to wage war and cause as much destruction of the world of Good races. That's their life. You can't reason with it. You can't bargain with it. Everything they do is to that goal, and Orc society is structured to achieve this goal. They're evil to the core.

IMO, that's much more frightening than any rational opponent. The only thing that reigns it in are the more rational evil villains that lead them.

That's just me.

I don't think we're that far off of each other. I don't usually use orcs in my game world, because goblins and trolls make them redundant. I run those more in line with their folkloric portrayals, so while they're usually bad news and definitely chaotic, they're not a great fit for the "footsoldiers of evil" role. When I need to fill that role I usually go for something like beastmen or demons, but they still basically fit the description you gave there.

I think the big difference is that I just don't have a lot of use for that role. I run most of my campaigns at street level. I don't do big cosmic good vs. evil, conflicts, so I don't often have an evil overlord type villain which I need an army of goons for. My players are more likely to be dealing directly with the main antagonist and his immediate associates.

Cool. I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Besides, it sounds like a pretty cool campaign.

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yep, that how I have the orcs, and pretty much all of the goblinoid races I have, in the game worlds I run.

There almost like a force of nature: without care, remorse, or consideration.

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 02:13:40 PMNo nuanced BS, just a straight fucking answer. YES or NO.

jhkim, funny how you conveniently forgot that part.

You couldn't even give a straight fucking answer. You have zero balls to take a stand on anything.

All you can do is spew some pseudo-intellectual bullshit and sit on the the fence as always.

QuoteI think this is a bullshit question.

It's not a bullshit question because you can man up and take a side.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 06:29:37 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 02:13:40 PMNo nuanced BS, just a straight fucking answer. YES or NO.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 06:17:09 PMI think this is a bullshit question.

It's not a bullshit question because you can man up and take a side.

Have you stopped beating your wife, YES or NO?

I played Palladium.  You could play as orcs, trolls, goblins, hobgoblins, changelings, and Wolfen.

It was the Wolfen you had to watch out for.  They were the only ones to have a clear and successful nation state, and an expansionist one as well. 

That's right.  Our imminent threat was from the dogs. 

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As usual, SHARK manages to make everything sound far more exciting.

I'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

Quote from: Green Demon on February 11, 2025, 12:13:16 PMSo yeah, we agree on this issue. You presumably on to the right and me on the left. And we both love good games.

And that's how it was for the first 35+ years of the hobby.  The two of us could sit at the table, having a good time, without politics getting in the way of either of our fun.  I long for the old days of liberal/left politicos who generally wanted the same things (freedom, family, the American Dream) but just differed on how to get there (guys like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and you, perhaps).  That's the way it was, and should be again...

So let it be written; so let it be done! </Yul Brenner>

Hate to be pedantic but it's more like 5.5, it's compatible with 5E and the like.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 11:31:55 AMWe all know you're a schill for WoTC.

Really? What is your evidence?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 11, 2025, 11:47:58 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 11, 2025, 10:58:29 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 07:51:08 AMWoTC should have

The point is that your opinion is no more or less valuable than any other. WoTC doesn't have the same view as you, and that's OK. You can use their materials as is or adjust them to your wants. This is how it *is* (fact) so there's no need to declare how it *should be* (opinion).

Funny, I don't remember you saying the same thing to the folks that wanted female space marines.  Or is this something you just say to try and justify the changes you do like and avoid those you don't?  So we should never criticize what is?  You first...

Care to link to the conversation you seem to be referring to? I'd like to see what position you seem to think I hold on that topic.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 06:51:49 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 06:29:37 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 10, 2025, 02:13:40 PMNo nuanced BS, just a straight fucking answer. YES or NO.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 06:17:09 PMI think this is a bullshit question.

It's not a bullshit question because you can man up and take a side.

Have you stopped beating your wife, YES or NO?

That's not an answer, using a question to answer a question.

That's deflection and you know it, and quite frankly that's low even for you in the form you gave it. You can talk shit about me all you want, but don't you EVER bring my family into it.

I think you and I are done. We need to stop before it gets way out of hand. Emotions sometimes get the better of us and we may say things we don't mean.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As usual, SHARK manages to make everything sound far more exciting.

I'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

You can add such content to your game in a tasteful way:

Quote"The Orcs fell upon the village, there hearts filled with rage and lust. No man, woman, or child would be safe. The men, murdered in their beds, or cut down in the heat of battle. The women would be brutalized in ways unimaginable. The lucky ones would be dead at the end of their ordeal. The unlucky, taken into slavery. The children? Either taken to be used as slaves, or if too young...The orcs would truly show how black their hearts and souls truly are."

Basically, just suggest at the sexual threat they pose. Leave it up to the imagination of the players to fill in the blanks. Sometimes the best horror is to just see part of the monster, and not the whole thing.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 11, 2025, 08:37:23 PM

Quote from: Green Demon on February 11, 2025, 12:13:16 PMSo yeah, we agree on this issue. You presumably on to the right and me on the left. And we both love good games.

And that's how it was for the first 35+ years of the hobby.  The two of us could sit at the table, having a good time, without politics getting in the way of either of our fun.  I long for the old days of liberal/left politicos who generally wanted the same things (freedom, family, the American Dream) but just differed on how to get there (guys like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and you, perhaps).  That's the way it was, and should be again...

So let it be written; so let it be done! </Yul Brenner>

Yeah, nobody gave a damn about such things and the gaming table. We didn't want it to interfere. We wanted to escape.

Now?

We have heated arguments on forums to which it devolves to name-calling, or forums that literally gate-keep others out if you don't follow their political views (I'm looking at you, www.rpg.net).

Why is that? Because the current owner of the game we all grew up with and loved decided that they had to politicize the game by injecting real-world DEI and SJW garbage.

Plus it's not just D&D. Look at the list of left-leaning companies that have been generated. Some are better than others to keep such things out of their games, but even then, we have creators who say things like "If you're a Trump supporter, don't buy my game!"

What the actual fuck?

This goes to prove that business and political activism do not go together. The corporate execs thought in their hubris they could pander to a minority of customers, and believed that the majority wouldn't give a shit.

Bud Light? Disney? UbiSoft? Go woke, go broke.

It's madness.

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 09:08:17 AMNow?

We have heated arguments on forums

IME, people that meet face-to-face don't behave like those on forums. Sure, you hear horror stories of weird shit at the table, but for every one of those, there are uncounted sessions that go by without such drama. This is a social media (and I include forums as an early version of social media) problem, not a gaming problem.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 12, 2025, 09:54:35 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 09:08:17 AMNow?

We have heated arguments on forums

IME, people that meet face-to-face don't behave like those on forums. Sure, you hear horror stories of weird shit at the table, but for every one of those, there are uncounted sessions that go by without such drama. This is a social media (and I include forums as an early version of social media) problem, not a gaming problem.

I certainly hope you're right, but who knows what the future holds.

I'm a "hope for the best, but expect the worst", kind of guy.

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 02:32:29 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 11, 2025, 01:48:15 PMAlso keep in mind that either the AD&D DMG or MM states that alignment is not set in stone. What is listed is just what you are most likely to encounter.

As per the AD&D Monster Manual (1977):

QuoteALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil, or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

Nowhere does it state that alignment can be modified or changed. Also, behavior is different that alignment.

Also, nowhere in the AD&D DMG pgs 23-25 (1979) does it state anything about monsters' changing alignment. Only in regards to characters.

Did I miss something?

You apparently missed the GENERAL part... you know... the majority... not... you know... ALL of the whatever.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PMBut I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

I feel the same way. The supermajority of the time even in non-interactive mediums it's handled poorly.

So I use the orcs as described in Dungeons & Delvers (https://giantslayergames.com/product/dungeons-delvers/). They're demons sent by Orcus who possess corpses to exist in the mortal world. After killing their victims, they use the corpses as vessels for more orcs. They don't go around being patriarchal and misogynistic. They don't need to be.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 11:00:34 AMSo I use the orcs as described in Dungeons & Delvers (https://giantslayergames.com/product/dungeons-delvers/). They're demons sent by Orcus who possess corpses to exist in the mortal world. After killing their victims, they use the corpses as vessels for more orcs. They don't go around being patriarchal and misogynistic. They don't need to be.

So basically like vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 12, 2025, 11:12:39 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 11:00:34 AMSo I use the orcs as described in Dungeons & Delvers (https://giantslayergames.com/product/dungeons-delvers/). They're demons sent by Orcus who possess corpses to exist in the mortal world. After killing their victims, they use the corpses as vessels for more orcs. They don't go around being patriarchal and misogynistic. They don't need to be.

So basically like vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

They don't even have that much. This is what they look like:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XEkGe-H5au4/YI3CTvLT-cI/AAAAAAAAjEw/fL6r3S6ra1gD-JfLZ_TJ2SJeMned6XKxwCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/color_orc.png)

Here's the relevant posts on the author's blog:
https://daegames.blogspot.com/2018/05/dungeons-delvers-where-do-baby-gnolls.html
https://daegames.blogspot.com/2021/05/inherently-evil-races-arent-bad-game.html

QuoteThey are demonic entities with "oily and dark skin", created by Orcus, and exist only to slaughter and destroy. They don't have a culture, as they don't possess the capacity for complete human thought: why would Orcus bestow that upon them, even if he were capable of doing so?

QuoteIn Dungeons & Delvers orcs are the minions of Orcus, demonic spirits tightly wrapped in the flesh of other races, because they cannot remain unprotected in the natural world/Prime Material Plane for long without dissipating.

It might kill them, or just send them back to the underworld. Never really decided. Maybe some particularly powerful or strong-willed orc apparitions can stick around? Or maybe slicing open an orc's skin-shell releases the demonic essence, and it can keep fighting for another few rounds before vanishing?

Anyway, it's because of this that orcs don't need to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. They don't aspire to much, existing only to slaughter, offering up the remains of victims as sacrifices to Orcus, and using the leftover skins to summon more orcs into the world.

This makes them quite a bit different then your typical orc, and also avoids the whole "is it okay to kill a baby orc" (non?)issue that I saw crop up way back when WotC still had a Dungeons & Dragons forum, which fortunately I never had to deal with at my table.

So you can kill them guilt-free, as they have no women or children, no capacity to change, etc. You don't have to worry about any ickiness or torture-porn beyond the murder, human sacrifice and desecration of corpses, which everyone regardless of gender can relate to in the same way.

Quote from: Omega on February 12, 2025, 10:56:25 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 11, 2025, 02:32:29 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 11, 2025, 01:48:15 PMAlso keep in mind that either the AD&D DMG or MM states that alignment is not set in stone. What is listed is just what you are most likely to encounter.

As per the AD&D Monster Manual (1977):

QuoteALIGNMENT shows the characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil, or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regard to the general behavior of the monster when encountered.

Nowhere does it state that alignment can be modified or changed. Also, behavior is different that alignment.

Also, nowhere in the AD&D DMG pgs 23-25 (1979) does it state anything about monsters' changing alignment. Only in regards to characters.

Did I miss something?

You apparently missed the GENERAL part... you know... the majority... not... you know... ALL of the whatever.

You mean the "general behavior of the monster" part? The part that is clearly not about alignment, but about behavior?

"Lawful evil", "Chaotic good", are alignments as defined by AD&D.

"hostile", "friendly" are behaviors determined by the encounter reaction table on pg 63 of the DMG.

You can have a Lawful evil creature act friendly to the group, or a Chaotic good creature be hostile as well.

Now alignment can influence behavior. I'll grant you that. Lawful creatures tend to be more orderly, Chaotic creatures are more unorderly and live for the moment. Evil creatures tend to be more cruel and vindictive, while good creatures are mostly courteous and gentile.

Maybe a monster was charmed, or went insane, and alignment changed, but those are extreme outliers and are not considered the norm according to the rules.

But you go ahead and do what you want.

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 10:45:10 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 12, 2025, 09:54:35 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 09:08:17 AMNow?

We have heated arguments on forums

IME, people that meet face-to-face don't behave like those on forums. Sure, you hear horror stories of weird shit at the table, but for every one of those, there are uncounted sessions that go by without such drama. This is a social media (and I include forums as an early version of social media) problem, not a gaming problem.

I certainly hope you're right, but who knows what the future holds.

I'm a "hope for the best, but expect the worst", kind of guy.

That's been my experience as well. I play with randos on the internet, and in the last three years I haven't had a single politics-related dispute break out in one of my games.

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 08:47:33 AMYou can add such content to your game in a tasteful way:

Quote"The Orcs fell upon the village, there hearts filled with rage and lust. No man, woman, or child would be safe. The men, murdered in their beds, or cut down in the heat of battle. The women would be brutalized in ways unimaginable. The lucky ones would be dead at the end of their ordeal. The unlucky, taken into slavery. The children? Either taken to be used as slaves, or if too young...The orcs would truly show how black their hearts and souls truly are."

Basically, just suggest at the sexual threat they pose. Leave it up to the imagination of the players to fill in the blanks. Sometimes the best horror is to just see part of the monster, and not the whole thing.

I get that concept, and I can see how it would work as box-text or other exposition. I'm more curious how far people have been willing/able to push the line in play. Do the PCs raid an orc lair and find a room full of brutalized, naked women? That I feel like you could get away with as long as your players are sane adults. Do the orcs actually try to capture party henchwomen or even female (or potentially even male, if you want them to be truly horrifying) PCs to satisfy their nefarious appetites? I assume most people aren't going to take it that far, but there's a part of me that thinks the threat is meaningless if it's not something your characters might actually have to encounter in some way. Maybe the way to handle that is to treat being captured by orcs as an automatic death sentence. Just tell your player "well, your character has been carried off to be horribly tortured and violated to death by orcs. Roll a new one". I don't know.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PMBut I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

I feel the same way. The supermajority of the time even in non-interactive mediums it's handled poorly.

So I use the orcs as described in Dungeons & Delvers (https://giantslayergames.com/product/dungeons-delvers/). They're demons sent by Orcus who possess corpses to exist in the mortal world. After killing their victims, they use the corpses as vessels for more orcs. They don't go around being patriarchal and misogynistic. They don't need to be.

I get that approach, too. That sounds a bit like the way things work in the Evil Dead series.  At the same time, when you phrase it that way there's something faintly ridiculous about the idea of a creature of ultimate evil, which cheerfully engages in slavery, murder, torture and/or cannibalism, but simultaneously misogyny is somehow beneath them.   

Usually I would operate on the logic of "The monsters don't see humans as a sexual prospect because they just see them as food", so orcs would see banging a human the same way humans would see banging a sheep. I suppose an alternative would be to make them so thoroughly racial supremacist that they would never sully their orc blood by breeding with a lesser race.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PMI'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

I don't show the act while it happens, but I show the aftermath of that act.

(There was a lot more to this, but that should have a different thread.)

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMI get that approach, too. That sounds a bit like the way things work in the Evil Dead series.  At the same time, when you phrase it that way there's something faintly ridiculous about the idea of a creature of ultimate evil, which cheerfully engages in slavery, murder, torture and/or cannibalism, but simultaneously misogyny is somehow beneath them. 

If you treat men and women equally badly, then by definition you can't be misogynistic. Anyway, I don't describe them engaging in torture porn. They just kill people indiscriminately, sacrifice them to to Orcus, and reanimate the corpses as more orcs. They literally don't have the intelligence to do anything more than that. They're zombies with just enough intelligence to organize, use weapons, and increase their numbers.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMUsually I would operate on the logic of "The monsters don't see humans as a sexual prospect because they just see them as food", so orcs would see banging a human the same way humans would see banging a sheep. I suppose an alternative would be to make them so thoroughly racial supremacist that they would never sully their orc blood by breeding with a lesser race.

The Dungeons & Delvers orcs don't have functioning genitals. They're hollowed-out corpses reanimated by demons.

I really don't see the appeal of describing torture-porn. I get enough of that from the news media and I don't want to be reminded of that in my escapist fiction. If you know, then you know.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 03:14:30 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMI get that approach, too. That sounds a bit like the way things work in the Evil Dead series.  At the same time, when you phrase it that way there's something faintly ridiculous about the idea of a creature of ultimate evil, which cheerfully engages in slavery, murder, torture and/or cannibalism, but simultaneously misogyny is somehow beneath them.

If you treat men and women equally badly, then by definition you can't be misogynistic. Anyway, I don't describe them engaging in torture porn. They just kill people indiscriminately, sacrifice them to to Orcus, and reanimate the corpses as more orcs. They literally don't have the intelligence to do anything more than that. They're zombies with just enough intelligence to organize, use weapons, and increase their numbers.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMUsually I would operate on the logic of "The monsters don't see humans as a sexual prospect because they just see them as food", so orcs would see banging a human the same way humans would see banging a sheep. I suppose an alternative would be to make them so thoroughly racial supremacist that they would never sully their orc blood by breeding with a lesser race.

The Dungeons & Delvers orcs don't have functioning genitals. They're hollowed-out corpses reanimated by demons.

I really don't see the appeal of describing torture-porn. I get enough of that from the news media and I don't want to be reminded of that in my escapist fiction. If you know, then you know.

Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with that. Orcs don't need to be the most horrifying monster possible, and if your goal is a light-hearted adventure game they probably shouldn't be. I'm mostly just curious about the practical experience of people who do choose to take their game there.

I cited Lovecraft's Deep Ones before. The Deep Ones don't engage in rapine and pillage directly. They use bribery and deceit to corrupt humans into agreeing to ritually breed with them, and they do it as a way of planting subversive agents into human society and slowly breeding humanity out of existence. That's the kind thing I could see myself actually using in a game. It's evil and extremely sinister, but in a way where all the really graphic stuff can plausibly happen offscreen and without much likelihood of PCs getting directly involved in it. Seems like a more workable balance.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As usual, SHARK manages to make everything sound far more exciting.

I'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

Greetings!

Good afternoon, my friend! Definitely a good time here for some fresh brewed coffee! I'm drinking some Italian Roast. Very nice to have, anytime, though especially on cold, winter days! Lighting up a good cigar, and chewing on your questions here.

Well, most of the time, experiencing the aftermath of being taken captive by savage Orcs has been shown by the testimonies and accounts made by the rescued survivors to the Player Characters.

"There now, are three farm girls that emerge from the blasted caves, and the fires crackling in pits nearby. The farm girls appear gaunt, beaten and crushed down, with distant, aloof eyes. Two of them are pregnant, heavy with child. Their hair is generally long, matted, and covered in sweat and blood. The women are decorated with numerous scars from being clawed, whipped, and bitten. The women speak in only sharp, halting speech, and follow your instructions quickly, though with an observed docility and servitude. A larger gaggle of rescued slaves follows them out from the dark slave pens, and they all have a similar grim appearance. Nonetheless, there are meek flickers of gratitude that they express as they follow your instructions. They have survived a terrifying and harrowing experience.

And yes, there amidst the throng of desperate slaves, is the Wizard's Apprentice you were originally searching for. Clive Taben is alive, though entirely transformed from what you knew of him from over a year since passed. Where once Clive was a clean-cut, well-dressed scholar, an urban gentleman just entering his prime with a bright, curious smile and inspiring cheerfulness--that is all gone. Now Clive Taben has a full beard, his hair grown well passed his shoulders in an unruly mass, and he occasionally growls and makes strange animal-like noises. His naked body is somewhat muscular and lean--no doubt from the frequent hard labour he has been subjected to by the Orcs. As you find some clothes for him to wear, it is striking to notice that his shoulders and sides have long, deepened scars. His chest has a rough tattoo of a boar's head scribed into his flesh, and he wears a simple necklace made of iron chain links, and holding iron-dipped wolves' teeth.

On the march back to civilization from the encampments of the Black Fist Orc tribe, you have rescued some 40 Human women, and about 18 Human men. Along the journey, you learn that these captives were enslaved for months at a time, with some being enslaved for several years. Whether they were enslaved for months, or several years, the slaves' experiences will no doubt stay with them forever. Many of the women are currently pregnant with child. Many of them have been virtually kept constantly pregnant during their years of enslavement. Year after year, breeding for their Orc masters. The surviving men relate to you that alongside their daily labour in the nearby iron mines, they were frequently tortured and beaten by the Orc masters. Whipped and beaten down, by one brute Orc, or several. The Orcs guarded them watchfully, even suspiciously, on a constant basis. Barking harsh commands at them, snarling savage insults at them, and always swift with the gauntleted hand of discipline. Meanwhile, at night, groups of fierce Orc women would take their turns raping the men, again and again. A few men refused and sought to resist early on--one was fed right there to the Spined Boars that the Orcs kept in nearby pens. Several others were set upon by the large, aggressive Orc women, and swiftly beaten down, and ripped open, for all to see. The Orc women were just as violent and ruthlessly brutal as the Orc men. The Orc women commanded obedience--and for the Human men that survived, they bowed their heads and submitted quickly. Over time, the Orc women would show some favour and preference for their Human slaves by feeding them rations of extra meat, and even a sip of harsh fire ale now and then. The men were treated with the frequent news that their female Orc mistresses were pregnant. The Orcs are robust and savage, and very fertile. While the Orc women had a rough hierarchy, and the stronger had more privileges, the Orc women eagerly shared their male Human slaves amongst them, several dozen and more of Orc women from the tribe. Always more Orc women joining in the nighttime orgies by the bonfires. The Human men were exhausted, day and night. Every new day brought more backbreaking work in the mines, and lashings from the whips of their Orc masters."

So, that is pretty typical. The Player Characters know very well what dealing with the Orcs is like. They have seen up close what the Orcs stand for, and what the Orcs seek to accomplish. The Orcs always view themselves as the superior race, the masters, entitled to obedience, animals, land, and booty. Other races are destined to be beaten down by the mighty hand of the Orc, and crushed as slaves for the Orcs. The Orcs are proud, simple, brutal, and ruthless.

As for how the Players handle it? Well, the Players handle it just fine. This is a harsh and brutal world their characters live within, so they expect the environment to be a Dark Ages of savagery, fire, blood, and ruthless brutality. "Might Makes Right!", and "The Strong Rule Over The Weak!"--these things are known to be deep truths and everyday reality. As for their *Characters*--well, they handle all of this with different levels of outrage, inspiration, leadership, and wisdom. They know they are dealing with a hostile, brutal culture and race that is foreign to them--but also oppositional, on almost every level. The aftermath and residual consequences are the victims and survivors alike caught up in the trauma of war, conquest, slavery, and terror.

And, well, of course, back in civilization, many Human communities have growing hordes of dark, sweaty poor people teeming in their streets, clamoring always for more food, more silver, more rights. Always in the midst of the unwashed masses are many Half Orcs. The masses of unwashed poor are often covered in mud and lead harsh and brutal lives within the shadows and gutters of civilization.

So, yes, there is always tension, drama, and conflict involved, whether such is political, economic, and racial strife, as well as emotional and family-related drama, fights, and disputes. Arguments rage back and forth over the proper response, the proper and effective policy for government and society, but these conflicts are also grappled with on the family level and within a neighborhood level and scope.

I hope I have answered your questions, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMDo the orcs actually try to capture party henchwomen or even female (or potentially even male, if you want them to be truly horrifying) PCs to satisfy their nefarious appetites?

An entire society of rapists should be 'truly horrifying' regardless of whether or not they rape males.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 10:45:10 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 12, 2025, 09:54:35 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 09:08:17 AMNow?

We have heated arguments on forums

IME, people that meet face-to-face don't behave like those on forums. Sure, you hear horror stories of weird shit at the table, but for every one of those, there are uncounted sessions that go by without such drama. This is a social media (and I include forums as an early version of social media) problem, not a gaming problem.

I certainly hope you're right, but who knows what the future holds.

I'm a "hope for the best, but expect the worst", kind of guy.

That's been my experience as well. I play with randos on the internet, and in the last three years I haven't had a single politics-related dispute break out in one of my games.

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 08:47:33 AMYou can add such content to your game in a tasteful way:

Quote"The Orcs fell upon the village, there hearts filled with rage and lust. No man, woman, or child would be safe. The men, murdered in their beds, or cut down in the heat of battle. The women would be brutalized in ways unimaginable. The lucky ones would be dead at the end of their ordeal. The unlucky, taken into slavery. The children? Either taken to be used as slaves, or if too young...The orcs would truly show how black their hearts and souls truly are."

Basically, just suggest at the sexual threat they pose. Leave it up to the imagination of the players to fill in the blanks. Sometimes the best horror is to just see part of the monster, and not the whole thing.

I get that concept, and I can see how it would work as box-text or other exposition. I'm more curious how far people have been willing/able to push the line in play. Do the PCs raid an orc lair and find a room full of brutalized, naked women? That I feel like you could get away with as long as your players are sane adults. Do the orcs actually try to capture party henchwomen or even female (or potentially even male, if you want them to be truly horrifying) PCs to satisfy their nefarious appetites? I assume most people aren't going to take it that far, but there's a part of me that thinks the threat is meaningless if it's not something your characters might actually have to encounter in some way. Maybe the way to handle that is to treat being captured by orcs as an automatic death sentence. Just tell your player "well, your character has been carried off to be horribly tortured and violated to death by orcs. Roll a new one". I don't know.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PMBut I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

I feel the same way. The supermajority of the time even in non-interactive mediums it's handled poorly.

So I use the orcs as described in Dungeons & Delvers (https://giantslayergames.com/product/dungeons-delvers/). They're demons sent by Orcus who possess corpses to exist in the mortal world. After killing their victims, they use the corpses as vessels for more orcs. They don't go around being patriarchal and misogynistic. They don't need to be.

I get that approach, too. That sounds a bit like the way things work in the Evil Dead series.  At the same time, when you phrase it that way there's something faintly ridiculous about the idea of a creature of ultimate evil, which cheerfully engages in slavery, murder, torture and/or cannibalism, but simultaneously misogyny is somehow beneath them. 

Usually I would operate on the logic of "The monsters don't see humans as a sexual prospect because they just see them as food", so orcs would see banging a human the same way humans would see banging a sheep. I suppose an alternative would be to make them so thoroughly racial supremacist that they would never sully their orc blood by breeding with a lesser race.

Greetings!

Yes, always lots of naked, brutalized women and men, too. That's what slavery is all about--labour, breeding, and dominion of one race over another. And profits, as well, if only expressed to different degrees and levels of development.

Even at the small, personal scale at the game table, the Player Characters grapple with all of these issues and more. I don't usually have kids playing at my game table, so therefore, mature adult themes are constant. War, death, slavery, rape, poverty, heroism, leadership, adventure, responsibility, defending your family, community, and kingdom, are constant themes. Not likely to be understandable to kids, so dealing with kids isn't something I as the DM must consider. So, mature adults can handle all of this very well. What do you think is in the Bible? All of this is subtext throughout our own histories and historical documents. Heroism, slavery, war, conquest, poverty, family drama, racism, hatred, and so forth. *Laughing*

I'm often reminded of the foundational story of the early history of Rome. "The Rape of the Sabines!". The Romans, at this early time in their history, were nothing more than a small collection of settlements on the Tiber River. Most of the inhabitants were men, and most of them were young, single men. They were outcasts, impoverished, criminals, bandits, and struggling. They had only a few women in their communities. So, the Romans gathered together, and went and raided a nearby tribe--the Sabines. The Romans especially carried off thousands of Sabine women, and took them as slaves back to Rome. Several years of fighting followed, as the Sabine tribe sought to get their many enslaved women back from the fierce Romans. Classic war and revenge and conquest story, right?

The real wrinkle in the tale though, is when the Sabines were pressing hard against the Romans and fighting, talks were opened up, and the Sabines demanded their women back from the Romans. The Romans were more or less eager to talk. When given the opportunity to return to their tribe, the Sabine women, well, they *refused to return to their Sabine tribal homeland*. The Sabine women had not just been slaves to the Romans, but had had children, and created families. Beyond that, the Sabine women weren't really slaves anymore. More than that, though, is that their children with their Roman fathers were growing up in a part of a new and bold society--the Sabine women knew that the Romans were violent, aggressive, warlike, and ambitious. Women everywhere really are deeply attracted to strong, vioent men. Even thousands of years ago, the Sabine women were zealous in their loyalty to their Roman men that had taken them by force, and initially raped them. The Sabine women quickly grew accustomed to a new place of pride and dignity and promise, a vision of something new, special, and adventurous.

So, the Sabine women refused to return to their Sabine tribe, and instead chose to remain with the young, struggling Romans. And the Sabine women would by their own hands contribute to building the glorious Roman Empire. Strains and elements of this fact are woven throughout Roman history, celebrating not just Roman virility, manhood, and warlike prowess, but also dignity, pride, womanhood, and motherhood. And family, and honour, and loyalty.

It's often said, "History is Stranger than Fiction." Yes, all of this really happened in ancient Rome, in the early years of struggle and poverty, fear and uncertainty.

High drama, conflict, and struggle is great for a campaign. I load my players up with a full plate of all kinds of things to chew on and consider. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMThat's been my experience as well. I play with randos on the internet, and in the last three years I haven't had a single politics-related dispute break out in one of my games.

This hasn't been a problem in my games but I have seen it happen in games I have played in.  The difference was simply that I discouraged it while the other GMs encouraged it.  Whether this became a problem was entirely down to whether the GM encouraged it or not.

Another reason not to buy 2024 DnD books. If I had time, I'd make an orc focused book and put it up on DriveThru just to poke at the Wackos of the Coast.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 04:31:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 03:14:30 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMI get that approach, too. That sounds a bit like the way things work in the Evil Dead series.  At the same time, when you phrase it that way there's something faintly ridiculous about the idea of a creature of ultimate evil, which cheerfully engages in slavery, murder, torture and/or cannibalism, but simultaneously misogyny is somehow beneath them.

If you treat men and women equally badly, then by definition you can't be misogynistic. Anyway, I don't describe them engaging in torture porn. They just kill people indiscriminately, sacrifice them to to Orcus, and reanimate the corpses as more orcs. They literally don't have the intelligence to do anything more than that. They're zombies with just enough intelligence to organize, use weapons, and increase their numbers.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2025, 01:08:23 PMUsually I would operate on the logic of "The monsters don't see humans as a sexual prospect because they just see them as food", so orcs would see banging a human the same way humans would see banging a sheep. I suppose an alternative would be to make them so thoroughly racial supremacist that they would never sully their orc blood by breeding with a lesser race.

The Dungeons & Delvers orcs don't have functioning genitals. They're hollowed-out corpses reanimated by demons.

I really don't see the appeal of describing torture-porn. I get enough of that from the news media and I don't want to be reminded of that in my escapist fiction. If you know, then you know.

Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with that. Orcs don't need to be the most horrifying monster possible, and if your goal is a light-hearted adventure game they probably shouldn't be. I'm mostly just curious about the practical experience of people who do choose to take their game there.

I cited Lovecraft's Deep Ones before. The Deep Ones don't engage in rapine and pillage directly. They use bribery and deceit to corrupt humans into agreeing to ritually breed with them, and they do it as a way of planting subversive agents into human society and slowly breeding humanity out of existence. That's the kind thing I could see myself actually using in a game. It's evil and extremely sinister, but in a way where all the really graphic stuff can plausibly happen offscreen and without much likelihood of PCs getting directly involved in it. Seems like a more workable balance.

I don't like that either because the woke have fetishized it too. "Activist in the streets, colonizer in the sheets."

Like, they made Annette black in the Castlevania cartoon so that they could make the future Belmonts black as a gotcha against white people. It's so creepy and dehumanizing. The one drop rule was designed to deprive innocent people of rights, but the woke have turned it into a sexual fetish. "We've impregnated your white daughters with our black babies. Now your entire bloodline can't go back. Take that, nazis!" Blegh.

I use Leila Hahn's version of deep ones instead. According to her analysis, the starfish headed old ones created the deep ones as a consolation prize for humanity. "Oh, you poor pathetic hominids, dying after a few decades. Let's make some aquatic immortality genes for you because we feel pity for your pathetic existences. Also, we need slaves. That too." It's still horrifying, but in the Frankensteinian sense.

OK, dumb question. Does anyone else have their orcs and various humanoids eat their captives or occasionally each other (in times of famine)? Or is it just me in my games?

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 12, 2025, 05:25:04 PM

QuoteDo the orcs actually try to capture party henchwomen or even female (or potentially even male, if you want them to be truly horrifying) PCs to satisfy their nefarious appetites?

An entire society of rapists should be 'truly horrifying' regardless of whether or not they rape males.

Sure. I just meant it'd probably freak the average player out more.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 12, 2025, 08:24:59 PM

QuoteI cited Lovecraft's Deep Ones before. The Deep Ones don't engage in rapine and pillage directly. They use bribery and deceit to corrupt humans into agreeing to ritually breed with them, and they do it as a way of planting subversive agents into human society and slowly breeding humanity out of existence. That's the kind thing I could see myself actually using in a game. It's evil and extremely sinister, but in a way where all the really graphic stuff can plausibly happen offscreen and without much likelihood of PCs getting directly involved in it. Seems like a more workable balance.

I don't like that either because the woke have fetishized it too. "Activist in the streets, colonizer in the sheets."

Like, they made Annette black in the Castlevania cartoon so that they could make the future Belmonts black as a gotcha against white people. It's so creepy and dehumanizing. The one drop rule was designed to deprive innocent people of rights, but the woke have turned it into a sexual fetish. "We've impregnated your white daughters with our black babies. Now your entire bloodline can't go back. Take that, nazis!" Blegh.

I never would have made that connection. I'm mostly following Sandy Peterson's interpretation there. It's possible that Lovecraft would have made it, though, so I guess that's something.

Quote from: SHARK on February 12, 2025, 04:58:06 PMWell, most of the time, experiencing the aftermath of being taken captive by savage Orcs has been shown by the testimonies and accounts made by the rescued survivors to the Player Characters.

"There now, are three farm girls that emerge from the blasted caves, and the fires crackling in pits nearby. The farm girls appear gaunt, beaten and crushed down, with distant, aloof eyes. Two of them are pregnant, heavy with child. Their hair is generally long, matted, and covered in sweat and blood. The women are decorated with numerous scars from being clawed, whipped, and bitten. The women speak in only sharp, halting speech, and follow your instructions quickly, though with an observed docility and servitude....

...So, yes, there is always tension, drama, and conflict involved, whether such is political, economic, and racial strife, as well as emotional and family-related drama, fights, and disputes. Arguments rage back and forth over the proper response, the proper and effective policy for government and society, but these conflicts are also grappled with on the family level and within a neighborhood level and scope.

I hope I have answered your questions, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the typically thorough response. I think I get the picture. It sounds like you also mostly address it in exposition, albeit in amply graphic detail. I suspect that if I included that narration into one of my campaigns, my players would respond with some variant of "Eww. Why are we talking about this?". It's possible your players are built different from mine, or maybe I've misjudged them.

Quote from: SHARK on February 12, 2025, 05:36:52 PMI'm often reminded of the foundational story of the early history of Rome. "The Rape of the Sabines!"...

Odd you should bring that up. Wife-raiding is a strange practice that pops up here and there in history, and is clearly a different phenomenon from standard rapine. It's actually something I considered putting into a campaign setting I was working on a while ago (and subsequently abandoned), and would have been a prominent origin for half-orcs in that setting.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 31, 2025, 09:29:02 PMI saw the latest video from ClownFish channel on YouTube.  The topic was the removal of Orcs from the Monster Manual for current day D&D.

I'm ok with this.  It will drive fans away, and D&D has had too much of a monopoly on the tabletop RPG industry.  Go play other games.

Free games: Olde Swords Reign, Mini-Six Bare Bones, Pocket Fantasy, Basic Fantasy, Castles and Crusades 7th printing.

Paid games:  Shadowdark, Old School Essentials, Kogarashi/True D6 Printable Edition, Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool edition.

Just, for the love of all that is normal, don't play D&D from the current idiots.

What's really, really stupid about this is, as others have already said, orcs were playable since at least 2e, as were kobolds, gnolls, goblins, and a bunch of other 'monsters'. They were in the Complete Book of Humanoids.

Also, I'm pretty sure humans were in the Monster Manual for 2e, as were elves, dwarves, etc. Remember the big 3-ring binder, and you could take the individual monster sheets out so you had all the stats and such easily accessible when you needed them, rather than having to paw thru a book or copy it all on another piece of paper? (Back in the days before everyone had printers and PDFs of everything, I mean)

Quote from: Hague on February 12, 2025, 10:06:48 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 31, 2025, 09:29:02 PMI saw the latest video from ClownFish channel on YouTube.  The topic was the removal of Orcs from the Monster Manual for current day D&D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Z30DmwvrI

What's really, really stupid about this is, as others have already said, orcs were playable since at least 2e, as were kobolds, gnolls, goblins, and a bunch of other 'monsters'. They were in the Complete Book of Humanoids.

Also, I'm pretty sure humans were in the Monster Manual for 2e, as were elves, dwarves, etc.

Yes, elves, dwarves and humans have been in the MM from 1E through 4E. However, they were removed from the MM as of 5E in 2014. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there were no entries for "Dwarf", "Elf", or "Human". Instead, there was an appendix of NPC templates that could supposedly be of any race.

The thing is, I played a fair amount of 5E, and removing the "Dwarf" entry from the MM made no difference to my having dwarves as antagonists in my D&D campaigns. In one adventure of my last campaign, they faced off with a cult whose cover was a dwarven stonemasons guild. For the last quarter of the campaign, one of their key enemies was an evil dwarven paladin of vengeance.

People need to look at the bright side.   At least with this edition, they haven't added conservatives in (yet) as a monster stat block.   We have hopefully at least another five years before they get around to that!  :)

Quote from: SHARK on February 12, 2025, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As usual, SHARK manages to make everything sound far more exciting.

I'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

Greetings!

Good afternoon, my friend! Definitely a good time here for some fresh brewed coffee! I'm drinking some Italian Roast. Very nice to have, anytime, though especially on cold, winter days! Lighting up a good cigar, and chewing on your questions here.

Well, most of the time, experiencing the aftermath of being taken captive by savage Orcs has been shown by the testimonies and accounts made by the rescued survivors to the Player Characters.

"There now, are three farm girls that emerge from the blasted caves, and the fires crackling in pits nearby. The farm girls appear gaunt, beaten and crushed down, with distant, aloof eyes. Two of them are pregnant, heavy with child. Their hair is generally long, matted, and covered in sweat and blood. The women are decorated with numerous scars from being clawed, whipped, and bitten. The women speak in only sharp, halting speech, and follow your instructions quickly, though with an observed docility and servitude. A larger gaggle of rescued slaves follows them out from the dark slave pens, and they all have a similar grim appearance. Nonetheless, there are meek flickers of gratitude that they express as they follow your instructions. They have survived a terrifying and harrowing experience.

And yes, there amidst the throng of desperate slaves, is the Wizard's Apprentice you were originally searching for. Clive Taben is alive, though entirely transformed from what you knew of him from over a year since passed. Where once Clive was a clean-cut, well-dressed scholar, an urban gentleman just entering his prime with a bright, curious smile and inspiring cheerfulness--that is all gone. Now Clive Taben has a full beard, his hair grown well passed his shoulders in an unruly mass, and he occasionally growls and makes strange animal-like noises. His naked body is somewhat muscular and lean--no doubt from the frequent hard labour he has been subjected to by the Orcs. As you find some clothes for him to wear, it is striking to notice that his shoulders and sides have long, deepened scars. His chest has a rough tattoo of a boar's head scribed into his flesh, and he wears a simple necklace made of iron chain links, and holding iron-dipped wolves' teeth.

On the march back to civilization from the encampments of the Black Fist Orc tribe, you have rescued some 40 Human women, and about 18 Human men. Along the journey, you learn that these captives were enslaved for months at a time, with some being enslaved for several years. Whether they were enslaved for months, or several years, the slaves' experiences will no doubt stay with them forever. Many of the women are currently pregnant with child. Many of them have been virtually kept constantly pregnant during their years of enslavement. Year after year, breeding for their Orc masters. The surviving men relate to you that alongside their daily labour in the nearby iron mines, they were frequently tortured and beaten by the Orc masters. Whipped and beaten down, by one brute Orc, or several. The Orcs guarded them watchfully, even suspiciously, on a constant basis. Barking harsh commands at them, snarling savage insults at them, and always swift with the gauntleted hand of discipline. Meanwhile, at night, groups of fierce Orc women would take their turns raping the men, again and again. A few men refused and sought to resist early on--one was fed right there to the Spined Boars that the Orcs kept in nearby pens. Several others were set upon by the large, aggressive Orc women, and swiftly beaten down, and ripped open, for all to see. The Orc women were just as violent and ruthlessly brutal as the Orc men. The Orc women commanded obedience--and for the Human men that survived, they bowed their heads and submitted quickly. Over time, the Orc women would show some favour and preference for their Human slaves by feeding them rations of extra meat, and even a sip of harsh fire ale now and then. The men were treated with the frequent news that their female Orc mistresses were pregnant. The Orcs are robust and savage, and very fertile. While the Orc women had a rough hierarchy, and the stronger had more privileges, the Orc women eagerly shared their male Human slaves amongst them, several dozen and more of Orc women from the tribe. Always more Orc women joining in the nighttime orgies by the bonfires. The Human men were exhausted, day and night. Every new day brought more backbreaking work in the mines, and lashings from the whips of their Orc masters."

So, that is pretty typical. The Player Characters know very well what dealing with the Orcs is like. They have seen up close what the Orcs stand for, and what the Orcs seek to accomplish. The Orcs always view themselves as the superior race, the masters, entitled to obedience, animals, land, and booty. Other races are destined to be beaten down by the mighty hand of the Orc, and crushed as slaves for the Orcs. The Orcs are proud, simple, brutal, and ruthless.

As for how the Players handle it? Well, the Players handle it just fine. This is a harsh and brutal world their characters live within, so they expect the environment to be a Dark Ages of savagery, fire, blood, and ruthless brutality. "Might Makes Right!", and "The Strong Rule Over The Weak!"--these things are known to be deep truths and everyday reality. As for their *Characters*--well, they handle all of this with different levels of outrage, inspiration, leadership, and wisdom. They know they are dealing with a hostile, brutal culture and race that is foreign to them--but also oppositional, on almost every level. The aftermath and residual consequences are the victims and survivors alike caught up in the trauma of war, conquest, slavery, and terror.

And, well, of course, back in civilization, many Human communities have growing hordes of dark, sweaty poor people teeming in their streets, clamoring always for more food, more silver, more rights. Always in the midst of the unwashed masses are many Half Orcs. The masses of unwashed poor are often covered in mud and lead harsh and brutal lives within the shadows and gutters of civilization.

So, yes, there is always tension, drama, and conflict involved, whether such is political, economic, and racial strife, as well as emotional and family-related drama, fights, and disputes. Arguments rage back and forth over the proper response, the proper and effective policy for government and society, but these conflicts are also grappled with on the family level and within a neighborhood level and scope.

I hope I have answered your questions, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Question: WHEN AND WHERE CAN I PLAY IN YOUR GAME? HOLY SHIT! IT'S AMAZING! I'D DRIVE HALF A CONTINENT TO GET IN ON THAT ACTION!

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 12:37:54 PMYou mean the "general behavior of the monster" part? The part that is clearly not about alignment, but about behavior?

So in other words, yes... you did miss it totally.

Quote from: jeff37923 on February 12, 2025, 08:55:22 PMOK, dumb question. Does anyone else have their orcs and various humanoids eat their captives or occasionally each other (in times of famine)? Or is it just me in my games?

Gnolls sure do. Orcs? Depends. Theres a long running Keep on the Borderlands comic where the orcs in the Caves of Chaos kill off one of the PCs that way and would have been the fate of the others too. That player just had bad luck in the session the comic was based on.

In general there seems to be a shift in how humanoids are defined and depicted. There seems to be this emphasis on humanoids having free will and such, whereas other types don't. Gnolls are now fiends, goblinoids are now fey, etc.

They're also changing the gendered monsters taken from myth (e.g. dryad, hag, medusa) to having representatives of both sexes. (Oddly, they don't have a third body type for nonbinary.)

Quote from: Omega on February 13, 2025, 11:02:24 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 12:37:54 PMYou mean the "general behavior of the monster" part? The part that is clearly not about alignment, but about behavior?

So in other words, yes... you did miss it totally.

 that's cool. enlighten me.

Quote from: blackstone on February 13, 2025, 10:30:12 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 12, 2025, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2025, 08:25:57 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:29:24 PMGreetings!

Orcs. Indeed, in my Thandor world, Orcs are savage, brutal, and ruthless. Absolutely devoted to conquest, plunder, and rape. They glorify and exalt conquering, enslaving, and raping other races and creatures. Mass slaughters, huge bonfire celebrations where thousands are sacrificed to the Dark Gods, while herds of captive enemies are kept shackled in the chains of bondage, to be devoured, or ruthlessly bred with on the Orc's whims and bestial desires. Bands of Orc marauders are always fanning out, patrolling their borders, and always on the lookout for any kind of enemies. Orc armies frequently gather and march against some hapless, weak nation, and bring absolute terror and destruction to them.

Orcs laugh at pathetic Human reasoning, philosophy, and intellectualism. The Orcs enjoy taking smug, urban intellectuals captive, and roasting them slowly over the firepits. Or keeping them in a mud-drenched cave where they are routinely tortured and raped, over and over again. With an iron chain around their neck, and being beaten by the whip of their Orc masters. The pathetic civilized Humans learn to beg and scrape on their knees to their rightful masters.

For the Orcs, that is the proper place for Humans, and other races alike.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As usual, SHARK manages to make everything sound far more exciting.

I'm curious, though. How does all that rape appear in your game when you're actually running it at the table? I find that a lot of the best monsters pose some level of sexual threat, whether that's in the direct sense of something like Lovecraft's Deep Ones or the more symbolic sense of the Xenomorph. But I've always shied away from putting that into any RPG material, on the assumption that it would just be horribly awkward in practice and such things are better left for non-interactive mediums.

Greetings!

Good afternoon, my friend! Definitely a good time here for some fresh brewed coffee! I'm drinking some Italian Roast. Very nice to have, anytime, though especially on cold, winter days! Lighting up a good cigar, and chewing on your questions here.

Well, most of the time, experiencing the aftermath of being taken captive by savage Orcs has been shown by the testimonies and accounts made by the rescued survivors to the Player Characters.

"There now, are three farm girls that emerge from the blasted caves, and the fires crackling in pits nearby. The farm girls appear gaunt, beaten and crushed down, with distant, aloof eyes. Two of them are pregnant, heavy with child. Their hair is generally long, matted, and covered in sweat and blood. The women are decorated with numerous scars from being clawed, whipped, and bitten. The women speak in only sharp, halting speech, and follow your instructions quickly, though with an observed docility and servitude. A larger gaggle of rescued slaves follows them out from the dark slave pens, and they all have a similar grim appearance. Nonetheless, there are meek flickers of gratitude that they express as they follow your instructions. They have survived a terrifying and harrowing experience.

And yes, there amidst the throng of desperate slaves, is the Wizard's Apprentice you were originally searching for. Clive Taben is alive, though entirely transformed from what you knew of him from over a year since passed. Where once Clive was a clean-cut, well-dressed scholar, an urban gentleman just entering his prime with a bright, curious smile and inspiring cheerfulness--that is all gone. Now Clive Taben has a full beard, his hair grown well passed his shoulders in an unruly mass, and he occasionally growls and makes strange animal-like noises. His naked body is somewhat muscular and lean--no doubt from the frequent hard labour he has been subjected to by the Orcs. As you find some clothes for him to wear, it is striking to notice that his shoulders and sides have long, deepened scars. His chest has a rough tattoo of a boar's head scribed into his flesh, and he wears a simple necklace made of iron chain links, and holding iron-dipped wolves' teeth.

On the march back to civilization from the encampments of the Black Fist Orc tribe, you have rescued some 40 Human women, and about 18 Human men. Along the journey, you learn that these captives were enslaved for months at a time, with some being enslaved for several years. Whether they were enslaved for months, or several years, the slaves' experiences will no doubt stay with them forever. Many of the women are currently pregnant with child. Many of them have been virtually kept constantly pregnant during their years of enslavement. Year after year, breeding for their Orc masters. The surviving men relate to you that alongside their daily labour in the nearby iron mines, they were frequently tortured and beaten by the Orc masters. Whipped and beaten down, by one brute Orc, or several. The Orcs guarded them watchfully, even suspiciously, on a constant basis. Barking harsh commands at them, snarling savage insults at them, and always swift with the gauntleted hand of discipline. Meanwhile, at night, groups of fierce Orc women would take their turns raping the men, again and again. A few men refused and sought to resist early on--one was fed right there to the Spined Boars that the Orcs kept in nearby pens. Several others were set upon by the large, aggressive Orc women, and swiftly beaten down, and ripped open, for all to see. The Orc women were just as violent and ruthlessly brutal as the Orc men. The Orc women commanded obedience--and for the Human men that survived, they bowed their heads and submitted quickly. Over time, the Orc women would show some favour and preference for their Human slaves by feeding them rations of extra meat, and even a sip of harsh fire ale now and then. The men were treated with the frequent news that their female Orc mistresses were pregnant. The Orcs are robust and savage, and very fertile. While the Orc women had a rough hierarchy, and the stronger had more privileges, the Orc women eagerly shared their male Human slaves amongst them, several dozen and more of Orc women from the tribe. Always more Orc women joining in the nighttime orgies by the bonfires. The Human men were exhausted, day and night. Every new day brought more backbreaking work in the mines, and lashings from the whips of their Orc masters."

So, that is pretty typical. The Player Characters know very well what dealing with the Orcs is like. They have seen up close what the Orcs stand for, and what the Orcs seek to accomplish. The Orcs always view themselves as the superior race, the masters, entitled to obedience, animals, land, and booty. Other races are destined to be beaten down by the mighty hand of the Orc, and crushed as slaves for the Orcs. The Orcs are proud, simple, brutal, and ruthless.

As for how the Players handle it? Well, the Players handle it just fine. This is a harsh and brutal world their characters live within, so they expect the environment to be a Dark Ages of savagery, fire, blood, and ruthless brutality. "Might Makes Right!", and "The Strong Rule Over The Weak!"--these things are known to be deep truths and everyday reality. As for their *Characters*--well, they handle all of this with different levels of outrage, inspiration, leadership, and wisdom. They know they are dealing with a hostile, brutal culture and race that is foreign to them--but also oppositional, on almost every level. The aftermath and residual consequences are the victims and survivors alike caught up in the trauma of war, conquest, slavery, and terror.

And, well, of course, back in civilization, many Human communities have growing hordes of dark, sweaty poor people teeming in their streets, clamoring always for more food, more silver, more rights. Always in the midst of the unwashed masses are many Half Orcs. The masses of unwashed poor are often covered in mud and lead harsh and brutal lives within the shadows and gutters of civilization.

So, yes, there is always tension, drama, and conflict involved, whether such is political, economic, and racial strife, as well as emotional and family-related drama, fights, and disputes. Arguments rage back and forth over the proper response, the proper and effective policy for government and society, but these conflicts are also grappled with on the family level and within a neighborhood level and scope.

I hope I have answered your questions, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Question: WHEN AND WHERE CAN I PLAY IN YOUR GAME? HOLY SHIT! IT'S AMAZING! I'D DRIVE HALF A CONTINENT TO GET IN ON THAT ACTION!

Greetings!

*Laughing* Thank you, my friend! Blackstone, it would be fantastic to game with you, man!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on February 13, 2025, 12:25:45 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 13, 2025, 11:02:24 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 12, 2025, 12:37:54 PMYou mean the "general behavior of the monster" part? The part that is clearly not about alignment, but about behavior?

So in other words, yes... you did miss it totally.

 that's cool. enlighten me.

blackstone may have me on ignore now, but I'll reiterate what I said earlier.

The 1E MM defines the listed alignment as a "characteristic bent". This means a tendency rather than an absolute. If I say that elves have a characteristic bent towards Chaotic Good, then that means that most elves are Chaotic Good, but that individual elves may have different alignment.

Third edition introduced qualifiers to alignment like "always" and "usually". But 1E lists elf alignment the same way that it lists demon alignment. There are very rarely qualifiers on alignment in the 1E MM. Two creatures have "see below" for alignment: the Homonculus and Man (pilgrim).

So in the 1E MM, elves are listed as "Alignment: Chaotic Good" - but it's also true that when someone makes an elf PC in 1E AD&D, they have their choice of alignment. Likewise, half-orcs are included in the "Orc" entry in the MM. They are listed as Chaotic Evil. However, if someone makes a half-orc PC, they have their choice of alignment.

Quote from: jhkim on February 13, 2025, 03:58:24 PMSo in the 1E MM, elves are listed as "Alignment: Chaotic Good" - but it's also true that when someone makes an elf PC in 1E AD&D, they have their choice of alignment. Likewise, half-orcs are included in the "Orc" entry in the MM. They are listed as Chaotic Evil. However, if someone makes a half-orc PC, they have their choice of alignment.

So, today jhkim discovers the difference between "monsters" and "player characters."  Congratulations!  Maybe tomorrow the difference between "player" and "dungeon master" will finally click, eh?

Quote from: jhkim on February 13, 2025, 03:58:24 PMblackstone may have me on ignore now, but I'll reiterate what I said earlier.

No, I don't have you on ignore. I felt it was best if we back off a bit.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 13, 2025, 09:33:02 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 13, 2025, 03:58:24 PMSo in the 1E MM, elves are listed as "Alignment: Chaotic Good" - but it's also true that when someone makes an elf PC in 1E AD&D, they have their choice of alignment. Likewise, half-orcs are included in the "Orc" entry in the MM. They are listed as Chaotic Evil. However, if someone makes a half-orc PC, they have their choice of alignment.

So, today jhkim discovers the difference between "monsters" and "player characters."  Congratulations!  Maybe tomorrow the difference between "player" and "dungeon master" will finally click, eh?

Right. MY understanding was that alignment listed in the MM was an absolute for monsters listed therein. I mean, who'd ever heard of a good demon or devil, let alone a Lawful good orc?

Now, player character races are a different thing entirely. Players are free to choose what alignment their PC can be, barring class restriction of course.

But here's the thing: once you had the rules, you can do whatever you want Pre-5th ed D&D. Now we have SJWs running through the halls of WoTC, willing and able to slam the DEI hammer down on everything they publish. On top of that, if you don't fall in line with their changes, you will be shamed publicly for it. That's the problem.

Let's be honest here folks: nobody ever saw Orcs as an analogy to black people. Ever...Until the SJWs got involved. Then all of a sudden, Orcs are racist depictions of black people? Just because they said so? So they changed the Orcs as depicted, to look like Mexicans. C'mon, who's the REAL racist here?

That's why these people are hypocrites, and they constantly project their fears and hatred upon those who they perceive as their enemy. These SJWs say their oppressed, when in reality, they've become the oppressor. They forgot the one thing about freedom: true freedom is allowing those you appose to speak and be who they are, AND SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. But they can't. In doing so, it would open them to true discussion, and by doing that, they know their point of view would fall apart under scrutiny, like a house of cards. 

An excellent rebuttal to the Orc removal video

A 3pp supplement from the 3.x era, Children of the Planes by Tangent Games, introduced lawful good orcs as a subrace of planetouched. They were called "leonorks" because they had leonine features. Their favored class was paladin, naturally. According to their history, they came into existence when the sad painful death cries of dying orcs conjured an orc goddess of mercy. She created the leonorks as a second chance for the orcs.

Another, Mythic Races by Fantasy Flight Games, introduced "risen fiends" who decided to become good as a playable race.

Anyway, the reason why the association was made between orcs and black folks by the woke is because they believe that all fictional monsters are actually caricatures of non-white and non-straight people. Under their belief system, monsters are created as a way to stigmatize and demonize minorities. This is obviously nonsensical, as monsters like the pishtaco are literally based on fears of being exploited by white colonizers!

I stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 14, 2025, 09:46:37 AMAnyway, the reason why the association was made between orcs and black folks by the woke is because they believe that all fictional monsters are actually caricatures of non-white and non-straight people. Under their belief system, monsters are created as a way to stigmatize and demonize minorities. This is obviously nonsensical, as monsters like the pishtaco are literally based on fears of being exploited by white colonizers!

And that's why they're insane: they cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 09:47:05 AMI stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

The link is a rebuttal to Extra Credit's insane video.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 14, 2025, 09:46:37 AMAnyway, the reason why the association was made between orcs and black folks by the woke is because they believe that all fictional monsters are actually caricatures of non-white and non-straight people. Under their belief system, monsters are created as a way to stigmatize and demonize minorities. This is obviously nonsensical, as monsters like the pishtaco are literally based on fears of being exploited by white colonizers!

  Another part of their reasoning works as following:

  1. Minorities have sometimes been described in monstrous terms by racists;
  2. Ergo, anything being described as monstrous is racist, adjacent to racism, or otherwise suspect.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 14, 2025, 10:17:56 AMAnother part of their reasoning works as following:

  1. Minorities have sometimes been described in monstrous terms by racists;
  2. Ergo, anything being described as monstrous is racist, adjacent to racism, or otherwise suspect.

I've noticed this too. For example, there's this claim going around that the classic gothic vampire tales are all metaphors for homosexuality. Dracula, Carmilla, Vardalek, Ruthven, etc are actually gay and the stories are about how they're ostracized and demonized by straights. This is obviously problematic, as these stories depict vampires as monsters who physically suck the life out of their victims. If any of the authors were gay and subliminally wrote this into their work, then they clearly had issues. I've always found the association between vampirism and homosexuality offensive because it reads exactly like blood libel.

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 09:47:05 AMI stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

That's "Evil Races are Bad Game Design" four years ago, right? Yeah, I disagreed hard with that, as we discussed back then (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/extra-credits-evil-races-are-bad-game-design/).

What pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Orcs are fictional. I can have a game where orcs are evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies, or I can have a game where orcs are good-hearted salt-of-the-earth farmers, or any number of other variations. There's no reason I should have to conform to any particular version of orc.

Quote from: blackstone on February 14, 2025, 10:04:55 AM

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 09:47:05 AMI stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

The link is a rebuttal to Extra Credit's insane video.

I know; I did click to start playing so I could watch it later in my history.   I was just chiming in to comment on the original channel they're rebutting.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 14, 2025, 10:17:56 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 14, 2025, 09:46:37 AMAnyway, the reason why the association was made between orcs and black folks by the woke is because they believe that all fictional monsters are actually caricatures of non-white and non-straight people. Under their belief system, monsters are created as a way to stigmatize and demonize minorities. This is obviously nonsensical, as monsters like the pishtaco are literally based on fears of being exploited by white colonizers!

  Another part of their reasoning works as following:

  1. Minorities have sometimes been described in monstrous terms by racists;
  2. Ergo, anything being described as monstrous is racist, adjacent to racism, or otherwise suspect.

I'm convinced most of the activism around pop culture is this kind of free association. Which leads to some hilarious contradictions.

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMOrcs are fictional. I can have a game where orcs are evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies, or I can have a game where orcs are good-hearted salt-of-the-earth farmers, or any number of other variations. There's no reason I should have to conform to any particular version of orc.

I have no problem with new games/settings coming out with non-evil versions of previously monolithically evil races (like Eberron did with Drow back in 3.x) as long as the world is consistent (NOT a synonym for stagnant though).  Exceptions to the rules should be up to players and GMs and not completely upend the longstanding lore that players have grown to love for decades (even if it was occasionally inconsistent).

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 01:30:11 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMOrcs are fictional. I can have a game where orcs are evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies, or I can have a game where orcs are good-hearted salt-of-the-earth farmers, or any number of other variations. There's no reason I should have to conform to any particular version of orc.

I have no problem with new games/settings coming out with non-evil versions of previously monolithically evil races (like Eberron did with Drow back in 3.x) as long as the world is consistent (NOT a synonym for stagnant though).  Exceptions to the rules should be up to players and GMs and not completely upend the longstanding lore that players have grown to love for decades (even if it was occasionally inconsistent).

In principle I agree about lore.

However, you've just made clear that you don't know the lore. Drow were made a core PC race by Gary Gygax back in 1985 with the publication of Unearthed Arcana, which clearly made them not monolithically evil. This was cemented in the Drizz't books starting in 1988. These happened long before Eberron in the 2000s.

Half-orcs are chaotic evil in the Monster Manual (1977) but were made a non-monolithically-evil PC race with the Player's Handbook (1978).

Full-blooded orcs were first made into an optional PC race in The Orcs of Thar (1988), which is set in the Known World / Mystara. That allowed varying orc alignment, though it was only lawful/neutral/chaotic as was standard for BECMI. Orcs as a whole were still warlike and malevolent, though definitely sillier than they come across in the Monster Manual.

Varying orcs have popped up regularly since then, like in the semi-civilized nation of monsters Droamm in Eberron.

My preferred approach would be for non-world-specific lore to be minimal - and allow for both orcish citizens of Droamm (consistent with Eberron lore) as well as evil orcish armies of Pomarj (consistent with Greyhawk lore). I don't have any D&D books of the 2024 edition yet, and I'm not sure if it meets that criteria.

Quote from: jhkim on February 15, 2025, 12:17:57 PMorcish citizens of Droamm (consistent with Eberron lore)

You might mean the Shadow Marches, which was considerd a (barely) civilized territory. Droamm was the "monster nation" and not recognized by the civilized nations as anything beyond a dangerous land of monsters.

Hmm, if orcs have no stats, does that mean they cannot be hurt in Organized Play or homebrew campaigns? :D Does that mean we can all have our PCs grab orcs and strap them on as nigh-invulnerable ablative armor? :D Say yes, pretty pretty please with gooey gooey gumdrops on top!

*dragon breath!*
Hah! My squirming orc family armor ignores the damage for they are undefined! Screw you dragon, ya bigot! ;)

Yeah, I don't know what WotC is doing. Seems weird. Maybe they're going to make orcs a special supplement, or a lifestyle brand consumer goods line. Maybe there'll be a new fragrance line: "Orq -- plunder their senses, leave them ravished!"

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 16, 2025, 04:30:17 PMYeah, I don't know what WotC is doing. Seems weird. Maybe they're going to make orcs a special supplement, or a lifestyle brand consumer goods line. Maybe there'll be a new fragrance line: "Orq -- plunder their senses, leave them ravished!"

This article came across my newsfeed today, so I guess they're just going to put them in setting books.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/evil-drow-statblocks-to-return-in-forgotten-realms-rulebooks-later-this-year.711606/

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 16, 2025, 04:30:17 PMHmm, if orcs have no stats, does that mean they cannot be hurt in Organized Play or homebrew campaigns? :D Does that mean we can all have our PCs grab orcs and strap them on as nigh-invulnerable ablative armor? :D Say yes, pretty pretty please with gooey gooey gumdrops on top!

*dragon breath!*
Hah! My squirming orc family armor ignores the damage for they are undefined! Screw you dragon, ya bigot! ;)

Yeah, I don't know what WotC is doing. Seems weird. Maybe they're going to make orcs a special supplement, or a lifestyle brand consumer goods line. Maybe there'll be a new fragrance line: "Orq -- plunder their senses, leave them ravished!"

Can you imagine how the other humanoids feel? All the goblins & hobgoblins standing around wondering why orcs get all this special treatment. That's racist! Oh sure make orcs so superior and untouchable. What about us?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 17, 2025, 08:03:01 AMCan you imagine how the other humanoids feel?

Most of those are not Humanoids anymore: Goblinoids became Fey, Gnolls became Fiends, others may have change too (AFB, can't check right now).

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 09:54:02 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 17, 2025, 08:03:01 AMCan you imagine how the other humanoids feel?

Most of those are not Humanoids anymore: Goblinoids became Fey, Gnolls became Fiends, others may have change too (AFB, can't check right now).

:( OMG, look at those epithets being thrown around! Has WotC no shame?

;) Just making light of how silly this has all been. ::) Reinventing the wheel to save the children, as it were. Apparently humanity needed those dangerous playgrounds to weed out the weak to preserve the common sense of future adults. :o

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 16, 2025, 04:30:17 PMHmm, if orcs have no stats, does that mean they cannot be hurt in Organized Play or homebrew campaigns? :D Does that mean we can all have our PCs grab orcs and strap them on as nigh-invulnerable ablative armor? :D Say yes, pretty pretty please with gooey gooey gumdrops on top!

Orcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition. There is no "Dwarf" or "Dragonborn" entry in the 2014 Monster Manual, yet I frequently fought against enemy dwarves, dragonborn, and other NPCs in my 5e campaigns.

I guess there were some DMs who in 2014 suddenly felt they couldn't have evil dragonborn as enemies in their campaigns any more. I think that's a failure of those DMs rather than a failure of the 2014 rules, though.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 09:54:02 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 17, 2025, 08:03:01 AMCan you imagine how the other humanoids feel?

Most of those are not Humanoids anymore: Goblinoids became Fey, Gnolls became Fiends, others may have change too (AFB, can't check right now).

Oh the inhumanity! Not only are orcs treated as full on people, the other humanoids have had their personhoods stripped away.

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

You know, if you weren't so wrapped up in your narrative, you might actually understand the argument a little.  I haven't seen any majority argument that removing orcs from the MM somehow invalidates alignment (you can always find one or two randos on the forum to make any stupid argument; that doesn't make that argument the point).  What I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

WotC wants the default for player character "races" to be just humans with masks.  They are all in on the "orcs were coded as black people" kind of nonsense, so this reaction (and the removal of half-races) is a political decision to set the default expectations of character races ("All races are equal and the same!  No race is better or worse at anything than any other.  All hail the Supreme Soviet!").  The WotC-defenders on here are just trying to stir up irrelevant arguments to obfuscate (like they normally do).  The question here is, "Are races fundamentally, biologically and socially, different?  Or are they all just colorful instances of the same thing?"  Putting the races in the MM reinforces the concept that they are different from each other, which is why they had to go...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

You know, if you weren't so wrapped up in your narrative, you might actually understand the argument a little.  I haven't seen any majority argument that removing orcs from the MM somehow invalidates alignment (you can always find one or two randos on the forum to make any stupid argument; that doesn't make that argument the point).  What I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

WotC wants the default for player character "races" to be just humans with masks.  They are all in on the "orcs were coded as black people" kind of nonsense, so this reaction (and the removal of half-races) is a political decision to set the default expectations of character races ("All races are equal and the same!  No race is better or worse at anything than any other.  All hail the Supreme Soviet!").  The WotC-defenders on here are just trying to stir up irrelevant arguments to obfuscate (like they normally do).  The question here is, "Are races fundamentally, biologically and socially, different?  Or are they all just colorful instances of the same thing?"  Putting the races in the MM reinforces the concept that they are different from each other, which is why they had to go...

Greetings!

Exactly, my friend. Whatever TSR did in the past or in Dragon Magazine, none of that is relevant. That was all normal hobby stuff. What the WOTC fucksticks are engaged with in recent years is all absolutely political and ideological. It's all Commie, racist, DEI, Woke Feminist BS. That is a huge difference, and some people do not want to confront that reality and come to the truth.

This entire scenario is not "Business as usual". It reflects a Marxist, Woke activist political takeover and corruption of WOTC as a company, Hasbro, and the industry as a whole. That truth, that reality makes some people uncomfortable and squeamish to admit, because of some weakness within them, or their own personal compromises they have made.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

First of all, about SHARK's REE REE communist DEI talk...

I think WotC is a soulless corporation that will mouth any words for a potential sale, who don't care about disabled people or black people any more than they care about Christians or patriots. I am happy to throw them under the bus.

What I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AMWhat I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

In all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

As far as I can recall, prior to 2024 no one - including all the posters on theRPGsite - actually complained  that 5E had ruined races by removing the "Dwarf" and other PC race entries from the Monster Manual. Somehow even though it was stupid and ruined all the races, no one mentioned this awful thing that 5E had done.

As I mentioned, it made zero difference in my campaigns. I had dwarves as opponents and allies in 5E games. They either used the NPC templates or were made using the PC rules.

Speaking strictly from a design perspective, it's not necessarily bad to have a generic "humanoid" statblock for various professions, from which you can then lay a racial template over. This would be a very quick and convenient way to handle a large group of disparate mooks.

Suppose the party stumbled upon a bandit camp comprised mostly of humans and half-orcs, with the occasional dwarf and half-elf for good measure. Having one location in the MM listing stats for scouts, hedgemages, toughs, etc. (which can be easily adjusted on-the-fly with a couple modifiers) is a huge timesave.

However, from what my research has gathered, WotC even failed there since EVERY ENTRY in the new MM is now listed alphabetically, rather than being grouped under sub-headings. So your Orc Raiding Party (tm) consisting of scouts, toughs, and shamans (i.e. "cultish fanatic") now requires the GM to flip back and forth through several sections of the book.

Of course, the GM could have the foresight to write all the stats on a piece of paper, but they shouldn't have to do that when the fukken book is right in front of them.

On the topic of removing dwarf/elf/orc entirely from the MM, that's such a stupid decision. It forces Gamemasters to take the extra step of referencing the PHB to add flavor to the otherwise generic entries of "scout" or "tough." A significant portion of players aren't likely to do that, opting to simply run the encounter with the base stats and a skinsuit. It means the orcs aren't going to be any different from the lizardmen, who won't be any different from the drow. How. Fukken. Boring...

In summary, I don't really hate what WotC are attempting to do here, but I absolutely hate the implementation and execution of it (doubly so for the perceived political reasoning behind it).

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMIn all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

Except I don't believe you.  And even if I did, it wouldn't matter.  What happens in the handful of games that you play in is irrelevant to the overall structure or interpretation of D&D, especially by new players.  Grognards play dwarves as dwarves, because we have decades and editions of experience.  The students who are new to the game (50+ per year) that I see don't have that background or experience.  So they follow what's in the books (at least until I can show them that other ways exist).  So The fact that you "haven't seen" it doesn't mean squat.  You really have nothing without your anecdotes, do you?

It's the principle of the change (I know, "principle" is not a term you are very familiar with...), and what it says about the default expectations for races.  And, by removing ability score boosts, removing races from the MM, etc., WotC is declaring that "race" or culture isn't an important indicator of anything.  It's just like living in Seattle!

So, if you choose to respond to this, how about responding with a discussion of principle and first-causes?  Your inability to conceive of anything outside your own experience is common among leftists, but it isn't adding anything to this discussion.  I know it's hard to fathom, but it isn't all about you...

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 09:47:05 AMI stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

That's "Evil Races are Bad Game Design" four years ago, right? Yeah, I disagreed hard with that, as we discussed back then (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/extra-credits-evil-races-are-bad-game-design/).

What pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Orcs are fictional. I can have a game where orcs are evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies, or I can have a game where orcs are good-hearted salt-of-the-earth farmers, or any number of other variations. There's no reason I should have to conform to any particular version of orc.

You can do that the same way you can write a book where vampire skin sparkles in the sunlight. It doesn't mean anything about the thing itself or what it really is or where it comes from. If you change it that much then it's not really an orc at all and you're just using the name, which understandably makes people irritated when you try to say that's just as "valid" or more valid/less offensive than the real thing.

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

Orcs were invented in the Lord of the Rings. They did not exist before that. Within that depiction they're all evil, however you may feel about that. Later on some people made ones that weren't evil, mainly so they could be used as player characters in games. That's okay but it's not as though that's more true to the original concept than the original concept itself.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 18, 2025, 12:35:01 PMOh the inhumanity! Not only are orcs treated as full on people, the other humanoids have had their personhoods stripped away.

(https://jlsysinc.gotdns.com/sapient.png)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 05:08:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMIn all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

Except I don't believe you.  And even if I did, it wouldn't matter.  What happens in the handful of games that you play in is irrelevant to the overall structure or interpretation of D&D, especially by new players.  Grognards play dwarves as dwarves, because we have decades and editions of experience.  The students who are new to the game (50+ per year) that I see don't have that background or experience.  So they follow what's in the books (at least until I can show them that other ways exist).  So The fact that you "haven't seen" it doesn't mean squat.  You really have nothing without your anecdotes, do you?

Anecdotes are how both you and I understand what D&D is like as it is actually played. The opposite to this is "white room" arguments like Opaopajr in #203, where he suggests that because there is no "Dwarf" entry in 2014 Monster Manual, that this means that dwarves cannot be hurt and so you can strap them on like armor to be nigh-invulnerable. We all know that's fucking stupid. People have been actually playing 5E for over ten years, and no DM has actually run it like this.

I just clearly said that players do follow what's in the book about dwarves -- by which I mean the Player's Handbook. The Player's Handbook info on dwarves is more detailed than the Monster Manual entry, and it's the primary source for both PCs and NPCs. The MM "Dwarf" entry is a fifth wheel that the DM may use for stats in fighting a random dwarf, but doesn't change anyone's understanding of what dwarves fundamentally are.

If, in your experience, people have changed their view of what dwarves are like based on the MM entry, then tell me about it. What is the important stuff in the MM (but not the PH) that made such a difference?

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 06:19:06 PMIf, in your experience, people have changed their view of what dwarves are like based on the MM entry, then tell me about it. What is the important stuff in the MM (but not the PH) that made such a difference?

Reading is fundamental.  I didn't say anywhere that people are changing their view.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Those of us with experience aren't changing our views.  Those new to the game don't have views to change.  They are the ones who are intended to see orcs, dwarfs, elves, as just funny-looking humans.  They are the ones that are supposed to see "race" as just badging.  Lots of modern companies have attempted to create new consumers to replace the consumers that they disagree with politically or socially (Disney, Bud Light, et al.).  Doesn't work out to well for them.

You want to know what piece of information in the MM makes a difference?  The word "Dwarf" (or "Orc").

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMFirst of all, about SHARK's REE REE communist DEI talk...

I think WotC is a soulless corporation that will mouth any words for a potential sale, who don't care about disabled people or black people any more than they care about Christians or patriots. I am happy to throw them under the bus.

What I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AMWhat I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

In all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

As far as I can recall, prior to 2024 no one - including all the posters on theRPGsite - actually complained  that 5E had ruined races by removing the "Dwarf" and other PC race entries from the Monster Manual. Somehow even though it was stupid and ruined all the races, no one mentioned this awful thing that 5E had done.

As I mentioned, it made zero difference in my campaigns. I had dwarves as opponents and allies in 5E games. They either used the NPC templates or were made using the PC rules.

Greetings!

I'm not "Ree Reeing" about anything, Jhkim. What I discussed is an accurate, factual description and analysis of what has become of the leadership and the most prominent writers and developers that work at WOTC and control the D&D brand.

All of the WOTC interviews as well as X and other interweb quotations from statements that WOTC designers have made, you don't think then is an accurate assessment of what has become reality at WOTC?

Where the fuck have you been, man?

I'm not going to hunt and copy/paste the HUGE amount of evidence. I'll just refer you--as well as any interested members--to Pundit's own NUMEROUS videos where he discusses this reality. Beyond that, the program Diversity & Dragons has numerous program episodes where the RECEIPTS ARE SHOWN, from WOTC's own fucking mouths.

So, yes. WOTC has become entirely corrupted by Communism, DEI, and WOKE BS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 19, 2025, 07:59:40 PMI'm not "Ree Reeing" about anything, Jhkim. What I discussed is an accurate, factual description and analysis of what has become of the leadership and the most prominent writers and developers that work at WOTC and control the D&D brand.

SHARK, as I understand it, you have run a lot of games using the 2014 D&D 5E rules. Right?

Do you think that the 2014 game - as published - is fundamentally broken as far as race because it doesn't have a "Dwarf" (or "Elf" etc.) entry in the Monster Manual? Have you had any problem with that lack?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 06:29:28 PMThose of us with experience aren't changing our views.

Nothing like stagnation to stoke the imagination...

Reducing D&D's cast of characters to the safety of Star Trek's "humans with funky foreheads" is a cheapening of the alienness both fantasy and science fiction can deliver. The latter does it because it is a literary device to constrain possibilities to the most approachable as it is trying to teach a philosophical moment through shared competence (like original Twilight Zone a lot of Star Trek has didactic strains). The former, which has a lot of literary parents in its fantastic tropes, is trying to be an open ended game where you can do as you like amidst the great unknown and maybe teach yourself.

A game of pretend is not literature, the structures' demands on agency are opposing. It's fine if orcs are setting dependent. But a Monster Manual comes in two major flavors: General Game Line Index, and Setting Index. It's a blatant cash grab to put it in the sub-index and omit it from the larger general index.

Stop making this WotC move more noble or complicated than it is. It's bad, full stop. Assume mature adults can understand the principles of examples and individual variance in populations, and laugh off those who read game texts as holy writ.

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 20, 2025, 05:51:04 AMAssume mature adults can understand the principles of examples and individual variance in populations,

A lot of the 'modern audience' can't do that, though.

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMWhat I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Wizards of the Coast blazed into the culture war like a raging barbarian, rainbow lubed greatdildo held in two hands and screaming about muh wiyt prifludge and muh represuntashun.

When they tried to revoke the OGL (by claiming the right to issue a new one that meant the old one was no longer valid, and removing most of what made the new one functional), this is how they sold it: 
https://www.polygon.com/23529385/one-dnd-scandal-ogl-srd-crypto-nft-intellectual-property
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest 

QuoteDeauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a.

This was the buy-in they offered the social justice warrior / woke / whatever-you-want-to-call it crowd.  The people who are bought into liberal-style identity politics and whose political victories are entirely pvp based ("it's good if it makes a chud suffer"), and have no constructive values at all.  These are the people being offered a buy-in to this incredible land grab.  Now, it didn't work.  Liberals like you saw through this absurdity, and have called them out for their corporate greed.  But from their perspective, they EXPECTED it to work.  This was part of their strategy- point to a group of conservatives, say it was being done to hurt them, and expect support from reddit and twitter.

This isn't the first time Wizards had used identity politics to try to get support, make money, or, more likely, simply serve their paymasters, who want to push these politics no matter the cost (and they pay the bills).
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/depictions-racism-magic-2020-06-10
Here they even think they can go back in time and change card numbers.  It's insane, but no matter!

https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/races-alignments-lore-removed
https://archive.is/OObYS#selection-2651.19-2655.20
Here's the famous time when they edited all the "online" books you "own" to remove alignment and descriptions from creatures.  Surely you remember this right?  All correct-thinking gamers have been mad about this since they announced it.
The DMG has entire subsections about culture and races removed by errata (no version missing the text will ever be published, and the 5.5 DMG has no such section, so the change was entirely for political compliance).

There is absolutely no defending Wizards here man.

Now,

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

There's like two big problems here. 

Orcs are fundamentally evil, base, stupid creatures.  Their evil is inherent to them, it's genetic, their breeding is poor, they are fecund, disgusting, and wholly willing to rape and murder.  That's the base conception of orcs, and it's a great one for any fantasy villain race.
By making orcs into a PC race (and making them substantially more like green humans that even the 10% of half-orcs that can pass for human were in older editions), they are actually deleting orcs, and adding something that is maybe like 12.5% orc to their game and calling it an orc.  This GIVES THEM THE EXCUSE to delete them from the monster manual.
It's also part of a larger push to remove evil humanoids- generally they are either reclassified to a type of demon, or more likely pushed into fey in 5.5.  This is being done for political reasons, not gameplay reasons. 

There are two great reasons to not care about dwarves and elves being removed from the monster manual in 5.0- as you said, you can just make your own from character classes, or use stock statblocks for guards or whatever.  And secondly, player races being villains has always been its own thing- a bunch of robbers from normally good races, for instance- while grabbing stock monsters like orcs, ogres, goblins, etc. has never needed such customization from its baseline (though all versions have allowed it). 

In 5.5, this is quite different. First, there's a huge push against using character classes as NPCs in the community, so leaving out statblocks (or directing you to generic ones) is a large disservice.  Second, of course, is the fact that this is OBVIOUSLY and UNARGUABLY being done for real-world-identity-politics reasons.  It's not being done for a good reason, or an in-game reason. 

Similar to trying to shove racial stat modifiers into backgrounds and removing them from races- it's total garbage.  Same with renaming "race" to "species" or "ancestry" (this is a hard red line for me these days).

Anyone doing these renames, or pushing this stuff, is doing really shitty hateful politics.  They are selling the idea that they are pissing off real gamers as the product, and it's thankfully not selling that well.

But people should be mad, and they shouldn't let your excuses deradicalize them on this topic.

Orcs aren't stupid and they aren't necessarily green either.

Quote from: Spobo on February 20, 2025, 01:51:25 PMOrcs aren't stupid and they aren't necessarily green either.

Wow. That served as much of a contribution to the discussion as a fart in the wind.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 01:47:12 PMOrcs are

Orcs were

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 08:12:16 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 19, 2025, 07:59:40 PMI'm not "Ree Reeing" about anything, Jhkim. What I discussed is an accurate, factual description and analysis of what has become of the leadership and the most prominent writers and developers that work at WOTC and control the D&D brand.

SHARK, as I understand it, you have run a lot of games using the 2014 D&D 5E rules. Right?

Do you think that the 2014 game - as published - is fundamentally broken as far as race because it doesn't have a "Dwarf" (or "Elf" etc.) entry in the Monster Manual? Have you had any problem with that lack?

Greetings!

Yes, Jhkim, I have run many games of 5E. I still have a 5E campaign going.

As far as the Monster Manual, yeah, Jhkim, I have always thought that every kind of creature should be included in the Monster Manual. Just like 1EAD&D man.

I still have all of my original D&D books--Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and more. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2025, 01:47:12 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMWhat I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Wizards of the Coast blazed into the culture war like a raging barbarian, rainbow lubed greatdildo held in two hands and screaming about muh wiyt prifludge and muh represuntashun.

When they tried to revoke the OGL (by claiming the right to issue a new one that meant the old one was no longer valid, and removing most of what made the new one functional), this is how they sold it: 
https://www.polygon.com/23529385/one-dnd-scandal-ogl-srd-crypto-nft-intellectual-property
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest 

QuoteDeauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a.

This was the buy-in they offered the social justice warrior / woke / whatever-you-want-to-call it crowd.  The people who are bought into liberal-style identity politics and whose political victories are entirely pvp based ("it's good if it makes a chud suffer"), and have no constructive values at all.  These are the people being offered a buy-in to this incredible land grab.  Now, it didn't work.  Liberals like you saw through this absurdity, and have called them out for their corporate greed.  But from their perspective, they EXPECTED it to work.  This was part of their strategy- point to a group of conservatives, say it was being done to hurt them, and expect support from reddit and twitter.

This isn't the first time Wizards had used identity politics to try to get support, make money, or, more likely, simply serve their paymasters, who want to push these politics no matter the cost (and they pay the bills).
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/depictions-racism-magic-2020-06-10
Here they even think they can go back in time and change card numbers.  It's insane, but no matter!

https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/races-alignments-lore-removed
https://archive.is/OObYS#selection-2651.19-2655.20
Here's the famous time when they edited all the "online" books you "own" to remove alignment and descriptions from creatures.  Surely you remember this right?  All correct-thinking gamers have been mad about this since they announced it.
The DMG has entire subsections about culture and races removed by errata (no version missing the text will ever be published, and the 5.5 DMG has no such section, so the change was entirely for political compliance).

There is absolutely no defending Wizards here man.

Now,

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

There's like two big problems here. 

Orcs are fundamentally evil, base, stupid creatures.  Their evil is inherent to them, it's genetic, their breeding is poor, they are fecund, disgusting, and wholly willing to rape and murder.  That's the base conception of orcs, and it's a great one for any fantasy villain race.
By making orcs into a PC race (and making them substantially more like green humans that even the 10% of half-orcs that can pass for human were in older editions), they are actually deleting orcs, and adding something that is maybe like 12.5% orc to their game and calling it an orc.  This GIVES THEM THE EXCUSE to delete them from the monster manual.
It's also part of a larger push to remove evil humanoids- generally they are either reclassified to a type of demon, or more likely pushed into fey in 5.5.  This is being done for political reasons, not gameplay reasons. 

There are two great reasons to not care about dwarves and elves being removed from the monster manual in 5.0- as you said, you can just make your own from character classes, or use stock statblocks for guards or whatever.  And secondly, player races being villains has always been its own thing- a bunch of robbers from normally good races, for instance- while grabbing stock monsters like orcs, ogres, goblins, etc. has never needed such customization from its baseline (though all versions have allowed it). 

In 5.5, this is quite different. First, there's a huge push against using character classes as NPCs in the community, so leaving out statblocks (or directing you to generic ones) is a large disservice.  Second, of course, is the fact that this is OBVIOUSLY and UNARGUABLY being done for real-world-identity-politics reasons.  It's not being done for a good reason, or an in-game reason. 

Similar to trying to shove racial stat modifiers into backgrounds and removing them from races- it's total garbage.  Same with renaming "race" to "species" or "ancestry" (this is a hard red line for me these days).

Anyone doing these renames, or pushing this stuff, is doing really shitty hateful politics.  They are selling the idea that they are pissing off real gamers as the product, and it's thankfully not selling that well.

But people should be mad, and they shouldn't let your excuses deradicalize them on this topic.

Greetings!

BOOM Absolutely spot on, man! PREACH!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 04, 2025, 09:59:59 AM

Quote from: Domina on February 03, 2025, 11:57:07 PMNo they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

They're not actually speaking English, so arbitrarily pulling words from other languages is nonsensical. If I was doing the worldbuilding, then I would have their speech rendered as Anglish (https://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/anglish.htm) to give the desired feel to readers. So no words from Romance or African languages.

Therefore, the Anglish translation would be "soul jug", "walking lich" (reanimated corpse), and "undead wizard king".

EDIT: and "bewitched boneframe (https://wordbook.anglish.org/)" (reanimated skeleton). More examples here: https://anglish.fandom.com/

Doesn't matter if it's nonsensical. No one cares.

Quote from: SHARK on February 20, 2025, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 08:12:16 PMSHARK, as I understand it, you have run a lot of games using the 2014 D&D 5E rules. Right?

Do you think that the 2014 game - as published - is fundamentally broken as far as race because it doesn't have a "Dwarf" (or "Elf" etc.) entry in the Monster Manual? Have you had any problem with that lack?

Yes, Jhkim, I have run many games of 5E. I still have a 5E campaign going.

As far as the Monster Manual, yeah, Jhkim, I have always thought that every kind of creature should be included in the Monster Manual. Just like 1EAD&D man.

Thanks, SHARK. That doesn't answer my question, though.

You might prefer it otherwise, but how has the lack of a "Dwarf" entry in the 2014 Monster Manual affected your game? Has it caused serious problems?

I wouldn't have minded adding in a "Dwarf" entry, but I don't feel the lack caused any problems for my 5E games.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 08:48:17 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 20, 2025, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 08:12:16 PMSHARK, as I understand it, you have run a lot of games using the 2014 D&D 5E rules. Right?

Do you think that the 2014 game - as published - is fundamentally broken as far as race because it doesn't have a "Dwarf" (or "Elf" etc.) entry in the Monster Manual? Have you had any problem with that lack?

Yes, Jhkim, I have run many games of 5E. I still have a 5E campaign going.

As far as the Monster Manual, yeah, Jhkim, I have always thought that every kind of creature should be included in the Monster Manual. Just like 1EAD&D man.

Thanks, SHARK. That doesn't answer my question, though.

You might prefer it otherwise, but how has the lack of a "Dwarf" entry in the 2014 Monster Manual affected your game? Has it caused serious problems?

I wouldn't have minded adding in a "Dwarf" entry, but I don't feel the lack caused any problems for my 5E games.

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, I thought I answered your question just fine. I think the Monster Manual should have more or less generic entries for every race and creature--including the Player Character races from the PLayer's Handbook.

The fact that the 5E Player's Handbook had Dwarves in it--but did not include them in the 5E Monster Manual--that was disappointing, and annoying. Did it cause me serious problems as a DM? Jhkim, I have been playing D&D since 1978. I have run campaigns typically lasting *years* in duration, with some into decades. So, no, I just made up various DM documents on my computer for NPC Encounters in Thandor. I can do all of this in my sleep practically, in an evening of campaign work.

The Monster Manual doesn't have ELF, Strumpet; or DWARF, Merchant; or GNOME, Massage Girl, either. So, I simply made those up, with appropriate skills, racial modifiers, and cultural and professional packages. It is what it is.

At the end of the day, I as the DM have to typically alter, add to, erase, and otherwise modify whatever races and NPC stat blocks to suit my world of Thandor.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on February 20, 2025, 02:11:52 PM

Quote from: Spobo on February 20, 2025, 01:51:25 PMOrcs aren't stupid and they aren't necessarily green either.

Wow. That served as much of a contribution to the discussion as a fart in the wind.

I was responding to Venka. I think it is a key point that when people think of canonical orcs as Warcraft orcs or Warhammer orcs they're off. Orcs are supposed to be cunning and skilled at creating engines of war and weapons. They aren't necessarily great craftsmen but they do pretty well as far as armies go. Being dumb and brutish (or big or green) isn't an important part of their character.