Fantastic Racism

[Bohandas]

While brown-skinned races (humans, elves, dwarves, etc) can be culturally and ideologically diverse, it's pretty standard in Tolkien-influenced fantasy for green-skinned races (orcs, goblins etc) to stupid, barbaric and unambiguously evil. I'm not a fan of this, firstly because it's ridiculous to me that a species smart enough to produce weapons/tools and raise armies/nations would be terribly dimwitted or ideologically simple,

They tend to have strong pantheons of creator deities so they could be like the Garm from Garm Wars, The Last Druid, where they were given an inborn ability to build certain things and organize in certain ways by the gods but not really given the ability to innovate new things and ways of living

Now that I think of it, IIRC this is explicitly the case for Warhammer's orcs.

I agree in general! But in 5e at least (where I have my background), Orcs and Goblins aren't playable races.

I'm not familiar with 5e. Do you mean unplayable unplayable like back in 1e and 2e where the game cheated and anything other than PC races was only partly statted out? Please tell me they aren't making he game cheat again.

[Belac93]

I'm not familiar with 5e. Do you mean unplayable unplayable like back in 1e and 2e where the game cheated and anything other than PC races was only partly statted out? Please tell me they aren't making he game cheat again.

They are actually going to be playable in a few days, because of the next manual coming out. Before that they just had NPC stats in the DMG.

I like the idea of goblins being the new kender.

[Bohandas]

They tend to have strong pantheons of creator deities so they could be like the Garm from Garm Wars, The Last Druid, where they were given an inborn ability to build certain things and organize in certain ways by the gods but not really given the ability to innovate new things and ways of living

Now that I think of it, IIRC this is explicitly the case for Warhammer's orcs.

Actually, now that I think even more it's kind of the case for WH40k's humans as well, with all tech being manufactured by a cargo cult that no longer understands how it works.

[Bohandas]

They are actually going to be playable in a few days, because of the next manual coming out. Before that they just had NPC stats in the DMG.

What does that mean though? Is it like 3e where they weren't in the PHB but there was no reason why you couldn't play one (or any other creature) if you wanted to because all their necessary stats and abilities were in the monster manual? Or is it more like 2e and earlier where, for example, they didn't even have all six primary statistics specified?

[Dusk Raven]

For instance, say a dwarf and an orc brawl in a tavern. When they meet again, the dwarf is quite likely to hold a grudge against orc. At best, the dwarf will be cautious of her. At worst, the dwarf may attack her. The orc, on the other hand, remembers the brawl as if it had been between two strangers. She holds neither herself, nor the dwarf responsible, and might actually want to bond over the shared memory. At best she might be courteous, only to be turned down. At worst, she might expect courtesy from her old adversary, who might take offense. This sort of thing gives orcs a reputation for being heartless and unrepentant.

As another example, suppose a nomadic tribe of goblins journey through elven woods. Goblins do not intuitively understand property, and so they might quarry the woods clean if they see fit. At best, they will be met with hospitable elves, whose homes they will undoubtedly "rob" and "occupy" under the impression that they are public. At worst, they will be fought back by territorial elves, who they will interpret as merely bloodthirsty, while the elves themselves see the goblins as greedy and invasive.

It's misunderstandings like these that spur wars and conflicts between the groups. Were one group willing to listen to and accommodate the other, there'd be few problems.

Couple of nitpicks regarding the examples - this may simply be me not quite understanding their motives, in which case consider it an in-universe critique:

Per Orcs: While I too have the viewpoint that past selves aren't the same as present people, that applies to the distant past, and my perspective is that people remain the same unless something changes. In the case of the orc and dwarf, a brawl might well start for the same reason it did the first time - in the case of a villain, in a few paltry years he may be continuing his evil scheme. While this would make sense if a race has such a mutable psyche that they can literally be completely different people a few years down the line, forgetting what someone has done in the recent past (and thus what they are likely to do in the near future) seems a bit... foolhardy.

In the case of the goblins and the quarrying, I should point out that most social animals do have a concept of, if not property, territory. Of course territory works differently than property (essentially defending a region and the resources in it by proxy), and in any event the goblin nomads might have passed that point when they entered elf territory, though they probably should realize that they're essentially house-guests. Assuming that's their way, what do I know about goblin hospitality customs? Anyway, maybe it's just that elves are a bad example, because I feel like them defending the woods from quarrying has nothing to do with "property" and more to do with elven principles and connection to forests, which is really something the goblins should have known about.

Now, to be fair, misunderstandings between two cultures that involve things one culture considers basic and obvious have no doubt happened in the real world, as human cultures have an astonishing level of variety. As part of my belief that no culture is truly inscrutable, however, I think there are certain patterns and constants (however mutable). I don't know, for instance, if there is a human culture that truly has no concept of what we'd call property - I've tried to work it out in my head, which is a terrible thing to do with cultures, but I feel like eventually you'd have to associate certain things with people or groups (even if it's just the food someone's eating at the time), and recognize that people will take actions based on that connection.

It has, however, been too long since I've done research into this. Research into anthropology can be fascinating, while lack of research can be crippling...

[Belac93]

What does that mean though? Is it like 3e where they weren't in the PHB but there was no reason why you couldn't play one (or any other creature) if you wanted to because all their necessary stats and abilities were in the monster manual? Or is it more like 2e and earlier where, for example, they didn't even have all six primary statistics specified?

They have monster stats in the DMG, and they are getting player stats in Volo's guide to monsters. 5e works differently than 3.5, so monsters don't have feats or class levels. They are more like in 4e, where they just have a stat block that is calculated 95% differently than a player's character sheet.

If you wanted to literally just play a no-class-level goblin, who would never get any more powerful except getting better equipment (which is rare in 5e), then that would be technically possible. The player race is making them valid PC's, the same as elves or humans.

[Bohandas]

You can't just tack a class level on like you could in 3e then?

[Belac93]

You can't just tack a class level on like you could in 3e then?

You still can, but it is generally reserved for special monsters that are bosses (such as a minotaur that the DM wants to be more powerful than the other minotaurs in it's maze). 5e has a big emphasis on rule 0.

[ArcanaGuy]

GalacticAxekick - I love the idea of what you're doing with this. Especially since you're going the not-obvious route and going with different minds instead of just different looks. As an introvert and neuro-atypical, I can absolutely confirm that some people's brains are just wired differently, and you don't need to look different for your brain to work differently.

Additionally, the 'alien races that thinks very differently from us because of biological differences' is an old Sci Fi concept, and one I'm all too happy to see applied to fantasy.

There are two parts I would suggest lessen your point.

Point number one is making the concept of orcs as evil being all the humans' fault for villifying them. Trying to show understanding to others is great. Recreating a common villain as not-so-bad by creating a different black-hat villain is ... such an iffy moral.

Point number two is - if you make orcs not-evil by changing who the orcs are, I feel that it lessens the impact you're trying to make. "Sure, his orcs aren't all evil, but only because he changed how they act so they're closer to human, even if they're still kinda different."

The key to this is remembering, however, *what* evil means in D&D. Admittedly, I don't know the specific text of alignment descriptions for 4 and 5, but back in 3.X, the alignments had a very specific definition. For 'good' and 'evil', it specifically had to do with an attitude towards individual life - whether you valued and protected it or were hostile to it - and has very little to do with all the other connotations we tend to connect to the word, or that might otherwise be connected to the word outside of very specific laboratory conditions, in the world.

Now, to keep the Orcs as they are, but to really create something interesting about that, I would suggest this - old sci-fi standby is that an alien race with a massive birthrate would not value individual life because ... well ... if they did, their race would overpopulate, famine and disease, etc. So constant warfare is the only way not to completely wipe out their environment. This means that, by the system definition of evil - they are evil. They kill without compunction or guilt. But at the same time, it's understandable - they CAN'T operate on the same priorities of human value on individual life, or they'd fall plague to starvation and plague.

And this doesn't even require a change. Orcs are known for being fast-multiplying. So this is just ... connecting these two facts.

But it still allows plenty of opportunity for the two sides to come to more understanding for each other. Orcs can still be violent to each other as long as they can be taught humans aren't like that and look at killing much differently. And it provides for a lot more interesting back-and-forth and serious consideration of philosophy with a much more ambiguous situation instead of just a specific lesson on not doing something wrong.