Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[OldTrees1]

the frequent tendency of fantasy stories to use sloppily drawn caricatures of real human cultures as monsters to be slain rather than people in their own right is a huge part of the problem.

This is a problem.
Having a story with monsters to be slain is not necessarily a problem.
Having a story with something that was inspired by or comparable to a real human culture is not necessarily a problem.
Having a story saying this real human culture is to be slain is a problem.

Orcs have been portrayed separately as each of these 3 with a tendency towards the last.

[Mordar]

@Mordar: How would these dwarves be different from the Duergar? I don't think the Duergar are evil because of their deity.

Handful of ways - up to the reader to determine if they are sufficient.

• Not exiles rejecting another version of their kind;
• Not bleak, joyless or pessimistic;
• They do not suffer the curse of gold;
• Not Vulcans;
• Definitely not bitter (bares repeating) or cruel for cruelties' sake

In shot (no pun intended) I think Duergar can be distilled down to being disaffected dwarves piling on to a "no true dwarf" mentality, and delighting in gold, power and cruelty.

The proposed evil dwarf race lacks the elements of spite, greed and cruelty (as defined by intentional infliction of harm for purposes of bringing the inflictor pleasure). The broader cultural norms that would define their killing, looting, etc as evil are not rejected in favor of a different path...this simply are not considered or valued. Importantly, they can love, and care, and protect, and be happy. They can also kill others for a slight, for the goods they carry, or for sustenance.

This is outside my field, but is it maybe that Duergar are immoral while the PEDR are ammoral? At least in selected areas. Maybe that gets down the road a bit. Or more likely, immoral vs differently moraled.

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M

[Psyren]

I know it's difficult with this line of discussion but we should definitely try to avoid "real world hate" or the thread will be locked.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious. No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP. Your individual tables can be as edgy/dark/brutal/etc as you want them to be, with every orc on the planet having the same moral outlook, if that's what floats your boat.

Having a story with monsters to be slain is not necessarily a problem.

Orcs don't need to be that monster, is the point. Given that they cannot, ever, be divorced from their roots, wouldn't using something else actually designed to be "monsters to be slain" do a better job of avoiding these issues?

[Jophiel]

No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP.

That's not really meaningful in the context of this thread. It's not a thread about 5e, it's a thread about TTRPGs and many of the posters have said they don't/rarely play 5e. Trying to limit discussion to WOTC or treating their corp decisions as the final word defeats the points of this being in the general RPG forum.

[BRC]

I know it's difficult with this line of discussion but we should definitely try to avoid "real world hate" or the thread will be locked.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious. No one is asking you to accommodate them; WotC is making a business decision with their IP. Your individual tables can be as edgy/dark/brutal/etc as you want them to be, with every orc on the planet having the same moral outlook, if that's what floats your boat.

This is a point I want to expound upon. There's a solid reason to publish content with a more nuanced take on fantasy races.


Classic fantasy orcs are easy. Pretty much everything you could need to know about them exists either in pre-published lore or in the greater sphere. If you want to run a setting where Orcs are always-evil soulless automotons that live to pillage and burn and do bad things to the innocent good people, you can. You have everything you could possibly need to do that, and the image of Orc as "Acceptable Target" is standing tall in the pop-cultural mindset that if somebody questions it, you can just say "Yeah, these are pretty simple, classic fantasy orcs" and people will know what you mean.


Nuance however takes work. If you want to build fantasy cultures that are respectful and nuanced, that's worldbuilding effort you need to go through.

The goal of published materials is to provide setting details and effort so each table doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.

Publishing content with "Orcs are evil raiders that will attack without provocation and are okay to kill" provides no value. Tables that want to do that anyway already know what Orcs are, and tables that find the idea uncomfortable will need to rework all of those details anyway.

Publishing content where Orcs are another sentient species in the world, treated with as much nuance and dignity as any other. Well, if your table wants some orcs to guiltlessly kill, they can do so. But if your table isn't comfortable with the classic portrayal they will get value out of the lore provided.

[Jophiel]

Publishing content with "Orcs are evil raiders that will attack without provocation and are okay to kill" provides no value.

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M

I think you would have something closer to at most 60% evil, 30% neutral, and 10% good. However if you are measuring supporting:bystander:resistance then supporting+bystander:resistance might be close to 95:5.

[BRC]

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil.

If you're going to go through the trouble of building out a proper Orcish culture for your setting, you might as well also go through the trouble of making them not just Acceptable Targets. If you want orcs to represent an enemy, give them a reason to be opposed to the PCs, and throw in enough non-evil orcs (And non-orc evils) to make it clear that while, yes, you are fighting orcs, Orcs don't just exist to be something for you to fight.

If you want to spend the ink and sweat to write out an elaborate description of Orcish Culture and Society, only to have the end point thesis be "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you. Kill on sight", then you and I have very different approaches to worldbuilding.

[Errorname]

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

Well, the thing is that as a fictional race gets that sort of development it almost always trends away from being straightforwardly 'always chaotic evil'. Like that's why I think this trope is boring (in addition to being in generally poor taste). It's keeping the entire concept in an underdeveloped state because the writers think that painting an entire race as one-note evil makes killing them morally frictionless.

[Jophiel]

If you want to spend the ink and sweat to write out an elaborate description of Orcish Culture and Society, only to have the end point thesis be "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you. Kill on sight", then you and I have very different approaches to worldbuilding.

If that's all you can think to do with it, I agree.

Well, the thing is that as a fictional race gets that sort of development it almost always trends away from being straightforwardly 'always chaotic evil'. Like that's why I think this trope is boring (in addition to being in generally poor taste).

Again, that honestly strikes me as a failure on the world builder's part. Personally, I think the idea of building a full functional and dynamic culture within those guardrails is an excellent way to flex some creativity. Resorting to "They're just like us?" is what feels like giving up and going back to vanilla.

[BRC]

If that's all you can think to do with it, I agree.

I think you CAN do more with it, but I question why you would.


In my mind, the sole benefit of declaring a group "always evil acceptable targets" is that it's a simple way to use them as enemies in your action-adventure game without delving into concepts of morality. Not every story needs to deal with the moral questions around the use of violence.

If you are going through the effort to write about their culture, their internal politics, their lifestyles and religion and art, you can write a reason why they are your enemies that isn't "They are inherently evil by nature", and you might as well, because "They are inherently evil by nature" is a pretty boring answer to "Why is it okay to fight these people"?

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler: @JusticeZero

Show

You're right: You don't know my ethnicity, and you don't need to.

And I also didn't bring it up; you did.

Someone brought up the definitions of "Definitionally Evil". As I recall, you scoffed that there is no definitional evil in the world you deal with.

I recall I thanked BRC for the definitions and said they were helpful...

That's not "othering" or cruelty, that's a statement of fact.

No, it's "othering". You are lumping in people with an opinion on orcs, with some other group of people that probably have never and will never play D&D, and making them into scary bogeymen.

You are doing the very thing you claim to be impacted by. I am not surprised in the least.

And your mode of play is generally one which they use to indoctrinate more people. It tells us things about your GM that should be unacceptable in modern society.

No, it really doesn't. But your reaction and assertions certainly tells us a lot about you.

My DM is probably one of the sweetest guys I know, and would likely align with a lot of your concerns. My description of an encounter he ran is simply not enough of a data point for you to judge him by, especially on such serious matters. You are being unreasonable.

And I'm concerned about having to share a hobby with people who literally want to definitionally kill me and who have succeeded with people I know who are empowered by Bad Old Days tropes.

D&D players don't want to kill you. And I don't see continued conversation between us to be fruitful at all. With all sincerity, best of luck to you!

Handful of ways - up to the reader to determine if they are sufficient.

• Not exiles rejecting another version of their kind;
• Not bleak, joyless or pessimistic;
• They do not suffer the curse of gold;
• Not Vulcans;
• Definitely not bitter (bares repeating) or cruel for cruelties' sake

In shot (no pun intended) I think Duergar can be distilled down to being disaffected dwarves piling on to a "no true dwarf" mentality, and delighting in gold, power and cruelty.

The proposed evil dwarf race lacks the elements of spite, greed and cruelty (as defined by intentional infliction of harm for purposes of bringing the inflictor pleasure). The broader cultural norms that would define their killing, looting, etc as evil are not rejected in favor of a different path...this simply are not considered or valued. Importantly, they can love, and care, and protect, and be happy. They can also kill others for a slight, for the goods they carry, or for sustenance.

This is outside my field, but is it maybe that Duergar are immoral while the PEDR are ammoral? At least in selected areas. Maybe that gets down the road a bit. Or more likely, immoral vs differently moraled.

OldTrees1: For my standard, "always evil" is something like 95% follow the dictates/behaviors/whatever. Either by commission or omission, 95% go along and receive benefit. 5% actively think or do otherwise. In this group, probably like many others, most of them get weeded out, though in this case probably not by active intent on the part of the weeders.

- M

Helpful. I certainly think this can be done. I'd need to read more thoroughly through your parameters, sort of glancing right now at work.

And I find the "we shouldn't accommodate sensitive / easily-scared people" argument to be specious.

Yeah, I've found a lot of the arguments so far to be specious. Like "we're not accommodating people, we're just changing the lore to better suit their desires".

Orcs don't need to be that monster, is the point. Given that they cannot, ever, be divorced from their roots, wouldn't using something else actually designed to be "monsters to be slain" do a better job of avoiding these issues?

So if they can never be divorced from their roots, they will always reflect real world people? So I'd be accurate to always draw parallels to real world people no matter how orcs are depicted right? It will always be a commentary on others?

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?

1000%

As I said, there appears to be a dearth of imagination in this thread, maybe just to prove a point.

[Jophiel]

If you are going through the effort to write about their culture, their internal politics, their lifestyles and religion and art, you can write a reason why they are your enemies that isn't "They are inherently evil by nature", and you might as well, because "They are inherently evil by nature" is a pretty boring answer to "Why is it okay to fight these people"?

It is a boring answer. Hopefully someone can do more with it: How they're "evil", how it's impacting the area, etc. Also what non-evil stuff they do. Maybe orcs are great leatherworkers but trying to separate them from their wares is a tricky bit of negotiation. They can be great leatherworkers AND still be evil (see the legendary drow armors even during their Always Evil days). So what motivates them? What would be lost if you just killed every last orc? Do you care? Why do your orcs just immediately bite everyone? Evil doesn't mean "feral and stupid" and a society that doesn't care if the orcs are slavers or cannibals or whatever could still find ways of working with them.

[Psyren]

That's not really meaningful in the context of this thread. It's not a thread about 5e, it's a thread about TTRPGs and many of the posters have said they don't/rarely play 5e. Trying to limit discussion to WOTC or treating their corp decisions as the final word defeats the points of this being in the general RPG forum.

1) I never said it was only WotC who have come to this realization about Orc roots, they're just the most prominent. Other major IP holders making orc fantasy content like Paizo, Shadowrun, Blizzard, and Bethesda made a conscious effort to distance themselves from Tolkien's portrayals too.

2) If it's not about WotC then why do you care so much about what their printed game does? If you're talking about your homebrew campaigns or some other random publisher making all their Orcs be metaphysically evil then that's totally fine, go nuts. I sincerely wish them all success in capturing the edge demo.

Why would you stop there though? Talk about their religion, their art, their culture, how they interact with one another and with other orc tribes, how they select leaders, how they select partners, how they raise their young, what keeps their chaotic evil society intact as a society of potentially hundreds if not thousands, how they migrate, if they migrate, what sort of architecture they create if they don't migrate, do they domesticate beasts, do they farm, if they don't farm how do they eat when the raiding isn't working out, how do they get along with other 'evil' humanoid races...

...if all you can think to type is "Orcs are evil raiders and will bite you! Kill on sight" because you decided that they're evil then that's a total failure of the author, not the concept of orcs being evil. Heck, Dragon used to kick out 3-4 page articles on the Ecology Of things like constructs, slimes and oozes, but people can't work past "They evil and mean" for evil humanoids so they must be "boring"?

Can you explain what is lost by making the chaotic evil orcs, if they must exist, be a specific tribe or nation rather than universal biological destiny?

Yeah, I've found a lot of the arguments so far to be specious. Like "we're not accommodating people, we're just changing the lore to better suit their desires".

Yet again, I never said they're not changing lore nor did I say they're not accommodating people. I said they have every right to do both.

So if they can never be divorced from their roots, they will always reflect real world people? So I'd be accurate to always draw parallels to real world people no matter how orcs are depicted right? It will always be a commentary on others?

If you're starting from Tolkien then yes, obviously. Because that's where he started from. This is well-documented, including by the man himself.

[Jophiel]

Can you explain what is lost by making the chaotic evil orcs, if they must exist, be a specific tribe or nation rather than universal biological destiny?

Depends, are you planning on meeting the Friendly Orcs of North Orkton, a million miles away? If not, then I guess nothing is lost just like nothing is lost by letting you know that, in North Orkton, they all have purple wings and flowers grow from their tusks and they plant gummi bear trees.

If yes, then it's changing the world setting if you've decided that, in this world, orcs be evil. Also, nothing much is gained for it since you probably already have a bunch of races Just Like Us aside from making orcs more boring by adding them to the Just Like Us slurry.

[BRC]

It is a boring answer. Hopefully someone can do more with it: How they're "evil", how it's impacting the area, etc. Also what non-evil stuff they do. Maybe orcs are great leatherworkers but trying to separate them from their wares is a tricky bit of negotiation. They can be great leatherworkers AND still be evil (see the legendary drow armors even during their Always Evil days). So what motivates them? What would be lost if you just killed every last orc? Do you care? Why do your orcs just immediately bite everyone? Evil doesn't mean "feral and stupid" and a society that doesn't care if the orcs are slavers or cannibals or whatever could still find ways of working with them.

If you answer the bolded questions in any way besides "They are inherently evil by nature", congratulations, you are doing a more nuanced take.


Even if you want to describe an Evil society, and explore the ways they are evil, you can do so easily without the implication that the members of that society are inherently predisposed to being evil.


Look at the Proposed Always Evil Dwarves we were discussing before. That's an evil society, one that does evil stuff and should be resisted and stopped. However, the description of it doesn't require each individual dwarf to be inherently cruel and wicked. The evil is an outgrowth of their society, their society isn't a reflection of their evil natures.

Why do the PAE Dwarves raid and pillage? Because that's how they support their cultural lifestyle, and they value preserving that lifestyle over the survival and wellbeing of their neighbors. Boom. Done.

Like lets say you want to do the starting point of Orcs viking-style raiders who set sail to launch raids pillaging nearby peoples. Why do they do this?

The lazy answer is to say that Orcs are inherently predisposed towards being greedy and violent, and pillaging allows them to express both those traits, satisfying their greed and giving them the thrill of violence.

Or you could say that Orcish society is based around a network of clan-patronage and gift-giving, one where political power and social esteem is achieved via gifts given to other influential figures and valor is proved with great deeds. As a result, while an ambitious orc COULD ascend through society by accumulating wealth peacefully and demonstrating valor in other manners, the most efficient way for an ambitious Orc to ascend through society is to gather and lead a raiding party, using their deeds during the raids as proof of valor, and using the spoils from the raids as gifts to gain favor with the influential figures in Orcish society. Because raiding other orcs is a good way to make enemies and invite retaliation, most orcs choose to raid elsewhere, trusting that the people they attacked are unlikely to bother traveling far to seek revenge (And trusting that if that DOES happen, they're more likely to have allies that come to their defense). From this, it follows that a lot of Orcish leaders must be at least okay with the practice of raiding, since they either came to power that way, or are hooked into a network of patronage with people who did. Refusing to raid makes it far more difficult to achieve positions of power, and refusing to accept the results of raids makes it difficult to establish the relationships that represent power in this society.


Cool, we've now established a reason why Orcs might go on raids that isn't "Orcs are inherently more greedy and violent than humans."


I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.

[Jophiel]

Even if you want to describe an Evil society, and explore the ways they are evil, you can do so easily without the implication that the members of that society are inherently predisposed to being evil.

But, more to the point, being inherently evil doesn't prevent you from making a nuanced take on their society and motivations. There's a lot of flavors of "evil" and orcs probably aren't doing every single evil thing you can think of in a day.

So, I say again, the only thing making Always Evil Orcs boring is uncreative world setting creators.

I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.

That's okay, since I do find it interesting (and a refreshing departure from the They're Just Like Us mindset) and a good way to build better than "Orcs bite stuff and evil! So boring!" that so many people can't think past.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok so then it seems we're agreed that evil races/cultures can be interesting and made compelling. Great. Now what do we talk about?


What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

[Psyren]

Depends, are you planning on meeting the Friendly Orcs of North Orkton, a million miles away? If not, then I guess nothing is lost just like nothing is lost by letting you know that, in North Orkton, they all have purple wings and flowers grow from their tusks and they plant gummi bear trees.

If yes, then it's changing the world setting if you've decided that, in this world, orcs be evil. Also, nothing much is gained for it since you probably already have a bunch of races Just Like Us aside from making orcs more boring by adding them to the Just Like Us slurry.

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?

[Jophiel]

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?

Nope, I already gave them North Orkton. Any other non-evil orcs are immediately eaten by the Dire Otyugh under their cribs and removes them from the Biological Evil Gene Pool.

[BRC]

But, more to the point, being inherently evil doesn't prevent you from making a nuanced take on their society and motivations. There's a lot of flavors of "evil" and orcs probably aren't doing every single evil thing you can think of in a day.

So, I say again, the only thing making Always Evil Orcs boring is uncreative world setting creators.

That's okay, since I do find it interesting (and a refreshing departure from the They're Just Like Us mindset) and a good way to build better than "Orcs bite stuff and evil! So boring!" that so many people can't think past.

I think that if you want to give people predisposed traits and explore how that might affect their society, you should get a LOT Weirder with it than "What if they were all Bad Meanies that wanted to bite people?".

[Jophiel]

I think that if you want to give people predisposed traits and explore how that might affect their society, you should get a LOT Weirder with it than "What if they were all Bad Meanies that wanted to bite people?".

Good thing I've repeatedly said that your evil dudes should have more going on that "Meanies who bite". But, yes, if that's all you can get from Always Evil, it's best avoided by you.

[Psyren]

Ok so then it seems we're agreed that evil races/cultures can be interesting and made compelling. Great. Now what do we talk about?

Evil cultures, nobody ever disagreed on.
Evil races, ideally you need a metaphysical justification (such as e.g. fiends, hags, and aberrations have) and non-Tolkien orcs don't.

What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

(Does this mean we are talking about D&D, contrary to Jophiel's belief?)

I'm not opposed to some form of race-based progression in 5e, but in general PF2 seems a better fit for that. In 5e, the bulk of your progression after 1st level comes from class, feats, and items. Not saying it couldn't be done but it would probably need to take the form of a secondary track like Boons or Dark Gifts.

Nope, I already gave them North Orkton. Any other non-evil orcs are immediately eaten by the Dire Otyugh under their cribs and removes them from the Biological Evil Gene Pool.

Oh I never said they'd be successful at escaping South Orkton, just that they would perish if they didn't try. It's even possible, along the lines of what you state, that Gruumsh or Luthic or whoever perfectly identifies every troublesome free-willed orc in South Orkton during childhood and snuffs them out.

[Witty Username]

*focusing on printed settings. Obviously, your own table can have him be totally successful or unsuccessful at this, just like you can make Lolth etc be.

Spelljammer and Ravenloft are pretty good homes for these ideas officially.

Ravenloft already is essentially microsettings shaped by singular dark lords, so the worst possible outcomes are somewhat given.

Spelljammer also works reasonably due to shear size, vampire king that destroyed an entire solar system pales in comparison to the vastness of the Astral.

A vast world where Maglubiyet has claimed all and everyone is goblin could be the framework of a cool module.*

*and for those still uncomfortable, everyone is goblin could mean instead of always evil goblins, a world where elves, dwarves and humans have been Anexed. All are goblin in the eyes of the great one.

[Mordar]

(Does this mean we are talking about D&D, contrary to Jophiel's belief?)

To be fair, *my* point was "we're not talking about just D&D, particularly 5e" and Jophiel's point seems to be adjacent.

I'm not opposed to some form of race-based progression in 5e, but in general PF2 seems a better fit for that. In 5e, the bulk of your progression after 1st level comes from class, feats, and items. Not saying it couldn't be done but it would probably need to take the form of a secondary track like Boons or Dark Gifts.

What do people think of combining racial features with something like themes from 4E? So as you gain levels you gain other features, and could maybe choose to focus on certain aspects of a race.

So for dwarves, you could gain features related to crafting, or martial combat, or rune magic, something like that. It would make racial choice matter more, and would add depth to dwarves without having to change them drastically from what they are now.

I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

- M

[OldTrees1]

If you answer the bolded questions in any way besides "They are inherently evil by nature", congratulations, you are doing a more nuanced take.

I had been presuming all the takes were this kind of more nuanced take. Even the well critiqued Volo's take went further.

I guess if you're really interested in exploring the specific hypothetical of "Okay, but what would a society built like a group that WAS inheriently predisposed towards evil look like" you can do that? I don't consider that an especially interesting question.

There is a trope of a species that is inherently faced with the challenge of "kill or die". Stories keep coming back to this species trope due to fear and respect of the question "what if my survival required me to kill?". Obviously the living members of such a species are predisposed to kill because most of the others are dead. (I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about Orcs)

There are many species that come out of this trope. They also vary depending on what exactly is meant by "kill" in the ultimate they face. For some variation of "kill" (for example, perhaps, those that must "murder sapients or die") we might describe the surviving members of that species as being predisposed to evil.

Oddly enough I do consider this particular question, in some of its various forms, as an interesting one. I even played a campaign as an Illithid.

[BRC]

There is a trope of a species that is inherently faced with the challenge of "kill or die". Stories keep coming back to this species trope due to fear and respect of the question "what if my survival required me to kill?". Obviously the living members of such a species are predisposed to kill because most of the others are dead. (I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about Orcs)

There are many species that come out of this trope. They also vary depending on what exactly is meant by "kill" in the ultimate they face. For some variation of "kill" (for example, perhaps, those that must "murder sapients or die") we might describe the surviving members of that species as being predisposed to evil.

Oddly enough I do consider this particular question, in some of its various forms, as an interesting one. I even played a campaign as an Illithid.

I consider that a different question.


The classic Fantasy Orc is basically, "What if there was a type of person that was just Some Specific Guy, and that Specific Guy happened to be a cruel, mean brute". There's nothing central about the classic orc that isn't either cosmetic (Green/grey skin, tusks ect) or something can can describe a human.

They're Dehumanized, but they're not Inhuman. The green skin and tusks basically serves the same function as a label on a human saying "You can assume this person is cruel, dumb, and violent".



Vampires and Illithids are Inhuman. There are no humans that must drink the blood of fellow humans to survive. While a vampire can certainly be an Allegory for a type of human, the nature of a Vampire makes it, at least in-universe, literally distinct from a human. You could have a human that is in all ways except literal an Orc. You can't have a human that is in all ways except literal a Vampire, because humans don't need to drink human blood to survive.


"What if there was a type of person whose literal survival required doing harm to other people" is a different question from "What if there was a type of person that was just inherently evil".


Edit: I guess my thesis is, if your fantasy race could be replaced with a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits (Classic Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, ect), you should treat them with the same respect that you would treat a group of humans you are writing about.

If your fantasy race is deliberately Inhuman, then that inhumanity should be central to how you explore them.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

- M

The book-keeping will be a big point of pushback from some people. I don't mind it myself either, especially if some of these are passive.

Combat Tree - Might include offensive/defensive/toughness options to choose from. Offensive could be improvements to specific weapon use (traditionally axes and hammers, can include crossbows?), proficiency with a unique weapon like the Urgrosh, and/or eventually a combat technique like battleraging. Defensive could include improvements to armor/shield use, unlocking unique armors like Mountain Armor (3rd edition), techniques like Dwarven Defender stance. Toughness could be things like improving poison resistance, disease immunity, canceling forced movement/prone conditions, etc.

Crafting Tree - Additional tool proficiencies, maybe unique uses of these tool proficiencies, able to craft unique arms and armors, eventually crafting magic items even without spells, bring brack Dwarvencraft quality, etc.

Rune Tree - This could interact with magic somehow; maybe by functioning like scrolls, or very specific types of metamagic by reading a rune during casting? Learn unique runes (maybe pull from Earth dreamer dwarf in 3.5). Inscribe runes on items for benefit of others.

Anyways, that's off the top of my head. Maybe these aren't exclusive to each other and you can pick and choose from each as you gain levels. I play 5th now so I'm using 5E terms, but also inspired by 3rd and 4th.

[awa]

The book-keeping will be a big point of pushback from some people. I don't mind it myself either, especially if some of these are passive.

Combat Tree - Might include offensive/defensive/toughness options to choose from. Offensive could be improvements to specific weapon use (traditionally axes and hammers, can include crossbows?), proficiency with a unique weapon like the Urgrosh, and/or eventually a combat technique like battleraging. Defensive could include improvements to armor/shield use, unlocking unique armors like Mountain Armor (3rd edition), techniques like Dwarven Defender stance. Toughness could be things like improving poison resistance, disease immunity, canceling forced movement/prone conditions, etc.

Crafting Tree - Additional tool proficiencies, maybe unique uses of these tool proficiencies, able to craft unique arms and armors, eventually crafting magic items even without spells, bring brack Dwarvencraft quality, etc.

Rune Tree - This could interact with magic somehow; maybe by functioning like scrolls, or very specific types of metamagic by reading a rune during casting? Learn unique runes (maybe pull from Earth dreamer dwarf in 3.5). Inscribe runes on items for benefit of others.

two more ideas
Anyways, that's off the top of my head. Maybe these aren't exclusive to each other and you can pick and choose from each as you gain levels. I play 5th now so I'm using 5E terms, but also inspired by 3rd and 4th.

Maybe allow the dwarf to sharpen a weapon really good increasing its damage for 1 encounter.
If its linked to class maybe allow them to use just a straight +5 (or whatever for balance) instead of dex for thief skills a dwarf would logically be great at, I'm thinking stuff like lock picking and disabling traps.

[Psyren]

Spelljammer and Ravenloft are pretty good homes for these ideas officially.

Ravenloft already is essentially microsettings shaped by singular dark lords, so the worst possible outcomes are somewhat given.

Spelljammer also works reasonably due to shear size, vampire king that destroyed an entire solar system pales in comparison to the vastness of the Astral.

A vast world where Maglubiyet has claimed all and everyone is goblin could be the framework of a cool module.*

*and for those still uncomfortable, everyone is goblin could mean instead of always evil goblins, a world where elves, dwarves and humans have been Anexed. All are goblin in the eyes of the great one.

I'd have no problem with a Planet of Evil Orcs or Demiplane of Evil Orcs way over there somewhere. But there's no need to wait for WotC to make such a thing either, they have way more important books to work on. Moreover, I don't see why you couldn't do Planet of Evil Dwarves or Demiplane of Evil Halflings either.

I'm becoming more and more enamored of this kind of idea. Not just an ability that scales with levels, but perhaps some trees that evolve with levels. Maybe a progression chart for the races that layers with Class so as you level in one you level in the other. In effect, you become a 5th level Dwarf Cleric, not a 5th level Cleric that happens to be a Dwarf, if you will. But how to do that in an interesting fashion (and not just a table of +1s to things)?

Yup, I can see it being bookkeepy, but I love(d) Rolemaster, so that holds no fear for me!

I definitely recommend you give PF2 a try then, it has more of the race-based progression you seem to want to try. I think PF2 took a lot of 4e's design principles and refined them. Again, not saying you couldn't bolt/kludge something like that onto 5e, but 5e races aren't really designed for that kind of lifelong progression; at most, they either have features that are evergreen or that scale at particular thresholds, but you're not actually making build choices related to your race.