Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[OldTrees1]

I brought up the errata because merely assuming the qualifier isn't sufficient for a company in WotC's position. They recognized that; whether you also do or not doesn't actually matter to me, unless of course you start authoring first-party rulebooks at some point in the future.

You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing. The only difference was explicitly or implicitly including the qualifier. Clearly the use of explicit vs implicit qualifiers in forum posts does matter to you. You do realize this is a forum and not WotC? Oh, and the appeal to WotC's style guide is still irrelevant.

[Vahnavoi]

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

It becomes easier to understand once you remember culture is not independent of biology - culture is byproduct of biology and environment. Humans paint with certain subset of colors because those are what our eyes can see; we make music using certain frequencies of sound because those are what our ears can hear; we communicate by sound because the structure of our lungs and throat allow for it; we can form language of those sounds because our nervous system is set up in a specific way, with flaw in one gene enough to significantly reduce that ability. This extends to anything you could consider moral behaviour - evolution and genetics of altruism, for example, are existing topics of study.

So it isn't particularly big leap to posit that someone's morally wrong behaviour is due to something being biologically wrong with them. Again, we can already show this to be true to some extent within humans - for example, anti-social disorder, associated with impulsive, manipulative, dishonest and violent behaviour, correlates with reduced grey matter in the frontal cortex and is estimated to be 50% genetic.

It's worth noting that the "beauty is good, ugliness is bad" trope is a primitive expression of the same idea. It's been theorized to stem from natural fear of infectious diseases. As in, people naturally think of moral evil in terms of sickness, and hence visible signs of natural evil (sickness) become perceived as signs of moral evil also. They can be further linked by belief that the visible physical illness is divine punishment for the invisible moral illness - relevant to fantasy games because in fantasy, it can be literally true.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not "orcs believe"; some orcs believe. Not "drow embrace"; some drow embrace.

Why is that qualifier so easy to add with dwarves (e.g. some dwarves are evil) but so seemingly hard to add to orcs and drow?

I think everyone else saw the qualifier.

Evil creator deities are neither infallible nor omnipotent.

They're also not impotent and have actual power and influence in the world.

Sure, they want their creations to be mindless footsoldiers universally following and perpetuating their designs, but they failed at that objective...

No one said mindless. And they haven't failed. Hence why orcs and elves are sworn enemies, and drow are evil as well, and dwarves do battle with goblins and giants, and gnomes with kobolds, etc.

Modern players appear to want to strip the lore of the creatures in D&D, and strip the power of their deities to influence them. Let's remove any sort of external pressure on them so we can just throw our hands up and say "they're basically just humans".

All the classic fantasy races are pseudo-humans.

Here we come full circle.

I am not sure what is being complained about, these qualifiers have existed since AD&D for all of them.

I mean it was a joke in 3rd that evil drow aren't even a thing anymore they are all chaotic good rebels against there evil kin. This isn't a new idea.

Indeed. Here is an article from Greyhawk Grognard explaining the first non-evil drow. Notice Gygax's language indicating that most (meaning drow) in the place are "evil to the core". Paints quite a different picture than the insistence to say "some" as opposed to "basically all" and "figuratively all".

There was also an AD&D adventure called Things That Go Bump in the Night, where firbolgs are causing a ruckus in the woods because they've been displaced by a witch. And who is that witch? A misunderstood elf named Lady Alshria Ulgeranod, a renegade drow that "left her wealthy lifestyle and her people after she became disgusted with the wickedness and depravity of drow culture".

These exceptions have always existed, but they've always been exceptions.

The popularity of Drizz't alone should indicate that there is something compelling about this. Drow are iconic because of how evil and depraved they are, not because they're just like any other elf variant.

Some elves are evil. Like Drow

1st Ed Unearthed Arcana gave us the first real rules for Drow and Duergar and said that most were evil and PCs could be of any alignment (it actually went so far as to say the Duergar were LE with Neutral tendencies and that Drow PCs were likely outcasts). Years before Drizzt was a name in publication, we were already playing rebel Drow who were breaking the evil mold. That said, being a rebel only has impact if there's something to rebel against.

Indeed.

It becomes easier to understand once you remember culture is not independent of biology - culture is byproduct of biology and environment. Humans paint with certain subset of colors because those are what our eyes can see; we make music using certain frequencies of sound because those are what our ears can hear; we communicate by sound because the structure of our lungs and throat allow for it; we can form language of those sounds because our nervous system is set up in a specific way, with flaw in one gene enough to significantly reduce that ability. This extends to anything you could consider moral behaviour - evolution and genetics of altruism, for example, are existing topics of study.

So it isn't particularly big leap to posit that someone's morally wrong behaviour is due to something being biologically wrong with them. Again, we can already show this to be true to some extent within humans - for example, anti-social disorder, associated with impulsive, manipulative, dishonest and violent behaviour, correlates with reduced grey matter in the frontal cortex and is estimated to be 50% genetic.

It's worth noting that the "beauty is good, ugliness is bad" trope is a primitive expression of the same idea. It's been theorized to stem from natural fear of infectious diseases. As in, people naturally think of moral evil in terms of sickness, and hence visible signs of natural evil (sickness) become perceived as signs of moral evil also. They can be further linked by belief that the visible physical illness is divine punishment for the invisible moral illness - relevant to fantasy games because in fantasy, it can be literally true.

I am thankful that my tables have no interest in getting this granular over this and we are able to enjoy the game without having to explain it so that it simulates real life to this degree.

[Witty Username]

There is something for them to rebel against - Lolth is running a multiversal cult that is especially entrenched in a subterranean city in FR. Your Drow PC can be from there. But someone else's might not be, and thus be no more prone to a particular alignment than a dwarf is.

There is a slight caviot here, for FR at least.
Dwarves, Elves, human, etc are part of a regional community.

Drow tend to to be more insular, partially due to being subterranean, particularly due to their culture discouraging interaction with other groups.

Usual alignment plays into this a bit, Dwarves have a reputation of loyalty, which means they are more positively recieved by other communities and more likely to absorb cultural elements. Drow have a rep of treachery and raiding, so getting a foot in is harder, and so culture is less diverse.
There is also the effect of the response of the root culture:
-A Winged Elf worshiping a Gnomish god is an oddity
-A Drow worshipping Shar is on a hit list.

This is a jumping off point for more interest though:
Do you want your Dwarves to be like Krynn Mountain dwarves, isolated and insular? Emphasis on the reduced number of outliers can highlight this

[Satinavian]

Modern players appear to want to strip the lore of the creatures in D&D, and strip the power of their deities to influence them. Let's remove any sort of external pressure on them so we can just throw our hands up and say "they're basically just humans".

A huge part of this is because while people tend to use the Monster Manual, quite a lot of DM use their own setting with its own history and its own lore and its own cosmology with completely different gods.

And that is not new, that is basically how D&D was intended.


And even with groups that do use official settings, well, sure FR exists, but so does Eberron, Ravnica and others with very different gods, factions, lore and history.

[Psyren]

You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing.

I think we have similar thoughts, if not perfectly aligned, but I'm just using your posts as a jumping off point, not as a point of disagreement.

Before we had weird jungle illusion drow, we had Lolth drow. And the society there has been delved into in many novels, and to call it boring is, in my opinion, BS; something that is very easy to do, pretending that the accuser has some hidden knowledge of truly interesting stuff. You may not like it, but a culture built around deceit and back-stabbing ambition, and demon-calling and raiding, etc. was made to be interesting, whether people want to admit it or not. At the time, drow were basically always evil (in the figurative sense, of course), and of that was born Drizz't, now a cliche and easy to dunk on, but I have no qualms saying I enjoyed the Salvatore novels delving into Menzo and the Underdark and Drizz't's journey to escape it.

Lolth doesn't force her drow to be evil, but she encourages that culture, and punishes those that turn away from it or fail to succeed in it. They then embrace the culture and enforce it on their own, and so on and so on.

There is really NO REASON to delve into this and over explain it. Unless again you're confusing all of this for "biological evil".

Similarly, orcs believe in certain values, as taught to them by their gods. And their culture reflects that, and they conserve that culture and enforce that culture on each other.

To have a problem with this is to basically have a problem with evil creator deities. And also to make special non-humans creatures, since humans are allowed to have whatever type of culture/gods the story calls for, but it appears to be a problem for non-humans.

And to make another point clear; "it's boring" is purely subjective, unsubstantiated, and a cop-out reason for not including something. In fact, it's almost projection to call it lazy, since one can turn around and call it lazy that someone can't make a concept interesting. Probably best to leave "it's boring" out of the conversation.

Where?

They're also not impotent and have actual power and influence in the world.

I agree, which is why they've succeeded at creating certain loci of influence, like insular cities and tribes. But neither of those are absolute, even just within the confines of a single setting like FR, never mind outside it.

No one said mindless. And they haven't failed. Hence why orcs and elves are sworn enemies, and drow are evil as well, and dwarves do battle with goblins and giants, and gnomes with kobolds, etc.

The qualifier is missing here too. Some orcs and elves are sworn enemies, some drow are evil, some dwarves do battle with goblins and giants...

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.

[OldTrees1]

Where?

You do know the difference between explicit and implicit don't you? Your demand for me to quote an explicit qualifier as evidence for the implicit qualifier is falling on deaf ears. Dr Samurai has only been talking about "some" in the entire post and the previous posts too. They even repeat an explicit qualifier once in that post.

Psyren you are trying to police forum post usage of explicit vs implicit qualifiers.

Edit:
Sidenote, when converting an implicit into an explicit, you put the explicit where the implicit was.
Example: "(I am) Hungry." becomes "I am hungry."
So if you want to know "where" an implicit is, it is where you would replace it with the explicit when converting from implicit to explicit.

[Dr.Samurai]

A huge part of this is because while people tend to use the Monster Manual, quite a lot of DM use their own setting with its own history and its own lore and its own cosmology with completely different gods.

And that is not new, that is basically how D&D was intended.

And yet, D&D has always had lore behind its mechanics, despite that intent. The gmae is meant to be used as is, or as part of someone's homebrew. Stripping the lore away means you have to make your homebrew.

And even with groups that do use official settings, well, sure FR exists, but so does Eberron, Ravnica and others with very different gods, factions, lore and history.

What differentiates them if not the lore?

Where?

Lmao, Psyren... make an argument lol. Add something to the discussion. This word policing is silly.

I agree, which is why they've succeeded at creating certain loci of influence, like insular cities and tribes. But neither of those are absolute, even just within the confines of a single setting like FR, never mind outside it.

Yeah, like that guy in Vault of the Drow, or Lady Ulgeranod in AD&D, or Drizz't. A relative minority compared to all the rest. The drow that dance in the moonlight to the goodly drow deity... they are a minority. There are some, but they are the exception, as I said previously.

The qualifier is missing here too. Some orcs and elves are sworn enemies, some drow are evil, some dwarves do battle with goblins and giants...

Yes, enough to shape the lore of the setting. It's weird indeed that you would elevate a handful as meaningful and ignore the literal hordes that prove the point.

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.

Thank you for proving my point by pointing to a setting specifically designed to buck the tropes and be different, including in how alignment is handled.

[Errorname]

Modern players appear to want to strip the lore of the creatures in D&D, and strip the power of their deities to influence them. Let's remove any sort of external pressure on them so we can just throw our hands up and say "they're basically just humans".

Is that surprising? People use D&D as an engine to tell their own stories, often rewriting the lore to suit their purposes. That's been a thing for as long as D&D's existed

[Dr.Samurai]

Is that surprising? People use D&D as an engine to tell their own stories, often rewriting the lore to suit their purposes. That's been a thing for as long as D&D's existed

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

[Errorname]

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Oh, I see what you're trying to say. While there are players who dislike specific lore details and would like those to be changed or altered, either because they think they're needlessly restrictive or find them in poor taste, I don't think anyone thinks there shouldn't be lore.

[Mordar]

Is that surprising? People use D&D as an engine to tell their own stories, often rewriting the lore to suit their purposes. That's been a thing for as long as D&D's existed

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins). And it certainly wasn't about the game-aspects of the game. Minmaxing? Optimization? Not things then, for any of the groups I played in until literally the next decade. It was the lore, the feel and the exploration. Not a mechanical advantage (at least not much), and certainly not a way to better explore the human condition.

Or is that not what you meant?

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Agree - we needed the shoulders to stand on, if you will. It also provided the commonality to let us bridge different games/groups and have a shared base language.

- M

[Satinavian]

What differentiates them if not the lore?

That argument was that even a huge chunk of groups that don't make their own setting with their own lore and own gods and instead play official settings still don't use that particular lore that you find oh so important. Eberron orcs don't hate elves or the other way around. Eberron orcs were also not made by Gruumsh who doesn't even exist there. Same for the Corellon or whatshisname.

And the same is true for nealy all the custom settings.


It's not that modern players now strip the lore and the deities from certain races. A huge chunk of players didn't actually have those dieties at their table even many decades ago and the lore was also different. The stuff you take for granted here was never more than how some people played.

[MonochromeTiger]

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Does there need to be absolutely no lore for people to make their own? No. Do the companies making these games want to appeal to as many people as possible, and in the process have disproportionately high fears of saying too much and alienating some of their potential buyers? Absolutely. Out of the choices between the company trying to sell something and the people who don't want to make their own worlds who do you think is dictating the "official" lore?

And honestly as much as I dislike moving toward generic copy-paste lore for all settings I have just as much issue with how much people crusade over "this is what the monsters should really be." Most of those arguments are rooted purely in some obsession with older editions of D&D as an indisputable source while covering their ears and pretending not to see or hear how much of their precious D&D's content is based in hilariously bad understandings of the things it's based on. You've got Orcs and Goblins as separate and people will fight to defend that separation. You've got "Fey" that have absolutely nothing to do with that label and come from entirely different mythological roots only to find that there's plenty of other things from the same mythologies that are completely different creature types. You've got monsters and heroic creatures from so many different cultures crammed together in a great big mess with little to no regard for how they're portrayed until someone hires a sensitivity writer and scrubs half the words from their description and starts a different version of this same fight. Oddly all of that is perfectly fine with people but "well they made my easy bad guys less blatantly evil" is what pushes it too far and counts as an attack against our sensibilities.

"Well you can just make your own because I have/had it the way I like it" works both ways, in fact it works in all directions at all times, it's not an argument it's just a squabble over who gets to be smug about having the official version in their favor and who has to do some legwork fleshing out what they want. There are no winners here aside from WotC because they know that whether they strip everything to just stats or load everything down with the most strangely specific lore possible so it all has to be stripped out if you want variety people are still going to buy their books anyway and just complain about how the other audience killed their version.

[Dr.Samurai]

That argument was that even a huge chunk of groups that don't make their own setting with their own lore and own gods and instead play official settings still don't use that particular lore that you find oh so important.

I love the implication that I am making a big deal about something, when my position is simply "leave it as is" and "make all the pacifist races you want, just leave the evil ones as well". Meanwhile, others are actively wanting to remove things from the game.

Eberron orcs don't hate elves or the other way around. Eberron orcs were also not made by Gruumsh who doesn't even exist there. Same for the Corellon or whatshisname.

Yep. And hopefully it remains this way and doesn't get retconned because some people take offense at tribal orcs worshiping a primal force, or "dark" elves worshiping animal spirits, etc.

It's not that modern players now strip the lore and the deities from certain races. A huge chunk of players didn't actually have those dieties at their table even many decades ago and the lore was also different. The stuff you take for granted here was never more than how some people played.

This conversation is definitely confused, and I'd argue it's because one side has very little ground to stand on. But be that as it may... I'm protesting not against orcs being handled differently across settings, but rather the lore of races being changed within a setting. So I don't care how orcs are in Eberron. Eberron happens to be my favorite setting. But I DO care when drow and orcs and others are changed in their own setting, and made less interesting, for bad reasons. And I also care when people act like this decision was a foregone conclusion, or like it doesn't change anything.

[Errorname]

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins). And it certainly wasn't about the game-aspects of the game. Minmaxing? Optimization? Not things then, for any of the groups I played in until literally the next decade. It was the lore, the feel and the exploration. Not a mechanical advantage (at least not much), and certainly not a way to better explore the human condition.

Or is that not what you meant?

Oh no, I think the lore and narrative elements of the game are very important to most players, but homebrewing your own settings and stories has basically always been a thing in D&D.

[Jophiel]

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins).

I remember a lot of people picking humans simply because humans didn't have class level caps and everyone else did. Even if you knew nothing about minmaxing or munchkins, etc it just looked "bad" to see Dwarf Fighter capping at 9 and Humans with that "U". The chance of actually getting to 9 was minimal but still! Of course, what happened in my neck of the woods doesn't reflect yours.

I'm kind of detached from the "But WOTC says!" part of the debate because I always made my own settings anyway and because I viewed the thread as more system agnostic. How can dwarfs be more interesting (not just in D&D 5e)? How/Can "Always Evil" (for certain definitions of always) races be justified in a game setting? WOTC is in the business of selling as many books as they can to make stockholders happy; I'm not about to view them as an absolute authority on anything, though some people are far more attached to them. And as for "Well, no one will stop you from making your own..." I mean, duh?

[Dr.Samurai]

Does there need to be absolutely no lore for people to make their own? No. Do the companies making these games want to appeal to as many people as possible, and in the process have disproportionately high fears of saying too much and alienating some of their potential buyers? Absolutely. Out of the choices between the company trying to sell something and the people who don't want to make their own worlds who do you think is dictating the "official" lore?

Some vocal minority that probably is not buying as many books as anyone thinks.

And honestly as much as I dislike moving toward generic copy-paste lore for all settings I have just as much issue with how much people crusade over "this is what the monsters should really be." Most of those arguments are rooted purely in some obsession with older editions of D&D as an indisputable source while covering their ears and pretending not to see or hear how much of their precious D&D's content is based in hilariously bad understandings of the things it's based on. You've got Orcs and Goblins as separate and people will fight to defend that separation. You've got "Fey" that have absolutely nothing to do with that label and come from entirely different mythological roots only to find that there's plenty of other things from the same mythologies that are completely different creature types. You've got monsters and heroic creatures from so many different cultures crammed together in a great big mess with little to no regard for how they're portrayed until someone hires a sensitivity writer and scrubs half the words from their description and starts a different version of this same fight. Oddly all of that is perfectly fine with people but "well they made my easy bad guys less blatantly evil" is what pushes it too far and counts as an attack against our sensibilities.

I started in 3.0 so it's not attachment to early D&D.

It's the fact that there is nothing wrong with the game, and it doesn't need this kind of adjustment. That's an opinion, of course, but it's a valid opinion that doesn't require you to caricature it as something else. I enjoy the game very much, and I'd prefer that it not be changed because of bad ideas, and especially so if the changes are not good changes. I don't want to see this influence on the game, nor watch the game morph into something boring and bland. It's clear as day, to me at least, that the justification for these changes is incredibly thin. And since they change something that people have been playing with for decades, it's not unreasonable to object and want better justification or no change at all.

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures. I've objected to the other side by noting that there have always been exceptions to these cultures, which leaves room for the "not all orcs" consideration, that this type of thinking can lead to ANY lore changing at any time (including Eberron, where orcs are still "primal" and dark elves worship animal spirits, and goblins are basically second class citizens across the Five Nations, etc.). There are other objections of course, to the actual ideology informing these decisions, but we can't discuss those here.

"Well you can just make your own because I have/had it the way I like it" works both ways, in fact it works in all directions at all times, it's not an argument it's just a squabble over who gets to be smug about having the official version in their favor and who has to do some legwork fleshing out what they want.

I don't agree with this at all actually. It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes.

I'm kind of detached from the "But WOTC says!" part of the debate because I always made my own settings anyway and because I viewed the thread as more system agnostic. How can dwarfs be more interesting (not just in D&D 5e)? How/Can "Always Evil" (for certain definitions of always) races be justified in a game setting? WOTC is in the business of selling as many books as they can to make stockholders happy; I'm not about to view them as an absolute authority on anything, though some people are far more attached to them. And as for "Well, no one will stop you from making your own..." I mean, duh?

Makes sense.

One way to "justify" it for those that need it could be something like a deity like Gruumsh gathering followers of all kinds. Gruumsh happens to be an orc, or presents as an orc, but many creatures gather to his banner of conquest and might makes right. So you can have a "coalition" of all types of creatures following an evil deity. I mean... I think this is easy enough to do with the previous lore but just thinking aloud here.

[Vahnavoi]

I am thankful that my tables have no interest in getting this granular over this and we are able to enjoy the game without having to explain it so that it simulates real life to this degree.

You don't have to explain all I just noted for a game, I'm explaining it to you just for your benefit.

That said, I wouldn't be thankful for a table that would have no interest in having this discussion - since I like discussing these things. I've genuinely played through multiple in-character conversations about the nature of evil, including in-born evil. Sometimes from the point of view of someone proving humans are inherently evil and deserving of destruction.

[Errorname]

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures.

Ultimately I don't find these reasons persuasive because having a one-note evil species is not required to actually explore any of these ideas, and their inclusion generally makes these ideas less compelling, not more.

Making non-human races diverse in culture and character makes them feel a lot more real. If your world has an evil army of Orcs menacing the nations of good, having Orcish tribes not aligned with the army or Orcs citizens in the nations of good doesn't undermine the army's villainous threat, and actually give you opportunities to develop that army by providing potential points of contrast.

It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes

D&D's been played for decades, but it has not been played in the same form for decades. It's constantly evolving and changing and unless you're an OD&D purist I'm guessing you've been in favour of at least some of those changes. "This is how things are" is not an argument about how things should be.

[MonochromeTiger]

Some vocal minority that probably is not buying as many books as anyone thinks.

I was unaware WotC's name was "some vocal minority." The people you feel are being catered to don't have the power to dictate what WotC puts in their books and doesn't. The people you feel aren't catered to don't have that power. Wotc, or technically Hasbro, are the final arbiters for what they feel is appropriate for their books' content. We're obviously able to form our own opinions on it but at the end of the day all official content lives or dies based off what they think is marketable and what writers they choose to hire, we're just stuck with the results and a choice to engage with them or not.

I started in 3.0 so it's not attachment to early D&D.

It's the fact that there is nothing wrong with the game, and it doesn't need this kind of adjustment. That's an opinion, of course, but it's a valid opinion that doesn't require you to caricature it as something else. I enjoy the game very much, and I'd prefer that it not be changed because of bad ideas, and especially so if the changes are not good changes. I don't want to see this influence on the game, nor watch the game morph into something boring and bland. It's clear as day, to me at least, that the justification for these changes is incredibly thin. And since they change something that people have been playing with for decades, it's not unreasonable to object and want better justification or no change at all.

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures. I've objected to the other side by noting that there have always been exceptions to these cultures, which leaves room for the "not all orcs" consideration, that this type of thinking can lead to ANY lore changing at any time (including Eberron, where orcs are still "primal" and dark elves worship animal spirits, and goblins are basically second class citizens across the Five Nations, etc.). There are other objections of course, to the actual ideology informing these decisions, but we can't discuss those here.

I don't like the changes either honestly, I didn't post that with the intention of saying "get over it." I posted it because no matter what someone is going to be griping, the changes were made and it is far easier to defend a current status quo than it is to demand change even if that's just a reversion to what was there before. No matter the case someone is still the one defending the thing they know from the "vocal minority" that wants to and/or has already come in and changed what they liked. I mentioned it earlier in the thread and it hasn't stopped being true here.

I don't agree with this at all actually. It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes.

They can take a game that has been played for decades and start making these types of changes to it because they own the IP. Considering it's Hasbro and WotC I don't think they weren't expecting complaints, I just think they don't really care because they know it will still sell. And yes, it's very convenient for the people making the change, mostly because they make the change in order to make more money and if it works out they get that money. If it doesn't work they've still got such a dedicated enough fanbase people will buy it just to try salvaging what they do like for their own stuff, that then gives them time to make further changes and just sell it all over again until they either get cut for underperforming or strike on something that explodes in popularity.

People who come in after those changes and still enjoy them or who came in before but like the changes aren't an enemy to look down on as entitled. They're just other people with different tastes, right now they have things in their favor. Down the road another target audience will get the spotlight instead and they'll be feeling just as burned by it. Through all of that the people who make the decisions won't care the slightest bit because it's not about whether you like the game and the lore or not, it's about how many people will potentially buy it.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: I am seeing some people arguing about how the post is phrased. Please remember to be at least somewhat gracious in interpreting posts. This isn't the Forum Romanum, and it isn't English class, and I really don't want to get out the red ink again.

[LibraryOgre]

Unrelated fun fact: Gary Gygax's own Gord the Rogue books included a non-evil drow.

[Vahnavoi]

Ultimately I don't find these reasons persuasive because having a one-note evil species is not required to actually explore any of these ideas, and their inclusion generally makes these ideas less compelling, not more.

Making non-human races diverse in culture and character makes them feel a lot more real. If your world has an evil army of Orcs menacing the nations of good, having Orcish tribes not aligned with the army or Orcs citizens in the nations of good doesn't undermine the army's villainous threat, and actually give you opportunities to develop that army by providing potential points of contrast.

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?

An example of a game that acknowledges this, there's Lamentations of the Flame Princess - which more or less says in the referee's book that if your orcs (or what have you) are practically just thinly veiled caricatures of humans, own up to it and just use humans in those roles.

Of course, history of LotFP also teaches us one reason why not to do it: because media illiterate people will get outraged and eat you alive for it. Same reason why a romance novel might used vampires or werewolves as stand-ins for queer people.

But is that the only reason, or are there more?

[Satinavian]

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?

The problem is that "being evil" does not actually make your orcs or whatever different from humans. There are more than enough evil humans. And if you just use versions of evil behavior like e.g. "brutal invaders inspired by how the mongols were perceived by their enemies" it still does not help to make them anything other than humans with a hat.

If you actually want notably different races than give them notably different traits that are not found in any humans. And yes, the easiest ones for thoe are physical traits, not behavioral ones.

But even if you don't do that and just make a whole species out of some rather specific kind of human, "evil" is still a horrible trait to choose. Because that particular trait mostly only leads to them being enemies and them not getting properly explored because interactions are very limited in scope. Nearly every other trait would be a better choice when making them different from humans.

I am not saying you can't have evil orcs. Splittermond has evil orcs. They also are agressive sexless hivemind fey things that treat most other creatures as food. That they are evil is not even part of the rules, it just follows from their habit to pick fights with everyone and eating them. And there are no outliers because of the hivemind quality. They are basically a mix of Dragon Ages darkspawn and the zerg. But when asked what makes them different from humans, "being evil" would not be in the first dozen things coming to mind. They are different from humans because of all the differences. And they are coincidently considered evil because of some of them.


TL,DR : Evil races are not more creative or not more inhuman than not evil races.

[Errorname]

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?

I think this question ends up running into the "why do we have non-human humanoids at all?" question. Because most of the classic 'evil race' stuff doesn't need to be a separate species to function. Plenty of settings have only human characters and work perfectly fine, you don't need to literally dehumanize the evil empire for them to be unsympathetic. What is the actual point of Elves and Dwarves and Orcs in fantasy fiction. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, I don't think anyone would be happy if WOTC said "no more elves in D&D, everyone's human now", I certainly wouldn't be, but it's interesting to ask what we're actually trying to do with them.

My thinking is that the classic humanoid fantasy races function as a sort of exaggerated human diversity, it creates clear ethnic differences that are familiar and easily comprehensible but which avoid direct one-to-one correlation with real world ethnic groups. It also lets you do characters who have cool features like pointy ears or tusks or horns that humans don't, which people find aesthetically appealing. The point isn't to make truly inhuman characters, that's what things like Mind Flayers are for.

But even if you don't do that and just make a whole species out of some rather specific kind of human, "evil" is still a horrible trait to choose. Because that particular trait mostly only leads to them being enemies and them not getting properly explored because interactions are very limited in scope. Nearly every other trait would be a better choice when making them different from humans.

EDIT: Strong agree to this. Evil isn't a versatile trait, and if that's how you characterize a species you're not going to get much use out of them as anything other than a target to shoot and if you have any more interesting traits for them in mind you're not going to be able to use them for neutral or allied characters.

[Vahnavoi]

@Satinavian: you answered the wrong question, mostly just reiterating what Errorname already said. You were already granted that being "always evil" and equivalent caricatures aren't particularly interesting use of non-humans. In context of your reply: yeah, you can base your non-humans around physical rather than behavioral traits, but why would you? Because implicit in that idea is that you can use human with a jetpack to explore the same space as a winged humanoid (so on and so forth).

---

@ErrorName:

I think this question ends up running into the "why do we have non-human humanoids at all?" question.

Yes. That is the point. I gave you one possible answer for free just to show the question isn't an impossible one.

[Witty Username]

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.

The qualifier is missing here...

In the hopes that the conversation is bridged.
The good Dr. here did provide is notes on always being figurative and the existence of Drizzt. I personally read that as applying to the post as a whole, as it was part of the introduction as a frame of reference.

But, we have gotten off track by semantics, and are at risk of arguing points made by no one.

[Errorname]

@Satinavian: you answered the wrong question, mostly just reiterating what Errorname already said. You were already granted that being "always evil" and equivalent caricatures aren't particularly interesting use of non-humans. In context of your reply: yeah, you can base your non-humans around physical rather than behavioral traits, but why would you? Because implicit in that idea is that you can use human with a jetpack to explore the same space as a winged humanoid (so on and so forth).

Well, you've had to give the human a jetpack in order to give them the same physical capacity, because flight is very much not a thing humans are normally capable of doing, whereas 'being evil' is sadly very much within the bounds of precedented human behaviour.

Yes. That is the point. I gave you one possible answer for free just to show the question isn't an impossible one.

Then I may have misinterpreted you as arguing that a "humanoid" is functionally just a human but if you say "they're all evil" that's somehow enough to make them not. My mistake, if so.

[Satinavian]

@Satinavian: you answered the wrong question, mostly just reiterating what Errorname already said. You were already granted that being "always evil" and equivalent caricatures aren't particularly interesting use of non-humans. In context of your reply: yeah, you can base your non-humans around physical rather than behavioral traits, but why would you? Because implicit in that idea is that you can use human with a jetpack to explore the same space as a winged humanoid (so on and so forth).

Why physical instead of behavioral ? Because physical traits are more clear cut, more obviously nonhuman, easier to adjucate and harder to forget. With behavioral traits you always have to consider whether really such humans do/don't exist. Additionally they rely on quality of portrayal, you basically have to sell them with your skill as actor, which might or might not convince the others sitting around the table.
As a whole, physical differences are way easier to use for making species distinct. Of course physical traits can and often do result in linked behavioral changes anyway.

And why would a human with a jetpack play similarly as a winged humanoid ? Has the human with jetpack had the jetpack since birth and is used to use it all the time ? Can the winged humanoid just take the wings off when inconvenient ? Those are very much not the same.
But even if they were more similar, why would i even want to use a human with a jetpack instead ? Interacting with people who are fundamentally different is interesting, which is why it is so extremely common in fiction. A regular human is just another random guy in addition to the billions of others in the world no one wants to learn more about. And a jetpack does not make them interesting.