One D & D - Are Orcs a Problem?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join us in this insightful video as we delve into the complexities surrounding orcs in the One D&D universe. Are they a problematic stereotype or a beloved fantasy race? We'll explore their history, cultural significance, and the ongoing discussions within the D&D community. Whether you're a seasoned player or new to the game, this video will provide you with a balanced perspective on the evolving portrayal of orcs in the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share your thoughts in the comments!
- เกม
![[TH] Esports World Cup : Grand Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sedbKhFYDMo/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the original Monster Manual depicted orcs as having pig-like snouts; with the tusks, they looked like humanoid warthogs. That's how I always pictured them.
Yep, they were depicted like that as they were never meant to be a cute playable race. However, the beauty of RPGs is that one could change that to whatever they like. In my game orcs are close to the original = evil brutes.
As a long time Hispanic D&D DM and player, it was always understood that D&D was medieval western European fantasy game based on Tolkien books. So I had ZERO issue with no "Mezo American" representation because that was NEVER the setting. Fast Forward to the D&D Setting Forgotten Realms , we now have "representation" for other cultures that are not Western European. BAM "problem" solved back with 2nd & 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms.
HASBRO WOTC tried to solve several non-existence issue in the name of Social Justice, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which so far has backfired on them on every level.
Yes the art 100% depicts stereotypical Mexicans as Orcs. Am I offended? NO, because Hispanics mostly don't have a victim mentality. Should the art be removed, yes, but if it stays, meh.
As someone else commented several weeks ago about this art. Hispanics would rather be labeled as Orcs then labeled as Latinx (which is a horribly racist term)
Hasbro WOTC art I have seen for D&D 1 or 6th Edition has been overall subpar. Whoever approved the art for this book should lose their jobs.
Thank you for offering your perspective on this issue. Now, that I know that Hispanics prefer that term, I will use it. I had wondered about the L-word because their have been conflicting information about it. I look forward to reading any other comments you have on videos in this channel.
Play the game the way you want. It is your game.
Yes, that is true.
I never knew Tolkien himself said that not all orcs are evil. Interesting!
"in The Silmarillion, Tolkien reveals that orcs are among Middle-earth’s greatest victims, because their corruption is a result not of their choice, but of Melkor’s torment and abuse. Long after they have become a species of their own, they remain trapped and in pain: “Deep in their dark hearts,” Tolkien writes, “the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery.” In a sense, perhaps they are the most universally evil of all the forms of life in Middle-earth because they are the most universally abused and imprisoned." Source: www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2022/09/30/tolkien-rings-power-good-evil-243870
I'm trying to find exact quotes: Letter number 153 Tolkiens states: ''They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad” and then he wrote in brackets
“I nearly wrote "irredeemably bad"; but that would be going too far.”
@@TheSpicyDungeoneer-qv5qhDamb dude. That’s kinda nice to hear honestly.
@@TheSpicyDungeoneer-qv5qh I think his emphasis on verbage towards the end there is to remain consistent with the origin of the orcs, being men and elves corrupted by Melkor's influence. Not originally bad but made to be bad, since their nature (and the forms that followed) were augmented to be twisted and corrupted. From the nature of men and elves to be free, loving, intelligent, and good to being enslaved, hateful, stupid, and bad. So if they were made one way then it is conceivable that they could be made another. Yet we're talking of a process that took literal ages, millennia at the very least. So it emphasizes the possibility of good, but I don't know if that means outright that there is a good orc. As the history would suggest war begets war as dog begets dog, so does bad beget bad, and the orcs are part of that. I don't say this as in a "ackshually" kind of way either btw, Tolkien has a very in depth world and sense of morality and it's interesting to discuss.
for my world I have different subraces (or sub species) of orcs, I have the brute tribal orcs, and I have the orcs that lost their rage and now are more clear headed and are integrated into sociaty much easier.
The issue with the art for me is that it toke away all identity off the orc race. you can easily mistake them for humans half elfs half orcs. usually art in dnd is to inspire and that art doesn't inspire, it's just confusing and toke away all the appeal of playing an orc.
The other thing is that if they want to remove the old connotations of orcs being inheritly evil (first that's already been accepted by all players of the game already since forever) make up something more interesting instead, make them inheritly connected to the elements, or druidic, or wise and show that in the art.
I don't know cowboy western doesn't scream high fantasy at all.
They aren't sending their best.
What are your thoughts on Tolkien's 1958 letter where he describes Orcs this way?
"Squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
Firstly, I am no Tolkien scholar but I am interested in his works. Secondly, I love Mongolian culture. From Tengrism to Horse Archery to Modern Day thriving country balanced between two superpowers. It's great. Thirdly, it was 1958. Tolkien fought against the Nazis and antisemitism. He was against racism and for the environment. He was ahead of his time in many ways. Fourthly, I believe that particular letter was in response to someone asking him questions about the orcs and he was trying to use language that a non-reader of fantasy would understand in terms of cultural references. At the time some people were trying to make movies that had orcs with bird beaks in them. So, he was trying to clear up a misunderstanding but it has not stood the test of time.
Orc come from Roman mythology , it was a curse by Orcus for doing bad things to corpses.
My biggest issue is that WOTC tried to solve a problem that didn’t exist (orcs = black people narrative is BS) and made an actual racist caricature as the solution
The only reason I’m even remotely willing to accept this is because most Hispanics are not offended by racist caricatures of themselves
They find them funny
They LOVED Speedy Gonzalez, and were PISSED when mighty whities canceled him.
To a point where he got brought back
Personally, for my games?
I’m gonna ignore this, and stick with something more akin to orks (the 40k version)
MOAR DAKKA
I completely agree with you about WoTC trying to solve a problem that did not exist.
I love the image you paint. Why have a Dragon or Lich as your end of dungeon boss when you can have a shoddily put together Orc gargant equipped with repeetin' balisaz an' flame lobbaz. Skewa an' cook dem filthy humanz!
Tickled me no end. Might even use that, 10 Orcs in a trenchcoat style :-)
How, is this a caricature of any race, this is literally just a Wild West setting like are you assume this is ment to be Hispanics because it is the wild, cause there is the southern states that have similar geography and clothing, hell if they are caricatures of Hispanic where’s sombreros the ponchos hell where’s my mariachi
In my game, the orcs will always be evil brutes opposed to the players. They look evil and they are evil - driven by their own logic. Why? Because they are monsters that the players are supposed to kill. Maybe I will *think* about making an Ork as a playable race, but the big question is why would I do that....
To make funny sounding british idiots with negative iq that want dakka
Why would an entire race be a monolith to your idea of evil? Seems a bit questionable from a "logical" standpoint.
Ok edgy, that was always allowed
@@gene8447 The thing is "In my game" they are, "In your game" they might not. You can portray them as you like, as can I. I was merely stating the facts of my game, where orcs are monster-types = player opponents if you like.
@@FamBoren thats completely sidestepping the question, but ok.
I tend to give orcs this nicely textured culture, not explicitly any culture from earth, but I gave them traditions, rituals, etc. They are still raiders, and "barbarian" culture, but I just love delving into regional differences of cultures, primitive and advanced.
I will never give them a blatantly southern-american ripoff culture , even in a desert... doesn't fit with their origins and build
I think that is a great idea. Sounds like fun.
It's possible for any intelligent species to resemble a culture that we are already familiar with and D&D has long since moved past the obvious influence of Tolkien on what defines a species. And not all beings from a particular species have to belong to one mono-culture. It's possible any species might have various cultures in different parts of your game world.
You make some good points, especially about mono-culture. Tolkien's peoples also had different cultures, like different elves, goblins and orcs. And you are right that D & D has moved on. I would rather see nonhumans develop their own cultures than mimic human ones though. D & D can do it though. The Gith are a good example of this.
I just use four different Orc macro-cultures in my homebrew world. Some Demonic Orcs, Dumb Brute Orcs, Civilized/Industrial Orcs, and a Noble Savage Archetype. That way I cover all the bases for the common orc Archetypes, but aren't a monolith.
Sounds interesting.
Orcs aren't a problem in my 2nd/3rd Ed books and those are the only ones I'll be going by after WOTC did this
Yes, I wondered if some players would go back to older editions or even other games.
@@TheSpicyDungeoneer-qv5qh actually, and I've been wanting to look into this for some time, there's certain aspects of both 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed that are very good but only found in one of them. For instance saves in 3rs Ed is much better than in 2nd along with AC. However certain aspects of 2nd Ed especially when used with optional rules is much better than 3rd Ed. Initiative is a bit better but I only say this due to one aspect of it combined with a specific optional rule. The 2nd Ed initiative rules are needed for weapon speed rules. Unlike in 3rd Ed where higher initiative goes first. In 2nd Ed the lowest initiative goes first. Each weapon has a weapon speed, daggers and shortsword have lower number than bastard sword and greataxe, while unarmed would have 0. The weapon speed is added to the initiative making it take longer for you to do your actions compared to someone with a faster weapon. This isn't possible in 3td Ed rules. Also weapons in 2nd Ed have 2 different damage ranges, with a separate for larger creatures such as giants. Exp is also a bit more complicated but PCs get XP from doing different things associated with their class. For instance picking a lock by a thief gives XP, casting spells as a mage gives various XP, even creating spells/magic weapons gives XP instead of costing XP to create. Another feature I found interesting was that each class especially at high levels gains certain benefits such as a high level warrior or paladin can be granted a title, land, castle and low level followers. Leveling up also tends to take longer. I've been interested in combining certain features from 2nd Ed with other features in 3rd Ed.
Theres cowboy orcs with modern haircuts in 2e and 3e as well my friend, its awesome :)
@@kylestahlbaum3109 what pictures and which books? I still have a large number of the old 2nd Ed books and 3rd Ed books along with some of the old artt books from the artists that did much of the artwork for various 2nd Ed books. This also includes the 2nd Ed monstrous manual and compendium. Also half orcs weren't a playable race in 2nd Ed originally and it wasn't until later in an optional rules book that came out around the mid 90s that certain races became playable (I also have this book and later a revised version of 2nd Ed PHB and DMG was released.
@@desmien679 Its an imagination game my friend, any of the races can be whatever we want them to be. Ya'll are digging too deep. For all we know they also have a new world developed for it. Just because you dislike it is totally fine, but its still valid. But if the video is going to compare them to another work of fiction (LotR) then its totally acceptable for any other fictional world to exist that also includes a variant of Orcs. And to directly answer your question Dragon magazine has ancient articles on how to build western inspired DnD worlds, including Orcs, and the location series in 3e also has this exact archetype.
This seems a lot of speculation and complaining ( not necessarily from the video) because of one art work, seriously do people think how orcs are going to be written for now on cause of one art work cause if that’s the case I guess dnd is now set in Victorian times cause there’s an artwork that has the characters i that dress
I think personally people are just looking for something that is 1 not even there and 2 something to complain about
Every campaign setting is different and the fantasy races can be used for any sort of nationality if you want them to in "Your" campaign. Like I'm running a 1870s post American civil war era game where the party encounter several people from history. One is John Henry who is a Warforged that "broke" down after his challenge against a stronger machine. It's symbolic not derogatory In how I describe the Warforged standing in for the Slaves of several cultures as in that time they were "Nothing but tools to get a job done". I don't go out of my way to Say it or point out racism.
Enjoy your game. It sounds like you put a lot of thought into it.
it's D&D, and we do play the way we want. we always have back when TSR's greed and stupidity led to hasbro acquiring the IP. wotc has been no better or worse than TSR. our community is healthy and protective. fantasy TTRPGs are more prevalent and every bit as good as GURPS and others were. however, the latest rendition of official rules has done not done us any good and artwork "faux pas" in these skittish times is tone deaf at best and extremely worrisome at worst, especially when artwork such as the one mentioned in this video ties into the flavour of some of the latest changes, such as the banality of species and the rest of character generations. it makes decisions irrelevant because species selection is not intended to have any circumstances (if played as written). time will tell, however merely handwaving is as naïve as claims of wotc wokifying D&D are paranoid. i really dislike wishy-washy DM's and players as they lack passion and sessions with them are boring (and your nom d' tube is misleading)...
Ok stop. You used ai to make much worse pictures. We aren't going to start pretending the maztica setting doesn't exist. And it's just not that big a deal.
I used an AI emoji maker, if that is what you are talking about. It was fun. Yes, Maztica exists in Forgotten Realms but I thought that was based on indigenous American cultures like the Aztecs and Mayans, not the Spanish conquistadors.
This is good for D&D. There are two things about these Orcs that seem to bother people: they are more human-like, and they are clearly *civilized*. You can play whatever you want at your table, but for the base game--the default D&D--these are good changes. First, the Orc is a clear replacement for the Half-Orc as a distinct species option (Half-species are now a sidebar option it seems). So, already, we're not talking about Orcs, we're functionally talking about what used to be the Half-Orc. Now do a quick Google image search for Half-Orc, what do you see? The fan art is trending towards more human-like, more aesthetically pleasing (and green-skinned, which I agree with--but people come in all sorts of colors, why not Orcs?). These are people's character pictures, these are the kinds of (Half)Orcs that people want to play. It's easy to take these more attractive Orcs and say "well, I'm playing a very ugly version of this species." It is significantly harder to take the previous edition Orcs (and to a lesser extent Half-Orcs) and say "I'm playing a very attractive (by Human standards) version of this species."
Second, making Orcs a civilized race is a good thing. If you want to play a tribal, barbaric Human, that's not hard to do. But imagine picking up the next edition of D&D and seeing that the Human race was by default represented by cavemen. Being uncivilized should be a choice, not a default, for a number of reasons but let's just tackle the most glaring one: Orcs are(/were) monsters. That means in previous editions if you were playing a Half-Orc, you're either the child of a monster-fscker or the product of rhymes-with-grape (or you have a very loving pair of Half-Orc parents, of course, but that just shifts the either/or further up your family tree). I submit that either of those particular origin stories should be a choice, not the default.
Orcs were going to change if they were going to remain a default player character option, and this is the kind of way they were going to change. They went with an arid, Western setting for the art piece and the gear is (fantasy) climate appropriate. No matter where they set the climate, the Orcs were going to be more human-like and more civilized.
I’d argue the removal of half-races are an issue in and of itself
They never should have been removed to begin with
If they hadn’t, not only would we still be able to obtain some very interesting stories from such people finding their place in the world, but we also wouldn’t need full orcs to be “more human”
What's wrong with being a monster-fucker?
@@dragonriderabens9761 I disagree. Half-races were themselves a kind of sop used to make less-human races more human. Turning them into a sidebar option does more to make interesting stories than having them as a default option, because now there is no standard Half-something. Also, it always seemed a bit weird to me from a setting perspective. A nation of Half-Elves? A kingdom of Half-Orcs? "Well, no, those are just the hybrid species, they exist amongst the major species."
I once created a homebrew world for a game where the orcs were inspired by Mesoamerican cultures. They were renowned hunters and nature spiritualists, living in a harsh, jungle-like region similar to Chult. These orcs differed from the standard ones, having hands for feet like monkeys, a slimmer yet muscular build, and skin tones ranging from green to terracotta.
"I have a simple rule for world-building: any member of sentient races has the ability to be good or evil, but most likely somewhere in between."
In short, I can make the fantasy world I build whatever I want.
Sounds like you put a lot of thought into. I hope it was a fun campaign.
@@TheSpicyDungeoneer-qv5qh It was fun while it lasted. We played for about four years, but we had to take a break when I started a new job.
Oh, great. Orcs are our next "Deviantart race". I guess that means a few less "cutsie demon-grrrrlz" (tieflings) at least.
I've ran campaigns that had Orcs in alternative cultural roles before and I have full Orc as a player racial option but even I look at this new art and wonder if Orc is now just officially a PC race rather than a lower-level enemy type that occasionally sees PC play.
I'm really beginning to dislike the heritage/species replacement for traditional races/half-breeds. I get why they made some uncomfortable but surely this isn't serving the game any better. How about a new heritage option instead of grey-skinned plains-dwellers...so much design space that we don't need to reinvent staples like Orcs, or the roles they traditionally hold in D&D.
IDK - I feel like since Tasha's we've been on a course to make everything permissable and encouraged....except anything activists claim is code for sexism, racism or slavery. D&D is becoming a homogenous, cutesy mess to me and it's putting me off the new revision.
90% of the people trying to claiming something is code are not WOTC’s customers
They don’t even play DnD
And yet, WOTC is capitulating to them
@dragonriderabens9761 Totally agree. I'd go one further and suggest that at least some of these non-troverseys are being unhelpfully signal boosted by people who don't even play rpgs.
We've had an exhausting amount of seemingly needless changes over the last 24 months, none of which have actually changed the game for the better or seemingly been asked for by anyone that has played any previous D&D edition.
After all the effort WotC went to during the D&D Next project to figure out what made D&D feel like D&D you'd think they'd have learned not to mess with core assumptions of the system or player base and that the vast majority of D&D players don't live in the internet echo chambers they seem to draw their inspirations for changes from.
I almost choked on my breakfast when I first heard we were swapping race for species because the word 'race' could be problematic for some players. I've literally never heard that from any player in 30+ years of playing the game. When you consider it, it seems like an innocuous change that might help make some more people comfortable, so why not, right? But once you add up add these small, seemingly innocuous changes you get to a new edition and feel like it isn't quite D&D, or that you're the bad guy for thinking this stuff wasn't neccessary.
For me and all of my play groups (which have included multiple faiths, sexualities and many brand new and school-age players), the term 'race' and 'half-race' characters weren't an issue and pushing grey-skinned 'aesthetically pleasing' orcs (as another commentator put it here) is an unnecessary thing.
IDK - maybe I'm the one in the bubble :-(
I fail to see a connection between Orcs like Tolkien described them and Mexicans or any other kind of humans. The art style is also kind of terrible, with a very comic/cartoon look. As of art direction I would much prefer the classical art style of Larry Elmore's AD&D work.
Yes, I agree. They don't feel like orcs. They just seem to be humans with bad teeth. And the artwork is nothing to get excited about either.
So was the Orcs being stand-ins for black people just lefties making a bad faith accusation?
Get a pop filter.
Yeah, I'm just using the microphone in my gamer's headset at the moment. This is not a big-budget production. I even have to time my recordings so that the fridge engine is not going off in the background. But it is on my to-do list to get a better microphone.
Orcs are only problematic if you make the mistake of thinking of Orcs as "people". They're mythopoetic monsters, as anti-Human as a xenomorph or supernova. Goblins aren't cutesy little theftbabies or shortstacked thirst traps. If meme-crazed children change the zeigeist and that causes problems, the problem is with those meme-crazed children and you just need to ignore them and take a quick reset to baseline.
They'll play their games at their tables, watch their idols on entertainment shows disguised as game sessions, and feel really good and enjoy things. And that's great! We can go play the game the way we like it too and have fulfilling experiences.
I completely agree with you.
And again, in this video you pointed out several features that shouldn't even be given thought. Although the one thing you didn't mention was the overweight Orc which I think is dumb as a barbaric/tribal race. Also Orcs need to be similar to humans because of the existence of Half-Orcs. Their features have changed I'll give you that, but you must treat each edition as its own game. All-in-all, every player race should be customizable to how a person might want to play it. We want to enjoy the game with the largest audience possible while still maintaining a general idea of what everything is. D&D is not and will never be LotR, you shouldn't try to compare two different fantasy settings.
Thanks for your feedback. It is interesting that you take issue with the overweight orcs. In some cultures, being overweight is a sign of status.
D&D is not and will never be LotR? Given that, canonically, much of what made it into D&D was directly inspired by Tolkien's worldbuilding, that is a debatable point.
Or is this another piece of D&D history WotC have tried to erase?
@@douglochery8641 less tried to erase, more tried to evolve beyond
Because they don’t HAVE to be tied down by their roots
@dragonriderabens9761 I get your point and broadly agree, after all, we would even have entertained half-orcs as a playable race option in the first place if we weren't willing to evolve beyond some of D&D's more Tolkienesque leanings.
I've seen how too much 'evolution' in the game ends - in a split player base. I'd caution against codifying too many changes to core assumptions players of earlier editions or readers of fantasy novels might have coming into the game. I'd argue that it's more common to think of Orcs differently to the art presented here. Orcs already had a 'default' social structure and expected role in D&D. We've already seen their expected role auccessfully changed and messed with in various settings, sometimes into something more savage, sometimes into something more civilised so having a change be possible isn't a problem at all. That said, turning them into another cute-and-positive analogue for modern inclusivity seems somehow needless to me, and has the potential for confusion.
Not every trend shown by the online fan-artist community needs to be cannonised and not every influence has to be smashed to advance D&D.
I'm not a Tolkien fan and I'm all for meaningful change that makes the game better. This doesn't feel like it to me.
@@douglochery8641 You have some good points.
Woke culture ruins everything it touches. As a DM I make sure my players are not fragile little flowers. Don't change to D&D one. Waste of money.