Why are drow a starting player race but orcs not?

[Eslin]

Their strength (and water orcs) meant that there were far more orc player characters than drow back in 3.5 (5e took almost nothing from 4e, not even martial and leader ideas that they really should have, so I'm discounting it). Drow and orcs are both chaotic evil, but orcs both live on the surface where most of D&D takes place and live in such proximity to other races that there are enough half-orcs to be a player race (which also means that there are a bunch of orcs that are not hostile to humans, since the idea that more than a moderate percentage are products of rape is illogical as hell).

TL,DR: Drow are a player race, why aren't the orcs that live closer and mix with other races for half-orcs to be a thing a player race?

[Longcat]

Drow seem to have a much larger fanbase and literature support. Also, the always chaotic evil part applies only to Drow growing up in the Underdark. Forgotten Realms has deities for good aligned Drow.

On the subject of strength, I've always been under the impression that (Water) Orcs got picked solely for their stats, not for roleplaying. Whereas with Drow, it was generally the opposite, as their stats ranged from slightly subpar (Lesser Drow) to prohibitively expensive (regular Drow), so they were usually only picked for RP reasons.

[Daishain]

Two (maybe 3?) words: Drizzt Do'Urden

WOTC is cashing in on his fame with this edition. Trying to suck in some of Salvatore's readers.

I wouldn't worry too much about it and just ask your DM if he's willing to work with you on making an orc as a playable PC race.

[mephnick]

The PHB basically even hints that Drow are only a playable race because of fan service.

I just don't allow them. Good drow is a stupid concept, I don't care how FR spins it.

[Rfkannen]

because drow are pretty and orcs are ugly. Sad but true.

[Knaight]

Two (maybe 3?) words: Drizzt Do'Urden

Exactly this. There's one reasonably popular set of crappy D&D novels featuring a drow main character, there are zero reasonably popular sets of crappy D&D novels featuring an orc main character.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Because being pretty gets you nice things. Plus Elves are magical and Orcs aren't, therefore by going by the Magic>Non-magic formula the elves would get special treatment whereas the Orcs would not.

[RealCheese]

The half orc is orcy enough that I'd let anyone wanting to be an orc take half orc for mechanics and be an orc for fluff.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The half orc is orcy enough that I'd let anyone wanting to be an orc take half orc for mechanics and be an orc for fluff.
That fluff being that one of their parents.... Yeah... No... Half-orcs are quite forced when it comes to fluff and I won't be part of that.

[RealCheese]

That fluff being that one of their parents.... Yeah... No... Half-orcs are quite forced when it comes to fluff and I won't be part of that.

That fluff being that the player character is an orc... don't know what you thought I was implying, but that's obviously on you, not me.

[Sir_Leorik]

Two (maybe 3?) words: Drizzt Do'Urden


Exactly this. There's one reasonably popular set of crappy D&D novels featuring a drow main character, there are zero reasonably popular sets of crappy D&D novels featuring an orc main character.

Pretty much. Diz'zt is the reason why Drow are an option in the PHB (aqlbeit not in the Basic rules).

[Sir_Leorik]

That fluff being that one of their parents.... Yeah... No... Half-orcs are quite forced when it comes to fluff and I won't be part of that.

Then make up different fluff. Maybe there are villages where Human barbarians and slightly less savage Orcs live in uneasy harmony, because they need to survive. Maybe these villagers have arranged marriages to cement alliances, resulting in Half-Orcs. And maybe Half-Orcs breed true, the same way Tieflings do. How does that sound?

[TripleD]

Then make up different fluff. Maybe there are villages where Human barbarians and slightly less savage Orcs live in uneasy harmony, because they need to survive. Maybe these villagers have arranged marriages to cement alliances, resulting in Half-Orcs.

Isn't that the exact fluff given in the players handbook? Human barbarians and Orc tribes forming alliances.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm all for changing fluff but won't matter until the game changes it because people come into the game knowing the original fluff.

I'd rather we just didn't have half species really, just make templates for classes as if they were adopted and call it a day (and get rid of ability score adjustments).

[Eslin]

Then make up different fluff. Maybe there are villages where Human barbarians and slightly less savage Orcs live in uneasy harmony, because they need to survive. Maybe these villagers have arranged marriages to cement alliances, resulting in Half-Orcs. And maybe Half-Orcs breed true, the same way Tieflings do. How does that sound?

It sounds like if such exists there's no good reason to not have orcs be a player race.

[Dalebert]

I just don't allow them. Good drow is a stupid concept, I don't care how FR spins it.

The idea that an entire race has to be a certain alignment seems more unreasonable to me. Most stories are built around characters who stand out from the general population in some interesting way.

[D.U.P.A.]

In 4e there was orc race, it was the same as half orc, but with half of the features removed. Basically, it was more optimal to play half orc than orc in 4e.

One reason may be because Drow are quite organized society, they have their capital city in the Underdark, Menzoberranzan and followers of Elistraee aren't even evil. They probably wanted to introduce an underground race for underground campaign, while orcs are surface race and you already have many surface races. They could have added also duergar and svirfneblin, but those two races are less likely to adventure, especially duergar with their rigid discipline.

[Eslin]

The idea that an entire race has to be a certain alignment seems more unreasonable to me. Most stories are built around characters who stand out from the general population in some interesting way.

Makes even less sense for orcs, who are clearly herbivores (flat teeth for grinding food, short legs inappropriate for chasing, massive upper body strength, points to a bear or gorilla like feeding pattern) - raiding agricultural communities might make sense for some, but that's not always practical and I would assume foraging/growing food would be a better survival strategy.

[Daishain]

It sounds like if such exists there's no good reason to not have orcs be a player race.
For one thing, the described situation would be rare, if it happens at all, its just a hypothetical

For another, technically speaking, if a race is sapient, the only good reason not to have it available as a player race is in terms of setting and/or game balance.

Even leaving out the races that are simply too powerful for general use as PCs (dragons and storm giants for instance), that leaves the developers with hundreds of creature types to deal with. They can't stat them all out, so picked a couple of the most common, and are planning to give DMs the tools to fairly stat up anything else that comes up.


Makes even less sense for orcs, who are clearly herbivores (flat teeth for grinding food, short legs inappropriate for chasingmassive upper body strength, points to a bear or gorilla like feeding pattern) - raiding agricultural communities might make sense for some, but that's not always practical and I would assume foraging/growing food would be a better survival strategy.
Physical analysis aside, that makes even more sense for orcs than other races.

Most creatures defined as evil can be assumed to have freely chosen evil (their culture and physiology may have influenced things, but they still were free to choose their own path) Orcs however have Gruumsh whispering evil in their heads, day in and day out, making it quite difficult to choose anything else.

Now, I'm of the opinion that even orcs should get a chance to choose. But that doesn't change the fact that they are closer than most to being locked into that path.

[Eslin]

For one thing, the described situation would be rare, if it happens at all, its just a hypothetical

For another, technically speaking, if a race is sapient, the only good reason not to have it available as a player race is in terms of setting and/or game balance.

Even leaving out the races that are simply too powerful for general use as PCs (dragons and storm giants for instance), that leaves the developers with hundreds of creature types to deal with. They can't stat them all out, so picked a couple of the most common, and are planning to give DMs the tools to fairly stat up anything else that comes up.

Which is the point of this thread - why on earth would half orcs or drow be more common than orcs?

[Regulas]

Even though I understand why drow was included, it still made me sad that they included them but only had a blurb for Duergar.

[Rater202]

I remember reading that the reason why Orcs and the like weren't Player Races in the Core is because when the Gods of Evil creater their serviter races, they loked at the creations of the Gods of Good and were like "Wait, you gave them the abillity to sto worshiping you or even come around to worship us? Are you retarded?" and made their races with considerably less free will.

Which is to say, Orcs have very strong instincts leading them to Chaotic Evil actions. a non chaotic evil Orc is likely to be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral. An Orc can be good, but they'll have to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow.

The Drow are different becuase they chose to side with Lolth. Their Chaotic evil is the result of Nurture, not nature. She may have altered them, but she did not create them.

Also, Good Drow are not just a Drizz't Clone thing. Eilistraee, (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee)Chaotic Good Drow Goddess of song, swordwork, hunting, the moon, and beauty. Patron of Good aligned Drow.

[Daishain]

Which is the point of this thread - why on earth would half orcs or drow be more common than orcs?

Lore wise, its easier to stick a half orc into a semi good adventuring party than a full orc. The latter doesn't really have much in the way of peaceful contact with other races, and rarely leave the tribe for long.

In fact the fluff supports half orc adventurers to a large degree, since they're unlikely to gain acceptance in most other professions.

Drow are tougher to justify, but as I mentioned before, Drizzt.

[Dalebert]

Orcs however have Gruumsh whispering evil in their heads, day in and day out, making it quite difficult to choose anything else.

Really? What's the from? I'm not denying it. Just sincerely ignorant.

[Sir_Leorik]

Isn't that the exact fluff given in the players handbook? Human barbarians and Orc tribes forming alliances.

Just checked the PHB, and yeah, that is the official fluff. The reason for the alliances vary (there's a reference to being united under the leadership of a Warlock, ala Saruman creating the Uruk-Hai by breeding Men and Orcs), but that seems to be the new origin of the Half-Orc. (In 4E there were multiple origins for Half-Orcs).


It sounds like if such exists there's no good reason to not have orcs be a player race.

It's possible there may be guidelines in the DMG to make an Orc player race. Personally I don't see a reason for a Neutral or Chaotic Neutral Orc Barbarian or Fighter not to be a PC, with DM permission.


For one thing, the described situation would be rare, if it happens at all, its just a hypothetical

For another, technically speaking, if a race is sapient, the only good reason not to have it available as a player race is in terms of setting and/or game balance.

Even leaving out the races that are simply too powerful for general use as PCs (dragons and storm giants for instance), that leaves the developers with hundreds of creature types to deal with. They can't stat them all out, so picked a couple of the most common, and are planning to give DMs the tools to fairly stat up anything else that comes up.

Also Half-Orcs are a traditional playable race in D&D (save for in 2E, when they were banished from the PHB and relegated to the crummy Complete Book of Humanoids splatbook). Again, I personally have no objection to Orc PCs; they have a history in the game (Rob Kuntz's PC, Lord Robillar, had an Orc henchman, and while it's a crummy splatbook, Complete Book of Humanoids had Orc PCs) and don't need to be Chaotic Evil. Lord Robillar's Orc henchman was Chaotic Neutral, just like Robillar himself. And there was a short story in "Dragon Magazine" many years ago, titled "The Only Good Orc", about a Lawful Good Orc Cleric.

In the Forgotten Realms there is an entire kingdom of Orcs, Many-Arrows, which negotiated peace with their human and Dwarf enemies. There could be Orcs from Many-Arrows who become adventurers, perhaps at the instruction of their king.

Finally, in the "Spelljammer" setting, there are the Scro. Scro are an advanced off-shoot of Orcs, who are Lawful Evil marauders, seeking to gain vengeance against the Elves for their loss in the First Unhuman War. There were rules for Scro PCs in the Spelljammer splatbook The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook, and allowing Lawful Evil Scro PCs (who use the stats for Orcs) would be an interesting twist.

[Sir_Leorik]

Makes even less sense for orcs, who are clearly herbivores (flat teeth for grinding food, short legs inappropriate for chasing, massive upper body strength, points to a bear or gorilla like feeding pattern) - raiding agricultural communities might make sense for some, but that's not always practical and I would assume foraging/growing food would be a better survival strategy.

Orcs are not herbivores. There is specific description in the 5E MM about Orcs devouring roaming herds. They don't grow crops or raise herd animals; they are described as scavengers and marauders. Perhaps in the Kingdom of Many-Arrows Orcs do practice agriculture (since they can't raid nearby settlements without breaking their treaties with nearby kingdoms), and if Orcs live in a settlement with Human barbarians, under the leadership of a Human chieftain, they might practice hunting and gathering, rather than attacking other communities.

But the standard Orc communities practice raiding, attacking Elves first and foremost, and then other races second.


Most creatures defined as evil can be assumed to have freely chosen evil (their culture and physiology may have influenced things, but they still were free to choose their own path) Orcs however have Gruumsh whispering evil in their heads, day in and day out, making it quite difficult to choose anything else.

Now, I'm of the opinion that even orcs should get a chance to choose. But that doesn't change the fact that they are closer than most to being locked into that path.


Which is the point of this thread - why on earth would half orcs or drow be more common than orcs?

First, Half-Orcs and Drow are "uncommon" races. They are rarely found as adventurers, just like Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Elves and Tieflings. They are not common and they rarely become adventurers. Orcs are more numerous than Half-Orcs (though according to the MM the Orc goddess Luthic encourages Orcs to interbreed with other races to create Half-Orcs and Orogs), but they are less likely to become adventurers. But "less likely" doesn't mean "unlikely"; Orcs have been allowed as PCs in past editions, and I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed in 5E.


Really? What's the from? I'm not denying it. Just sincerely ignorant.

The fluff about Orcs and their connection to Gruumsh is a well established part of D&D lore. But Gruumsh isn't micromanaging every Orc in existence; he's too Chaotic to do that. Instead he has his Eyes of Gruumsh, special shamans who work to whip Orcs into a frenzy of hatred and xenophobia. They remind Orcs about Gruumsh's humiliating defeat at the hands of Corellon Larethian. Corellon was wounded by Gruumsh, and his blood and the tears of the Sehanine Moonbow combined to create the first Elves. At that point, Corellon lunged and put out one of Gruumsh's eyes. The blinding of Gruumsh is a major part of Orc theology, with the Eyes of Gruumsh putting out one of their eyes to emulate their god.

Orcs have free will to reject their heritage, but to do so they would have to go against their upbringing. It is more likely for a Half-Orc, raised by both an Orc and a Human parent, to see both sides and choose to be their own person rather than a tool of Gruumsh's vengeance.

Then there are the Scro. I love the Scro, Orcs from the Spelljammer setting who lost the First Unhuman War, and retreated from Known Space to distant Crystal Spheres. Scro are so dedicated to vengeance against the Elves, that they turned themselves into a martial society where every member, male and female, is dedicated to the cause. Scro train for life to kill Elves. But because of their Lawful Evil society, Scro are not quite as vicious as regular Orcs, and might be suitable for PCs.

[Giant2005]

Why are drow a starting player race but orcs not?

Limited book space is the obvious answer.
Drow culture is just a lot more interesting and unique than an Orc which isn't really that much different to a Half-Orc with less roleplaying opportunities. It makes sense that an Orc would have a much harder time making the cut than the Drow. Warforged and Kender both found themselves cut from the playtest due to the aforementioned page count issue and both would be arguably better additions than an Orc when we already have Half-Orcs. Orcs just aren't very high on the priority list.

[Gnome Alone]

The PHB basically even hints that Drow are only a playable race because of fan service.
Ha! What is it, like a sidebar that starts "*sigh* Here's your precious drow..."

[Eslin]

Lore wise, its easier to stick a half orc into a semi good adventuring party than a full orc. The latter doesn't really have much in the way of peaceful contact with other races, and rarely leave the tribe for long.

In fact the fluff supports half orc adventurers to a large degree, since they're unlikely to gain acceptance in most other professions.

Drow are tougher to justify, but as I mentioned before, Drizzt.

That doesn't make any sense. If they don't have any peaceful contact, how are all those half orcs happening? And don't say rape, it makes sense as an occasional thing but not as that widespread a reason. And an orc has plenty of reasons to become an adventurer - 'kill things for riches, glory and fun? I'm in!'


Most creatures defined as evil can be assumed to have freely chosen evil (their culture and physiology may have influenced things, but they still were free to choose their own path) Orcs however have Gruumsh whispering evil in their heads, day in and day out, making it quite difficult to choose anything else.
That is the stupidest piece of fluff I've heard since raptorans and the pact with the wind lords thing (what wind lords? air elementals don't work like that in D&D, and it wasn't genies or anything) - gods in D&D don't directly connect with mortals very often and Gruumsh isn't the most subtle of gods. There's an entire race of creatures getting constantly whispered to (in a setting in which even sociable gods still only communicate with clerics and favoured souls on occasionan) by the god of destruction, storms, strength and definitely not subtlety? And that doesn't strike anyone as incredibly stupid especially when they could have just had orcs be naturally inclined towards violence?

[Heartspan]

That, and drow are just a subrace of the already existing elves

[Z3ro]

Makes even less sense for orcs, who are clearly herbivores (flat teeth for grinding food, short legs inappropriate for chasing, massive upper body strength, points to a bear or gorilla like feeding pattern) - raiding agricultural communities might make sense for some, but that's not always practical and I would assume foraging/growing food would be a better survival strategy.

Fluff descriptions and biological realities are rarely on speaking terms in D&D.

[Daishain]

That doesn't make any sense. If they don't have any peaceful contact, how are all those half orcs happening? And don't say rape, it makes sense as an occasional thing but not as that widespread a reason. And an orc has plenty of reasons to become an adventurer - 'kill things for riches, glory and fun? I'm in!'


That is the stupidest piece of fluff I've heard since raptorans and the pact with the wind lords thing (what wind lords? air elementals don't work like that in D&D, and it wasn't genies or anything) - gods in D&D don't directly connect with mortals very often and Gruumsh isn't the most subtle of gods. There's an entire race of creatures getting constantly whispered to (in a setting in which even sociable gods still only communicate with clerics and favoured souls on occasionan) by the god of destruction, storms, strength and definitely not subtlety? And that doesn't strike anyone as incredibly stupid especially when they could have just had orcs be naturally inclined towards violence?
I'm not saying it necessarily makes the most sense, just that such is the fluff we're working with. Feel free to dismiss it and come up with your own, I know I do.

P.S. the "whispering" thing has less to do with actual communication and is more a matter of Gruumsh radiating hate, and orcs and half orcs are the only ones sensitive to it. It isn't particularly subtle at all.

[Eslin]

Orcs are not herbivores. There is specific description in the 5E MM about Orcs devouring roaming herds. They don't grow crops or raise herd animals; they are described as scavengers and marauders. Perhaps in the Kingdom of Many-Arrows Orcs do practice agriculture (since they can't raid nearby settlements without breaking their treaties with nearby kingdoms), and if Orcs live in a settlement with Human barbarians, under the leadership of a Human chieftain, they might practice hunting and gathering, rather than attacking other communities.

But the standard Orc communities practice raiding, attacking Elves first and foremost, and then other races second.
Nope, they're definitely herbivores. Every single thing about their physique says they were nocturnal jungle herbivores, probably splitting from the gorilla's ancestors at the hominidae stage.

I mean seriously, look at their teeth. A row of entirely flat teeth and tusks, that's a herbivore thing.


The fluff about Orcs and their connection to Gruumsh is a well established part of D&D lore. But Gruumsh isn't micromanaging every Orc in existence; he's too Chaotic to do that. Instead he has his Eyes of Gruumsh, special shamans who work to whip Orcs into a frenzy of hatred and xenophobia. They remind Orcs about Gruumsh's humiliating defeat at the hands of Corellon Larethian. Corellon was wounded by Gruumsh, and his blood and the tears of the Sehanine Moonbow combined to create the first Elves. At that point, Corellon lunged and put out one of Gruumsh's eyes. The blinding of Gruumsh is a major part of Orc theology, with the Eyes of Gruumsh putting out one of their eyes to emulate their god.

Orcs have free will to reject their heritage, but to do so they would have to go against their upbringing. It is more likely for a Half-Orc, raised by both an Orc and a Human parent, to see both sides and choose to be their own person rather than a tool of Gruumsh's vengeance.

I would love you to be right, I really would. I mean, I know all of what you just said, but it's enjoyable to hear it again - I played an Eye of Gruumsh back in 3.5 (though I didn't use the actual prestige class since it was crap), great fun.

But unfortunately, that's not how it works any more. Read the PHB - Gruumsh now literally micromanages every orc. The chaotic god of destruction literally whispers into the head of every individual orc in a setting where even a subtle god like mask constantly whispering to an entire race would be seen as ridiculous.

[CyberThread]

The PHB basically even hints that Drow are only a playable race because of fan service.

I just don't allow them. Good drow is a stupid concept, I don't care how FR spins it.

Why is that a dumb concept? They are an entire race, not some aligned outsider. Why is the simplification of an entire species being evil, just because. Any less stupid ? Eberron also made them more complex, so they arn't auto-evil.


I mean if you want to just play saving the maiden, I understand, but a gaming table can survive if you add a little depth and break away from common tropes.

[Sir_Leorik]

Nope, they're definitely herbivores. Every single thing about their physique says they were nocturnal jungle herbivores, probably splitting from the gorilla's ancestors at the hominidae stage.

I mean seriously, look at their teeth. A row of entirely flat teeth and tusks, that's a herbivore thing.

Boars also have tusks, but they're omnivores. And in D&D lore the Orcs were created by Gruumsh as a servitor race in his image; they have tusks because Gruumsh has tusks.


I would love you to be right, I really would. I mean, I know all of what you just said, but it's enjoyable to hear it again - I played an Eye of Gruumsh back in 3.5 (though I didn't use the actual prestige class since it was crap), great fun.

But unfortunately, that's not how it works any more. Read the PHB - Gruumsh now literally micromanages every orc. The chaotic god of destruction literally whispers into the head of every individual orc in a setting where even a subtle god like mask constantly whispering to an entire race would be seen as ridiculous.

On page 40 of the PHB there is a reference to "some Half-Orcs hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their dreams, calling them to unleash the rage that simmers within them". The same is probably true for some Orcs, who hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their sleep. These are probably the Orc chieftains and Eyes of Gruumsh that Gruumsh seeks to rile up or apostate Orcs that Gruumsh is trying to lure back. I don't see Gruumsh doing this on a nightly basis. He has a war to fight against Maglubiyet in Acheron, and that's hard enough for him to wage without micromanaging his living followers.

[Sir_Leorik]

Why is that a dumb concept? They are an entire race, not some aligned outsider. Why is the simplification of an entire species being evil, just because. Any less stupid ? Eberron also made them more complex, so they arn't auto-evil.


I mean if you want to just play saving the maiden, I understand, but a gaming table can survive if you add a little depth and break away from common tropes.

Drow have a major obstacle to avoid if they wish to leave Drow society and become an adventurer: other Drow. Drow spy on each other and sell each other out to the Matrons for political gain. Driz'zt's story involves his narrowly being sacrificed to Lolth, his siblings trying to hunt him down, and the Matron of his house trying to do anything to catch him while he's still in the Underdark. Drow who want to leave need to be very careful.

It isn't impossible for Drow to leave, but the odds are against them. And that assumes they aren't Evil themselves, and want to join an adventuring party.

[Eslin]

Boars also have tusks, but they're omnivores. And in D&D lore the Orcs were created by Gruumsh as a servitor race in his image; they have tusks because Gruumsh has tusks.
On boars tusks are used for defense and to root out vegetation, and while boars are omnivores their diet is mostly vegetation and they have far sharper teeth than an orc does. Observe the animals tusks appear on - elephants, warthogs, walruses, narwhals, none of them use them for predation.


On page 40 of the PHB there is a reference to "some Half-Orcs hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their dreams, calling them to unleash the rage that simmers within them". The same is probably true for some Orcs, who hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their sleep. These are probably the Orc chieftains and Eyes of Gruumsh that Gruumsh seeks to rile up or apostate Orcs that Gruumsh is trying to lure back. I don't see Gruumsh doing this on a nightly basis. He has a war to fight against Maglubiyet in Acheron, and that's hard enough for him to wage without micromanaging his living followers.
Precisely why he has the whole priesthood thing going on, I don't see him wasting the time whispering to mortals.

[Demonic Spoon]

The simple answer, OP, is because they can't add every race to the PHB and for somewhat-arbitrary reasons, one obscure race (Drow) got put in there ahead of another obscure race (Orcs). There is precedence for non-evil Drow that don't live in the underdark, so there's that. Furthermore, I don't think that the Underdark is as obscure as you're saying it is. There are tons of creatures that inhabit the underdark in the MM, and the PHB has several references to it (Rangers and Druids can even have them as favored terrains).


Drow have a major obstacle to avoid if they wish to leave Drow society and become an adventurer: other Drow. Drow spy on each other and sell each other out to the Matrons for political gain. Driz'zt's story involves his narrowly being sacrificed to Lolth, his siblings trying to hunt him down, and the Matron of his house trying to do anything to catch him while he's still in the Underdark. Drow who want to leave need to be very careful.

It isn't impossible for Drow to leave, but the odds are against them. And that assumes they aren't Evil themselves, and want to join an adventuring party.


non-evil surface drow are a thing in FR. I can't speak to other official settings, but it's also possible for them to have other origins in homebrew settings.


Nope, they're definitely herbivores. Every single thing about their physique says they were nocturnal jungle herbivores, probably splitting from the gorilla's ancestors at the hominidae stage.

I mean seriously, look at their teeth. A row of entirely flat teeth and tusks, that's a herbivore thing.


i appreciate the application of biology to D&D, but the MM entry entirely contradicts you. If the art doesn't match the text, then it's probably a problem with the art.

[Giant2005]

while boars are omnivores their diet is mostly vegetation and they have far sharper teeth than an orc does.

I'd have to disagree on Boar having sharper teeth than Orcs do. Here (http://p2.la-img.com/302/23110/8140596_1_l.jpg) is an image of a Boar skull (And its teeth), if you compare that to the picture of an Orc in the MM page 246 and you will see that the Orc's teeth are considerably sharper. Although that could just be artistic license and ultimately meaningless, but either way it is kind of irrelevant - the text tells us that they are meat eaters and the text isn't wrong.

[JoeJ]

Nope, they're definitely herbivores. Every single thing about their physique says they were nocturnal jungle herbivores, probably splitting from the gorilla's ancestors at the hominidae stage.

I mean seriously, look at their teeth. A row of entirely flat teeth and tusks, that's a herbivore thing.

They're definitely not herbivores according to the MM. Either the artist portrayed them incorrectly, or they're carnivores with flat teeth.

Orcs also never split from the gorilla's ancestors because they aren't related to gorillas at all; they are a separate creation.

[Shining Wrath]

For the OP: Drow are one of three types of Elves. If they had left out Wood and High elves, there would have been a riot (or they would have had to rename High elves Eladrin, same diff). Orcs, on the other hand, are the iconic walking bag of experience points; I believe that when someone did a list of the 10 classic D&D monsters, orcs finished first. For that you can probably blame a guy named J.R.R. Tolkien.

For everyone else: PHB says that human tribes and orcish tribes who live near each other sometimes intermarry. Recall that humans are, per PHB, equally likely to be of any alignment, so 1/3rd of humans are one of chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil, and therefore would not find being members of an orc tribe all that psychologically disturbing. That's where you get half orcs.

Someone said it's ridiculous to have many births as a result of rape; I agree, not many, but prisoners taken in battle are often assigned to warriors as loot. For THE iconic case, I give you the opening of the Illiad, where Agamemnon is forced to give up Chryseis to appease Apollo's wrath, gets in a snit, and seizes Briseis from Achilles. If Agamemnon and Achilles are [orcs / humans], and Chryseis / Briseis are [humans / orcs], there were likely to be some half-orcs running about sooner or later. There's also biblical references to carrying off women, and the Rape (in this case, meaning kidnapping) of the Sabine women is part of Roman lore. In any culture which allows slavery, which in medieval fantasy is likely to be many of them, captives becoming slaves should be expected, and slave owners historically seem to think that boinking slaves is one of the privileges of ownership.

On the topic of drow, I have hypothesized the following might occur:
1) Drow inter-clan warfare is notorious violent
2) Drow matriarch realizes that her clan has been outschemed and she is going to be killed and her clan killed or enslaved
3) Matriarch leads her clan in a sudden desperate sortie toward the surface (allowing no time for clan members to try to find a better deal).
4) Some reach the surface and begin adapting to life there
5) Lolth is displeased and the drow clergy must perforce find new gods
6) Their new neighbors are initially wary or hostile; but the drow survive
7) After a while you have drow who have lost sunlight sensitivity, some of the minor drow magics which are more useful in the Underdark, and through (5) and contacts with other cultures alignment drift has occurred and the drow clan is not uniformly CE

[mephnick]

Why is that a dumb concept? They are an entire race, not some aligned outsider. Why is the simplification of an entire species being evil, just because. Any less stupid ? Eberron also made them more complex, so they arn't auto-evil.


I mean if you want to just play saving the maiden, I understand, but a gaming table can survive if you add a little depth and break away from common tropes.

Some of us like the objective morality the game was designed with originally. I get enough social justice warrioring on facebook, thanks. Not everyone is a Britta.

[Eslin]

I'd have to disagree on Boar having sharper teeth than Orcs do. Here (http://p2.la-img.com/302/23110/8140596_1_l.jpg) is an image of a Boar skull (And its teeth), if you compare that to the picture of an Orc in the MM page 246 and you will see that the Orc's teeth are considerably sharper. Although that could just be artistic license and ultimately meaningless, but either way it is kind of irrelevant - the text tells us that they are meat eaters and the text isn't wrong.

http://www.chichesterinc.com/Gallery/WildBoar/15-223-G03-Lg-teeth.jpg
Observe the molars up the back and a few sharp teeth up the front, perfectly fine for something that eats plants for most of its diet and bugs and lizards for a small percentage, and contrast the incredibly flat orc teeth.
http://s2.postimg.org/hgrje2ue1/orcteeth.png

I was a bit incredulous at first, but it actually makes perfect sense - orcs have no body hair, massive upper body strength, vegetarian teeth and darkvision. No body hair means warm or aquatic environment (jungle has both), massive upper body strength makes perfect sense if they have a similar dietary system to gorillas and need to climb trees (jungle), vegetarian teeth are needed to grind their leafy proteiny sustenance (jungle) which is likely supplemented with fruits, roots etc (remember the tusks) and darkvision indicates that they operate at night, which means something scarier than them operates during day - but they have a humanoid's speed, which means if they don't have an escape method they just die during the day, so they need something full of trees that they can rest in during the day (jungle). The problem is they'd need to live in an environment energy rich enough to provide the amount of mass orcs have, which is the jungle.

Side note, if you want to see what I'm talking about, compare a gorilla's teeth to an orc's. Notice any similarities?

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Images/9365/DSC_0008_big.jpg

[Easy_Lee]

Some of us like the objective morality the game was designed with originally. I get enough social justice warrioring on facebook, thanks.

Thanks for saying this so I didn't have to.

[Eslin]

Thanks for saying this so I didn't have to.

Heavy disagreement on this front - objective morality is for the outer planes. The only inherently evil creatures should be fiends, for whom it is literally part of their being (I liked the line 5e came up with about a fiend ceasing to be a fiend if it ceases to be evil) - any other creature should have the capacity to choose how it acts, and if it doesn't have that capacity it should be unaligned.

[Easy_Lee]

Heavy disagreement on this front - objective morality is for the outer planes. The only inherently evil creatures should be fiends, for whom it is literally part of their being (I liked the line 5e came up with about a fiend ceasing to be a fiend if it ceases to be evil) - any other creature should have the capacity to choose how it acts, and if it doesn't have that capacity it should be unaligned.

It's not really about choice so much as tendency. People who grow up around gang violence tend to join gangs, even though they have a choice not to. Think of orcs like that, except pushed even further toward the chaotic evil side by their god's choices and design.

Besides, unintelligent and uneducated people are more likely to turn to crime. Imagine a race that (in past editions) is 20% stupider than humans and simultaneously values strength over intellect for mating. It's not hard to guess what's going to happen.

[Giant2005]

I was a bit incredulous at first, but it actually makes perfect sense - orcs have no body hair, massive upper body strength, vegetarian teeth and darkvision. No body hair means warm or aquatic environment (jungle has both), massive upper body strength makes perfect sense if they have a similar dietary system to gorillas and need to climb trees (jungle), vegetarian teeth are needed to grind their leafy proteiny sustenance (jungle) which is likely supplemented with fruits, roots etc (remember the tusks) and darkvision indicates that they operate at night, which means something scarier than them operates during day - but they have a humanoid's speed, which means if they don't have an escape method they just die during the day, so they need something full of trees that they can rest in during the day (jungle). The problem is they'd need to live in an environment energy rich enough to provide the amount of mass orcs have, which is the jungle.

This is all pure nonsense with no supporting facts at all.
Nightvision has two purposes - it is either a predatory tool or a defense mechanism of the prey. Do you seriously consider the Orc to be prey? Even after listing advantages such as his incredible upper body strength? That upper body strength is a predatory tool.
Being hairless isn't even relevant - if that was an indicator of a jungle lifestyle we wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet, we would be having it next to one another as we swung through the trees.
As for the teeth thing... I just don't see what you see. I just google searched through a bunch of pictures of animal teeth and the thing I thought seemed closest was the dog.
http://s2.postimg.org/hgrje2ue1/orcteeth.png http://www.bestcatanddognutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/dog-teeth.jpg

Either way, the text tells us the answer so we can both be sure that what you are seeing isn't what is intended for us to be seeing.

[JoeJ]

Actually, teeth designed for grinding make perfect sense on a carnivore if you keep in mind two things:

1) Gruumsh wants his orcs to have to struggle for every moment of their existence, because it makes them stronger. Giving them teeth designed to cut meat would make things too easy for them.

2) Gruumsh is also not the god of best engineering practices.

[Shining Wrath]

It's not really about choice so much as tendency. People who grow up around gang violence tend to join gangs, even though they have a choice not to. Think of orcs like that, except pushed even further toward the chaotic evil side by their god's choices and design.

Besides, unintelligent and uneducated people are more likely to turn to crime. Imagine a race that (in past editions) is 20% stupider than humans and simultaneously values strength over intellect for mating. It's not hard to guess what's going to happen.

In a D&D world you do have to have theology (OK, Eberron, but even there you have the progenitor dragons). A race (except humans and the aberrations) are usually the creation of some deity, and that deity made them for a reason, and they are in some sense imbued with that deity's essence. Elves are going to tend toward CG because Correllon Larethian is CG and they partake of hir CGness.

So ancestry has to be part of it, but since we know of canonical exceptions and the PHB is clear that they exist, ancestry is not destiny. There's also upbringing, as noted. So imagine you go back to the start of the world; the CE dwarves will be rare, but will tend to find each other and form clans of CE dwarves, because being a CE dwarf all by yourself in a clan oriented society with a LG clan in a LG city would just suck. And then that CE clan of dwarves would have customs that tended to reinforce CE in their children. So even if only 1% of all dwarves are CE, in a particular clan you might find both an ancestral tendency AND a cultural reinforcement toward CE; both nature, and nurture. The dwarves of that clan would be overwhelmingly likely to be CE.

Then throw in free will. Drizzt Do'Urden and all that; some creatures will still make choices that defy expectations.

Then, since this is a fantasy game, throw in the hand of Fate which may or may not be the same as divine intervention. Something which defies rational, science-like explanation reaches in from outside a person's life and says "I choose ... YOU ... to serve my purposes".

So as a formula:
Individual alignment = f(nature, nurture, free will, fate). Precise definition of function "f" unknown and unknowable.

[Eslin]

This is all pure nonsense with no supporting facts at all.
Nightvision has two purposes - it is either a predatory tool or a defense mechanism of the prey. Do you seriously consider the Orc to be prey? Even after listing advantages such as his incredible upper body strength? That upper body strength is a predatory tool.
Being hairless isn't even relevant - if that was an indicator of a jungle lifestyle we wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet, we would be having it next to one another as we swung through the trees.
As for the teeth thing... I just don't see what you see. I just google searched through a bunch of pictures of animal teeth and the thing I thought seemed closest was the dog.
http://s2.postimg.org/hgrje2ue1/orcteeth.png http://www.bestcatanddognutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/dog-teeth.jpg

Either way, the text tells us the answer so we can both be sure that what you are seeing isn't what is intended for us to be seeing.
The dog's teeth are a good deal sharper. And regarding it being a predatory tool, what kind of predator would they be? Your average orc is barely more intelligent than an ape (int 7 vs 6) so most human hunting strategies are out, their lack of speed means they can't run down their prey and they certainly aren't the right build for the kind of stealth needed to catch wary prey. And yes, I consider orcs to be prey - if their environment contained, say, owlbears, they'd need to stay up trees chewing leaves during the day and search for more nutritious food at night.


Actually, teeth designed for grinding make perfect sense on a carnivore if you keep in mind two things:

1) Gruumsh wants his orcs to have to struggle for every moment of their existence, because it makes them stronger. Giving them teeth designed to cut meat would make things too easy for them.

2) Gruumsh is also not the god of best engineering practices.
10/10, best answer I've yet seen.


In a D&D world you do have to have theology (OK, Eberron, but even there you have the progenitor dragons). A race (except humans and the aberrations) are usually the creation of some deity, and that deity made them for a reason, and they are in some sense imbued with that deity's essence. Elves are going to tend toward CG because Correllon Larethian is CG and they partake of hir CGness.
Well that's confusing. Who made kenku? Who made lamia? Whose purpose do naga serve? Ropers? Satyrs?

[Giant2005]

their lack of speed means they can't run down their prey and they certainly aren't the right build for the kind of stealth needed to catch wary prey.

You do realize that you just described early man right? Man overcame their shortcomings with the use of tools - the same tools Orcs use.

[Inevitability]

Because orcs are 'half orcs, but slightly different', while Drow are 'elves, but different on several points'. In 3.5, the only meaningful difference between orcs and half-orcs was that the former were slightly stronger and dumber. These two things aren't used in 5e. Drow, however, have always been quite different from normal elves, with darkness-based magic, their own racial weapons, and eyes formed by living in total darkness for years.

[Eslin]

You do realize that you just described early man right? Man overcame their shortcomings with the use of tools - the same tools Orcs use.
I do, but again orcs are barely more intelligent than apes and are apparently chaotic evil. There is no way their ancestors used the same co-operative, tool using, intelligence requiring tactics as our ancestors did.


Because orcs are 'half orcs, but slightly different', while Drow are 'elves, but different on several points'. In 3.5, the only meaningful difference between orcs and half-orcs was that the former were slightly stronger and dumber. These two things aren't used in 5e. Drow, however, have always been quite different from normal elves, with darkness-based magic, their own racial weapons, and eyes formed by living in total darkness for years.
So why not have orcs instead of half orcs? And if you have half elves and three different types of elf, how are half orcs and one type of orc too much?

[silveralen]

Because having orcs as a player race might mean the PCs have to actually stop and think before slaughtering a dungeon full of them. Half orcs avoid this issue, and drow aren't nearly as common so the issue is mitigated.

Also, fan service. That's at least half of it.

[Dalebert]

http://s2.postimg.org/hgrje2ue1/orcteeth.png


You're ignoring everything written about orcs and extrapolating all of that based on one artist's rendition? And why do you keep describing them as if they're animals instead of humanoids with tools, weapons, armor, and a culture? If you go back to what is likely the original inspiration for D&D, LotR, they were cannibals.

[McBars]

This thread has devolved into people arguing about biology (some of whom obviously have 0 grasp of the subject) with respect to elf games. Interesting that Eslin tries to argue using the natural sciences in this thread when it suits him.

This game deviates from natural philosophy in uncountable number of respects, Orc dentition and diet being the least of them. Look up Homo sapiens and their most recent evolutionary precursors, look at their dentition...the ideal dentition of a predator? No, rather a species suited to a diverse diet. Orcs use tools, which more than makes up for the physical drawbacks you've assigned to them.

http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/game_art/warhammer_online:_age_of_reckoning/orc_render.jpg

Answer to your original question is that it was an arbitrary decision. Just house rule it and move on.

[Shining Wrath]

The dog's teeth are a good deal sharper. And regarding it being a predatory tool, what kind of predator would they be? Your average orc is barely more intelligent than an ape (int 7 vs 6) so most human hunting strategies are out, their lack of speed means they can't run down their prey and they certainly aren't the right build for the kind of stealth needed to catch wary prey. And yes, I consider orcs to be prey - if their environment contained, say, owlbears, they'd need to stay up trees chewing leaves during the day and search for more nutritious food at night.


10/10, best answer I've yet seen.


Well that's confusing. Who made kenku? Who made lamia? Whose purpose do naga serve? Ropers? Satyrs?

That the MM does not specify who made someone does not mean they were not made. 5e Kenku were made by an unspecified "master" who punished them for thievery. The master must have had god-like power to modify an entire race and have it persist for generations.

I believe Satyrs were made by the Fey deities per previous editions.

Remember we've got, in the back of the PHB, a selection of several hundred deities, not all of whom are sane by 21st century earthbound human standards. We've also got such things as Tieflings and Dragonborn where some power(s) took humans and modified them. I daresay that anything that ever appeared in any D&D game ever, including the weirdest of homebrews, can be attributed to some conception of divinity under some suitable circumstances, or the old fallback "a mad wizard did it!". 5e MM has some flavor text that reads, roughly, "The good thing about owlbears is that the wizard who created them is probably dead".

[Eslin]

You're ignoring everything written about orcs and extrapolating all of that based on one artist's rendition? And why do you keep describing them as if they're animals instead of humanoids with tools, weapons, armor, and a culture? If you go back to what is likely the original inspiration for D&D, LotR, they were cannibals.

Because their intelligence is a lot closer to a smart animal than that of a human.


This thread has devolved into people arguing about biology (some of whom obviously have 0 grasp of the subject) with respect to elf games. Interesting that Eslin tries to argue using the natural sciences in this thread when it suits him.

This game deviates from natural philosophy in uncountable number of respects, Orc dentition and diet being the least of them. Look up Homo sapiens and their most recent evolutionary precursors, look at their dentition...the ideal dentition of a predator? No, rather a species suited to a diverse diet. Orcs use tools, which more than makes up for the physical drawbacks you've assigned to them.

http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/game_art/warhammer_online:_age_of_reckoning/orc_render.jpg

Answer to your original question is that it was an arbitrary decision. Just house rule it and move on.

I've been playing warhammer for long enough to recognise a black orc. If we're introducing warhammer stuff to 40k I'll have a very large serving of orks, please.

And yes, I'm aware arguing D&D from a natural sciences point of view is stupid. How the hell does a rust monster survive or a pegasus fly? I do it anyway because it's funny, especially the part where you look at how they drew orcs and realise they obviously don't eat any meat.

[Easy_Lee]

In a D&D world you do have to have theology (OK, Eberron, but even there you have the progenitor dragons). A race (except humans and the aberrations) are usually the creation of some deity, and that deity made them for a reason, and they are in some sense imbued with that deity's essence. Elves are going to tend toward CG because Correllon Larethian is CG and they partake of hir CGness.

Indeed, and that further reinforces the notion that alignment is outside of most humanoids' control in D&D. In spite of exceptions, most people's actions reflect the desires and designs of their deity. The fact that drow are overwhelmingly evil, in spite of their intelligence and the fact that they ought to know better, confirms divine intervention, I think.

[Eslin]

Indeed, and that further reinforces the notion that alignment is outside of most humanoids' control in D&D. In spite of exceptions, most people's actions reflect the desires and designs of their deity. The fact that drow are overwhelmingly evil, in spite of their intelligence and the fact that they ought to know better, confirms divine intervention, I think.

Why is this restricted to humanoids? Why don't naga or ropers have deities that created and influence them? All these almighty and shapeless beings seem to be massive fans of a very specific bodyshape.

[Easy_Lee]

Why is this restricted to humanoids? Why don't naga or ropers have deities that created and influence them? All these almighty and shapeless beings seem to be massive fans of a very specific bodyshape.

I never said it was restricted to humanoids. If anything, humanoids seem to be the only ones even capable of bucking their deity's whims.

[CyberThread]

Some of us like the objective morality the game was designed with originally. I get enough social justice warrioring on facebook, thanks. Not everyone is a Britta.



am going to leave this conversation now, as what you are baiting me into, will quickly invite moderator attention .

[Eslin]

I never said it was restricted to humanoids. If anything, humanoids seem to be the only ones even capable of bucking their deity's whims.

Urgh, Eberron just became my favourite official setting. I was sort of ok with the wall of the faithless thing - I mean sure it's horrible, and its existence alone is complete justification for mortals to execute any god who even tacitly approves of its existence by not trying to destroy it regardless of apparent alignment, but as we've seen from humanity it's natural for those on top to do horrifying things to ensure they remain on top (even if, once again, the PCs are entirely justified in killing every god that doesn't have a bloody good reason for not trying to get rid of it if they get that powerful), but apparently the entire game's been rigged from the start.


am going to leave this conversation now, as what you are baiting me into, will quickly invite moderator attention .

I don't get it.

[Easy_Lee]

@Eslin, the whole divine intervention interference thing is pretty common in settings with literal gods. They always try to control mortals (see FR, Steven Brust's Dragaera, etc).

Without divine control, one really has to wonder why more advanced technology hasn't been invented in the thousands of years of D&D history.

A common plot in Final Fantasy games is ultimately killing the god figure and freeing mankind. Perhaps an epic FR campaign of that sort would be fun.

[Giant2005]

Because their intelligence is a lot closer to a smart animal than that of a human.
Why do you keep berating the intelligence of Orcs? Orcs range from int 7-12 (As NPCs - I'm sure if they were a playable race that range would extend further), most of the human NPCs have 10 Int. Even the stupidest Orc has 70% of the average IQ.
In reality, the average I.Q. of a human is 100, so the stupidest of the Orcs sitting at 70% of that would have a real life I.Q. of 70. 70 isn't particularly high but it is far from animalistic in fact, there are many human cultures that have average I.Q.s of or around that level. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html)
I'm sure you wouldn't consider those people to be barely above animals. Even in the game the stupidest humans have an Int of 8 which is only 14% smarter than the stupidest of the Orcs.

[Eslin]

Why do you keep berating the intelligence of Orcs? Orcs range from int 7-12 (As NPCs - I'm sure if they were a playable race that range would extend further), most of the human NPCs have 10 Int. Even the stupidest Orc has 70% of the average IQ.
In reality, the average I.Q. of a human is 100, so the stupidest of the Orcs sitting at 70% of that would have a real life I.Q. of 70. 70 isn't particularly high but it is far from animalistic in fact, there are many human cultures that have average I.Q.s of or around that level. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html)
I'm sure you wouldn't consider those people to be barely above animals. Even in the game the stupidest humans have an Int of 8 which is only 14% smarter than the stupidest of the Orcs.

I keep berating the intelligence of orcs because they're int 7 and apes are int 6. Their (presumably even less intelligent, as ours were) ancestors would not have been able to pull off the same hunting techniques as ours. Again, their intelligence is much closer to that of a gorilla than that of a human, so I'm assuming a more gorilla like lifestyle, something that is reinforced by the fact that they have a lot of traits in common (teeth, upper body strength).


@Eslin, the whole divine intervention interference thing is pretty common in settings with literal gods. They always try to control mortals (see FR, Steven Brust's Dragaera, etc).

Without divine control, one really has to wonder why more advanced technology hasn't been invented in the thousands of years of D&D history.

A common plot in Final Fantasy games is ultimately killing the god figure and freeing mankind. Perhaps an epic FR campaign of that sort would be fun.

I figure the existence of magic is what causes the lack of technological advancement, no need to get better at medicine when the local priest can just cure you. Which is related to gods I guess.

And FR campaign wise, yes it can be. I started a campaign where I let the players play any character they want (tier 3 was normally the limit) with the express goal of killing all the gods for their evil deeds. They ended up killing pretty much every single god there was - gods like Tyr were killed for pretending to be just while allowing the wall of the faithless to exist, gods like Talona were killed for the suffering they caused. The only gods they left alive were gods like Silvanus that weren't really connected to the goings on of sapient creatures and just tended to the workings of the world, on the grounds that such injustice genuinely wasn't their concern and that under the better system they would be just as useful.

[McBars]

I've been playing warhammer for long enough to recognise a black orc. If we're introducing warhammer stuff to 40k I'll have a very large serving of orks, please.

Why not? I love WHFB. Great setting, great fluff.

[archaeo]

I keep berating the intelligence of orcs because they're int 7 and apes are int 6. Their (presumably even less intelligent, as ours were) ancestors would not have been able to pull off the same hunting techniques as ours. Again, their intelligence is much closer to that of a gorilla than that of a human, so I'm assuming a more gorilla like lifestyle, something that is reinforced by the fact that they have a lot of traits in common (teeth, upper body strength).

Uh, are there even any published settings where evolution is considered a thing? I sort of figured that in more or less all of the key settings that literal gods created everything therein; there's no real Drizzt D'Darwin running about, confounding Wizards with his new theory of evolutionary magic or whatever.

[Eslin]

Why not? I love WHFB. Great setting, great fluff.

I meant warhammer stuff to D&D, but yep, probably my favourite medieval tabletop setting. My favourite overall being 40k. Sometimes I think D&D could learn a thing or two from it - if you want evil non humans genuinely make them inhumanly evil. Don't make humans special or give them a special destiny, make them human and they'll go be humans which is plenty good enough.


Uh, are there even any published settings where evolution is considered a thing? I sort of figured that in more or less all of the key settings that literal gods created everything therein; there's no real Drizzt D'Darwin running about, confounding Wizards with his new theory of evolutionary magic or whatever.
Not sure, but probably not considering how little sense any setting would make, there would be far less variety in intelligent creatures because they'd have outcompeted each other ages ago. Even without that an orc is still much closer to an ape's intelligence than a human's and inherently chaotic means they wouldn't be as good at co-operation. No human style hunting for them.

[Easy_Lee]

I meant warhammer stuff to D&D, but yep, probably my favourite medieval tabletop setting. My favourite overall being 40k. Sometimes I think D&D could learn a thing or two from it - if you want evil non humans genuinely make them inhumanly evil. Don't make humans special or give them a special destiny, make them human and they'll go be humans which is plenty good enough.

These kinds of debates don't pop up as often in warhammer since it's a macro game. D&D is about individuals doing exceptional things, rather than the movements of entire civilisations. There's less need to wonder whether one could play a goodly, intelligent ork or an ork-like human.

Since D&D is about individuals, we get threads like this with one or a few people wanting to play X race. Then we have a debate as to whether or not and why that race is typically evil.

[Eslin]

These kinds of debates don't pop up as often in warhammer since it's a macro game. D&D is about individuals doing exceptional things, rather than the movements of entire civilisations. There's less need to wonder whether one could play a goodly, intelligent ork or an ork-like human.

Since D&D is about individuals, we get threads like this with one or a few people wanting to play X race. Then we have a debate as to whether or not and why that race is typically evil.

Hm, good explanation. I like it.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll go ahead and move my post since they closed my thread.

I have three main points: orcs are evil, half-orcs exist, and half-drow are extremely rare.

Orcs are Evil

Recent changes within FR lore have orcs reverting back to their primal, savage ways. Orcs are now assumed evil and chaotic, with goodly orcs being an extreme rarity. Salvatore is just one of the authors whose writing references this, in his case through character commentary and the antics of the Many Arrows kingdom.

If we assume orcs are almost 100% evil, it's easy to see why they wouldn't be playable. Campaigns full of good guys with one evil player trying to RP tend to turn out pretty bad. "It's what my character would do," said the creepy guy who just killed his party in their sleep and raped the female player. So players playing orcs is discouraged. But do we have an alternative?

Half-orcs exist

Players who want to be orcy and paint their mounts red can play half-orc.

5e suggests half-orcs are largely the product of rape Happy to say this is not in the text for this edition, contrary to what I had heard. The whole tribes of humans and orcs working together is pretty damn questionable, all things considered. Many still suggest rape as the likely source of half-orcs in a grittier interpretation. Some question the plausibility of that notion. For those who are skeptical, please consider this quote from Genghis Khan:

"The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."

It probably sounds familiar; Conan said pretty close to the same thing. It's a barbaric mentality. If we add to that orcs being numerous, fertile, very raidy, and very rapey...It's easy to see how things could get out of hand.

Further add to that half-orcs being generally ugly and uncharismatic. They would be rejected by society, but not killed outright since those societies (elves and humans, mostly) are overall goodly. That kind of person would likely seak out others like him/her. Thus: half-orc colonies making more half-orcs. So while descended from rape or otherwise, not all half-orcs need be a direct product of it. Half-orc colonies are likely the best place to find said half-orcs. You might also check the docks, or taverns, or those kinds of places (historically).

But wait, aren't drow evil too? They're probably even more rapey than the orcs, come to think of it. Where are all the half-drow?

Half-drow are Extremely Rare
l
...because drow tend to kill their impure children. It's all over the evil drow lore. Anyone who isn't drow is inferior, and probably isn't going to survive very long (or get the chance to mate) in drow society.

Drow are popular, in spite of that, so WoTC allows for the rare exception to the evil drow rule. It doesn't hurt that we have a lot more author support for goodly or neutral drow (Drizzt most notably) than goodly orcs. Good orcs just aren't a very popular thing to write about in the FR universe. Most D&D players can't even think of one orcish hero (though they exist).

[Eslin]

The charisma part's definitely not true, orcs and half orcs have average charisma, they're no less or more charismatic than your average elf.

[Easy_Lee]

The charisma part's definitely not true, orcs and half orcs have average charisma, they're no less or more charismatic than your average elf.

Historically they've had lower charisma. Also, we only have half-orc stats, so orcs very well could be uncharismatic.

Honestly though, halflings are just as strong as dwarves this gen before subclass. I think it's overly simplified.

[Ralanr]

From reading and skimming, all I can say is that I feel we need more orc or half-orc protagonists in the D&D books (or just the fantasy genre in general.)

[Z3ro]

Historically they've had lower charisma. Also, we only have half-orc stats, so orcs very well could be uncharismatic.

Honestly though, halflings are just as strong as dwarves this gen before subclass. I think it's overly simplified.

While the stats in the MM may not translate directly when producing PCs, it is worth noting that pure orcs have a 10 charisma by default.

[Eslin]

Or we need orks. Orks would be fun.

[CubeB]

They way I did it in my game, Half-Orcs are actually just orcs that are free of the corrupting influence of a dark god (not Grummish, though that could be possible), which meant that the MM Orcs are corruptted version. Half Orcs follow the Blizzard model, with a dose of Eberron. Corrupted orcs are Toliken-esque.

I think I first saw that model for orcs and half orcs on the 13th Age Forums, but I misplaced the link.

[Jon D]

I'll go ahead and move my post since they closed my thread.

I have three main points: orcs are evil, half-orcs exist, and half-drow are extremely rare.

Orcs are Evil

Recent changes within FR lore have orcs reverting back to their primal, savage ways. Orcs are now assumed evil and chaotic, with goodly orcs being an extreme rarity. Salvatore is just one of the authors whose writing references this, in his case through character commentary and the antics of the Many Arrows kingdom.

If we assume orcs are almost 100% evil, it's easy to see why they wouldn't be playable. Campaigns full of good guys with one evil player trying to RP tend to turn out pretty bad. "It's what my character would do," said the creepy guy who just killed his party in their sleep and raped the female player. So players playing orcs is discouraged. But do we have an alternative?

Half-orcs exist

And they're all over the place. Players who want to be orcy and paint their mounts red can play half-orc.

5e suggests half-orcs are largely the product of rape. Some question the plausibility of that notion. For those who are skeptical, please consider this quote from Genghis Khan:

"The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms."

It probably sounds familiar; Conan said pretty close to the same thing. It's a barbaric mentality. If we add to that orcs being numerous, fertile, very raidy, and very rapey...It's easy to see how things could get out of hand.

Further add to that half-orcs being generally ugly and uncharismatic. They would be rejected by society, but not killed outright since those societies (elves and humans, mostly) are overall goodly. That kind of person would likely seal out others like him/her. Thus: half-orc colonies making more half-orcs. So while descended from rape, not all half-orcs need be a direct product of it.

But wait, aren't drow evil too? They're probably even more rapey than the orcs, come to think of it. Where are all the half-drow?

Half-drow are Extremely Rare
l
...because drow tend to kill their impure children. It's all over the evil drow lore. Anyone who isn't drow is inferior, and probably isn't going to survive very long (or get the chance to mate) in drow society.

Drow are popular, in spite of that, so WoTC allows for the rare exception to the evil drow rule. It doesn't hurt that we have a lot more author support for goodly or neutral drow (Drizzt most notably) than goodly orcs. Good orcs just aren't a very popular thing to write about in the FR universe. Most D&D players can't even think of one orcish hero (though they exist).

I'm only going to address one part of this malarky.

If Orcs were so fast breeding and soooo rapey, Half-Orcs would NOT be an uncommon race.

They'd be listed just before humans in the PHB.

[JAL_1138]

They way I did it in my game, Half-Orcs are actually just orcs that are free of the corrupting influence of a dark god (not Grummish, though that could be possible), which meant that the MM Orcs are corruptted version. Half Orcs follow the Blizzard model, with a dose of Eberron. Corrupted orcs are Toliken-esque.

I think I first saw that model for orcs and half orcs on the 13th Age Forums, but I misplaced the link.

I'm a fan of this method. In another thread somewhere around here I suggested something similar--call half-orcs Uruks (or whatever), poach one of the less-used Greyhawk pantheons (there's like half a dozen) wholesale for their religion, give them cities and territories and culture, and have Orcs be corrupted Uruks.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well that's confusing. Who made kenku? Who made lamia? Whose purpose do naga serve? Ropers? Satyrs?


Why is this restricted to humanoids? Why don't naga or ropers have deities that created and influence them? All these almighty and shapeless beings seem to be massive fans of a very specific bodyshape.

Eslin, allow me to introduce you to Shekinester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekinester) the Three-Faced Queen, goddess of the Nagas.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm only going to address one part of this malarky.

If Orcs were so fast breeding and soooo rapey, Half-Orcs would NOT be an uncommon race.

They'd be listed just before humans in the PHB.

Half-orcs are a common race, and orcs likely outnumber humans in many regions. Also, why did you quote my whole "malarkey" (fixed the spelling for you, though you misused the word) if you only addressed one part?

[JAL_1138]

Eslin, allow me to introduce you to Shekinester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekinester) the Three-Faced Queen, goddess of the Nagas.

Monster Mythology (2e) is a great resource in general.

EDIT: Also, while I couldn't find anything on ropers, Quorlinn is the Kenku god. He is not happy about it though, and tends to complain about it.

ALSO EDIT: Quorlinn is basically Moist von Lipwig and the kenku are his Ankh-Morpork Post Office. His holy symbol is pretty much a Groucho mask. He's a fun one.

[Thrudd]

Neither of them should be, they are both monsters. I don't love half-orcs for a playable race, either, even though they were in 1e AD&D.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

From reading and skimming, all I can say is that I feel we need more orc or half-orc protagonists in the D&D books (or just the fantasy genre in general.)

This.

I personally can't stand fantasy writings (I read text books for fun...) but it would be nice to see an Orc character being a hero.

[Scots Dragon]

I have to say that I'm really quite sick of the whole attitude that treats 'humanoids who often have evil alignments' as being little different than the bloody tanar'ri or baatezu. It actually comes off as slightly disconcerting, actually, given that a race with genuinely fiendish blood is presented as a player race in the PHB of at least two editions, though your opinion may vary on how valid the older of the two editions actually is, and no one so much as bats an eyelash.

Why is your being related to something like this okay...
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110622005223/forgottenrealms/images/7/7c/Balor_roar.jpg

... but you basically being a dark or green skinned humanoid, in one case being a variant member of a race otherwise known for being chaotic good in the majority, somehow not?


And to flip that on its head...
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080924050928/forgottenrealms/images/6/6e/Elaith_craulnober-eladrin.jpg

This is Elaith Craulnober, also known as the Serpent. His first appearance is as a neutral evil elven fighter/wizard from the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, created by Elaine Cunningham for her series of Arilyn Moonblade stories. In the only edition to make such distinctions, D&D 3.5e, surface elves were clarified as being 'usually chaotic good', the exact same qualifier for dark elves' own 'usually chaotic evil', and had the same basic reasoning. The surface elves took influence from the chaotic good Corellon, the dark elves took influence from the chaotic evil Lolth.

If you have a problem with members of nominally evil races being portrayed as having a capacity for good, do you also have any problems with a nominally good race being portrayed as having a capacity for evil? If you don't, why not?

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm all for changing fluff but won't matter until the game changes it because people come into the game knowing the original fluff.

I'd rather we just didn't have half species really, just make templates for classes as if they were adopted and call it a day (and get rid of ability score adjustments).

Agreed, down with the halves! Between the half orcs, half elves, and half lings, over a quarter of the options are for half things! Get rid of em all!

[Jon D]

Half-orcs are a common race, and orcs likely outnumber humans in many regions. Also, why did you quote my whole "malarkey" (fixed the spelling for you, though you misused the word) if you only addressed one part?

Disn't mean to quote the whole thing, but I was using my phone at the time and trying to edit a post is a massive pain. Also doesn't have a good spell checker. :smallredface:

[Easy_Lee]

Disn't mean to quote the whole thing, but I was using my phone at the time and trying to edit a post is a massive pain. Also doesn't have a good spell checker. :smallredface:

I make most of my posts from my phone so I know.

[Knaight]

Some of us like the objective morality the game was designed with originally. I get enough social justice warrioring on facebook, thanks. Not everyone is a Britta.

Objective morality and universally evil species have approximately nothing to do with each other. You can have a system which has only humans in it*, and which still has objective morality. Heck, you can have a system which has only humans in it*, and which still has only really easy, unsubtle objective morality. You have situations like a particular noble being objectively evil because they tax their populace so heavily they can barely feed themselves then blow the money on luxuries for themselves, or a cult leader being objectively evil because their life is centered around sacrificing people to try and bring in a dark god to destroy the world. Universally evil species are an entirely different set of considerations.

*For playable races, I'm not saying there are no animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Agreed, down with the halves! Between the half orcs, half elves, and half lings, over a quarter of the options are for half things! Get rid of em all!

Though I smell sarcasm, I really would like to get rid of the half races.

But do know that halflings isn't a half races, just a very "please don't sue us" name for a race of little people.

[GiantOctopodes]

Though I smell sarcasm, I really would like to get rid of the half races.

But do know that halflings isn't a half races, just a very "please don't sue us" name for a race of little people.

Partially a joke, but there is an element of truth to the idea that those of "mixed blood" are disproportionately represented as options, especially when you consider that though halflings are not a half race, tieflings are another mixed blood race, just less than half. Sometimes it's feeling like the options are humans, half humans (half orcs), half humans (half elves), mostly humans (tieflings), elves and then the rest of em. Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarves, Dragonborn, are all fantastic and I'm not saying I want to see them represented more. I'm saying that D&D is the system that has the greatest variety of races and well built, interesting cultures, and it's an aweful shame that more of them are not represented, in favor of small variants on existing ones.

To that end, I would not want to see Orcs (which to be fair, just wipe "half" from your title and you have the stats of a orc PC already), but rather shifters, Elans, Thri-Kreen, Githzerai, or something of that nature. I get why they did it this way- so they have all the "classic" races, that doesn't mean I didn't feel like it was somewhat of a cop out in earlier editions as well though.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Partially a joke, but there is an element of truth to the idea that those of "mixed blood" are disproportionately represented as options, especially when you consider that though halflings are not a half race, tieflings are another mixed blood race, just less than half. Sometimes it's feeling like the options are humans, half humans (half orcs), half humans (half elves), mostly humans (tieflings), elves and then the rest of em. Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarves, Dragonborn, are all fantastic and I'm not saying I want to see them represented more. I'm saying that D&D is the system that has the greatest variety of races and well built, interesting cultures, and it's an aweful shame that more of them are not represented, in favor of small variants on existing ones.

To that end, I would not want to see Orcs (which to be fair, just wipe "half" from your title and you have the stats of a orc PC already), but rather shifters, Elans, Thri-Kreen, Githzerai, or something of that nature. I get why they did it this way- so they have all the "classic" races, that doesn't mean I didn't feel like it was somewhat of a cop out in earlier editions as well though.

My race list for a PHB... Something like the following

Human
Dwarf (Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf... Though change them a bit)
Elf (Tolkien and Non-Tolkien subrace)
Gnome (Forest, Tinker)
Goblins (Blues, Redcaps)
Hobgoblin (Military, Feral)
Dragonborn (Chromatic, Metallic)
Shifter (Longtooth, Razorclaw... Both get non-magical wildshape)
Native-Outsider (Law, Chaos, Good, Evil)
Native-Elemental (Genesai?) (Choose element)

[TripleD]

Orcs are now assumed evil and chaotic, with goodly orcs being an extreme rarity.


True, and supported be fluff



The evil deities who created other races though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendancies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the Orc gods influence).


------------



And they're all over the place. Players who want to be orcy and paint their mounts red can play half-orc.


Half true. Any player may choose a half-Orc in the same way they may choose Dragonborn or Tiefling. You are guaranteed the chance to play it, but not that you will ever meet another of your kind.



Unusual Races
The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D, and even where the are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.


What's more, even among the unusual races, half-orcs tend to be limited in where they are found.



Tribes and Slums
Half-orcs most often live among orcs. Of the other races, humans are most likely to accept half-orcs, and half-orcs almost always live in human lands when not living among Orc tribes.


-----------------



5e suggests half-orcs are largely the product of rape.


110% wrong. In fact, this edition seems to have gone out of its way to exclude rape as a fate/origin for PCs and NPCs.



Whether united under the leadership of a mighty warlock or having fought to a standstill after years of conflict, Orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, joining forces into a larger horde to the terror of civilized lands nearby. When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born.


That's it. There's nothing else in the half-orc section on where baby half-orcs come from.

But what about the rampaging horde of orcs? As you said:



It's a barbaric mentality. If we add to that orcs being numerous, fertile, very raidy, and very rapey...It's easy to see how things could get out of hand.


Once again though, the text doesn't really support this.



Tribes like Plagues. Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement, Orc pick it clean of wealth and items usable in their own lands.


They don't take prisoners or slaves. They don't want gold from ransom. They just want to kill everyone before moving on.

I probably can't quote any more from the book without getting in trouble, so I will just paraphrase. Their 5e Monster Manual explicitly says that orcs do not care about race. Doesn't matter where you came from, if you are strong enough you can join an orc tribe.

It doesn't say that only male orcs are encouraged to breed frequently and indiscriminately, but rather just orcs in general. In fact that's one problem with our arguments; we're all assuming it's male orc with female human, rather than the other way around. If orcs are polygamous, then a single male human, having earned his way into a tribe, with several orc wives could produce many more half-orcs than a male orc who only has a single female human bride from an allied human tribe.

-----



That kind of person would likely seal out others like him/her. Thus: half-orc colonies making more half-orcs.


This I can get behind. The PHB explicitly mentions half-elves grouping together; I see no reason why half-orcs shouldn't as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not to jack this thread or anything, figured if I made one it would just get locked and all that, but if anyone would like to help with the Lore part of my PC Orc race I would appreciate it.

I figured giving the PC race a very very good reason not to default to Gruumish or Gruumish-esc society.

Also, yeah I know, there is a place called Abyss in D&D cosmology ... However the original name was Fissure Orcs (thrown into a fissure, deep into the earth) well the first few things when you google "Fissure" is not very... Appealing haha.

[Easy_Lee]

I figured giving the PC race a very very good reason not to default to Gruumish or Gruumish-esc society... the original name was Fissure Orcs (thrown into a fissure, deep into the earth)

Perhaps your race hid deep underground to escape the gaze of one-eyed Gruumish. There they were able to free themselves from his influence and develop into a mostly herbivorous, peaceful race. Maybe they developed limited tremorsense while they were down there.

[Shining Wrath]

Not to jack this thread or anything, figured if I made one it would just get locked and all that, but if anyone would like to help with the Lore part of my PC Orc race I would appreciate it.

I figured giving the PC race a very very good reason not to default to Gruumish or Gruumish-esc society.

Also, yeah I know, there is a place called Abyss in D&D cosmology ... However the original name was Fissure Orcs (thrown into a fissure, deep into the earth) well the first few things when you google "Fissure" is not very... Appealing haha.

Sure.

The D&D gods are not perfect. They are not omniscient nor omnipotent nor infallible. So when any deity makes the first members of a race, they get a few "rejects" from their point of view.

When Gruumsh made orcs, he had a few who were flawed. They were weak - not physically, but in character. They were not ruthless. They were not driven to conquer their neighbors. They didn't even hate elves. They were, from his viewpoint, quite the sorry lot.

These defective orcs were often slaughtered by the correctly formed orcs, but some survived, and banded together in a tough world. And these defective (from the perspective of Grummsh) orcs are the ancestors of your Fissure Orcs.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Perhaps your race hid deep underground to escape the gaze of one-eyed Gruumish. There they were able to free themselves from his influence and develop into a mostly herbivorous, peaceful race. Maybe they developed limited tremorsense while they were down there.

Although I like tremorsense I went with dark vision, my Goliath race will have tremorsense (scalling) though.

I gave them advantage versus daze, stun, and paralysis effects and an Orc ferocity ability that scales and doesn't rely on luck. HP damage is nice but not everyone super optimizes for it.



Sure.

The D&D gods are not perfect. They are not omniscient nor omnipotent nor infallible. So when any deity makes the first members of a race, they get a few "rejects" from their point of view.

When Gruumsh made orcs, he had a few who were flawed. They were weak - not physically, but in character. They were not ruthless. They were not driven to conquer their neighbors. They didn't even hate elves. They were, from his viewpoint, quite the sorry lot.

These defective orcs were often slaughtered by the correctly formed orcs, but some survived, and banded together in a tough world. And these defective (from the perspective of Grummsh) orcs are the ancestors of your Fissure Orcs.

This works great with what I have so far, I'm liking the reject line of reasoning and it would really put a chip on their shoulders.

Thanks y'all, I'll work on the back lore some more and do some stuff with society and everything (aptitude test will be fun).

[Beleriphon]

The dog's teeth are a good deal sharper. And regarding it being a predatory tool, what kind of predator would they be? Your average orc is barely more intelligent than an ape (int 7 vs 6) so most human hunting strategies are out, their lack of speed means they can't run down their prey and they certainly aren't the right build for the kind of stealth needed to catch wary prey. And yes, I consider orcs to be prey - if their environment contained, say, owlbears, they'd need to stay up trees chewing leaves during the day and search for more nutritious food at night.

Orcs are clearly descended from ambush predators that strangle their prey to death with massive upper body strength.


Well that's confusing. Who made kenku? Who made lamia? Whose purpose do naga serve? Ropers? Satyrs?

Kenku? Don't know, lamia are the creation of the demon lord Grazzt. Naga are supernatural creatures that guard treasure, beyond that why there is a naga deity I can't say. Ropers are underground cave predators, and satyrs make a fine fur hat.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd like to note that baboons are omnivores and have quite the set of canines.

http://local.brookings.k12.sd.us/krscience/zoology/webpage%20projects/sp11webprojects/baboon/olivebaboon2.jpg

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Orcs are clearly descended from ambush predators that strangle their prey to death with massive upper body strength.

Omg! Orcs are a primitive and degenerate form of darkmantle!

:smallbiggrin:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/darkmantle.htm

[Beleriphon]

I'd like to note that baboons are omnivores and have quite the set of canines.



Hmmmm, orcs do rather look like baboons crossed with boars don't they. I'd actually think that if you wanted to go with a social model for an orc tribe basing it on a troop of baboons is far from the worst thing you could do. That said I think it would be funny to make male orcs similar to a mandrill, we just don't see it because they wear pants most of the time. Baboons, drills and mandrills can move fast when they want to as well despite their relatively short legs and long arms. I know I wouldn't want to get into a fight with baboon even though I probably weight four or five times what a full grown adult male does. Don't even get me started on a drill, I'm at best twice that things weight and I know I'd come out on the losing end of that fight.

Here's a male drill, looks a bit like an orc, althoug much fuzzier.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Drill_Lincolnparkzoo.jpg/640px-Drill_Lincolnparkzoo.jpg

[Thrudd]

Half true. Any player may choose a half-Orc in the same way they may choose Dragonborn or Tiefling. You are guaranteed the chance to play it, but not that you will ever meet another of your kind.

This really depends on the DM and the setting. Players aren't guaranteed anything prior to consulting the DM.

[SiuiS]

Nope, they're definitely herbivores. Every single thing about their physique says they were nocturnal jungle herbivores, probably splitting from the gorilla's ancestors at the hominidae stage.

I mean seriously, look at their teeth. A row of entirely flat teeth and tusks, that's a herbivore thing.

Clinging to evolution when discussing a species very specifically created whole cloth that never experienced evolution in any meaningful way seems like looking for a reason to gripe to me.

[Rater202]

Clinging to evolution when discussing a species very specifically created whole cloth that never experienced evolution in any meaningful way seems like looking for a reason to gripe to me.

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah, basically this.

[S_Dalsgaard]

According to the 2e Monstrous Compendium orcs are carnivores. It is actually too bad they don't list stuff like this in the Monsters Manual anymore :-(

Personally I would have banned them as a player race, if they had been included in the PHB, just as I have done with drow, dragonborn, and tieflings, so I am fine with them missing. I do however agree, that there are many more people out there, who wants to play drow than orcs, so I can understand why they chose to include the former.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

According to the 2e Monstrous Compendium orcs are carnivores. It is actually too bad they don't list stuff like this in the Monsters Manual anymore :-(

Personally I would have banned them as a player race, if they had been included in the PHB, just as I have done with drow, dragonborn, and tieflings, so I am fine with them missing. I do however agree, that there are many more people out there, who wants to play drow than orcs, so I can understand why they chose to include the former.

Just watch out, if a new players (or any player really) wants to specifically play X race you could turn them off with ban hammers. Play your game how you want but do be careful with the ban hammer, people play D&D for the openness of the game (when compared to videogames) so ban hammers based on the DM whims can really hurt the game by pishing people away.

Do remember, D&D isn't just the DM's game but everyone sitting at the table. Just because a DM doesn't like X doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game. :smallsmile:

[Beleriphon]

According to the 2e Monstrous Compendium orcs are carnivores. It is actually too bad they don't list stuff like this in the Monsters Manual anymore :-(

Personally I would have banned them as a player race, if they had been included in the PHB, just as I have done with drow, dragonborn, and tieflings, so I am fine with them missing. I do however agree, that there are many more people out there, who wants to play drow than orcs, so I can understand why they chose to include the former.

But are orcs carnivores like dogs where they can eat other stuff for nutrition, or obligate carnivores like cats?

[S_Dalsgaard]

Just watch out, if a new players (or any player really) wants to specifically play X race you could turn them off with ban hammers. Play your game how you want but do be careful with the ban hammer, people play D&D for the openness of the game (when compared to videogames) so ban hammers based on the DM whims can really hurt the game by pishing people away.

Do remember, D&D isn't just the DM's game but everyone sitting at the table. Just because a DM doesn't like X doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game. :smallsmile:

I know, but sometimes I think it is alright to say no, especially if the races (or classes, I don't allow monks either) doesn't fit in the campaign. I intend to run a Planescape campaign at some point, where basically anything is a go, so I hope that will satisfy my players (not that they have complained yet) :-)

[S_Dalsgaard]

But are orcs carnivores like dogs where they can eat other stuff for nutrition, or obligate carnivores like cats?

The only thing stated about their eating habits is the sentence "Orcs are carnivores, but prefer game meats or livestock to demihumans and humanoids", so that isn't really answered.

[Spriteless]

They needed a set of happy races, and a set of angsty races to cover all the bases. That way players can play someone happy or angsty without much work. Most of the races are happy or at least well-adjusted, so that meant they had to cherry pick the rare races to get enough angst.
Drow are the angsty dextrous peeps.
Tieflings are the angsty caster peeps.
Orcs are the angsty strong peeps. Wait I mean half-Orcs. Maybe Dragonborn, too, but they are well-adjusted, if stoic.

I can imagine Orcs grinding up bones in them thick teeth.

[Beleriphon]

The only thing stated about their eating habits is the sentence "Orcs are carnivores, but prefer game meats or livestock to demihumans and humanoids", so that isn't really answered.

I'd assumed they're ominivores with a strong preference for meats of all kinds. I always figured that an orc horde wouldn't hesitate to eat crops along with the local farmers.

[S_Dalsgaard]

I'd assumed they're ominivores with a strong preference for meats of all kinds. I always figured that an orc horde wouldn't hesitate to eat crops along with the local farmers.

That's basically how I see them too - Cow > farmer > bread > grass.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'd assumed they're ominivores with a strong preference for meats of all kinds. I always figured that an orc horde wouldn't hesitate to eat crops along with the local farmers.

Orc punishments is not jail time or whipping but how many weeks of being a vegetarian you have to endure.

Small Slight (not looking very orcish, appearances matter after all) : 1 Week of vegetarian diet.

Moderate Offense (Not killing or destroying anything during a raid... Participation is needed for Orc raids to work after all): 1 Month of vegetarian diet.

Horrid Offense (consensual mating with non-orc): 1 year of vegetarian diet.

[Rallicus]

Wait, what? Am I experiencing deja-vu?

Since a lot of this stuff hasn't been mentioned, this was my argument the last time around. I think it brings up a lot of good points as to why orcs aren't a player race, and why they are, with certainty, meat eaters.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?383637-Django-the-D-is-silent&p=18411778#post18411778

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Wait, what? Am I experiencing deja-vu?

Since a lot of this stuff hasn't been mentioned, this was my argument the last time around. I think it brings up a lot of good points as to why orcs aren't a player race, and why they are, with certainty, meat eaters.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?383637-Django-the-D-is-silent&p=18411778#post18411778

There is no good reason why any race shouldn't be a PC. Specific reasons (race died out/within specific settings such as Darksun) can change this but there is no good reason why Orcs or any other race shouldn't be a PC race.

Hell Drow are pretty up there on the narfarious scale and yet we have Drow PCs.

Edit: Though yes, Orcs have the capacity to eat meat. I like to think are omnivores because Gruumsh would want them to raze everything from livestock, crops, and the ones that overlook said livestock and crops.

[Rater202]

Hell Drow are pretty up there on the narfarious scale and yet we have Drow PCs.

there are entire societies of nonevil Drow. The worshipers of Eilistraee, for onesuch example.

Much more precedent for nonevil Drow than Nonevil Orcs, basically.

[silveralen]

Just watch out, if a new players (or any player really) wants to specifically play X race you could turn them off with ban hammers. Play your game how you want but do be careful with the ban hammer, people play D&D for the openness of the game (when compared to videogames) so ban hammers based on the DM whims can really hurt the game by pishing people away.

Do remember, D&D isn't just the DM's game but everyone sitting at the table. Just because a DM doesn't like X doesn't mean it should be taken out of the game. :smallsmile:

Yeah, I detest dragonborn, but one player wanted to play as one and I certainly wasn't going to tell him no. Even came up with a slightly modified version of monk so he wasn't gimping himself badly.

Then again, I don't think that someone who wants to play an orc should be prevented from doing so, whether it is in the book or not. I've already had to work in a talking owlbear and possibly a pseudo dragon (one of my players seems to have a major dragon fetish) in.

DMs should rarely say no to something unless it is a balance issue (mainly party balance, party vs world balance can be fixed on the DMs end easily).

[Rallicus]

There is no good reason why any race shouldn't be a PC. Specific reasons (race died out/within specific settings such as Darksun) can change this but there is no good reason why Orcs or any other race shouldn't be a PC race.


I agree.

But I think the argument at the time was why orcs weren't a core race. I'd be perfectly okay with a "monstrous humanoid PC race" splat book, wherein details for a campaign featuring orc, goblinoid, kobold, etc. as PCs.

And my previous post on that thread pointed out (as has everyone else here) that Drow don't fit the mold at all; that they were shoehorned into the PHB due to Drizz't, no other reason.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

there are entire societies of nonevil Drow. The worshipers of Eilistraee, for onesuch example.

Much more precedent for nonevil Drow than Nonevil Orcs, basically.

My point though is that at one time this was not the case. There was a time when Drow were just evil mofos until someone was all like "oh wait maybe not all Drow are evil".

There is no reason a PC couldn't be the exception to the rule or you know the DM straight up says " orcs are not made of evilolz".

Just because the creators of the game want wide scale bigotry in the game (kill orcs onsite no matter what, they be evil) doesn't mean you have to have that in our game.

[Scirocco]

there are entire societies of nonevil Drow. The worshipers of Eilistraee, for onesuch example.

Much more precedent for nonevil Drow than Nonevil Orcs, basically.

In most D&D settings, true, though Eberron is an exception (don't think the Eberron drow are inherently evil either). In fantasy literature (not just printed) it's become more and more common following TNG's Klingons, with other examples being Warcraft orcs, the Erickson's Jaghut, and debatably Warhammer/40K's orcs/orks (which are close to being chaotic neutralish).

[Eslin]

In most D&D settings, true, though Eberron is an exception (don't think the Eberron drow are inherently evil either). In fantasy literature (not just printed) it's become more and more common following TNG's Klingons, with other examples being Warcraft orcs, the Erickson's Jaghut, and debatably Warhammer/40K's orcs/orks (which are close to being chaotic neutralish).

They're really, really not. Orks could be argued to be unaligned, in that their way of thinking is so alien that the idea of not killing someone for fun is completely strange for them, but otherwise orks are possibly the most chaotic evil race in the entirety of fiction. They murder, pillage and burn over and over until they're defeated or run out of people to kill, at which point they regroup and go find some more people to kill. They're light hearted, sure - they thoroughly enjoy what they're doing, and have a good laugh at watching a humie who they've just set on fire 'do da burny dance', but they're as chaotic evil as they come.

[SiuiS]

But are orcs carnivores like dogs where they can eat other stuff for nutrition, or obligate carnivores like cats?

I always thought dogs were listed as omnivorous and not truly carnivores. Like bears. Bears are definitely hunters but they eat whatever they can, not just fish and game.


I know, but sometimes I think it is alright to say no, especially if the races (or classes, I don't allow monks either) doesn't fit in the campaign. I intend to run a Planescape campaign at some point, where basically anything is a go, so I hope that will satisfy my players (not that they have complained yet) :-)

As long as your response is compassionate you'll be fine. "No. Never drow" is crap. "That's cool, but this particular world and story has the drow as extinct for reasons, it's cool to play those sometimes but not in this particular run. Are you alright with that?" Works much better.


They needed a set of happy races, and a set of angsty races to cover all the bases. That way players can play someone happy or angsty without much work. Most of the races are happy or at least well-adjusted, so that meant they had to cherry pick the rare races to get enough angst.
Drow are the angsty dextrous peeps.
Tieflings are the angsty caster peeps.
Orcs are the angsty strong peeps. Wait I mean half-Orcs. Maybe Dragonborn, too, but they are well-adjusted, if stoic.

I can imagine Orcs grinding up bones in them thick teeth.

That's interesting to me because orcs are the default bad ones, and drow are the corrupted ones that maybe you can save.


there are entire societies of nonevil Drow. The worshipers of Eilistraee, for onesuch example.

Much more precedent for nonevil Drow than Nonevil Orcs, basically.

Kinda. I mean, drow were all cursed. Can you break that?


My point though is that at one time this was not the case. There was a time when Drow were just evil mofos until someone was all like "oh wait maybe not all Drow are evil".

There is no reason a PC couldn't be the exception to the rule or you know the DM straight up says " orcs are not made of evilolz".

Just because the creators of the game want wide scale bigotry in the game (kill orcs onsite no matter what, they be evil) doesn't mean you have to have that in our game.

Sorta. Yes but also no; their history has them as corrupted and duped, and then cursed as punishment. So they were good at one point but never at a point that matters to players. They have the same role as tiefling a (4e) in that regard.

[Rater202]

Kinda. I mean, drow were all cursed. Can you break that?

Going by Forgotten Realms Lore, that curse was less "Make the Drow Drow" and make it "Drow Can't get into the Good Elf Afterlife No Matter What"

My Realms Lore is iffy, but Eilistraee apparently allowed herself to be temporarily slain so that her followers and other good aligned Drow could be let in.

If Drow can be cursed by one God, a Curse can be broken by an other, yes?

[Easy_Lee]

Going by Forgotten Realms Lore, that curse was less "Make the Drow Drow" and make it "Drow Can't get into the Good Elf Afterlife No Matter What"

My Realms Lore is iffy, but Eilistraee apparently allowed herself to be temporarily slain so that her followers and other good aligned Drow could be let in.

If Drow can be cursed by one God, a Curse can be broken by an other, yes?

This is touching on the real crux of the issue, lorewise, I think. Orcs and drow are both cursed to be evil by their gods, which is why most are. In Salvatore's books, other male drow speak of breaking free of that curse, more or less, as they feel Drizzt has done. And if that curse is what holds the drow to Lolth, it would explain why she's so hell-bent on not only killing Drizzt, but corrupting and destroying everything he ever did.

With orcs, it's less clear. They're obviously mostly evil, but half-orcs seem to have the same demeanor as humans. Perhaps orcs, if not for the curse, would be a less intelligent version of humans. That would make them more akin to Warcraft orcs, I suspect.

[MaxWilson]

In most D&D settings, true, though Eberron is an exception (don't think the Eberron drow are inherently evil either). In fantasy literature (not just printed) it's become more and more common following TNG's Klingons, with other examples being Warcraft orcs, the Erickson's Jaghut, and debatably Warhammer/40K's orcs/orks (which are close to being chaotic neutralish).

I don't think Jaghut are supposed to be orcs. The only similarity is the tusks. Ultra-magical immortal idealist hyper-individualists: these are not orc-like traits.

[Sartharina]

The fluff about Orcs and their connection to Gruumsh is a well established part of D&D lore. But Gruumsh isn't micromanaging every Orc in existence; he's too Chaotic to do that. Instead he has his Eyes of Gruumsh, special shamans who work to whip Orcs into a frenzy of hatred and xenophobia. They remind Orcs about Gruumsh's humiliating defeat at the hands of Corellon Larethian. Corellon was wounded by Gruumsh, and his blood and the tears of the Sehanine Moonbow combined to create the first Elves. At that point, Corellon lunged and put out one of Gruumsh's eyes. The blinding of Gruumsh is a major part of Orc theology, with the Eyes of Gruumsh putting out one of their eyes to emulate their god.5e doubled down on the connection Gruumsh has on his orcs - it's not so much him micromanaging his orcs as much as sticking a "KILL BURN RAPE PILLAGE MURDER ELVES!" recording stuck in their minds forever - they are intelligent, but have severely hampered free will. You could consider them all 'mentally ill' (But all your pity and sympathy for their affliction won't stop them from wanting and enjoying chopping your head off and violating your corpse) - and there are a few that are orc-insane and Nonevil instead.

If you try to raise an orc to be Good, it has the voice in its head pointing out every flaw you have in your lessons, and undermining everything you try to teach it - it doesn't become Gooder - it becomes Sneakier, and even more contemptuous of Good. Raising an orc to be Good and Decent is even more futile than trying to use words and/or beatings to cure Autism or Depression, and Books to try to cure Down Syndrome.

If you want to play an Orc, play as a Half-orc. With the official lore, they're the only ones with enough human-brand will to not be Chaotic Evil. If you break from official lore, you can refluff half-orcs to be full orcs.

[Scirocco]

I don't think Jaghut are supposed to be orcs. The only similarity is the tusks. Ultra-magical immortal idealist hyper-individualists: these are not orc-like traits.

It's a case of Our Orcs Are Different, because that's what Erikson does; ditto for his dark elves and undead.

[MaxWilson]

It's a case of Our Orcs Are Different, because that's what Erikson does; ditto for his dark elves and undead.

But there's just no evidence that Jaghut are orcs in the first place. The Malazan world doesn't even come from D&D, it comes from homebrewed GURPS.

[GiantOctopodes]

5e doubled down on the connection Gruumsh has on his orcs - it's not so much him micromanaging his orcs as much as sticking a "KILL BURN RAPE PILLAGE MURDER ELVES!" recording stuck in their minds forever - they are intelligent, but have severely hampered free will. You could consider them all 'mentally ill' (But all your pity and sympathy for their affliction won't stop them from wanting and enjoying chopping your head off and violating your corpse) - and there are a few that are orc-insane and Nonevil instead.

If you try to raise an orc to be Good, it has the voice in its head pointing out every flaw you have in your lessons, and undermining everything you try to teach it - it doesn't become Gooder - it becomes Sneakier, and even more contemptuous of Good. Raising an orc to be Good and Decent is even more futile than trying to use words and/or beatings to cure Autism or Depression, and Books to try to cure Down Syndrome.

If you want to play an Orc, play as a Half-orc. With the official lore, they're the only ones with enough human-brand will to not be Chaotic Evil. If you break from official lore, you can refluff half-orcs to be full orcs.

Except the official fluff includes the books written by RA Salvitore, correct? Have you read the books regarding the kingdom of Many Arrows? Obould certainly felt he had the voice of Grummsh speaking directly to him, and he was certainly blessed by Grummsh, and that was *not* the message he got. I also thoroughly don't buy the whole evil voice in the head thing. The drow are evil because of their worship of Lloth. Those who don't worship her have at least a chance to not be evil. The orcs are evil because of their worship of Grummsh. I see no reason why those who do not worship Grummsh would not also have that same chance. I've also never seen it written to where Orcs have that recording constantly playing in their head. From the official fluff, where do you get that? Not only would it be exhausting, but quite frankly, they don't need that prompting. They'll burn and pillage just fine without it, as that is what their culture teaches, and that is the commandments of their god. Those who do not thoroughly enjoy the spectacle, and revel in it, likely get swiftly and brutally culled from the herd, they are after all surrounded by chaotic evil individuals.

[archaeo]

The orcs are evil because of their worship of Grummsh. I see no reason why those who do not worship Grummsh would not also have that same chance. I've also never seen it written to where Orcs have that recording constantly playing in their head. From the official fluff, where do you get that?

Check out "The Mark of Gruumsh" in the Half-Orc section of Chapter 2 in the 5e PHB. Full orcs can never "fully escape his influence," which certainly suggests to me that, even in the absence of active worship, a full orc is assumed to still maintain a fundamentally Gruumsh-defined character.

The rules make it pretty clear that it's the human side of a half-orc that provides the mental/spiritual "ammunition" to resist Gruumsh's influence, and that in the absence of that moderating trait, an orc virtually always experiences Gruumsh in some fashion.

The MM, meanwhile, basically assumes universal Gruumsh worship among its "default setting" orcs.

Naturally, and as with all lore-based fluff, it's mostly there to provide the foundations of a story for DMs, and this lore is fairly iconic. Eschewing it in favor of another kind of ethical/religious/moral paradigm is extremely possible.

[mephnick]

But there's just no evidence that Jaghut are orcs in the first place. The Malazan world doesn't even come from D&D, it comes from homebrewed GURPS.

Yeah..Jaghut are as far from orcs as possible, except the tusks. They're not really comparable to any mortal race.

[silveralen]

Except the official fluff includes the books written by RA Salvitore, correct? Have you read the books regarding the kingdom of Many Arrows? Obould certainly felt he had the voice of Grummsh speaking directly to him, and he was certainly blessed by Grummsh, and that was *not* the message he got. I also thoroughly don't buy the whole evil voice in the head thing.

It's actually interesting you being him up, the most recent Drizzit book actually had someone say more or less what the 5e player handbook says about orcs to Drizzit (and handwave the fact that apparently drow don't have the same restriction). The person speaking even claimed it was a direct message from Drizzit's goddess.

Drizzit's response was, in polite internal monologue form, if my goddess actually believes that I need to find someone else to follow, as no goddess worth worshiping would condone such a stance.

[Envyus]

It's actually interesting you being him up, the most recent Drizzit book actually had someone say more or less what the 5e player handbook says about orcs to Drizzit (and handwave the fact that apparently drow don't have the same restriction). The person speaking even claimed it was a direct message from Drizzit's goddess.

Drizzit's response was, in polite internal monologue form, if my goddess actually believes that I need to find someone else to follow, as no goddess worth worshiping would condone such a stance.

In the book fallowing that. The Kingdom of Many Arrows the Orc Kingdom that has had peaceful relations with the kingdoms near it for about a 100 years attacked them.

The reason for the attack was because the Orc's that wanted peace were removed from power by the Drow. King Obould refused to help the Drow with their attack on the Silver Marches preferring a peaceful relationship, his son and heir Lorgu has similar views. The Drow wanted a War so they poisoned Obould and framed Lorgu so all of Obould's sons would fight. They then placed a super aggrieve Orc named Hartusk (Who is mentioned in the Monster Manual) in charge. Hartusk destroyed the throne of Many Arrows preferring to be called Warlord saying "The Dwarves and Humans can keep their kings."

Lorgu is still alive having been forced to flee into the Spine of the World with his loyalists. I have a feeling that when the war with Many Arrows is over one of the tasks will be helping Lorgu get his throne back.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In the book fallowing that. The Kingdom of Many Arrows the Orc Kingdom that has had peaceful relations with the kingdoms near it for about a 100 years attacked them.

The reason for the attack was because the Orc's that wanted peace were removed from power by the Drow. King Obould refused to help the Drow with their attack on the Silver Marches preferring a peaceful relationship, his son and heir Lorgu has similar views. The Drow wanted a War so they poisoned Obould and framed Lorgu so all of Obould's sons would fight. They then placed a super aggrieve Orc named Hartusk (Who is mentioned in the Monster Manual) in charge. Hartusk destroyed the throne of Many Arrows preferring to be called Warlord saying "The Dwarves and Humans can keep their kings."

Lorgu is still alive having been forced to flee into the Spine of the World with his loyalists. I have a feeling that when the war with Many Arrows is over one of the tasks will be helping Lorgu get his throne back.

Man I'm so glad I don't pay attention to all those books. I looked into what I've been missing because of this recent string of discussion and wow am I glad I didn't spend my time reading all those books.

Seriously thanks guys for reminding me to check that out, I knew there was something I was forgetting to do.

[Shining Wrath]

There's an easy explanation for non-evil orcs and drow; D&D deities are not infallible. So even though Lolth and Gruumsh did everything in their power when creating their races (or corrupting existing races to beget their races) to make them pure evil with a super sized order of evil fries, they screwed up (from their perspective) on a few, and these individuals lacked the "voice whispering in their heads", which I take as metaphor but YMMV. And some of them managed to survive and their "genes" (beware assuming DNA is the mode of transmission here, but whatever the transmission mechanism is between generations) are still in the racial mix, popping up here and there and leading to individual orcs / drow who break the mold, alignment-wise.

[Daishain]

There's an easy explanation for non-evil orcs and drow; D&D deities are not infallible. So even though Lolth and Gruumsh did everything in their power when creating their races (or corrupting existing races to beget their races) to make them pure evil with a super sized order of evil fries, they screwed up (from their perspective) on a few, and these individuals lacked the "voice whispering in their heads", which I take as metaphor but YMMV. And some of them managed to survive and their "genes" (beware assuming DNA is the mode of transmission here, but whatever the transmission mechanism is between generations) are still in the racial mix, popping up here and there and leading to individual orcs / drow who break the mold, alignment-wise.
Lolth created jack ****, and none of the drow have the voice of evil thing going on.

The drow were once normal elves, created along with the rest, and since molded by the underdark. Lolth's influence over them is almost entirely cultural. Non evil drow should occur far more often than non evil orcs. (Of course, not many nonevil drow are likely to survive long)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Lolth created jack ****, and none of the drow have the voice of evil thing going on.

The drow were once normal elves, created along with the rest, and since molded by the underdark. Lolth's influence over them is almost entirely cultural. Non evil drow should occur far more often than non evil orcs. (Of course, not many nonevil drow are likely to survive long)

Slightly fixed that a bit :smalltongue:

Alignment doesn't really help in their society.

[Shining Wrath]

Lolth created jack ****, and none of the drow have the voice of evil thing going on.

The drow were once normal elves, created along with the rest, and since molded by the underdark. Lolth's influence over them is almost entirely cultural. Non evil drow should occur far more often than non evil orcs. (Of course, not many nonevil drow are likely to survive long)

There's different drow origin stories out there; in some of them Lolth molds the drow who were her followers after their escape into the Underdark, making them better fit to survive in their new home.

[JAL_1138]

Something else kinda fun to do is to reverse-engineer the Planescape conceit that no Power can exist without its worshippers (a god dies if no one believes in it) into the conclusion that no gods created the (majority of the) races, since they couldn't have existed (as gods, anyway) before there were beings who believed in them. From there, build outward that if it's sapient, it has no default alignment (barring things like liches) and tweak the religions to fit that for a given geopolitical region, rather than designing them to fit specific species. Then make the world cosmopolitan as all heck. So if you see a heavily-armed group of a dozen orcs moving through the countryside, you have no idea if they're concerned citizens who formed a militia to patrol the roads for bandits and ensure safe travels, or bandits looking to waylay any travelers and merchants they run across, until you interact with them.

[silveralen]

Slightly fixed that a bit :smalltongue:

Alignment doesn't really help in their society.

Matching the alignment of your society typically increases your chances of survival at least marginally, as it removes at least one way you might be killed.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Matching the alignment of your society typically increases your chances of survival at least marginally, as it removes at least one way you might be killed.

Not for Drow though, you are just as likely to be killed if you are CE as if you are LG. Drow may be horribly evil bastards but they aren't alignmentcist (racist based on alignment?).

Society based on prison rules, shank or be shanked.

[Sartharina]

Drizzit's response was, in polite internal monologue form, if my goddess actually believes that I need to find someone else to follow, as no goddess worth worshiping would condone such a stance.Drizz't should check his privilege, because he has the ability to think thoughts not condoned by his deity, unlike Orcs. It's an ugly truth of the world.

It's like an investigator deciding just reading a few words in a book can't hurt him. He's still wrong, and will lose his mind when he tries to read the Necronomicon.


Also - The PHB, Monster Manual, and Basic Rules are Primary Source, and override whatever some author for a fictional tie-in novel writes, whether that author is R.A. Salvator writing for D&D, or C.S. Goto writing for Warhammer 40000.

[Rater202]

Not for Drow though, you are just as likely to be killed if you are CE as if you are LG. Drow may be horribly evil bastards but they aren't alignmentcist (racist based on alignment?).

Society based on prison rules, shank or be shanked.

And Chaotic Evil types are the types that ain't got no qualms shanking. Lawful, you ain't shanking unless you can get away with it by the laws of the place. neutral, even chaotic Neutrals, are going to pause a minute(do I really need to shank this guy?) and possibly get shanked. Good? You ain't Shankin' nobody.

Chaotic Evil is most likely to survive.

[silveralen]

Drizz't should check his privilege, because he has the ability to think thoughts not condoned by his deity, unlike Orcs. It's an ugly truth of the world.

It's like an investigator deciding just reading a few words in a book can't hurt him. He's still wrong, and will lose his mind when he tries to read the Necronomicon.

Also - The PHB, Monster Manual, and Basic Rules are Primary Source, and override whatever some author for a fictional tie-in novel writes, whether that author is R.A. Salvator writing for D&D, or C.S. Goto writing for Warhammer 40000.

My urge to stab something increased by 500% upon reading that first line. My avatar is actually accurate to my facial expression for once. It probably influenced the following post.

Also, gods in DnD and especially in forgotten realms are so incredibly fallible I have no idea why anyone would take their word on anything. The fact they are in charge of that world baffles the mind, they are like small incredibly immature incredibly stupid children. No wonder people worship AO despite the whole "lack of granted magic bit", an indifferent and absent god is a step up from the norm. Seriously, the first goal of any party in the forgotten realms should be to escape to some tolerable world, like Dark Sun/Athus or Ravenloft. Huge step up from basically being bullies into worshipping one of a number of immature petulant children (or be sentenced to eternal torture) who haven't managed to go a full century without screwing the entire world up. That or worship kelemvor, the only sane man (god) of the setting.

Actually black library is somewhat special. Technically all C.S. Goto'a works are canon in 40K, as canon as the rulebook fluff. Most likely it was written by a drug addled noble who was executed by the inquisition after the works were found, but they do canonical exist. All 40K literature and fluff, rule book or otherwise, is equally canon, so sayeth GW.

[Eslin]

And Chaotic Evil types are the types that ain't got no qualms shanking. Lawful, you ain't shanking unless you can get away with it by the laws of the place. neutral, even chaotic Neutrals, are going to pause a minute(do I really need to shank this guy?) and possibly get shanked. Good? You ain't Shankin' nobody.

Chaotic Evil is most likely to survive.

Lawful doesn't have to mean they obey the law. Drow live in an oppressive, hierarchal society ruled by the Priestess of Lolth in an iron fisted dictatorship with harsh laws of behavior. That's lawful evil as hell, but in general your allegiance isn't to the law itself, it's to your family - shanking fools without being caught by the law is still lawful evil.

It's like honour killings, they may be against the law but their tradition focused nature means they're still lawful evil.

[Sartharina]

My urge to stab something increased by 500% upon reading that first line. My avatar is actually accurate to my facial expression for once. It probably influenced the following post.

Also, gods in DnD and especially in forgotten realms are so incredibly fallible I have no idea why anyone would take their word on anything. The fact they are in charge of that world baffles the mind, they are like small incredibly immature incredibly stupid children. No wonder people worship AO despite the whole "lack of granted magic bit", an indifferent and absent god is a step up from the norm. Seriously, the first goal of any party in the forgotten realms should be to escape to some tolerable world, like Dark Sun/Athus or Ravenloft. Huge step up from basically being bullies into worshipping one of a number of immature petulant children (or be sentenced to eternal torture) who haven't managed to go a full century without screwing the entire world up. That or worship kelemvor, the only sane man (god) of the setting.

Actually black library is somewhat special. Technically all C.S. Goto'a works are canon in 40K, as canon as the rulebook fluff. Most likely it was written by a drug addled noble who was executed by the inquisition after the works were found, but they do canonical exist. All 40K literature and fluff, rule book or otherwise, is equally canon, so sayeth GW.

The point is - it doesn't matter. Trying to argue with a deity in D&D is like trying to argue with a moderator on [insert infamously terribly-moderated private forum or game here]. You're stuck playing by their rules, and their truths. The world isn't fair, and it has no reason or desire to be fair.

[GiantOctopodes]

Drizz't should check his privilege, because he has the ability to think thoughts not condoned by his deity, unlike Orcs. It's an ugly truth of the world.

It's like an investigator deciding just reading a few words in a book can't hurt him. He's still wrong, and will lose his mind when he tries to read the Necronomicon.


Also - The PHB, Monster Manual, and Basic Rules are Primary Source, and override whatever some author for a fictional tie-in novel writes, whether that author is R.A. Salvator writing for D&D, or C.S. Goto writing for Warhammer 40000.

I see absolutely nothing in the aforementioned sources that supports your stance on it.

Per the PHB: *Some* (not all) half orcs hear the *whispers* of Grummsh in their *dreams* (not while they're awake). They are not mind controlled zombies lacking a free will or the ability to think thoughts not condoned by their deity. It may be an ugly truth of the worlds you create, but not the official ones described in the source materials referenced.

Please note too, that the full description of Orcs in the Monster Manual references nothing of them hearing voices, or having their thoughts controlled by this diety. The only mentions of the influence of Grummsh strictly cultural. So if you are strictly going off of the primary source material, once again I fail to see how this is any different from the situation with the Drow. It *certainly* can be said that those Drow who do not worship Lloth cannot fully escape her influence, and it can certainly be said that *some* drow feel a primal connection to the Spider Queen and feel her directives, possibly even hearing the whispers of her or her handmaidens while they sleep.

[Sartharina]

... not voices, no, but Evil is ingrained into the very nature of orcs, and it requires them to struggle strongly against Evil to go for a Good alignment. Gruumsh's nature is inherent to them - if you take Gruumsh away from them and their culture, they will STILL end up becoming brutal, murderous rapist monsters, or, if you try raising one, you need to instill sufficient self-loathing, harsh discipline, constant vigilance, and other abusive measures to force them to reject their evil natures. Some might choose to be Good of their own free will, but doing so is a willful violation of their mind, spirit, and body.

[silveralen]

The point is - it doesn't matter. Trying to argue with a deity in D&D is like trying to argue with a moderator on [insert infamously terribly-moderated private forum or game here]. You're stuck playing by their rules, and their truths. The world isn't fair, and it has no reason or desire to be fair.

Not really. The sheer turnover rate of dieties in forgotten realms indicates they typically get their comeuppance and are a long way from infallible. It happens because they are short sighted, narrow minded idiots on the whole. The best thing about 4e was having an entire destiny based on killing gods.

[Sartharina]

Not really. The sheer turnover rate of dieties in forgotten realms indicates they typically get their comeuppance and are a long way from infallible. It happens because they are short sighted, narrow minded idiots on the whole. The best thing about 4e was having an entire destiny based on killing gods.Being infallible has nothing to do with having enough power that mortal lives are as relevant as a Dorf's.

[S_Dalsgaard]

I would think that good drow are about as common as evil high elves, however it is a lot harder surviving being good in an evil society, than evil in a good one, so the percentage of good drow living to maturity, is quite low.

[russdm]

I would think that good drow are about as common as evil high elves, however it is a lot harder surviving being good in an evil society, than evil in a good one, so the percentage of good drow living to maturity, is quite low.

The evil elf book reference (the one with the sword) is like the only actual reference to an evil elf in any D&D novel that I have ever heard of. There are evil elves in Dragonlance, but DL isn't exactly canon D&D material, so it's out and I have read very little D&D novels beyond Drizzt.

It's worth noting that are few if any published adventures that have evil elves, but they will sometimes use them as friendly enemies to PCs. Otherwise, if you meet an elf, you can expect them to help you out and be nice to you. In my experience.

[JoeJ]

The evil elf book reference (the one with the sword) is like the only actual reference to an evil elf in any D&D novel that I have ever heard of. There are evil elves in Dragonlance, but DL isn't exactly canon D&D material, so it's out and I have read very little D&D novels beyond Drizzt.

When did the Dragonlance novels stop being considered canon?

[S_Dalsgaard]

The evil elf book reference (the one with the sword) is like the only actual reference to an evil elf in any D&D novel that I have ever heard of. There are evil elves in Dragonlance, but DL isn't exactly canon D&D material, so it's out and I have read very little D&D novels beyond Drizzt.

It's worth noting that are few if any published adventures that have evil elves, but they will sometimes use them as friendly enemies to PCs. Otherwise, if you meet an elf, you can expect them to help you out and be nice to you. In my experience.

At least in Forgotten Realms many Gold Elves are considered to be bastards (if not evil as such) and particularly in the history of Myth Drannor, there are examples of evil elves (including murderers/assassins and ones making pacts with evil gods). An example is House Starym - http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Starym

However, like good drow they shouldn't be a dime a dozen and if every novel had evil elves, it would detract from the impact of the few ones that do pop up (which is worth remembering as a DM as well).

[Envyus]

At least in Forgotten Realms many Gold Elves are considered to be bastards (if not evil as such) and particularly in the history of Myth Drannor, there are examples of evil elves (including murderers/assassins and ones making pacts with evil gods). An example is House Starym - http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Starym

However, like good drow they shouldn't be a dime a dozen and if every novel had evil elves, it would detract from the impact of the few ones that do pop up (which is worth remembering as a DM as well).

There is also that evil elf supremacist group.

Anyway Many Arrows alone proves that Orcs are not irredeemably evil and that is in canon.

[Scots Dragon]

Something else kinda fun to do is to reverse-engineer the Planescape conceit that no Power can exist without its worshippers (a god dies if no one believes in it) into the conclusion that no gods created the (majority of the) races, since they couldn't have existed (as gods, anyway) before there were beings who believed in them. From there, build outward that if it's sapient, it has no default alignment (barring things like liches) and tweak the religions to fit that for a given geopolitical region, rather than designing them to fit specific species. Then make the world cosmopolitan as all heck. So if you see a heavily-armed group of a dozen orcs moving through the countryside, you have no idea if they're concerned citizens who formed a militia to patrol the roads for bandits and ensure safe travels, or bandits looking to waylay any travelers and merchants they run across, until you interact with them.

I'd have the heavily-armed orcish group in this case be something far worse; rival adventurers.

Which doesn't even really require an alignment change from the orcs' existing lawful evil*, technically, but it would be quite fun for the so-called 'monster races' to have their own adventuring parties who compete with the player characters for treasure and experience points.

* - as an aggregate. For twenty-six years of D&D history, they've been lawful evil, and for fourteen they've been chaotic evil. The lawful wins out.

[Rater202]

When did the Dragonlance novels stop being considered canon?

Somewhere in between "never" and "never".

[hamishspence]

Drizz't should check his privilege, because he has the ability to think thoughts not condoned by his deity, unlike Orcs. It's an ugly truth of the world.


Drizzt has met orcs (and goblins) that have the ability to act in ways Grummsh or Maglubiyet would disapprove of.

To the extent that, in the "flashforward" scenes in The Orc King, set immediately before the collapse of the Kingdom of Many Arrows - Drizzt and other characters are the ones hunting down the "orc-hate" groups who murder orcs just for being orcs.

So - it's not like he's acting in defiance of evidence presented to him.

[Sartharina]

... how old are these books?

[Stormageddon]

When did the Dragonlance novels stop being considered canon?

Since 3.x doesn't have setting material, but it's back baby!

[hamishspence]

... how old are these books?

The Orc King was written for the 3.5-4e edition change.

[Sartharina]

Ah, so none of this is relevant to 5e's default alignment fluff - though the MM does indicate the Realms may be slightly different from the PHB and Basic Rules assumptions.

[hamishspence]

The point being that even in 5e, Drizzt will have the same history. So "check your privilege" arguments don't really make sense here.

[Scots Dragon]

Ah, so none of this is relevant to 5e's default alignment fluff - though the MM does indicate the Realms may be slightly different from the PHB and Basic Rules assumptions.

It should be noted that Dungeons & Dragons 5e is effectively using the Forgotten Realms as the default campaign setting. All of the major adventures released so far take place in the Forgotten Realms, and utilise specific locations, deities, organisations and characters.

[RedMage125]

I'm all for changing fluff but won't matter until the game changes it because people come into the game knowing the original fluff.

I'd rather we just didn't have half species really, just make templates for classes as if they were adopted and call it a day (and get rid of ability score adjustments).
What "original fluff" do you refer to? Because nothing in the 3.xe, 4e or 5e lore specifies an unpleasant backstory involving their parents. In fact, both the 3e and 5e books explicitly specify an origin story of human and orc tribes intermingling peaceably. 4e goes further to speculate that half-orcs may not even be from a union of orc and human, but rather the result of A) Gruumsh's blood falling onto a tribe of humans, infusing them with orc-like traits. B) A new species created by a hobgoblin empire through slave interbreeding to rule orc tribes in their name, C) the result of human tribes who willingly interbred with orcs to strengthen their bloodlines, or D) a race created wholecloth by the god Kord, who desired a people with the best strengths of both races.

Either way, half-orcs were not in 2nd edition as a "core" race. And in Basic D&D (OD&D, which started in 1974, not to be confused with 1e AD&D which started in 1977), half-orcs were not in, either. Now I'm not familiar enough with 1e AD&D to know what "original fluff" went with the half-orc race there, but even if it was this unpleasant scenario you espouse, that would still mean that that was only the fluff for 10 years of this game's 40 year history, and certainly NOT the "default fluff" for the last 27 years.

So your assertion that the "original fluff" somehow MANDATED an unpleasant backstory regarding a half-orc character's parentage doesn't hold much water in the light of overwhelmingly different fluff for the last 15 years at the very least.



Orcs have free will to reject their heritage, but to do so they would have to go against their upbringing. It is more likely for a Half-Orc, raised by both an Orc and a Human parent, to see both sides and choose to be their own person rather than a tool of Gruumsh's vengeance.

It sounds, especially from the 2e Complete Book of Elves creation story your cited, that you are very entrenched in the lore and the mechanics of past editions. One thing we have to remember when a new edition comes out is that sometimes things change. Skeletons and zombies are no longer mindless and EXPLICITLY evil and full of hate, for example. And more to the point, orcs actually ARE Evil in a "Nature over Nurture" kind of way. According to the 5e PHB, page 122, free-will was only really given to the races created by good deities, and that evil deities did NOT give that to their creations. So by the RAW, orcs explicitly DO NOT have free will to the same extent that a human, elf, or dwarf does. Now, that same page does posit the possibility of a good orc, but also goes on to say that the "innate tendencies" of the nature Gruumsh instilled in his creations are still there, and must be struggled against his whole life. It also says something similar to back this up in the Half-Orc race description.



Anyway Many Arrows alone proves that Orcs are not irredeemably evil and that is in canon.
According to my 3e FR Campaign Setting, Many-Arrows was Chaotic Evil. Intelligent, yes, and capable of encouraging his orcs to learn cooperation with other races in an effort to make them more successful and thrive better. But still Evil.


On topic: I agree that a player interested in playing a full orc could be allowed, and half-orc stats could be used just fine. I'd certainly allow it if running Eberron and had a character interested in making an orc of the Gatekeeper tradition.

[hamishspence]

According to my 3e FR Campaign Setting, Many-Arrows was Chaotic Evil. Intelligent, yes, and capable of encouraging his orcs to learn cooperation with other races in an effort to make them more successful and thrive better. But still Evil.

Keep in mind that the Campaign Setting was written before Obould started moving for peace with his neighbours.

That said, 4E Obould is an CE demigod in the 4E FRCS. So, even if he might have crossed the line into CN at some point, it didn't take.

[Envyus]

... how old are these books?

The book were the peaceful orcs were dethroned by the Drow and had an evil orc puppet placed in charge happened last month. While I would not call Obould and his ilk good they were not evil.

[Cybren]

I remember reading that the reason why Orcs and the like weren't Player Races in the Core is because when the Gods of Evil creater their serviter races, they loked at the creations of the Gods of Good and were like "Wait, you gave them the abillity to sto worshiping you or even come around to worship us? Are you retarded?" and made their races with considerably less free will.

Which is to say, Orcs have very strong instincts leading them to Chaotic Evil actions. a non chaotic evil Orc is likely to be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral. An Orc can be good, but they'll have to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow.

The Drow are different becuase they chose to side with Lolth. Their Chaotic evil is the result of Nurture, not nature. She may have altered them, but she did not create them.

Also, Good Drow are not just a Drizz't Clone thing. Eilistraee, (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Eilistraee)Chaotic Good Drow Goddess of song, swordwork, hunting, the moon, and beauty. Patron of Good aligned Drow.

Except orcs aren't real. If they wanted orcs to have been in the PHB they would have given them workable background lore.

[Rater202]

Except orcs aren't real. If they wanted orcs to have been in the PHB they would have given them workable background lore.

I don't really see what the "orcs aren't real" part has to do with anything-it's a game, of course it's not real.

The second part has nothing to do with my post.

Why did you quote me?:smallconfused:

[GiantOctopodes]

It sounds, especially from the 2e Complete Book of Elves creation story your cited, that you are very entrenched in the lore and the mechanics of past editions. One thing we have to remember when a new edition comes out is that sometimes things change. Skeletons and zombies are no longer mindless and EXPLICITLY evil and full of hate, for example. And more to the point, orcs actually ARE Evil in a "Nature over Nurture" kind of way. According to the 5e PHB, page 122, free-will was only really given to the races created by good deities, and that evil deities did NOT give that to their creations. So by the RAW, orcs explicitly DO NOT have free will to the same extent that a human, elf, or dwarf does. Now, that same page does posit the possibility of a good orc, but also goes on to say that the "innate tendencies" of the nature Gruumsh instilled in his creations are still there, and must be struggled against his whole life. It also says something similar to back this up in the Half-Orc race description.

On topic: I agree that a player interested in playing a full orc could be allowed, and half-orc stats could be used just fine. I'd certainly allow it if running Eberron and had a character interested in making an orc of the Gatekeeper tradition.

Exactly. It explicitly posits the possibility of a good orc. Note too that the thing about free will being a gift of the gods is prefaced by an "according to myth" handwave, and that the very possibility of a good orc, struggling against his nature, *implies* free will to do so.

[russdm]

And more to the point, orcs actually ARE Evil in a "Nature over Nurture" kind of way. According to the 5e PHB, page 122, free-will was only really given to the races created by good deities, and that evil deities did NOT give that to their creations. So by the RAW, orcs explicitly DO NOT have free will to the same extent that a human, elf, or dwarf does. Now, that same page does posit the possibility of a good orc, but also goes on to say that the "innate tendencies" of the nature Gruumsh instilled in his creations are still there, and must be struggled against his whole life. It also says something similar to back this up in the Half-Orc race description.

So the bolded part means that adventurers are going out and killing slaves since all creatures made by evil gods are essentially slaves and means Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, Ogres, Giants, and Chromatic Dragons. So, being good means killing slaves? This feels like the designers trying to justify why its fine in game to whack some orcs but the DM cries "Foul!" when players accidently harm an elf. Orcs are just slaves to Gruumsh, so nothing wrong with killing them. What next? Orcs are spawned from demons?

Shouldn't the same apply for drow since they were created Lolth, or at least modified by her? Shouldn't Drow lack any kind of free will, since Lolth is evil like Gruumsh?

[Sartharina]

So the bolded part means that adventurers are going out and killing slaves since all creatures made by evil gods are essentially slaves and means Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, Ogres, Giants, and Chromatic Dragons. So, being good means killing slaves? This feels like the designers trying to justify why its fine in game to whack some orcs but the DM cries "Foul!" when players accidently harm an elf. Orcs are just slaves to Gruumsh, so nothing wrong with killing them. What next? Orcs are spawned from demons?

Shouldn't the same apply for drow since they were created Lolth, or at least modified by her? Shouldn't Drow lack any kind of free will, since Lolth is evil like Gruumsh?Not slaves. Slaves still have free will, but outside forces try to artificially constrain it. Orcs have full 'free will' - they are just inherently inclined toward the 'wrong' thing species-wide, and the 'right' thing is never a considered alternative. They see 'being nice" as mentally-questionable as "Jumping off a bridge to try to take a piss on the king"

[Shining Wrath]

At the risk of setting off the whole "If the DM has to rule on anything the edition is broken" noise, the percentage of orcs who are chaotic evil is DM dependent.

Myself, I'm thinking about 80% are chaotic, about 80% are evil, so about 64% are CE. However, orcs (or elves, humans, flumphs, et cetera) of similar alignment tend to band together, so a particular tribe of orcs is probably going to be 80% one alignment. So the typical tribe will be 80% CE and the rest divided between CN and NE, with maybe 1% NN.

And a PC can be any alignment they want because PCs are always different.

[silveralen]

At the risk of setting off the whole "If the DM has to rule on anything the edition is broken" noise, the percentage of orcs who are chaotic evil is DM dependent.

If someone starts complaining about the DM making judgement calls for the setting, something has gone wrong.

[Eslin]

If someone starts complaining about the DM making judgement calls for the setting, something has gone wrong.

Not going to, everyone creates their own world, but it should be noted that how a monster appears in the MM is roughly analogous to RaW because it's the baseline/default. Which is why gnolls basically being fiends now annoys the crap out of me.

[silveralen]

Not going to, everyone creates their own world, but it should be noted that how a monster appears in the MM is roughly analogous to RaW because it's the baseline/default. Which is why gnolls basically being fiends now annoys the crap out of me.

Yeah, I file that under the bigger problem of wanting more "always evil" cannon fodder, except done in a really stupid way. Which annoys me greatly as well I must admit.

[Shining Wrath]

Not going to, everyone creates their own world, but it should be noted that how a monster appears in the MM is roughly analogous to RaW because it's the baseline/default. Which is why gnolls basically being fiends now annoys the crap out of me.

Eh, Gnolls have always been depraved killers in every setting I've seen. Non-evil orcs are a lot more common than gnolls, so far as I know.

What bothers me is the fluff text for humans about building to last and forming societies to do things in perpetuity that an elf or a dwarf might attempt alone - they, without thinking about it, are saying humans are the most lawful race, by a lot. Because nothing says "lawful" like forming organized groups with a common purpose and rules to help fulfill that purpose. It's pretty close to the definition.

Making gnolls fiends is a "meh" compared to making most humans lawful.

[silveralen]

That's a good point, the bit of fluff you quoted actually sounds very dwarfy, who I've always seen as mildly lawfully inclined.

[Sartharina]

What bothers me is the fluff text for humans about building to last and forming societies to do things in perpetuity that an elf or a dwarf might attempt alone - they, without thinking about it, are saying humans are the most lawful race, by a lot. Because nothing says "lawful" like forming organized groups with a common purpose and rules to help fulfill that purpose. It's pretty close to the definition.That's because, collectively, humans ARE the most lawful race. But individually, they are Neutral.

[Rater202]

That's because, collectively, humans ARE the most lawful race. But individually, they are Neutral.

3.5 Supplement Drow of the Underdark says that whilie the majority of Drow under Lolth's dominion are Chaotic Evil., there societies tend to balance out to Lawful Evil becuase their traditions of Evil and Chaos balance each other out to the point where the cities are relatively stable.

The book says it might be becuase Lolth is intervening to ensure that the drow that worship her don't whipe themselves out, but it does make sense form a logical perspective-if the birth rates are high enough, the percentage of murders and draow sacriced stay consistant, and the practises of "manipulating everyone, keeping your head down around those who could destroy you if proven a threat, and being parnoid as all hell when powerful" are widespread and beaten into ones head enough, then the populations should be raltivly stable, and with how long elves live, coulped wtith the aforementioned traditions, anyone who wants to shake up the status quo is either killed before they get the chance or has been waiting a long time to try it.

[hamishspence]

Eh, Gnolls have always been depraved killers in every setting I've seen. Non-evil orcs are a lot more common than gnolls, so far as I know.


3e's Races of the Wild discussed gnolls - and made it pretty clear that it was the cult of Yeenoghu that was primarily responsible for their evil tendencies - they had a god before him, Gorellik, who was a lot less nasty.

And Forgotten Realms's Harpers series had at least one novel focused on a Harper and a gnoll working together.

[RedMage125]

Keep in mind that the Campaign Setting was written before Obould started moving for peace with his neighbours.

That said, 4E Obould is an CE demigod in the 4E FRCS. So, even if he might have crossed the line into CN at some point, it didn't take.
I don't see why a shift to a non-evil alignment was even necessary as a part of the transition. Evil doesn't mean "unable to see that there's more to gain by peace than by savage war". The path he took was still the one that most benefitted him and the tribes under his control, and furthermore, cemented his legacy as one of the most famous orcs in existence (a form of immortality), which was certainly appealing to the ego. I see no issue with a Chaotic Evil Many-Arrows throughout his entire career.


Exactly. It explicitly posits the possibility of a good orc. Note too that the thing about free will being a gift of the gods is prefaced by an "according to myth" handwave, and that the very possibility of a good orc, struggling against his nature, *implies* free will to do so.
But he still has to "struggle against his nature". Gruumsh put Chaos and Evil into the very being of Orc. Every orc born into the world has Chaos and Evil in their hearts. Humans, Elves, and Dwarves do not. Those races ony have CULTURAL tendencies towards certain alignments (Lg for dwarves, for example). An orc raised from the moment of birth among NG humans still stands a better-than-average change of being CE.

They are a mortal race and have a sort of "free-will" in that they have cognitive minds and are not puppets of their gods, but having inborn tendencies at all (which is reminiscent of fiends, who are LITERALLY made of Evil), means that they don't have the same level of free-will as a human.

So they do have a modicrum of free will, but in the case of orcs it's a Nature>Nurture scenario most of the time, whereas races with true free will it's 100% Nurture>Nature

So the bolded part means that adventurers are going out and killing slaves since all creatures made by evil gods are essentially slaves and means Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, Ogres, Giants, and Chromatic Dragons. So, being good means killing slaves? This feels like the designers trying to justify why its fine in game to whack some orcs but the DM cries "Foul!" when players accidently harm an elf. Orcs are just slaves to Gruumsh, so nothing wrong with killing them. What next? Orcs are spawned from demons?

Shouldn't the same apply for drow since they were created Lolth, or at least modified by her? Shouldn't Drow lack any kind of free will, since Lolth is evil like Gruumsh?
Ummm...No?

They're not slaves, Evil gods made them to serve them. But they are inherently Evil. This, I think, was done to avoid the moral quandaries that have plagued some games of D&D for decades (is it morally acceptable to kill orc babies, for example). Evil races are now inherently evil. Not slaves, but born with Evil in their hearts that even being raised in a loving home and a nurturing environment probably won't breed out.

And Drow, as has been mentioned, were not created by Lolth, but were originally elves, a races created by Corellon Larethian. Lolth subverted some of them to her cause, and they became drow. Drow are culturally evil like dwarves are culturally Lawful Good

Eh, Gnolls have always been depraved killers in every setting I've seen. Non-evil orcs are a lot more common than gnolls, so far as I know.

Making gnolls fiends is a "meh" compared to making most humans lawful.
You made me re-check my MM, lol. I love gnolls. Love them. I had to check to see if I missed that and they were indeed not humanoids. Gnolls are humanoids with the (gnoll) subtype. A Fang on Yeenoghu is a gnoll who has been willingly made into a vessel of demonic possession and is a fiend. Most gnolls are not of the fiend type.


3e's Races of the Wild discussed gnolls - and made it pretty clear that it was the cult of Yeenoghu that was primarily responsible for their evil tendencies - they had a god before him, Gorellik, who was a lot less nasty.

And Forgotten Realms's Harpers series had at least one novel focused on a Harper and a gnoll working together.
That informed my perception of gnolls when I was world-building. In my world, I do have about 40% of gnolls as demon-worshipers. 55% of them, however, are more Primal Spirits/Nature-bonded...but still Evil. Aside from lycanthropes, gnolls make up the largest percentage of worshipers of my deity of Beasts, Slaughter, and Winter. These gnolls are also frequently evil rangers and druids.

The other 5% are the non-evil gnolls posited in Races of the Wild and the 4e "Playing Gnolls" article.

[silveralen]

That's because, collectively, humans ARE the most lawful race. But individually, they are Neutral.

Over dwarfs? Maybe dwarf fluff got changed when I wasn't looking, but aren't they still the race that really values tradition and order as a whole?

[Rater202]

Over dwarfs? Maybe dwarf fluff got changed when I wasn't looking, but aren't they still the race that really values tradition and order as a whole?

Dwarves are the most lawful Individually, but not as a culture. The fact that they'd do a generations long project by themselves is a very strong chaotic, individualistic bent, which balances out their lawfulness when placed on the cultural scale.

[Sartharina]

3e's Races of the Wild discussed gnolls - and made it pretty clear that it was the cult of Yeenoghu that was primarily responsible for their evil tendencies - they had a god before him, Gorellik, who was a lot less nasty.And 4e's "Playing Gnolls" overrides the previous 3.5 fluff (Which handled humanoids differently from 4e and 5e), where it stated that Gnolls were raised by abyssal voices in their heads. That said... there's still room for non-Yeenoghu gnolls in 5e. But the worship and enthrallment by Yeenoghu is an inherent quality (Much like sexual orientation), not a choice.


Over dwarfs? Maybe dwarf fluff got changed when I wasn't looking, but aren't they still the race that really values tradition and order as a whole?They value Tradition, but not Legacy. They look backward to the past, not forward to the future.

[silveralen]

They value Tradition, but not Legacy. They look backward to the past, not forward to the future.

Dwarves are the most lawful Individually, but not as a culture. The fact that they'd do a generations long project by themselves is a very strong chaotic, individualistic bent, which balances out their lawfulness when placed on the cultural scale.

I think someone changed what alignments meant when I wasn't looking.

So lawful is now about leaving a legacy (I guess? Really no idea how that's a thing), which one would assume is a requirement for valueing one's past accomplishments. Which still fits dwarfs so I'm confused. Do they have to ignore the legacy they were left to be lawful? They can't build on tradition? That doesn't make much sense. They value their ancestors greatly, won't that mean someday their descendants will invoke their names and deeds?

I'd also question about whether leaving a legacy is a lawful thing. Some lone wanderer who goes about slaying evil creatures hoping the bards will sing of him someday? He wants to leave a legacy, but could be chaotic as easily as lawful. If he goes about toppling despots to make the world a better place? He is leaving a legacy and is very firmly chaotic good.

Leaving a legacy means making an impact, that's a universal drive, most notably in humanity who has less time to make such an impact. That's what the section is discussing.

I'm also not entirely sure about the whole "doing projects on their own bit". It's only in the human section, has a might prefacing it, is only about a single example of guarding an area, and is there more to show (or handwave) humans as a dominant race despite mayfly like lifespans.

I think this is a case of reading to much into the text, in the alignment section they explcitly get called out as a large portion being neutral. That should really be a good indication.

Really everything about the dwarfs in the rulebooks screams lawful. Respect for traditions and ancestry, don't discard traditions lightly, honorable, loyalty to both indviduals and groups (their clan), etc. Being clanless is described as the worst fate for a dwarf. With again, the actual section on alignment backing it up.

Now this is all setting fluff so there is no right or wrong answer, but I don't think you quite got the context of these passages right, and to be honest I think you may be using a different definition of lawful than the authors.

[GiantOctopodes]

Lawful is actually about the valuation of laws, rules, or agreements. A lawful person would look at a child caught stealing a loaf of bread who was about to get his hand chopped off and say "well, that's the rules", because he feels that regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with any particular law, society as a whole functions better when those laws are followed. That is not to say that he might not petition to have that law changed, simply that he would not interfere in the punishment.

Chaotic is the opposite. You care about the individual situation, not about any agreement or rules or whatever else may apply. A Chaotic individual would gladly bring a concealed crossbow to a honor duel with swords, because ultimately he does not value the rules of the engagement. He might interfere with the aforementioned punishment, or double cross party members, or whatever else he feels is appropriate. Chaotic individuals can be guided by moral compasses, but those are strictly their own, and have at most a coincidental agreement with whatever laws or rules might supposedly bind their actions. Thus the term chaotic, because they are less predictable- just because they're supposed to do something doesn't mean that's what they're going to do, at least not merely because law or rule says they're supposed to.

Following the rules of your society is lawful. Breaking the rules of your society is chaotic. It can be argued that even seemingly chaotic cultures, such as Barbarians, are actually quite lawful, as merely because the idea that "might makes right" is the rules or laws of the society doesn't change the fact that following those established laws and traditions is lawful behavior. Orcs, similarly, act according to the tenants of their society, even if those are murder anyone you can get away with and obey anyone who can beat you up until you are strong enough to kill them.

Of course, this doesn't really cover the idea of someone who believes in following laws and rules, but recognizes corruption and evil within the laws of their society and thus breaks specifically those. They might still value laws and following them (a lawful tendency), but not the laws of this particular, evil society. Of course, I would still argue that such a character is neutral good, as they balance their interests between obeying laws and doing what is right, even if it is in defiance to laws.

[Jon D]

The point being that even in 5e, Drizzt will have the same history. So "check your privilege" arguments don't really make sense here.

They usually don't. And it's an asinine argument to make about a fictional character anyway.

[SiuiS]

Going by Forgotten Realms Lore, that curse was less "Make the Drow Drow" and make it "Drow Can't get into the Good Elf Afterlife No Matter What"

I'm not going by forgotten realms lore. I am going by "this is where drow came from way back in the day" lore, from the Dungeoneer's survival guide and prior.


My Realms Lore is iffy, but Eilistraee apparently allowed herself to be temporarily slain so that her followers and other good aligned Drow could be let in.

Ha! That's basically the character arc of my current PC. XD



If Drow can be cursed by one God, a Curse can be broken by an other, yes?

No. For one, Corellon is a more powerful deity than the others, and for two, it was a pantheon: the entire elven pantheon banished the evil elves, burnished their skin as a mark of shame, and sent them and their demon goddess into the underworld to rot. It's also possible and relatively common for gods to create curses and such they cannot themselves lift, as a sign of hubris. It's easier to mess everything up than to fix it.


This is touching on the real crux of the issue, lorewise, I think. Orcs and drow are both cursed to be evil by their gods, which is why most are.

That the narrative difference. Drow are badass fallen angels. Orcs are oppressed underdogs who can rise up.


5e doubled down on the connection Gruumsh has on his orcs - it's not so much him micromanaging his orcs as much as sticking a "KILL BURN RAPE PILLAGE MURDER ELVES!" recording stuck in their minds forever - they are intelligent, but have severely hampered free will. You could consider them all 'mentally ill' (But all your pity and sympathy for their affliction won't stop them from wanting and enjoying chopping your head off and violating your corpse) - and there are a few that are orc-insane and Nonevil instead.

If you try to raise an orc to be Good, it has the voice in its head pointing out every flaw you have in your lessons, and undermining everything you try to teach it - it doesn't become Gooder - it becomes Sneakier, and even more contemptuous of Good. Raising an orc to be Good and Decent is even more futile than trying to use words and/or beatings to cure Autism or Depression, and Books to try to cure Down Syndrome.

If you want to play an Orc, play as a Half-orc. With the official lore, they're the only ones with enough human-brand will to not be Chaotic Evil. If you break from official lore, you can refluff half-orcs to be full orcs.

Which is, honestly, the best way to handle it and keep the silly "T3H EVULZ!" Thing.


There's an easy explanation for non-evil orcs and drow; D&D deities are not infallible. So even though Lolth and Gruumsh did everything in their power when creating their races (or corrupting existing races to beget their races) to make them pure evil with a super sized order of evil fries, they screwed up (from their perspective) on a few, and these individuals lacked the "voice whispering in their heads", which I take as metaphor but YMMV. And some of them managed to survive and their "genes" (beware assuming DNA is the mode of transmission here, but whatever the transmission mechanism is between generations) are still in the racial mix, popping up here and there and leading to individual orcs / drow who break the mold, alignment-wise.

It's not even so much they are infallible as it requires constant reinforced micromanagement and a slightly stronger, but non boastful individual will fly right under the radar.


Lolth created jack ****, and none of the drow have the voice of evil thing going on.

The drow were once normal elves, created along with the rest, and since molded by the underdark. Lolth's influence over them is almost entirely cultural. Non evil drow should occur far more often than non evil orcs. (Of course, not many nonevil drow are likely to survive long)

No evil drow should occur much less frequently because they are constantly being shaped, as opposed to vectored for evil, let go and hoping for the best.

[Envyus]

Not slaves. Slaves still have free will, but outside forces try to artificially constrain it. Orcs have full 'free will' - they are just inherently inclined toward the 'wrong' thing species-wide, and the 'right' thing is never a considered alternative. They see 'being nice" as mentally-questionable as "Jumping off a bridge to try to take a piss on the king"

I just brought up that the most recent book containing non evil orcs came out in October. There is even a quote from the book in the monster manual.

[Dalebert]

A new player wanted to play and elf sorcerer in a one-shot last night, and it was just too painful from an optimization standpoint so we made her a drow. She was fine with it but the DM decided to make it a HUGE social problem. Taverns would clear out 75% when she walked in. We had to leave her behind to meet with the people who were sending us on our mission and we hid her for just about any non-combat interaction with NPCs.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A new player wanted to play and elf sorcerer in a one-shot last night, and it was just too painful from an optimization standpoint so we made her a drow. She was fine with it but the DM decided to make it a HUGE social problem. Taverns would clear out 75% when she walked in. We had to leave her behind to meet with the people who were sending us on our mission and we hid her for just about any non-combat interaction with NPCs.

So the DM, instead of making things easier, decided to complicate things and screw over a player?

I hope that player tries D&D again.

[RedMage125]

I agree with SpawnofMorbo. That seems unnecessarily harsh. Having NPCs be uncomfortable around a drow is one thing. It can create some interesting roleplaying opportunities. Making a player basically sit out is less fun for everyone. Making them deal with the consequences of playing a race that has a reputation for evil should be an opportunity for interaction, not a reason to shun and isolate someone.

On that note, I personally have a rule in campaign world regarding PC drow. No Driz'zt clones, even partial ones. No Drow PC came from the Underdark. There is a surface town, kind of remote, in my world where drow (both Good and Evil ones) who hated the Spider Queen and wanted out from under the thumb of the matriarchy fled and established a community where they had a truce not to mess with each other. The town also has a few humans, and some halflings as well (and quite a number of half-elves of drow descent). There's also one major city which, during a huge war (one of my old 3e games) had some help from those surface drow (disguised at the time as surface elves) to repel an enemy army of Underdark drow. The city opened it's doors to those saviors, and for generations, things were very tense and hostile. But it's been a few hundred years since that conflict, and the people of the city of Cyran have become accustomed to the ebon-skinned elves. Drow walk openly in Cyran, and people harbor no hostility towards them, there is even a significant minority of half-drow in the city. There's no need to worry about a servant of Lolth using that complacency against the city, because the drow residents would be the first ones to sniff that out and make that person disappear.

Drow PCs in my game MUST be from one of those 2 home locales. They were born on the surface, have never been to the Underdark, and have never even MET a servant of Lolth. Of course they've heard stories, and they know that most everywhere else, that reputation is what precedes them. What's kind of funny is that Tieflings have kind of a wary trust most places, but Cyran's also had trouble with fiend-worshipping cults, so the city that accepts drow without batting an eye treats tieflings like dirt, lol.

[Dalebert]

I agree with SpawnofMorbo.

So do I. I think he was being rather heavy-handed about it. I guess he is welcome to have the culture he wants for his world and it doesn't have to be a super politically-correct place. It was in fact a very racist place. Still, this was a one-shot and we had no idea what his world was We had to bang out a character for them while they were on their way over to play and Drow are explicitly a playable race in 5e.. He could have shown more leniency. DM's kind of new to the game but basically familiar with it. He's played the game before at least and I'd only played one game and knew those details well enough.

[JoeJ]

So the DM, instead of making things easier, decided to complicate things and screw over a player?

I hope that player tries D&D again.

I agree. If it doesn't make sense in a particular world for Drow PCs to be able to interact and be a part of the party in a way that's fun, then the DM should simply not allow them. It's much better to give a player their second choice than to screw them over for playing their first.