Rules Q&A Half Orcs VS Orcs [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 08:58 AM

Greetings fellow Greenskins!

Im trying to figure out why a Half Orc would be played instead of an Orc.

Pure Orc's seem better in comparison except for a few reasons

* Storywise: Not many Orcs would join up with Good aligned adventurers.
* Age: Half-Orcs Live 20 years longer in general
* Cool prestige / substitution classes

What am I missing?

Side question: How can I make an Orc live longer?

You're not missing anything; orcs are just better than half-orcs.

As for ways to live longer, Extended Life Span would work but it's epic only and it's also terrible. Wedded to History is good though! And there are also templates and classes that help. Cloud Anchorite, Beloved of Valarian, Dread Necromancer, Green Star Adept, Walker in the Wastes, Incantifier and Grim Scion all make you immune to aging; Thief of Life can be early-entried and makes you live longer as you kill people. Ruathar and Dragon Prophet increase your lifespan.

noce

2016-07-12, 09:11 AM

Half orcs can qualify for prestige classes and feats an orc can't. There's human blood in their veins afterall.

Most of those classes and feats are in Races of Destiny, including Human Heritage giving you the human subtype (you then also qualify for human feats and human prestige classes).

Half orc paragon is a good class, too. It lets you play a monk/bear-warrior and the like without alignment conflicts. Also, it's often seen in many intimidate builds (you can even go desert halforc for no cha penalty).

MisterKaws

2016-07-12, 09:23 AM

People have already pretty much answered your questions, so I'll just add something I think is important:

D&D Orcs are gray-skinned.

KillingAScarab

2016-07-12, 09:33 AM

If you're looking for an alternative "orc" there's sharakim from Races of Destiny. They're +1 level adjustment and have the human subtype.

1.less penalty to mental stats, and half-orc specifies your int can't go below 3.The rules specify you cannot generate a character with an intelligence below three. An Intelligence score of 1 or 2 is reserved for animal intelligence, while any creature with humanlike intelligence has an Intelligence score of 3 or higher, 3.5 PHB page 9. I also specifically remember in Masters of the Wild using INT as your half-orc's dump stat was specifically recommended by the author because you weren't allowed to go lower than 3 even with the penalty.

Pathfinder CRB pages 16 and 17 splits hairs, though, calling 1 or 2 reserved for animal instinct, and 3 or higher allows you to understand speech. CRB also says in the paragraph on bonus languages you can still understand your racial language if you have an INT penalty, unless your score is below 3.

As for ways to live longer...Green Star Adept...Well. Might want to check the Iron Chef thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?158633-Iron-Chef-Optimization-Challenge-VII) for that one. Good luck.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 10:11 AM

[QUOTE=KillingAScarab;20991099
Well. Might want to check the Iron Chef thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?158633-Iron-Chef-Optimization-Challenge-VII) for that one. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's good, but it does explicitly make you immune to death from old age.

KillingAScarab

2016-07-12, 10:22 AM

I'm not saying it's good, but it does explicitly make you immune to death from old age.You also get to stay green, if that's how you started. :smallamused:

Pugwampy

2016-07-12, 10:57 AM

From a fantasy world view. Orcs are evil monsters that rape and eat people and torture elves to death. Orcs cannot handle sunlight . Are rather dumb and few rules options . Peepel cities wont tolerate them so he is living in the bushes or a nice dark dungeon ruin.

From a tactical point of view . Half orcs are heroes who enjoy way lots more feat and rules options . Enjoy sunshine and not too stupid and can get past the front gates to a hoomun city which means temple healing , tavern ale and whores.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-12, 11:08 AM

Well, half-orcs are a core playable race and orcs are not. If your DM is core only or doesn't allow orcs, then half-orc is as close as you can get. (And orc is not first on the list of non-core races to allow for a lot of DMs--the +4 stat bonus is rather unbalancing and the role-playing difficulties are not something every DM wants to paper over or deal with either).

Also, in Pathfinder, half-orcs have a choose your own stat bonus with no mental stat penalties so they're actually an optimal choice for a number of classes.

eggynack

2016-07-12, 12:42 PM

Well, half-orcs are a core playable race and orcs are not. If your DM is core only or doesn't allow orcs, then half-orc is as close as you can get. (And orc is not first on the list of non-core races to allow for a lot of DMs--the +4 stat bonus is rather unbalancing and the role-playing difficulties are not something every DM wants to paper over or deal with either).

Orcs are totally a core playable race. They're right there, in the monster manual, which is a core book, with a level adjustment. They're not listed in the PHB, but that's definitely not the only core book.

Willie the Duck

2016-07-12, 12:45 PM

Freelancing for the pedants league are we? Half orcs are a standard player character race. Orcs are not. Few if any DMs are going to not let you play a half-orc. More than a few will ban orcs (or make it impossible for them to function in the society the PCs will have to move through). That's reason enough for half-orcs to exist (as if they needed a reason, it's not like all the races would be balanced if not for them).

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 12:49 PM

He's not being a pedant at all. The Monster Manual is a core book.

eggynack

2016-07-12, 01:00 PM

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-12, 01:14 PM

Yeah, I don't know how that can be considered a pedantic response when the claim was essentially a single premise, and my counterclaim was that the premise was simply false. There is no more essential argument than one that states that the opposing claim is 100% wrong on every level. If that other argument had been made, that this is a monster race and thus less usable, and had it been made alongside the core one, then sure, picking at one element of a broader argument could be plausibly considered pedantic (though I wouldn't consider it so, because it's still a fundamentally wrong thing, rather than something wrong due to word choice), but that wasn't the argument, and so it definitely wasn't pedantic. I'm not even really opposed to a good pedantic argument now and then, especially in a game like this that demands semantic and syntactical analysis so frequently. But this wasn't that.

Ooooh congratulations. You're so smart, accurately sniffing out the distinction between a core rulebook item and a player's handbook PC race. Obviously since orcs are in the core books, they must also be a core PC race and anyone who claims to be running a core only game will allow them. I'm sure every DM will bow down to that argument since it si obviously 100% right on every level.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 01:27 PM

Âmesang

2016-07-12, 01:42 PM

Alternatively there's SPELLJAMMER'S™ "Scro" race updated in DRAGON Magazine #339, page 30.

I'm not saying it's good, but it does explicitly make you immune to death from old age.
It's not easy being green. :smalltongue:

dysprosium

2016-07-12, 01:43 PM

::Sneaks in::

Psst. Orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) don't actually have a level adjustment.

::Sneaks out::

eggynack

2016-07-12, 01:45 PM

::Sneaks in::

Psst. Orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) don't actually have a level adjustment.

::Sneaks out::
Yes, they do. Look at the stat block. It's right there on the page you linked.

dysprosium

2016-07-12, 01:50 PM

Yes, they do. Look at the stat block. It's right there on the page you linked.

You mean the +0? That means no level adjustment.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 01:50 PM

::Sneaks in::

Psst. Orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) don't actually have a level adjustment.

::Sneaks out::

To clear up the ambiguity, they have a level adjustment of +0, making them suitable for use as a player race. That's distinct from having no level adjustment, read as Level Adjustment: -. In the latter case, they're considered unsuitable for use as a player race.

SethoMarkus

2016-07-12, 01:58 PM

::Sneaks in::

Psst. Orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) don't actually have a level adjustment.

::Sneaks out::

Edit: ninja'd (what I get for multiple tabs open...)

Yeah, LA+0 is different from no LA. LA of 0 implies it is a suitable PC race and is balanced with other PCs of the same class level (in theory). No LA means the race is not suitable for PCs.

Necroticplague

2016-07-12, 02:03 PM

Ooooh congratulations. You're so smart, accurately sniffing out the distinction between a core rulebook item and a player's handbook PC race. Obviously since orcs are in the core books, they must also be a core PC race and anyone who claims to be running a core only game will allow them. I'm sure every DM will bow down to that argument since it is obviously 100% right on every level.Yep. Orcs are explicitely suitable as a PC race, indicated by having both an LA, and an "Orcs as characters" section. Orcs are also unambiguously in core. Anyone running a core only game would include the book that orcs are in and shows them to be appropriate as player characters. So yes, that argument actually is 100% right on both levels it occurs (since, as far as I see, the two levels are 'in core' and 'suitable for PC', both of which are true)

Now, I expect a DM running core-only might ban them anyway, but that's due to the fact that "core-only" often means "with a poor sense of balance", so their bans are often incredibly arbitrary in nature, and has nothing to do with the Orc itself, or with it's status as either core or PC-appropriate.

Ashtagon

2016-07-12, 02:15 PM

People have already pretty much answered your questions, so I'll just add something I think is important:

D&D Orcs are gray-skinned.

I'll just leave this here.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--DPoUGIbKxI/TesW3cpVZ8I/AAAAAAAAHJ8/MuQdTgdlpBE/s1600/orcs.jpg

Willie the Duck

2016-07-12, 02:19 PM

Yeah, I don't know how that can be considered a pedantic response when the claim was essentially a single premise, and my counterclaim was that the premise was simply false. There is no more essential argument than one that states that the opposing claim is 100% wrong on every level. If that other argument had been made, that this is a monster race and thus less usable, and had it been made alongside the core one, then sure, picking at one element of a broader argument could be plausibly considered pedantic (though I wouldn't consider it so, because it's still a fundamentally wrong thing, rather than something wrong due to word choice), but that wasn't the argument, and so it definitely wasn't pedantic. I'm not even really opposed to a good pedantic argument now and then, especially in a game like this that demands semantic and syntactical analysis so frequently. But this wasn't that.

To clarify, I was trying to be a bit cheeky, not hurtful. However--

Your comment was 100% accurate and added 0% to the discussion. He was clearly inaccurate, but we all knew what he meant and could therefore move past it and get to the meat and potatoes of the discussion. Even adding a similar statement, such as "Well, MM is certainly core, but it isn't a PHB race, so...[something of substance and value afterwards]" would have been fine. Posting strictly to point out that inaccuracy both served no purpose, and made it look like you were moving this into competitive commenting. I'm not saying this is you, but no one likes the guy on the forum who seems like they are trying to 'win the internet' or whatever. It just stuck out, so I commented on the comment. I meant nothing greater or more broadly reaching than that.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-12, 02:23 PM

Again, he's right. They're a core race. They are not a Player's Handbook race. Because they have a published LA, they're suitable for use as a player race. None of this should be controversial.

I'm sure every DM won't agree with that, but there are tales of DMs banning gravity and thermodynamics.

What are you trying to accomplish?

I would think saying "no orcs" is a much more common game rule than "no gravity" or "no thermodynamics." The "they're in the monster manual, and the monster manual is a core book, therefore that makes them a core player race, so you can reasonably expect to be allowed to run an orc PC in any random game even ones labeled core" is pedantic idiocy of the worst kind.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-12, 02:26 PM

I would think saying "no orcs" is a much more common game rule than "no gravity" or "no thermodynamics." The "they're in the monster manual, and the monster manual is a core book, therefore that makes them a core player race, so you can reasonably expect to be allowed to run an orc PC in any random game even ones labeled core" is pedantic idiocy of the worst kind.

In my own experience DMs trying to ban laws of physics or chemistry is more common than banning orcs, save for the one D in high school who maintained that orcs were made-up fantasy monsters and thus too silly to use even as NPCs or cannon fodder (he also banned half-orcs). Otherwise I've never encountered a DM banning orcs (or gray elves).

eggynack

2016-07-12, 02:30 PM

Your comment was 100% accurate and added 0% to the discussion. He was clearly inaccurate, but we all knew what he meant and could therefore move past it and get to the meat and potatoes of the discussion.
I didn't really know what he meant. I mean, I get the underlying claim now, but at the time it was entirely couched in this concept that is common in these sorts of discussions, which is book limitation. Never really occurred to me that the issue would secretly be that it's a more monstrous race, or that races in the race category and races made that way by virtue of LA +0 (which I think of as really different from LA +1 or greater for these purposes) would be meaningfully different. Honestly, that latter especially is hard to wrap my head around even now. I guess you have to kinda search for them, or something? It's a distinction far more arbitrary and murky than one of book limitation, is what I'm saying. And, even if I did know what he was talking about, then couching this rather arbitrary point in what initially appears to be a far more solid point is a rather weird maneuver, and one plausibly worth pointing out. It's like saying, "That thing's operation is ambiguous per the RAW," when what is actually true, and what you actually mean, is, "I don't really like that thing, in spite of the fact that it definitely works." It could be worth making the lesser claim explicit in that case, and, by extension, in this one. Or, in other words, it'd make more sense to let the claim be if it were identical to the one it secretly and implicitly is in strength.

Edit:
I would think saying "no orcs" is a much more common game rule than "no gravity" or "no thermodynamics." The "they're in the monster manual, and the monster manual is a core book, therefore that makes them a core player race, so you can reasonably expect to be allowed to run an orc PC in any random game even ones labeled core" is pedantic idiocy of the worst kind.
You were presenting core only as the pertinent restriction, not me. If you wanted a second and different restriction that could plausibly stand in the way of you playing an orc, then your not listing that restriction, and only listing the incorrect core restriction, is your fault rather than mine. I'm not a mind reader. It's not my responsibility to divine the secret points you intended in your claims.

Necroticplague

2016-07-12, 02:32 PM

The "they're in the monster manual, and the monster manual is a core book, therefore that makes them a core player race, so you can reasonably expect to be allowed to run an orc PC in any random game even ones labeled core" is pedantic idiocy of the worst kind.

Er....How is that pedantic idiocy? That seems fairly straightforward and logical to me. Core games (e.g., games labelled core) include content from the core books. Orcs are in core. Ergo, orcs are in core games. Am I missing some detail here?

Beheld

2016-07-12, 02:37 PM

I would think saying "no orcs" is a much more common game rule than "no gravity" or "no thermodynamics." The "they're in the monster manual, and the monster manual is a core book, therefore that makes them a core player race, so you can reasonably expect to be allowed to run an orc PC in any random game even ones labeled core" is pedantic idiocy of the worst kind.

Uh.... No really, I've never met a single ****ing person who runs core only games and wouldn't let the PCs play any of the assorted Core races, such as Orcs, Grey Elves, Deep Halflings, ect.

MisterKaws

2016-07-12, 03:01 PM

I'll just leave this here.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--DPoUGIbKxI/TesW3cpVZ8I/AAAAAAAAHJ8/MuQdTgdlpBE/s1600/orcs.jpg

I'll just leave this here:

This creature looks like a primitive human with gray skin and coarse hair.
It has a stooped posture, low forehead, and a piglike face with prominent
lower canines that resemble a boar’s tusks.

No fun allowed.

LTwerewolf

2016-07-12, 03:06 PM

I've never once seen someone ban orcs in a core only game unless they want no evil races whatsoever.

ShurikVch

2016-07-12, 03:25 PM

People have already pretty much answered your questions, so I'll just add something I think is important:

D&D Orcs are gray-skinned.
Then why the Gray Orcs are called "Gray"? :smallconfused:

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-12, 03:33 PM

I've never once seen someone ban orcs in a core only game unless they want no evil races whatsoever.

And how common is a "no evil races" or a "PHB races only" restriction? Or something even more restrictive than that?

Since everyone's experience with home games is going to be different, it might be worth looking at organized play games for reference, of the major 3.0 and 3.5 organized play campaigns--Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, and Pathfinder Society, none of them generally allowed or generally allow orc PCs. (I don't remember about the Living Ebberon game but that was pretty short lived, Living City was primarily 2e and was phased out shortly after 3e, and Living Forgotten Realms was 4e and thus best forgotten as soon as possible. Living Greyhawk did have a couple rare certs/boons that would enable you to play orc characters but that was an exception--centaurs were more generally allowed. Arcanis allowed their version of tieflings and lizardmen but not orcs. PFS allows a wide variety of strange races but does not generally allow orcs and I've yet to see a boon allowing them as an exception either). Now, home games may be more or less restrictive than organized play games (my experience is really 50/50 in that regard) but the assumption that "oh yeah, it's D&D, orcs are always allowed as a player race" is way off base. Certainly if I were describing a game as "core only" it would mean that non-core races, feats, etc are not allowed, not that anything for which you can find a level adjustment hidden in a core rulebook is allowed. (It wouldn't mean that core rulebook exploits like fabricate for infinite wealth creation will be allowed either).

Perhaps we should just leave it with this:

In 3.0, 3.5, "you're not allowed to play an orc" is one time when half-orcs are better than orcs. This is not a terribly unusual restriction.

In Pathfinder, "you're not allowed to play an orc" is also one time when half-orcs are better than orcs. Also, pathfinder half orcs can be better than full orcs for classes that either don't run off strength or that benefit from secondary mental stats (pathfinder orcs have -2 Int, Wis, Cha) in addition to strength. (Paladin, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Bloodrager, and Magus are all examples of such classes).

Segev

2016-07-12, 03:53 PM

I'm not saying this is you, but no one likes the guy on the forum who seems like they are trying to 'win the internet' or whatever.

Harumph! Clearly it isn't him! I win the internet! ME! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

Troacctid

2016-07-12, 04:22 PM

2. Light Sensitivity is a pretty big downside.Especially since it makes your vulnerable to some spells that do extra damage against sunlight-vulnerable creatures.
Light sensitivity really isn't a problem. You can get a cheap pair of sunglasses for 10 gp and negate the penalty. Or just go dragonborn.

Ashtagon

2016-07-12, 04:34 PM

I've never once seen someone ban orcs in a core only game unless they want no evil races whatsoever.

I take it you've never heard of Dragonlance?

For that matter, does Talislanta have orcs? I know that setting has no elves.

LTwerewolf

2016-07-12, 04:51 PM

I take it you've never heard of Dragonlance?

For that matter, does Talislanta have orcs? I know that setting has no elves.

I've seen people playing orcs more often in dragonlance than any other setting actually. People get far more interested in playing something if it's supposed to be gone.

Darth Ultron

2016-07-12, 05:25 PM

Im trying to figure out why a Half Orc would be played instead of an Orc.

What am I missing?

Well, half-orcs have cool feats and classes and such....depending on what you think is cool.

The big reason is the social one ''in game''. People can accept a ''half monster'' a lot easier then ''a monster''.

And most settings, including the default setting have the history of orcs interbreeding with humans to make half orcs in raids.

MisterKaws

2016-07-12, 05:34 PM

Then why the Gray Orcs are called "Gray"? :smallconfused:

Because they have more shades of gray in their bodies than normal Orcs.

And like to use whips...

Necroticplague

2016-07-12, 05:50 PM

Light sensitivity really isn't a problem. You can get a cheap pair of sunglasses for 10 gp and negate the penalty. Or just go dragonborn.

Or just suck it up. It's only a -1 to spot, search, and attack. The attack is compensated for by their STR bonus for melee, they aren't usually gonna be the ones tasked with with those skills anyway. I thought it was more crippling when I mis-read and thought it dazed you instead of dazzling.

eggynack

2016-07-12, 06:01 PM

Or just suck it up. It's only a -1 to spot, search, and attack. The attack is compensated for by their STR bonus for melee, they aren't usually gonna be the ones tasked with with those skills anyway. I thought it was more crippling when I mis-read and thought it dazed you instead of dazzling.
It's not meaningless, given that you're using the race in large part for that point of attack. Fortunately, as was noted, dragonborn represents a nearly strict upgrade. The only positive ability is darkvision, and if you really care so much about that you can just take the mind aspect, and get the ability back with interest. Thus, the template is only at all problematic if you value dexterity over constitution, and constitution is better, or at least even, in most circumstances.

Pugwampy

2016-07-12, 06:10 PM

People have already pretty much answered your questions, so I'll just add something I think is important:

D&D Orcs are gray-skinned.

I think that happened when Lord of the Rings movie trilogy came out .

Liquor Box

2016-07-12, 08:08 PM

Beheld

2016-07-12, 08:35 PM

In most published DnD fantasy settings Orcs are generally seen by human society as evil monsters. I doubt Orcs would be allowed in cities, even in the company of non-orcs. Alone, adventurers may kill them on sight. Half-orcs may be seen in a slightly better light - although there is still prejudice against them, at least they will be grudgingly allowed into most establishments. I think it is important not to handwave this aspect of fantasy society - if a person wants to play a race like drow or orc, or even a druid with an animal companion, they should have to deal with the roleplay drawbacks as well as the mechanical ones.

Also (and perhaps for the reasons set out above), half-orcs are presented as a playable race. Orcs are a monster race that can be used as a playable race. Quite possibly, the reasons set out above was the whole reason why the half orc race was created.

As I'm sure black people can tell you, when the problem is that the people you want to deal with are racist, being half doesn't seem to help much.

According to this wizards article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20050809a Highport has a population of more orcs than half orcs, so at least one city in living Greyhawk isn't unjustifiably racist. Personally, I and the people I game with like to downplay the weird unjustifiable racism that some D&D books lay out.

Liquor Box

2016-07-12, 09:20 PM

As I'm sure black people can tell you, when the problem is that the people you want to deal with are racist, being half doesn't seem to help much.

According to this wizards article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20050809a Highport has a population of more orcs than half orcs, so at least one city in living Greyhawk isn't unjustifiably racist. Personally, I and the people I game with like to downplay the weird unjustifiable racism that some D&D books lay out.

I don't think "racism" (its not racism, as the orcs are seperate species of humanoid) against other species who the game system specifies as being usually chaotic evil is comparable to racism against different ethnicities of the human species who (presumably in the opinion of you and I) no more or less prone toward evil than anyone else.

You may or may not agree with the proposition that because the rules specify orcs as being usually evil that justifies prejudice against orcs. But whether it is justified or not, such prejudice exists in most canon DnD worlds. A clear example is Order of the Stick itself, where the good-aligned party kill goblins on sight.

As to Highport, the very article you link makes it clear that it is the exception rather than the norm, as follows:

Highport is the most populous city in the so-called Orcish Empire of the Pomarj. A squalid, stinking port of some 15,000 souls, it is the gateway to the northern plains of the Pomarj and the fearsome Drachensgrab Hills. Highport has long been a haven for pirates, slavers and scum of all sorts. Cold-blooded mercenaries offer their sword arms to the highest bidder here, while privateer captains gamble away their ill-gotten gold, stained as it is with the blood of innocents. By day, unscrupulous traders throng its markets, trafficking in slaves and contraband. By night, orcs, goblinkin and some say even the ebon-skinned drow make the streets their own. Temples to fell gods such as Nerull, Incabulos, Gruumsh and the enigmatic Earth Dragon thrive here. Life in the City of Chains is often short, brutal and - above all - cheap

Greyhowk itself has half orcs, but no orcs "Humans (OSfbr) 79%, halflings (lightfoot) 9%, gnomes 5%, elves (sylvan) 3%, dwarves 2%, half-elves 1%, half-orcs 1%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Greyhawk

From forgotten realms Neverwinter has half orcs and no orcs "Mostly humans, some elves, half-elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings and half-orcs" http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Neverwinter

As for you preferring to downplay the prejudice (not racism) which you acknowledge as part of the DnD rules, fair enough that's a perfectly reasonable way to play. But the original question was why anyone would choose an half-orc over an orc. My post is a reasonable answer to that question in the context of the standard way to play the game.

nyjastul69

2016-07-13, 01:45 AM

Beheld

2016-07-13, 02:37 AM

Are you sure black people would claim that? You'll need to cite a source to convince me.

This is sort of completely off topic, so it isn't really a topic I want to go in depth to, but are you joking or serious? For starters, the fact that the Jim Crow United States had a thing called the "One-Drop Rule" should pretty conclusively answer that question, and you can see plenty of other examples, including Nazi classifications of Jews. Best case scenario, Half-X where the X is the oppressed race is just going to be oppressed as a member of X.

Âmesang

2016-07-13, 07:37 AM

I think Orogs are a decent D&D representation of Uruk-Hai...
I always liked the Orc Paragon for that due to their lack of light sensitivity and other benefits. Puts in my mind the thought of the race being "perfected," at least to reference the film version.

Willie the Duck

2016-07-13, 11:25 AM

Uh.... No really, I've never met a single ****ing person who runs core only games and wouldn't let the PCs play any of the assorted Core races, such as Orcs, Grey Elves, Deep Halflings, ect.

That's insightful to your perspective, but I don't think it's reflective of the gaming culture as a whole. There are certainly people who wanted to port their 1e and 2e games over into this new (at the time) edition, but not change basics like what races were available. Some games allow orcs, some allow half orcs, but not orcs, and some allow water orcs, tieflings, and dragonborn. It takes all kinds.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-13, 11:36 AM

I take it you've never heard of Dragonlance?

For that matter, does Talislanta have orcs? I know that setting has no elves.

Pretty much as soon as you put a game into a world that's popular enough to have its own campaign setting published, it stops being core-only. That's doubly true when the world requires the use of non-core mechanics. How would you play Eberron games without dragonmarks or warforged? What makes Dragonlance Dragonlance if it doesn't have lunar magic or the Test? If you don't have the book, you'll have to homebrew it, and now you're out of the realm of Core-only.

So yeah, I will agree that half-orcs are better than orcs if orcs are banned. But that's not a mechanical reason, that's a getting-along-with-your-DM reason.

Necroticplague

2016-07-13, 12:10 PM

nyjastul69

2016-07-13, 12:18 PM

Greetings fellow Greenskins!

Im trying to figure out why a Half Orc would be played instead of an Orc.

Pure Orc's seem better in comparison except for a few reasons

* Storywise: Not many Orcs would join up with Good aligned adventurers.
* Age: Half-Orcs Live 20 years longer in general
* Cool prestige / substitution classes

What am I missing?

Side question: How can I make an Orc live longer?

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it's all I got. In the game I'm currently playing in someone was rolling a 1/2 orc barbarian. I suggested a full orc as a better choice, unless there is significantly more racial bias against orcs. At this point we turned to the DM and he assured us that orcs would be treated demonstrably worse than 1/2 orcs. The player wisely chose playing the 1/2 orc.

ShurikVch

2016-07-13, 12:46 PM

In most published DnD fantasy settings Orcs are generally seen by human society as evil monsters. I doubt Orcs would be allowed in cities, even in the company of non-orcs. Firstly, Eberron (which become quite popular recently) don't have any problems with orcs (in general); actually, majority of Gatekeepers are orcs or half-orcs; House Tharashk works with orcs

Secondly, Al-Qadim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qadim#Important_concepts):
Zakhara's society is made up mainly of humans, but demihumans such as elves and dwarves are present in the setting as well, as well as humanoids such as orcs, goblinoids, and ogres. Unlike most settings, there is practically no racial disharmony in Zakhara: humans, elves, and orcs alike share the same culture, lifestyle, and social status, and races traditionally considered evil savages, such as goblins, are instead valued members of society. The nomadic Al-Badia are predominantly human, whereas the Al-Hadhar possess greater diversity. The nomads and city-dwellers, humans and non-humans alike are all united as a single culture under a single religion (a polytheistic pastiche of Islam) and as subjects of the caliph; the entire continent is effectively a single empire, although different regions, city-states, and tribes have unique local cultures.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-13, 12:59 PM

This is sort of completely off topic, so it isn't really a topic I want to go in depth to, but are you joking or serious? For starters, the fact that the Jim Crow United States had a thing called the "One-Drop Rule" should pretty conclusively answer that question, and you can see plenty of other examples, including Nazi classifications of Jews. Best case scenario, Half-X where the X is the oppressed race is just going to be oppressed as a member of X.

Not really true. Jim Crow US had the "one drop rule" but there were quite a few people who were able to "pass." That's an option that you might or might not have depending upon your ancestry and how your genes happened to be expressed but I think that people with less African ancestry were more likely to be able to do so if they wanted to. (Whether they should want to or not is another question fraught with controversy, but in D&D, a half-orc (or half-elf for that matter) is going to have an easier time "passing" for human than a full orc (and an easier time passing for a full orc than a human would). That's true of the Nazi example too. Himmler's half-brother was part Jewish but the Nazis were apparently unaware of that and my understanding is that he was not persecuted for his jewish ancestry.

And in a lot of other countries, "halfs", "coloreds", or "mulattos" had their own (officially or unofficially) acknowledged caste. In Haiti and the Carribean, it made a big difference whether you were "Colored" or "black." Likewise, in Apartheid era South Africa, "Colored" was actually a legal description distinct from black.

Bottom line, human history does not support the proposition that Half-X will always be as persecuted as Full-X even in officially (rather than merely socially) unequal societies. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes it won't be.

Not that it's really relevant anyway. The analogue to various human races in D&D/Pathfinder is the various human races in the setting, not humanoid/demi-humans. In Golarion, humans from Mwangi is the appropriate analogue, not orcs from the Belzen hordes. Unless you really want to argue that different human races were created by different gods and have different stat modifiers and alignment proclivities.

Beheld

2016-07-13, 01:22 PM

but in D&D, a half-orc (or half-elf for that matter) is going to have an easier time "passing" for human than a full orc

They would have the same chance, Zero Percent and Zero Percent are pretty similar. These (https://mikemonaco.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/35ehalford.jpg) are (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/70/63/b0/7063b023d3a726658ea583b9da226f8d.jpg) D&D Half Orcs. Absent Disguise Self, ain't nobody going to get confused.

Not that it's really relevant anyway. The analogue to various human races in D&D/Pathfinder is the various human races in the setting, not humanoid/demi-humans. In Golarion, humans from Mwangi is the appropriate analogue, not orcs from the Belzen hordes. Unless you really want to argue that different human races were created by different gods and have different stat modifiers and alignment proclivities.

Unjustified racism is unjustified racism. If Orcs come more often from evil cultures, that doesn't make prejudice or murder of every orc you see somehow not unjustified racism. If Orcs are on average less intelligent than the average human, that doesn't make treating every orc you see like an idiot any dumber than blanket bans on women in the army or as cops because "on average women don't have as much upper body strength." Declaring that you should treat every member of a race as evil, even if they aren't evil, because they are a member of a race that is more likely than average to be evil is pretty much text book racism.

The main distinguishing characteristic is that in the real world when someone claims a race is more likely to be evil, they are definitely wrong if they are talking about anything besides culture, whereas in D&D it is unclear if usually evil races are usually evil because of cultural or biological factors, but in either case, it doesn't make lumping every orc into one big classification that they don't all fit in justified.

Willie the Duck

2016-07-13, 02:52 PM

I don't really think it makes sense to compare the two under the situation of being banned. It's not that half-orcs are better than orcs when orcs are banned. The orc is still better, it's just not an option.

At that point, we have to start asking the question, "better at what?"

My time trial bike allows me to consistently move at higher speeds than my race legal bike. From that perspective, it is objectively better. To the question of which bike is better at me winning a race, the answer is my race legal one.

In an open ended thread with the initial question , "I[']m trying to figure out why a Half Orc would be played instead of an Orc," the factor of an orc's availability/legitimate use at one's game table is pertinent.

Liquor Box

2016-07-13, 05:03 PM

This is sort of completely off topic, so it isn't really a topic I want to go in depth to, but are you joking or serious? For starters, the fact that the Jim Crow United States had a thing called the "One-Drop Rule" should pretty conclusively answer that question, and you can see plenty of other examples, including Nazi classifications of Jews. Best case scenario, Half-X where the X is the oppressed race is just going to be oppressed as a member of X.

That's certainly not universally the case.

In Australia in the 19th century they had one set of laws for whites, one set of laws for aboriginees and another set of laws for half white half aboriginees (the Half Caste Act).

So, at least in that case (and probably in many others), half-X was not as oppressed as a member of X.

Undoubtedly there was still prejudice against half-aboriginees, and undoubtedly there would still be prejudice against half-orcs. But not the same degree of prejudice.

So an advantage of playing a half-orc over an orc is that you wouldn't suffer the same degree of prejudice. People would look down on you and probably see you as less because you are a half-orc, some people may shun you. But as pointed out above, half-orcs can still live in most human cities (where full orcs wouldn't usually be allowed in). The can enter inns, trade with merchants, get healing at the temple, and meet with the city officials who are the quest givers. Very likely an orc wouldn;t be able to do any of these things.

If you play differently, so be it, but in standard campaigns this is a very good reason not to play an orc.

Edit: Scrolled down and saw that Elder Basilisk had already made my point, but with different examples.

Liquor Box

2016-07-13, 05:18 PM

They would have the same chance, Zero Percent and Zero Percent are pretty similar. These (https://mikemonaco.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/35ehalford.jpg) are (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/70/63/b0/7063b023d3a726658ea583b9da226f8d.jpg) D&D Half Orcs. Absent Disguise Self, ain't nobody going to get confused.

Whether the pass for human or not, they are still more accepted (even if still discriminated against). They are still able to inhabit human cities, and orcs generally are not.

Unjustified racism is unjustified racism. If Orcs come more often from evil cultures, that doesn't make prejudice or murder of every orc you see somehow not unjustified racism. If Orcs are on average less intelligent than the average human, that doesn't make treating every orc you see like an idiot any dumber than blanket bans on women in the army or as cops because "on average women don't have as much upper body strength." Declaring that you should treat every member of a race as evil, even if they aren't evil, because they are a member of a race that is more likely than average to be evil is pretty much text book racism.

The main distinguishing characteristic is that in the real world when someone claims a race is more likely to be evil, they are definitely wrong if they are talking about anything besides culture, whereas in D&D it is unclear if usually evil races are usually evil because of cultural or biological factors, but in either case, it doesn't make lumping every orc into one big classification that they don't all fit in justified.

As to you last paragraph, that's exactly the point. The rules state that orcs are usually evil - that means that they themselves are evil at an individual level, whatever the cause of that evil. Most people accept that races of humans are a different story and none are any more likely than any other to be evil at an individual level. For that reason prejudice (again not racism, they are not a different race) against orcs is not analogous to racism against humans. If anything it is more analogous to prejudice against chimpazees, and entirely different (but still related) species.

The rest of your argument is not unreasonable but is idealistic. Maybe people should give each individual orc a chance to prove whether it is evil or stupid before judging it. But that is not how most humans would react - we know this from the real world where people are prejudice even when there is no inherent difference in tendencies toward evil or intelligence (so presumably the prejudice would be markedly more pronounced where there are such differences). It is also imbedded in the 3.5 rules.

You may choose to cut prejudice against other species out of your games. Personally, I think that even if you oppose such speciesism you should leave it in the game, but paint it as something to be disapproved of. But even if you do prefer to cut it out, it is part of the standard game per the rules. So it is a perfectly valid reason not to choose an orc in most game worlds.

Liquor Box

2016-07-13, 05:25 PM

Firstly, Eberron (which become quite popular recently) don't have any problems with orcs (in general); actually, majority of Gatekeepers are orcs or half-orcs; House Tharashk works with orcs

Secondly, Al-Qadim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qadim#Important_concepts):

Yeah, I saw that Eberron treats orcs differently. So my reason for not selecting an orc wont apply if you play in that world.

Necroticplague

2016-07-13, 05:27 PM

At that point, we have to start asking the question, "better at what?"

My time trial bike allows me to consistently move at higher speeds than my race legal bike. From that perspective, it is objectively better. To the question of which bike is better at me winning a race, the answer is my race legal one.
Except here's the thing: you wouldn't even be including your time trial bike in that comparison of "which of my bikes is best for racing", because it's not an option. A comparison between two choices implies that one is able to take either choice. Otherwise not really a choice.

Âmesang

2016-07-13, 05:27 PM

Would it be analogous to prejudice against neanderthals? Even now they're still seen by the general populace as rock-stupid.

Necroticplague

2016-07-13, 05:44 PM

I don't think "racism" (its not racism, as the orcs are seperate species of humanoid) against other species who the game system specifies as being usually chaotic evil is comparable to racism against different ethnicities of the human species who (presumably in the opinion of you and I) no more or less prone toward evil than anyone else.
1.Orcs and humans aren't different species. Given how they can produces fertile offspring, that, by definition, makes them the same species.
2.Orcs aren't "usually chaotic evil". They're 'often chaotic evil'. This is the absolute weakest of alignment preferences there is beyond 'none' (with 'usually X' and 'always X' being much stronger (though note that, despite the name, always isn't 100%, as shown by the paladin demon))

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-13, 06:04 PM

1.Orcs and humans aren't different species. Given how they can produces fertile offspring, that, by definition, makes them the same species.

That is not the case. I point you as an example to the European edible frog, a fertile hybrid of marsh frogs and pool frogs, and a taxonomically distinct species.

The example of the edible frog, the spined loach and other fertile hybrids suggests that half-orcs and half-elves reproduce by hybridogenesis. Half of the genetic material is passed on via cloning, the other half sexually from the second parent. So a half-orc and a half-orc would be unable to reproduce, but a half-orc and an orc or a half-orc and a human would. The resulting spawn would be either fully orcish or fully human. Quite what this says about reproduction attempts between a half-elf and a half-orc, I'm not sure.

If half-orcs/elves are more like skuas or flies than frogs or fish, then it's possible that half-orcs are just a fully fertile natural hybrid. That's where I'd lean to, though the hybridogenesis theory is more interesting to me and really reinforces the natural tragic narratives of the two races.

As is, all we can say is that humans, orcs and elves probably have the same number of chromosomes.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-13, 06:28 PM

1.Orcs and humans aren't different species. Given how they can produces fertile offspring, that, by definition, makes them the same species.
2.Orcs aren't "usually chaotic evil". They're 'often chaotic evil'. This is the absolute weakest of alignment preferences there is beyond 'none' (with 'usually X' and 'always X' being much stronger (though note that, despite the name, always isn't 100%, as shown by the paladin demon))

0.5 Trying to achieve a modern biological understanding of D&D races is probably as bad an idea as trying to apply the laws of physics to magic. There's no indication that consistency with modern biological definitions is even a design goal, much less that we should assume it was achieved. In fact, there's no indication that the default ruleset even assumes that modern biology is true in the default setting. In most setting materials, the creation myths are implied to be true which would render the theory of (macro)evolution by natural selection irrelevant. The disease section assumes that nearly all species are similarly vulnerable to the same diseases (which is certainly not true in real life).

You might as well argue that Spock and Worf indicate that humans, vulcans and klingons are all one species in Star Trek rather than that they indicate the Star Trek writers weren't particularly interested in biological accuracy.

1. It's a common popular definition of species but it's not entirely precise.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41 lists species as "group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions." The "in nature" is potentially significant for this discussion. It's also significant that the article (and indeed most scholarly discussions of "species") admit that the definition while accepted has a lot of problematic areas where there it is not clear whether some creatures are one species or two or where the usage of the term does not quite fit the definition. Modern humans and neanderthals are considered different species despite strong evidence for interbreeding. Likewise, dogs and wolves are separate species despite interbreeding quite well.

1.5. Both 3.x and pathfinder assign different subtypes to humans and orcs. This indicates that as far as magic is concerned (bane weapons, etc) they are separate species.

There's plenty of reason to think that humans, orcs and elves are separate species in 3.x and pathfinder despite the apparent ability to interbreed. They have dramatically different physical and mental characteristics and natural lifespans. They have different behavior patterns. And in most settings, they also maintain distinct communities with limited interbreeding.

(And since none of the core materials go into any detail on the interbreeding, we don't even know for sure that half-orcs and half-elves are generally fertile or that interbreeding is generally successful. We only know that it can be successful, not that orc+human fertility is even remotely similar to human+human fertility. If we go back to prior editions, one could argue that the precedent of Darksun Muls indicates that they would have told us if half-orcs and half-elves were completely infertile, but that's an argument from silence. AD&D might have had some tables about that kind of thing too but AD&D and 2e had a lot of rules that don't apply anymore. I expect that's a DM and setting call).

2. Often Chaotic Evil is still a significant difference from humans "any" or elves "usually Chaotic Good." Given how badly most humans have behaved throughout most of the world and most of history while still (apparently) meriting "any" rather than "often neutral evil" it appears that the standards are pretty generous too.

Beheld

2016-07-13, 08:15 PM

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-13, 11:17 PM

1) Orc is a race. That is a thing it is. By definition, prejudice against orcs is racism, because that is what racism means. You can make all sorts of arguments that it is different from racism against black people, some of them are even true, but it's still racism to be prejudice against a member of a race for them being that race.

Most people also add the following bit to their definition of racism: it is irrational and it is wrong.

And that's the problem with porting all your emotional reactions to real world scenarios into a fantasy world where there are things that people don't generally encounter in the real world. You can shout all you want about "orc is listed under race, therefore judging them is, ipso facto, racism." But one of the reasons that racism is generally thought to be wrong in the real world (well, at least in Europe and in the Americas north of the Rio Grande) is that there is not a genuine moral difference between races. Many people will go on to say that there is not a genuine intellectual difference either. In D&Dland there are all sorts of intelligent, sentient creatures that exhibit dramatic moral, intellectual, etc differences from humans (who as I previously alluded to are not exactly known for our good behavior despite not being saddled with any tendency towards evil alignments. Presumably, therefore any race with even "often" evil in their alignment entry is noticeably more evil than the human average throughout history. If you stop and think about what the historical human norm is, the prospect that there are worse creatures out there is pretty frightening).

Someone who does not treat derro, ghouls, illithids, demons, chromatic dragons, drow, etc differently than humans in a default D&D setting (note that Ebberon is dissimilar to the default D&D setting regarding several of these creatures) is not an enlightened person with better morals than anyone else, they're a blithering idiot who is about to have their brain sucked out or eaten/sacrificed/enslaved along with anyone who was relying on them for protection. (And I can't see that the distinction between humanoid and other creature types is particularly important here. They're different species of intelligent and sentient beings. That they may have other descriptors in addition to race is simply an artifact of game terminology--just like the choice to describe character species as "races.") And once we've decided that there's nothing wrong with a paladin assuming that a demon is up to no good, we've already decided that the "racism/prejudice is always wrong" frame of reference is not a useful one in a D&D world regardless of its moral utility in the real world. And that's why "Racism" is not a good word for it. If you go applying "racism" to every species difference in a fantasy world, you cheapen the moral vocabulary.

Now how that relates to orcs is going to vary from setting to setting. In Ebberon, there is not really a moral difference between orcs, humans, and elves. In Middle Earth, orcs don't even have actual moral agency at all. Greyhawk and Golarion are somewhere in between those two but tend to lean towards the "it's not rational to treat orcs the same as humans" category. (Note that it all these settings it is rational to treat all humans as humans). I'm not about to go off and yell, "you horrible evil racist" at every one of the many DMs who don't allow orcs as player characters in their games.

Necroticplague

2016-07-13, 11:51 PM

Why would they need to be treated differently if they haven't committed an actual wrong? Yes, an illithid committing murder to feed itself is wrong. However, you can treat him the same way you treat anyone else who commits murder. Nobody has any particular reason to complain if is simply subsists on the minds of livestocks. Any sensible method judging people judges them for what they've done or are doing, not what they might do. If they have an INT greater than 3, they're sapient (Not sentient. Everything brighter than a sponge is sentient). If they're sapient, they can be reasoned with. If they can be reasoned with, they can be integrated into a society. So yeah, different creatures might have different proportions of them that don't integrate into society, but it doesn't follow that the ones who do should be punished.

EDIT: Not to mention the impracticality of treating others like crap can very well come back to bite you. Why make enemies of people who might not need to be such? You talk about being a fool who's about to get [various forms of killed], but isn't that LESS likely to happen if you don't actively antagonize everyone who's not like you? If you don't have anything to offer that acts as a strong enough incentive to prevent such actions, you're not in a sufficient position of power to support your speceism/racism in a practical way.

Beheld

2016-07-14, 12:31 AM

And that's the problem with porting all your emotional reactions to real world scenarios into a fantasy world

If you stop and think about what the historical human norm is, the prospect that there are worse creatures out there is pretty frightening).

Do you see why I put these next to each other?

Someone who does not treat derro, ghouls, illithids, demons, chromatic dragons, drow, etc differently than humans in a default D&D setting

I would treat Orcs the same way I treat white US southerners, since the approximate ratio of evil orcs to evil white southerners is the same, and the are probably evil for the same reasons.

Certainly treating Demons differently makes sense, Demons are biologically evil, and can kill you on a moments notice. when 99.99999% of a given subset fall into a category, and the punishment for giving them a chance is death, you have to act based on percentages. But when 40% of orcs are good or neutral, and 90% of them are not able to kill more than a couple people if you let them into town, you really don't have the justification to treat them any differently than humans.

Liquor Box

2016-07-14, 12:34 AM

Necroticplague says Why would they need to be treated differently if they haven't committed an actual wrong? Yes, an illithid committing murder to feed itself is wrong. However, you can treat him the same way you treat anyone else who commits murder. Nobody has any particular reason to complain if is simply subsists on the minds of livestocks. Any sensible method judging people judges them for what they've done or are doing, not what they might do. If they have an INT greater than 3, they're sapient (Not sentient. Everything brighter than a sponge is sentient). If they're sapient, they can be reasoned with. If they can be reasoned with, they can be integrated into a society. So yeah, different creatures might have different proportions of them that don't integrate into society, but it doesn't follow that the ones who do should be punished.

I see others have already responded to your point regarding whether orcs are or are not a seperate species.

To answer your question:

Illithids should be treated differently to humans because there is a very high chance that a random encounter with an illithid (in most settings) will result in death, whereas there is a much lower percentage chance that a random encounter with a human (in most settings) will result in death.

A real world analogy is whether you would treat a tiger you encountered randomly differently to a human you encountered. Of course you would treat the tiger differently because it is far more likely to attack you (not certain, but more likely). That's even if you had no prior knowledge of whether that particular tiger had killed people - in fact even if you were aware that it had not.

In the context of this thread, we are not discussing killing orcs on sight - we are discussing whether people should be wary of them.

I know the tiger is different from the illithid because one is sapient and one is not - but so what (again, we are not talking about punishment)? That is not relevant, what is relevant is whether they are likely to be hostile or not.

Beheld said1) Orc is a race. That is a thing it is. By definition, prejudice against orcs is racism, because that is what racism means. You can make all sorts of arguments that it is different from racism against black people, some of them are even true, but it's still racism to be prejudice against a member of a race for them being that race.

2) Arabic people are more likely to Muslim than other people, that correlation is much stronger than the correlation between orcs and being chaotic evil. But none the less, if you accepted that banning Muslim immigration was a thing that was acceptable, it would not follow that banning Coptic Christians from immigrating because they are Arabic is justified. 40% of Orcs are as smart or smarter than the average human, this really isn't the percentage to start talking about how your racism is justified because the race is more likely to be X.

1) Here is a link to the SRD page for orcs. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm. Where does it say that it's a race? I understand that it is sometimes referred to as a race, but it is also sometimes referred to as a monster. What distinguishes orcs and makes them a race (other than causal reference) from say a dragon, or a leopard?

Also, Elder Basilisk's point stands

2) In your analogy, you are asking us to assume that banning muslims is acceptable, but it is not. The problem with trying to draw an analogy between real world racism or profiling and prejudice against monster, is that monsters are demonstrably (by the rules) more likely to have negative qualities, whereas most people see real world races as not having clearly negative qualities relative to each other.

Only 16% of orcs are both as intelligent and as wise as an average human. A much smaller percentage (which cannot be stated because the rules are non-specific, but we are talking below 4%) are as smart and as wise and at least as high on the good/evil and chaos/lawful scale as an average human.

I am not convinced either way whether prejudice against orcs (in setting where they are usually or often evil) is justified. It is a thorny issue. But I am convinced that it is not in any way analogous to real world racism, and I am also convinced that whether justified or not it will be bound to happen, and to a far greater extent than any real world racism we have ever seen - which is a reason not to take an orc.

Necroticplague

2016-07-14, 01:08 AM

To answer your question:

Illithids should be treated differently to humans because there is a very high chance that a random encounter with an illithid (in most settings) will result in death, whereas there is a much lower percentage chance that a random encounter with a human (in most settings) will result in death.

A real world analogy is whether you would treat a tiger you encountered randomly differently to a human you encountered. Of course you would treat the tiger differently because it is far more likely to attack you (not certain, but more likely). That's even if you had no prior knowledge of whether that particular tiger had killed people - in fact even if you were aware that it had not.

In the context of this thread, we are not discussing killing orcs on sight - we are discussing whether people should be wary of them.

I know the tiger is different from the illithid because one is sapient and one is not - but so what (again, we are not talking about punishment)? That is not relevant, what is relevant is whether they are likely to be hostile or not.

Sapience makes a whole world of difference. The tigers lack of sapience means that you cannot reason with it like you would an illithid. An illithid can be integrated into a society because it's smart enough to recognize the benefits of such. To try and use your own analogy, how wary I would be when coming across the tiger depends very heavily on context. If I was encountering it in the wild, I would assume it dangerous, because it had not been integrated into a way of life that views my living as a positive thing. However, I would have no reason to fear a domesticated tiger, that knows any aggression will lead to punishment on it's end (and moreover, is well-fed so it has no particular incentive to attack me in the first place). Similarly, I have little reason to fear an illithid that lives by the rules of the society that I do, and at least acts consistently with placing some value on my life (heck if I care if it actually does, though).

Beheld

2016-07-14, 02:17 AM

Ironic that the person to protest "racism" against orcs was the first person to exhibit racism against real world people in this thread.

.................

Maybe you missed the memo. My point is that a being slightly more likely to be evil in general than the sum total of all human beings that ever exist doesn't justify treating people any differently.

eggynack

2016-07-14, 02:20 AM

The whole idea underlying this argument, that races can be usually evil, or usually good, is just really tricky. I'm not sure it can be said for certain what that means. Does it mean that orc society pushes baby orcs towards evil, or are they just born evil, and then the good orcs turn from their natural evil through other culture? It's all some kinda otherworldly nature versus nurture thing, and I don't think there are any clear answers. There's a reason why the debate persists in the real world, and the real world doesn't even have underlying statistical differences. Maybe the orcish lack of wisdom predisposes them towards evil. Maybe that's dumb, and there're tons of counterexamples. Either way, it's a weird situation to be in. And, of course, the answer to this problem depends on the impossible to determine answer to the nature versus nurture problem. Because, if orcs just come out evil, then being prejudiced against them makes more sense than if they get that way through culture. Honestly, I'm inclined to side with nurture, just because I think that the idea of a standard humanoid race (meaning not demons) usually coming out evil seems silly, and maybe even problematic.

Deophaun

2016-07-14, 02:44 AM

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it's all I got. In the game I'm currently playing in someone was rolling a 1/2 orc barbarian. I suggested a full orc as a better choice, unless there is significantly more racial bias against orcs. At this point we turned to the DM and he assured us that orcs would be treated demonstrably worse than 1/2 orcs get more chances for experience and loot.
Fixed that for you.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2016-07-14, 06:33 AM

This thread should be closed.

Liquor Box

2016-07-14, 04:32 PM

Sapience makes a whole world of difference. The tigers lack of sapience means that you cannot reason with it like you would an illithid. An illithid can be integrated into a society because it's smart enough to recognize the benefits of such. To try and use your own analogy, how wary I would be when coming across the tiger depends very heavily on context. If I was encountering it in the wild, I would assume it dangerous, because it had not been integrated into a way of life that views my living as a positive thing. However, I would have no reason to fear a domesticated tiger, that knows any aggression will lead to punishment on it's end (and moreover, is well-fed so it has no particular incentive to attack me in the first place). Similarly, I have little reason to fear an illithid that lives by the rules of the society that I do, and at least acts consistently with placing some value on my life (heck if I care if it actually does, though).

Integration of an illithid into society would be easy because it is lawful. However, it would still be evil. It may restrain its desire to kill you (it having an instinctive desire to kill sapients for food) to the extent it was likely to be punished for doing so, but that restraint would not extend to refraining from killing you if there were no negative consequences. It it could kill without being detected, or construct a basement prison where it farms sapients, it very likely would, unrestrained by the moral compass that would prevent most humans from doing the same.

And in that respect your analogy with the domesticated tiger is perfect. Domestic tigers are still very dangerous - you wont see them wandering y our neighborhood like cats or dogs. Some tigers are trained to the extent where they can interact with people (although often only specific people), but only under controlled circumstances. They do not roam the person's house at night - they are locked up. Like the illithid that has been integrated into society, they may refrain from killing because they fear punishment, but they are still far more prone to killing than an average human.

So domestic tigers are discriminated against - they are generally locked up when not being closely attended. They do not have the same freedoms as, say, domestic horses (who also have the tools to easily kill a human, but not the instinctive propensity to).

Likewise illithids and orcs have a propensity toward being dangerous. I'm not saying that justifies killing them on sight. But it does justify being wary of them when one sees them. Whether it justifies treating them differently (as in excluding them from an establishment) I'm a bit undecided. But certainly, based on human history one would expect such exclusion (at the least) to be widespread whether it is justified or not.

AnimeTheCat

2016-07-15, 04:59 PM

I would treat Orcs the same way I treat white US southerners, since the approximate ratio of evil orcs to evil white southerners is the same, and the are probably evil for the same reasons.

Red Flag... That is blatantly disrespectful.

This thread should be closed.

I second this.

OldTrees1

2016-07-16, 09:20 AM

Likewise illithids and orcs have a propensity toward being dangerous. I'm not saying that justifies killing them on sight. But it does justify being wary of them when one sees them. Whether it justifies treating them differently (as in excluding them from an establishment) I'm a bit undecided. But certainly, based on human history one would expect such exclusion (at the least) to be widespread whether it is justified or not.

Illithids and Orcs have 1 significant difference from Tigers: They are moral agents. This implies that they have the capacity to be aware of how they can be dangerous and to have a moral duty. Just like you and I are responsible for our own behavior rather than society being responsible for our behavior, so too would the onus be on the Illithid and Orc to be responsible for their own behavior.

That doesn't mean we would not be careful, justified or not, but it might be more similar to how ex-convicts are treated/mistreated rather than how Tigers are treated.

Liquor Box

2016-07-18, 03:50 AM

Illithids and Orcs have 1 significant difference from Tigers: They are moral agents. This implies that they have the capacity to be aware of how they can be dangerous and to have a moral duty. Just like you and I are responsible for our own behavior rather than society being responsible for our behavior, so too would the onus be on the Illithid and Orc to be responsible for their own behavior.

That doesn't mean we would not be careful, justified or not, but it might be more similar to how ex-convicts are treated/mistreated rather than how Tigers are treated.

The problem with the ex-convict analogy is that you can't always tell by looking who is an ex-con and who isn't. I wonder if an even closer analogy might be a person with an obvious gang tattoo on their face.

So the question of whether it is justifiable to ban an orc from an establishment is probably similar to whether it is justifiable to ban a person with a gang tattoo on their face from an establishment.

Anyway, this is off track. My point was that orcs would be discriminated against whether such discrimination was justified or not.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-18, 10:12 AM

The problem with the ex-convict analogy is that you can't always tell by looking who is an ex-con and who isn't. I wonder if an even closer analogy might be a person with an obvious gang tattoo on their face.

In the case of Illithids, and orcs (though to a lesser extent), there is another significant difference: power. Humans are more or less equal--especially when weapons are taken into consideration (the old proverb, "God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal" comes to mind). On the other hand, an illithid is a very powerful creature and if it decides that it's tired of being virtuous and not eating human brains, there is very little that most ordinary humans or even most contingents of town guards will be able to do about it. The weapons that are available to most people will not even come close to equalizing the situation. If the guard is trying to turn the Illithid away at the gate, they may have a chance if things get ugly. (Or they may not--it depends upon the power level of the world). They have a defensible position, there are probably more of them, and there may well be higher level, better equipped units on standby in case there's trouble. If the Illithid is sitting at the Burning Manticore tavern and decides to go on a brain eating spree, things will get really ugly before some adventurers finally settle things (assuming the city is lucky). For orcs, the difference is not nearly so pronounced but especially in 3.5, a +4 strength bonus provides them with a huge advantage in any fight with a human. (Less so in Pathfinder where a some humans will have +2 strength, but even the difference between +2 and +4 is significant). The attractiveness of the +4 stat bonus is the whole reason the topic came up.

In that sense, the tiger analogy is closer to the fantasy situation. If you are on a Las Vegas stage with a supposedly tame tiger and it decides that it wants to maul you, there is very little that you or anyone nearby will be able to do that will keep you from being mauled or killed. If you have a gun, and are watching it like a hawk, you might have a chance, but individual tigers have a huge advantage over any human. On the other hand, the guy with the gang tattoo is just a guy and provided he is not armed, he does not necessarily have a significant advantage over anyone else if he decides to cause trouble.

OldTrees1

2016-07-18, 11:47 AM

Anyway, this is off track. My point was that orcs would be discriminated against whether such discrimination was justified or not.

Good amendment to the analogy. I think even Elder Basalisk's point can be folded in by considering what the gun imbalance and gun control would look like if the "gun" were inherent to the creature (as with illithids). [But let's not get into gun politics here]

However all of this merely strengthens your point that orcs would be discriminated against regardless of if it is or is not justified.

What is the next topic?

Necroticplague

2016-07-19, 12:43 PM

In the case of Illithids, and orcs (though to a lesser extent), there is another significant difference: power. Humans are more or less equal--especially when weapons are taken into consideration (the old proverb, "God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal" comes to mind). On the other hand, an illithid is a very powerful creature and if it decides that it's tired of being virtuous and not eating human brains, there is very little that most ordinary humans or even most contingents of town guards will be able to do about it. Actually, thanks to all their RHD and LA, an illithid is weak compared to an equal-ECL human. I agree the tiger analogy is better for demonstrating this. If the tiger was weaker than a human (as mind flayers are weaker than humans), would anyone care about one being about? Based on the fact the deer and armadillos are allowed to live wild nearby, I doubt it.

Elder_Basilisk

2016-07-19, 02:18 PM

Actually, thanks to all their RHD and LA, an illithid is weak compared to an equal-ECL human. I agree the tiger analogy is better for demonstrating this. If the tiger was weaker than a human (as mind flayers are weaker than humans), would anyone care about one being about? Based on the fact the deer and armadillos are allowed to live wild nearby, I doubt it.

The relevant question is not whether they are equal to equal ECL humans but rather whether the typical Illithid, orc, or dragon is equal to the typical human. To some degree that is a setting dependent question but ECL adjusted weakness will not tell you anything about that because ECL is a mechanism for determining how to evaluate a monster in an adventuring party, not a mechanism for telling you what the typical monster can do. I would argue that the monster manual is the source for what typical monsters can do. As for humans, if you take DMG demographics, there are a exceptions, but the vast majority of humans are level 1-3 and have NPC classes. Saying that mind flayers are weaker than humans may be true in your games but it's not a reasonable conclusion to draw from SRD materials and is certainly not how they have been presented in 40 odd years of D&D lore and gaming.

Liquor Box

2016-07-19, 04:27 PM

OldTrees1

2016-07-19, 05:02 PM

atemu1234

2016-07-19, 05:21 PM

In my own experience DMs trying to ban laws of physics or chemistry is more common than banning orcs, save for the one D in high school who maintained that orcs were made-up fantasy monsters and thus too silly to use even as NPCs or cannon fodder (he also banned half-orcs). Otherwise I've never encountered a DM banning orcs (or gray elves).

I agree, but my experience is biased because I've literally taught everyone I've ever played with or had a major impact on their development as a player.

Would it be analogous to prejudice against neanderthals? Even now they're still seen by the general populace as rock-stupid.

Which is actually ironically incorrect, there's next to no proof that neanderthals were any less developed than other human subspecies of the time.

Necroticplague

2016-07-19, 09:47 PM

Deer and armadillo would be able to live in proximity to humans even if they were more powerful than humans - like horses or oxen or even Indian elephants are. It is the tiger's propensity to attack humans that make humans treat tigers with extreme care, not merely their power.

Nah, the feral cats that live in my neighborhood are tolerated, even though they attack people at the drop of a hat. They're still tolerated because, while perfectly willing to attack people, they are unable to cause any real amount of harm, and getting rid of them would be more trouble than it's worth.

As for humans, if you take DMG demographics, there are a exceptions, but the vast majority of humans are level 1-3 and have NPC classes.
Which always seems like an incredibly dumb worldbuilding idea, considering things that can trivially kill massive amounts of low-level NPC classed people if that was true. If most of the world can be slaughtered in one night by what starts as a single creature, your world is probably built under incredibly shaky assumptions (in this case, start with one wight, who can kill "the vast majority" of humans on their full-attack via negative level drain, which produces another wight).....

Willie the Duck

2016-07-20, 07:26 AM

Which always seems like an incredibly dumb worldbuilding idea, considering things that can trivially kill massive amounts of low-level NPC classed people if that was true. If most of the world can be slaughtered in one night by what starts as a single creature, your world is probably built under incredibly shaky assumptions (in this case, start with one wight, who can kill "the vast majority" of humans on their full-attack via negative level drain, which produces another wight).....

I think the shaky assumption is that it really is a world. To be honest, in most cases one doesn't really build worlds, one builds sandboxes for the PCs to rattle around in. Most D&D game worlds exist in some kind of equilibrium that really shouldn't be stable. Why hasn't a necromancer turned that town of level 1 commoners into loyal and powerful wights? Why doesn't one demon use their summon buddy powers to build up an army of demons? Published settings like FR tend to handwave this with a concept of powerful good keeping the powerful bad in line (or in some settings, lots of equally matched unfriendly evils staying in their respective corners leaving a demilitarized zone in which normal humans, dwarves, etc. can live).

So yeah, the world exists for the PCs to exist in and hopefully save the day. Just like the starting village exists within walking distance of the level 1 dungeon because the PCs can't afford horses, and they need a town to go buy stuff. Pulling apart the assumptions of the game world too much will reveal the underlying support there.

Pugwampy

2016-07-20, 10:32 AM

Necroticplague

2016-07-20, 11:19 AM

You are selling yourself short by choosing an orc . I know what you find attractive. +4 Str bonus at the cost of -1 att <dazzled> and -2 on Cha Int and Wis . Unless you are choosing orc for RP jollies , its not worth it .

You can find your +4 str bonus on Goliaths and Half Ogres and pay much less penalties .

Half-ogres are LA +2, and goliath's are LA +1. Meanwhile, orcs are LA+0. This means that the accuracy loss is made up for by gain in class levels, and you can start at an level 1 game, which you can't do with goliaths and half-ogres. And if we're going to allow for LA on our melee race, then there are much better templates than those two races you can add to an orc.

Compare Goliath with Half-minotaur Orc, for somethings that are both LA+1. That +4 STR pales compared to the +16 STR, which more than makes up for the dazzle. Or for something with no downsides, Lolth-touched Orc is LA+1, and has +10 STR to compare against the goliath's +4.

It's not just about the race's package, it's what you have to pay for it in ECl.

tsj

2016-07-20, 03:10 PM

As mentioned already

SRD orc and half-orc are so heavily nerfed that they are not worth playing
..

For example Orc get total of atlas -2 stat adjust PLUS light sensitivity flaw

If you want to play and orc and also get the flavor of orcs... then select the orc race from warcraft d20... they are fun and also valanced with the other SRD races unlike SRD orc and half orc

It's a damn shame but SRD orc and SRD half orc are for races what truenamer is for classes... unplayable and ridiculous

There are also other orc races ... for example home brew ones that you can find on wikis and I think there might be some in more official stuff such as Greyhawk or... I can't remember precisely...

Anyway... unless you may use home brew and if you have access to d20 war craft then I would select the warcraft orc...hint. . He gets to have a RACIAL RAGE .... AND he has the correct or color... green! Green is best!

Liquor Box

2016-07-20, 04:27 PM

Nah, the feral cats that live in my neighborhood are tolerated, even though they attack people at the drop of a hat. They're still tolerated because, while perfectly willing to attack people, they are unable to cause any real amount of harm, and getting rid of them would be more trouble than it's worth.

That's the inverse of the situation we were discussing. A small aggressive animal may be tolerated despite its aggression because it can not cause any harm. But Aarmadillo and deer are not small aggressive animals, they are small(ish) passive animals. Passive animals are not driven off even if they are large and powerful (like the example in my previous post). In fact deer are generally as large as humans and a determined deer might be able to kill a human - but they are not wired to do so.

Which always seems like an incredibly dumb worldbuilding idea, considering things that can trivially kill massive amounts of low-level NPC classed people if that was true. If most of the world can be slaughtered in one night by what starts as a single creature, your world is probably built under incredibly shaky assumptions (in this case, start with one wight, who can kill "the vast majority" of humans on their full-attack via negative level drain, which produces another wight).....

No, because humans organise themselves in a way to meet threats as a group, and when necessary with the powerful exceptions to the lvl1-3 norm at the vanguard.

Troacctid

2016-07-20, 04:49 PM

ShurikVch

2016-07-20, 05:16 PM

Dench the Bull (Savage Species)
http://brume.newgallo.dnsalias.net/pmwiki/uploads/Downloads/PCGen%20Bundles/New/portraits/cmp/d20_fantasy_v35e/wotc/svgspc/Dench,%20the%20Bull.jpg (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ss_gallery/49218.jpg)
(click on to see larger image)

Beheld

2016-07-20, 05:17 PM

A mob of humans is CR 8, same as a mind flayer, and will trample a mind flayer to death in an average of 2–3 rounds. There's nothing the mind flayer can do about it, either, so all it can do is run away and try not to get caught next time.

Mind Flayers have levitate at will, Mindblast at will, and Suggestion at will.
Mobs are not immune to Area Effects, such as Mindblast.
There are specific rules for "spells that effect individuals": "Unlike standard swarms, mobs are made up of relatively small numbers of individual creatures, so spells or effects that target specific numbers of creatures can have an effect on a mob. Each specific creature that is slain, disabled, or otherwise incapacitated by spells or effects that target specific creatures bestows two negative levels on the mob.

A Mind Flayer has like, a 100% chance of beating a humanoid mob.

Necroticplague

2016-07-20, 05:58 PM

That's the inverse of the situation we were discussing. A small aggressive animal may be tolerated despite its aggression because it can not cause any harm. But Aarmadillo and deer are not small aggressive animals, they are small(ish) passive animals. Passive animals are not driven off even if they are large and powerful (like the example in my previous post). In fact deer are generally as large as humans and a determined deer might be able to kill a human - but they are not wired to do so. The fact it's the opposite is the point. Your were saying that illithids would be rationally discriminated against because they possess the motive (their own nature). Thus, I pointed out to something that similarly possesses an aggressive motive that is tolerated.

No, because humans organise themselves in a way to meet threats as a group, and when necessary with the powerful exceptions to the lvl1-3 norm at the vanguard.

Yes, because things that don't sleep and have darkvision and are created at night are going to attack during the day, when people can see what happens and react to it, instead of sneaking in when everyone's asleep, and by the time people realize an attack's taking place, there's too many not-survivors for survivors to fight off.

Or, y'know, the existence of crap like this means natural selection causes most people to be of at least medium level.

ShurikVch

2016-07-20, 06:14 PM

Or, y'know, the existence of crap like this means natural selection causes most people to be of at least medium level.They were... before the previous wightopocalypse! :smallwink:

Liquor Box

2016-07-20, 10:02 PM

The fact it's the opposite is the point. Your were saying that illithids would be rationally discriminated against because they possess the motive (their own nature). Thus, I pointed out to something that similarly possesses an aggressive motive that is tolerated.

I suspect your feral cats are still discriminated against - people don't want them there. It's just that because they are not dangerous it's not worth the effort of exterminating them.

I can accept that a creature would need both a dangerous disposition as well as the tools to be dangerous before anyone take extreme steps to keep them away though.

Yes, because things that don't sleep and have darkvision and are created at night are going to attack during the day, when people can see what happens and react to it, instead of sneaking in when everyone's asleep, and by the time people realize an attack's taking place, there's too many not-survivors for survivors to fight off.

Or, y'know, the existence of crap like this means natural selection causes most people to be of at least medium level.

Not sure what your point is here. Sufficient humans (commoner 1-3) would be able to kill a mind flayer. We could argue whether that would require 10 humans or a thousand humans, but that's beside the point. Even if mindflayers could kill an unlimited number of commoners, that wouldn't upset the model, because it would only take one adventuring party to kill the mindflayers on behalf of hundred of humans.

TheCrowing1432

2016-07-20, 10:20 PM

What things do Half Orcs qualify that Orcs dont?

Necroticplague

2016-07-20, 10:58 PM

Not sure what your point is here. Sufficient humans (commoner 1-3) would be able to kill a mind flayer. We could argue whether that would require 10 humans or a thousand humans, but that's beside the point. Even if mindflayers could kill an unlimited number of commoners, that wouldn't upset the model, because it would only take one adventuring party to kill the mindflayers on behalf of hundred of humans.

My point is, assuming that most of the population is levels 1-3 when there is a lot of stuff that can eat through such low-level characters like popcorn is an incredibly questionable assumption. And thus, things based of of assumptions like this (i.e, that your avarage mind flayer is more powerful than your average human, depite being weaker than an equal ECL human) are similarly questionable. Basic natural selection would seem to dictate that very little of the population would be such. Relying on basically unique beings for defence is haphazard and impractical at best, and near-impossible at worst.

Eisfalken

2016-07-21, 12:34 AM

I just like that nobody's even mentioning the fact that orcs themselves are fairly racist to non-orcs in just about all fantasy settings where they appear. Or that most races in every fantasy setting are at least mildly prejudiced if not outright bigoted to every other race.

But don't mind me, just sippin' my Lipton iced tea over here...

eggynack

2016-07-21, 12:35 AM

What things do Half Orcs qualify that Orcs dont?
There are half-orc substitution levels for at least three classes, barbarian, druid, and paladin, in races of destiny. The druid ones are actively great, well worth the cost in racial choice (especially if you use a variant half-orc and toss on dragonborn), the barbarian ones seem pretty good, at least the first and third, and with the paladin ones, it feels like aura of awe is mediocre, righteous fury is plausibly better than smite on the back of duration, and removing fatigue seems more interesting than removing disease to me. There are also some prestige classes and feats listed in that book, which are exclusive to half-orcs or exclusive to a list that includes half-orcs. I haven't done that much research on that, but I checked at least one entry, the menacing brute, and it's for half-orc only.

Segev

2016-07-21, 11:12 AM

Racism is rooted, for better or worse, in pattern recognition. It is not always fair or right, and it often becomes exaggerated and exacerbated into something that begs for confirmation bias. But the reason why "treat the orc like a dangerous potential criminal" is not a "problem" behavior indicative of a poor moral compass is that most orcs (in D&D, at least) act like dangerous criminals, and thus you have a higher probability of being brutalized by an orc with whom you let down your guard than you do with, say, a human or an elf.

That same orc walking into town dressed nicely and in town-culture-appropriate garb, who goes out of his way to demonstrate good behavior by their cultural standards, and in general acts understanding of their prejudices (because, let's be honest, they're based on the recognized pattern that orcs showing up lead to people hurt and stuff broken or stolen), will potentially be able to overcome said prejudices. But it will take work.

An elf waltzing into an orc encampment could potentially avoid being beaten, captured, looted, and killed...if he walks in respecting their culture of "outsiders are targets until proven otherwise" and "might makes right." That is, if he acts too tough to be trivially abused, has some power and skill to back it up, and acts like a being worthy of respect in their culture (showing respect where due without showing weakness is hard!), he can probably earn their respect. Maybe. Then again, maybe they really are just that racist, and nothing he can do will make him anything but a target or enemy.

Likewise, maybe that human village is just too dead-set against ever trusting orcs for our well-dressed and culture-respecting orc to ever overcome it. Maybe they'll lynch him.

The knee-jerk, lynch-him-when-he's-doing-everything-he-can-to-be-peaceful response is, in fact, an evil impulse. It's an understandable one, but it's generally evil. (One could contrive a scenario where it's morally acceptable, but it requires things like having every orc, no matter how well-meaning-seeming, turn on them at their most vulnerable, AND having any orc they encounter who has seen them increase the threat to them if they simply warn him off and let him go. Like I said: contrived.)

In short: racism is rooted in pattern recognition, but when it's genuine, problematic hate-based irrational racism, it has been perverted beyond that into something else.

Liquor Box

2016-07-21, 07:26 PM

My point is, assuming that most of the population is levels 1-3 when there is a lot of stuff that can eat through such low-level characters like popcorn is an incredibly questionable assumption. And thus, things based of of assumptions like this (i.e, that your avarage mind flayer is more powerful than your average human, depite being weaker than an equal ECL human) are similarly questionable. Basic natural selection would seem to dictate that very little of the population would be such. Relying on basically unique beings for defence is haphazard and impractical at best, and near-impossible at worst.

I don't agree, Statistics are published for numerous cities and those make it pretty clear that the vast majority of populace is low level (I can link examples if you need me to). So it's not a questionable assumption, its basically canon for most published worlds.

I don't think that invokes any huge problems either. If you have a village of a hundred people, even if 1% of the population were of a decent level, it would have someone to kill the mind flayer. Actually, 100 people would probably be able to kill a mind flayer without any assistance.

Even if you substituted a more powerful monster for the mind flayer (a dragon say), and the village was defenseless, that still doesn't mean the system is flawed. A village should be vulnerable to a high level monster - the same as real 5th century villages were at danger of being raided by vikings. The D&D system relies on such vulnerability - that's why outside heroes (the PCs) are sometimes needed to assist the vulnerable village.