"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[GooeyChewie]

That was my suggestion too, with the further suggestion that any "wasted" point beyond 17 could be added to any other ability score.

In that case, I approve!

[Boci]

The ability was changed, including the name. It is now called "Primal Intuition."

Nope, that was intimidate proficiency being replaced with any two from several options. Aggressive is the ability of orcs to move closer to an hostile creature as a bonus action. Eberron and Wildemont orcs still seem to have that. So no, I think you're wrong.

And even if it was...isn't primal still a negative stereotype for some ethnicities?

Your ability to understand the racism "angle" has no bearing on its validity.

It has as much as yours does.

I've been working on breaking race = culture link for D&D races too. I just do because I find it more fun, not because I feel it would be racist to use the default system.

[gloryblaze]

The ability was changed, including the name. It is now called "Primal Intuition."

Primal Intuition replace Menacing, not Aggressive. Eberron and Wildemount orcs still have Aggressive.

[rooneg]

I'm not saying to copy it verbatim, of course.

But a similar system where its not all tied to your race is, IMO, a logical solution. Fiddle with the amounts you get to make it work, of course you don't want players having a 20 in their primary stat at first level.

But you can do so much more with where your starting stats come from than "race". Honestly, though, that's a 6E problem, not a 5E one.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to have Tasha's be considered the start of 5.5E.

Yeah, I actually think there's a lot to be said for something like Standard Array, a floating +2 you can put anywhere, and a +2 from your class that is required to go to an attribute associated with the class in some way. If you have a class that's particularly MAD then split it's +2 into two +1s maybe? No two bonuses can go to the same attribute. You don't have to do much to get a pretty good system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Possibly, but that can also be high fantasy speaks for all dwarves. "The most skilled dwarves" is used as (possibly fake) old fashioned speak for "the dwarves, a race who are most skilled". The most skilled of dwarves would have removed any ambiguity.

I don't see the ambiguity personally, but whatever.

I would really like this in D&D. In another about it, it was pointed out that it would suck for new groups to be told "make your own cultures", but especially with racial traits becoming less relevant, at least the bonuses, there might be room in D&D 6 to experiment with multiple cultures for each race from the get go.

I think it's less about groups and more about settings. You can go a long way without touching the mechanics, as long as the setting reinforces the themes and makes it clear that the mechanics are streamlined for the game's sake. But my big issue is that the settings (yes, even Eberron) are internally racial mono-cultures. Except for humans, of course. Everyone else gets racial imperatives, humans are flexible. That's something I strongly dislike.

I've made a really good stab at this in my own setting:
* In-universe, the only mono-cultural races are also very few in number (ie kobolds number a grand total of like 1k, all in the same village). Every other race is part of at least 2 cultures, which vary differently. And each culture has multiple races in it. Some races that are mechanically sub-races are in-fiction separate races (that can interbreed with significant stigma and mixed results)--* elves are all different races with a common ancestor species, divided way back in history based on magical talent. High elves (gwerin) are wizardry-focused--the main cultures of them literally breed for magical power and you're not an adult until you can cast a spell (hence the "everyone gets a free cantrip" feature). Wood elves were outcasts who couldn't/wouldn't use arcane power and ended up developing druidic magic as a counterpart. The two sides dislike each other. But then there's a culture of wood elves who are all fantasy-feudalism (knights, horses, etc). And at least one culture of high elves who have rejected wizardry all together.
* Mechanically, I've started splitting races into base/sub-races by biology/culture, specifically. I've moved the larger share of the ASIs into the sub-races, along with a bunch of the features, so the base races are pretty anemic. I'm not done yet. The elves are still sub-races. Officially, these are all "variants" and I let people pick the PHB versions if they want, because they're not fully playtested and the changes are pretty voluminous. But if you want to distinguish between a half-wood-elf/half-human (of one particular culture) and a half-high-elf/half-human (of that same culture), there's a sub-race for you. As well as the reverse (wood elf + human of two different cultures).
* There are no "evil" races. Orcs and goblinoids are part of one nation that's the most industrial and "ordered" in the main area, for instance. They're also part of tribal groups that wander and do tribal things (including occasionally raiding each other, but that's par for the course for all tribal groups). Yuan-ti (called ophidians) are a valued part of two different nations, with very different lore. Etc.

Edit: I will also note that I strongly dislike using fantasy races as "stand ins" or "reflections" of real world crap. I want to know how they fit into the world you're presenting. I don't want them to be expies or ![culture] references. They should reflect the setting itself and grow organically from that, not be inserted to make some sort of point or explore some sort of real-world philosophy or fit some real-world expectation. The setting should stand on its own.

[Boci]

I don't see the ambiguity personally, but whatever.

True. I checked the wiki and it doesn't seem to be written in highfalutin language, so the plain english reading is probably better.

I think it's less about groups and more about settings. You can go a long way without touching the mechanics, as long as the setting reinforces the themes and makes it clear that the mechanics are streamlined for the game's sake. But my big issue is that the settings (yes, even Eberron) are internally racial mono-cultures. Except for humans, of course. Everyone else gets racial imperatives, humans are flexible. That's something I strongly dislike.

I agree with this, and another poster mentioned Wildemount being a little to this. Whilst its doesn't have the recognition of FR, we can always hope that it will be the default setting for 6ed.

[BRC]

I don't get the racism angle. D&D 5e has been out for years, you're presumably been playing it, and I assume you don't think everyone who played is racist, despite always having the option to do this, but now suddenly every has to be in favour and can only choose to not do so quiety without voicing that preferance on a public forum?

I mean, it's always been there, and people have always known, and been talking about it, but usually the conversation was "yeah, that's certainly a thing", and then moved on.

To avoid getting into a proactive discussion about Racism in society, and our moral obligation to be anti-racist

It's like this, I'm a white guy who has enjoyed a lot of classic fantasy, including D&D, my whole life. A lot of classic fantasy is built on tropes that are pretty clearly Racist. Even without clear parallels like "Oh, the Evil Barbarian Orcs are clearly modeled after X", the very idea that certain groups of people are, by nature of biology, better or worse at certain things is a racist one.

"But it's different, WE know that Humans are Humans, there's no real-world equivalent of Orcs, a group of people who are inherently Strong but Dumb", except that Racists would disagree with you. A Racist views races in the real world the way the PHB views Races in D&D, biological groups with inherent genetic bonuses and penalties. It doesn't mean that everybody who plays D&D is a Racist, most people look at it and say "In this Fantasy World, Orcs exist, and are Stronger than an average human", and can recognize that Orcs are as fictional as Wizards. But, the PHB describes a world where Racists Are Correct, you CAN look at a person and safely make some guesses about their abilities based purely on their visible ancestry.

So, in addition to not wanting the fiction we enjoy to be one where Racists Are Right, there's also the fact that I don't really mind it because I'm a white man. Fantasy Stereotypes don't really add much to the game (Most fantasy settings could swap various races with Cultures without changing anything else), and it, not unreasonably, can make plenty of people uncomfortable. So we might as well see about getting rid of them.

Whilst this is true, I think its worth highlighting that there are still difference. Orcs do not have a strong culture, they're tribal warriors, by contrast drow do. As such, if a DM tells me they're scrapping and reworking orcs culture, that barely warrants a reaction. Oh, not the rich tribal culture D&D has build up over so long...

Drow by contrast is a loss. Its fine, I'm not opposed to change, but scrapping drow culture is throwing a lot out the window. If they make you or your group uncomfortable then obviously do so anyway, and even if they don't you can try it. But unlike orcs, you are losing quite a substantial piece of lore. Nothing irreplacable though.

.

If you think Drow culture is cool, you can keep the aspects you like. Underground cities, Matriarchy, factious noble houses seeking to one-up each other. You can even have them worship a spider-goddess (although don't make her Explicitly Evil).

or, if you ABSOLUTELY MUST have FR Drow, make sure there are plenty of OTHER drow societies in your setting, enough that just seeing a Drow isn't enough to assume that they're an evil slaver who wants to feed your soul to their demonic spider goddess. (Note, have other drow SOCIETIES, not just individual Renegages. The occasional Exception doesn't really work to counteract the Rule)

[cutlery]

You say that like that's a bad thing. Like sure more effort than "all stat mods are floating", but the extra fluff is why I prefer it.

I think there is a point where too much built in fluff becomes constricting. There are a lot of races, and ~six subcultures for each is, well, a lot, and it’s a weird problem that is only created by assuming there is a culture for each potential stat mod.

[Boci]

I think there is a point where too much built in fluff becomes constricting. There are a lot of races, and ~six subcultures for each is, well, a lot, and it’s a weird problem that is only created by assuming there is a culture for each potential stat mod.

No no, its not 6 each race. Its 6 or so for everyone. A highborn or poor town means roughly the same thing, whether you're an orc or an elf.

So, in addition to not wanting the fiction we enjoy to be one where Racists Are Right, there's also the fact that I don't really mind it because I'm a white man. Fantasy Stereotypes don't really add much to the game (Most fantasy settings could swap various races with Cultures without changing anything else), and it, not unreasonably, can make plenty of people uncomfortable. So we might as well see about getting rid of them.

But orcs literally aren't human. How are getting rid of racism if you have a race of dark skinned, more brutish looking indeviduals, whose origin was racist real world stereotypes, and who mechanics aside, are still not humans, but different? And what mechanical traits will give them that won't tie into some negative, real world stereotype? An earlier poster mistakenly thought Eberron orcs had primal intuition instead of aggressive, they actually have primal intuition instead of intimidating, but even if they didn't have aggresive anymore, isn't primal also a negative stereotype in the real world?

People objecting to racism are only mentioning orcs. The racial traits of dwarves and elves don't seem problematic, no one has mentioned them in this thread, and they have similar history of real world stereotypes. So, maybe we should just cut orcs from the game? I feel D&D can survive just fine without, though my preference would be to keep them.

[Luccan]

True. I checked the wiki and it doesn't seem to be written in highfalutin language, so the plain english reading is probably better.



I agree with this, and another poster mentioned Wildemount being a little to this. Whilst its doesn't have the recognition of FR, we can always hope that it will be the default setting for 6ed.

Unless Mercer sold WotC the rights to his setting that seems unlikely, though I wouldn't be particularly crushed to see FR lose its status as the default setting.

[rooneg]

It's like this, I'm a white guy who has enjoyed a lot of classic fantasy, including D&D, my whole life. A lot of classic fantasy is built on tropes that are pretty clearly Racist. Even without clear parallels like "Oh, the Evil Barbarian Orcs are clearly modeled after X", the very idea that certain groups of people are, by nature of biology, better or worse at certain things is a racist one.

Let's also not ignore the fact that the very concept at the core of D&D ("Go someplace dangerous, fight some monsters, take their stuff") is incredibly colonialist when you get right down to it. Like, yes, we can and should craft narratives that are more nuanced than that, but the whole structure of the game is pretty deeply tied to killing some "monsters" who were often just minding their own business and taking some "treasure" that didn't belong to you. It's so deeply ingrained in the game that half the time when I play an Adventurer's League game that's set in a city I have to get in an argument with someone at the table about how no, it's actually pretty wildly inappropriate for us to just take this stuff that's lying around in the house where we're solving a murder mystery or something.

[BRC]

But orcs literally aren't human. How are getting rid of racism if you have a race of dark skilled, more brutish looking indeviduals, whose origin was racist real world stereotypes, and who mechanics aside, are still not humans, but different?

That's the crux of the issue ain't it. You really can't. There's no good way to do Classic Fantasy Races that isn't Racist in some way. But at the same time, a Fantastic World With Elves and Dwarves and Orcs is part of the appeal of classic fantasy.


The Multiracial Cultures, and breaking down race=culture can help a lot. Get rid of the assumption that Orcs and Goblins and Drow are Always Evil and can be Killed on Sight, or that Orcs are Barbarians and Dwarves love Mining and Gold and Beer and Mining For Gold With Which To Buy Beer.

Similarly, making your non-human races More Inhuman vs People In Makeup can help. Break down the parallels between real-world ethnicity and Fantastical Races by making Races that could never be mistaken for Human. But in the end, there's no silver bullet short of creating settings without nonhuman sentient species (And even then, you run the risk of introducing good old fashioned real world racism right back into your setting).

The good news is that, since the real world harm usually comes down to "Racists will feel comfortable seeing a setting that embraces their views" and "The inherient racism in many classic fantasy tropes makes a lot of people uncomfortable", making a visible effort when crafting your setting can go a long way towards mitigating that harm. But at some point, you just have to throw Classic Fantasy Races out altogether, or else muddle them to the point of being completely irrelevant.

[cutlery]

No no, its not 6 each race. Its 6 or so for everyone. A highborn or poor town means roughly the same thing, whether you're an orc or an elf.



But orcs literally aren't human. How are getting rid of racism if you have a race of dark skilled, more brutish looking indeviduals, whose origin was racist real world stereotypes, and who mechanics aside, are still not humans, but different?

In that case, it becomes 6 cultural backgrounds and the races don’t matter. I’m fine with that, too, but that again becomes more constraining than enabling for newer players.

There is a reason, say, Shadowrun had only a small subset of fantasy races, overlaid atop more contemporary groups.

If the cultures are interesting, they run the risk of being coded along contemporary groups, racial or otherwise. If the cultures aren’t interesting, they are a waste of space and energy.

They are basically out of luck on that score, because so many of their player base expect the traditional fantasy races to be present. If the difference between those races are shifted from stat bonuses to other things (dwarves toughness, orc savagery, elven gracefulness) the problem remains.

[Boci]

That's the crux of the issue ain't it. You really can't. There's no good way to do Classic Fantasy Races that isn't Racist in some way. But at the same time, a Fantastic World With Elves and Dwarves and Orcs is part of the appeal of classic fantasy.

See, I kinda feel that once you akbolwedge this, you've sort of lost any write to critisize someone for wanting to not give orcs and half-orcs a way to get a bonus to intelligence at char gen.

"I will have you know that the way I choose to play the game whilst still racist is less racist than the way you choose to" just doesn't sound too convincing.

By all means lets have conversations about the problematics of racism in games, its history and the problems that linger to this day, but if we cannot play a recognizable D&D game without elements of it, lets stop insisting you have to do everything you can to eliminate it, if the effort will never fully work.

I feel this thread has had some interesting discussion between people who like and dislike making making stat bonuses floating, but I don't think the racism angle has been part of it.

In that case, it becomes 6 cultural backgrounds and the races don’t matter.

Not really. See, under this system half-elves get +1 charisma. A half-elf hexblade would be incentivized to choose a +1 charisma culture though too from a pureply mechanical point of view, so they could have +2 charisma, giving them the 17 they need to take elven advantage at level 4 and still have a +4 modifier.

Plus there will still be other racial traits. Tieflings will get fire resistance, dwarves will get poison resistance, orcs would get aggresive.

[cutlery]

Not really. See, under this system half-elves get +1 charisma. A half-elf hexblade would be incentivized to choose a +1 charisma culture though too from a pureply mechanical point of view, so they could have +2 charisma, giving them the 17 they need to take elven advantage at level 4 and still have a +4 modifier.

You’re talking about still tying some intent bonuses to some races, I am not.

I don’t think tying some inherent bonuses to races solves the problem the new rules are intending to solve - whether or not they need solving.

[Boci]

You’re talking about still tying some intent bonuses to some races, I am not.

Pretty sure this conversation being about my proposed idea for how to allow races to get a bonus to any stat. Which proposed system are you discussing?

[JackPhoenix]

6ed could handle that with a fresh start, but its likely too late for 5ed.

It's too late for anything that gets involved with FR. They won't turn the setting upside down to attempt to appease the crowd who forces RL issues where they don't belong.

[cutlery]

Pretty sure this conversation being about my proposed idea for how to allow races to get a bonus to any stat. Which proposed system are you discussing?

If they get a bonus to any stat, that also needs some subculture justification, you’ll need sixish subcultures, which becomes constraining more than enabling, unless they are thin, in which case it is mostly a waste of space.

If they need no justification, there isn’t any point in “racial” stat bonuses in the first place.

It's too late for anything that gets involved with FR. They won't turn the setting upside down to attempt to appease the crowd who forces RL issues where they don't belong.

This is a marketing question, and they will do whatever they feel they need to to attract new players. If and when FR no longer helps them do that, it will be swept aside.

[Boci]

It's too late for anything that gets involved with FR. They won't turn the setting upside down to attempt to appease the crowd who forces RL issues where they don't belong.

If FR stays the default setting certainly, but to echo another poster, I won't mind if it isn't. Nothing against FR, I just don't hold any established D&D setting especially dear.

If they get a bonus to any stat, that also needs some subculture justification, you’ll need sixish subcultures, which becomes constraining more than enabling, unless they are thin, in which case it is mostly a waste of space.

If they need no justification, there isn’t any point in “racial” stat bonuses in the first place.

Ofcourse there is. You may not prefer to skip it, but elves being naturally graceful has been an implied if not outright stated thing in fantasy for quite a while. You can decide that's purely cultural, but its not wrong to say its innate.

[rooneg]

It's too late for anything that gets involved with FR. They won't turn the setting upside down to attempt to appease the crowd who forces RL issues where they don't belong.

I don't know about that. Paizo has been making some improvements in this area (they just said "who cares about history, our Drow are purple instead of black now", for example). I'll admit that WotC is probably more conservative about making changes to their IP than Paizo is, but there are improvements they could make that are within the bounds of what a company like that might actually do. Making it abundantly clear that there are Drow cities other than Menzoberranzan that are not full of xenophobic homicidal demon worshipers would be a good start, for example.

[cutlery]

If FR stays the default setting certainly, but to echo another poster, I won't mind if it isn't. Nothing against FR, I just don't hold any established D&D setting especially dear.



Ofcourse there is. You may not prefer to skip it, but elves being naturally graceful has been an implied if not outright stated thing in fantasy for quite a while. You can decide that's purely cultural, but its not wrong to say its innate.

That’s a justification. Which is fine, but doesn’t solve the original problem - that some players have remarked on the bog standard races being off-putting.

There are ways around this (with new justifications and new traits, with many that subvert old tropes), but the traditionalist players won’t like it.

Who will spend the most money on WotC products in 15 years? That’s the question.

[Boci]

That’s a justification. Which is fine, but doesn’t solve the original problem - that some players have remarked on the bog standard races being off-putting.

As I mentioned, orcs still have a traint called aggressive. Let's not get tunnel vision and feel that once we remove statue bonuses from races all possibly hints of racism will be gone, because that is probably the worst of both worlds.

[Segev]

But what's the cutoff? The DM decides, right? Does the DM think ogres are hulking brutes or just a foot taller and 4 str higher than a random village blacksmith? Does the DM think halflings can't arm wrestle ogres because of the size difference, no matter how strong the halfling is? At this point we can't even discuss PCs trying to make that check because any individual DM can say "yes", "no", or "roll it" based on their personal fantasy world assumptions, whether they want to railroad the plot, and the amount of alcohol they've had.

I've had DMs at both ends of the spectrum, ones who did zero noncombat rolls because of plot and ones that defaulted to "I don't know. Roll for it." nearly every time. If the answer to everything is always "ask the DM/it's DM choice" then we can't discuss any numbers, everything becomes DM psychology. For these discussions I like to presume that people might want dice rolled for something to find out what happened.

If it matters +2 vs +4 is 38% for +2, 57% for +4, 4.5% for a tie. For +0 vs +4 is 30% for +0, 66% for +4, 4% for a tie. I got tired of calculating one day and did a quick & dirty brute force.

That is the role of the DM, yes. In the end, you're never getting around that, especially in a system like 5e where "Rulings, not Rules" is the catchphrase.

If the DM doesn't have a clear idea in his mind, he can call for that roll. If he thinks that one of the possible results of the roll is ridiculous, then he won't call for a roll and will rule the non-ridiculous result happens.

[cutlery]

As I mentioned, orcs still have a traint called aggressive. Let's not get tunnel vision and feel that once we remove statue bonuses from races all possibly hints of racism will be gone, because that is probably the worst of both worlds.

Yes, and as I argued, those traits being present means the original problem isn’t solved. However, if racial bonuses aren’t doing anything anymore, best to just jettison them.

New sets of traits that move away from those tropes would work fine for me, but I’m not the market segment they are thinking of.

The traditional players may be aging out - if so, we can expect lots of that stuff to go away. But, like I said, that’s a marketing question.

[Boci]

Yes, and as I argued, those traits being present means the original problem isn’t solved. However, if racial bonuses aren’t doing anything anymore, best to just jettison them.

What do you mean if they aren't doing anything anymore? They're doing the same thing they've always done. Whether that's worth keeping is a matter of opinion.

[cutlery]

What do you mean if they aren't doing anything anymore? They're doing the same thing they've always done. Whether that's worth keeping is a matter of opinion.

Floating bonuses. In the application of these new rules, they don’t do much anymore, other than there happen to be some races with a pair of +2s.

In the absence of these new rules they serve to make some races better for some classes. Removing the bonuses makes things less stark, but the racial traits remain. I don’t think Orcs or half-orcs as written, even with floating bonuses, will solve the problem the optional rules are meant to solve. So, I predict we will see further changes in this direction, henceforth.

[Boci]

Floating bonuses. In the application of these new rules, they don’t do much anymore, other than there happen to be some races with a pair of +2s.

In the absence of these new rules they serve to make some races better for some classes. Removing the bonuses makes things less stark, but the racial traits remain. I don’t think Orcs or half-orcs as written, even with floating bonuses, will solve the problem the optional rules are meant to solve. So, I predict we will see further changes in this direction, henceforth.

Alternativly this will be a varient rule that is never touched again, at least for the rest of 5e's run. I feel state bonuses are too ingrained into D&D 5e for them to want to change anything. The actual erata to the PHB has been minor, making this rule official and then removing racial state bonus to replace them with a +2/+1 assigned as you please would not feel as minor, even if in practice it basically was.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

But orcs literally aren't human. How are getting rid of racism if you have a race of dark skinned, more brutish looking indeviduals, whose origin was racist real world stereotypes, and who mechanics aside, are still not humans, but different?

You do not.

And what mechanical traits will give them that won't tie into some negative, real world stereotype? An earlier poster mistakenly thought Eberron orcs had primal intuition instead of aggressive, they actually have primal intuition instead of intimidating, but even if they didn't have aggresive anymore, isn't primal also a negative stereotype in the real world?

It does indeed create uncomfortable questions about the "noble savage," yes. The solution is to stop making orcs stereotypical backwards savages, by the way.

People objecting to racism are only mentioning orcs. The racial traits of dwarves and elves don't seem problematic, no one has mentioned them in this thread, and they have similar history of real world stereotypes. So, maybe we should just cut orcs from the game? I feel D&D can survive just fine without, though my preference would be to keep them.

The racial history of dwarves and elves are actually intensely problematic--perhaps even more so than orcs. Tolkien explicitly tied the large-nosed, bearded dwarves to Jews (Tolkien letter 229, and again in a 1964 BBC interview); elves being the "fairest" of the races and therefore the most explicitly good was bad, and that is not even getting into the absolute mess of the drow that others have referred to elsewhere. Drow are, in fact, one of the two other races that Wizards explicitly called out in this press release (the other being the Vistani, who are... oh my).

The reason I and others keep mentioning orcs is that they were simply the first race mentioned--and their historical less-than-human intellectual ability (which does hold true in this edition; remember that by baseline rules, humans get +1 to all stats) is a particularly egregious mechanical example.

And on the orc note: I did indeed misremember which objectionable trait was turned into Primal Intuition. I had thought it was Aggressive, but it was indeed Menacing.

[Amechra]

My approach to "Have your cake and eat it too" would be to make sure every "Culture" in the setting is explicitly Multiracial, with plenty of overlap (Races belonging to multiple Cultures).

Like, the classic Conan-esque Barbarians, don't make them All Orcs, establish that "Cimmeria" is a place occupied by Humans, Orcs, Elves, and Dwarves, all of whom have pretty similar Cultures. Any assumptions you make about a "Cimmerian" Orc are just as applicable to "Cimmerian" humans, except that the Orc has Darkvision and Tusks.

The trick is to make sure Orcs also show up in plenty of other cultures as well.

I've gone with a few different approaches lately:

1. My campaigns take place over a really small area. When your adventures are taking place in a kingdom the size of Rhode Island, it makes "race = culture" much less jarring, because you're dealing with smaller groups.
2. Not all "races" are truly distinct. For example, "half-orcs" are humans blessed/cursed by the Goddess of Fire - they burn with passion and vigor, but they "burn out" earlier. Some of them are born that way, some of them change when they're older. Gnomes and Dwarves are both "the people of iron" - kinda like how both chihuahuas and labradors are dogs. Stuff like that.
3. "Racial languages" aren't a thing. OK, this involves a little sophistry - there are languages that are primarily spoken by, say, elves. But there isn't, like, one "Elf" language that all elves speak.

[Boci]

You do not.
It does indeed create uncomfortable questions about the "noble savage," yes. The solution is to stop making orcs stereotypical backwards savages, by the way.

And what traits would those be? I'm not asking for a final ready for publish write up, just a rough idea of what traits you would feel comfortable saying every orc has that wouldn't be racist?

The racial history of dwarves and elves are actually intensely problematic.

Actually is typically used when you are correcting someone, and yet the post you quoted there from me already aknolwedged that point, I was well aware of the history, hence why I called it similar.