5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[Hemlock]

I love how the animators clearly have a grasp of army logistics and the need to move in column formation down roads.

And let's not forget:

P.S. I truly do not comprehend how or why some people mentally associate pre-Warcraft orcs with real-world minority groups like Native Americans. Tolkien wrote them as industrialized fantasy Nazis, and if those cartoons diverge from that it's only to make them look more like Neanderthals or trolls ("bash 'em, smash 'em, skin 'em alive!"), not ANY kind of anatomically modern human being.

 

[Hemlock]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I can be very well wrong as I don't dig and study as much as all of you into this stuff. But there has always been a debate between a Railroad and Sandbox type style play....right?

Me personally, I'm in favor of Sandbox play. Others can play however they want, as it doesn't affect me.
To me, Sandbox play is the epitome of letting the players have choices. When a DM supplies situations, hooks, what have you, the players ultimately create the story (that most interest them) by their choices. The adventure's plot (or DM's plot) is in the background...maybe followed, maybe not.

So...I will now start the debate that painting ALL humanoids as evil....to me, that heavily borders on Railroad play. It reduces choices. It reduces roleplay (i.e. I just slaughter them all because they are evil). It makes faction play in Caves of Chaos obsolete[2] depending on character class/alignment....why bother working with them, they are evil and we are good, lets slaughter them, etc.

I understand the distaste to have a special snowflake character who might be a orc or whatever...my response to that during play is to not go easy on that type of character and the trust takes forever to build and sometimes it doesn't, leading to PVP.[1]

...And sometimes that happens, by adding a helpful orc[3] or something a bit out of the ordinary for the party to deal with. To me personally, it just makes the world feel bigger and choices having a bigger impact.

[1] I think those kinds of "special" orc challenges are actually more interesting if the species in question does have an "always evil, kill on sight" reputation. There's nothing especially interesting to me about the idea of being (or running the game for) one more guy in a Star Wars cantina at whom no one bats an eye, but if you want to play a genuine bona fide man-eating troll at my table, not only are you going to have real, genuine logistical and legal difficulties that will be interesting to watch, but I'll enjoy watching you role play interactions with all the people who are 100% convinced that all trolls want to do is eat them. (Maybe it's even true! Obviously you can't actually do it and expect any kind of longevity as a PC, so presumably you have some kind of rationale for acting differently than the normal troll, but "normal bad-tempered Chaotic Evil troll who has somehow gotten addicted to the taste of fine pastries and needs gold to buy truckloads of them" is an interesting premise!)

[2] Faction play seems orthogonal to alignment discussions, more closely related to depth vs. simplicity. You can totally still have faction play with several factions of Always Evil beholders, neogis, and mind flayers for example. What makes faction play difficult is if they are simplistically evil with no behavior other than "suddenly mind flayers attack!" But as long as the mind flayers have realistic constraints on their capabilities ("there are only 23 of us, with 400 goblin slaves") and unfulfilled goals ("we'd really like to be the ones collecting protection money, and brains, from the coastal territory nearby") you can have meaningful Diplomacy-style faction play as well as sneaky Mission Impossible-style infiltration/deception play.

You can argue that allowing some fraction of mind flayers to act like sympathetic humans theoretically enables even more kinds of faction play, and technically you'd be right (although why not just use humans in those particular roles instead of humans in rubber masks? Alien psychology should be inhuman). But faction play doesn't require it.

[3] At the risk of repeating points #1 and #2, I see no conflict between "Always Evil" reputation or even basic psychology, and occasional helpfulness from members of that race. The sweets-addicted troll may be more than happy to help you kill a dragon in exchange for a share of the treasure. He may even deal faithfully with you instead of betraying you, especially if he's got a long-term partnership in mind. That doesn't mean he won't snack on a three-year-old toddler if/when he runs out of pastries, and if there are no consequences to him eating it.

 

[Beoric]

I think the problematic tropes are the savages of the jungle. This is apologism, but large chunks of the world were once vast tracts of cannibal-filled forest. It makes for exciting adventure. Even this trope isn't evil though. More neutral-hungry.

Pointing out that there is evidence that the celts practiced sacrificial cannibalism. You can avoid a lot of issues if all your cannibals aren't BIPOC.

To me the most interesting and provocative part of that article was this:

...The concept of an “evil race” becomes a cop-out. With later campaign settings like Spelljammer, Planescape and Eberron moving away from the concept.

I don't know Planescape well but what I love about Spelljammer is the opposite of this: Large Luigi aside, Spelljammer makes zero attempt to paint mind flayers, beholders, and neogi as anything but evil... but the setting is cosmopolitan enough to expect you to get along with them anyway. At least while you're in port.

A large part of Spelljammer's flavor comes from having LOTS of alien bad guys all in conflict with each other, and players getting to choose which factions they'll ally with to achieve what goals. (In Spelljammer even the Imperial Elvish Navy is usable as a bad guy faction!)

So, Eberron has this as well. There are always evil things in the universe, because extraplanar beings are incarnations of ideas like evil. You can't have a good demon because a demon embodies a particular type of evil; if a demon somehow ceases to be evil, it also ceases to be a demon, which will be accompanied by a physical transformation into the new concept that it does embody.

Races are not this way in Eberron because races are a way to explore culture. IMO, it is all well and good to explore human culture, but for many (most) players, every PC is culturally indistinguishable from the players, and every NPC is treated as culturally indistinguishable by the players (and usually the DM, if we are being honest). OTOH, players tend to buy in to differences in culture among demihumans and humanoids, partly because of the tropes associated with them, but also because they are just a bit alien by design. IME, even if you subvert a demihuman's or humanoid's tropes, players still buy into the new culture you have constructed, particularly if you build it into a known trait (like martial hobgoblins or the longevity of elves).

Also, points for quoting Brust.

So...I will now start the debate that painting ALL humanoids as evil....to me, that heavily borders on Railroad play. It reduces choices. It reduces roleplay (i.e. I just slaughter them all because they are evil). It makes faction play in Caves of Chaos obsolete depending on character class/alignment....why bother working with them, they are evil and we are good, lets slaughter them, etc.

I agree with this.

P.S. I truly do not comprehend how or why some people mentally associate pre-Warcraft orcs with real-world minority groups like Native Americans. Tolkien wrote them as industrialized fantasy Nazis, and if those cartoons diverge from that it's only to make them look more like Neanderthals or trolls ("bash 'em, smash 'em, skin 'em alive!"), not ANY kind of anatomically modern human being.

D&D orcs are swarthy (black or "brownish green " i.e. olive skinned) subhumans with overactive libidos who rape our women. Tolkein orcs were slant-eyed, flat nosed and yellow skinned. You really don't see how people connected those to existing racial tropes?

[1] I think those kinds of "special" orc challenges are actually more interesting if the species in question does have an "always evil, kill on sight" reputation.

It can still have the reputation. The reputation isn't necessarily true. Players having to figure out what is true is one of the most interesting parts of the game for me.

It is no improvement to just reverse the roles, either; genocidal humans with no redeeming characteristics, fighting noble savages who embody all that is good and pure in nature, are no more interesting. You just exchange one "always true" condition for a different "always true" condition. What I find more interesting is uncertainty.

[2] Faction play seems orthogonal to alignment discussions, more closely related to depth vs. simplicity. You can totally still have faction play with several factions of Always Evil beholders, neogis, and mind flayers for example. What makes faction play difficult is if they are simplistically evil with no behavior other than "suddenly mind flayers attack!" But as long as the mind flayers have realistic constraints on their capabilities ("there are only 23 of us, with 400 goblin slaves") and unfulfilled goals ("we'd really like to be the ones collecting protection money, and brains, from the coastal territory nearby") you can have meaningful Diplomacy-style faction play as well as sneaky Mission Impossible-style infiltration/deception play.

You can argue that allowing some fraction of mind flayers to act like sympathetic humans theoretically enables even more kinds of faction play, and technically you'd be right (although why not just use humans in those particular roles instead of humans in rubber masks? Alien psychology should be inhuman). But faction play doesn't require it.

All true, and this is part of why I think a degree of uncertainty regarding monster intentions is interesting. Although, in my game, mind flayers are incarnations of the fear of that which is alien, so they do to be evil because they do things that mortals fear.

[3] At the risk of repeating points #1 and #2, I see no conflict between "Always Evil" reputation or even basic psychology, and occasional helpfulness from members of that race. The sweets-addicted troll may be more than happy to help you kill a dragon in exchange for a share of the treasure. He may even deal faithfully with you instead of betraying you, especially if he's got a long-term partnership in mind. That doesn't mean he won't snack on a three-year-old toddler if/when he runs out of pastries, and if there are no consequences to him eating it.

Also true, and this is how I treat the incarnations of evil. Incarnations of evil often want to make deals or work with you; for some, trying to corrupt you is in their nature. You know they are evil, you just don't know what their true motive is, and whether (or when) it will lead to betrayal.

EDIT: BTW, the incarnation of evil ideas can be an interesting way of differentiating the personalities and motivations of demons, devils and the like. If you make a demon represent the fear of a particular type of thing, like fire or insects or filth, that can modify how it looks, how it behaves, what it's lair looks like; all should be calculated to creep out or terrorize the players out in a particular way. Likewise, if your devils represent a particular type of corruption, their look, motivation, behaviour and environment will be designed to try to corrupt players in that particular way.

 

[Hemlock]

Pointing out that there is evidence that the celts practiced sacrificial cannibalism. You can avoid a lot of issues if all your cannibals aren't BIPOC.

...

D&D orcs are swarthy (black or "brownish green " i.e. olive skinned) subhumans with overactive libidos who rape our women. Tolkein orcs were slant-eyed, flat nosed and yellow skinned. You really don't see how people connected those to existing racial tropes? *Snip*

Maybe it's partly because of Rankin-Bass influence but I truly don't see orcs as "swarthy" in the first place. More likely blue or green. By the way I don't think it matters but I'm green-skinned myself, or brownish green anyway.

I would say that anyone who reads your descriptions of lusty orcs and immediately thinks "BIPOC!" has some disturbing biases. Maybe they come by them honestly (from study of historical prejudice?) but they're still biases, and disturbing. Furthermore you've omitted salient characteristics of Tolkien's orcs in choosing your list of characteristics. Industrialized orcs living underground, cunning in the arts of metalsmithing and war--if someone ignores these traits to focus only on skin color and facial features in evaluating BIPOCness, I find that, too, disturbing.

RE: cannibalism, FWIW my favorite D&D cannibals are Athasian halflings, who don't really have a skin tone in my imagination (the art is in black and white) so I guess that counts as being "if all your cannibals aren't BIPOC"? It certainly should. Absence of evidence of intent should be construed as evidence of absence. Halflings are halflings, not anatomically modern humans.

P.S. Apropos of nothing, Athasian halflings are cool but their low movement rate (MV 6 as opposed to 12 for humans) makes me so paranoid about getting eaten that I basically view psychoportation as mandatory for a halfling PC. Like, sure be an Illusionist if you want, but let's make that an Illusionist/Psychoporter to keep you alive. Not being able to run away stinks. This probably says more about me than it does about Athasian halflings...

P.P.S. Obviously it's different for halflings who are built to be roleplayed as either bravely philosophical about death or shortsighted enough not to think about fast monsters before meeting any, but that's not an attitude I tend to take towards PCs during chargen, as opposed to with my DM hat on.

 

[squeen]

Classic evil villains had style. They were smart, could make temporary alliances, etc. but ultimately their goals were awful. This was Moriarty, The Master, Ming, Vader, (pre-MCU) Loki, Thanos, etc.

Evil is not "attack on sight"...not even animals do that.

The simple, dumb orc has no morals. Betrayal, surprise-attacks, back-stabbing, envy, greed, cruelty, slavery, killing, torture, sacrifice of innocents, taking hostages, using poison, etc. these are normalized behavior even amongst themselves. They will not "turn over a new leaf" if you are nice to them, nor are they only biter because they have no friends, nor cruel because they are victims of some past wrong. They hate the light and worship only self-interest. In some cases, driven by pride, they see humanity as lessers or animal-prey---utterly beneath them. In game, evil actors are, at best, uneasy allies of the moment...but they always will twist/break alliances and ultimately betray.

To quote the Vogon Captain:

“So what you’re saying is that I write poetry because underneath my mean callous heartless exterior I really just want to be loved,” he said. He paused, “Is that right?” Ford laughed a nervous laugh. “Well, I mean, yes,” he said, “don’t we all, deep down, you know … er …” The Vogon stood up. “No, well, you’re completely wrong,” he said, “I just write poetry to throw my mean callous heartless exterior into sharp relief.

Irredeemable, just like devils and demons. And it doesn't mean you have to kill them all, or that good characters can throw their principles out the window when dealing with them. That's another classic conundrum from adventure literature---how does Western/Judeo-Christian man act morally in an amoral world? That leads to constraints on the good guys like Batman & Superman refusing to use guns or kill---moral compulsions that the bad guys simply ignore. Good PCs have to walk that often difficult line to be true heroes. Playing evil PCs is a cop-out IMO.

Like Kurt Vonnegurt said, it's a bad/rookie move to tell you about the villain's troubled youth---pretty much kills the story (hello Star Wars prequels!).

Make no mistake about the "no evil races" folks: they do not like classic D&D and would like to see its destruction.

If you want to "explore culture", make them neutrals. For the most part, these are your potential allies in fighting evil. There is an infinity of possibilities for those types of beings in a game. My player are constantly making allies with all manner of men and beasts.

Just leave the few races OD&D/AD&D has designated as evil alone so you can actually have a legit antagonist, some conflict, and frequently a compulsion to act! Don't over-think the game.

 

[Hemlock]

The simple, dumb orc has no morals. Betrayal, surprise-attacks, back-stabbing, envy, greed, cruelty, slavery, killing, torture, sacrifice of innocents, taking hostages, using poison, etc. these are normalized behavior even amongst themselves. They will not "turn over a new leaf" if you are nice to them, nor are not only biter because they have no friends, nor cruel because they are victims of some past wrong. They hate the light and worship only self-interest. In some cases, driven by pride, they see humanity as lessers or animal-prey---utterly beneath them. In game, evil actors are, at best, uneasy allies of the moment...but they always will twist/break alliances and ultimately betray.

...Good PCs have to walk that often difficult line to be true heroes. Playing evil PCs is a cop-out IMO.

Like Kurt Vonnegurt said, it's a bad/rookie move to tell you about the villain's troubled youth---pretty much kills the story (hello Star Wars prequels!)...

Just leave the few races OD&D/AD&D has designated as evil alone so you can actually have a legit antagonist, some conflict, and frequently a compulsion to act! Don't over-think the game.

These are valid points but I want to get my own opinions on record:

1.) It's fine for the simple orcs you describe here to exist. It's also fine for more nuanced orcs to exist. I don't feel compelled to use one or the other and I don't think anyone SHOULD feel compelled. If you want to use Eberron orcs in one game and Always Evil orcs guarding pies in dungeons in a different game, that's fine by me. (Just don't try both in the same game or players will get confused.)

2.) I like the Star Wars prequels and feel that they add a lot to the story. Luke:Vader::Galahad:Lancelot really works for me.

3.) "Just leave the evil races alone" works for me as an admonition to people trying to influence publishers to exclude evil orcs, etc., from the universe of what is permissible to publish. But when it comes to individual DMs or writers constructing specific gameworlds I feel quite the opposite: go ahead and do whatever you want to orcs, trolls, vampires, and so on. I fully embrace #OurOrcsAreDifferent as an interesting thing. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurOrcsAreDifferent

4.) I don't think that evil PCs are a cop-out.

 

[squeen]

Fair enough. I am no D&D dictator, just highly opinionated!

I liked the SW prequels too (albeit far less than the original three which were primal-mythological Flash Gordon done with a grandeur we've never before witnessed). BUT the Anakin Skywalker in the prequels is so utterly disconnected from Darth Vader who is perhaps THE greatest villains in the history of cinema. Night and day, and it never feels otherwise---despite the plot. And nothing in the story ever really justifies or explains that transition in a satisfying way. The prequels were made with Lucas embracing his role as an storyteller for children, and to portray on-screen that characters descent into madness and sin was incompatible with his intended audience. It was never going to be the visceral tragedy necessary to connect those two persona (thankfully!).

We digress...

In my world I've personally changed the origins of goblins, hobgoblins and orcs to (like Tolkien, but not Gygax) eliminate "wives & babies"---they are more mythical/less human. It's just cleaner. They are simply the Foot-Soldiers of Evil and the Reapers of Chaos. There are also no half-orc PCs. You want to thinker with other monsters? That's fine by me, but orcs & goblin are foundational. Sue me.

 

[Malrex]

Evil is not "attack on sight"...not even animals do that.

That's because animals are neutral....sorry, couldn't help it. No, I agree with you, evil doesn't have to be attack on sight all the time (that is akin to Chaotic Stupid).

That leads to constraints on the good guys like Batman & Superman refusing to use guns or kill---moral compulsions that the bad guys simply ignore. Good PCs have to walk that often difficult line to be true heroes. Playing evil PCs is a cop-out IMO.

Ya...constraints on good guys....that's why its VERY difficult and challenging to play a paladin, despite their powers.
I agree with Hemlock, playing a evil PC is not a cop-out. It just has its own set of different and difficult challenges when played right. Some things (killing) might be easier, but they have other challenges that good guys don't have to worry about (zero trust from companions/minions).

 

[Hemlock]

I liked the SW prequels too (albeit far less than the original three which were primal-mythological Flash Gordon done with a grandeur we've never before witnessed). BUT the Anakin Skywalker in the prequels is so utterly disconnected from Darth Vader who is perhaps THE greatest villains in the history of cinema.

Maybe that's the thing then. I never particularly found Darth Vader impressive (although he has a great voice) and so for me, putting him in emotional context (failed "Chosen One", dead wife) makes Return of the Jedi in particular vastly more interesting. Every interaction with Luke is more meaningful, and that climax where he betrays the Emperor--instead of being tonally weird--is the culmination of a redemption arc, Anakin finally doing what he should have done in the first place, because he loves his son.

I dig it. I get that not everyone does, but I dig it.

In my world I've personally changed the origins of goblins, hobgoblins and orcs to (like Tolkien, but not Gygax) eliminate "wives & babies"---they are more mythical/less human. It's just cleaner. They are simply the Foot-Soldiers of Evil and the Reapers of Chaos. There are also no half-orc PCs. You want to thinker with other monsters? That's fine by me, but orcs & goblin are foundational. Sue me.

Yes, this is a very clean solution to the orc ecology problem. I agree, Foot Soldiers of Evil in the mythic underworld are better off without a reproductive cycle. (Or, frankly, an economic source for the loot you take from them. Gold is just THERE in the mythic underworld, just like monsters are.)

 

[Hemlock]

Ya...constraints on good guys....that's why its VERY difficult and challenging to play a paladin, despite their powers.
I agree with Hemlock, playing a evil PC is not a cop-out. It just has its own set of different and difficult challenges when played right. Some things (killing) might be easier, but they have other challenges that good guys don't have to worry about (zero trust from companions/minions).

My favorite kind of evil PC is the Morrolan e'Drien/Gentleman John Marcone type, the ones who have questionable personality traits like bloodthirstiness, callousness, or lechery, but who have noble characteristics too such as generosity to friends (or even enemies!), a sense of honor, and can be counted on to put their lives on the line to do what's right when it truly counts.

I'm not saying I like them more than the straight-up good guys who do all that and also don't torture their enemies to death, but credit where credit is due.

Evil is complex, and you can qualify as evil in multiple different ways. King David for example was a murderous liar who among other things killed one of his own buddies in order to cover up David's affair with his wife, and he's evil in my book, but he had positive qualities too like courage, valor and skill. Playing an emotionally-accurate King David is not a cop-out in my book. In fact I'd find it exhausting.

 

[Beoric]

Maybe it's partly because of Rankin-Bass influence but I truly don't see orcs as "swarthy" in the first place. More likely blue or green. By the way I don't think it matters but I'm green-skinned myself, or brownish green anyway.

I would say that anyone who reads your descriptions of lusty orcs and immediately thinks "BIPOC!" has some disturbing biases. Maybe they come by them honestly (from study of historical prejudice?) but they're still biases, and disturbing. Furthermore you've omitted salient characteristics of Tolkien's orcs in choosing your list of characteristics. Industrialized orcs living underground, cunning in the arts of metalsmithing and war--if someone ignores these traits to focus only on skin color and facial features in evaluating BIPOCness, I find that, too, disturbing.

The description is from the 1e MM, so ?

In the 70s, when D&D came out, and also in the 80s, the predominant depiction of Black men and a lot of other men of colour in media was as criminals who generally had orcish traits. Greater balance in these depictions is a relatively recent memory, but the (quite recent) memory of those media depictions remains, particularly among those who had to suffer through the stereotypes, still persists. Like, one dumb, rapey Black villain is a character, but if nearly all depictions of Black men are as dumb, rapey villains, it creates or reinforces a stereotype.

 

[Hemlock]

The description is from the 1e MM, so ?

I reject that interpretation of the 1E MM. My copy of the 1e MM says:

Orc tribes are fiercely competitive, and when they meet it is 75% likely that they will fight each other unless a strong leader (such as a wizard, evil priest, evil lord) with sufficient force behind him is on hand to control the orcs. Being bullies, the stronger will always intimidate and dominate the weaker. (If goblins are near, for example, and the orcs are strong enough, they will happily bully them.) Orcs dwell in places where sunlight is dim or non-existent, for they hate the light. In full daylight they must deduct 1 from their dice rolls to hit opponents, but they see well even in total darkness (infravision).

Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general, but they particularly hate elves and will always attack them in preference to other creatures. They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.) but not elves whom they kill immediately.

Orcs are accomplished tunnelers and miners. They note new or unusual constructions underground 35% of the time and spot sloping passages 25% of the time.

Description: Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration — brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen — highlights their pinkish snouts and ears. Their bristly hair is dark brown or black, sometimes with tan patches. Even their armor tends to be unattractive — dirty and often a bit rusty. Orcs favor unpleasant colors in general. Their garments are in tribal colors, as are shield devices or trim. Typical colors are blood red, rust red, mustard yellow, yellow green, moss green, greenish purple, and blackish brown. They live for 40 years. (emphasis mine)

That's pretty different from any description of any anatomically modern human, so I don't think we get to blame Gygax for the "orcs = BIPOC" trope. Nor Tolkien. I think it's just Warcraft.

1E orcs are clearly just monsters. They're more like the boogeyman than BIPOC.

In the 70s, when D&D came out, and also in the 80s, the predominant depiction of Black men and a lot of other men of colour in media was as criminals who generally had orcish traits. Greater balance in these depictions is a relatively recent memory, but the (quite recent) memory of those media depictions remains, particularly among those who had to suffer through the stereotypes, still persists. Like, one dumb, rapey Black villain is a character, but if nearly all depictions of Black men are as dumb, rapey villains, it creates or reinforces a stereotype.

Okay, but that says more about BIPOC depictions than about orcs. By calling them "orcish traits" you're begging the question. Were brown-skinned men in the 70s really depicted as underground bullying tunnellers, cannibals, and slave-takers with multicolored skins? Color me skeptical.

Look. I get the idea you're suggesting: caricatures can be hurtful. I can read L.E. Modisett's novel Parafaith War for example and recognize that his bad guys are clearly intended to be a caricature on an ethnicity he disliked. They're polygamous, males go on interstellar religious missions prior to getting married, believe in a book of scripture called the Book of Toren (which the protagonist successfully theologically subverts), and so on. If you want to get offended about making a real-life group the cartoonish baddies, get offended[1] about something that's clear in its intent to analogize and villify. D&D orcs aren't even close to that.

[1] Well, actually don't. It never helps.

 

[Beoric]

Okay, but that says more about BIPOC depictions than about orcs. By calling them "orcish traits" you're begging the question. Were brown-skinned men in the 70s really depicted as underground bullying tunnellers, cannibals, and slave-takers with multicolored skins? Color me skeptical.

Look. I get the idea you're suggesting: caricatures can be hurtful. I can read L.E. Modisett's novel Parafaith War for example and recognize that his bad guys are clearly intended to be a caricature on an ethnicity he disliked. They're polygamous, males go on interstellar religious missions prior to getting married, believe in a book of scripture called the Book of Toren (which the protagonist successfully theologically subverts), and so on. If you want to get offended about making a real-life group the cartoonish baddies, get offended[1] about something that's clear in its intent to analogize and villify. D&D orcs aren't even close to that.

[1] Well, actually don't. It never helps.

No to tunnellers, yes to cannibals (cannibals in early movies are always brown or Black - or per the headhunters in Gilligan's Island, white guys in brownface.

I'm not sure about the prevalence of depictions as slavers. US Blacks certainly are never depicted as slavers, given US history, but I think non-US Blacks (including "moors") are often pirates and slavers. Think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the ship captain pretends he is going to sell Marion; that scene is effective because it draws on a trope.

The rapeyness and depictions of overactive libidos are sterotypes that Black men still have to deal with; To Kill A Mockingbird drew on, and discredited, this trope. As for the Monster Manual:

Half-Orcs: As orcs will breed with anything, there are any number of unsavory mongrels with orcish blood, particularly orc-goblins, orc-hobgoblins, and orc-humans. Orcs cannot cross-breed with elves. Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily, so such sorts are basically orcs although they can sometimes (10%) pass themselves off as true creatures of their other stock (goblins, hobgoblins, humans, etc.).

Italics added.

Note this also includes a "tainting the bloodline" trope for good measure.

The thing is, the biases associated with these are unconscious. So dude in the 80s picks up negative tropes about BIPOC people, and when asked (as a DM) to portray humanoids that have character traits that are associated with those tropes, IME they tend to channel those tropes when fleshing out their depictions of the humanoids. The same goes for assumptions that players make about how humanoids are going to behave.

Like, I played elf games in the 80s, in Alberta (Canadians in this forum know what that means). Not everyone I played with was exactly a leftie, and let me say that their prejudices definitely impacted how they portrayed humanoids. People bring their assumptions about how evil behaves, and those assumptions are unconsciously drawn from the examples of evil they have seen, because that is how tropes work. I mean, are we not all acutely conscious right now of how people will believe a thing they hear repeated over and over even if they have no objective reason to believe it is true?

I still see these portrayals today. Every "friendly" comic relief goblin has a personality like Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or the asian kid from Goonies, and (to move from racism to sexism) every evil drow priestess is drawn like a dominatrix. The 3e MM picture of a goblin looks a lot like pictures of Japanese soldiers in 1940s US comics. Hobgoblins were slant-eyed in AD&D, and still generally wear fucking asian or faux-asian armor.

I don't ask anybody not to use evil humanoids. I just ask people to be conscious about how they portray humanoids and to consciously avoid those tropes. How is that bad?

 

[Hemlock]

I don't ask anybody not to use evil humanoids. I just ask people to be conscious about how they portray humanoids and to consciously avoid those tropes. How is that bad?

Whoa, slow down Beoric. Nobody is calling you bad. Just unpersuasive.

"Cannibals, when they occur, were portrayed as brown-skinned" is not good evidence that brown-skinned people were portrayed as cannibals, let alone as orcs. Cannibals were portrayed as human, too, but that doesn't mean humans in general were being portrayed as cannibals. "A is a subset of B" is not "B is a subset of A."

P.S. RE: "or the asian kid from Goonies", I can't say I've seen that kind of imitation happen, but if it did: I say, Ke Huy Quan is awesome! To me this reads a lot like someone saying "Austrian-Americans are always portrayed as extremely fit Schwarzeneggers." I mean, sure, it's an incorrect generalization, but it's hard to take offense at the idea of people thinking Austrianness is awesome, isn't it? Even recently, as an adult actor, Ke Huy Quan's character was the best part of Everything Everywhere All At Once. I'm a fan.

 

[Beoric]

"Cannibals, when they occur, were portrayed as brown-skinned" is not good evidence that brown-skinned people were portrayed as cannibals, let alone as orcs. Cannibals were portrayed as human, too, but that doesn't mean humans in general were being portrayed as cannibals. "A is a subset of B" is not "B is a subset of A."

No, it's evidence that only brown-skinned people were portrayed as cannibals, as I said. If you see no significance in this, then I guess I give up.

P.S. RE: "or the asian kid from Goonies", I can't say I've seen this happen, but if it did: I say, Ke Hu Qwan is awesome! To me this reads a lot like someone saying "Austrian-Americans are always portrayed as musclebound Schwarzeneggers." I mean, sure, it's an incorrect generalization, but it's hard to take offense at the idea of people thinking Austrianness is awesome, isn't it? Even recently, as an adult, Ke Hu Qwan's character was the best part of Everything Everywhere All At Once. Maybe you're not a fan, Beoric, but I am.

I am a fan. Perhaps you have seen him in American Born Chinese?

 

[Hemlock]

I'm going to leave the other topic where it is.

I am a fan. Perhaps you have seen him in American Born Chinese?

I have not but I'll check it out.

BTW, on the subject of Star Wars prequels from earlier: I saw Dune Part 2 today. It gave me major Anakin/Vader vibes.

 

[The1True]

my favorite D&D cannibals are Athasian halflings

Dark Sun f'n rulez!
6" Mv though. daaamn

A buddy of mine ran a Neutral lizardman cannibal from the Amedio jungle in a Greyhawk campaign. We saved him from slavery at the hands of the Scarlet Brotherhood, so we were pretty sure he wouldn't eat us. He did a pretty solid job of revearing nature and devouring his enemies.

 

[The1True]

and to portray on-screen that characters descent into madness and sin was incompatible with his intended audience.

Gonna disagree with you there. I happily watched the first two prequels with my kids when they were 7 and 5, but it's been two years and I still haven't watched the third one with them. There is some hard hard shit in that movie. Also, watching Anakin slowly descend into the darkside on the Clone Wars cartoon is pretty cool.
I didn't mind Ahsoka. I would watch more. It's not the Thrawn I know and love, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[The1True]

King David for example was a murderous liar

Also, look at his contemporaries among the heroes of the Greek heroic age. Bloodsoaked savages the lot of them, but they're the protagonist. I think that's where early D&D comes from as well. This, boon companion to his friends, protector unto death of his loved ones, saviour of fair maidens. But then he straight up murders NPC's like temple guards and city watch or humiliates similarly aligned opponents on the battlefield.
It doesn't jive well with the modern sensibility how people outside of a tiny circle close to your narrative are just 'other' and therefor completely disposable.
In fictional worlds, I've been trying to get back to that strangely naive/honest outlook for a while. The hero as murderer, thief and despoiler. A demigod at the mercy of his passions. In the real world, maybe there are too many stupid people for us to be revearing this archetype anymore.

 

[Hemlock]

...so we were pretty sure he wouldn't eat us...

I love this sentence. This is what makes D&D amazing.