So, to bring this thread back to something closer to the original talking point, I thought I'd take a look at some of the core lore behind the origin of the orcs and the nature of their highest god, Gruumsh One-Eye. Now, even the 5e Monster Manual and Volo's push the idea that the classic orcish savagery is something intrinsic to their being, but if we set that aside a lot of the lore can still be incorporated into building an orcish culture that avoids defaulting into "Always Chaotic Evil".

So, to start way back at the very beginning, the Monster Manual tells us that when the gods were populating the world at the dawn of creation, Gruumsh tried to lay claim to promising lands like the mountains, forests, or plains, but always found some other deity was their first and not inclined to share. Why he was late to the party isn't elaborated on, but if you want a simple neutral explanation, drawing lots is a classic and sooner or later all the good real estate would be claimed. Gruumsh, unfortunately, did not take this with good grace, and so he lashed out at the other gods for a time, with the major deity of the elven pantheon being the one to put out one of his eyes, earning an even greater portion of Gruumsh's ire. From this we can see how Gruumsh fits as a Chaotic Evil deity, being belligerent, wrathful, and vindictive, but at the same time there's a human element to it; his actions aren't what we'd consider positive, but you can understand where they come from.

So, then, if we then jump to orc culture developing under the aegis of their patron in a relatively barren and inhospitable land, you can see how some of the classic traits and attitudes would emerge. They'd lean towards a hunter-gatherer existence early on and might not be able to hit the point where they can wholly turn the corner to large-scale agriculture within the scope of the typical medieval D&D setting. There'd be more impetus for every individual to "pull their weight" in society, rather than pursuing more abstract or creative fields. Which is not so say they wouldn't expand into them at all, but it might be that there's a designated X number figures who fill that niche and each only takes one or two apprentices in a lifetime, making access to that field a competitive process. Add to that a chief deity whose experiences and opinions have led him to conclude and pass on to his mortal children that you need to fight for what you want because one's going to give it to you, particularly other races and especially those damn knife-ears, and it's reasonable that a raiding element would develop as well as groups compete for limited resources or run up against neighbors who seem to have an abundance. Even if/once they stabilized into a more centralized society, it's reasonable that a culture that promotes strength, independence, and a mistrust of outsiders could be dominant. They wouldn't all be fierce warriors and raiders, but those could easily be the ones who become heroic/mythic figures who represent the pinnacle of achievement. Certain other elements, such as the idea that orcs are superstitious and often on the lookout for omens of their deities' pleasure/displeasure, can be applied to taste. There's a certain "foolish primitives" element to it, particularly to a Western audience, but the existence of such attitudes is not without precedent in various cultures either, historically speaking, and this is a setting where magic and deities are real active forces, so perhaps there's more merit to such watchfulness than not.

Speaking of deities in the plural and suchlike, lets take a quick look at the remaining pantheon from Volo's. First there's two warriors who serve as Gruumsh's lieutenants, Ilneval the War Maker and Baghtru the leg breaker, respectively embodying tactical combat and raw strength with elements of savagery and cruelty. Really, I'd say these two work well as-is as they represent the idea that an orc warrior can choose between either school of thought. Maybe round Ilneval out a little to cover the crafts and trades that support a fighting force as well. Next we have Luthic, the only goddess in the pantheon, whose classic role is the "Cave Mother"; she covers the day to day crafts that keep an orc tribe going in the lore, as well as overseeing the raising and protection of the young and tempering Gruumsh's passions so the orcs don't destroy themselves. Volo's again leans into the idea that orcs only look to raise their young as more raiders and their crafts are crude works, but it's easy to take that core and shift it to more generally cover civilian life, craftsmanship, and a measure of temperance and diplomacy. Finally we come to the two spooky figures in the pantheon: Yurtrus the White Hands and Shargaas the Night Lord. Their realms are considered taboo by typical orc society according to Volo's, with Yurtrus covering disease and death while Shargaas covers subterfuge and darkness. I'd say these also work pretty well with only a little retooling, if any. Yurtrus' disciples see to the remains of the dead and traffick in the kinds of sketchy magics no one likes to think much about or see, and while the lore of course has orcs divvying up the dead based on how "good" their deaths were and leaving those deemed failures to rot, it's again simple to retool them to whatever rites orcs follow in your setting. Finally, Shargaas is a substantially reviled figure per Volo's, with the weak and exiled being sent to his followers to either be brought into the fold or sacrificed to him; his followers also weed out the weak in a tribe, acting as spies, assassins, and secret police to a degree. Obviously the culling element is not a great look, so if you're looking to give your orcish culture a more nuanced approach perhaps make him an exile and renegade within the pantheon as well rather than an accepted figure, or at least that interpretation of culling within society being a more fanatic/heretical interpretation while in the mainstream he's simply the pragmatic one whose followers do the dirty work when needed.

And et voila! A broad strokes orcish culture that incorporates a good portion of the official book lore both on the cosmic and mundane level while avoiding the "orcs are all primitive savages who can think of nothing but lashing out at all other races" trope. That went longer than I intended, but I thought it was a good example of how you can maintain strong ties to classic lore while getting out of the more problematic elements of how a race has been cast.

I like emphasizing that orcs might not come from the most hospitable environment, and their culture might have developed along those lines emphasizing strength and survival for that reason. It makes me think of the Aiel from the Wheel of Time, who were shaped by the Wastes and are perceived by many to be "savages" because of a war they fought with the other nations of the world 20 years ago, but as you spend a significant portion of the books getting to know them at more than just that surface level, you see they just have different values and cultural practices that the "wetlanders" (as they call everyone who doesn't live in the Wastes) do not understand. As you get to know them you see that while yes the Aiel are a fierce warrior culture, that's by no means all they are; they have a vibrant way of life, interesting beliefs and practices, and a surprisingly pervading sense of humor at the roughness of their lives, and the Aiel characters turn out to be some of the best characters in the books. 

In One D&D UA, they have "Orcs of Many Words Worlds" include an example of Orcs defending nature from Fiends and such and living in harmony with others. Apparently, they're still descendants of the whole Gruumsh stuff. (Eberron, maybe? I'd have to go look.) Orcs are who they are by the choices they make.

Can Orcs still be tribal and harsh and value strength above all virtues as is the common idea? Yes. Does that immediately make them a threat? No. Can they still be a threat anyway? Yes, if they choose to be. Can they be so much of a threat that someone must deal with them? Yes, but that would be because of their choices and not their heritage.

If you cannot explain why they're a problem demanding a response, it's best to look elsewhere before you end up with "'Orcs'='bad' full stop."

So, okay, after seven pages and a bit of digression I think we're mostly in agreement that KOS orcs are achievable within the bounds of 'non-racism.'

There seems to be some degree of agreement that gnolls, having been reidentified as monstrosities, are magical creations rather than people, now, and different rules apply to them -- or maybe just no one is interested in taking up their defense.

So what about fey?

This is topic relevant, because the new hobgoblin monster statblocks in MotM describe them as fey, and while the goblin and bugbear haven't been reprinted, it is a safe bet they are supposed to be too, based on the goblinoid sidebar also in MotM.  I expect to see that update in oneD&D, if not before.

So do fey have control over their destinies, like orcs and humans and elves?  Or are they creations of magic like the gnoll, defined in behavior as well as form by the weave?  Or are they concept-locked functions of their plane, like demons and devas?

I can extrapolate that the humanoid goblinoids are safe, from the rules we've already established here, but what about the fey goblinoids?

At the very least if they are playable, they are people.

And honestly I'm not sure the approach of "what about [X] type of creature, is it racist or not to portray them in a certain way?" is the right one. The core issue of whether or not portrayals of creatures will make someone uncomfortable in a racialized context is whether or not their treatment comes off as racialized discrimination. So it's not just as simple as trying to decide which creature type is safe to treat in a racist manner. That misses the whole point that if you treat anything in a racist manner in your writing you're going to trigger discomfort, even if the target of that is not ostensibly a person.

It's not a easy thing to just checkmark, it is a qualitative thing.

Which means also it's a bit hard to tell what will come off as okay. My idea of making orcs and goblins a viral curse might be okay for some people, but it might not be for others. I have witnessed discrimination against the HIV+ community and it only now occurs to me that my idea could very easily trigger those traumas.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Which means also it's a bit hard to tell what will come off as okay. My idea of making orcs and goblins a viral curse might be okay for some people, but it might not be for others. I have witnessed discrimination against the HIV+ community and it only now occurs to me that my idea could very easily trigger those traumas.

Aye, it likely would.

As with most aspects of the Fey, the answer is something along “it depends” or “sometimes”. Any race that has PC stats can be assumed to have a broad degree of agency, although for cases like the Eladrin creature blocks I would say their season very strongly influenced their disposition, as a byproduct of their being more thoroughly immersed in the Feywild’s nature. Anything more separate from the mortal/humanoid model still has a measure of agency, but I’d say does cleave strongly to their inherent nature. Baba Yaga, for example, is presented to have a good deal more depth than a typical hag, but at the same time is still established to be a dangerous and vindictive schemer with her own agenda and little regard for the well-being of others. Her character is not just another hag, but still clearly a hag.

 I mean, how can anyone think poorly of Gnolls and Goblins?

Decided to grab my very old dice bag, and inside on top were the few remaining Monster Cards from 1982 I still have.  I do not still have the Orcs, but I did have these two and the Kobold and Bugbear cards.

I thought it was interesting that the idea of gnolls at this time was Cat based. And that Goblins decided don't "look evil" -- or all that poorly quipped.

On the other hand,...

Bugbears and Kobolds are something else...

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

At the very least if they are playable, they are people.

 To be clear, fey hobgoblins are not playable, at least not by RAW.  Playable goblinoids are humanoids, not fey, and if that changes in oneD&D, then it would invalidate the question, for sure.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Which means also it's a bit hard to tell what will come off as okay. My idea of making orcs and goblins a viral curse might be okay for some people, but it might not be for others. I have witnessed discrimination against the HIV+ community and it only now occurs to me that my idea could very easily trigger those traumas.

Is the disease angle important?  I feel like you might be able to skirt that simply by avoiding words like 'viral' and 'contagious.'  If it spreads by sexual contact, uh, no, you're stuck, but if it is just a curse that spreads by proximity there are plenty of ways you could describe that that would not invoke disease.  Therianthropy, vampirism, and even Romero zombies spring to mind as similar ideas that do not seem to draw much concern even when they do invoke tropes of illness. 

I've had a disease-based character concept evolving in my setting for 30 years, and I'm no stranger to the self-doubt.  It's fraught, but achievable.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

And honestly I'm not sure the approach of "what about [X] type of creature, is it racist or not to portray them in a certain way?" is the right one. The core issue of whether or not portrayals of creatures will make someone uncomfortable in a racialized context is whether or not their treatment comes off as racialized discrimination. So it's not just as simple as trying to decide which creature type is safe to treat in a racist manner. That misses the whole point that if you treat anything in a racist manner in your writing you're going to trigger discomfort, even if the target of that is not ostensibly a person.

It's not a easy thing to just checkmark, it is a qualitative thing.

This might be the best post in the thread.  It is at least the most efficient.

um, within the context of the game system, Humanoids *are* people. So are Fey.

"People" is not synonymous with Human -- that is one of underlying issues, lol.

I think fey appear often enough and consistently enough in folklore and other media as these strange, aloof otherworldly beings, that they don't engender as much of a racialized association. Their thing is that they act, think, perceive the world, *differently* than mortals, not *less* than mortals. They're not treated as sub-human (which is where most of the problematic representation comes from when a fantasy species/race is treated in this way), they're INhuman. They call our attention to the unknown, the unknowable, to doubt even the most base truths we thought we knew. 

I really love Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell for the way it depicts fairies. They're ancient and sublime, but petty and mean, but kind and sympathetic, but they delight in pain, but they're rankled by injustice. They're entirely subjective with no inherent morality aside from how they feel in the moment. They're impossible to understand, they speak to stones in their own language, they mix colors out of feelings and wear singing dresses to dreary balls under the earth. Everything about them is different, not in an in-group out-group way, but in a 'beyond mortal ken' kind of way, which I don't think bears any real world associations. 

As for hobgoblins' inclusion in their number, I think it's more in the same way that they're descended from fey ancestors from the unseelie court long ago, rather than that they are actually otherworldly wild folk from the other side of the sky. From a lore perspective I suppose it would work to say all goblinoids are descended from unseelie fey ancestry. Maybe an ur-goblin common ancestor that also branched off into red caps and other monsters. 

Quote from AEDorsay >>

um, within the context of the game system, Humanoids *are* people. So are Fey.

"People" is not synonymous with Human -- that is one of underlying issues, lol.

Yikes, sorry for the confusion, I edited my post.  "To be clear, fey hobgoblins are not playable, at least not by RAW."

Unlike Gnolls who, in some lore, are soley driven by a base, instinctual desire of hunger and incapable of further reasoning by magical design of an indifferent Demon Lord, Fey can reason and do make choices. Those choices determine the responses their actions receive, not the fact they're Fey.

If someone can make decisions, the person is responsible for all that person does even if under duress though difficult as those choices can be in that situation. If a creature has no ability to choose beyond instinct or magical compulsion, the decisions on how to deal with the creature are determined by necessity based on threat, circumstances, and consequences.

Either way, the issue has zip-all to do with what they are and everything to do with what they do.

The trick with having people as enemies in D&D is showing their choices demand a response. If you can't do that or don't have enough time to do that, go for something with no choices in the matter.

Quote from DMZ2112>>

Quote from Ophidimancer>>

At the very least if they are playable, they are people.

To be clear, fey hobgoblins are not playable, at least not by RAW.  Playable goblinoids are humanoids, not fey, and if that changes in oneD&D, then it would invalidate the question, for sure.

We have playable Fey type characters. Fairies are Fey. Since they are playable, they are thus people and I'm treating that as the lowest bar to count as people. 

Quote from Ophidimancer>>

Which means also it's a bit hard to tell what will come off as okay. My idea of making orcs and goblins a viral curse might be okay for some people, but it might not be for others. I have witnessed discrimination against the HIV+ community and it only now occurs to me that my idea could very easily trigger those traumas.

Is the disease angle important?  I feel like you might be able to skirt that simply by avoiding words like 'viral' and 'contagious.'  If it spreads by sexual contact, uh, no, you're stuck, but if it is just a curse that spreads by proximity there are plenty of ways you could describe that that would not invoke disease.  Therianthropy, vampirism, and even Romero zombies spring to mind as similar ideas that do not seem to draw much concern even when they do invoke tropes of illness. 

I've had a disease-based character concept evolving in my setting for 30 years, and I'm no stranger to the self-doubt.  It's fraught, but achievable.

I mean, I'm not part of the affected community, and as such it's not my place to determine what is okay or not. It's my place and my job to be sensitive that it is even an issue. Even so, I have friends and loved ones in that community and it didn't immediately occur to me that this could be harmful til later because I am privileged in this regards. So I could try and make it better, but without consulting someone who is actually affected, I would probably better stick to just not doing it at all.

I'm gonna say what's probably an unpopular opinion, which is that I think it was a mistake to give PC races types besides "humanoid" as it muddies the waters on this kind of thing, among other interaction issues. The idea that Fey do have certain intrinsic attitudes, behaviors, etc is a common and generally safe one in fantasy media, but now you run up against the headache of reconciling that with Fairy, Satyr, and Changeling PC's when setting up lore. It doesn't help that they're inconsistent about when a race crosses the line from "just associated with the Feywild" to "are all Fey themselves".

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I'm gonna say what's probably an unpopular opinion, which is that I think it was a mistake to give PC races types besides "humanoid" as it muddies the waters on this kind of thing, among other interaction issues. The idea that Fey do have certain intrinsic attitudes, behaviors, etc is a common and generally safe one in fantasy media, but now you run up against the headache of reconciling that with Fairy, Satyr, and Changeling PC's when setting up lore. It doesn't help that they're inconsistent about when a race crosses the line from "just associated with the Feywild" to "are all Fey themselves".

 For Sentient and Sapient peoples who are or may be playable types in the future, I have the categories of Human, Demihuman, Semihuman, and Humanoid.  That's it. The creatures that aren't eligible or potentially eligible are categorized under the standard 20 types I use.  All of this stuff is actually part of the problem, but disentangling a system as broad and deeply embedded as this is extraordinarily hard, and is why trying to reduce it to simplicities like we see here too often (not this thread specifically, but I mean on this forum, since it has been a theme pretty much from as far back as one can go).

I tend towards actually using the game to explore the nature of racism, myself -- to wipe out the ASI and historic use of damning racist stereotypes, yes, always -- but then to be aware of how racism operates and to be able to see it in action from a frame of reference that is not Earths, but that allows one to look at the deeper issues. Not as part of an adventure or an in your face thing -- just built into the world, a "way it is". It is hard to do right because you do have to strip all the conventions like that out, and you have to build a structure into place to support the new stuff.

So if it is an unpopular opinion, I share at least that bit, but then I go further. Because as few things are as useful as turning a tool into ours.  Not a place many, many folks are ready to go

Racism is not an attitude. It is a system, a structural process, and it relies on stigmatization to happen.

Question: Is the following content racist or not, and why or why not? (YouTube Link of an animated short set in D&D lore.)

The Talky Orcs: Communcations Breakdown

My day job is identifying racism, sexism, misogyny, transphobia, et al. Then fixing those systems.

You are asking people to work for free, without compensation for their time, knowledge, experience, or respect for them.