• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why use D&D races in our stories?

Ghost

Inkling
I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything. I do get why you wouldn't want to use certain beings. I wouldn't use orcs, hobbits, gelatinous cubes, gnomes, the jabberwocky, Mecha-Streisand, etc. I prefer using things that have multiple sources or things people believe(d) in. If I can't find that, I take the time to create something to suit my needs.

That said, people enjoy these races. Many fantasy readers grew up on orcs, elves, and dwarves. To some readers, the Tolkien-derivative novels might as well be lifted from the vaults of ancient mythology because it's seeped into their consciousness. Also, when an artist works on a standard concept, she's participating in a wider phenomenon. It's sort of like a passing of the torch between predecessors who originate or popularize the idea and successors use the idea in new contexts. (I love folk music, so I understand wanting to continue the succession.) Sure, beings like vampires, ghosts, and gods have been around much longer than orcs and are more widespread, but orcs are still part of the canon. And the point about orcs fulfilling a niche previously taken by other baddies (ogres, trolls, goblins, etc) is right on, although I think orcs are slightly more sophisticated to suit the times since they tend to have a society of sorts.

I don't see anything wrong with the desire to participate in the dialog between past and present, but writers need to be respectful of the source. What bothers me is throwing standard races into a novel because that's what makes fantasy. No other reason. It just seems "fantasy." It happens in other genres. It has lasers, so now it's science fiction. Grr!

If you orcs entertain you and you want to tell an entertaining story, orcs will do. Odds are it won't really be your story if you rely on someone else's definition of "orc" instead of doing the work to make it your own.

The idea of orcs entering the tradition is interesting. It gets tricky when things are in transition because it's not clear cut. We'll understand it better in a few decades, and by then we'll be arguing about why Klingons or Dementors–or whatever else takes authors' fancies–are unoriginal or lazy. I look forward to it.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything.

Yes. Actually some version of virtually every mythological being or creature appears somewhere in D&D, and even if you create what you feel is a wholly original race or creature, there is probably an analogue for it in D&D because there is just that much source material out there after 30 or 40 years.
 

Dreamhand

Troubadour
I finally found an articulation of my UNIQUELY PERSONAL NOT TO BE IMPOSED UPON ANYONE ELSE issue with this topic AND it kind of ties in to Ouroboro's observations. I found it at Jeff Goins blog (The Difference Between Art and Entertainment | Goins, Writer a most worthwhile trip for the writerly-minded)...

Entertainment makes us feel good. It doesn’t surprise us. It meets our expectations. And that’s why we like it: it coddles us. But the problem with entertainment is it leaves us unchanged. And we desperately need to change.

Art, on the other hand, transforms us. How does it do that? It beautifully wounds us – breaks our hearts, causes us to cry, and shows us our own inadequacies. Art forces us to make a choice. It does exactly what we don’t expect.​

I look at everything like ART. My mistake. That's ALL me, my bad, my fault. That's the kind of writing I want to do - I want to make ART - and I tend to project that objective on others which is TOTALLY the wrong thing to do.

Using (as Legendary Side kick so wonderfully described) "one-word description" races is a great short-cut... and a great way to "get on to the good stuff". Awesome. That's marvelously entertaining and I can get behind that.

But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.
 

Queshire

Auror
So the problems simple, yeah? If you don't think they're art then MAKE them art. To look at something and say, "nah, there's nothing I can do with that," Well, that's just a failure as an artist.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.

I can mostly agree with that. Novels are long and complex enough to be a pretty mixed bag, though, so I think sometimes you can be transformative despite those cliches, but maybe not within them, if that makes any sense.


I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything.

Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I don't have much of a problem with the distinction raised in that article between art and entertainment, but the leap from that to use or non-use of standard fantasy races as a factor in determining whether something is art is a huge leap and an unjustified one.

I think you just don't like those kinds of stories on a personal level, Dreamhand. That's certainly fine, as such tastes are personal and there is no reason any two people should share the same preferences. What I don't understand is why it is so important to you to objectively elevate what you like to some higher level. I think your viewpoint is self-serving and maybe even self-aggrandizing, but it certainly doesn't represent any truth as far as I'm concerned. You can make a work of art that includes these standard fantasy races, and you can make pure entertainment that doesn't include any of them (or even includes entirely original races and species). I get that you won't like the former, but I think you are looking too hard to justify that dislike to yourself.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.

Well, they claim those as Product Identity under OGL, so if you are operating under OGL then I guess you've accepted that. I have real doubts as to whether either of them has any real trademark protection, WotC's statements notwithstanding.
 

Dreamhand

Troubadour
You know, you're absolutely right. I clearly have a blindspot about that, and I appreciate you (and everyone) helping me work through that. As a writer and member of the community, I really appreciate the support and your insights.

I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did and I apologize if this came off as anything but an honest inquiry.
 

Ghost

Inkling
Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.

I also said I wouldn't use something like a gelatinous cube, so I'd put mindflayers in that category as well. Steerpike was on the right track when he says virtually every mythological being and creature appears somewhere in D&D. That's what I was getting at. If my story has a selkie and someone tells me, "Gosh, no, that's in D&D monster manual 32.6!" I'd still use because I've come across selkies elsewhere. However, I wouldn't trawl D&D for material because of my desire for "multiple sources or things people believe(d) in" means I'll check folklore and myths for information, not a game.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
You know, you're absolutely right. I clearly have a blindspot about that, and I appreciate you (and everyone) helping me work through that. As a writer and member of the community, I really appreciate the support and your insights.

I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did and I apologize if this came off as anything but an honest inquiry.

It's in interesting topic, that's for sure. I don't know why as writers we do so much of what appears to be minimizing the work of other writers, but that's another topic I suppose. Or else I was just reading the thread wrong, which is always possible.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I also said I wouldn't use something like a gelatinous cube, so I'd put mindflayers in that category as well. Steerpike was on the right track when he says virtually every mythological being and creature appears somewhere in D&D. That's what I was getting at. If my story has a selkie and someone tells me, "Gosh, no, that's in D&D monster manual 32.6!" I'd still use because I've come across selkies elsewhere. However, I wouldn't trawl D&D for material because of my desire "multiple sources or things people believe(d) in" means I'll check folklore and myths for information, not a game.

I'm in the midst of a selkie story. They are actually in the first edition D&D monster manual, so they have a long association with the game, but they are fixtures of myth and legend long before, so you and I share the same view on that. And of course it makes sense to consult multiple sources so you don't end up with your selkie being exactly the way selkies are in D&D (unless that's your goal I guess).
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
Lots of differing opinions here... That's a good thing.
For me, I would always prefer the imagination of the author to create unique creatures, elements, or whatever as opposed to using any preconceived idea.
That being said, of it is an item or creature that's common in your world then maybe it's actually useful for your reader to already have a basic understanding of it (orcs for instance).
Generally though (in my opinion only) the highest magical experience as a reader occurs when the author's imagination conveys new creatures or cultures or metals in an understandable way... That's certainly not easy to do as they have to be well fleshed out & described in ways that avoid info dumping on the reader.
Let's not be confused about one point though.... ALL works are built upon those that came before us. To choose to diverge from that as far as the imagination allows or to choose to adhere more closely to those ideas is ultimately only author (or reader) preference.
 
I look at everything like ART. My mistake. That's ALL me, my bad, my fault. That's the kind of writing I want to do - I want to make ART - and I tend to project that objective on others which is TOTALLY the wrong thing to do.

Using (as Legendary Side kick so wonderfully described) "one-word description" races is a great short-cut... and a great way to "get on to the good stuff". Awesome. That's marvelously entertaining and I can get behind that.

But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.

But dude, look at Shakespeare. He based a lot of his plays almost entirely on work other people did. MacBeth? Hollinshed's histories. Troilus and Cressida? Some doofus named Illiad. He and Marlowe and the rest of their contemporaries basically used the same plot lines and settings over and over and over again.

And he definitely made art!

And then Marlowe wrote The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, and a few hundred years later Goethe ripped him off and turned it into another masterpiece.

Dante based his masterpiece trilogy of poems on a pre-existing mythology that was widely used by the dominant religion of his day. So did Milton, come to think of it, but I guess we can give him a pass because who wants to accuse a blind guy of plagarism?

;-)
 
I guess I don't really have anything against the idea of reusing species--I just really, really hate elves, at least how they're used today. (So they're just like humans, only they're better and smarter and more in tune with nature and they always talk down to humans but it's okay when they do it because they're just so special . . .) Anyways, I don't think there's any reason a story with slaads or githyanki would suffer from unoriginality, and if you're going to do something with elves other than have them represent your Mary Sue-topia, I'm not gonna complain until after I've read it to see how good it is.
 
all i am going to say therer only so many original fantasy elements out there nof course there going to be resuded but it how you use them
 
in fact i willuse certain d and character types in one story idea but wont be d and fan story it will be on it own merit but alas that on the back burner for now
 

Mindfire

Istar
For me, a big thing when I'm doing my plotting and worldbuilding is authenticity. Everything needs to be authentic and authentically mine. As long as that's the case, it doesn't really matter if I touch on a trope that's been done before. HOWEVER...

The problem with orcs for me is that thanks to entities like D&D, WoW, and the numerous spin-offs, rip-offs, parodies, and even original franchises that use the same idea in a different way, like Elder Scrolls, the D&D or more accurately "Tolkienian" races have become a HUGE "This is not authentic" sign. This goes for orcs, elves, dwarves, giants, halflings, and half-anythings. I'll admit I used these liberally in my early work but I stay away from them now for precisely that reason.

I can tolerate- nay, enjoy!- orcs and elves and whatnot when I'm playing Skyrim. Doesn't bother me at all. But in a book, their use just sticks out like a sore thumb and makes the author seem like a creative scavenger unless their presentation is worlds apart from what I've seen before. To more clearly illustrate, the use of the warmongering orc or the broody dark elf Xil'umnilor feels just as hackneyed and forced as if the book had included an "Iron Sword of Thunderbolts" or "Superior Warhammer of the Tempest". In a videogame I accept dumb names for enchanted weapons because I know its impossible for the game to randomly generate good unique weapon names. Likewise the use of "typical" races in a video game doesn't bother me because they're so familiar that they become almost part of the scenery. They're so generic and bland that it allows me to project whatever I want onto them, which aids immersion.

But in a book? I expect- nay, demand!- more from a book. The characters in a book aren't supposed to be bland, generic, background filler. In a videogame, that's acceptable because, once again, that sort of stuff acts as building blocks for me to play with in my imagination. But when I sit down with the book, I don't want a pile of imaginary legos or a blank canvas. What I want from a book is more like a musical duet. I want to enter into a partnership between my imagination and the author's imagination. He's written the piece, and we're playing it together. But this requires some effort from the author. It requires him to be authentic. Unlike a video game, he cant hand me a blank score sheet and say, "Have fun, I'm off to write Dark Chronicles of the Chosen Half-Elf-Dragon Book #32" or else I feel cheated.

This is why I don't include elves, dwarves*, and orcs in my work. This is why I don't name weapons with the "X-adjective Y-weapon of Z-attribute" formula**. Authenticity. Authenticity and strong vision are IMO the most important quality in any work of fiction, but especially fantasy. In that respect, the greatest enemy of creative fanatasy can be the fantasy genre itself. Tolkien's inventions, as interpreted through the lens of innumerable RPGs have become "the default". But fantasy isn't supposed to have a default. Tolkien did more than just about anyone to establish fantasy as a genre. But the charm of his work isn't in the tropes, but rather in the fact that his stuff is practically bursting at the seams with imaginative authenticity. In order to truly honor that legacy, we need to leave his stuff alone and seek out authenticity instead. Also, subverting, averting, or parodying tropes does not guarantee authenticity. Sometimes it can hinder it. Sorry for the rant. I'm done now.

TL;DR: I agree with the OP. Strive for authenticity and let D&D, WoW, and Tolkien be.



Oh, and if I ever see a book that includes an "X sword of Y", that author's getting an arrow to the knee.









* I might include a tribe of really short swamp ninjas, but the jury's still out on that.

** I do, however, include an artifact called the Sword of Glass, but it has a very specific purpose and isn't one of those "I found it on quest" swords. I think the name works because of the juxtaposition of the words "sword" and "glass". A sword, which is supposed to be strong and durable, made of a weak and brittle material like glass. It has an irony to it that's thematically appropriate, perhaps even important. However, the name is missing the X-adjective part of the formula, so it doesn't really count anyway.
 
Last edited:

Kevlar

Troubadour
I agree with Dreamhand, Amanita and Mindfire, which puts me in the minority. But my problem with it takes a different form, and it developed from over-exposure. If I see orcs mentioned anywhere on the cover of your book I'm probably not buying it, simply because I respect Tolkien too much. Yeah, video games can get away with it. I don't like seeing orcs in Skyrim. Oh well, that game is pure entertainment, not art. One of the few games I'd call art was made by the same people, in a much more original world. But to me to take any of Tolkien's inventions would make me feel dirty, like I was disrespecting him. I know other people feel like it's a homage to him, which it is of course, but to me it feels like a disrespectful homage. I would pay homage in another, much smaller way.

It is for that reason elves are such a touchy subject for me, and dwarves to a somewhat lesser extent. Constantly I see them blindly following Tolkien's example. "But he took them from mythology!" you might say, to which I reply: "No. He looked at mythology, he chose them, and he changed them to suit his preferred image." So when people use them in his vein it is not using mythology.

In Norse mythology elfs (alfar) were born, yes, but so too were they made. Yes, a human could be made an elf. Witchcraft ran in their blood, which passed to their half-bred children should they have them. And even the light elfs weren't entirely benevolent. Depictions of elfs never showed pointed ears, and they did show beards. They were, as far as we know, identical to humans.

Dwarfs (dvergar) were, believe it or not, never described as short in any of the Norse sagas. They lived underground. Like elves, they were a magical folk, and their magic was in some cases strongly tied to the forge. Little is actually known of them, and in fact a good case can be made that they are in fact synonymous with the dark elves (svartalfar) or black elves (dokkalfar), who may themselves be the same species. I can't remember the exacts of this, or what case/s is/are stronger, but a very strong point is a dwarf named Alfr. Literally elf. Another example, though I can't remember the entire meaning, was Gandalfr. I bet you recognize that name, and Tolkien actually regreted using it.

Taking a look at these old mythologies lets you seperate traits of the Tolkienish variety from the original and create something truly unique. You might keep some Tolkienish traits as a homage, such as pointy ears on your elfs. You're not likely to get away with tall dwarfs. You may by now notice my sporadic use of dwarfs/dwarves and elfs/elves, and that is another thing that goes back to Tolkien if I remember correctly. He changed the plurals.

This may be off topic but I go into those borderlands for a purpose. Tolkien took from mythology and created his own. When we want to be derivitive why can't we, as authors, go back to the source and not the product?

The reason I find Dragon Age: Origins to be balancing on the edge of the bin labeled "Art" is because it took the clichés and the mainstays of the fantasy genre in a warm embrace and then dashed them against a stone wall repeatedly as blood sprayed the room and made the more traditional works fidget with unease. When it let those clichés drop to the floors they were deformed but still recognizeable. It was a guilty pleasure to witness that violence.

You see, in the end I don't despise the use of fantasy mainstays so long as they're done in an original way. The problem with this topic is that orcs are a particularly sensitive isue for me. Elves have a long tradition in myth. Dwarves; vampires; werewolves; dragons; trolls; giants; ogres; goblins; selkies; minotaurs; centaurs; harpies; furies; succubi; thunderbirds; kitsune...

But in my opinion (and please, I am not trying to be rude, confrontational or in any other way derogatory), which can and will never change, orcs have and always will be Tolkien's abused intellectual property.
 

ALB2012

Maester
Interesting thread. Personally I suppose it depends what you are after. I don't mind the "regular" races such as elves etc, I do agree there are stereotypes but it does depend on the story. If you want familiarity then go with it, I tend to agree to an extent that explain your Xirthi are such and such a race may or may not detract from the story. I have a teribble memory and if I see an unfamiliar word I will probably have forgotten it by the next time its mentioned and have to go back and look. i would also think hmm long lived, pointy eared forest dwellers- well that is elves then:)

Of course originality is great and fair play to anyone who comes up with something new. But most fantasy is based, to some extent on Tolkein and that is based on mythology. There is a reason that people are familiar with elves and dwarves and dragons. Vampires too, of course the definitive vampire is dracula but they have been used in a variety of ways. I bet most people below the age of 16 and female would cite the Twilight Vampires as original.

The point I am making- both arguments are valid, if justified. Lots of people like the familiar elves and dwarves, some don't. THis is fair enough, you can't please everyone. If you don't like a book don't buy it.

My world for example has elves- yes they have pointy ears, they are more magical than the humans, the are older and long lived BUT they are pretty much slaves. They have no official civilisation being restricted to tiny and insular communities, or live in ghetto type dwellings in the city. They are hunters, but so are humans and trolls. They are also warriors, assassins, thieves, mages, craftspeople, parents, sons, daughters and the same as the other races.
Humans are dominant at present but that could easily fall and it is mainly a small group of humans. Most just get on and try and survive. There are a good number of evil humans but also a good number of good and indifferent ones. There are evil elves but they have yet to appear. Why should they not be?

My trolls are clever, hardy mountain dwellers with horns and shapeshifting/farseeing. But again they are also everything the humans are. In the case of the trolls the society is matrilinial and the ladies are in charge.

Why didnt I use all humans? Simple answer it suited me the way I have written it. If people don't like it that is ok, if they do great. As I said you can't please everyone.
 

Mindfire

Istar
Dwarfs (dvergar) were, believe it or not, never described as short in any of the Norse sagas. They lived underground. Like elves, they were a magical folk, and their magic was in some cases strongly tied to the forge. Little is actually known of them, and in fact a good case can be made that they are in fact synonymous with the dark elves (svartalfar) or black elves (dokkalfar), who may themselves be the same species.

Interestingly, Skyrim actually references this fact, or pays homage to it, with the Dwemer, known commonly as "Dwarves", who weren't actually dwarves at all. They were a sophisticated culture of normal-sized elves who just liked to live underground. xD The name "Dwemer" means "Deep Elves", i.e. underground elves or alternately "smart" elves (they were mechanically inclined). Similarly "dvergar" means "deep ones" or "deep elves" I believe.
 
Last edited:
Top