# bring back the pig faced orcs for 6th edition, change up hobgoblins & is there a history of the design change



## wicked cool

Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back

why?
1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
2) if not maybe a variant 
3) the orc name is from "pig faced"

hobgoblin
1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)
2) I think they need a change-Maybe they are cannibals, maybe they have a unique spell/ability , give them a distinct appearance   (I would make them more like the falmer of elder scrolls-scary)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

1. On Orcs- oh no. That's a thread closer.

2. On Hobgoblins- I think the idea of being organized, fearsome martial warriors - similar to Roman Legions - has become much more prevalent, and is a great hook for them.


----------



## ART!

wicked cool said:


> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"



To nitpick - because hey, it's what we do:

Origin


----------



## DnD Warlord

I like sub races I like the idea of BOTH fallen half elf with greenish grey skin AND pig faced pink with slight dark green highlights.
(I also like both draconian and dog like kobolds)


----------



## Stormonu

Orcs haven’t been pig-faced since before 2E.  Actually, I think GW’s Warhammer (40K) miniatures redefined D&D’s look.  And it’s a look I’m not really keen on going back to.

Hobgoblins have really been getting their own personality since 4E, and I like the “Roman legion” sort of direction they’ve acquired.

Orcs, however, seem to have been losing traction over the years in preference to the goblinoid races (hobgoblin, bugbear, goblin), and I’m not sure why - maybe the prevalence of World of Warcraft’s popularity?  It seems to me they’ve been used less and less as adversaries over the last few years.


----------



## not-so-newguy

This is how I picture Orcs and it will always be how I will picture Orcs. It's a mook staple of... erm .... Jabba the Hutt.

Edited in order to defeat my arch-nemesis English Grammar.


----------



## embee

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back
> 
> why?
> 1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
> 2) if not maybe a variant
> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"
> 
> hobgoblin
> 1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)
> 2) I think they need a change-Maybe they are cannibals, maybe they have a unique spell/ability , give them a distinct appearance   (I would make them more like the falmer of elder scrolls-scary)



Orcs: the name has nothing to do with pigs.

Hobgoblins: They are, in real-life lore, trickster house spirits. Not cannibals. 

I don't think that either are becoming "less interesting" but rather that you find the current iteration of orcs and hobgoblins to be less interesting than you found prior iterations. 

That said, you do you. If you want Gamorrean orcs, describe them as such. Your table, your world.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Stormonu said:


> Orcs, however, seem to have been losing traction over the years in preference to the goblinoid races (hobgoblin, bugbear, goblin), and I’m not sure why - maybe the prevalence of World of Warcraft’s popularity?  It seems to me they’ve been used less and less as adversaries over the last few years.




Yeah. In ye olden days, Orcs were THE enemy in D&D. Obviously, every table is different, etc., but just like "fireball" was the signature spell, orcs were the signature baddie. I don't know if it was Tolkien influence, or because of early modules like B2, or the zeitgeist, or what, but it was definitely a thing.

Now? Not so much. Probably because more people are interested in being orcs than fighting them, I guess.


----------



## ART!

I've always avoided using orcs at all. Even from my earliest days playing D&D (in the late '70s!!!), I felt like they belonged to Tolkien. I use goblins, ogres, kobolds, and everything else of that ilk instead. There's plenty to work with there.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

As per the recent UA, hobgoblins seem to be reverting to what they where before Tolkien turned them into GenericSoldiersOfEvil(TM).

Seems like an improvement to me.

_“Oh,” cried Lizzie, “Laura, Laura,
You should not peep at goblin men.”
Lizzie cover’d up her eyes,
Cover’d close lest they should look;
Laura rear’d her glossy head,
And whisper’d like the restless brook:
“Look, Lizzie, look, Lizzie,
Down the glen tramp little men.
One hauls a basket,
One bears a plate,
One lugs a golden dish
Of many pounds weight.
How fair the vine must grow
Whose grapes are so luscious;
How warm the wind must blow
Through those fruit bushes.”
“No,” said Lizzie, “No, no, no;
Their offers should not charm us,
Their evil gifts would harm us.”
She thrust a dimpled finger
In each ear, shut eyes and ran:
Curious Laura chose to linger
Wondering at each merchant man.
One had a cat’s face,
One whisk’d a tail,
One tramp’d at a rat’s pace,
One crawl’d like a snail,
One like a wombat prowl’d obtuse and furry,
One like a ratel tumbled hurry skurry._


----------



## el-remmen

Hobgoblins in my current setting have an empire across the sea, and the PCs (among others) are just having first contact with them in the form of foreign mercenaries hired by their opponents. They like to use electrum pieces (foreign money!) and have  a very gender segregated militant society that is mostly matriarchal.


----------



## jgsugden

It depends upon the 'origin' you're referencing.  Tolkien is a foundational influence in D&D, and Tolkien's use of goblin and orc does not derive directly from folklore descriptions.

The physical appearance of a humanoid type in D&D really doesn't matter.  My world is huge, so I have creatures that use the orc stats that come from very different locations, and are described very differently.

In 6E, when that comes way down the line, I would expect:


Humanoids will be used as antagonists less often.  When they are antagonists, there will be a mix of humanoids, rather than a single 'tribe' encountered.
We'll see a few creatures moved further away from being a humanoid type.  Gnolls will be demons.  Orcs, elves and goblinoids may become fey creatures.  Aasimar will be celestials.
There will be a clear line that humanoids have more free will than other creature types, while non-humanoids will be bound by inherent controls - although there will be a mechanic for PCs of these types to break free from those controls.  An example is the Goblinoid Curse in Matt Mercer's Tal'dorei campaign setting that are generally bound by the Curse of Strife.  Note that I do not think this is necessarily a good idea - just that I think it will happen.


----------



## Steve Stumpff

Orcs have followed a very similar path as Klingons.  They started as "Bad guys . .because bad guys." Now they are something more nuanced.   I like the martial Hobgoblin of 5E.  You can play them so darn lawful that they seem at face value to lack empathy.


----------



## el-remmen

I do have to say that one of my current groups was shocked to find the hobgoblin mercenary they slew had a portrait of her wife in locket she had tucked under her armor.


----------



## Dragonsbane

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 1. On Orcs- oh no. That's a thread closer.
> 
> 2. On Hobgoblins- I think the idea of being organized, fearsome martial warriors - similar to Roman Legions - has become much more prevalent, and is a great hook for them.



On 1 - thankfully maybe not this time?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Dragonsbane777 said:


> On 1 - thankfully maybe not this time?




Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football.


----------



## Stormonu

Dragonsbane777 said:


> On 1 - thankfully maybe not this time?



Give it to about page 8 before the trolls )) take over.


----------



## TwoSix

Real orcs:


----------



## Sacrosanct

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back



Not gonna argue the accuracy of your claims, but there are plenty of illustrations of orcs in 1e where they are not pig faced.  So it's been a while.  Even if I personally prefer the pig faced ones (as mentioned upthread, because I always thought of the Star Wars Gamorreans as orcs).  It's not a recent change.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Fizbang the Munificent Mage: So, uh, I traveled back in time.

Gork the Orc: Cool, man.

Fizbang: Yeah, I uh, was wandering around this keep, and got caught up in an adventure ....

Gork: Great!

Fizbang: And I ran into some of your, um, compatriots from back then ....






Gork: ................

Fizbang: They looked a little ... you know ... strange ....

Gork: .................

Fizbang: Anything you wanna tell me, Gork?

Gork: WE DON'T SPEAK ABOUT IT!


----------



## Oofta

I think the issue with any generically evil creature (let's call them Blargs) is that at some point someone is going to start identifying with them because Blargs are outcasts from normal society that are feared and some people feel like they don't fit in.  Then they want to play a Blarg so we come up with stats.  The next thing you know, it's a bad thing that Blargs are a representation of people that are prejudiced against.  Since we can no longer have generically evil Blargs we come up with something completely different called Blurgs.  The cycle continues.

So I don't think we can change this.  For some people having a generic bad guy monster that someone can identify with will be considered wrong.  Other people just want something for generic bad guys.

For me?  It's just a game and I think people read too much into this.  I just finished playing Half-Life Alyx after getting a new VR headset (awesome game by the way) and I have no qualms about mowing down the enemy in this or any other video game I've ever played.   Is that over-simplified, not realistic?  Absolutely.  It's a game.

In any case, I'm assuming this thread will be shut down soon, but I don't think changing the imagery of orcs or introducing Blargs (humanoid or not) will change anything.  I'll just continue using orcs in the role that makes sense for my world.


----------



## Istbor

wicked cool said:


> 1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
> 2) if not maybe a variant
> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"
> 
> hobgoblin
> 1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)
> 2) I think they need a change-Maybe they are cannibals, maybe they have a unique spell/ability , give them a distinct appearance   (I would make them more like the falmer of elder scrolls-scary)



Orcs: 
1) Meh, I like them better as they have developed. And frankly, I never even played the game when they were depicted as having pig faces. Just knew it was that way once. 
2) I mean sure. If that floats your boat. Honestly, if you like pig faces, just make your orcs have pig faces. Personally, my favorite orcs are ones that run around screaming "Waaaaagh!" and asking if you can make it more choppy, and bring more dakka.
3) Not certain where you are getting this origin? Do you have a source to cite? I would be interested in reading it. 

HobGoblins:
1) I will echo really liking their more disciplined roman legion take. That definitely sets them apart from regular Goblins. And when used smartly, they can really surprise players that are only expecting tougher Goblins. 
2) I am not sure what change would be needed presently. When I depict them it is as taller, goblinoids with impeccable posture. They carry themselves as professionals and a not-so-subtle whiff of arrogance.


----------



## aco175

I tend to limit the number of bad/monster races running around.  I like using goblins or kobolds and hobgoblins or orcs or gnolls.  Some depends on where the party it climate-wise.  Right now I'm running the Icespire peak box and have orcs and goblins around.  There could be a stray bugbear, but not planning on hobgoblins and gnolls.  I always figured that the monster races would clash more than the player races and one of those three groups would settle the region.  I also tend to place gnolls in more scrub/desert regions and orcs in more hilly/mountains, but for Icespire- they are built in.  

I would like to see some more niche for most of these races.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Fizbang the Munificent Mage: So, uh, I traveled back in time.
> 
> Gork the Orc: Cool, man.
> 
> Fizbang: Yeah, I uh, was wandering around this keep, and got caught up in an adventure ....
> 
> Gork: Great!
> 
> Fizbang: And I ran into some of your, um, compatriots from back then ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gork: ................
> 
> Fizbang: They looked a little ... you know ... strange ....
> 
> Gork: .................
> 
> Fizbang: Anything you wanna tell me, Gork?
> 
> Gork: WE DON'T SPEAK ABOUT IT!



Those are hobgoblins though, right?


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I see Orcs as having Human-like noses, but often bigger than Humans in that it's wider or protrudes out more. Often there's a ridge down the middle, and their noses may come to a hook.

Goblins and Hobgoblins I see similarly having bigger more prominent noses than Human do. Bugbears though I see them with flatter noses.


----------



## Voadam

Sacrosanct said:


> Those are hobgoblins though, right?



Correct.

"Description: The hairy hides of hobgoblins range from dark reddish-brown to gray black. Their faces are bright red-orange to red. *Large males will have blue-red noses.* Eyes are either yellowish or dark brown. Teeth are yellowed white to dirty yellow. Hobgoblins favor bright, bloody colors and black leather. They keep weapons well polished. Hobgoblins live for 60 years."


----------



## Charlaquin

I love Dungeon Meshi’s design for orcs. “Pig-faced” in a way that looks natural for a humanoid face, rather than going full-on Gamorean. Endomorphic instead of mesomorphic, which fits with the piglike appearance and brings some welcome body diversity to the table. Two-toed. Mottled pink and gray flesh tone. Coarse boar-like fur.

EDIT: Couldn’t get the image to work.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Sacrosanct said:


> Those are hobgoblins though, right?




If Gork isn't going to talk about the genetic virus that got rid of the pig snouts for Orcs, he SURE isn't going to talk about the Orientalist coding of the old hobgoblins with the pseudo-Samurai attire.


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> As per the recent UA, hobgoblins seem to be reverting to what they where before Tolkien turned them into GenericSoldiersOfEvil(TM).



Hmm. IIRC, the hobgoblins of Tolkien were specifically not the generic soldiers of evil.  The were a cross between a traditional orc and a human to make them stronger in general and specifically in sunlight.


----------



## MGibster

I honestly never used hobgoblins back in the day because I didn't see the point in another generic evil humanoid race.  i.e.  I didn't fee as though I could do anything with the hobgoblin that I couldn't do just as well with an orc.  I welcome the Romanesque hobgoblin of modern times.


----------



## Sacrosanct

MGibster said:


> I honestly never used hobgoblins back in the day because I didn't see the point in another generic evil humanoid race.  i.e.  I didn't fee as though I could do anything with the hobgoblin that I couldn't do just as well with an orc.  I welcome the Romanesque hobgoblin of modern times.



Theoretically, hobgoblins were more organized, disciplined, and militarily strategic with use of tactics.  But, as you say, it's super easy to have orcs do the same thing.


----------



## wicked cool

just an fyi theres a Q&A with gary gygax on his version of orcs (2002-2008). Col_Pladoh (exact date is March 13,2007)

orcs-porcupine in appearance with upturned nose, tusks pig like eyes
hobgoblins-Apish

if you make your orcs wear legion like armor than hobgolins are just a name. maybe hobgoblins need to have legion tactics added to their descriptions like roman soldiers(the testudo, the wedge, ballista etc)


----------



## el-remmen

wicked cool said:


> maybe hobgoblins need to have legion tactics




They do have martial advantage.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Legend of Zelda essentially uses "pig-faced folk" or bokoblins as their generic bad-guy stand-in. I don't find this look inherently better than any other, and I certainly don't think D&D would suddenly have unique orcs for using it (the bokoblins are quite iconic, as are Star Wars' Gamorrians).

That said, the pig-look can be made to look intimidating indeed. Check out this art by Dave Repoza, depicting Zelda's Ganon;


----------



## embee

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Gork: WE DON'T SPEAK ABOUT IT!




From the *CLASSIC* DS9 episode "Trials & Tribble-ations":

The waitress points to the nearby table Bashir and O'Brien passed earlier. They turn and look with some surprise at the original series-style Klingons, who do not have the typical forehead ridges they're accustomed to seeing.  Worf studies his drink as the others turn one and look at him for explanation.

                    BASHIR
                (to Worf) 
            Those are Klingons?

                    WAITRESS 
            All right. You boys have had 
            enough.

    The Waitress moves off.

                    ODO 
            Mister Worf... ?

    Worf looks up with discomfort at the three expectant 
    faces.

                    WORF 
            They are Klingons.

    Three heads turn and look at the Klingons and then look 
    back at Worf.

                    WORF
            It is a... long story.

                    O'BRIEN 
            What happened? Some kind 
            genetic engineering... ?

                    BASHIR
            A viral mutation... ?

                    WORF
                (defensive) 
*            We do not discuss it with 
            outsiders.*


----------



## Paul Farquhar

dave2008 said:


> Hmm. IIRC, the hobgoblins of Tolkien were specifically not the generic soldiers of evil.  The were a cross between a traditional orc and a human to make them stronger in general and specifically in sunlight.



No, that is Uruk-Hai you are thinking of. They are never identified as hobgoblins. Saurman's version are the original half orcs though.

Tolkien only mentions hobgoblins in The Hobbit, as a larger bread of goblin.


----------



## delericho

Orcs were pig-faced in the old cartoon, weren't they?

Personally, I lean towards one-eyed orcs, based on a picture I saw once (can't think where). But I'm really not bothered about how they are depicted.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> Hmm. IIRC, the hobgoblins of Tolkien were specifically not the generic soldiers of evil.  The were a cross between a traditional orc and a human to make them stronger in general and specifically in sunlight.







Paul Farquhar said:


> No, that is Uruk-Hai you are thinking of. They are never identified as hobgoblins. Saurman's version are the original half orcs though.
> 
> Tolkien only mentions hobgoblins in The Hobbit, as a larger bread of goblin.



You’re both kind of right.

It’s important to note that in Tolkien’s Middle Earth, orc and goblin are not the names of different races or breeds of creature (contrary to what the Peter Jackson films suggest). Goblin and Orc are both just English translations of the Westron word _Orca_, and refer to the same species (much like Billbo Baggins is a localization of the character’s canonical name, Bilba Labingi). The word “hobgoblin” only appears twice in the legendarium, both in The Hobbit, and both in reference to a larger variety of goblin. But remember, in canon _The Hobbit_ is an English translation of an in-universe book written by Bilba. So “hobgoblin” is an English translation of some Westron word he used to refer to “a larger variety of (orc),” which certainly could mean _Uruk-Hai_. And indeed, with his Wattsonian hat on, Tolkien notes that it is possible this is what Bilba meant. With his Doylist hat on, he would likely admit the languages were still in an earlier stage of development at the time, and that he accidentally used it to mean the opposite of its real-world meaning.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Paul Farquhar said:


> No, that is Uruk-Hai you are thinking of. They are never identified as hobgoblins. Saurman's version are the original half orcs though.
> 
> Tolkien only mentions hobgoblins in The Hobbit, as a larger bread of goblin.





Charlaquin said:


> You’re thinking of _Uruk-hai_.
> 
> It’s important to note that in Tolkien’s Middle Earth, orc and goblin are not the names of different races or breeds of creature. Goblin and Orc are both just English translations of the Westron word _Orca_, and refer to the same species (much like Billbo Baggins is a localization of the character’s canonical name, Bilba Labingi). The word “hobgoblin” only appears twice in the legendarium, both in The Hobbit, and both in reference to a larger variety of goblin. With his Wattsonian hat on, Tolkien notes that the word most likely refers to _Uruks_.




He's technically, _maybe _correct here... hobgoblin is mentioned only once in the Hobbit, as a larger form of orc, and there is some assumption they are similar to Uruk-Hai. It is a throw-away line though, and nothing is actually confirmed one way or another.









						Hobgoblins
					

"Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places [in The Hobbit] but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)" —J.R.R. Tolkien, Preface to The Hobbit Hobgoblins were stronger, larger, and more menacing than other Orcs. They are mentioned only once, by Gandalf...




					lotr.fandom.com


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Now I want to homebrew a layer of hell called Orcus Porcus. All pigs, for miles.

Thinking about it, was the origin of the Devil-Swine just a big Latin joke?



ART! said:


> To nitpick - because hey, it's what we do:
> 
> Origin
> View attachment 135281




Aesthetically, I love the pig-faced orc designs.

Hobgoblins have always felt like filler for me. Their identity has never clicked for me in the same way orcs and goblins have.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> He's technically, _maybe _correct here... hobgoblin is mentioned only once in the Hobbit, as a larger form of orc, and there is some assumption they are similar to Uruk-Hai. It is a throw-away line though, and nothing is actually confirmed one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hobgoblins
> 
> 
> "Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places [in The Hobbit] but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)" —J.R.R. Tolkien, Preface to The Hobbit Hobgoblins were stronger, larger, and more menacing than other Orcs. They are mentioned only once, by Gandalf...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lotr.fandom.com



Yeah, I realized I was oversimplifying and edited my post. Canonically, the use of Hobgoblin _probably_ refers to Uruk-Hai. But it’s hard to say for sure.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Oofta said:


> I think the issue with any generically evil creature (let's call them Blargs) is that at some point someone is going to start identifying with them because Blargs are outcasts from normal society that are feared and some people feel like they don't fit in.  Then they want to play a Blarg so we come up with stats.  The next thing you know, it's a bad thing that Blargs are a representation of people that are prejudiced against.  Since we can no longer have generically evil Blargs we come up with something completely different called Blurgs.  The cycle continues.
> 
> So I don't think we can change this.  For some people having a generic bad guy monster that someone can identify with will be considered wrong.  Other people just want something for generic bad guys.
> 
> For me?  It's just a game and I think people read too much into this.  I just finished playing Half-Life Alyx after getting a new VR headset (awesome game by the way) and I have no qualms about mowing down the enemy in this or any other video game I've ever played.   Is that over-simplified, not realistic?  Absolutely.  It's a game.
> 
> In any case, I'm assuming this thread will be shut down soon, but I don't think changing the imagery of orcs or introducing Blargs (humanoid or not) will change anything.  I'll just continue using orcs in the role that makes sense for my world.



Hence the popularity of zombies and nazis as video game bad guys.


----------



## S'mon

I have traditional 1e style pig-faced orcs in my 5e FR campaign as a weaker but better organised breed alongside the stronger, more barbaric 3e-5e 'mountain orcs'. 

*Pig Orc Guard*
CR 1/4 (50 XP) PB +2
*AC 14/16* (ringmail or scale, shield) *HP 13* (2d8+4)
ST +2 DE +0 CO +2 IN -1 WI +0 CH -1
Battle Axe or Longsword *ATT: +4*  Damage: *1d8+2*
Lance (long spear) (2h) ATT+4 Damage 1d12+2, reach 10', disadvantage within 5'
Javelin (4) ATT +4 Damage 1d6+2 range 30'/120'
_Aggressive_: As a Bonus Action, the orc can move up to its speed toward a Hostile creature that it can see.


----------



## jmartkdr2

When I worldbuild, I usually make orcs pig-people, for two reasons:

1. There's already too many Blargs, so I want the ones I include to have a distinct hat. 
2. I always include a generic "animal-folk" origin, as that covers a lot of bases, and making orcs a common variant of that gives me a good general-use bad guy, a good intro to that concept, and gives orcs a 'hat' in them being pig-like. 1 orc horde = 30-50 feral hogs, arriving in about five minutes. 
3. IMO: Planet of the Hats isn't a bad trope unless you _stop_ at the hat and don't think about what's underneath. But a clear hat makes the new cultures easy to name and identify, which makes the world less confusing.

But that's just me, and I never get annoyed by other interpretations.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I like pig faced orcs just because of my nostalgia for DiTerlizzi's AD&D monster manual. I used to study that thing endlessly as a kid!

I don't currently use orcs or hobgoblins in my game because I filled in the peoples of the world based on the player races my players picked. So almost all the bad guys have been humans, tieflings, tortles, and gnomes. Particularly gnomes, those little guys are nasty enemies.


----------



## RealAlHazred

I've never really thought about it but now that the question is asked, I've never really used orcs in my home games subconsciously for the same reason given by @ART! -- they seemed like they belong to Tolkien. I used them in my Middle Earth games, and I'd have no trouble using them in a video game-based setting (because of WoW, probably), but in my own games I usually use "Beastmen" or goblins (definitely inspired by fairy tales) or whatever.


----------



## Vaalingrade

It is a crime that pig orcs aren't called 'porcs'.

Also that a group of them isn't called a 'Gannon'.


----------



## Stormonu

Vaalingrade said:


> It is a crime that pig orcs aren't called 'porcs'.
> 
> Also that a group of them isn't called a 'Gannon'.



According to the Stoakes-Whibley article on my wall, a group of orcs is officially known as a rage.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

delericho said:


> Personally, I lean towards one-eyed orcs, based on a picture I saw once (can't think where).




I feel like that's a euphemism.


----------



## Tonguez

Personally I’d drop Hobgobolins entirely. Just being bigger stronger goblins is naff and while I do like the concept, I don’t want to explain how a stronger, tougher, intelligent race with an organised expansionist militant society hasnt already conquered the neighbouring nations.

I do like more pig nosed Orcs and Star Wars Gamorreans have been the standard image in my head.

But really if I was going for a complete redesign based on the Great Sea Orc, I’d do something like Bathos the Walrus Pirate


----------



## el-remmen

Tonguez said:


> I don’t want to explain how a stronger, tougher, intelligent race with an organised expansionist militant society hasnt already conquered the neighbouring nations.




I mean, to each their own - but I explained it pretty easily above: they have an empire across the sea. They've already conquered their neighbors long ago, but only just now reaching where the campaign takes places and beginning to have influence to prepare for some future military and/or cultural invasion.  This is something that can either be the focus of a campaign OR just work as a backdrop for why PCs only encounter hobbos occasionally (as I suggested, foreign mercenaries).

Edit to add: And since it is "across the sea" - I have not bothered detailing it beyond "big ideas."


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I flip-floped a lot about the orcs in the past few months, and I think I'm about done with them. I think their niche can be filled with more interesting creatures, the various goblinoid peoples fill the same niche being less monolithic. 

I'll probably recycle them as another kind of goblinoid, somewhere between the goblins and hobgoblins. 

Is there a kind of goblins from previous editions or other lore that is covered yet by the rules?


----------



## Voadam

vincegetorix said:


> Is there a kind of goblins from previous editions or other lore that is covered yet by the rules?



Goblins not covered yet? Blues from the 3e psionics books?


----------



## Faolyn

wicked cool said:


> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"



They are only associated with pigs because Gygax envisioned them as being slightly pig-like. And then apparently the artist Dave Sutherland took him literally.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Voadam said:


> Goblins not covered yet? Blues from the 3e psionics books?



I'm currently looking on the FR wikia for the different goblinoids. 
The worghest is another option, but their warg shapeshifting makes them a little off for an Orc reskin.

I could also go for something new, but I cant find a good name!


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> I love Dungeon Meshi’s design for orcs. “Pig-faced” in a way that looks natural for a humanoid face, rather than going full-on Gamorean. Endomorphic instead of mesomorphic, which fits with the piglike appearance and brings some welcome body diversity to the table. Two-toed. Mottled pink and gray flesh tone. Coarse boar-like fur.
> 
> EDIT: Couldn’t get the image to work.


----------



## R_J_K75

wicked cool said:


> hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin)



Werent they depicted as the some of the hightest of the food chain of Humanoids?  I thought they were LE, enslaved the other humanoids and were basically the military and tacticains out of the humanoids?  Or was that bugbears, I could be wrong and too lazy to check right now,?  Think that pecking order was detailed in an Elminsters Ecology, Stonelands maybe?


----------



## Voadam

Faolyn said:


> They are only associated with pigs because Gygax envisioned them as being slightly pig-like. And then apparently the artist Dave Sutherland took him literally.



There is also the description in the 1e MM which he authored. 

"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."


----------



## Tonguez

vincegetorix said:


> I'm currently looking on the FR wikia for the different goblinoids.
> The worghest is another option, but their warg shapeshifting makes them a little off for an Orc reskin.
> 
> I could also go for something new, but I cant find a good name!




The Bakemono of Kara-Tur were described as goblinoids but were distinct from goblins, bigger, savage, hooved and with tiny wings? They could be reskinned as Orkish (make the wings into fish fins like Koalinths-sea goblins)

I also recall a tougher Rhino-horned goblin in a Faerun book?

Boggle are also a more fairy-like goblinoid


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


>



There it is! Thanks!


----------



## MarkB

I like the martial take on hobgoblins, but I tend to give them more of a Samurai flavour rather than the Roman legionaries.

It's gnolls that I've never found a good use for.


----------



## Don Durito

There nothing you can do with hobgoblins that doesn't work better if you just use Dwarves.


----------



## Charlaquin

Don Durito said:


> There nothing you can do with hobgoblins that doesn't work better if you just use Dwarves.



Now there’s a bold take. Personally, I don’t think dwarves are exactly ideal candidates for mischievous fae spirits, which is how I like my hobgoblins.


----------



## Tonguez

Charlaquin said:


> Now there’s a bold take. Personally, I don’t think dwarves are exactly ideal candidates for mischievous fae spirits, which is how I like my hobgoblins.



Spinning straw into gold, trafficking babies and stomping feet is all possible for Dwarfs too


----------



## CleverNickName

ART! said:


> I've always avoided using orcs at all. Even from my earliest days playing D&D (in the late '70s!!!), I felt like they belonged to Tolkien.



Same here.  I prefer goblins or kobolds for my low-level adventures, switching to human cultists and bandits as the story progresses.  At mid-level, I bring out the Main Villains of the Campaign:  so far, I've used vampires, dragons and their dragonborn cultists, and devils; in my next campaign I'm considering using fey.

But if I ever run a LotR campaign, there will be orcs a-plenty.


----------



## Don Durito

Charlaquin said:


> Now there’s a bold take. Personally, I don’t think dwarves are exactly ideal candidates for mischievous fae spirits, which is how I like my hobgoblins.



Well no.  Not if you take them in that direction.  But I've never seen any real support for that in the game. 

A militaristic lawful culture?  Dwarves work very well for that.  Ever since the Scarred Lands setting included the Charduni around the launch of 3e I've pretty much subbed in Dwarves for Hobgoblins where material calls for them.

Take Red Hand of Doom.  The hobgoblins in that, from memory anyway, are just there.  Why do they worship Tiamat?  Because they're Hobgoblins and evil.

Now replace them with Dwarves.  Why is there a group of Dwarves that worship Tiamat? Immediately this has more interesting setting implications.


----------



## Chaosmancer

el-remmen said:


> I mean, to each their own - but I explained it pretty easily above: they have an empire across the sea. They've already conquered their neighbors long ago, but only just now reaching where the campaign takes places and beginning to have influence to prepare for some future military and/or cultural invasion.  This is something that can either be the focus of a campaign OR just work as a backdrop for why PCs only encounter hobbos occasionally (as I suggested, foreign mercenaries).
> 
> Edit to add: And since it is "across the sea" - I have not bothered detailing it beyond "big ideas."




When I had to explain it, I went with "they almost did, it took a last ditch alliance of literally everyone else to stop them. Now they are gaining power and trying to weaken the other kingdoms"


----------



## Azzy

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back
> 
> why?
> 1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
> 2) if not maybe a variant
> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"



Pig-faced orcs were always comical to me. I'm glad they went the way of the do-do.




wicked cool said:


> hobgoblin
> 1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)
> 2) I think they need a change-Maybe they are cannibals, maybe they have a unique spell/ability , give them a distinct appearance   (I would make them more like the falmer of elder scrolls-scary)



I always felt that hobgoblins were far more interesting. Because of the art on Keep on the Borderland and in the 1e Monster Manual, I always envisaged them as having a distinctly disciplined samurai-like warrior culture (which has been borne out in later--including current--editions). I do like the admixure to Roman legionaire aspect to them, though.


----------



## Azzy

Tonguez said:


> The Bakemono of Kara-Tur were described as goblinoids but were distinct from goblins, bigger, savage, hooved and with tiny wings?



No, they were pretty much goblins, but had random features (much like the fomor):

"The bakemonos are cousins to the western goblin and in characteristics and habits are quite similar to these creatures. However, unlike the goblin, the bakemonos come in a variety of different shapes and sizes. No two creatures are alike. Skin color varies from brilliant orange and red to deep blue. Physical features range from small stunted wings, hooves, fur, scales, huge noses, feathers, oversized ears, and hunched bodies. The referee should feel free to use his imagination in describing these creatures."


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> Now there’s a bold take. Personally, I don’t think dwarves are exactly ideal candidates for mischievous fae spirits, which is how I like my hobgoblins.




That's what elves are for!


----------



## TerraDave

Never been that big on orcs. Always used hobgoblins, I think their 5e representation is fine. 

But yes, these where all introduced to fill in a hierarchy: 

1/2 Kobold
1-1 Goblin
1 Orc
1+1 Hobgoblin
2 Gnoll
3+1 Bugbear
4 Ogre
....
8 Hill Giant

Hobgoblins were distinguished by being smarter, more organised, and able to operate in sunlight without penalty.


----------



## S'mon

In pre-3e there are obvious reasons why hobgoblins don't take over - they don't have PC-class characters! No matter how martial & organised you are, your Shamans & Chiefs are no match for their Fighter Lords, High Priests and Wizards.


----------



## S'mon

Azzy said:


> Pig-faced orcs were always comical to me. I'm glad they went the way of the do-do.




Ever since I read "The House on the Borderland" I find them quite terrifying!


----------



## Mecheon

Don Durito said:


> There nothing you can do with hobgoblins that doesn't work better if you just use Dwarves.



Sure there is

Reaching the top shelf


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I realized I was oversimplifying and edited my post. Canonically, the use of Hobgoblin _probably_ refers to Uruk-Hai. But it’s hard to say for sure.



The timeline doesn't fit. Uruk-Hai where not unleashed until the War of the Ring. If Bilbo had been the in-fiction author of that part of the Red Book of Westmarch he might have used the word "hobgoblin" to describe them. But he used the word to describe large goblins he encountered 77 years earlier.


----------



## Minigiant

Orcs in my games have a defined story and thus look like big, tusked, half elves.

Hobgoblins are militaristic to me and are your main "These guys use all combat roles, combined arms, and advanced tactics." Hobgoblins fight "like humans in a wargame." compared to the shook trooper orcs, quick and tricksy drow, or animalistic gnolls.


----------



## Sithlord

With the way orca are evolving 6E will have the sexy green orcs and they will have a swimsuit calendar 

View attachment B7E0D159-DB38-4974-B4DD-FE701A869B6E.webp


----------



## Sithlord

Sithlord said:


> With the way orca are evolving 6E will have the sexy green orcs and they will have a swimsuit calendar
> 
> View attachment 135339



Apologies. I don’t seem to know how to post pics. Ignore the attachment.


----------



## Oofta

Sithlord said:


> Apologies. I don’t seem to know how to post pics. Ignore the attachment.



It has to be a jpg or png, you tried to upload a webp.  You can open those up in paint or something similar and then do "save as" to a standard format.


----------



## RealAlHazred

MarkB said:


> It's gnolls that I've never found a good use for.



I was in the same boat until 3E/4E redefined gnolls. Here's an article that explains some of the expansion/redefinition they've gone through. Now, I use them as beastmen and have developed a culture for them that feels different.


----------



## Krachek

If you’re looking for monster you can create anything and add the Fiend tag.
From now in 2021 the humanoid tag seem to be restricted to sentient, free will folks.
For all other bizarre case we got Fiend, Fey, monstrosity, aberration, to tag some bipedal agressive, cannibal, sadist folks.


----------



## Oofta

Krachek said:


> If you’re looking for monster you can create anything and add the Fiend tag.
> From now in 2021 the humanoid tag seem to be restricted to sentient, free will folks.
> For all other bizarre case we got Fiend, Fey, monstrosity, aberration, to tag some bipedal agressive, cannibal, sadist folks.




I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.    I think it should be a campaign level decision with emphasis on alignments are just defaults that can and should be tweaked to fit.  On the other hand, orcs in my world do effectively have fiendish origin in that they come from Jotunheim which is the realm of giants, evil gods and, in my campaign, fiends.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.    I think it should be a campaign level decision with emphasis on alignments are just defaults that can and should be tweaked to fit.  On the other hand, orcs in my world do effectively have fiendish origin in that they come from Jotunheim which is the realm of giants, evil gods and, in my campaign, fiends.



Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour.


----------



## Krachek

Oofta said:


> I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.    I think it should be a campaign level decision with emphasis on alignments are just defaults that can and should be tweaked to fit.  On the other hand, orcs in my world do effectively have fiendish origin in that they come from Jotunheim which is the realm of giants, evil gods and, in my campaign, fiends.



These new standard are only for official product, at your table you can do anything you want.


----------



## Oofta

Paul Farquhar said:


> Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour.




I'm not getting into this other than to say that skin color will never be a factor in whether a creature is evil. I get tired of that argument, but it's pointless to get into the discussion on this forum.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I'm not getting into this other than to say that skin color will never be a factor in whether a creature is evil. I get tired of that argument, but it's pointless to get into the discussion on this forum.



Or being ugly or having horns are whatever. If the PCs what to know who the bad guys are they will need to look at their _actions_.


----------



## Oofta

Paul Farquhar said:


> Or being ugly or having horns are whatever. If the PCs what to know who the bad guys are they will need to look at their _actions_.



I simply don't see why it's okay that effectively all fiends can be evil but creatures with other origins cannot.  Have a good one. 

I will say that effectively accusing me of racism (that I base evil on skin color) is insulting.


----------



## ART!

Paul Farquhar said:


> Just a mention, the elves in Hellboy 2 are just elves, not dark elves.
> 
> Also a mention, the adjective "elfin": _(of a person or their face) small and delicate, typically with a mischievous charm_, is a lot older than D&D/Tolkien, going back to 1590 (Spencer's Faerie Queen). The point being, even without D&D, the common idea of elves is kind of "white" in terms of facial features.



(Common in white-dominated European culture and cultures descended from that)


Paul Farquhar said:


> Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour.





Oofta said:


> I'm not getting into this other than to say that skin color will never be a factor in whether a creature is evil. I get tired of that argument, but it's pointless to get into the discussion on this forum.



I think you're saying the same thing here.


----------



## Oofta

ART! said:


> (Common in white-dominated European culture and cultures descended from that)
> 
> 
> I think you're saying the same thing here.



Yes and no.  For some people, some games, it's okay for Nazis to be evil because the Nazi regime was evil.  It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons.  Same with storm troopers for that matter.

Yet, in a game that revolves around combat whether or not combat is central to any specific campaign there are typically going to be a group of bad people that you don't have to feel too bad about killing.  I don't think it's better to make those bad guys the soldiers who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform versus being creatures from the Abyss.

If you want that kind of moral questioning, go for it.  For a lot of people, we just want to escape from the messiness of the real world for a while and pretend to be in a world where we know what right and wrong is.  Because in the real world?  Too often there is no good answer.

EDIT: see D&D 6E - bring back the pig faced orcs for 6th edition, change up hobgoblins & is there a history of the design change for more clarification on what I was trying to say.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> Yes and no.  For some people, some games, it's okay for Nazis to be evil because the Nazi regime was evil.  It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons.  Same with storm troopers for that matter.



Hello.






Oofta said:


> Yet, in a game that revolves around combat whether or not combat is central to any specific campaign there are typically going to be a group of bad people that you don't have to feel too bad about killing.  I don't think it's better to make those bad guys the soldiers who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform versus being creatures from the Abyss./



I do think it's better. My players think it's better. They enjoy discussing the morality of their actions, and if they are actually the good guys or not. And it's exactly why "creatures from the Abyss" are boring opponents.

Here is how I tell a hero from a villain. A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain _knows_ they are doing the right thing.


----------



## TwoSix

Paul Farquhar said:


> I do think it's better. My players think it's better. They enjoy discussing the morality of their actions, and if they are actually the good guys or not. And it's exactly why "creatures from the Abyss" are boring opponents.



Sure, but that's an aesthetic judgment as to what you enjoy.  There's nothing wrong with not wanting moral quandaries in your game.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Oofta said:


> I'm not getting into this other than to say that skin color will never be a factor in whether a creature is evil. I get tired of that argument, but it's pointless to get into the discussion on this forum.



Oofta, if you don't want to have this discussion... Then don't drag this thread down into it. There's no rule saying that you have to keep bringing up these points. There's plenty else to talk about here.

Back to the topic of orcs...

I've always wanted to run an all monstrous lineage game. The players would be goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, etc. It would be fun if there were a few types of orcs: the Warcrafty green-humans-with-tusks, and also the pink pig people. Orcs are already depicted as temperamental and hard to get along with, I love the idea of orcs themselves having the "are we pig people or not" debate!


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.    I think it should be a campaign level decision with emphasis on alignments are just defaults that can and should be tweaked to fit.  On the other hand, orcs in my world do effectively have fiendish origin in that they come from Jotunheim which is the realm of giants, evil gods and, in my campaign, fiends.



have you tried ripping off the darkspawn as they sound exactly like what you want?


----------



## Oofta

Mind of tempest said:


> have you tried ripping off the darkspawn as they sound exactly like what you want?



Changing the name (or origin) doesn't really change anything.  It goes back to the same issue from my initial response - no matter what creature we come up with, someone will have an issue with them filling in the role of adversaries.  I don't think it really matters much what label we put on our completely imaginary creatures, the only reason we have anything other than humans and animals is because they fill a role in the game, are evocative of some aspect of what we respect or fear.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> Changing the name (or origin) doesn't really change anything.  It goes back to the same issue from my initial response - no matter what creature we come up with, someone will have an issue with them filling in the role of adversaries.  I don't think it really matters much what label we put on our completely imaginary creatures, the only reason we have anything other than humans and animals is because they fill a role in the game, are evocative of some aspect of what we respect or fear.



no, the darkspawn are well evil in the way a plague zombie is evil only if they want to kill and consume everything and had weapons and armour.
They reproduce in a horrible way, literally have no souls and are just an army of monsters, they do not raise families or build things aside from that one time but draining a guys blood to make murder machines people is not a thing most people would agree to.

here is a spoiler video the explain note will possibly be disturbing watch at own risk.


----------



## S'mon

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is how I tell a hero from a villain. A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain _knows_ they are doing the right thing.



Best line ever!


----------



## Stormonu

Azzy said:


> No, they were pretty much goblins, but had random features (much like the fomor):
> 
> "The bakemonos are cousins to the western goblin and in characteristics and habits are quite similar to these creatures. However, unlike the goblin, the bakemonos come in a variety of different shapes and sizes. No two creatures are alike. Skin color varies from brilliant orange and red to deep blue. Physical features range from small stunted wings, hooves, fur, scales, huge noses, feathers, oversized ears, and hunched bodies. The referee should feel free to use his imagination in describing these creatures."



On a side note, I really like to have my goblins with no two looking alike - like the goblins from Labyrinth, which many are based on 60’s and 70’s art from a few artists whose names I cannot recall.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> Here is how I tell a hero from a villain. A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain _knows_ they are doing the right thing.



now that can't be right I question that all the time and I am clearly the villain of at least the people I interact with stories.


----------



## Umbran

Oofta said:


> It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons.




*Mod Note:*
@Oofta  If you thought an argument based in Nazi-apology was going to fly, you were extremely wrong.  

Don't go there again.



Paul Farquhar said:


> Hello.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 135351





And, @Paul Farquhar  the fact that he brought in an offensive argument does not give you leave to make the thing personal.

*Folks, if this is the quality of discussion we are going to get on this topic, the topic will end.  Please apply rather more forethought and good judgement than these two did.*


----------



## Voadam

Stormonu said:


> On a side note, I really like to have my goblins with no two looking alike - like the goblins from Labyrinth, which many are based on 60’s and 70’s art from a few artists whose names I cannot recall.
> 
> View attachment 135352



Brian Froud


----------



## Oofta

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> @Oofta  If you thought an argument based in Nazi-apology was going to fly, you were extremely wrong.
> 
> Don't go there again.



I apologize if my statement was taken that way, it is not what I meant, nor was there any attempt to imply anything along those lines. In many wars some soldiers believe in the cause, some are ignorant of all the implications of the cause, some are conscripts that were drafted with little choice.

In the Star Wars movies, Fin was just a conscript that had minimal choice on being there.  Just because he wore the uniform of an evil regime does not mean that he was himself evil.  That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## Charlaquin

Paul Farquhar said:


> The timeline doesn't fit. Uruk-Hai where not unleashed until the War of the Ring. If Bilbo had been the in-fiction author of that part of the Red Book of Westmarch he might have used the word "hobgoblin" to describe them. But he used the word to describe large goblins he encountered 77 years earlier.



Cant argue with that. But, also, Tolkien _did_ say it was possible that was what he was talking about, so


----------



## Bacon Bits

Oofta said:


> I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.




That's not the idea.

The idea is that the concept of free-willed, sapient creatures conflicts with the concept of moral and ethical nature being pre-determined by species you are. Further, we should not consider creatures "good" or "heroic" if they regularly make value judgements about other free-willed, sapient creatures based solely on their species because that's actually evil. Dehumanizing others through alterity is the foundation of human exploitation and abuse. Why would we want to portray moral and ethical cultures as glorifying or rewarding that behavior?

In practice, what this means is your game will change as follows:

Old version: "You stumble upon a group of orcs. Roll initiative."

New version: "You stumble upon a group of bandits. Roll initiative."

Notice that what you do with the new version is what you already do when you want your PCs to fight a group of _human_ bandits: you tell them what role they play and not what species they are. That's all you have to do to make it clear that it's those creatures' choice to act they way they are.

It's certainly okay to portray evil cultures or evil organizations. It's fine to have individuals in those cultures or organizations be evil. It's okay for cultures or organizations to be paranoid, bigoted, or xenophobic. However, it's not correct to portray being xenophobic or bigoted as something that a good culture, good organization, or good creature does. Hatred, xenophobia, and bigotry are not Good. It's not even Neutral. It's Evil_. The paranoid, bigoted xenophobes should be the evil ones!_

Further, I would argue that it's poor or at least questionable worldbuilding if you make _all_ members of a given free-willed, sapient race members of an evil culture. It doesn't make sense that all high elves are like X, all dwarves are like Y, all orcs are like A, and all drow are like B. It does make sense that there might be cults or offshoots which are evil (cult of Gruumsh or cult of Lolth) just as what happens with humans, but the idea of race-as-culture is grossly flawed on it's face. It's a crutch.

It's certainly easy to imagine a world where humans are colonizing wilderness land and creating agricultural areas to grow more food, and wilderness cultures -- elves, gnomes, and _orcs_ -- who may have their own ways of life might come in to conflict with that kind of destruction of their habitation (for lack of a better term). Now you have two groups of people, culturally opposed and causing conflict because of that. You don't need orcs to be evil to have conflict. You don't need orcs to be evil to have open hostility.


----------



## Oofta

Bacon Bits said:


> That's not the idea.
> 
> The idea is that the concept of free-willed, sapient creatures conflicts with the concept of moral and ethical nature being pre-determined by species you are. Further, we should not consider creatures "good" or "heroic" if they regularly make value judgements about other free-willed, sapient creatures based solely on their species because that's actually evil. Dehumanizing others through alterity is the foundation of human exploitation and abuse. Why would we want to portray moral and ethical cultures as glorifying or rewarding that behavior?
> 
> In practice, what this means is your game will change as follows:
> 
> Old version: "You stumble upon a group of orcs. Roll initiative."
> 
> New version: "You stumble upon a group of bandits. Roll initiative."
> 
> Notice that what you do with the new version is what you already do when you want your PCs to fight a group of _human_ bandits: you tell them what role they play and not what species they are. That's all you have to do to make it clear that it's those creatures' choice to act they way they are.
> 
> It's certainly okay to portray evil cultures or evil organizations. It's fine to have individuals in those cultures or organizations be evil. It's okay for cultures or organizations to be paranoid, bigoted, or xenophobic. However, it's not correct to portray being xenophobic or bigoted as something that a good culture, good organization, or good creature does. Hatred, xenophobia, and bigotry are not Good. It's not even Neutral. It's Evil_. The paranoid, bigoted xenophobes should be the evil ones!_
> 
> Further, I would argue that it's poor or at least questionable worldbuilding if you make _all_ members of a given free-willed, sapient race members of an evil culture. It doesn't make sense that all high elves are like X, all dwarves are like Y, all orcs are like A, and all drow are like B. It does make sense that there might be cults or offshoots which are evil (cult of Gruumsh or cult of Lolth) just as what happens with humans, but the idea of race-as-culture is grossly flawed on it's face. It's a crutch.
> 
> It's certainly easy to imagine a world where humans are colonizing wilderness land and creating agricultural areas to grow more food, and wilderness cultures -- elves, gnomes, and _orcs_ -- who may have their own ways of life might come in to conflict with that kind of destruction of their habitation (for lack of a better term). Now you have two groups of people, culturally opposed and causing conflict because of that. You don't need orcs to be evil to have conflict. You don't need orcs to be evil to have open hostility.




I think it's a complex issue and one that has been discussed to death.  I've explained what I do and why on other threads.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Stormonu said:


> On a side note, I really like to have my goblins with no two looking alike - like the goblins from Labyrinth, which many are based on 60’s and 70’s art from a few artists whose names I cannot recall.
> 
> View attachment 135352



I fully agree with this, I think more variety is fun!


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll

You could always go more folkloric with hobgoblins (a la Dragon Warriors) and have them be slightly fey creatures with magic puffballs and possibly two heads. Transfer the whole ‘soldier goblins who fight in formation well’ be a goblin trait, instead. That’ll surprise people; finding out ‘Bree-Yark’ actually means ‘Shield Wall!’.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

I deal with the niche problem by merging goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, orogs et al as a diverse population called "Orschans" (who are mechanically represented by the aforementioned D&D stat blocks). They tend to have a culture that produces a number of "evil" raiders and the like, but much of it is more racism and stereotypes foisted at them from humans, elves and dwarves. (In my homebrew, "Orc" is a racial slur). Most the antagonism is because the orcs are a steppe culture and their is historical prejudice between that sort of culture and the settled, sedentary folk.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I did a few different things. 

One of them was that I took bugbears out of the Mortal Races equation. I could never get them to fit with the Goblins in a way that felt right to me. So, instead, they are the fey foot soldiers of The Queen of Air and Darkness. Big, shaggy, monstermen who are stealth predators? It fits so many winter fey themes that I almost felt silly when I realized it. 

That just left Goblins and Hobgoblins, which fit much neater. Though, now, I'm playing with Goblinoind biology being a bit different, and having Goblins "grow up" to be Hobgoblins, who then go through a potential "second puberty" to become something like Ogres. Basically, take an ogre, make them smart, and have a couple of decades of hobgoblin military training, possibly magic. I think I'm going to keep calling them ogres, and just get rid of the big stupid brutes, because these things are TERRIFYING to consider. (Also, not an original idea, I stole it)


For orcs.. I bascially just made them a playable race, folded them and half-orcs together and just moved on. I've got a lot of cultural detail work I'm trying to do with them, but that is the broad strokes


----------



## Don Durito

I still can't really see the point of Orcs in your average D&D setting.  It's been many years since I used them.  I usually just replace them in adventures with humans raiders or bandits which tends to work better.

Now in a particular kind of setting I can see Orcs working.  I made some notes a while ago for a campaign set on a planet where the day night cycle had slowed down to a year per day and a year per night.  In this setting I imagined civilisation all being mobile, on great mechanical steampunk vehicles moving around the planet and with the coming of the night are the Orcs, creatures of the night, antithetical to all things that live during the day.

I think you need something like that to make Orcs feel scary enough to actually work.


----------



## Sithlord

I still can't really see the point of Orcs in your average D&D setting.  It's been many years since I used them.  I usually just replace them in adventures with humans raiders or bandits which tends to work better.


Don Durito said:


> Now in a particular kind of setting I can see Orcs working.  I made some notes a while ago for a campaign set on a planet where the day night cycle had slowed down to a year per day and a year per night.  In this setting I imagined civilisation all being mobile, on great mechanical steampunk vehicles moving around the planet and with the coming of the night are the Orcs, creatures of the night, antithetical to all things that live during the day.
> 
> I think you need something like that to make Orcs feel scary enough to actually work.



i kinda agree. I like orcs in adventures on the border of civilization. I see no need for orcs in a major established empire in one of their major cities. Unless I am doing something like the sacking of rome.


----------



## S'mon

Personally I think it's evil to go out and kill other sentient creatures just because they're evil. IME most players agree too, and will frequently spare surrendered orcs etc. They also don't go out hunting orcs in the wilderness, they only fight orcs who threaten the people & places they care about. 

In a recent game the PCs attacked a ruined fortress held by orc brigands. They killed most of the orcs, but they were happy to negotiate with the last orc, who handed over a prisoner & departed peacefully along with a wounded ogre.


----------



## S'mon

Chaosmancer said:


> I did a few different things.
> 
> One of them was that I took bugbears out of the Mortal Races equation. I could never get them to fit with the Goblins in a way that felt right to me. So, instead, they are the fey foot soldiers of The Queen of Air and Darkness. Big, shaggy, monstermen who are stealth predators? It fits so many winter fey themes that I almost felt silly when I realized it.
> 
> That just left Goblins and Hobgoblins, which fit much neater. Though, now, I'm playing with Goblinoind biology being a bit different, and having Goblins "grow up" to be Hobgoblins, who then go through a potential "second puberty" to become something like Ogres. Basically, take an ogre, make them smart, and have a couple of decades of hobgoblin military training, possibly magic. I think I'm going to keep calling them ogres, and just get rid of the big stupid brutes, because these things are TERRIFYING to consider. (Also, not an original idea, I stole it)




I often (in more adult themed campaigns) make hobgoblins 'half goblins', the offspring of goblins & humans. Goblins often breed them deliberately to make some decent soldiers.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I apologize if my statement was taken that way, it is not what I meant, nor was there any attempt to imply anything along those lines. In many wars some soldiers believe in the cause, some are ignorant of all the implications of the cause, some are conscripts that were drafted with little choice.
> 
> In the Star Wars movies, Fin was just a conscript that had minimal choice on being there.  Just because he wore the uniform of an evil regime does not mean that he was himself evil.  That's all I was trying to say.



I never even thought to interpret your point that way. The picture I posted was a character from _The Mandalorian_ who was an ex-stormtrooper with a redemption arc.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I think it's a complex issue and one that has been discussed to death.  I've explained what I do and why on other threads.



It's also quite possible my position is coloured by my experience. Although I started out playing D&D in the 1980s, I quickly moved onto _Traveller_, _Golden Heroes_, and _FASA Star Trek_, and have only fairly recently returned to D&D. And what do all those RPGs I played for 30ish years have in common with each other? None of them have alignment. I'm very used to delineating good guys and bad guys (or perhaps more accurately protagonists and antagonists) without using an alignment flag.


----------



## S'mon

Paul Farquhar said:


> I never even thought to interpret your point that way. The picture I posted was a character from _The Mandalorian_ who was an ex-stormtrooper with a redemption arc.




Some people like to go by the uniform - it's ok to kill anyone in that uniform, even if they're not threatening you. After all, they're wearing _that_ uniform, so they MUST be evil.

_A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain knows they are doing the right thing._


----------



## Paul Farquhar

S'mon said:


> Some people like to go by the uniform - it's ok to kill anyone in that uniform, even if they're not threatening you. After all, they're wearing _that_ uniform, so they MUST be evil.
> 
> _A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain knows they are doing the right thing._



Killing people based _only_ on their uniform, or because they are flagged as evil in some other way, always seems like as an immoral act to me.

In The Baldur's Gate computer game there is a LG paladin who will try to kill you if any of your party members are of evil alignment, irrespective of if they have done anything wrong or not.


----------



## Chaosmancer

S'mon said:


> I often (in more adult themed campaigns) make hobgoblins 'half goblins', the offspring of goblins & humans. Goblins often breed them deliberately to make some decent soldiers.




And it was exactly the potential problems with that which led to a friend asking me to axe half-orcs and just make them all orcs. 

Plus, Goblins _*are*_ amazing soldiers as is. I'm not saying this to say that Hob's aren't better or that you shouldn't go this route, but so many people underestimate how terrifying goblins are if you just play them with higher mental stats. 

Max hp for a goblin is 12, an npc guard is 18. So, a difference of 6 hp. And they get darkvision, expertise in stealth, and the nimble escape feature to hide or disengage as a bonus action. Give the goblins decent armor, and you have some truly terrifying guerilla soldiers. Hobgoblins are better in straight up formation fighting, for things like sieges or holding territory, but for things like urban or wilderness warfare, goblins are scary.


----------



## Sithlord

Chaosmancer said:


> And it was exactly the potential problems with that which led to a friend asking me to axe half-orcs and just make them all orcs.
> 
> Plus, Goblins _*are*_ amazing soldiers as is. I'm not saying this to say that Hob's aren't better or that you shouldn't go this route, but so many people underestimate how terrifying goblins are if you just play them with higher mental stats.
> 
> Max hp for a goblin is 12, an npc guard is 18. So, a difference of 6 hp. And they get darkvision, expertise in stealth, and the nimble escape feature to hide or disengage as a bonus action. Give the goblins decent armor, and you have some truly terrifying guerilla soldiers. Hobgoblins are better in straight up formation fighting, for things like sieges or holding territory, but for things like urban or wilderness warfare, goblins are scary.



I actually did in my campaign that goblins were more magical. On par with elves. And there was a process where goblins took another goblin normally against his will and performed a ritual where they threw the goblin in the fire. When they came out they were hobgoblins. Bigger and stronger and no spellcasting ability. They were also incapable of attacking and harming a goblin as a process of this ritual.


----------



## Bohandas

ART! said:


> I've always avoided using orcs at all. Even from my earliest days playing D&D (in the late '70s!!!), I felt like they belonged to Tolkien.




Same here, and the same sentiment regarding halflings as well (in fact, even more for them than for orcs)


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I simply don't see why it's okay that effectively all fiends can be evil but creatures with other origins cannot.  Have a good one.
> 
> I will say that effectively accusing me of racism (that I base evil on skin color) is insulting.



There's a difference between evil and Evil. 

Fiends are generally assumed in D&Dland to be distilled out of actual, pure evil. Whether this evil is pumped out by the universe or made out of the souls of dead evil people, fiends are that evil's embodiment. They are literally _made _of Evil. 

If you want that to be different for your personal setting, that's fine, but this is the standard D&Dism.

Humans, orcs, elves, halflings, goblins, whatever--they are _not _literally made out of evil. Whether you say they evolved from something else, were created or uplifted by the gods, or something else, they're still flesh-and-blood creatures. Some of them may be evil, yes, but those will be individuals, not entire species.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sithlord said:


> I actually did in my campaign that goblins were more magical. On par with elves. And there was a process where goblins took another goblin normally against his will and performed a ritual where they threw the goblin in the fire. When they came out they were hobgoblins. Bigger and stronger and no spellcasting ability. They were also incapable of attacking and harming a goblin as a process of this ritual.




Huh, that's  an interesting take.


----------



## Sithlord

Chaosmancer said:


> Huh, that's  an interesting take.



That is an example of the fun I like to have in a game. The creative process of setting and so forth. I love homebrew and I will happily play in anyone’s homebrew game.


----------



## Bohandas

Oofta said:


> I apologize if my statement was taken that way, it is not what I meant, nor was there any attempt to imply anything along those lines. In many wars some soldiers believe in the cause, some are ignorant of all the implications of the cause, some are conscripts that were drafted with little choice.




My grandfather was a conscript in the Italian army. He didn't believe in what Mussolini was doing but he didn't have a choice.


----------



## Don Durito

Faolyn said:


> Humans, orcs, elves, halflings, goblins, whatever--they are _not _literally made out of evil. Whether you say they evolved from something else, were created or uplifted by the gods, or something else, they're still flesh-and-blood creatures. Some of them may be evil, yes, but those will be individuals, not entire species.



There's nothing stopping you from making Orcs evil in the way that fiends are evil though.   God knows if you want to use them you have to do something with them to make them less boring.


----------



## Faolyn

Don Durito said:


> There's nothing stopping you from making Orcs evil in the way that fiends are evil though.



Of course you can. But then they stop being people and just end up as _things to kill. _And in that case, you might as well just use zombies or robots or whatever.



Don Durito said:


> God knows if you want to use them you have to do something with them to make them less boring.



I'm not sure why turning them into things to kill makes them less boring then having them as an actual people with their own culture. Sure, it takes a bit of effort to figure out what their culture is like, but I find it's worth it.


----------



## Don Durito

Faolyn said:


> Of course you can. But then they stop being people and just end up as _things to kill. _And in that case, you might as well just use zombies or robots or whatever.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why turning them into things to kill makes them less boring then having them as an actual people with their own culture. Sure, it takes a bit of effort to figure out what their culture is like, but I find it's worth it.



But if you make them a people with their own culture you might as well just use humans.

See there's no good reason to use Orcs at all.

(Although I think the idea that evil creatures are only things to kill lacks imagination. D&D tends toward the anodyne, but set up right, they can still be objects of horror).


----------



## Coroc

ART! said:


> To nitpick - because hey, it's what we do:
> 
> Origin
> View attachment 135281



So Orcney Island is actually (sea) monster island?


----------



## Faolyn

Don Durito said:


> But if you make them a people with their own culture you might as well just use humans.
> 
> See there's no good reason to use Orcs at all.



That makes zero sense. Because they have culture, they can't be nonhuman? Do your games have humans as the only PC option? Do you only have one-dimensional planet-of-hat elves and dwarfs?



Don Durito said:


> (Although I think the idea that evil creatures are only things to kill lacks imagination. D&D tends toward the anodyne, but set up right, they can still be objects of horror).



Turning them into an "object of horror" just makes them things to kill, but with another step in the way. 

Just in case you weren't aware, there's nothing wrong with having orcs as bad guys. What's wrong is making them an Always Evil race.


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> That makes zero sense. Because they have culture, they can't be nonhuman? Do your games have humans as the only PC option? Do you only have one-dimensional planet-of-hat elves and dwarfs?
> 
> 
> Turning them into an "object of horror" just makes them things to kill, but with another step in the way.
> 
> Just in case you weren't aware, there's nothing wrong with having orcs as bad guys. What's wrong is making them an Always Evil race.



Nothing wrong with it. Just depends on what type of campaign you are running.  They could very well be an allegory like the stories in most fairy tails and myths.  Especially if they are not meant to mean ideas like species in science and more of archetypal story representations for ideas. And on the opposite end Even the 1E greyhawk boxed set had a good orc living in greyhawk.


----------



## Don Durito

Faolyn said:


> That makes zero sense. Because they have culture, they can't be nonhuman? Do your games have humans as the only PC option? Do you only have one-dimensional planet-of-hat elves and dwarfs?



They can be.  There's just no reason to be.  Orcs as just another race is so old hat to me now.  I was doing it in the 90s.  I phased them out because they were adding nothing.  (And they never actually stop being problematic unless you remove anything recognisably Orcish from them)




Faolyn said:


> Turning them into an "object of horror" just makes them things to kill, but with another step in the way.



Or things to run away from or hide from, or you can try to evacuate towns of people from their path (with the added horror that these are creatures that cannot be reasoned with).  Yes you can use zombies, just like if you have a culture of nomads you can use humans.  As I said, there's not really any good reason to use Orcs at all.



Faolyn said:


> Just in case you weren't aware, there's nothing wrong with having orcs as bad guys. What's wrong is making them an Always Evil race.



You can but there's zero reason to.


----------



## Sithlord

Don Durito said:


> They can be.  There's just no reason to be.  Orcs as just another race is so old hat to me now.  I was doing it in the 90s.  I phased them out because they were adding nothing.  (And they never actually stop being problematic unless you remove anything recognisably Orcish from them)
> 
> 
> 
> Or things to run away from or hide from, or you can try to evacuate towns of people from their path (with the added horror that these are creatures that cannot be reasoned with).  Yes you can use zombies, just like if you have a culture of nomads you can use humans.  As I said, there's not really any good reason to use Orcs at all.
> 
> 
> You can but there's zero reason to.



Apparently some think there is a reason too. It is this now badwrongfun.


----------



## Charlaquin

Don Durito said:


> But if you make them a people with their own culture you might as well just use humans.
> 
> See there's no good reason to use Orcs at all.



Except, you know, wanting to use orcs.


----------



## Don Durito

Charlaquin said:


> Except, you know, wanting to use orcs.



Well duh!


----------



## Charlaquin

Don Durito said:


> Well duh!



That’s not no reason, though. It’s the opposite of no reason.


----------



## Don Durito

Charlaquin said:


> That’s not no reason, though. It’s the opposite of no reason.



Context is your friend here.


----------



## Faolyn

Don Durito said:


> They can be.  There's just no reason to be.  Orcs as just another race is so old hat to me now.  I was doing it in the 90s.  I phased them out because they were adding nothing.  (And they never actually stop being problematic unless you remove anything recognisably Orcish from them)



A big, burly, rather boisterous people with pointy tusks is plenty orcish and not at all problematic. Then you just add some other cultural elements and you've got yourself an interesting people.



Don Durito said:


> Or things to run away from or hide from, or you can try to evacuate towns of people from their path (with the added horror that these are creatures that cannot be reasoned with).  Yes you can use zombies, just like if you have a culture of nomads you can use humans.  As I said, there's not really any good reason to use Orcs at all.



No one says you have to. You can easily have very fun and interesting worlds without a single orc. But making them indistinguishable from fiends doesn't magically make them _more _interesting. 



Sithlord said:


> Nothing wrong with it.



Assuming you mean "nothing wrong with making them an Always Evil species of otherwise normal creatures," yes, there is, because of the implications it presents.



Sithlord said:


> And on the opposite end Even the 1E greyhawk boxed set had a good orc living in greyhawk.



A "one good orc" whom, I'm guessing, is surrounded entirely by nonevil humans is not a particularly non-troublesome statement.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Faolyn said:


> Fiends are generally assumed in D&Dland to be distilled out of actual, pure evil. Whether this evil is pumped out by the universe or made out of the souls of dead evil people, fiends are that evil's embodiment. They are literally _made _of Evil.



I'm not sure that is entirely supported. Zariel is listed as a fiend, but was created as a celestial. If it is possible for a celestial to fall and become a fiend, it implies it is also possible for a fiend to rise and become a celestial.

Not 5e, but there is also the character Fall-From-Grace in Planescape: Torment, a lawful neutral succubus.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm not sure that is entirely supported. Zariel is listed as a fiend, but was created as a celestial. If it is possible for a celestial to fall and become a fiend, it implies it is also possible for a fiend to rise and become a celestial.
> 
> Not 5e, but there is also the character Fall-From-Grace in Planescape: Torment, a lawful neutral succubus.



I think celestials and fiends are all the same kind of thing and are all just made of morality thus they are just changing opinion which changes their form if that makes sense.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mind of tempest said:


> I think celestials and fiends are all the same kind of thing and are all just made of morality thus they are just changing opinion which changes their form if that makes sense.



Certainly in 3rd edition they would have both been classed as "outsiders".


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> Certainly in 3rd edition they would have both been classed as "outsiders".



yeah they are all just outsiders from well given that the outer planes have to with morals I would say moralia, and they are all one thing.


----------



## Faolyn

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm not sure that is entirely supported. Zariel is listed as a fiend, but was created as a celestial. If it is possible for a celestial to fall and become a fiend, it implies it is also possible for a fiend to rise and become a celestial.
> 
> Not 5e, but there is also the character Fall-From-Grace in Planescape: Torment, a lawful neutral succubus.



Zariel, IIRC, was corrupted from what was likely thousands of year's worth of evil emanations from her time fighting in Hell (i.e., not a lot of free will involved here), and from what I can tell, Fall-From-Grace suffered thousands of years of torture by devils, which probably had something to do with her change of mind.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Faolyn said:


> Zariel, IIRC, was corrupted from what was likely thousands of year's worth of evil emanations from her time fighting in Hell (i.e., not a lot of free will involved here), and from what I can tell, Fall-From-Grace suffered thousands of years of torture by devils, which probably had something to do with her change of mind.



Whatever the reasons, I would say there is no one, not even fiends, who it is okay to kill _just_ because they is evil.


----------



## Faolyn

Paul Farquhar said:


> Whatever the reasons, I would say there is no one, not even fiends, who it is okay to kill _just_ because they is evil.



If a creature is evil in D&Dland, it's likely _actively being evil._ Or if not that, it's likely enabling evil in others.


----------



## S'mon

Faolyn said:


> If a creature is evil in D&Dland, it's likely _actively being evil._ Or if not that, it's likely enabling evil in others.




What if a bunch of evil creatures are sitting around being evil to each other, nowhere near any neutral or good creatures? OK to kill them & take their stuff?


----------



## Faolyn

S'mon said:


> What if a bunch of evil creatures are sitting around being evil to each other, nowhere near any neutral or good creatures? OK to kill them & take their stuff?



If it's not an OK thing to do to a good or neutral creature, it's not an OK thing to do to an evil person either. Kind of why prison rape jokes aren't cool.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bohandas said:


> My grandfather was a conscript in the Italian army. He didn't believe in what Mussolini was doing but he didn't have a choice.




I'm sorry he went through that. 

However, there is a flip side to that as well. There are true believers to these causes. Even today, there are neo-nazi's and they had full choice in what they are doing. And that is what we are talking about with the uniform situation. 

And, personally, I find it far easier to logically parse out "true believer to the cause" and "person with no choice in an impossible situation" than I do with "born evil" races and "sometimes they aren't". It could be said to be a sideways step in representation, but it is one that I find makes the forking paths much much easier to understand and shorthand.


----------



## Sithlord

Maybe everyone in the fictional made up not real race that is an allegory for storytelling chose evil in a fantasy world that is not real because we are using them for allegory and not species like in Star Trek.


----------



## Northern Phoenix

TwoSix said:


> Real orcs:
> 
> View attachment 135286




There's entire generations of players who have grown up knowing only this. I think abruptly reverting to how thinks were in historical times would be jarring, to put it mildly.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Northern Phoenix said:


> There's entire generations of players who have grown up knowing only this. I think abruptly reverting to how thinks were in historical times would be jarring, to put it mildly.



I am more an orsimer man my self but yeah orc have more or less become people in most settings, we can't really reset that.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Sithlord said:


> Maybe everyone in the fictional made up not real race that is an allegory for storytelling chose evil in a fantasy world that is not real because we are using them for allegory and not species like in Star Trek.



FWIW, even Star Trek tends to introduce new species as a metaphor for some aspect of humanity. "They're like humans, but more [hat]." The interesting species are the ones we see more of - because one of the ways they are like humans is that they're diverse.

I personally use Star Trek as my model for how races/ancestries in rpgs _should_ be treated. They can have a hat, but they should never be a hat.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> FWIW, even Star Trek tends to introduce new species as a metaphor for some aspect of humanity. "They're like humans, but more [hat]." The interesting species are the ones we see more of - because one of the ways they are like humans is that they're diverse.
> 
> I personally use Star Trek as my model for how races/ancestries in rpgs _should_ be treated. They can have a hat, but they should never be a hat.



I wonder if humans would have a hat by others standards?


----------



## S'mon

Mind of tempest said:


> I wonder if humans would have a hat by others standards?



Chimpanzee:
"Those humans sure are weak and squishy - but they can walk a _long_ way!"


----------



## Mind of tempest

S'mon said:


> Chimpanzee:
> "Those humans sure are weak and squishy - but they can walk a _long_ way!"



I was thinking more out hat like we get the war guys the scholar guys and so what one is ours.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Mind of tempest said:


> I was thinking more out hat like we get the war guys the scholar guys and so what one is ours.



Probably varies with their own perspective. To Vulcans, we're the emotional-artistic race. To Klingons, we're the happy-go-lucky race. To Romulans, we're the degenerate reflection race.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> Probably varies with their own perspective. To Vulcans, we're the emotional-artistic race. To Klingons, we're the happy-go-lucky race. To Romulans, we're the degenerate reflection race.



I thought we were the chaotic stupid race.


----------



## Charlaquin

jmartkdr2 said:


> Probably varies with their own perspective. To Vulcans, we're the emotional-artistic race.



Erm... I’m pretty sure Vulcans experience emotions much more intensely than humans. They just actively suppress them because their extreme emotions historically lead to conflict and war. (Also they have have such a degree of conscious control over their own brains that they can prevent themselves from producing the neurotransmitters that produce undesired emotional experiences).


----------



## Oofta

jmartkdr2 said:


> FWIW, even Star Trek tends to introduce new species as a metaphor for some aspect of humanity. "They're like humans, but more [hat]." The interesting species are the ones we see more of - because one of the ways they are like humans is that they're diverse.
> 
> I personally use Star Trek as my model for how races/ancestries in rpgs _should_ be treated. They can have a hat, but they should never be a hat.



I think the "aliens are humans with rubber prosthetics" is one of the worst aspects of Star Trek.  I think it makes no sense in sci-fi, I think it makes even less sense in fantasy.  Of course, making non-human have a truly alien perspective is difficult.


----------



## S'mon

Mind of tempest said:


> I was thinking more out hat like we get the war guys the scholar guys and so what one is ours.



The Bonobos think we're the "No sex please, we're human" guys.
The Chimps think we're the squishy cardboard people disposable mook guys, like the Sicarians in_ Guardians of the Galaxy_.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> I think the "aliens are humans with rubber prosthetics" is one of the worst aspects of Star Trek.  I think it makes no sense in sci-fi, I think it makes even less sense in fantasy.  Of course, making non-human have a truly alien perspective is difficult.



assuming it is an organic sapient entity that could be the product of evolution by default we would have a lot in common.

what is it you strictly dislike about it?


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I much prefer the Star Trek approach to aliens, and that might be because I am a person of colour. I think the original idea from the 60's of it being an idealized future where not only a Japanese man, a black woman and a Russian can be part of the crew (coming from a time when those things were almost unthinkable), but so can an alien like Spock. And I feel D&D idea of an adventuring party of different races/species always taps into that idea from Star Trek.


----------



## Oofta

Mind of tempest said:


> assuming it is an organic sapient entity that could be the product of evolution by default we would have a lot in common.
> 
> what is it you strictly dislike about it?



We have limited understanding of how other intelligences would work, I don't make the assumption that they'd think like us.  Different animals have very different behaviors, beyond that we don't really know much.  Did they evolve from carnivores?  Herbivores? Cephalopods?

In a fantasy world where creatures can be created by gods (or crazed wizards) it's even worse.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> We have limited understanding of how other intelligences would work, I don't make the assumption that they'd think like us.  Different animals have very different behaviors, beyond that we don't really know much.  Did they evolve from carnivores?  Herbivores? Cephalopods?
> 
> In a fantasy world where creatures can be created by gods (or crazed wizards) it's even worse.



true but in order for technological civilization as we know to be an option for them they would likely be oddly similar but also super different as there is a likely super limited number of ways to do anything and given how difficult consciousness is it likely has a limited number of possible patterns.

they would likely care about different things but the basics would be familiar to us like eating and socialising.


----------



## Oofta

Mind of tempest said:


> true but in order for technological civilization as we know to be an option for them they would likely be oddly similar but also super different as there is a likely super limited number of ways to do anything and given how difficult consciousness is it likely has a limited number of possible patterns.
> 
> they would likely care about different things but the basics would be familiar to us like eating and socialising.



Maybe?  I mean, these are things that many, many people have speculated how aliens might think.  Then we have creatures that, according to the lore aren't creatures that followed the normal evolutionary path.  Created by gods, demons, experiments gone wrong.

But it's a philosophical debate that likely will never have a resolution unless we actually met little green which isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> I think the issue with any generically evil creature (let's call them Blargs) is that at some point someone is going to start identifying with them because Blargs are outcasts from normal society that are feared and some people feel like they don't fit in.  Then they want to play a Blarg so we come up with stats.  The next thing you know, it's a bad thing that Blargs are a representation of people that are prejudiced against.  Since we can no longer have generically evil Blargs we come up with something completely different called Blurgs.  The cycle continues.
> .



I don’t know, I have only ever seen people say that undead or fiends or aberrations should be less evil in threads about orcs and such, as an attempted counter to arguments about orcs and Drow.

I don’t think we have any evidence that the cycle you describe exists.


----------



## Charlaquin

The brilliance of Star Trek is that it doesn’t bother trying to pretend that, as humans, its writers can create aliens that aren’t ultimately reflections of some aspect of humanity. Star Trek recognizes this limitation and rather than fighting it, sets out to make the best fiction it can _within_ that constraint. It lets its aliens be reflections of humanity, and uses the differences they do have to explore or say something interesting about humanity. Tolkien did this too with the races of Middle Earth. All great fiction is ultimately about people.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> I think the "aliens are humans with rubber prosthetics" is one of the worst aspects of Star Trek.  I think it makes no sense in sci-fi, I think it makes even less sense in fantasy.  Of course, making non-human have a truly alien perspective is difficult.



Different and also often alienating. Xenofiction, where the writer takes pains to actually write truly alien mindsets and cultures traditionally has issues gaining an audience due to humans having difficulty empathizing with things they can't humanize. That's part of why we anthropomorphize EVERYTHING.


----------



## Northern Phoenix

Mind of tempest said:


> I am more an orsimer man my self but yeah orc have more or less become people in most settings, we can't really reset that.



I didn't mean the "lore" of the Warcraft orcs spesifically, more their visual design, as also seen in elder scrolls, Warhammer, Raid: SL, "Orcs Must Die", and countless others. Compared to the weird pig head versions, the big green orc is ubiquitous.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Kobold Avenger said:


> I much prefer the Star Trek approach to aliens, and that might be because I am a person of colour. I think the original idea from the 60's of it being an idealized future where not only a Japanese man, a black woman and a Russian can be part of the crew (coming from a time when those things were almost unthinkable), but so can an alien like Spock. And I feel D&D idea of an adventuring party of different races/species always taps into that idea from Star Trek.




A socially progressive show in many ways, for its time.

I will add however, that the show (and its successors) did a very good job of using alien races to highlight humanity by comparison. Spock (and Vulkans) were used to contrast the "emotional" humans to the logical-analytical Vulkans, for example. A great way of exploring humanity for showing something un-like humanity.


----------



## GreyLord

There has been science fiction that shows how different aliens can be from their human counterparts.

Ender's Game originally has a species that humans do not understand to the point that humans just about wipe them out to the last bug.

The Left Hand of Darkness by Le Guin is a classic.  While the aliens have alien characteristics and thinking, they are also distinctly alien in many aspects which accentuate the difference between how the races developed from different places in the galaxy.

Asimov had a few novels of alien species as well, though I believe they were one offs, where he attempted to paint differences of a human vs. alien mind and the conflicts and truisms between them.

I think it is possible to try to incorporate an alien with a culture or attitude that is foreign and alien to humanity and still have a successful novel, though it is not as prevalent as the Star Trek route.


----------



## Mind of tempest

GreyLord said:


> There has been science fiction that shows how different aliens can be from their human counterparts.
> 
> Ender's Game originally has a species that humans do not understand to the point that humans just about wipe them out to the last bug.
> 
> The Left Hand of Darkness by Le Guin is a classic.  While the aliens have alien characteristics and thinking, they are also distinctly alien in many aspects which accentuate the difference between how the races developed from different places in the galaxy.
> 
> Asimov had a few novels of alien species as well, though I believe they were one offs, where he attempted to paint differences of a human vs. alien mind and the conflicts and truisms between them.
> 
> I think it is possible to try to incorporate an alien with a culture or attitude that is foreign and alien to humanity and still have a successful novel, though it is not as prevalent as the Star Trek route.



they seem like odd humans honestly, the people from the left hand of darkness.

maybe we have the problem as if they are people then they are sort of like us.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sithlord said:


> Maybe everyone in the fictional made up not real race that is an allegory for storytelling chose evil in a fantasy world that is not real because we are using them for allegory and not species like in Star Trek.




You know, we all know they aren't real. We get it. We understand that DnD is a fantasy world we made up that isn't real. We understand that every race in it isn't real. People don't have to repeat it every single thread to remind us that DnD races aren't real. 


Because, you see, "it isn't real so it doesn't matter" is a defense that doesn't always work. Sure, if we wanted to ask how the Autobot digestive system works, we can say "it isn't real, so it really doesn't matter than much". But if we are asking "wait, since when can Optimus Prime teleport and clone himself to fight an entire army" saying that the character isn't real so it doesn't matter doesn't work. Because it does matter, you can't get away with just doing whatever you want. And questions of motivation and why villains do what they do can fall into this category pretty easily. This is why the autobots and decepticons history of being a slave race and their fight mostly being over the need for an energy resource, or looking for tools to use in the ongoing civil war matter. Because if they were just fighting each other to fight each other, it wouldn't make a lot of sense, or being a good fictional story.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mind of tempest said:


> assuming it is an organic sapient entity that could be the product of evolution by default we would have a lot in common.
> 
> what is it you strictly dislike about it?




That is HIGHLY debatable. Different planets could easily have different evolutionary pressures. After all, mammals only came to prominence because of the destruction of the dinosaurs caused by a meteor strike. Evolution could have possibly made any number of different choices, such as squids having a longer lifespan, leading to more intelligence, leading to them being a dominant species. Or instead of having a symbiotic relationship with bacteria, we could have had one with an aggressive mold. 

Now, granted, we could also have a lot in common. It could be that many of our characteristics are more evolutionary likely and that a general bipedal shape is going to be the most common expression of dominant species. But, until we've met a lot of aliens, we just can't be certain


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> Yes and no.  For some people, some games, it's okay for Nazis to be evil because the Nazi regime was evil.  It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons.  Same with storm troopers for that matter.
> 
> Yet, in a game that revolves around combat whether or not combat is central to any specific campaign there are typically going to be a group of bad people that you don't have to feel too bad about killing.  I don't think it's better to make those bad guys the soldiers who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform versus being creatures from the Abyss.
> 
> If you want that kind of moral questioning, go for it.  For a lot of people, we just want to escape from the messiness of the real world for a while and pretend to be in a world where we know what right and wrong is.  Because in the real world?  Too often there is no good answer.



See, it's okay for Nazi's to be evil.

How about all white, blond haired humans are automatically evil.  Regardless of where or when they grew up?  Would that be perfectly fine?  You don't see any issues there?

Dude, that giant whooshing sound you keep hearing?  That's the sound of the point flying over your head.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Chaosmancer said:


> Because, you see, "it isn't real so it doesn't matter" is a defense that doesn't always work. Sure, if we wanted to ask how the Autobot digestive system works, we can say "it isn't real, so it really doesn't matter than much". But if we are asking "wait, since when can Optimus Prime teleport and clone himself to fight an entire army" saying that the character isn't real so it doesn't matter doesn't work.



Good point.


Chaosmancer said:


> Because it does matter, you can't get away with just doing whatever you want. And questions of motivation and why villains do what they do can fall into this category pretty easily. This is why the autobots and decepticons history of being a slave race and their fight mostly being over the need for an energy resource, or looking for tools to use in the ongoing civil war matter. Because if they were just fighting each other to fight each other, it wouldn't make a lot of sense, or being a good fictional story.



So your argument is one of (a) logic within the setting AND (b) that of a good story.
I'm not so swayed by (b) - plenty of stories have bad guys and good guys.

With (a) are we saying an evil people cannot functionally exist, right?


----------



## Hussar

Again, people are reading all sorts of things into this issue that isn't there.

Look, it's simple.  The reason we have an issue with always evil orcs is because the language used to describe always evil orcs, almost verbatim, has been used to describe and dehumanize many real world peoples.  THAT'S the issue.  It's not that orcs are always evil.  Because, we don't worry about why demons are always evil.  Why not?  Because the language used to describe demons and devils in fantasy and D&D has never been used to dehumanize real world peoples.

So, yeah, it's problematic when your humanoids are "always evil" because all you're doing is parroting the same colonialist drivel that has been applied to real world people.  

Now, having evil humanoids?  Not a problem.  No one cares if you have a bunch of bad orcs.  That's groovy.  Go for it.  

The issue is when you start making blanket statements about humanoids, which, by the definitions of the game, aren't magically one way or another and only really differ from humans physiologically.  If humans can choose good and evil, by that logic, all humanoids should be able to choose.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Chaosmancer said:


> That is HIGHLY debatable. Different planets could easily have different evolutionary pressures. After all, mammals only came to prominence because of the destruction of the dinosaurs caused by a meteor strike. Evolution could have possibly made any number of different choices, such as squids having a longer lifespan, leading to more intelligence, leading to them being a dominant species. Or instead of having a symbiotic relationship with bacteria, we could have had one with an aggressive mold.
> 
> Now, granted, we could also have a lot in common. It could be that many of our characteristics are more evolutionary likely and that a general bipedal shape is going to be the most common expression of dominant species. But, until we've met a lot of aliens, we just can't be certain



look can I go down to the pub with the sapient land squid or not that is the question?

I never said they would be identical but that we would have a lot in common as even fruit flies have eyes and a mouth.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t know, I have only ever seen people say that undead or fiends or aberrations should be less evil in threads about orcs and such, as an attempted counter to arguments about orcs and Drow.
> 
> I don’t think we have any evidence that the cycle you describe exists.




The list of creatures that used to be "monsters" and are now playable PC races includes: bugbear, centaur, firbolg, gith, goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, minotaur, orc, yuan-ti.  Probably add in dhampir which seems to effectively be a depowered vampire spawn.

Seems like an indication of direction to me.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Kobold Avenger said:


> I think the original idea from the 60's of it being an idealized future where not only a Japanese man, a black woman and a Russian can be part of the crew (coming from a time when those things were almost unthinkable), but so can an alien like Spock.




This comment reminds me of the _Men Behaving Badly* _episode in which the two male protagonists claimed rather passionately for the significance of Star Trek.
When the two female protagonists (their girlfriends) asked in disbelief what such a show had taught them - one of the reasons given by Gary was that Star Trek showed that _a crew made up of different nationalities can work together successfully, especially when there are no bl--dy Italians._

I imagine the joke was a call to the competitive European football between England and Italy.  Not being Italian, but being a fan of Star Trek and the Azzurri, Gary's comment stuck with me. 

_*90's UK comedy series_


----------



## Oofta

Hussar said:


> See, it's okay for Nazi's to be evil.
> 
> How about all white, blond haired humans are automatically evil.  Regardless of where or when they grew up?  Would that be perfectly fine?  You don't see any issues there?
> 
> Dude, that giant whooshing sound you keep hearing?  That's the sound of the point flying over your head.



I clarified my statement in a follow-up post.  The uniform a person wears does not necessarily indicate their moral character.  Many soldiers have no choice and are drafted/conscripted.    The Nazi army conscripted men from ages 16-60 by the end of the war.  Boys aged 12 and under were manning artillery units. I don't believe that they were all evil.

So no, I don't think it's "okay" to say all soldiers forced to fight on the side of an evil regime are evil.  War may sometimes be necessary but I don't think it is ever good in the real world.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Oofta said:


> Boys aged 12 and under were manning artillery units.



At around that age I was learning to play D&D.


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> The list of creatures that used to be "monsters" and are now playable PC races includes: bugbear, centaur, firbolg, gith, goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, minotaur, orc, yuan-ti.  Probably add in dhampir which seems to effectively be a depowered vampire spawn.
> 
> Seems like an indication of direction to me.



What do you mean by "now"?

Those races have been playable in D&D for about 30 years or more.  Certainly since 2e and likely in 1e as well.  So, this "direction" started and largely stopped 30 years ago without demons and undead becoming standard playable races.

Look, I understand that you feel like you're being attacked here.  But, the fact that you continuously ignore what everyone is stating, insist on revising history and keep putting out these bizarre theories that have zero factual basis makes it really, really hard to take you seriously.


----------



## Oofta

AnotherGuy said:


> At around that age I was learning to play D&D.



Reportedly children (both boys and girls) as young as 8 serving as auxiliary units were captured by American soldiers.  War in the real world can be pretty horrible.


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> I clarified my statement in a follow-up post.  The uniform a person wears does not necessarily indicate their moral character.  Many soldiers have no choice and are drafted/conscripted.    The Nazi army conscripted men from ages 16-60 by the end of the war.  Boys aged 12 and under were manning artillery units. I don't believe that they were all evil.
> 
> So no, I don't think it's "okay" to say all soldiers forced to fight on the side of an evil regime are evil.  War may sometimes be necessary but I don't think it is ever good in the real world.



Note, there is a significant difference between rank and file German soldiers during WWII and Nazis.  No one will ever claim that all the rank and file were Nazis.  But, those that WERE Nazis, were pretty much as close to evil as the real world gets.


----------



## Oofta

Hussar said:


> Note, there is a significant difference between rank and file German soldiers during WWII and Nazis.  No one will ever claim that all the rank and file were Nazis.  But, those that WERE Nazis, were pretty much as close to evil as the real world gets.




I was talking about _all _of the soldiers in the army which includes the rank and file.  Which is what I clarified in my follow-up post.  There have been a lot of posts (mostly in other, related threads) that "anyone wearing the uniform of an evil regime are evil" or "all bandits are evil".  I disagree with that assumption if we're talking about the real world.  

In your campaign if you decide every single individual that wears a particular uniform is evil, it's up to you.


----------



## RealAlHazred

Oofta said:


> The list of creatures that used to be "monsters" and are now playable PC races includes: bugbear, centaur, firbolg, gith, goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, minotaur, orc, yuan-ti.  Probably add in dhampir which seems to effectively be a depowered vampire spawn.
> 
> Seems like an indication of direction to me.



I believe one of the first alternate classes developed for original white-box D&D by fans was the "Balrog" race, which showed up in an early *Alarums & Excursions*. Many others followed, several of which were based on fiction -- IIRC, this included Kzinti and Klingons. Before the *Monster Manual* (1977) was published. Somewhat after the *Monster Manual* was published, Len Lakofka developed a class where you played as a pack of blink dogs (*White Dwarf* #017, Feb/Mar 1980)

If it's a direction, it's one the hobby has been taking for a very long time.


----------



## Oofta

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> I believe one of the first alternate classes developed for original white-box D&D by fans was the "Balrog" race, which showed up in an early *Alarums & Excursions*. Many others followed, several of which were based on fiction -- IIRC, this included Kzinti and Klingons. Before the *Monster Manual* (1977) was published. Somewhat after the *Monster Manual* was published, Len Lakofka developed a class where you played as a pack of blink dogs (*White Dwarf* #017, Feb/Mar 1980)
> 
> If it's a direction, it's one the hobby has been taking for a very long time.



I don't make any claim to know every supplement ever released.  Back in ye' olden days, I never saw them in play even in public games going back to Living City (2E) or Living Greyhawk (3.x).

I have my own preferences for my home game, I'm not debating whether the trend of "monstrous" races can't default to evil is a good thing or not.


----------



## RealAlHazred

Oofta said:


> I don't make any claim to know every supplement ever released.  Back in ye' olden days, I never saw them in play even in public games going back to Living City (2E) or Living Greyhawk (3.x).
> 
> I have my own preferences for my home game, I'm not debating whether the trend of "monstrous" races can't default to evil is a good thing or not.



Except for vacations, I've lived my whole life within 50 miles of New York City, and I never saw them played around here. But apparently these sorts of classes were popular on the West Coast, and in some parts of the UK. It's something I find intriguing because I don't know that it ever occurred to my group to allow, say, a Giant Eagle as a PC, and yet there were apparently groups playing at the same time a few hundred miles away that might have had several Giant Eagles in the party. "Because _Allah_ loves _wondrous varieties_." -- Azeem


----------



## Doug McCrae

OD&D Volume I Men & Magic:

There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.​
Holmes Basic Set:

At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, hobbitish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man.​
Mike Mornard played a balrog in Gary Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign.

Jon Peterson, Playing at the World:

In Blackmoor, as it was played in the Twin Cities, most of the Baddies were nominally under the control of players; the orcs in the dungeon beneath Castle Blackmoor, for example, were answerable to Fred Funk (King Fred I of the Orcs) and the Wizard who lurked in its darkest recesses was played by John Soukop.​
The vampire Sir Fang played by Dave Fant is another example from Blackmoor.

Gary Gygax states that drow could be PCs as early as 1979. From the Sorcerer’s Scroll, Dragon #31:

The roles the various drow are designed to play in the series [the D1-3 modules] are commensurate with those of prospective player characters. In fact, the race could be used for player characters, providing that appropriate penalties were levied when a drow or half-drow was in the daylight world.​


----------



## S'mon

Oofta said:


> I was talking about _all _of the soldiers in the army which includes the rank and file.  Which is what I clarified in my follow-up post.  There have been a lot of posts (mostly in other, related threads) that "anyone wearing the uniform of an evil regime are evil" or "all bandits are evil".  I disagree with that assumption if we're talking about the real world.
> 
> In your campaign if you decide every single individual that wears a particular uniform is evil, it's up to you.




_Uniform of Evil Alignment
Wondrous Item, Common
While wearing this uniform you are of Lawful Evil alignment, and may be killed by heroes without moral compunction._


----------



## Sacrosanct

Hussar said:


> Note, there is a significant difference between rank and file German soldiers during WWII and Nazis.  No one will ever claim that all the rank and file were Nazis.  But, those that WERE Nazis, were pretty much as close to evil as the real world gets.



There are a bunch of Chinese in a city called Nanjing who would disagree with you.

While yes, when someone says a certain person is a self described nazi in post WWII time frames, we can assume they were a bad person with some high probability, saying everyone who _belonged _to the nazi party was evil is not an accurate statement.  This is especially true for those members who were there before the war actually started.  

Note: I want to be very clear I'm not defending nazis here.  I tend to take the 1930s captain America approach with them.  I just want to stay away from "all of X are evil", because that's how historically justification of genocide has been used.  I could better explain with an analogy, but that would cross into political discussion and that's not allowed.  I'll just say, "Is it possible, when talking about a group of millions of people, that some of them were not evil?"

On a related note, when I was deployed (and is true of every army all throughout history), when you are going to war, or preparing for war, it is drilled into you how the enemy aren't human.  they aren't people.  They are all evil.  They are all monsters.  Xenophobic terms are thrown about with abandon.  This is done because when the fighting starts, you can't hesitate to shoot the enemy soldier because if you do, you or your buddies die first.  Viewing the enemy soldier as a human being just like you causes hesitation.  It was a particular point of inner turmoil within me in my 20s while I was serving, reconciling that training (which I understood why they did it) with my personal outlook on humanity. 

Naturally the big drawback to that is that it creates a ton of racism _after_ the war is over, as those feelings carry on.  My grandpa hated the "japs" for his entire life, but otherwise you would never think he was racist at all, based on how he was repeated trained and his experience on the island hopping campaign in WWII.  My dad hated Vietnamese (which made him racist towards a lot of non-whites (not just Vietnamese) after Vietnam, when by all accounts, he wasn't prior.)


----------



## ART!

Hussar said:


> Note, there is a significant difference between rank and file German soldiers during WWII and Nazis.  No one will ever claim that all the rank and file were Nazis.  But, those that WERE Nazis, were pretty much as close to evil as the real world gets.



Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, and for stating the obvious, but if you work for Nazis, they're doing evil Nazi stuff, and you just play along, you're guilty. We worked all that out at Nuremberg 75 years ago.


----------



## Stormonu

Orcs, Scro, Ondonti - I don't care.  I just want some foes I can pit my PCs against that they don't have to have a moral quandary over to fight.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sacrosanct said:


> There are a bunch of Chinese in a city called Nanjing who would disagree with you.
> 
> While yes, when someone says a certain person is a self described nazi in post WWII time frames, we can assume they were a bad person with some high probability, saying everyone who _belonged _to the nazi party was evil is not an accurate statement.  This is especially true for those members who were there before the war actually started.
> 
> Note: I want to be very clear I'm not defending nazis here.  I tend to take the 1930s captain America approach with them.  I just want to stay away from "all of X are evil", because that's how historically justification of genocide has been used.  I could better explain with an analogy, but that would cross into political discussion and that's not allowed.  I'll just say, "Is it possible, when talking about a group of millions of people, that some of them were not evil?"
> 
> On a related note, when I was deployed (and is true of every army all throughout history), when you are going to war, or preparing for war, it is drilled into you how the enemy aren't human.  they aren't people.  They are all evil.  They are all monsters.  Xenophobic terms are thrown about with abandon.  This is done because when the fighting starts, you can't hesitate to shoot the enemy soldier because if you do, you or your buddies die first.  Viewing the enemy soldier as a human being just like you causes hesitation.  It was a particular point of inner turmoil within me in my 20s while I was serving, reconciling that training (which I understood why they did it) with my personal outlook on humanity.
> 
> Naturally the big drawback to that is that it creates a ton of racism _after_ the war is over, as those feelings carry on.  My grandpa hated the "japs" for his entire life, but otherwise you would never think he was racist at all, based on how he was repeated trained and his experience on the island hopping campaign in WWII.  My dad hated Vietnamese (which made him racist towards a lot of non-whites (not just Vietnamese) after Vietnam, when by all accounts, he wasn't prior.)



I have the theory that a reverse boot champ is needed so people can unlearn as much of it as possible.


Stormonu said:


> Orcs, Scro, Ondonti - I don't care.  I just want some foes I can pit my PCs against that they don't have to have a moral quandary over to fight.



you tried the clockwork horrors?
you could rip of destiny hive and vex those are have ended up more or less evil to the newborn.


----------



## S'mon

ART! said:


> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, and for stating the obvious, but if you work for Nazis, they're doing evil Nazi stuff, and you just play along, you're guilty. We worked all that out at Nuremberg 75 years ago.




Er, no. Read up on Nuremberg.


----------



## RealAlHazred

Stormonu said:


> Orcs, Scro, Ondonti - I don't care.  I just want some foes I can pit my PCs against that they don't have to have a moral quandary over to fight.



I mean, in the *Samurai Jack *cartoon, they got away from morality questions by making literally everything Jack fought a robot.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Stormonu said:


> Orcs, Scro, Ondonti - I don't care.  I just want some foes I can pit my PCs against that they don't have to have a moral quandary over to fight.



Does it have to be a whole race that's inherently okay to murder though?

Like why not have a bunch of orcs that are Fallout style raiders and it's all the skinning people and owning things the main characters need that explain why they need to be murdered rather than green skin and tusks?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Mind of tempest said:


> I have the theory that a rever boot champ is needed so people can unlearn as much of it is possible.



I got out in 1998, so I have no idea what's changed since then.  But back then, there was not transition out of the military to civilian life.  You spent your last week (2 weeks if you played the system) just going around with a checklist having every area sign off on it as you turned things in (TA gear, outprocessing dept, pay, etc).

Based on my own experiences, and those of many of my friends, the military absolutely needs to have a deprogramming period when you get out.  And not just for the big stuff.  When I got out, I had a hard time dealing with civilians at work who were lazy and refused to do anything.  In the military, you were direct and forceful to those people.  Can you imagine yelling and insulting someone at work who wasn't doing their job at a call center?  Thankfully I was smart enough to never do that because I knew the difference, but it was hard to transition from the one area to the next.  I mean, one of the guys in my squad was notoriously filthy.  His idea of ironing his BDUs (uniform) was to lay them in between his mattresses.  His barracks room was a complete filth pile every time it was inspected, and it stunk to high heaven.  After counseling statements never had a result and  he refused to change, we took him out on the flight line and forcibly washed him down.  He wasn't ever dirty after that.

But think about that for a minute, in hindsight.  How horrific was that?  Talk about consent issues.  But back then, it wasn't unusual to do that to someone who was always getting out of line.  And it's trained that way (or it was) from day 1 in Basic training.  Just look up blanket parties.  While officially frowned upon, the cadre absolutely encouraged them.  If someone in the squad screws up, the whole squad gets punished.  So let the squad dish out the punishment, and that way the person will learn.  Full Metal Jacket was the most accurate portrayal of boot camp that I've ever seen.

so yeah, back to the point.  The military breaks you down into nothing, then rebuilds you back up as they need you.  then they send you on your way with no retraining once you ETS (leave).  That is fundamentally flawed.  And a big reason why so many vets are having so many issues after they get out.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> Does it have to be a whole race that's inherently okay to murder though?
> 
> Like why not have a bunch of orcs that are Fallout style raiders and it's all the skinning people and owning things the main characters need that explain why they need to be murdered rather than green skin and tusks?




Let's take human bandits as an example.  Are some evil?  Absolutely.  But some may have been forced into at a very young age (similar to child soldiers), some may be desperate and see it as their only chance of survival.  Some may be Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and give most of their money to the poor.  Or do you think every thief in existence is evil with a capital "E"?

So you say that "okay, in my campaign all bandits are evil".  Cool.  I have no problem with that.  I also have no problem with effectively all creatures of a certain species being evil.  I don't even have an issue with certain monsters being effectively biological robots*.  Which doesn't mean I will ever have a hunting season on any intelligent creature.  If the PCs go to take out a group of orcs it's because the orcs are raiders or soldiers in an invading army and so on.  

*_In my campaign orcs are not a natural creature in the traditional sense.  _


----------



## Mind of tempest

Vaalingrade said:


> Does it have to be a whole race that's inherently okay to murder though?
> 
> Like why not have a bunch of orcs that are Fallout style raiders and it's all the skinning people and owning things the main characters need that explain why they need to be murdered rather than green skin and tusks?



yeah, that is super evil or at least so disagreeable that it makes them and evil more or less identical.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Let's take human bandits as an example.  Are some evil?  Absolutely.  But some may have been forced into at a very young age (similar to child soldiers), some may be desperate and see it as their only chance of survival.  Some may be Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and give most of their money to the poor.  Or do you think every thief in existence is evil with a capital "E"?
> 
> So you say that "okay, in my campaign all bandits are evil".  Cool.  I have no problem with that.  I also have no problem with effectively all creatures of a certain species being evil.  I don't even have an issue with certain monsters being effectively biological robots*.  Which doesn't mean I will ever have a hunting season on any intelligent creature.  If the PCs go to take out a group of orcs it's because the orcs are raiders or soldiers in an invading army and so on.
> 
> *_In my campaign orcs are not a natural creature in the traditional sense.  _



That's why I said raiders instead of bandits.

Fallout raiders are in no way ambiguous. They torture people, they decorate with human corpses, they are literal monsters because of what they do, not because they all dress like punk rock sadness or look different. They weren't 'born that way', they made choices that led to them being irredeemable.

The point being killability should be context, not literal hatred of the race.


----------



## Stormonu

Vaalingrade said:


> Does it have to be a whole race that's inherently okay to murder though?



I repeat - DON'T CARE.  Orcs are orcs.  Kill 'em all.  I don't need to delve into why they do what they do that justifies killing them.  They have the pie, you want it.  Off 'em.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sacrosanct said:


> I got out in 1998, so I have no idea what's changed since then.  But back then, there was not transition out of the military to civilian life.  You spent your last week (2 weeks if you played the system) just going around with a checklist having every area sign off on it as you turned things in (TA gear, outprocessing dept, pay, etc).
> 
> Based on my own experiences, and those of many of my friends, the military absolutely needs to have a deprogramming period when you get out.  And not just for the big stuff.  When I got out, I had a hard time dealing with civilians at work who were lazy and refused to do anything.  In the military, you were direct and forceful to those people.  Can you imagine yelling and insulting someone at work who wasn't doing their job at a call center?  Thankfully I was smart enough to never do that because I knew the difference, but it was hard to transition from the one area to the next.  I mean, one of the guys in my squad was notoriously filthy.  His idea of ironing his BDUs (uniform) was to lay them in between his mattresses.  His barracks room was a complete filth pile every time it was inspected, and it stunk to high heaven.  After counseling statements never had a result and  he refused to change, we took him out on the flight line and forcibly washed him down.  He wasn't ever dirty after that.
> 
> But think about that for a minute, in hindsight.  How horrific was that?  Talk about consent issues.  But back then, it wasn't unusual to do that to someone who was always getting out of line.  And it's trained that way (or it was) from day 1 in Basic training.  Just look up blanket parties.  While officially frowned upon, the cadre absolutely encouraged them.  If someone in the squad screws up, the whole squad gets punished.  So let the squad dish out the punishment, and that way the person will learn.  Full Metal Jacket was the most accurate portrayal of boot camp that I've ever seen.
> 
> so yeah, back to the point.  The military breaks you down into nothing, then rebuilds you back up as they need you.  then they send you on your way with no retraining once you ETS (leave).  That is fundamentally flawed.  And a big reason why so many vets are having so many issues after they get out.



nothing has changed that I have heard off hence why I had the idea of the reverse boot camp.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> Let's take human bandits as an example.  Are some evil?  Absolutely.  But some may have been forced into at a very young age (similar to child soldiers), some may be desperate and see it as their only chance of survival.  Some may be Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and give most of their money to the poor.  Or do you think every thief in existence is evil with a capital "E"?
> 
> So you say that "okay, in my campaign all bandits are evil".  Cool.  I have no problem with that.  I also have no problem with effectively all creatures of a certain species being evil.  I don't even have an issue with certain monsters being effectively biological robots*.  Which doesn't mean I will ever have a hunting season on any intelligent creature.  If the PCs go to take out a group of orcs it's because the orcs are raiders or soldiers in an invading army and so on.
> 
> *_In my campaign orcs are not a natural creature in the traditional sense.  _



Forget about "evil". It's unhelpful. It's possible to be evil and still never have broken a law. You can't kill someone because they are evil. You cannot kill a baby because it might grow up to do bad things. It is not a flag that tells you "it is okay to kill this thing" and it never has been.

"It it an antagonist?" is what matters. If it is an antagonist it is okay to use force against them, and using force will often mean killing them. Antagonists are usually easy to identify. Here is a helpful checklist:

1) Is it trying to rip your face off?
2) Is it trying to rip someone else's face off?
3) Is it planning on doing something that will result in people's faces being ripped off?
4) Is it causing someone or something else to rip people's faces off?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Sacrosanct said:


> I got out in 1998, so I have no idea what's changed since then.  But back then, there was not transition out of the military to civilian life.  You spent your last week (2 weeks if you played the system) just going around with a checklist having every area sign off on it as you turned things in (TA gear, outprocessing dept, pay, etc).
> 
> Based on my own experiences, and those of many of my friends, the military absolutely needs to have a deprogramming period when you get out.  And not just for the big stuff.  When I got out, I had a hard time dealing with civilians at work who were lazy and refused to do anything.  In the military, you were direct and forceful to those people.  Can you imagine yelling and insulting someone at work who wasn't doing their job at a call center?  Thankfully I was smart enough to never do that because I knew the difference, but it was hard to transition from the one area to the next.  I mean, one of the guys in my squad was notoriously filthy.  His idea of ironing his BDUs (uniform) was to lay them in between his mattresses.  His barracks room was a complete filth pile every time it was inspected, and it stunk to high heaven.  After counseling statements never had a result and  he refused to change, we took him out on the flight line and forcibly washed him down.  He wasn't ever dirty after that.
> 
> But think about that for a minute, in hindsight.  How horrific was that?  Talk about consent issues.  But back then, it wasn't unusual to do that to someone who was always getting out of line.  And it's trained that way (or it was) from day 1 in Basic training.  Just look up blanket parties.  While officially frowned upon, the cadre absolutely encouraged them.  If someone in the squad screws up, the whole squad gets punished.  So let the squad dish out the punishment, and that way the person will learn.  Full Metal Jacket was the most accurate portrayal of boot camp that I've ever seen.
> 
> so yeah, back to the point.  The military breaks you down into nothing, then rebuilds you back up as they need you.  then they send you on your way with no retraining once you ETS (leave).  That is fundamentally flawed.  And a big reason why so many vets are having so many issues after they get out.



I was never in the military, but a lot of this sounds like my experience of a British boarding school.

It might explain why there is so much bullying in the corridors of power, since an awful lot of those people went to British boarding school and where never deprogrammed.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Stormonu said:


> I repeat - DON'T CARE.  Orcs are orcs.  Kill 'em all.  I don't need to delve into why they do what they do that justifies killing them.  *They have the pie, you want it.  Off 'em.*



Honestly?

I can respect that.

We talk down to murder hobos, but sometimes just being comedic sociopaths is a ton of fun. You know, as long as we're being honest about what we're doing. We're killing them because we want their stuff, or because we're spoiling for a fight and the PCs are bad people. 

I have a much larger issue with trying to justify it.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Stormonu said:


> I repeat - DON'T CARE.  Orcs are orcs.  Kill 'em all.  I don't need to delve into why they do what they do that justifies killing them.  They have the pie, you want it.  Off 'em.




As long as you're not giving the orcs a Cockney accent or making them inspired by Indiginous/African tribal cultures... seems fine. If you're including a bunch of stereotypes to orcs that exist to real people, maybe don't make them evil to the core.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> That's why I said raiders instead of bandits.
> 
> Fallout raiders are in no way ambiguous. They torture people, they decorate with human corpses, they are literal monsters because of what they do, not because they all dress like punk rock sadness or look different. They weren't 'born that way', they made choices that led to them being irredeemable.
> 
> The point being killability should be context, not literal hatred of the race.



So is it "okay" if every orc in my campaign that has ever been (or ever will be) encountered has been a raider?  Who gets to decide?

My campaign world is over-simplified and there are often clear delineations of good and evil because it's a game and escapism. I don't think the real world is all that clean, many people don't "choose" a life of crime or at least don't see any options.  Many gangs recruit teens or even children by threatening their lives and the lives of their families.  If you're 12 years old and the gang tells you that if you don't join they'll do unspeakable things to your mother and sister before killing them?  That when they're done they're going to kill you as well? Does that 12 year old really have a choice?

There have been story arcs in my campaign where I deal with some of that.  Other times I don't want to.  That's where monsters come in.


----------



## Oofta

Paul Farquhar said:


> Forget about "evil". It's unhelpful. It's possible to be evil and still never have broken a law. You can't kill someone because they are evil. You cannot kill a baby because it might grow up to do bad things. It is not a flag that tells you "it is okay to kill this thing" and it never has been.
> 
> "It it an antagonist?" is what matters. If it is an antagonist it is okay to use force against them, and using force will often mean killing them. Antagonists are usually easy to identify. Here is a helpful checklist:
> 
> 1) Is it trying to rip your face off?
> 2) Is it trying to rip someone else's face off?
> 3) Is it planning on doing something that will result in people's faces being ripped off?
> 4) Is it causing someone or something else to rip people's faces off?



So if Joe is guarding the doomsday device, it's never okay to kill them?  After all, defending the device is their job but they aren't personally going out of their way to harm anyone.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> So is it "okay" if every orc in my campaign that has ever been (or ever will be) encountered has been a raider?  Who gets to decide?



Anyone replying to this public discussion on a public board?


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> So is it "okay" if every orc in my campaign that has ever been (or ever will be) encountered has been a raider?  Who gets to decide?



The only people who get to decide what is or isn’t ok in your campaign is you and your play group. But what’s ok for WotC to publish is a different story. If you want always-evil orcs in your home game and your players are cool with it, knock yourselves out. But WotC should really try to move away from essentializing races in official material.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I clarified my statement in a follow-up post.  The uniform a person wears does not necessarily indicate their moral character.  Many soldiers have no choice and are drafted/conscripted.    The Nazi army conscripted men from ages 16-60 by the end of the war.  Boys aged 12 and under were manning artillery units. I don't believe that they were all evil.
> 
> So no, I don't think it's "okay" to say all soldiers forced to fight on the side of an evil regime are evil.  War may sometimes be necessary but I don't think it is ever good in the real world.



Are child soldiers all that common in D&Dland?


----------



## Charlaquin

Speaking of essentializing, I think the discussion of if it’s ok to say all bandits/Raiders/members of the evil regime’s army are evil is looking at it the wrong way. It doesn’t really matter if they’re all evil. In fact, if you get down to it, most of them probably have relatable reasons for doing what they’re doing. But those reasons run into the “cool backstory; still murder” response. Are the raiders evil people? That’s a philosophical question that has been debated for thousands of years. The more practical question is, are the raiders a threat to your village?


----------



## jmartkdr2

What annoys me about these discussions is that so many people tend to assume a lack of nuance in other people's games.


----------



## Charlaquin

jmartkdr2 said:


> What annoys me about these discussions is that so many people tend to assume a lack of nuance in other people's games.



To be fair, some people are literally saying “I don’t want that kind of nuance in my games!”


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> So if Joe is guarding the doomsday device, it's never okay to kill them?  After all, defending the device is their job but they aren't personally going out of their way to harm anyone.



If Joe is guarding the doomsday device that makes him an _antagonist._ It's fine to kill him. And it's just as fine to kill him if he is lawful good or chaotic evil.


----------



## Stormonu

Urriak Uruk said:


> As long as you're not giving the orcs a Cockney accent or making them inspired by Indiginous/African tribal cultures... seems fine. If you're including a bunch of stereotypes to orcs that exist to real people, maybe don't make them evil to the core.



When I talk as them, they have to speak somehow.  I unconsiously slip into a false Slavic accent when doing Strahd, and the scottish dwarf stereotype seems to have been around forever.  If I suddenly have my goblins speaking Japanese* because that's what I want to give it an incomprehensible bend to the players at my table am I suddenly being racist?

* chosen because I am actually attempting to learn Japanese, and my player's don't know the language.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Charlaquin said:


> To be fair, some people are literally saying “I don’t want that kind of nuance in my games!”



And that's fine - they are playing a fantasy game, and part of the fantasy is that the antagonists are reliably antagonistic. Plus, they're not saying "in my setting, literally every orc is a free-willed individual who chose to be cartoonishly evil." It's just that the orc the pc's are fighting are things or people the pc's can fight. The possibility of other orcs remains, it's just not used.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> Anyone replying to this public discussion on a public board?



Not the DM and their group?  

You aren't the boss of me.


----------



## Oofta

Paul Farquhar said:


> If Joe is guarding the doomsday device that makes him an _antagonist._ It's fine to kill him. And it's just as fine to kill him if he is lawful good or chaotic evil.



Then orc are antagonists in my games.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> To be fair, some people are literally saying “I don’t want that kind of nuance in my games!”



Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

There are times when I want to avoid deep, unanswerable philosophical debates.  In real life there are often no good answers.  That doesn't mean I personally enjoy replicating those issues in game.


----------



## Faolyn

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> I mean, in the *Samurai Jack *cartoon, they got away from morality questions by making literally everything Jack fought a robot.



Heh, that reminds me. My dad's a writer and did a lot of scripts for cartoons in the 80s and 90s. He wrote one story where the hero reprogrammed some Bad Guy robots to fight each other instead of trashing the city or something, but was made to rewrite that part because "even robots have souls."


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Not the DM and their group?



Not when it comes to discussing it online. When we post publicly, we are inherently inviting comment.


Oofta said:


> You aren't the boss of me.



Are you sure? Vaalingrade is not a given name after all. Now get me those TPS reports or whatever it is you do. As a boss, I have no idea what that is.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Heh, that reminds me. My dad's a writer and did a lot of scripts for cartoons in the 80s and 90s. He wrote one story where the hero reprogrammed some Bad Guy robots to fight each other instead of trashing the city or something, but was made to rewrite that part because "even robots have souls."



At a certain point, does it matter if the intelligent being isn't carbon based?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> Heh, that reminds me. My dad's a writer and did a lot of scripts for cartoons in the 80s and 90s. He wrote one story where the hero reprogrammed some Bad Guy robots to fight each other instead of trashing the city or something, but was made to rewrite that part because "even robots have souls."



okay, that is wild but I would feel bad reprogramming a sapient robot against its will as that would be wrong.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Stormonu said:


> If I suddenly have my goblins speaking Japanese* because that's what I want to give it an incomprehensible bend to the players at my table am I suddenly being racist?
> 
> * chosen because I am actually attempting to learn Japanese, and my player's don't know the language.




Yes. Yes it is. That is racism. At least, if all your goblins sound Japanese, and all your goblins are unequivocably, unredeemably evil. If both are true, this is racist.

You don't have to have your goblins sound like any real-life culture, they can sound like slabbering beasts barely forming words, or like Skeletor screeching, or just talk like cavemen. Making them sound like an existing people is a poor choice if this race is intended as the "Always evil, kill on sight" enemy.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yes. Yes it is. That is racism. At least, if all your goblins sound Japanese, and all your goblins are unequivocably, unredeemably evil. If both are true, this is racist.
> 
> You don't have to have your goblins sound like any real-life culture, they can sound like slabbering beasts barely forming words, or like Skeletor screeching, or just talk like cavemen. Making them sound like an existing people is a poor choice if this race is intended as the "Always evil, kill on sight" enemy.



I heard a monster that made a noise like a demonically possed tiefighter that is how you make a scary monster.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mind of tempest said:


> okay, that is wild but I would feel bad reprogramming a sapient robot against its will as that would be wrong.



I would argue if it can’t think outside its programming, it doesn’t have a will to reprogram it against. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, its programming _is_ its will.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> I would argue if it can’t think outside its programming, it doesn’t have a will to reprogram it against. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, its programming _is_ its will.



Why does that only apply to robots?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Charlaquin said:


> I would argue if it can’t think outside its programming, it doesn’t have a will to reprogram it against. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, its programming _is_ its will.



that would be none sapient as it is equivalent to instincts in animal, to be sapient is to be able to resist your natural programming.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> Why does that only apply to robots?



I’m not aware of any other entities that are incapable of thinking outside a set of programming. If you want to make an argument that biological brains run on instructions that are analogous to programming, you have to accept that any sufficiently complex programming is indistinguishable from free will. At which point, just change my argument from “a robot that can’t think outside its programming” to “an entity that lacks sufficiently complex programming.”


----------



## Stormonu

Mind of tempest said:


> okay, that is wild but I would feel bad reprogramming a sapient robot against its will as that would be wrong.



To be honest, John Connor did that to the T800 in T2.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mind of tempest said:


> that would be none sapient as it is equivalent to instincts in animal, to be sapient is to be able to resist your natural programming.



I’m not convinced that computer  programming is a good analogy for biological brain functions.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not convinced that computer  programming is a good analogy for biological brain functions.



we have yet to generate one that does not sound even more insane yet so it stands as one right now.


Stormonu said:


> To be honest, John Connor did that to the T800 in T2.



look I follow our Lord and savour on this topic, given that freedom is the right of all sapient beings I would thus see john Connor's action as immoral but understandable.


----------



## Faolyn

Mind of tempest said:


> okay, that is wild but I would feel bad reprogramming a sapient robot against its will as that would be wrong.



It was so long ago, I can't remember if they were intelligent or not. I _think _they were just mindless mooks.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> It was so long ago, I can't remember if they were intelligent or not. I _think _they were just mindless mooks.



if it is mindless how can it have a soul?


----------



## Faolyn

Mind of tempest said:


> that would be none sapient as it is equivalent to instincts in animal, to be sapient is to be able to resist your natural programming.



Maybe, maybe not. We don't really know how much we humans are actually going against our instinctual programming and the answer might very well be "we're _not _going against our programming at all, it's just that our programming is very complex."

As an example, I was the weird kid. "Not like other girls," in a manner of speaking. Then, in my late 30s, I got diagnosed with ASD--specifically, Asperger's. And in doing research, I discovered that the weird things I did were all very normal for Aspie girls.


----------



## Faolyn

Mind of tempest said:


> if it is mindless how can it have a soul?



Beats me. I only know what Dad told me, not that editor's reasoning behind it. And I'm not sure I ever saw the final episode.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> Maybe, maybe not. We don't really know how much we humans are actually going against our instinctual programming and the answer might very well be "we're _not _going against our programming at all, it's just that our programming is very complex."
> 
> As an example, I was the weird kid. "Not like other girls," in a manner of speaking. Then, in my late 30s, I got diagnosed with ASD--specifically, Asperger's. And in doing research, I discovered that the weird things I did were all very normal for Aspie girls.



can you resist the urge to eat when your body wants to but you do not?


----------



## reelo

TwoSix said:


> Real orcs:
> 
> View attachment 135286



Fixed.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> The list of creatures that used to be "monsters" and are now playable PC races includes: bugbear, centaur, firbolg, gith, goblin, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, minotaur, orc, yuan-ti.  Probably add in dhampir which seems to effectively be a depowered vampire spawn.
> 
> Seems like an indication of direction to me.



A direction isn’t a cycle. Many of those have been playable in some form for multiple editions before 5e, they’re stuff people just generally want to be able to play. None of them became the monster horde race to replace another that had become a PC race. There is no cycle.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> Let's take human bandits as an example. Are some evil? Absolutely. But some may have been forced into at a very young age (similar to child soldiers), some may be desperate and see it as their only chance of survival. Some may be Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and give most of their money to the poor. Or do you think every thief in existence is evil with a capital "E"?



Does it matter if any of them are Evil? Erase cosmic Evil from the game, and the bandits are still killing townsfolk and stealing their stuff. 

If they aren’t committing murder in order to more easily commit theft, the PCs probably aren’t hunting them down.

Edit: The thing is, for me, it doesn’t make it okay to kill someone “because they’re evil”. It’s okay to kill someone or not based on their actions now and in the immediate future.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> Does it matter if any of them are Evil? Erase cosmic Evil from the game, and the bandits are still killing townsfolk and stealing their stuff.
> 
> If they aren’t committing murder in order to more easily commit theft, the PCs probably aren’t hunting them down.



PCs aren't "hunting them down" in my campaign because they're evil either.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Maybe, maybe not. We don't really know how much we humans are actually going against our instinctual programming and the answer might very well be "we're _not _going against our programming at all, it's just that our programming is very complex."
> 
> As an example, I was the weird kid. "Not like other girls," in a manner of speaking. Then, in my late 30s, I got diagnosed with ASD--specifically, Asperger's. And in doing research, I discovered that the weird things I did were all very normal for Aspie girls.



Drugs, injury, age, traumatic experiences and disease can all have a dramatic impact on personality.  We may not understand how our brains work but to think we are completely driven by free will is overblown.  We may not want to accept that much of what we do and believe is just instinct, but it is.

Do we have _some _control?  Obviously, yes.  But it's probably more limited than a lot of people acknowledge.


----------



## Faolyn

Mind of tempest said:


> can you resist the urge to eat when your body wants to but you do not?



Could you if you hadn't eaten in days?


----------



## Faolyn

reelo said:


> Fixed.



If those were my minis, I'd probably do what the Toon RPG did and call them Porcs.


----------



## ART!

S'mon said:


> Er, no. Read up on Nuremberg.



[the post I commented on seems to have been deleted, so...nevermind!  ]


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> Of course you can. But then they stop being people and just end up as _things to kill. _And in that case, you might as well just use zombies or robots or whatever.




Why are evil A.I.s ok but evil organics aren't? Some versions of orcs (Warhammer) are arguably just as prefab as robots are

EDIT:
And what about beings with a collective consciousness (such as Tyranids, to use another warhammer example, or to a lesser extent D&D's modrons)? They should be expected to all think alike (unless cut off from the collective like rogue modrons or that one genestealer cult)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> PCs aren't "hunting them down" in my campaign because they're evil either.



This doesn’t seem to engage with the content of the post you’re quoting in any way I can see. 

What point are you going for, here?


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> This doesn’t seem to engage with the content of the post you’re quoting in any way I can see.
> 
> What point are you going for, here?



I think he's just trying not to have _yet another _conversation about whether the sentence "all orcs are evil" is racist.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mind of tempest said:


> we have yet to generate one that does not sound even more insane yet so it stands as one right now.



Sure, but historically people have always used whatever the most advanced technology of the time was as a metaphor for how humans functioned. And historically they have always proven to be wildly inaccurate. I see no reason to believe the pattern isn’t going to continue.


Mind of tempest said:


> look I follow our Lord and savour on this topic, given that freedom is the right of all sapient beings I would thus see john Connor's action as immoral but understandable.



Does skynet have free will though? Personally, I think the vast majority of “artificial intelligence” in sci-fi falls short of what I would consider actual sapience. The closest I’ve seen is the ship’s computer in Star Trek (particularly in TNG), which ironically wasn’t even written to be AI.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> Why are evil A.I.s ok but evil organics aren't? Some versions of orcs (Warhammer) are arguably just as prefab as robots are
> 
> EDIT:
> And what about beings with a collective consciousness (such as Tyranids, to use another warhammer example, or to a lesser extent D&D's modrons)? They should be expected to all think alike (unless cut off from the collective like rogue modrons or that one genestealer cult)




Interestingly enough, Star Wars sometimes uses droids as a proxy for racism. In that, there isn't a ton of animosity between the various races (with some notable exceptions like the Empire being human-first), but there is a ton of animosity against droids. There are even instances of "we don't serve droids here," which is a pretty clear reference to an era of the American South.

Anyway, IMO, having an entirely evil group of humanoids is ok as long as there can't be any similarities drawn to a real-life group of people. If you have gnolls for example that sounds like the dog-hyena-people they are and have essentially no culture apart from "Like to eat people," that's fine.


----------



## Bohandas

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yes. Yes it is. That is racism. At least, if all your goblins sound Japanese, and all your goblins are unequivocably, unredeemably evil. If both are true, this is racist.
> 
> You don't have to have your goblins sound like any real-life culture, they can sound like slabbering beasts barely forming words, or like Skeletor screeching, or just talk like cavemen. Making them sound like an existing people is a poor choice if this race is intended as the "Always evil, kill on sight" enemy.




What if they want the language to be coherent? Not everybody is Tolkien.


----------



## Charlaquin

reelo said:


> Fixed.



I do love that mini. It’s way more piggy than I usually like my orcs, but god damn is it ever a good pig-headed humanoid design. And the skinny little legs holding up that chonky chungus torso? _chef’s kiss_


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think he's just trying not to have _yet another _conversation about whether the sentence "all orcs are evil" is racist.



Sure, I don’t want that either. But I asked if it matters that the bandits are evil or not, I didn’t ask anything about orcs or about racism. 

Like, IRL, it doesn’t matter if enemy soldiers in an invasion are Evil. It just matters that they are invading your home. You’re justified in armed response. Period. Evil or good don’t even come into the question of justification. 


Bohandas said:


> What if they want the language to be coherent? Not everybody is Tolkien.



Don’t have to be. There are already fictional goblinoids languages to steal some phrasing from.


----------



## Chaosmancer

AnotherGuy said:


> Good point.
> 
> So your argument is one of (a) logic within the setting AND (b) that of a good story.
> I'm not so swayed by (b) - plenty of stories have bad guys and good guys.
> 
> With (a) are we saying an evil people cannot functionally exist, right?




No, I can't even conceive how you possibly came to that conclusion. 

With (a) we are saying that there has to be a *logic *to them existing, and that discussing that logic is fair game. People keep trying to say that "none of it is real, so it doesn't matter" but that is ridiculous. Not being real isn't an excuse to ignore logic and reasons for things to happen. 

Can evil people exist? Yes. Of course they can. 

Since they are fictional evil people can we simply dismiss their reasons for being evil as unimportant? No. We can't. Being fictional isn't a blanket protection to do whatever you want.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mind of tempest said:


> look can I go down to the pub with the sapient land squid or not that is the question?
> 
> I never said they would be identical but that we would have a lot in common as even fruit flies have eyes and a mouth.




Sure, but plants don't. Sea Sponges don't have eyes. Nor do lot of other creatures. 

The point is that while we MAY have a lot in common, we may not. Maybe the alien life is a intelligent colony of fungal growths, very different than what we are. It is possible, and until we meet quite a few aliens, we don't know for sure.


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> Why are evil A.I.s ok but evil organics aren't? Some versions of orcs (Warhammer) are arguably just as prefab as robots are
> 
> EDIT:
> And what about beings with a collective consciousness (such as Tyranids, to use another warhammer example, or to a lesser extent D&D's modrons)? They should be expected to all think alike (unless cut off from the collective like rogue modrons or that one genestealer cult)



When I say _robot_, I mean _mindless drone_. At least in this particular case.

Since I know very little about Warhammer so I'm not even going to address that. 

When it comes to AI, there are two basic types: the ones that can go against (or find loopholes in) their programming, and the ones who can't. If you have the first type of AI, you have an AI with free will, or at least something that passes for it, which means that, like with (D&D) orcs and humans, its a person and thus should be judged by its actions.

If you have the second type of AI, then you basically have a less-mindless drone.

Members of a hive follow the same logic as AIs, for the most part. The only difference is that instead of a "programmer," you have a "queen."

_If _it's possible to transform a limited AI into a full AI, thus giving it free will and a personality, then there's a cost analysis of how difficult it is to do this versus the danger the AI is causing.

In case it's not obvious, these are my beliefs regarding _*NPCs in RPGs*_--I am not talking about anything or anybody in real life here.

My personal rule of thumb when it comes to these things is, if it's a K-strategy species, it can't be Always Evil. They might have evil cultures or movements, but they are not otherwise inherently evil. Otherwise, I have to look at the creature's ecology and decide. Orcs seem like they'd be K-strategists. Yes, I know I'm bringing real-world biology into a fantasy game, but it's how I do it.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> This doesn’t seem to engage with the content of the post you’re quoting in any way I can see.
> 
> What point are you going for, here?



I was responding to


doctorbadwolf said:


> Does it matter if any of them are Evil? Erase cosmic Evil from the game, and the bandits are still killing townsfolk and stealing their stuff.
> 
> If they aren’t committing murder in order to more easily commit theft, the PCs probably aren’t hunting them down.
> 
> Edit: The thing is, for me, it doesn’t make it okay to kill someone “because they’re evil”. It’s okay to kill someone or not based on their actions now and in the immediate future.



Just saying that the assumption that because all orcs encountered are evil that it's okay to "hunt" them falls flat in my campaign.

First, I don't use XP so there would be no point.  Second, hunting sentient creatures, even evil ones for sport is not something I would support in my game.

I just get tired of the leap from "certain monsters are evil in my campaign" to "as a DM I support genocide or killing them for funzies."


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I just get tired of the leap from "certain monsters are evil in my campaign" to "as a DM I support genocide or killing them for funzies."



OK, then: why are all orcs (or whichever Always Evil race you want to talk about) always evil in your setting?


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> OK, then: why are all orcs (or whichever Always Evil race you want to talk about) always evil in your setting?




Do you mean what leads to the evil karma or what leads to the things that lead to the evil karma?


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> OK, then: why are all orcs (or whichever Always Evil race you want to talk about) always evil in your setting?



Because if they weren't I wouldn't bother having them in my game.  They would serve no role.  Why have anything other than humans in the game if every creature is just a human that looks a little different?


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Because if they weren't I wouldn't bother having them in my game.  They would serve no role.  Why have anything other than humans in the game if every creature is just a human that looks a little different?



But then why bother to have them in the game at all, when you can just have evil humans?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Chaosmancer said:


> No, I can't even conceive how you possibly came to that conclusion.
> 
> With (a) we are saying that there has to be a *logic *to them existing, and that discussing that logic is fair game. People keep trying to say that "none of it is real, so it doesn't matter" but that is ridiculous. Not being real isn't an excuse to ignore logic and reasons for things to happen.
> 
> Can evil people exist? Yes. Of course they can.
> 
> Since they are fictional evil people can we simply dismiss their reasons for being evil as unimportant? No. We can't. Being fictional isn't a blanket protection to do whatever you want.




Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not disagreeing with discussing that logic within the fiction is fair game - hence my "Good Point" comment.

I was asking is if an evil culture/people could realistically survive (exist) or would it destroy itself or change as I imagine it would.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sacrosanct said:


> There are a bunch of Chinese in a city called Nanjing who would disagree with you.
> 
> While yes, when someone says a certain person is a self described nazi in post WWII time frames, we can assume they were a bad person with some high probability, saying everyone who _belonged _to the nazi party was evil is not an accurate statement.  This is especially true for those members who were there before the war actually started.
> 
> Note: I want to be very clear I'm not defending nazis here.  I tend to take the 1930s captain America approach with them.  I just want to stay away from "all of X are evil", because that's how historically justification of genocide has been used.  I could better explain with an analogy, but that would cross into political discussion and that's not allowed.  I'll just say, "Is it possible, when talking about a group of millions of people, that some of them were not evil?"
> 
> On a related note, when I was deployed (and is true of every army all throughout history), when you are going to war, or preparing for war, it is drilled into you how the enemy aren't human.  they aren't people.  They are all evil.  They are all monsters.  Xenophobic terms are thrown about with abandon.  This is done because when the fighting starts, you can't hesitate to shoot the enemy soldier because if you do, you or your buddies die first.  Viewing the enemy soldier as a human being just like you causes hesitation.  It was a particular point of inner turmoil within me in my 20s while I was serving, reconciling that training (which I understood why they did it) with my personal outlook on humanity.
> 
> Naturally the big drawback to that is that it creates a ton of racism _after_ the war is over, as those feelings carry on.  My grandpa hated the "japs" for his entire life, but otherwise you would never think he was racist at all, based on how he was repeated trained and his experience on the island hopping campaign in WWII.  My dad hated Vietnamese (which made him racist towards a lot of non-whites (not just Vietnamese) after Vietnam, when by all accounts, he wasn't prior.)




This is all true, and I agree with it. 

Where I differ though is that it is much much easier to say "Nazi's who believe in Nazi idealogy and follow it are evil, those that don't, aren't" than it is say the same thing about an entire species. 

Because, Nazi's had a goal and an idealogy that you could believe in. But an entire race of people being genetically evil doesn't have an idealogy.That, for me, makes a big difference. Not because everyone wearing the uniform is evil, but because I as the DM can shorthand wearing the uniform and acting against the PCs as BELIEVING the idealogy.


----------



## Faolyn

AnotherGuy said:


> I was asking is if an evil culture/people could realistically survive (exist) or would it destroy itself or change as I imagine it would.



I think most evil societies would eventually crumble, either as people inside left, died off, or successfully acted changed the society for the better, or people from outside warred against or refused to trade with it.

Mind you, it could take decades or centuries (or, due to D&D lifespans, millennia), but it would eventually happen.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> What if they want the language to be coherent? Not everybody is Tolkien.




Darth Vader is coherent. General Grevious is coherent. Sauron is coherent. The Joker, the Penguin, Ernst Blofeld... these are some of the greatest villains of all time, and have their own speech patterns and ticks that make their lines quotable. I would not say any of these voices exemplifies a specific culture. All are intelligent as well.

I mean, is it really so difficult for folks here to invent a race that is evil to its core and has no ties to a real ethnicity?


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> But then why bother to have them in the game at all, when you can just have evil humans?



Multiple reasons.  Tradition is one. If orcs are involved, it's probably bad.  If I want a simple to understand enemy that I don't need a lot of justification or explanation orcs fit the bill.  Because I don't want colonialism to be a justification why the indigenous humans are evil if the group is traveling through "wilderness" areas.  Because sometimes I want irredeemably evil barbarians at the gate.

Why is it such a big deal that orcs in my world are not human?  I'm not debating what role they should have in the game at large, this is about my personal home game.


----------



## Chaosmancer

AnotherGuy said:


> Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not disagreeing with discussing that logic within the fiction is fair game - hence my "Good Point" comment.
> 
> I was asking is if an evil culture/people could realistically survive (exist) or would it destroy itself or change as I imagine it would.




Ah, I misunderstood. 

Depends on what you mean by "Evil" 

Mindflayers work it by having a Hive Intelligence. They are evil, but since they are all working as one unit, that doesn't cause the collapse of the society. And that is kind of the magic ticket for all of them. Working together within the unit instead of tearing itself apart. Gnolls tend to never attack other gnolls, so they work. You could have it set up where a tribe will slaughter another tribe, but they won't treat members of their tribe the same way. 

And, yes, you can still be evil and work together. Look at any massive crime organization, and you generally have a large number of evil people working towards a common goal. They might cull the weak in their own ranks, but only in specific, acceptable ways. 

So, yeah, I think an evil culture could exist. It would be difficult without a unifying force, but it can happen.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Multiple reasons.  Tradition is one. If orcs are involved, it's probably bad.  If I want a simple to understand enemy that I don't need a lot of justification or explanation orcs fit the bill.  Because I don't want colonialism to be a justification why the indigenous humans are evil if the group is traveling through "wilderness" areas.  Because sometimes I want irredeemably evil barbarians at the gate.
> 
> Why is it such a big deal that orcs in my world are not human?  I'm not debating what role they should have in the game at large, this is about my personal home game.




But a lot of us ARE talking about the game at large. About working to have WoTC change the way the game is published to remove some of these depictions that really do not work for a lot of us.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Multiple reasons.  Tradition is one. If orcs are involved, it's probably bad.  If I want a simple to understand enemy that I don't need a lot of justification or explanation orcs fit the bill.  Because I don't want colonialism to be a justification why the indigenous humans are evil if the group is traveling through "wilderness" areas.  Because sometimes I want irredeemably evil barbarians at the gate.



So, are all your orcs irredeemably evil? Even the babies?

Why does wanting to have irredeemably evil barbarians mean all orcs have to be evil?

If you think that colonialism is a bad thing to have in your game, why is an Always Evil race OK in your mind?



Oofta said:


> Why is it such a big deal that orcs in my world are not human?  I'm not debating what role they should have in the game at large, this is about my personal home game.



At the moment, I'm just really weirded out by the fact that you seem to think that giving a nonhuman race a culture and giving individuals of that race individual motivations makes them human. _That_, to me, is an incredibly alien thought process, and I'm curious as to how your head works.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> But a lot of us ARE talking about the game at large. About working to have WoTC change the way the game is published to remove some of these depictions that really do not work for a lot of us.



I'm not going to debate that topic any more.  Because no matter how much I talk about fixing language, clarifying that alignment is just a default, there will always be accusations of implied racism or somehow I'm playing the game wrong.  It's not worth discussing.

Feel free to discuss whatever you want, if I talk about orcs (or goblins or kobolds or anything else) I'm only talking about my personal home campaign.


----------



## Mecheon

Urriak Uruk said:


> I mean, is it really so difficult for folks here to invent a race that is evil to its core and has no ties to a real ethnicity?



Realistically though, an entire race isn't going to be all one thing. Dragonlance's "All elves are 'good' despite having an entire civilisation of slavers who enslave people who lose in wars to them" is as bad worldbuilding wise as any other number of "This race is all evil", its just we're expected to side with these monsters for some reason rather than kill them. There's going to be variance in any race, unless its something like an aberration (which are their whole thing)


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> So, are all your orcs irredeemably evil? Even the babies?
> 
> Why does wanting to have irredeemably evil barbarians mean all orcs have to be evil?
> 
> If you think that colonialism is a bad thing to have in your game, why is an Always Evil race OK in your mind?
> 
> 
> At the moment, I'm just really weirded out by the fact that you seem to think that giving a nonhuman race a culture and giving individuals of that race individual motivations makes them human. _That_, to me, is an incredibly alien thought process, and I'm curious as to how your head works.



I assume you don't read every post.  I know I don't.  No one has ever encountered a female orc in my campaign, much less young orcs.

As for the rest, I know no explanation I make will satisfy you and it just leads to threads being shut down.  Kind of surprised it's made it this far.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Mecheon said:


> Realistically though, an entire race isn't going to be all one thing. Dragonlance's "All elves are 'good' despite having an entire civilisation of slavers who enslave people who lose in wars to them" is as bad worldbuilding wise as any other number of "This race is all evil", its just we're expected to side with these monsters for some reason rather than kill them. There's going to be variance in any race, unless its something like an aberration (which are their whole thing)




I don't really know enough about Dragonlance to understand this example, so I guess... I agree?


----------



## Mirtek

Faolyn said:


> So, are all your orcs irredeemably evil? Even the babies?



Two words: Goblin Slayer


----------



## Vaalingrade

Mirtek said:


> Two words: Goblin Slayer



AKA: Dexter the Animated Series.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> I was responding to
> 
> Just saying that the assumption that because all orcs encountered are evil that it's okay to "hunt" them falls flat in my campaign.
> 
> First, I don't use XP so there would be no point.  Second, hunting sentient creatures, even evil ones for sport is not something I would support in my game.
> 
> I just get tired of the leap from "certain monsters are evil in my campaign" to "as a DM I support genocide or killing them for funzies."



So, that is tangential to the point, so I will clarify. When I say “hunt down”, I am referring to taking jobs or quests that involve bringing a creature or group to justice. If I’d meant what you are talking about, I’d have just said “hunt”. 

Regardless, in the post you quoted, I am talking about whether or not it matters whether a given bandit is evil. I posit that it doesn’t, because you’re either fighting them because of their actions, or not. The only time that it matters if a nazi/bandit/Orc raider is a conscript or a volunteer is when they have surrendered and are on trial for their crimes.

 In a battle? Makes no difference whatsoever. That guy is trying to kill my neighbor and take his sheeps. He surrenders or flees before I get to him, or he dies. Simple enough.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> Because if they weren't I wouldn't bother having them in my game.  They would serve no role.  Why have anything other than humans in the game if every creature is just a human that looks a little different?



The implied dichotomy here doesn’t exist. 

It is not a binary choice between always-evil orcs and humans that look a little different.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> I'm not going to debate that topic any more.  Because no matter how much I talk about fixing language, clarifying that alignment is just a default, there will always be accusations of implied racism or somehow I'm playing the game wrong.  It's not worth discussing.
> 
> Feel free to discuss whatever you want, if I talk about orcs (or goblins or kobolds or anything else) I'm only talking about my personal home campaign.




If you aren't going to be having the same conversation as everyone else, why bother? 

I mean, seriously, you want to defend your home game, but we are talking about changing the production of DnD. Fixing the language is a great step, everyone agrees with that one. I'm not sure it is worth clinging to alignment, but that is a different issue. 

But, coming in to say "I don't care about the larger game, but I'm going to run my game how I want" and then arguing with us because we are trying to change your game, when we are trying to change the game at large... I mean, don't you see how that is a pointless endeavor? You can't convince us to stop pushing for universal change by saying that you don't like it and you won't change. Fine. Keep your game the way you want. Why argue with us over stuff you don't care about?


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> So, are all your orcs irredeemably evil? Even the babies?
> 
> Why does wanting to have irredeemably evil barbarians mean all orcs have to be evil?




There's a difference between irredemably evil and naturally predisposed to evil, one is an absolute and the other is an inclination



Faolyn said:


> why is an Always Evil race OK in your mind?




Rejecting them outright requires some pretty big leaps. For such a thing to be impossible it would require that dark triad personality traits ano only are not but in fact cannot be inherited. Otherwise a genetic bottleneck could conceivably lead to an entire population having those traits.






Urriak Uruk said:


> Darth Vader is coherent. General Grevious is coherent. Sauron is coherent. The Joker, the Penguin, Ernst Blofeld... these are some of the greatest villains of all time, and have their own speech patterns and ticks that make their lines quotable. I would not say any of these voices exemplifies a specific culture. All are intelligent as well.
> 
> I mean, is it really so difficult for folks here to invent a race that is evil to its core and has no ties to a real ethnicity?




No, what I meant by 'coherent' was that the words in the language would mean something instead of just being random syllables. Not everybody is like Tolkien and has the time and the skill to create an entire language from scratch, so reusing an existing language could be a substitute for that


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> So, are all your orcs irredeemably evil? Even the babies?





AnotherGuy said:


> I was asking is if an evil culture/people could realistically survive (exist) or would it destroy itself or change as I imagine it would.




Now _this_ is indeed a valid concern. Realistically a species predisposed to certain kinds of evil would have issues that would either destroy the society or else often prevent it from being evil in practice. Violent evil turned inward would likely result in many individuals dying before they had time to actually accumulate any evil karma. Conversely, outward facing violent/genocidal/xenophobic evil would lie dormant in the absence of any other species (cf. the Krikkitmen from _Life The Universe and Everything_). Inward facing social evil could create a situation wherein many individuals of the species have no opportunity to accumulate evil karma. HOWEVER outward facing social evil, as in the case of one species subjugating another (as in mindflayer communities) could result in a situation where all individuals of one species are evil. The flayers' hunger for brains and central organization could even be removed and this would still remain true as long as they had an inborn need to control and subjugate (now that I think of it, perhaps neogi would have been a better example)



AnotherGuy said:


> I was asking is if an evil culture/people could realistically survive (exist) or would it destroy itself or change as I imagine it would.




By todays standards the great majority of societies throughout human history were evil. They generally were at least xenophobic, and were often homophobic, and that's just listing the evils that the vast majority of those societies' people could unify behind. There was also generally misogyny, often slavery, frequent classism and mistreatment of the poor, castrations and footbinding and other bodily mutilation, religious oppression, humam sacrifice, mistreatmemt of animals, etc.


----------



## Azzy

reelo said:


> Fixed.



Those look so silly and comical.


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> There's a difference between irredemably evil and naturally predisposed to evil, one is an absolute and the other is an inclination



Oofta described their orcs as _irredeemably _evil.



Bohandas said:


> Rejecting them outright requires some pretty big leaps. For such a thing to be impossible it would require that dark triad personality traits ano only are not but in fact cannot be inherited. Otherwise a genetic bottleneck could conceivably lead to an entire population having those traits.



I'm not sure where you're going here.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I assume you don't read every post.  I know I don't.  No one has ever encountered a female orc in my campaign, much less young orcs.



Yeah, but if you're the DM, then _you _would know the answer. I don't care what the players know; I want to know the worldlore. 

Because what does that mean, no one has ever encountered a female orc? That could mean anything from "orcs are grown in pods" to "orcs are bamfed into existence by their gods" to "orcs keep their women locked up where nobody can see them" to "orc women look exactly like the men do, and even have a hyena-style pseudophallus" to "all orcs are male, but they reproduce parthenogenetically." 

None of which answer the question of, are baby orcs--a phrase that can mean a true infant to one just popped out of the orcpod a moment ago, are evil?


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> I'm not sure where you're going here.



If the original orcs created by the orc god were all as individuals genetically predisposed to violence it would follows that all their descendents would be too, (outside of individual mutations) because they would all be descended from that original group of individuals



Faolyn said:


> When it comes to AI, there are two basic types: the ones that can go against (or find loopholes in) their programming, and the ones who can't. If you have the first type of AI, you have an AI with free will, or at least something that passes for it, which means that, like with (D&D) orcs and humans, its a person and thus should be judged by its actions.




What if they're all copies of the same original evil AI. Like a bunch of different facilities are all independently running GLADOS on their local computers


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> If the original orcs created by the orc god were all as individuals genetically predisposed to violence it would follows that all their descendents would be too, (outside of individual mutations) because they would all be descended from that original group of individuals



If you use those gods.

If evil is genetic.

If genetics works the same way in D&Dland as it does in reality.

If orcs are incapable of thinking beyond instinct.

If you ignore that other D&D good-aligned races usually have evil subraces, thus indicating that D&D races don't have to stick with the alignment their gods gave them.

If you realize that violence doesn't have to be evil. Sport competitions, mock battles and dueling, wild dancing, friendly brawls, monster-hunting, and all sorts of things can be used to express an orcish love of violence that is both non-evil and helps to flesh out their culture.



Bohandas said:


> What if they're all copies of the same original evil AI. Like a bunch of different facilities are all independently running GLADOS on their local computers



Then they aren't people, they're mindless drones. Or, in D&D terms, fiends or constructs, not humanoids.


----------



## Bohandas

Faolyn said:


> Then they aren't people, they're mindless drones. Or, in D&D terms, fiends or constructs, not humanoids.




I don't see what being copies has to do with being mindless. They are still intelligent, they would still diverge over time but they would learn and diverge around that same core personality.

I really can't understand how you're imagining consciousness to work. The core of it seems to be that all species are the fundamentally the same but all individuals are irreconcilably incongruous, and that thought is simultaneously deterministic and non-deterministic. But that doesn't make any sense to me.


EDIT:
Like, if somebody built an atom for atom replica of you, including the brain, we should expect it to be as much of a sentient being as you are, but also share your memories and personality, shouldn't we?

And conversely one wouldn't expect a bird, a squid, and a pig to think and behave the same way, not even with training, so why should a human, an elf, and an orc all think and behave in the same manner?


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> I don't see what being copies has to do with being mindless. They are still intelligent, they would still diverge over time but they would learn and diverge around that same core personality.



Then drone, if not a mindless one. 



Bohandas said:


> I really can't understand how you're imagining consciousness to work. The core of it seems to be that all species are the fundamentally the same but all individuals are irreconcilably incongruous, and that thought is simultaneously deterministic and non-deterministic. But that doesn't make any sense to me.



Hey, you're the one that seems to want to say "what if orcs weren't orcs, what if they were really copies of an AI?"



Bohandas said:


> EDIT:
> Like, if somebody built an atom for atom replica of you, including the brain, we should expect it to be as much of a sentient being as you are, but also share your memories and personality, shouldn't we?



Presumably, but I'm not a neuroscientist so I don't know. 



Bohandas said:


> And conversely one wouldn't expect a bird, a squid, and a pig to think and behave the same way, not even with training, so why should a human, an elf, and an orc all think and behave in the same manner?



Judging by what I've read and seen, birds and pigs have as much a desire--even a physical need--for comfort, affection, and being treated kindly, as humans do, and many species of birds need companionship as much as humans and pigs do. I see no reason to assume that elves and orcs would be different in that regard. _Especially _since I'm running fantasy, not a hard SF xenofiction.


----------



## Mecheon

Bohandas said:


> And conversely one wouldn't expect a bird, a squid, and a pig to think and behave the same way, not even with training, so why should a human, an elf, and an orc all think and behave in the same manner?



I mean, from a biological perspective: Humans, orcs and elves all have the same bodyplan, they can be assumed to have similar niches, even though we can assume through their stockier frame that orcs are less on the 'long distant pursuit hunters' that we owe our own bipedal-ness to, and more of the 'strong ambush hunters'. They're also very closely related enough they can interbreed so using what we know about ourselves and our extinct relatives gives us a window into what hypothetical things orcs may do

Birds and pigs nuture their young, as do humans. We know that orcs have singular babies so we can remove squids from it, as squids are of the 'release a massive amount of eggs into the ocean and then die immediately afterwards' type.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> No, what I meant by 'coherent' was that the words in the language would mean something instead of just being random syllables. Not everybody is like Tolkien and has the time and the skill to create an entire language from scratch, so reusing an existing language could be a substitute for that




If you absolutely feel the need to use an "existing language" for an entirely evil race, fine. But there are plenty of fictional ones to use, instead of ones used by real people. Klingon, the Black Speech, Valyrian... I'm sure you can use one of these and people won't find it immersion breaking. At least, not more than your hobgoblins speaking Japanese.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> Then orc are antagonists in my games.



Indeed. Your antagonists can be whoever you like: orcs, elves, angels, whatever.

The point is you are fighting them because of what they do, not because of who they are.


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> Why is it such a big deal that orcs in my world are not human? I'm not debating what role they should have in the game at large, this is about my personal home game.



Since this is about your personal home game, and everyone, absolutely everyone, here has said that in your personal home game, do whatever you want, why are you still debating?  Question asked and answered.  It's not a big deal.  No one cares what you do at home.

So, why are you still asking?


----------



## Bohandas

Urriak Uruk said:


> If you absolutely feel the need to use an "existing language" for an entirely evil race, fine. But there are plenty of fictional ones to use, instead of ones used by real people. Klingon, the Black Speech, Valyrian... I'm sure you can use one of these and people won't find it immersion breaking. At least, not more than your hobgoblins speaking Japanese.




IIRC the other factor with the guy who originally started this aside was that it was also a language that he already knew


----------



## reelo

Azzy said:


> Those look so silly and comical.



Orcs are to pigs what Neanderthals are to apes. Only, they didn't evolve naturally but where bred and infused with a semblance of sentience by an evil god. They were created as a foil, to spite and mock the creation of good deities.


----------



## Azzy

reelo said:


> Orcs are to pigs what Neanderthals are to apes. Only, they didn't evolve naturally but where bred and infused with a semblance of sentience by an evil god. They were created as a foil, to spite and mock the creation of good deities.



In your homebrew setting, perhaps.


----------



## Hussar

Azzy said:


> In your homebrew setting, perhaps.



In one of my favorite settings, Scarred Lands, orcs are titansborn.  Meaning they were created by the Titans and not the Gods.  Only problem is, so were pretty much everyone else.  Humans were created by Titans, for example.  Now, since the Titanswar where the gods destroyed/imprisoned the titans, there has been strife between those that followed the gods and those that followed the titans.  

However, it's entirely plausible for orcs to follow the gods and humans to be titan cultists.  So, it's not really an inherent thing at all.  Granted, more orcs worship titans than gods, but, considering the war only ended a century ago, that's probably to be expected - pretty much EVERYONE worshipped/followed the titans before the war. 

IOW, even twenty years ago when Sword and Sorcery Press published Scarred Lands, they managed to avoid all this crap by actually embedding the races into the setting instead of relying on half thought out stereotypes.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bohandas said:


> I don't see what being copies has to do with being mindless. They are still intelligent, they would still diverge over time but they would learn and diverge around that same core personality.
> 
> I really can't understand how you're imagining consciousness to work. The core of it seems to be that all species are the fundamentally the same but all individuals are irreconcilably incongruous, and that thought is simultaneously deterministic and non-deterministic. But that doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> Like, if somebody built an atom for atom replica of you, including the brain, we should expect it to be as much of a sentient being as you are, but also share your memories and personality, shouldn't we?




It is in effect a question of free-will, time, and world-building.

IF we assume that the original orcs were created by the gods to be evil, but that the orc's children could have drifted to be good or evil, then we have to look at how long that could have been. 

Using FR as a base, just because they provide years, Orcs seemed to have come onto the scene 4,400 years ago (maybe later) and they were transplants, meaning they would have been even older. Orc biology seems to be twice as fast as human, so we are going to say a single generation would be 10 years. 

That gives us 440 generations. To put into human context, that puts orcs as having since the time of Akkad and Sumer to change. Or, basically the entire length of human civilization. That is just too massive a time span for Orc culture to have never changed. Even elf and dwarf culture has changed in that time span.



Bohandas said:


> And conversely one wouldn't expect a bird, a squid, and a pig to think and behave the same way, not even with training, so why should a human, an elf, and an orc all think and behave in the same manner?




And this argument falls apart when we look at how Orcs , Elves, Humans and Dwarves are presented. You'd be more accurate to compare Gorillas, Bonobos. Chimpanzees and Orangutans. To list just some of the similarities between the four DnD races.

All four live in large, social communities. 
All four give live birth to children that they raise. 
All four use tools, weapons, and armor.
All four domesticate animals for their use. 
All four use language. 
All four are bipedal  with side-ears, front-facing eyes a nose and a mouth. 
All four can use magic and have religion. 

They have differences, sure, but the sheer number of similarities is very striking when you want to compare them to the animal kingdom.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Hussar said:


> In one of my favorite settings, Scarred Lands, orcs are titansborn.  Meaning they were created by the Titans and not the Gods.  Only problem is, so were pretty much everyone else.  Humans were created by Titans, for example.  Now, since the Titanswar where the gods destroyed/imprisoned the titans, there has been strife between those that followed the gods and those that followed the titans.
> 
> However, it's entirely plausible for orcs to follow the gods and humans to be titan cultists.  So, it's not really an inherent thing at all.  Granted, more orcs worship titans than gods, but, considering the war only ended a century ago, that's probably to be expected - pretty much EVERYONE worshipped/followed the titans before the war.
> 
> IOW, even twenty years ago when Sword and Sorcery Press published Scarred Lands, they managed to avoid all this crap by actually embedding the races into the setting instead of relying on half thought out stereotypes.




That sounds kind of interesting.


----------



## Voadam

Faolyn said:


> Then drone, if not a mindless one.



People copies of the same exact genetic base are not drones.

Think identical twins.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> If you aren't going to be having the same conversation as everyone else, why bother?
> 
> I mean, seriously, you want to defend your home game, but we are talking about changing the production of DnD. Fixing the language is a great step, everyone agrees with that one. I'm not sure it is worth clinging to alignment, but that is a different issue.
> 
> But, coming in to say "I don't care about the larger game, but I'm going to run my game how I want" and then arguing with us because we are trying to change your game, when we are trying to change the game at large... I mean, don't you see how that is a pointless endeavor? You can't convince us to stop pushing for universal change by saying that you don't like it and you won't change. Fine. Keep your game the way you want. Why argue with us over stuff you don't care about?



I've never told anyone else how to run their game or that it's wrong somehow to run anything differently than I run it.

In addition, we've been down this road. It's the same cycle.
1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game.  Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.​2. But why not have only some orcs be evil?​3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until the thread gets shut down.​
Why bother typing up the same in depth on my reasoning and logic behind my decisions when you're just going to have the same responses anyway?


----------



## Oofta

Paul Farquhar said:


> Indeed. Your antagonists can be whoever you like: orcs, elves, angels, whatever.
> 
> The point is you are fighting them because of what they do, not because of who they are.



If they weren't doing evil things when given the option they wouldn't be evil.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, but if you're the DM, then _you _would know the answer. I don't care what the players know; I want to know the worldlore.
> 
> Because what does that mean, no one has ever encountered a female orc? That could mean anything from "orcs are grown in pods" to "orcs are bamfed into existence by their gods" to "orcs keep their women locked up where nobody can see them" to "orc women look exactly like the men do, and even have a hyena-style pseudophallus" to "all orcs are male, but they reproduce parthenogenetically."
> 
> None of which answer the question of, are baby orcs--a phrase that can mean a true infant to one just popped out of the orcpod a moment ago, are evil?




Should I know the answer?  Does everything in the world need an explanation until an explanation is needed?

In any case, I do have an answer and yes, orcs are pretty much just hatched from pods/egg sacks practically full grown.  They are a race created by evil Jotun that can pass with little notice into Midgard (the prime material).  They tend to appear in areas with volcanoes (even dormant ones) if the seed originates from Muspleheim or glaciers and places of intense cold if from Udgard.

Different monsters have different origins.  Gnolls come from hyenas that are infected with evil Jotun blood (not all Jotun are evil).  Goblins are different, they come from a race of proto-goblins from the Feywild that were forced out long ago; some followed dark gods and became goblins other followed the gods of light and became gnomes.  A few exceptional goblins are not evil though rare.

On the other hand I ran campaigns for years in my world without really putting much thought into it.  I just never had female or young orcs because "what do you do with baby orcs" has no good answer.  I don't do trolley car moral dilemmas.  If orcs are only evil because of culture then it's colonialist BS and we should take the babies and reeducate them so they don't grow up to be ignorant savages.  If they're just humans that look funny I'm not going to have inherent widespread bias against them in my world and they serve no purpose.

On the other hand, aren't lemure and manes really just "baby" fiends?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Oofta said:


> If orcs are only evil because of culture then it's colonialist BS and we should take the babies and reeducate them so they don't grow up to be ignorant savages.




Well .... in fairness, if the goal was to get baby orcs and re-educate them so they don’t grow up to be ignorant savages, you’ll probably have a whole ‘nother kettle of problems to deal with, and you won’t be avoiding the colonialist BS issues either.


----------



## Oofta

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well .... in fairness, if the goal was to get baby orcs and re-educate them so they don’t grow up to be ignorant savages, you’ll probably have a whole ‘nother kettle of problems to deal with, and you won’t be avoiding the colonialist BS issues either.



I consider the "reeducation" of indigenous peoples a blight on our history.  It's yet another moral dilemma I'd rather avoid.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Oofta said:


> I consider the "reeducation" of indigenous peoples a blight on our history.  It's yet another moral dilemma I'd rather avoid.




I agree with you on that (does anyone today disagree?).

On the general topic, it’s my opinion that fantasy is a genre with certain tropes, and while you can certainly play it realistically, it isn’t “wrong” to play it with notions of good and evil as well.


----------



## Charlaquin

Hussar said:


> In one of my favorite settings, Scarred Lands, orcs are titansborn.  Meaning they were created by the Titans and not the Gods.  Only problem is, so were pretty much everyone else.  Humans were created by Titans, for example.  Now, since the Titanswar where the gods destroyed/imprisoned the titans, there has been strife between those that followed the gods and those that followed the titans.
> 
> However, it's entirely plausible for orcs to follow the gods and humans to be titan cultists.  So, it's not really an inherent thing at all.  Granted, more orcs worship titans than gods, but, considering the war only ended a century ago, that's probably to be expected - pretty much EVERYONE worshipped/followed the titans before the war.
> 
> IOW, even twenty years ago when Sword and Sorcery Press published Scarred Lands, they managed to avoid all this crap by actually embedding the races into the setting instead of relying on half thought out stereotypes.



Also, have you seen the 5e/PF1 updates? Now there’s a third category in addition to the divine races and the titansborn - the redeemed, who mostly fought in the side of the Titans during the war, but embraced the Gods when it became clear the Titans had lost. Orcs, Assatthi, and Sletherin are all redeemed races.


----------



## Faolyn

Voadam said:


> People copies of the same exact genetic base are not drones.
> 
> Think identical twins.



Not if they're all popped out by a evil AI machine, which is what I was responding to initially.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Should I know the answer?  Does everything in the world need an explanation until an explanation is needed?



In a case like this, where it involves declaring an entire species of creatures to be "irredeemably evil"? Yeah, kinda.



Oofta said:


> If they're just humans that look funny I'm not going to have inherent widespread bias against them in my world and they serve no purpose.



You still seem to be ignoring the third option, which is orcs with culture of their own. What, are all of your cultures for non-orcs exact copies of real-world cultures?



Oofta said:


> On the other hand, aren't lemure and manes really just "baby" fiends?



...That are made from the damned souls of people who were evil in life. It's not like lemures are "innocent."


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> In a case like this, where it involves declaring an entire species of creatures to be "irredeemably evil"? Yeah, kinda.



Why?  They are a species created to wage never ending, meaningless war.  To sow chaos and destruction.  They're magically constructed in my world.



Faolyn said:


> You still seem to be ignoring the third option, which is orcs with culture of their own. What, are all of your cultures for non-orcs exact copies of real-world cultures?




Ooh, great idea.  So to solve the orc problem, we should round up all the orc kids and send them off to boarding school to teach them to speak and dress "properly"!  Fantastic idea that western civilization has foisted on indigenous peoples multiple times.  



Faolyn said:


> ...That are made from the damned souls of people who were evil in life. It's not like lemures are "innocent."



Are they?  Even if they are, so what?  Who says orcs even have souls?  Just seems like another arbitrary "my fiction says it's okay, your fiction doesn't".

Do what you want in your campaign.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I consider the "reeducation" of indigenous peoples a blight on our history.  It's yet another moral dilemma I'd rather avoid.



Actual real-world indigenous people aren't, and weren't, evil, though.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Actual real-world indigenous people aren't, and weren't, evil, though.



Exactly.  But they were labeled as "ignorant savages" and the "solution" was to strip them of all cultural identity.  If the only thing distinguishing orcs from humans is culture, then I see no reason for orcs to exist.  Have a tribe of ignorant savage evil human barbarians instead so you can repeat the colonialist trope of "superior" cultures.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Why?  They are a species created to wage never ending, meaningless war.  To sow chaos and destruction.  They're magically constructed in my world.



Well then, problem solved! They're not people! I guess you have their monster type as construct or fiend, right?



Oofta said:


> Ooh, great idea.  So to solve the orc problem, we should round up all the orc kids and send them off to boarding school to teach them to speak and dress "properly"!  Fantastic idea that western civilization has foisted on indigenous peoples multiple times.



Wow, are you really saying you don't understand what culture is? I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse here, because I can't believe that you are taking the idea "the DM creates a culture for orcs" with "people in-game round up orc kids and force them into a set of behaviors." Again, wow.



Oofta said:


> Are they?



The general options are that or they're formed out of the evil essence of the plane. They're not "innocent babies" by any stretch of the means. 



Oofta said:


> Even if they are, so what?  Who says orcs even have souls?



Well, as DM, _you _should say if they do. 



Oofta said:


> Just seems like another arbitrary "my fiction says it's okay, your fiction doesn't".
> 
> Do what you want in your campaign.



Hey, you're the one that thinks that having a race of people whose entire purpose is to be evil and then get killed by the PCs is a good thing.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Exactly.  But they were labeled as "ignorant savages" and the "solution" was to strip them of all cultural identity.  If the only thing distinguishing orcs from humans is culture, then I see no reason for orcs to exist.  Have a tribe of ignorant savage evil human barbarians instead so you can repeat the colonialist trope of "superior" cultures.



So you think that the only culture orcs could _possibly _have is "ignorant savage." 

Interesting.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Labeling people ignorant or evil in order to justify killing them and taking their stuff is also a colonist trope. Which is what people are bothered by with the whole orc thing and why it's really weird in this thread that the solution seems to be making them pig--literally a mark of ham--in order to get back to being okay killing them for being orcs instead of a less problematic reason like 'the PCs are just bad people' or 'this group of orcs is doing things that warrant combat'.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> So you think that the only culture orcs could _possibly _have is "ignorant savage."
> 
> Interesting.



You're either twisting, not reading or just plain ignoring what I've said repeatedly now.  If they are just humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work they serve no purpose for me.

But this is going same as every other thread.
1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game.  Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.​2. But why not have only some orcs be evil? [EDIT: add implied racism]​3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until thread is shut down.​
Have a good one.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Again, you're arguing about home games and everyone else is talking about the default game.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> Again, you're arguing about home games and everyone else is talking about the default game.



Is there a "default" game?  I reject the basic premise.  Do we have a lot in common?  Obviously.  Do we all have to run everything exactly the same?  Obviously not.

What's, let me just say "interesting", is that I don't care about what you do in your game but people really seem to get their knickers in a bundle about one preference.  It's a preference that in my experience is shared by a lot of D&D players.  I'm not "arguing" anything, that implies that I think there is one true way.  I don't.  People ask me questions, I answer.  I can only discuss my opinions and why I do what I do.  I have no real influence over your game or any hypothetical "default" game so I can only express what I do for my group.  Seems kind of pretentious to tell others what I think they "should" or "should not" be doing.

The only thing I argue against is that blaming evil creatures on "culture" is somehow "better".  That everyone that wears a specific uniform or is part of a specific organization is automatically evil to the core.  That I, and a lot of people, still want good and evil in a game.  How a DM justifies that is up to the DM and the group.  I'm presenting one way of having easily identifiable good and evil, if that's even something you care about.

In other words, if I say "this is what I do in my campaign and here's why" and others simply replied "this is what I do in my campaign and here's why", that's a fine conversation to have.  But every time this comes up it's always "this is what I do in my campaign and here's why" with a response of "why would you do that" with the implied "it's wrong to do it that way".

As far as what WOTC does with future editions, the opinion of anyone posting to this or the other related threads and $10.00 may get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> Is there a "default" game?  I reject the basic premise.  Do we have a lot in common?  Obviously.  Do we all have to run everything exactly the same?  Obviously not.




Of course there is a default game, that what a listed alignment is. It's the default alignment of that entire monster population.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> If orcs are only evil because of culture then it's colonialist BS



No, it isn’t. You always misrepresent the point to get here.

It’s not that orcs are “only evil because of culture”, it’s that if orcs are defined by Gruumsh, then a supernatural being exerts power to override their will and any culture they would have on their own doesn’t actually exist. Cutting them off from Gruumsh allows them to develop their own culture.

Or another way, the “colonialist BS” relies on the idea that we would be making orcs more like elves or something, when that clearly isn’t anyone’s goal. It would also require taking orcs within a game world, and within the fiction of that world, changing orcs from one thing into another. Most of the orc discussion is instead about changing the starting point of orcs. Changing what the PHB and MM say about orcs and half-orcs, does not equate to re-education, it’s literally just designing a game element differently.

Designing orcs to have cultures that take into account a nature that is different from humans in a few easily remembered ways does not require that orcs have an inherent alignment.

Native Re-education was a process of forced assimilation. Nothing about the arguments you keep railing against with this claim of colonialism actually relies upon orcs assimilating to “friendly races” culture. Orcs can fully still predominantly be in opposition to what most humans and elves and dwarves call civilization, without any need for them to be Evil.

And again, the discussion isn’t about your game world. Absolutely everyone else is talking about the game in general. Insisting on trying to make your side of the discussion exclusively about your game world is disingenuous, regardless of your intent, because you are replying to arguments about _the_ game, as if the discussion was about _your_ game.

Edit: Indeed, you even entered the discussion by _making it about the game at large,_ and suggesting that having orcs not be always-evil is somehow bad for the game in general. Then as soon as your reasoning is challenged, you make it about your game and act affronted that people are attacking how you play.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> You're either twisting, not reading or just plain ignoring what I've said repeatedly now.  If they are just humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work they serve no purpose for me.



No, you've been misunderstanding what I've said: orcs + culture =/= human.



Oofta said:


> But this is going same as every other thread.



Maybe that means you're not understanding what everyone else is talking about.



Oofta said:


> 2. But why not have only some orcs be evil? [EDIT: add implied racism]



Why not? Some humans are evil. The second-most recent big bad in my campaign was a halfling. The players hated him. I'm gonna have him come back as undead soon. 

If all members of a race are "irredeemably evil" simply because you want them to be, _and _you spend a lot of time fighting against any possibility of them being not evil--such as by comparing the DM making cultures for orcs to real-life people forcibly stripping others of their cultural identity--then maybe there is a problem. And not with the "not Always Evil" crowd.

And quite frankly, you're the one who brought up racism. Paul Farquhar said "Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour." To me, that clearly means "you can't just look at someone and decide they're evil because of their race, which since this is D&D, that actually means things like your fighter can't just look at an orc and decide they're evil because they're an orc." But you seemed to take that as a personal attack, as if Paul was saying you were a real-life racist.



Oofta said:


> 3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​



From what I could tell, your first post in this thread was:



> I think the issue with any generically evil creature (let's call them Blargs) is that at some point someone is going to start identifying with them because Blargs are outcasts from normal society that are feared and some people feel like they don't fit in. Then they want to play a Blarg so we come up with stats. The next thing you know, it's a bad thing that Blargs are a representation of people that are prejudiced against. Since we can no longer have generically evil Blargs we come up with something completely different called Blurgs. The cycle continues. [...] For me? It's just a game and I think people read too much into this. I just finished playing Half-Life Alyx after getting a new VR headset (awesome game by the way) and I have no qualms about mowing down the enemy in this or any other video game I've ever played. Is that over-simplified, not realistic? Absolutely. It's a game.



You literally started this by saying that it was somehow bad that people would want to play an evil race because then "people would start identifying them" and _you'd have to come up with a new evil race._

And hey, sure, maybe you're the type of player who hates having to deal with moral quandaries in-game. That's fine. We can all appreciate a little black and white morality at times. But _then _you started fighting against the idea of having evil non-racial groups by saying things like "For some people, some games, it's okay for Nazis to be evil because the Nazi regime was evil. It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons. Same with storm troopers for that matter."

It doesn't look good when your argument is #NotAllNazis. And it looks worse when your argument is "its better to kill people for the way they were born than for the conscious choices they make," because you're ignoring that most DMs aren't going to have the Evil Empire conscripting innocents as soldiers without also at least strongly hinting that is the case to the PCs.



Oofta said:


> 4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until thread is shut down.​



You've been claiming that would happen four fifteen pages now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> Of course there is a default game, that what a listed alignment is. It's the default alignment of that entire monster population.



Also, the existence of a default game doesn’t imply that everyone has to play everything the same way.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> You're either twisting, not reading or just plain ignoring what I've said repeatedly now.  If they are just humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work they serve no purpose for me.



You keep using this defense, but you still haven’t been able to explain how “orcs aren’t all evil” equates to “orcs are humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work.”


Oofta said:


> But this is going same as every other thread.
> 1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game.  Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.​2. But why not have only some orcs be evil? [EDIT: add implied racism]​3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until thread is shut down.​
> Have a good one.



I don’t think this is an accurate summary of the way the discussion goes. Especially since, again, literally everyone is fine with you doing whatever you want in your own campaign.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it isn’t. You always misrepresent the point to get here.
> 
> It’s not that orcs are “only evil because of culture”, it’s that if orcs are defined by Gruumsh, then a supernatural being exerts power to override their will and any culture they would have on their own doesn’t actually exist. Cutting them off from Gruumsh allows them to develop their own culture.



In my campaign, orcs were created and their moral alignment is controlled by Gruumsh.  There is no way to cut them off from their creator, since there is no "other" culture other than the one imposed on them, it's not particularly relevant.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Edit: Indeed, you even entered the discussion by _making it about the game at large,_ and suggesting that having orcs not be always-evil is somehow bad for the game in general. Then as soon as your reasoning is challenged, you make it about your game and act affronted that people are attacking how you play.



I never made a judgement on "good" or "bad".   What makes sense for my game may or may not make sense for yours.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> In my campaign, orcs were created and their moral alignment is controlled by Gruumsh.  There is no way to cut them off from their creator, since there is no "other" culture other than the one imposed on them, it's not particularly relevant.
> 
> 
> I never made a judgement on "good" or "bad".   What makes sense for my game may or may not make sense for yours.



I don’t care about your campaign. No one but you is talking about anyone’s specific campaign. 

Please stop jumping into a discussion about the game at large as if we are talking about your game.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> No, you've been misunderstanding what I've said: orcs + culture =/= human.
> 
> 
> Maybe that means you're not understanding what everyone else is talking about.
> 
> 
> Why not? Some humans are evil. The second-most recent big bad in my campaign was a halfling. The players hated him. I'm gonna have him come back as undead soon.
> 
> If all members of a race are "irredeemably evil" simply because you want them to be, _and _you spend a lot of time fighting against any possibility of them being not evil--such as by comparing the DM making cultures for orcs to real-life people forcibly stripping others of their cultural identity--then maybe there is a problem. And not with the "not Always Evil" crowd.
> 
> And quite frankly, you're the one who brought up racism. Paul Farquhar said "Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour." To me, that clearly means "you can't just look at someone and decide they're evil because of their race, which since this is D&D, that actually means things like your fighter can't just look at an orc and decide they're evil because they're an orc." But you seemed to take that as a personal attack, as if Paul was saying you were a real-life racist.
> 
> 
> From what I could tell, your first post in this thread was:
> 
> 
> You literally started this by saying that it was somehow bad that people would want to play an evil race because then "people would start identifying them" and _you'd have to come up with a new evil race._
> 
> And hey, sure, maybe you're the type of player who hates having to deal with moral quandaries in-game. That's fine. We can all appreciate a little black and white morality at times. But _then _you started fighting against the idea of having evil non-racial groups by saying things like "For some people, some games, it's okay for Nazis to be evil because the Nazi regime was evil. It ignores that soldiers in the Nazi army were there for a whole host of reasons. Same with storm troopers for that matter."
> 
> It doesn't look good when your argument is #NotAllNazis. And it looks worse when your argument is "its better to kill people for the way they were born than for the conscious choices they make," because you're ignoring that most DMs aren't going to have the Evil Empire conscripting innocents as soldiers without also at least strongly hinting that is the case to the PCs.
> 
> 
> You've been claiming that would happen four fifteen pages now.




Who's fighting against other options?  Let me repeat.  I do not care what you do in your campaign.  For that matter, I think the MM and DMG should stress that the alignment listed in the book is just the default.  It's stated as such, but it's just a couple of lines in the intro to the MM.

Again, noticing a trend is not a judgement call.  As far as the Nazi thing, let it go.  I don't think everyone wearing a Nazi uniform was evil, many soldiers were conscripts.  Unless of course you think the 8-12 year old kids that were filling in auxiliary roles were evil of course.

If you're going to say "it's not realistic that all orcs are evil" then I'll just reply with "it's not realistic that the evil empire only recruits like minded soldiers".


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t care about your campaign. No one but you is talking about anyone’s specific campaign.
> 
> Please stop jumping into a discussion about the game at large as if we are talking about your game.




How can you have a discussion about a game if it's not about a game that you play?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Are there any evil creator gods in D&D that aren't incompetent idiots who set their people up to be chaff before the reaping scythe of adventurers?

Lloth might well be the dumbest being in existence.
Gruumish is drunk angry dad that is likely the god of bringing knives to gun fights.
Kurk... Kerk... Kurt Wagner, the Amazing Nightcrawler is too busy being angry at a gnome to notice his kobolds worship dragons now.
Asmodeus didn't make the devils and the Blood war proves they're universally idiots too.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> How can you have a discussion about a game if it's not about a game that you play?



Literally everyone else is doing it. 

It’s easy. 

There is a pattern in these discussions where you derail the thread while complaining that the discussion is going the same way as previous ones, because you reply to someone talking about the game in general as if they’ve challenged how you run your campaign.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> You keep using this defense, but you still haven’t been able to explain how “orcs aren’t all evil” equates to “orcs are humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work.”




At a high level the various races in the PHB represent different tropes.  Elves are back-to-nature free love types, dwarves are nose-to-the-grindstone rigid rule types, halflings are happy-go-lucky idealized country folk and so on.  What do orcs represent if they don't represent the barbarian at the gate?  The evil forces that want to destroy civilization, use their ferocity, might and numbers to cause fear and chaos by destroying everyone else?  What trope, what role do they represent if that's not their niche?  

If the majority do represent that trope of evil barbaric hordes, then I think logically people should be biased against and fear any orc that walks into town.  I don't want prejudice to be a big part of my game.



Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think this is an accurate summary of the way the discussion goes. Especially since, again, literally everyone is fine with you doing whatever you want in your own campaign.



Funny.  Over just the past few pages it's been implied that I'm a racist and a Nazi apologist.


----------



## reelo

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well .... in fairness, if the goal was to get baby orcs and re-educate them so they don’t grow up to be ignorant savages, you’ll probably have a whole ‘nother kettle of problems to deal with, and you won’t be avoiding the colonialist BS issues either.



I was gonna say just that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> At a high level the various races in the PHB represent different tropes.  Elves are back-to-nature free love types, dwarves are nose-to-the-grindstone rigid rule types, halflings are happy-go-lucky idealized country folk and so on.  What do orcs represent if they don't represent the barbarian at the gate?  The evil forces that want to destroy civilization, use their ferocity, might and numbers to cause fear and chaos by destroying everyone else?  What trope, what role do they represent if that's not their niche?



It’ll vary from table to table, setting to setting, campaign to campaign. Point is though, whatever role they may have in a given game, not having a single monolithic ethnoculture doesn’t make them “humans with funny skin color and bad dental work.” Orcs can be made to feel meaningfully different than humans without being culturally monolithic, let alone being always evil. So, “I don’t want my orcs to be humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work” is not a logically valid reason for insisting they be always evil.

Now, there may be other reasons to have always-evil orcs in your campaign, not the lest of which is “I want orcs to always be evil in my campaign.”



Oofta said:


> If the majority do represent that trope of evil barbaric hordes, then I think logically people should be biased against and fear any orc that walks into town.  I don't want prejudice to be a big part of my game.



Case in point. That’s a logically valid reason to make orcs always evil in your campaign. I don’t think it’s a good reason to make orcs always evil by default in the official WotC published books.



Oofta said:


> Funny.  Over just the past few pages it's been implied that I'm a racist and a Nazi apologist.



Well, you did make an argument that “not all Nazis were evil.” I got what you meant, and I don’t think you were intending to argue Nazi apologia, but it’s not like that critique is coming out of nowhere. I haven’t seen anyone calling you a racist, but if you are seeing that, I would recommend reporting their posts.


----------



## Bohandas

Oofta said:


> If they weren't doing evil things when given the option they wouldn't be evil.



Exactly. For some reason lot of people seem to be interpreting the alignment entry as "orcs are arbitrarily flagged as evil" when the intent is clearly "orcs disporportionately do evil things"


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> I've never told anyone else how to run their game or that it's wrong somehow to run anything differently than I run it.
> 
> In addition, we've been down this road. It's the same cycle.
> 1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game.  Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.​2. But why not have only some orcs be evil?​3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until the thread gets shut down.​
> Why bother typing up the same in depth on my reasoning and logic behind my decisions when you're just going to have the same responses anyway?




Then why are you here arguing for evil orcs again? Seriously. Not trying to gotcha or do anything else, people put forth their preference for a new direction of DnD. You don't care, you want to run the game as you always have. We say that's fine, but we want to change DnD, because as a multi-national game, it has to think more broadly than you do at your table. 

And you say you don't care, you are going to run your table like you always do. Which, is fine, we've said that's fine... so, why keep arguing? What are you gaining except to keep reminding us that you don't want to change your table. Which we know, and that's fine, and we've said that's fine. But we aren't talking about your table. We are talking about the publication of the international rules fo dungeons and dragons. And individual tables like yours, can do what they want, that's fine, we've said that's fine.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> Exactly. For some reason lot of people seem to be interpreting the alignment entry as "orcs are arbitrarily flagged as evil" when the intent is clearly "orcs disporportionately do evil things"



Right, but maybe examine that a little more closely. Why do orcs disproportionately do evil things? Is it environmental or is it genetic? If it’s environmental, is it really accurate to call orcs as a race evil, or would it be more accurate to say _these particular_ orcs are evil? If it’s genetic... yikes.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Is there a "default" game?  I reject the basic premise.  Do we have a lot in common?  Obviously.  Do we all have to run everything exactly the same?  Obviously not.




Yes there is a default game. That is why Orcus isn't the god of sunshine and puppy kisses and Solars can blind you. The very things we are talking about are the default lore for Orcs. Something you have abandoned, and the explanation you gave about them being born from pods for the sole purpose of war and chaos is fine. That changes them from being like humans to being something inhuman and evil. That works. 

That also isn't the default. Default orcs weren't made by the Jotuns, because Default DnD doesn't have Jotuns.


----------



## Bohandas

Charlaquin said:


> You keep using this defense, but you still haven’t been able to explain how “orcs aren’t all evil” equates to “orcs are humans with funny colored skin and bad dental work.”




You're imposing human psychology on them. Not entirely, but at least partially. You're saying that they can't think and feel in a fundamentally different way that would cause them all to behave evilly.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but maybe examine that a little more closely. Why do orcs disproportionately do evil things? Is it environmental or is it genetic? If it’s environmental, is it really accurate to call orcs as a race evil, or would it be more accurate to say _these particular_ orcs are evil? If it’s genetic... yikes.




Yeah, I have a problem with declaring genetic evil. That just... can't be evil to me. Evil is about choicesm if you remove the choice you can have other things, but it can't be evil. 

After all, Sharks are savage, blood-thirsty predators, but they aren't evil.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bohandas said:


> You're imposing human psychology on them. Not entirely, but at least partially. You're saying that they can't think and feel in a fundamentally different way.




Human psychology is being imposed on them by the other side to. Read Oofta's last post "want to destroy civilization, use their ferocity, might and numbers to cause fear and chaos by destroying everyone else"

That is human psychology there. Destroy your enemies, you need might and numbers to do so, the goal is to cause fear and cause. You could use that to describe a hundred different vicious groups of humanity who sought to destroy their enemies.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Who's fighting against other options?  Let me repeat.  I do not care what you do in your campaign.  For that matter, I think the MM and DMG should stress that the alignment listed in the book is just the default.  It's stated as such, but it's just a couple of lines in the intro to the MM.



Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it. You're continuing to do so _right _now.



Oofta said:


> Again, noticing a trend is not a judgement call.  As far as the Nazi thing, let it go.  I don't think everyone wearing a Nazi uniform was evil, many soldiers were conscripts.  Unless of course you think the 8-12 year old kids that were filling in auxiliary roles were evil of course.



Like right here. 

Yes, there were unwilling Nazis. Some of them even tried to help the Jews or other people who were being persecuted by the rest of the party. But none of this has anything to do with an Evil Empire in a D&D game, or a group of bandits in a D&D game, or anything like that.



Oofta said:


> If you're going to say "it's not realistic that all orcs are evil" then I'll just reply with "it's not realistic that the evil empire only recruits like minded soldiers".



Sure, great point.

Campaign villain: the Evil Empire, with its Evil Overlord, soldiers, technicians, spellcasters, etc. The Evil Overlord is charismatic enough that a lot of their minions are there by choice: they support the Overlord's goals, are getting a slice of the pie, like being evil, or don't care about what the Overlord is doing because it doesn't negatively affect them. 

Except _some _of them aren't there by choice. Some of them were forced to join under threat of their death or the death of their loved ones. Some of them are magically charmed. Some were for the Overlord at first but have come to realize they can't support its regime but haven't been able to defect yet. Some of them simply don't care enough about the Empire and would turn on it if they could be guaranteed safety for doing so.

Awesome. Not everyone in the Evil Empire is actually evil-aligned. Many are, but some aren't. The PCs will have to be care that they don't turn evil in their fight against evil. This is a good conflict to have. And I'm willing to be that many, even most DMs who include an Evil Empire would have at least a couple of people who are willing to turn against it. Depending on how evil the Evil Empire is, there may even be _lots _of people willing to turn against it.

Now, about those orcs of yours... How many of them have decided to flip off Gruumsh and turn to the other side?


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> You're imposing human psychology on them. Not entirely, but at least partially. You're saying that they can't think and feel in a fundamentally different way that would cause them all to behave evilly.



Why _would _they? If they think and feel in a way that would cause them to behave evilly, they would have killed _themselves _off ages ago. For them to survive, they have to behave in a way that's beneficial for their group--since orcs are, and have always been, creatures that live in groups.

They can have _reasons _to war against others, same as humans have reasons to war against others. Maybe they even have really good reasons to war against others. But for it to be built into their fantasy DNA and have them not drive themselves extinct... that makes no sense.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it. You're continuing to do so _right _now.



I am not, and have never argued against having evil regimes.  I'm arguing against the idea that every single soldier of an evil regime is automatically evil.  

I'm done.  Have a good one.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Faolyn said:


> But for it to be built into their fantasy DNA and have them not drive themselves extinct... that makes no sense.




The same amount of sense that, say, the wing/bodyweight ratio of a dragon makes when it is flying?

The same amount of sense that a fireball (or any magic, really) makes with physics?

The same amount of sense that an endless war between the three "evil" factions in the outer planes makes?

The same amount of sense that the idea of teleportation or plane shifting of any kind while maintaining continuity of consciousness works (see, it's like the prestige- you're actually killing yourself and a new you is continuing on ....). 

The same amount of sense as a fantasy world with active deities that meddle in events, and even create whole races, and then ... just kinda of let things slide?

The same kind of sense that the wonky science that allows elves to breed with humans, and orcs to breed with humans, but not elves to breed with orcs, but yet also allows half-elves to continue on as a separate "race" because something something reasons?

You get the idea. The extent to which people apply the real world (and those concerns and that logic) to the fantasy world is great- but it doesn't mean that things in the fantasy world operate the same.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I am not, and have never argued against having evil regimes.  I'm arguing against the idea that every single soldier of an evil regime is automatically evil.
> 
> I'm done.  Have a good one.



_*And nobody has ever said that every single soldier of an evil regime is evil. *_In fact, I gave several examples how they could be logically not-evil!

_You _are the one who keeps making this claim, just like _you _are the one who keeps claiming that people are calling you racist or nazi sympathizers when _nobody _has, and just like _you _are the one who keeps claiming that orcs with culture are just humans with funny teeth. And when _we _keep trying to talk about that, you just run away. Criminy.


----------



## Faolyn

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The same amount of sense that, say, the wing/bodyweight ratio of a dragon makes when it is flying? [Etc.]



It makes less sense then that. Because if orcs are evil to their DNA core, then they would be too destructive to form cohesive groups; they'd be killing each other off any reason or no reason and be so busy fighting each other that they wouldn't risk trusting any of their cohorts during a battle against others. They wouldn't bother to heal each other after battles, and they wouldn't bother raising their non-precocial, singly-born young, so their numbers would constantly dwindle in that way, too. After a few generations, they'd be extinct.

For every one of your other examples, you can handwave it away with _magic. _But you can't handwave orcs as-is that way.


----------



## Bohandas

It could work if they bred fast enough. They already have r-strategist traits in relative abundance


----------



## Sacrosanct

These threads are always turning out to be the same.  Let me summarize the next 10 pages, if the last three threads are of any indicator:

Person A: The alignment should say orcs are evil, because that's a quick and easy indicator to me to let me know they are evil without having to read any additional text."
Person B: "But if you have a default alignment, that's problematic for reason A, B, C, etc.  If you want them evil at your table, just make them evil, but there's a lot of reasons not to make a humanoid intelligent species inherently evil as the game's baseline."
Person A: If you aren't lazy and read the the other additional text (yes, someone made this exact claim), they aren't _all _evil, just defaulted that way, and you can change them to non-evil if you want."
Person B: "Didn't you _just _get done saying you don't have time to read additional text, but now you want everyone else to read additional text or they're lazy?" 

On a side note, I find it fairly dubious to read someone say they aren't "arguing that the _game _should be this way" when they've done exactly that a week or two ago in the other threads.  This thread and this conversation aren't happening in a vacuum.  Did you change your mind?  Possibly, but don't be surprised when people react to you based on what you were arguing previously as well.


----------



## Sacrosanct

And if anyone cares about my position or reasoning behind it:

Position on mundane intelligent human species: No default alignment.  Campaign specific instead.
Reasons:

it's much easier to go from "generic and make adjustments to how I want" then to go to "specific and rewrite how it's presented", including but not limited to things like "how something is presented is how players will react when they encounter such thing, and if something is inherently evil in the book and presented that way, that's how players will react in game"
There are a lot of reasons why portraying intelligent humanoid species in the books as inherently evil is problematic from a historically colonial standpoint
A significant number of current gamers don't want it that way, so it's easier for everyone to tailor how they want at their table (null alignment as base, assign as you feel necessary with no changes to the RAW) than for a large chunk of gamers to rewrite how the game is presented and defaulted to play. 
It's more limiting to say "orcs are X" than it is to say "orcs can be x, y, or z or anything in between"


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> You're imposing human psychology on them. Not entirely, but at least partially. You're saying that they can't think and feel in a fundamentally different way that would cause them all to behave evilly.



They absolutely can, but that different way of thinking and feeling must either come from their environment or their biology, so the question is still applicable. If it’s environmental, it can’t be universal. If it’s genetic, yikes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, I have a problem with declaring genetic evil. That just... can't be evil to me. Evil is about choicesm if you remove the choice you can have other things, but it can't be evil.
> 
> After all, Sharks are savage, blood-thirsty predators, but they aren't evil.



I personally have philosophical issues with the very notion of evil, but setting that aside, I agree. There’s usually an implied willfulness in what people consider evil that precludes it from being a product of biology.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Bohandas said:


> It could work if they bred fast enough. They already have r-strategist traits in relative abundance



But then they’d behave totally different than they ever have in official D&D _anyway_, because they wouldn’t be working together in groups.


----------



## Mecheon

Sacrosanct said:


> These threads are always turning out to be the same. Let me summarize the next 10 pages, if the last three threads are of any indicator:



I can always try to veer back to the original topic on why the orc hasn't gone back to the Pig orc appearance and folks have instead gone with their regular mental image of what orcs look like.

Paizo found out the hard way about people having a certain image for things when they asked for Tiefling artwork, expecting mix-mash of demon stuff like the old days, and instead got 4E style ones


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> I've never told anyone else how to run their game or that it's wrong somehow to run anything differently than I run it.
> 
> In addition, we've been down this road. It's the same cycle.
> 1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game.  Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.​2. But why not have only some orcs be evil?​3. That's fine.  Do what makes sense for your campaign.​4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?​5. Go to step 1 until the thread gets shut down.​
> Why bother typing up the same in depth on my reasoning and logic behind my decisions when you're just going to have the same responses anyway?



Because you're the one attempting to frustrate people and conversation to the point where the thread gets shut down?

We'd like to have an adult conversation here about what we feel is an important issue.  You keep interrupting with these sidebar conversations that never go anywhere, all the while claiming to be the victim of others.  It's frustrating and pointless.  You are not, even remotely, trying to engage in good faith.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> _*And nobody has ever said that every single soldier of an evil regime is evil. *_In fact, I gave several examples how they could be logically not-evil!
> 
> _You _are the one who keeps making this claim, just like _you _are the one who keeps claiming that people are calling you racist or nazi sympathizers when _nobody _has, and just like _you _are the one who keeps claiming that orcs with culture are just humans with funny teeth. And when _we _keep trying to talk about that, you just run away. Criminy.




Then please explain what you mean by this:



Faolyn said:


> Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it. You're continuing to do so _right _now.




I have no issue with evil regimes, I use them in my own campaigns.  All I've ever said about evil regimes is that I don't think it makes sense to assume that every (human) member of that regime is evil.

Which is why I get frustrated.  How do we go from "not all storm troopers were evil, some are conscripts who have no choice" to your exact words "Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it."

People wonder why I get frustrated when my words keep getting twisted into something I've never said.


----------



## Bohandas

Charlaquin said:


> They absolutely can, but that different way of thinking and feeling must either come from their environment or their biology, so the question is still applicable. If it’s environmental, it can’t be universal. If it’s genetic, yikes.




Why "yikes"? Why is it shocking that a different species should think and act in a different way? Why shouldn't a dog act like a dog and a cat act like a cat?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bohandas said:


> Why "yikes"? Why is it shocking that a different species should think and act in a different way? Why shouldn't a dog act like a dog and a cat act like a cat?



We don't (seriously) call cats 'evil' for being cats though.


----------



## Oofta

Hussar said:


> Because you're the one attempting to frustrate people and conversation to the point where the thread gets shut down?
> 
> We'd like to have an adult conversation here about what we feel is an important issue.  You keep interrupting with these sidebar conversations that never go anywhere, all the while claiming to be the victim of others.  It's frustrating and pointless.  You are not, even remotely, trying to engage in good faith.



If you don't want me to respond, stop quoting me and asking questions. 

As far as responding in good faith, I do my best, I just disagree on some issues.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> We don't (seriously) call cats 'evil' for being cats though.



In all fairness cats (I have 2 on my lap right now) are kind of evil.  Killing for fun if given the chance, mesmerizing people with a vocal charm, only being affectionate when it suits them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> Why "yikes"? Why is it shocking that a different species should think and act in a different way? Why shouldn't a dog act like a dog and a cat act like a cat?



So you’re saying it’s genetic? That’s yikes, because it suggests evil is a product of biology. Remember, we’re not just talking about _different behaviors_, we’re talking about morality. If the idea of good and evil being inborn traits doesn’t disturb you, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s generally not an idea that flies these days.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> In all fairness cats (I have 2 on my lap right now) are kind of evil.  Killing for fun if given the chance, mesmerizing people with a vocal charm, only being affectionate when it suits them.



And sharks are literal bloodthirsty killers, but we don’t call them evil either. The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing. The idea that such willful malice is genetic is not harmless.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> And sharks are literal bloodthirsty killers, but we don’t call them evil either. The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing. The idea that such willful malice is genetic is not harmless.



We're talking about a fantasy world were a vengeful deity created a race for a specific reason.  Why would it only be genetics?

In any case the physical structure of our brains has significant influence on our behavior.  Some people _are_ born without a sense of right or wrong.

I don't see why a different species would necessarily share our morality, especially not when they were created for a purpose in a fantasy world.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I have no issue with evil regimes, I use them in my own campaigns.  All I've ever said about evil regimes is that I don't think it makes sense to assume that every (human) member of that regime is evil.



Are you not paying attention to what you yourself have been writing?

Because as soon as people started talking about why evil empire, bandits, etc., are better for villains, you _immediately _started in with this "oh no, they're not _all _evil." So you're either _assuming _that DMs are going to run a evil empire where every single member is evil, or you just felt some bizarre need to tell us that the Nazi Youth was a thing.

_And _you do this while constantly touting your own _always and irredeemably evil _orcs. The ones who can never have another culture because they can't be cut off from Gruumsh. Because apparently Gruumsh is more powerful than the DM, despite the fact that you have said several times that you shouldn't be required to figure out _every _aspect of your world, meaning you could just sever their connection to Gruumsh if you felt like it and not worry about the reasons for it.

For some reason, you think that having an entire race of people who are evil is OK--from everything you've said, it sounds like if there were an Orcish Empire of Gruumsh in your world, every orc in it would be evil--but the DM coming up with a culture for orcs is some sort of horrible colonization thing that turns orcs into humans with bad teeth and having an Evil Human Empire where every human in it is evil is too unrealistic for you.

And you _keep _claiming that orcs with culture must be some sort of colonialization "finishing school"  in-setting thing despite several of us telling you that no, it means that you, the DM, coming up with a culture for them.

Then you actively _lie _and claim that people have "implied" you are a racist or Nazi apologist. The word is _inferred. As in, you came to that conclusion on your own, despite nobody actually saying anything to imply that._

And then you keep trying to claim that we're being mean about _your _game, and when it's pointed out that we're talking about the base-level, out-of-the-books game, you say stuff like "what is canon?" or "what is official?"  and claim that you can't talk about games you don't play.

Do you see why _I, _and presumably some of the others, are quite frustrated by you?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mecheon said:


> I can always try to veer back to the original topic on why the orc hasn't gone back to the Pig orc appearance and folks have instead gone with their regular mental image of what orcs look like.
> 
> Paizo found out the hard way about people having a certain image for things when they asked for Tiefling artwork, expecting mix-mash of demon stuff like the old days, and instead got 4E style ones




I think that is an easy answer. 

Because for the majority of people that isn't what an Orc looks like. They weren't pig-faced in Tolkien, not in the newer more popular movies anyways. They weren't pig-faced in Warcraft which was massively popular, and they weren't pig-faced in Warhammer which was also massively popular. 

The *only *time I've seen pig-faced orcs with any regularity is in specific Anime from Japan. Same with Dog-Kobolds. Their style simply changed and going back to a pig-faced orc would be really weird for a lot of people.


----------



## Hussar

Oofta said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> Funny.  Over just the past few pages it's been implied that I'm a racist and a Nazi apologist.



There is an great feature on this board.  It's called "Report Post".  If someone has called you a racist or a Nazi apologist, then report them and let the mods deal with it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> We're talking about a fantasy world were a vengeful deity created a race for a specific reason.  Why would it only be genetics?
> 
> In any case the physical structure of our brains has significant influence on our behavior.  Some people _are_ born without a sense of right or wrong.
> 
> I don't see why a different species would necessarily share our morality, especially not when they were created for a purpose in a fantasy world.




I think you grossly, grossly underestimate the power of anthropomorphization. Humans can literally look at a big rock or a big puddle and feel like that object thinks and feels like a human.

Sure, it might be possible that a different species could possibly not share our morality.

Except, we are explicitly judging them via our morality. And claiming that they do follow it. That is why they are evil. A term that is explicitly a function of human morality.

Meanwhile, they are humanoid in body shape.
They have human emotions like rage, anger, fear, greed, hunger, ect
They live in houses like we do
They live in communal groups like we do
They dress and use tools like we do, mostly the exact same tools
They have campfires and cook their food like we do.
They have babies via sex like we do
They have five fingered hands like we do
They can have babies with us, making them compatible with our biology.
They domesticate animals, hunt and gather like we do.


Look, I get that "if orcs are humans they are worthless and boring" but... seriously, every major player race is basically human. They are so insanely similar to us, because that is how we relate to and care about them. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but trying to fight that tide is a losing battle, and it has been since they had families instead of muddy pits.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> We don't (seriously) call cats 'evil' for being cats though.



Also cats and dogs aren’t _that_ different. They’re both social animals that are happiest when they have at least one companion, who have a deep need for socialization, are naturally territorial, and a host of other common traits. A house cat acts more like a dog than like a tiger.


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> A house cat acts more like a dog than like a tiger.



And yet, both cats and tigers like boxes.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Henceforth all discussions about orcs and alignment shall be redirected to be about cats. It's the internet way. Certainly couldn't be less productive than they've been so far...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back



Art & Arcana touches on the evolution of orcs, among other monsters, over the editions.


----------



## Bohandas

Charlaquin said:


> So you’re saying it’s genetic? That’s yikes, because it suggests evil is a product of biology. Remember, we’re not just talking about _different behaviors_, we’re talking about morality. If the idea of good and evil being inborn traits doesn’t disturb you, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s generally not an idea that flies these days.




ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology. They originate as processes in the brain. Change the brain and you change the thoughts. That's why chickens don't act like humans and why stroke victims often have changes in personality and cognitive ability.

And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs? I think you may be implying a link to racism, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race. They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I'm going to try and avoid much of the talk that's going on right now, but I will share my opinion. 

I do not want orcs to become Pig-Faced again. I like Orcs as they are now, and it would be extremely inconvenient for them to return to an old depiction that is unpopular, unnecessary, and was undone years before I was even born, let alone introduced to D&D. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Sabathius42

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, but if you're the DM, then _you _would know the answer. I don't care what the players know; I want to know the worldlore.
> 
> Because what does that mean, no one has ever encountered a female orc? That could mean anything from "orcs are grown in pods" to "orcs are bamfed into existence by their gods" to "orcs keep their women locked up where nobody can see them" to "orc women look exactly like the men do, and even have a hyena-style pseudophallus" to "all orcs are male, but they reproduce parthenogenetically."
> 
> None of which answer the question of, are baby orcs--a phrase that can mean a true infant to one just popped out of the orcpod a moment ago, are evil?



I think @Oofta is saying in his game orcs are the equivalent of the fake facades that make up western towns in a movie lot.  They exist solely to be "bad guy raider types" and do t have more nuance than that one facet.

So the women, children, intellectual, peaceful, and friendly orcs exist in the world but never on camera.

I think it's an odd campaign style but if it works for their group it works for their group.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology. They originate as processes in the brain. Change the brain and you change the thoughts. That's why chickens don't act like humans and why stroke victims often have changes in personality and cognitive ability.



You’re oversimplifying, at least in the case of sapient beings. Sapient beings’ thoughts and behaviors are a product of a combination of biology and environment. A person’s experiences shape their thought processes and their behaviors. “Evil,” as the term is generally used, refers to a phenomenon that is unique to sapient beings. So, we must ask, does evil come from biology, or from environment? You’re really comfortable saying it comes from biology? That evil people are just born that way, and would end up that way regardless of their upbringing? If so, all I can say is I strongly disagree and I find that view Abhorrent.



Bohandas said:


> And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty?



Because sharks act as they do out of instinctual drive and dietary necessity. Again, “evil,” as the term is typically used, implies a willful disregard for morality, which sharks lack.



Bohandas said:


> If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs?



Because orcs are sapient. And they _can_ be bloodthirsty, but if they are we must ask whether that bloodthirst is a product of nature or nurture. And saying it’s a product of nature carries some pretty gross implications.



Bohandas said:


> I think you may be implying a link to racism, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race.
> 
> They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.



I don’t have the energy to pick this argument apart right now. Suffice it to say, this is a thermian argument and also  entirely misses the point.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bohandas said:


> ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology. They originate as processes in the brain. Change the brain and you change the thoughts. That's why chickens don't act like humans and why stroke victims often have changes in personality and cognitive ability.
> 
> And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs?* I think you may be implying a link to racism*, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race. They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.



The link to racism is that a lot of people use this argument to suggest certain personality traits and behaviors are inherent to certain groups of humans. Which is obvious pseudoscientific hogwash because psychology is a lot more complex than this because sapient minds grow and develop differently from non-sapient ones. And that's what a lot of use are trying to avoid following in our fiction.

Trying to handwave it by saying 'well, they're not human and not technically a race but a species' doesn't work because it's still excusing and encouraging treating other sapients this way. And really, that goes into a dangerous place of asking how far removed from 'human' a sapient can get before we get to treat them terribly. Neandertal? H. habilis? Alpha Centurian? Betelgeuse? AI?

I prefer to side with a certain wise robot and paraphrase that dignity is the right of all sapient life.


----------



## Mecheon

Bohandas said:


> And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs?



As the resident zoology nerd, I'd be remise if I didn't point out that sharks.... Aren't bloodthirsty. If a shark isn't hungry you can pat 'em on the snount even. Pat 'em like a dog. They're not smart like barracudas (Who think humans are just big ol' apex predators and will follow people around in the hopes we just tear a shark in half so they can eat the remains), they're just, things.

Its just they're apex predators who work on a system of "My mouth is the only thing I have to test things with so that's what I'm gonna use to test everything" and "That looks like what I normally eat, its probably the same"


----------



## Charlaquin

Mecheon said:


> As the resident zoology nerd, I'd be remise if I didn't point out that sharks.... Aren't bloodthirsty. If a shark isn't hungry you can pat 'em on the snount even. Pat 'em like a dog. They're not smart like barracudas (Who think humans are just big ol' apex predators and will follow people around in the hopes we just tear a shark in half so they can eat the remains), they're just, things.
> 
> Its just they're apex predators who work on a system of "My mouth is the only thing I have to test things with so that's what I'm gonna use to test everything" and "That looks like what I normally eat, its probably the same"



I was referring to the part where the smell of blood attracts them. But, yeah, generally sharks are pretty chill.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I don't see why a different species would necessarily share our morality, especially not when they were created for a purpose in a fantasy world.



If you think it's okay to kill someone because they do not share your morality, then you do not share _my_ morality.


----------



## S'mon

Vaalingrade said:


> sapient minds grow and develop differently from non-sapient ones.



Eh? That doesn't sound like a scientific statement at all.


----------



## Bohandas

S'mon said:


> Eh? That doesn't sound like a scientific statement at all.




That's a nice way of putting it. I was about to describe it in a much more dismissive way, but for the sake of avoiding an infraction I'm just going to second your assessment of it as unscientific.


----------



## Oofta

Sabathius42 said:


> I think @Oofta is saying in his game orcs are the equivalent of the fake facades that make up western towns in a movie lot.  They exist solely to be "bad guy raider types" and do t have more nuance than that one facet.
> 
> So the women, children, intellectual, peaceful, and friendly orcs exist in the world but never on camera.
> 
> I think it's an odd campaign style but if it works for their group it works for their group.



It's pretty typical in video games as well.  I'm playing Horizon Zero Dawn right now and, yes, a big part of the game is running around shooting "bandits" in the head with arrows.  One thing I notice about the settlements is that the "good" settlements have women and children running around, the bandits never do.  Same with say, the Far Cry games.  

Are there wives and children of these bandits running around somewhere?  Presumably.  But they never make an appearance.  Maybe they do in some games, I just don't remember playing any.  So I run my home game the same way video games handle children of the designated bad guy: I ignore it.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> Are you not paying attention to what you yourself have been writing?
> 
> Because as soon as people started talking about why evil empire, bandits, etc., are better for villains, you _immediately _started in with this "oh no, they're not _all _evil." So you're either _assuming _that DMs are going to run a evil empire where every single member is evil, or you just felt some bizarre need to tell us that the Nazi Youth was a thing.
> 
> _And _you do this while constantly touting your own _always and irredeemably evil _orcs. The ones who can never have another culture because they can't be cut off from Gruumsh. Because apparently Gruumsh is more powerful than the DM, despite the fact that you have said several times that you shouldn't be required to figure out _every _aspect of your world, meaning you could just sever their connection to Gruumsh if you felt like it and not worry about the reasons for it.
> 
> For some reason, you think that having an entire race of people who are evil is OK--from everything you've said, it sounds like if there were an Orcish Empire of Gruumsh in your world, every orc in it would be evil--but the DM coming up with a culture for orcs is some sort of horrible colonization thing that turns orcs into humans with bad teeth and having an Evil Human Empire where every human in it is evil is too unrealistic for you.
> 
> And you _keep _claiming that orcs with culture must be some sort of colonialization "finishing school"  in-setting thing despite several of us telling you that no, it means that you, the DM, coming up with a culture for them.
> 
> Then you actively _lie _and claim that people have "implied" you are a racist or Nazi apologist. The word is _inferred. As in, you came to that conclusion on your own, despite nobody actually saying anything to imply that._
> 
> And then you keep trying to claim that we're being mean about _your _game, and when it's pointed out that we're talking about the base-level, out-of-the-books game, you say stuff like "what is canon?" or "what is official?"  and claim that you can't talk about games you don't play.
> 
> Do you see why _I, _and presumably some of the others, are quite frustrated by you?




Is there an answer in there somewhere about how do we go from my statement "not all storm troopers were evil, some are conscripts who have no choice" to your exact words "Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it."?

What am I arguing against?  I have never argued against having evil regimes.  I have a preference that, unlike the real world, you can have good guys fighting bad guys.  That in some cases you can resort to violence to achieve your goals without having the moral dilemma of fireballing some guy just because they were a poor schmuck that was conscripted. 

As far as the accusation of lying, when I see a post that says "It doesn't look good when your argument is #NotAllNazis." it sure does sound like you're calling me a nazi sympathizer.  Maybe the post that said "Anyone can be evil. It's just that you can no longer tell who is evil by looking at their skin colour." wasn't implying I was a racist.  If I misunderstood what you were saying, [edit: or how the skin color comment wasn't implying racism] please explain.  I explained, and apologized, for a post that had been misunderstood back on page 5 or 6.  Until then stop accusing me of lying.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Charlaquin said:


> The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing. The idea that such willful malice is genetic is not harmless.




This is interesting and I'm still mulling this around in my mind.
Creatures spawned from a demon deity with unflattering traits (bloodlust) and a fierce dislike for outsiders (xenophobic). Is that enough to be evil? Do they truly know better?

Your comment reminded me of Louis in _Interview with the Vampire _who tried desperately to satiate his bloodlust by feeding on animals. VtM does this with the inner conflict between the Beast/Humanity.


----------



## Charlaquin

AnotherGuy said:


> This is interesting and I'm stilling mulling this around in my mind.
> Creatures spawned from a demon deity with unflattering traits (bloodlust) and a fierce dislike for outsiders (xenophobic). Is that enough to be evil? Do they truly know better?



Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? The idea of monsters spawned from an evil god that aren’t capable of being anything other than what they were made to be... Doesn’t really jive well with our concepts of morality. If they can’t choose to be good, can we even really say they’re evil?


AnotherGuy said:


> Your comment reminded me of Louis in _Interview with the Vampire _who tried desperately to satiate his bloodlust by feeding on animals. VtM does this with the inner conflict between the Beast/Humanity.



I do love me some tragic vampires.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Charlaquin said:


> Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? The idea of monsters spawned from an evil god that aren’t capable of being anything other than what they were made to be... Doesn’t really jive well with our concepts of morality. If they can’t choose to be good, can we even really say they’re evil?



It is definitely a philosophical deep dive.
Thinking it from the playable races pov, they would consider those beings to be evil - at least on the face of it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar




----------



## Charlaquin

AnotherGuy said:


> It is definitely a philosophical deep dive.
> Thinking it from the playable races pov, they would consider those beings to be evil - at least on the face of it.



Oh, sure. It makes perfect sense to me to have the Common Folk think of most “Monstrous” Folk as evil. No reason in-world prejudice shouldn’t exist. I just don’t think the game should implicitly justify that in-world prejudice by giving lineages built-in alignments.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? The idea of monsters spawned from an evil god that aren’t capable of being anything other than what they were made to be... Doesn’t really jive well with our concepts of morality. If they can’t choose to be good, can we even really say they’re evil?



For game purposes, I don't see why it really matters.  Alignment for monsters gives us "a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation."

Real world good and evil is much more complicated.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> For game purposes, I don't see why it really matters.  Alignment for monsters gives us "a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation."



I find it hard to believe you wouldn’t know what an orc’s disposition or behavior in roleplaying and combat would be if it weren’t for two letters in the stat block.


Oofta said:


> Real world good and evil is much more complicated.



Indeed, complicated and sensitive. So maybe let’s not oversimplify it in game. If you want to avoid complex moral dilemmas in your RPGs (which is totally understandable), then actually _avoid_ those moral dilemmas, instead of just including them but pretending they aren’t deeply complex topics.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Is there a creature in D&D that doesn't try to make the other guy not live anymore in a combat situation?

Pretty sure the flaming sword of Celestials are not just fancy torches.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Oofta said:


> For game purposes, I don't see why it really matters.  Alignment for monsters gives us "a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation."
> 
> Real world good and evil is much more complicated.



I think an issue is that the orc in the MM is presented as a "default orc" when really it's representing an orc warrior that typically gets in the way of characters' goals.

I wouldn't be surprised if in future printings WotC avoids having stat blocks in the MM for generic humanoids, and instead has explicit roles for the orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, etc presented there. Having the stats for a "goblin thief" or "orc raider" or "hobgoblin soldier" would divorce those stat blocks from generalizations about the race while also clarifying the expected behaviors and disposition of that foe.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> I find it hard to believe you wouldn’t know what an orc’s disposition or behavior in roleplaying and combat would be if it weren’t for two letters in the stat block.
> 
> Indeed, complicated and sensitive. So maybe let’s not oversimplify it in game. If you want to avoid complex moral dilemmas in your RPGs (which is totally understandable), then actually _avoid_ those moral dilemmas, instead of just including them but pretending they aren’t deeply complex topics.



Alignment is just an aid that goes along with the descriptive text.  Orcs have been around for so long I don't need it, but I find it useful for other monsters.  For someone running orcs for the first time that has a decent grasp of the concepts but has never picked up a MM in their life I think it's useful.  Also easy to ignore if you don't like it.

As far as simplification, I deal with complex stuff at times in my games.  Other times I want a simple beer and pretzels game.  Usually it's something in-between but the majority of times, yes, there is a bright and clear line between good and evil.  It makes it stand out more when the lines are murky.  I wouldn't have as much fun in a game where I had to deal with realistic all the time. I have to deal with reality all day long, sometimes I want a break.  Different people play for different reasons, I think the game can and should support different styles.

D&D is all about simplifying reality to easy-to-grasp and implement rules.  I don't see why default alignment should be any different.


----------



## Oofta

BookTenTiger said:


> I think an issue is that the orc in the MM is presented as a "default orc" when really it's representing an orc warrior that typically gets in the way of characters' goals.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if in future printings WotC avoids having stat blocks in the MM for generic humanoids, and instead has explicit roles for the orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, etc presented there. Having the stats for a "goblin thief" or "orc raider" or "hobgoblin soldier" would divorce those stat blocks from generalizations about the race while also clarifying the expected behaviors and disposition of that foe.



Maybe.  They should definitely emphasize that it's just a default and that you should do what you want to do for your game.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Bohandas said:


> despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race.



Gygax’s use of the word "race" to refer to non-human entities like elves, dwarves, and orcs probably derives from his sources.

*Appendix N*

The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien:
"Ever since the fall of the Great Goblin of the Misty Mountains the hatred of their race for the dwarves had been rekindled to fury."

The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien:
"No dwarf could be unmoved by such loveliness. None of Durin’s race would mine those caves for stones or ore, not if diamonds and gold could be got there."
"Suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his [Merry’s] race awoke."
"In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor"
"These creatures [orcs], being filled with malice, hating even their own kind, quickly developed as many barbarous dialects as there were groups or settlements of their race"
In Appendix F, ents, orcs, trolls, and dwarves appear under the heading "Of Other Races".

Three Hearts and Three Lions, Poul Anderson:
"Curiously, for beings said to be soulless, the Faerie race were under severe physical handicaps, and must rely mainly on guile."

The King of Elfland’s Daughter, Lord Dunsany:
"A curiosity arose in the forest amongst that brown mass of trolls, for their race is profoundly inquisitive."

Land of Unreason, L Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt:
"These kobolds are a race that consort not with us, loving labor like Egyptians."

*Tolkien's Sources*

These use the word "race" in a similar way.

The Princess and the Goblin, George MacDonald:
"In these subterranean caverns lived a strange race of beings, called by some gnomes, by some kobolds, by some goblins."

The Marvellous Land of Snergs, E A Wyke-Smith:
"The Snergs are a race of people only slightly taller than the average table but broad in the shoulders and of great strength. Probably they are some offshoot of the pixies who once inhabited the hills and forests of England"


----------



## Sacrosanct

Bohandas said:


> And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs? I think you may be implying a link to racism, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race. They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.



This is...not true.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Not only have orcs been referred to as a race, half orcs are literally a playable race in the PHB.  And the fact that there are half orcs to begin with completely shatters your assumption that sharks are closer to humans than orcs.  Can sharks interbreed with other humanoids?

In 80s cartoons?  Yes.  In D&D?  No


----------



## jayoungr

Bohandas said:


> despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race.





Doug McCrae said:


> Gygax’s uses of the word "race" to refer to non-human entities like elves, dwarves, and orcs probably derives from his sources.



It's just an old-fashioned usage of the word.  _Race_ used to be a much looser term back in the day and could be as broad as "species" or as specific as "ethnic group."


----------



## Vaalingrade

BookTenTiger said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if in future printings WotC avoids having stat blocks in the MM for generic humanoids, and instead has explicit roles for the orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, etc presented there.



That's what 4e did.

There were no 'this is a goblin', it was 'this is the goblin that throws javelins at you', 'this is the goblin who wizards at you', 'this is the goblin who has rogue abilities'.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> Alignment is just an aid that goes along with the descriptive text.  Orcs have been around for so long I don't need it, but I find it useful for other monsters.  For someone running orcs for the first time that has a decent grasp of the concepts but has never picked up a MM in their life I think it's useful.



Well, the people who are actually running the games for the first time have a different take. They’re picking up the book and seeing entire humanoid “races” listed as “good” or “evil” and they’re saying “that seems pretty racist.”


Oofta said:


> Also easy to ignore if you don't like it.



I disagree.


Oofta said:


> As far as simplification, I deal with complex stuff at times in my games.  Other times I want a simple beer and pretzels game.  Usually it's something in-between but the majority of times, yes, there is a bright and clear line between good and evil.  It makes it stand out more when the lines are murky.  I wouldn't have as much fun in a game where I had to deal with realistic all the time. I have to deal with reality all day long, sometimes I want a break.  Different people play for different reasons, I think the game can and should support different styles.



Yeah, like ai said, wanting to avoid complex moral dilemmas in game is totally understandable. But if that was my goal, I would leave the question of good and evil out entirely, rather than oversimplify it. Trying to eat one’s cake and have it too inevitably leads to mixed messages and unfortunate implications. Of course, feel free to do whatever you want at your table. But, I think it’s irresponsible of WotC to oversimplify these topics, and they should stop doing so _yesterday._ 



Oofta said:


> D&D is all about simplifying reality to easy-to-grasp and implement rules.  I don't see why default alignment should be any different.



I don’t agree at all that that’s what D&D is about. Certainly the rules are more abstract than reality. That doesn’t mean the game is about simplifying reality.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> And sharks are literal bloodthirsty killers, but we don’t call them evil either. The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing. The idea that such willful malice is genetic is not harmless.




This reminds me of something someone wrote about the nature of evil. Specifically about Lord of the Rings orcs...

Essentially, the orcs of Lord of the Rings actually do understand morality. They understand that betrayal and backstabbing are bad things, and complain when they believe their enemies do it. However, when _orcs _do it, they see nothing wrong and encourage it.

This is very different than sharks being bloodthirsty or cats killing birds for fun; predation is part of their very nature, and if they had sentience I doubt they would find it immoral if they witnessed other species doing similar behavior.

To close, the problem with the Lord of the Rings orcs isn't their culture (they don't really have one), or their morality (which is hypocrisy), it is that they are given Cockney accents and that Tolkien admitted he based them physically off of Mongolians. To tie to the thread title, if they looked more like pig-people and talked like pig-people, they'd be much less tied to real peoples and are much more acceptable "generic base guys." Much like how the Trollocs are depicted in Wheel of Time (which really are just pig-people/beastmen).


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Well, the people who are actually running the games for the first time have a different take. They’re picking up the book and seeing entire humanoid “races” listed as “good” or “evil” and they’re saying “that seems pretty racist.”
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Yeah, like ai said, wanting to avoid complex moral dilemmas in game is totally understandable. But if that was my goal, I would leave the question of good and evil out entirely, rather than oversimplify it. Trying to eat one’s cake and have it too inevitably leads to mixed messages and unfortunate implications. Of course, feel free to do whatever you want at your table. But, I think it’s irresponsible of WotC to oversimplify these topics, and they should stop doing so _yesterday._
> 
> 
> I don’t agree at all that that’s what D&D is about. Certainly the rules are more abstract than reality. That doesn’t mean the game is about simplifying reality.




I've played with a lot of newbies, introduced many people to D&D.  My current games includes 20-somethings who have never played the game before.   Orcs being evil by default has never once been raised as an issue.  So unless you have some independent study your assertion is meaningless.

As for the rest, we're just going to have to disagree.  Which is fine.  Different people play for different reasons.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology.




Yeah, no. Culture (and more importantly) how people are raised by their parents has a huge impact on folks' thoughts and behavior. If this wasn't true, psychologists and therapists would behave radically differently than they do.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Charlaquin said:


> I disagree.



Technically it is easy to ignore, just like it's easy to ignore anything.  I mean, it doesn't take me much effort to just ignore alignments.  However, that misses the point, which is where I think you were going (I don't mean to assume).  That is, even if an alignment listing is technically easy to ignore, the overwhelming number of players, especially newer ones, will not ignore it because it's presented as a rule and/or attribute of that creature as the default, and people don't tend to ignore rules unless they are explicitly told to ignore it.  For example, you can technically ignore the rule to go to Jail when you land on the Go To Jail square in monopoly, but I doubt most people who play the game do that.

So I think we very much need to consider the context of how the rule is actually implemented and used by the people playing the game.  And if people assume all orcs are evil because it's in that stat block, that can be problematic for numerous reasons already given in every one of these threads.  Thus, is why I am a proponent of making default alignment for intelligent mundane humanoids as null, and let it be campaign specific.  IME, the game opens up when the players don't just immediately attack every orc they run into.  Some memorable NPCs can be orcs.  Plot hooks can be advanced by talking rather than attacking.  And the reality is, if orcs are defaulted to evil, most players will just attack first and be justified.  Since they are evil.  Because that's what's happening now, and has been for decades (in 1e, there were actual statements in the DMG to punish players who always attacked rather than talked, but I don't recall that rule in later editions, which resulted, in combination to the move to XP for monster kills rather than treasure, in players attacking first and always).


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> This reminds me of something someone wrote about the nature of evil. Specifically about Lord of the Rings orcs...
> 
> Essentially, the orcs of Lord of the Rings actually do understand morality. They understand that betrayal and backstabbing are bad things, and complain when they believe their enemies do it. However, when _orcs _do it, they see nothing wrong and encourage it.



Right, so they could reasonably be described as evil. So we must then ask, where does that evil come from? Are they born that way, or do environmental factors create a tendency towards it? Well, in the case of Tolkien’s orcs, he said they were inherently evil but not irredeemably evil - born that way, with the possibility for change. Which makes sense, given that he was Catholic and believed in original sin. But at least among secular folks, original sin is a pretty unsavory idea. I don’t think it would fly too well by modern standards, regardless of what orcs looked like (especially given the fact that, canonically, the “original sin” orcs committed seems to have been... getting tortured and mutilated by Morgoth...)



Urriak Uruk said:


> This is very different than sharks being bloodthirsty or cats killing birds for fun; predation is part of their very nature, and if they had sentience I doubt they would find it immoral if they witnessed other species doing similar behavior.



Indeed.



Urriak Uruk said:


> To close, the problem with the Lord of the Rings orcs isn't their culture (they don't really have one), or their morality (which is hypocrisy), it is that they are given Cockney accents and that Tolkien admitted he based them physically off of Mongolians.



I mean, that _is_ a problem with Tolkien’s orcs, but so is them being an inherently evil race. Also I disagree that Tolkien’s orcs don’t have a culture. I mean, they don’t have just one culture - the orcs of Isengard have a different culture than the orcs of Mordor, have a different culture than the orcs of the misty mountains, etc., etc.



Urriak Uruk said:


> To tie to the thread title, if they looked more like pig-people and talked like pig-people, they'd be much less tied to real peoples and are much more acceptable "generic base guys." Much like how the Trollocs are depicted in Wheel of Time (which really are just pig-people/beastmen).



I disagree. Whatever they look like, the problem is that they are inherently evil, which implies evil is a product of biology. Evil beings are simply born evil, and that’s not an idea that sits well with most modern sensibilities.


----------



## Charlaquin

Sacrosanct said:


> Technically it is easy to ignore, just like it's easy to ignore anything.  I mean, it doesn't take me much effort to just ignore alignments.  However, that misses the point, which is where I think you were going (I don't mean to assume).  That is, even if an alignment listing is technically easy to ignore, the overwhelming number of players, especially newer ones, will not ignore it because it's presented as a rule and/or attribute of that creature as the default, and people don't tend to ignore rules unless they are explicitly told to ignore it.



Yes and no. It _is_ easy for individual groups to ignore if they want to. But my point isn’t really about what individual groups do. I don’t really care about what individual groups do - have evil orcs, have good orcs, don’t have orcs at all, whatever floats your boat. What I care about is what’s in the rule books and what messages that sends. Not necessarily because individual groups aren’t likely to ignore the rules - again, I don’t really care what individual groups do. But because of the messages the rules express. It doesn’t matter that I can change the rules for my home game, the world’s most popular RPG is still presenting and normalizing a universe where some races are just evil by nature, and that doesn’t sit right with me.


----------



## Faolyn

Bohandas said:


> ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology. They originate as processes in the brain. Change the brain and you change the thoughts. That's why chickens don't act like humans and why stroke victims often have changes in personality and cognitive ability.



Except nurture _does _make at least some of a difference. Because the things you experience help to _shape _your biology.



Bohandas said:


> And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs?



Orcs, presumably, are capable of self-reflection, just like humans. As a species, at least.

Sharks don't really make a choice as to whether or not they want to be bloodthirsty (which they're not, not really; they're more just messy eaters with sharp teeth and a blood-oriented sense of smell). Orcs, however, _do_ have that choice.



Bohandas said:


> I think you may be implying a link to racism, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race. They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.



This is incorrect. For starters, orcs and humans both can (canonically) interbreed and produce fertile young, making them about as close to humans as dogs and wolves are to each other. If orcs and humans are a separate species, it's a ring species.

Secondly, since humans in D&Dland aren't imported from the real world, they would share a phylogenetic tree with orcs--unless you assume that there are separate trees for creatures created by separate gods. Which honestly, would be really kind of a cool basis for a setting, although I'd want the different trees to be far more different than just orcs vs. humans.

Anyway, _speciesism _isn't really any better.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, that _is_ a problem with Tolkien’s orcs, but so is them being an inherently evil race. Also I disagree that Tolkien’s orcs don’t have a culture. I mean, they don’t have just one culture - the orcs of Isengard have a different culture than the orcs of Mordor, have a different culture than the orcs of the misty mountains, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> I disagree. Whatever they look like, the problem is that they are inherently evil, which implies evil is a product of biology. Evil beings are simply born evil, and that’s not an idea that sits well with most modern sensibilities.




Well the definition of culture is "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group." I'm not really confident orcs as depicted in Lord of the Rings (the books) have a culture that fits that definition; they are largely bred for war and they gear most behavior to that. I think other depictions, like Goblin Town in the Hobbit films, is actually closer, but I don't really want to stray off-topic.

I disagree with the sentiment of LotR orcs being problematic because of "biology" as I don't really think orcs are made from biology at all. They are made from dark magics, twisting elves and corrupting them, in the foundries of Isengard by Saruman... whatever the way, they don't procreate by any natural form. I find this very, very different than D&D orcs which function more-or-less by normal natural reproduction like humans do.

How LotR orcs are made is much more similar to how D&D Gnolls are made than D&D orcs, and personally I find gnolls an acceptable "always evil, irredeemable," race in D&D. Even Matt Mercer agrees, and part of the whole concept of Wildemount is that all of the "evil races" are actually not that evil at all. The notable excpetion is gnolls, who don't procreate biologically and instead are born of fiendish magics.


----------



## Bohandas

Charlaquin said:


> The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing.



Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...




It's actually not true that serial killers don't know murder is wrong; they do, they just don't care and don't feel bad when they do it. The same applies for many supporters of evil empires; in the case of the Nazis for example, it is telling they felt they needed to keep many of their atrocities secret from other nations (concentration camps being the most notable example).


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> Well the definition of culture is "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group."



That’s _a_ definition of culture. Another is “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.” There are many definitions of culture, but I think it’s clear from context that I’m talking about their social norms, not the art they create.


Urriak Uruk said:


> I'm not really confident orcs as depicted in Lord of the Rings (the books) have a culture that fits that definition; they are largely bred for war and they gear most behavior to that.



So they have a warlike culture.


Urriak Uruk said:


> I think other depictions, like Goblin Town in the Hobbit films, is actually closer, but I don't really want to stray off-topic.



The goblins in The Hobbit sing in the book too, so they definitely _do_ have some sort of musical tradition. It’s just not generally a focus of the story, since they’re the antagonists. We don’t see the Easterlings or the Southrons doing much art either, but they presumably do have artistic traditions.


Urriak Uruk said:


> I disagree with the sentiment of LotR orcs being problematic because of "biology" as I don't really think orcs are made from biology at all. They are made from dark magics, twisting elves and corrupting them, in the foundries of Isengard by Saruman... whatever the way, they don't procreate by any natural form. I find this very, very different than D&D orcs which function more-or-less by normal natural reproduction like humans do.



Yeah, “these people are born evil because someone tortured their ancestors (who were elves” is _not_ a better look than “they’re evil because of genetics.” Either way it’s evil as an inherited trait, which is a pretty disgusting concept.


Urriak Uruk said:


> How LotR orcs are made is much more similar to how D&D Gnolls are made than D&D orcs, and personally I find gnolls an acceptable "always evil, irredeemable," race in D&D.



I don’t. Why shouldn’t a Gnoll be able to behave in a non-evil way?


Urriak Uruk said:


> Even Matt Mercer agrees, and part of the whole concept of Wildemount is that all of the "evil races" are actually not that evil at all. The notable excpetion is gnolls, who don't procreate biologically and instead are born of fiendish magics.



Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty _because of a curse_” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...



I mean, I’ve said many times in this conversation that I have philosophical issues with the very notion of evil. But I don’t think most would disagree with me that evil implies willfulness. If you want to propose an alternative definition I’m open to hearing it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> It's actually not true that serial killers don't know murder is wrong; they do, they just don't care and don't feel bad when they do it. The same applies for many supporters of evil empires; in the case of the Nazis for example, it is telling they felt they needed to keep many of their atrocities secret from other nations (concentration camps being the most notable example).



Also this.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> That’s _a_ definition of culture. Another is “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.” There are many definitions of culture, but I think it’s clear from context that I’m talking about their social norms, not the art they create.
> 
> So they have a warlike culture.
> 
> The goblins in The Hobbit sing in the book too, so they definitely _do_ have some sort of musical tradition. It’s just not generally a focus of the story, since they’re the antagonists. We don’t see the Easterlings or the Southrons doing much art either, but they presumably do have artistic traditions.
> 
> Yeah, “these people are born evil because someone tortured their ancestors (who were elves” is _not_ a better look than “they’re evil because of genetics.” Either way it’s evil as an inherited trait, which is a pretty disgusting concept.
> 
> I don’t. Why shouldn’t a Gnoll be able to behave in a non-evil way?
> 
> Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty _because of a curse_” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.




When I'm talking about culture here, I'm referring to the anthropology sense of the word, not other usages like "workplace culture." So I do find things like art and social norms important.

And no, I don't think it is an inherited trait, as I don't think orcs beget more orcs. At least, reading LotR that's not how it is depicted to me (I could be wrong on this). It's an evil creator that makes orcs, using evil magics. (I am specifically referring to LotR orcs here, D&D ones).

Well, a gnoll is created through fiendish magic. If you read their origin story in the MM;

*Demonic Origin.*_ The origin of the gnolls traces back to a time when the demon lord Yeenoghu found his way to the Material Plane and ran amok. Packs of ordinary hyenas followed in his wake, scavenging the demon lord’s kills. Those hyenas were transformed into the first gnolls, parading after Yeenoghu until he was banished back to the Abyss. The gnolls then scattered across the face of the world, a dire reminder of demonic power._

It is hard to imagine a creature born in this way to suddenly realize the different between right on wrong. Gnolls are actually more similar to fiends like demons than anything made through normal reproduction. I'll add as it isn't explicitly said above, more gnolls are made by hyenas feasting on what gnolls have killed.

Eberron runs gnolls a little differently, as they somehow cut off ties from their demon lord. But I see no reason why it is problematic that creatures born of fiendish magic are evil, as it has nothing to do with biology at all. If we say gnolls in this depiction are problematic, that would make fiends themselves problematic, and then... well, I won't go into that.


----------



## Bohandas

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah, no. Culture (and more importantly) how people are raised by their parents has a huge impact on folks' thoughts and behavior. If this wasn't true, psychologists and therapists would behave radically differently than they do.




What I meant was that all of that gets encoded into the brain, and processed by the brain, and the mere fact that all that can be learned is a function of the brain. Learning and thinking are biological functions.


----------



## Bohandas

Urriak Uruk said:


> It's actually not true that serial killers don't know murder is wrong; they do, they just don't care and don't feel bad when they do it. The same applies for many supporters of evil empires; in the case of the Nazis for example, it is telling they felt they needed to keep many of their atrocities secret from other nations (concentration camps being the most notable example).



There's a difference between knowing that something is forbidden or frowned upon by society and knowing that it's wrong.

Plus, by your definition, the original matter is a non-issue as the intrinsically evil orcs _would_ know right from wrong
EDIT


Charlaquin said:


> The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing.



I just had another insight into this.  People here seem to be arguing that the occasional non-evil orc is incompatible with the "orcs inherently evil" thing, but it could be argued, by applying your line of reasoning, that they actually legitimize it. It would show that they can _technically_ break out of this pattern but the vast majority don't.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Bohandas said:


> There's a difference between knowing that something is forbidden or frowned upon by society and knowing that it's wrong.
> 
> Plus, by your definition, the original matter is a non-issue as the intrinsically evil orcs _would_ know right from wrong




There is, however serial killers typically have mental illnesses that ramp up their own self-importance in such a way so that they think "Murder is wrong, but not when _I_ do it. Because I'm great!" Having a lack of empathy isn't the same as knowing the different between evil and good. Murderers are literally put on trial, and defenses often include things like "he's insane so didn't know what he's doing." Sometimes that's true and works as a defense (people sometimes commit murder because they feel like they have no choice), other times it is not successful. It's almost never successful for serial killers. Notably, the Nuremberg Trials did not use such a defense (or if they did, it didn't work).









						3 things 'You' gets right about serial killers, and 2 things it gets wrong
					

Serial killers do tend to use their wit and charm to manipulate others, but not all are motivated by love or sex.




					www.insider.com
				




EDIT: Wasn't actually my point on orcs, I think you can have two types of evil; people who understand morality and just don't care when they themselves break the rules. And then those who don't understand morality at all. The latter really applies more to things like robots, elementals, constructs, and fiends as opposed to anything biological. IMO, LotR orcs are more similar to fiends or gnolls than actual biological humanoids.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> When I'm talking about culture here, I'm referring to the anthropology sense of the word, not other usages like "workplace culture." So I do find things like art and social norms important.



Things like art and social norms certainly are important. But first of all we have canonical examples of orcs making art in The Hobbit and can presume they made more art we don’t see, and second of all, even a culture without an artistic tradition is still a culture. They still have social norms, taboos, beliefs, rituals, practices, etc. etc.


Urriak Uruk said:


> And no, I don't think it is an inherited trait, as I don't think orcs beget more orcs. At least, reading LotR that's not how it is depicted to me (I could be wrong on this). It's an evil creator that makes orcs, using evil magics. (I am specifically referring to LotR orcs here, D&D ones).



No. In the Peter Jackson movies we see Uruk-Hai being spawned out of mud pits, but canonically, the Orcs “multiplied in the manner of the children of Illúvatar,” meaning they had sex and babies just like humans do. And even in the films, Gandalf says Sarumon created Uruk-Hai by “crossing orcs with goblin-men; he’s _breeding_ an army.” In the books they’re a cross between orcs and humans, and Morgoth created the first orcs by corrupting elves through some unspecified process that probably involved torture, forced breeding, and yes, probably magic.

It’s worth noting that Tolkien was never entirely comfortable with this explanation because he rightly realized that it was pretty yikes to say a race of people is inherently evil because their ancestors were the _victims of atrocity_. But he didn’t come up with an alternative explanation in his lifetime. He just wasn’t able to reconcile his desire for orcs to be inherently evil with his desire for evil to be incapable of creation _ex nihlo_. If evil can only corrupt the creations of good, evil can’t be inherent to the nature of any created being, and try though he did, Tolkien never managed to resolve this dilemma.



Urriak Uruk said:


> Well, a gnoll is created through fiendish magic. If you read their origin story in the MM;
> 
> *Demonic Origin.*_ The origin of the gnolls traces back to a time when the demon lord Yeenoghu found his way to the Material Plane and ran amok. Packs of ordinary hyenas followed in his wake, scavenging the demon lord’s kills. Those hyenas were transformed into the first gnolls, parading after Yeenoghu until he was banished back to the Abyss. The gnolls then scattered across the face of the world, a dire reminder of demonic power._
> 
> It is hard to imagine a creature born in this way to suddenly realize the different between right on wrong.



I don’t see why the method of their creation story matters. In a lot of real-world myths humans were originally created from mud or clay, but we accept that humans aren’t immutable. So what if gnolls were created when some hyenas ate some demon flesh, if they’re sapient beings they should be capable of understanding right and wrong, shouldn’t they? And if they’re not sapient beings, why are they humanoids instead of beasts or fiends?



Urriak Uruk said:


> Gnolls are actually more similar to fiends like demons than anything made through normal reproduction. I'll add as it isn't explicitly said above, more gnolls are made by hyenas feasting on what gnolls have killed.



Yeah, if you make them fiends, fine. I don’t think they should be fiends, they’re native to the material plane and seem to exhibit humanoid thought processes, but if you really must have evil gnolls, then make them fiends. I’d say the same of orcs.



Urriak Uruk said:


> Eberron runs gnolls a little differently, as they somehow cut off ties from their demon lord. But I see no reason why it is problematic that creatures born of fiendish magic are evil, as it has nothing to do with biology at all.



Biology is a red herring here. We’re talking about a fantastical world where gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs, magic is real, and most myths are literally true. Biology as we understand it probably isn’t even a thing. The issue is the implication that evil is an _inherent_ trait, passed along bloodlines. That the information is not passed by genes is completely irrelevant.



Urriak Uruk said:


> If we say gnolls in this depiction are problematic, that would make fiends themselves problematic, and then... well, I won't go into that.



Gnolls _aren’t fiends_ though. If they become fiends in 6e or in a mass errata, I’ll begrudgingly accept that they’re always evil, but unless and until that happens, it’s exactly the same problem as always-evil orcs.

As to whether or not fiends being always evil is problematic, I don’t think they are personally, but I concede that there are some pretty strong arguments one could make that they are. But, I think they’re fine because the nature of outsiders is that their natures are defined by their alignment, rather than the reverse. If a devil stops being evil, it stops being a devil.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bohandas said:


> EDIT
> 
> I just had another insight into this.  People here seem to be arguing that the occasional non-evil orc is incompatible with the "orcs inherently evil" thing, but it could be argued, by applying your line of reasoning, that they actually legitimize it. It would show that they can _technically_ break out of this pattern but the vast majority don't.



Right, that’s exactly the argument I’m making. The possibility for orcs to be good would validate that evil orcs are actually evil, instead of just predatory animals or mindless things programmed to kill. But it would also mean it couldn’t be a product of their nature, it must be a product of their environment. And evil being a product of nature is the thing I’m saying is problematic.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> Things like art and social norms certainly are important. But first of all we have canonical examples of orcs making art in The Hobbit and can presume they made more art we don’t see, and second of all, even a culture without an artistic tradition is still a culture. They still have social norms, taboos, beliefs, rituals, practices, etc. etc.
> 
> No. In the Peter Jackson movies we see Uruk-Hai being spawned out of mud pits, but canonically, the Orcs ‘multiplied in the manner of the children of Illúvatar, meaning they had sex and babies just like humans do. And in the films, Gandalf says Sarumon created Uruk-Hai by “crossing orcs with goblin-men; he’s _breeding_ an army.” In the books they’re a cross between orcs and humans, and Morgoth created the first orcs by corrupting elves through some unspecified process that probably involved torture, forced breeding, and yes, probably magic.
> 
> It’s worth noting that Tolkien was never entirely comfortable with this explanation because he rightly realized that it was pretty yikes to say a race of people is inherently evil because their ancestors were the _victims of atrocity_. But he didn’t come up with an alternative explanation in his lifetime. He just wasn’t able to reconcile his desire for orcs to be inherently evil with his desire for evil to be incapable of creation _ex nihlo_. If evil can only corrupt the creations of good, evil can’t be inherent to the nature of any created being, and try though he did, Tolkien never managed to resolve this dilemma.




I think we should stop arguing about LotR orcs, as I've said a couple times now I was refferring specifically to the orcs in the books, not depictions of them later in the movies. For example, I'm pretty sure the line "Look's like meat's back on the menu boys!" isn't in that book... which doesn't make sense, as how would orcs know what a menu is... do they run restaurants?


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> I think we should stop arguing about LotR orcs, as I've said a couple times now I was refferring specifically to the orcs in the books, not depictions of them later in the movies. For example, I'm pretty sure the line "Look's like meat's back on the menu boys!" isn't in that book... which makes sense, as how would orcs know what a menu is... do they run restaurants?



My dude, I was talking about the books. It is only in the movies that they are shown to come out of mud pits (and even then it’s referred to as “breeding.”) In the books they “multiply in the manner of the children of Illuvitar.”


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see why the method of their creation story matters. In a lot of real-world myths humans were originally created from mud or clay, but we accept that humans aren’t immutable. So what if gnolls were created when some hyenas ate some demon flesh, if they’re sapient beings they should be capable of understanding right and wrong, shouldn’t they? And if they’re not sapient beings, why are they humanoids instead of beasts or fiends?
> 
> 
> Yeah, if you make them fiends, fine. I don’t think they should be fiends, they’re native to the material plane and seem to exhibit humanoid thought processes, but if you really must have evil gnolls, then make them fiends. I’d say the same of orcs.
> 
> 
> Biology is a red herring here. We’re talking about a fantastical world where gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs, magic is real, and most myths are literally true. Biology as we understand it probably isn’t even a thing. The issue is the implication that evil is an _inherent_ trait, passed along bloodlines. That the information is not passed by genes is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Gnolls _aren’t fiends_ though. If they become fiends in 6e or in a mass errata, I’ll begrudgingly accept that they’re always evil, but unless and until that happens, it’s exactly the same problem as always-evil orcs.
> 
> As to whether or not fiends being always evil is problematic, I don’t think they are personally, but I concede that there are some pretty strong arguments one could make that they are. But, I think they’re fine because the nature of outsiders is that their natures are defined by their alignment, rather than the reverse. If a devil stops being evil, it stops being a devil.




You're right that it is not really the _original _creation that matters here, it is for me the _continual _creation. So dwarves are originally made out of stone by Moradin, but then continually propogate through reproduction, so making them all evil is pretty problematic to me. The idea of gnolls only being able to exist if a hyena eats corrupted flesh seems very, very different to that, as it has nothing to do with biology, it's all magic.

And to be clear, I agree biology is a weird thing to bring up in D&D, but you brought it up not me by saying that having an entire race that is biologically evil is morally wrong. I'm arguing gnolls aren't biologically a race at all. They _don't _pass anything through bloodlines, they are made essentially individually; there is no common ancestry (unless the hyenas themselves are related I guess).

I totally agree btw that fiends really shouldn't be considered humanoid at all, and Jeremy Crawford has said that was a mistake based on how they classify monsters, and they really should be fiends. It's one of the reasons gnolls are not playable in Volo's when other races do have that. That said, just because the label says "humanoid" instead of "fiend" doesn't change any of their 5E lore, and I don't see why changing a _label _suddenly makes them ok to be entirely evil. Alignment is different as that is tied directly to behavior, while the "monster category" doesn't really.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> My dude, I was talking about the books. It is only in the movies that they are shown to come out of mud pits (and even then it’s referred to as “breeding.”) In the books they “multiply in the manner of the children of Illuvitar.”




I misread your comment, sorry. Then yes, I agree that if LotR orcs are breeding and have ancestry, this is problematic.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> You're right that it is not really the _original _creation that matters here, it is for me the _continual _creation. So dwarves are originally made out of stone by Moradin, but then continually propogate through reproduction, so making them all evil is pretty problematic to me. The idea of gnolls only being able to exist if a hyena eats corrupted flesh seems very, very different to that, as it has nothing to do with biology, it's all magic.
> 
> And to be clear, I agree biology is a weird thing to bring up in D&D, but you brought it up not me by saying that having an entire race that is biologically evil is morally wrong. I'm arguing gnolls aren't biologically a race at all. They _don't _pass anything through bloodlines, they are made essentially individually; there is no common ancestry (unless the hyenas themselves are related I guess).



Are all gnolls created from hyenas eating demon flesh in 5e? I thought that was just how the original gnolls were created.

Either way, it doesn’t much matter to me whether they reproduce sexually or not. The issue is that evil is a part of their nature rather than something they _do_, and can theoretically choose not to do.



Urriak Uruk said:


> I totally agree btw that fiends really shouldn't be considered humanoid at all, and Jeremy Crawford has said that was a mistake based on how they classify monsters, and they really should be fiends.



I disagree with his assessment. Their origin story is one of natural beings (beasts) uplifted by consuming the flesh of fiends. That’s not how fiends are created in D&D canon. Classifying them as humanoids was a correct choice, and I believe Crawford is trying to rationalize his desire for gnolls to be always evil, just as Tolkien struggled to rationalize his desire for orcs to be always evil.



Urriak Uruk said:


> It's one of the reasons gnolls are not playable in Volo's when other races do have that. That said, just because the label says "humanoid" instead of "fiend" doesn't change any of their 5E lore, and I don't see why changing a _label _suddenly makes them ok to be entirely evil. Alignment is different as that is tied directly to behavior, while the "monster category" doesn't really.



The label isn’t the issue. The issue is the nature of the being the label describes. Fiends’ (and all outsiders’) nature is defined by their alignment, whereas humanoids’ alignments are defined by their nature. If an evil human stops being evil they become a neutral or good human. If a devil stops being evil it becomes a different type of outsider. Gnolls function more like the former, or at least I think they should. A gnoll that becomes good shouldn’t become an angel or whatever, that would be silly.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> Are all gnolls created from hyenas eating demon flesh in 5e? I thought that was just how the original gnolls were created.
> 
> Either way, it doesn’t much matter to me whether they reproduce sexually or not. The issue is that evil is a part of their nature rather than something they _do_, and can theoretically choose not to do.
> 
> 
> I disagree with his assessment. Their origin story is one of natural beings (beasts) uplifted by consuming the flesh of fiends. That’s not how fiends are created in D&D canon. Classifying them as humanoids was a correct choice, and I believe Crawford is trying to rationalize his desire for gnolls to be always evil, just as Tolkien struggled to rationalize his desire for orcs to be always evil.
> 
> 
> The label isn’t the issue. The issue is the nature of the being the label describes. Fiends’ (and all outsiders’) nature is defined by their alignment, whereas humanoids’ alignments are defined by their nature. If an evil human stops being evil they become a neutral or good human. If a devil stops being evil it becomes a different type of outsider. Gnolls function more like the former, or at least I think they should. A gnoll that becomes good shouldn’t become an angel or whatever, that would be silly.




I'll have to check my Volo's Guide to Monsters, but my memory was that yes new gnolls are made exclusively by the hyenas eating flesh, that are following the gnoll pack. I know that isn't consistent with earlier editions, and that gnolls used to have even gender, but I don't believe in 5E that has remained. I definitely don't remember anything mentioned about gender in Volo's.

Anyway, my opinion is that in 5E gnolls may technically have choice, but because of their fiendish origins they are always going to pick from a narrow range of violent options. So I don't really think they're truly sapient creatures at all.

UPDATE: I have checked my copy of Volo's, and it is pretty unequivocal that gnolls are made by hyenas consuming corpses killed by other gnolls or Yeenoghu the Demon Lord. I encourage you to read it, as I find it hard to spin that this 5E canon for gnolls is anything close to redeemable, or even a creature capable of non-evil choice.

As for the humanoid label, I'll add it is by far the least well-defined category of monster (monstrosity is pretty vague too). For example, werewolves are humanoids when 5E lore is pretty clear that the curse of lycanthropy tilts people towards evil (though weirdly werebears are normally good, so it's weird). Deep Scions are humanoids, and I find it hard to imagine people who make deals with evil underwater monsters as good. Heck, Nagpas are humanoids!

Anyway, it seems to be that mechanically humanoid is meant to be something used for mechanics (spells, feats etc) and is not tied well to sapience, freedom of choice, or alignments.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> Even Matt Mercer agrees, and part of the whole concept of Wildemount is that all of the "evil races" are actually not that evil at all. The notable excpetion is gnolls, who don't procreate biologically and instead are born of fiendish magics.



This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.


----------



## Sacrosanct

doctorbadwolf said:


> This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.



They absolutely can be good.  A zine I'm working on now has a recurring character (similar to Volo's role) that is a gnoll explorer.  Their name is Fleabag, and they are neutral (caring only about knowledge)


----------



## Urriak Uruk

doctorbadwolf said:


> This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.




My mistake. I haven't caught up to the point that morally good gnolls were introduced.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.




You can disapprove of it as much as you'd like, and settings like Eberron (and I suppose Wildemount as well) don't use the lore Volo's does so that gnolls are more morally ambiguous. That said, the Volo's lore for gnolls I think provides a justification for how they are pretty unambiguously evil (if you want to use that lore).

Anyway, I believe on the gnoll topic we are starting to get to the point where people are just saying "Well I don't want all gnolls to be evil in _my _game," which is totally fine. But that topic is one I don't care much to engage in.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore *for every race* is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.



FTFY.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> My mistake. I haven't caught up to the point that morally good gnolls were introduced.
> 
> 
> 
> You can disapprove of it as much as you'd like, and settings like Eberron (and I suppose Wildemount as well) don't use the lore Volo's does so that gnolls are more morally ambiguous. That said, the Volo's lore for gnolls I think provides a justification for how they are pretty unambiguously evil (if you want to use that lore).
> 
> Anyway, I believe on the gnoll topic we are starting to get to the point where people are just saying "Well I don't want all gnolls to be evil in _my _game," which is totally fine. But that topic is one I don't care much to engage in.



Nah dude, even with the Volo’s Guide lore, I think the notion that they’re incapable of being good to be bollocks. “They’re hyenas mutated by eating demon-tainted flesh” doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be able to be good. Either they’re driven by instinct (in which case they should be Unaligned), or they’re capable of rational thought (in which case they should be capable of Good.)


----------



## Vaalingrade

This is the thing where gnolls are fast zombies with ears and flind bars?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> Nah dude, even with the Volo’s Guide lore, I think the notion that they’re incapable of being good to be bollocks. “They’re hyenas mutated by eating demon-tainted flesh” doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be able to be good. Either they’re driven by instinct (in which case they should be Unaligned), or they’re capable of rational thought (in which case they should be capable of Good.)




I don't why you really _need _an explanation for why "hyenas that eat demon-tainted flesh can't be good," it seems pretty self-explanatory to me. If you don't like that fine, change it for your game. But I don't see why that concept is racist either.

Anyway I've said my piece, I think we've hit the wall here.


----------



## Faolyn

Charlaquin said:


> Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty _because of a curse_” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.



Yeah, it seems to me that the goal would be to _remove _that curse in some way (you want a high-level campaign idea; well, here it is), not to use it as an excuse to just slaughter orcs indiscriminately.


----------



## Faolyn

Charlaquin said:


> Nah dude, even with the Volo’s Guide lore, I think the notion that they’re incapable of being good to be bollocks. “They’re hyenas mutated by eating demon-tainted flesh” doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be able to be good. Either they’re driven by instinct (in which case they should be Unaligned), or they’re capable of rational thought (in which case they should be capable of Good.)



Some of the stuff in Volo's seems to indicate that it's almost more like they're possessed than anything else. The sidebar with the guy who lopped off the gnoll's limbs and it kept going--it felt to me like the animating force was something apart from the actual body.

Which, in and of itself, is a cool and horrific idea. People eat this tainted flesh, which causes a parasitic demon to grow within them and take over. They become effectively rage zombies because of it, but they retain enough of their mind so that they can make decisions and form semi-cohesive groups, and the demonic aspect focuses the rage in a way that suits Yeenoghu.

Having it limited to gnolls only is dumb, though. Even in that sidebar, the guy "caught" the gnoll's madness and became a cultist. This should be an effect that can spread regardless of race, maybe by sneaking the demon-tainted meat into other people's diets or using it to pollute wells. Gnolls could still be Yeenoghu's favored race (maybe he made them before he became an Archfiend, or maybe he just likes hyenas), but this would allow for lots of gnolls, maybe even a majority of them, to be free of this curse.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Faolyn said:


> Having it limited to gnolls only is dumb, though. Even in that sidebar, the guy "caught" the gnoll's madness and became a cultist. This should be an effect that can spread regardless of race, maybe by sneaking the demon-tainted meat into other people's diets or using it to pollute wells. Gnolls could still be Yeenoghu's favored race (maybe he made them before he became an Archfiend, or maybe he just likes hyenas), but this would allow for lots of gnolls, maybe even a majority of them, to be free of this curse.




I think part of the idea is that only hyenas can actually become gnolls, so a human can at best become a cultist? I dunno though.


----------



## Faolyn

Urriak Uruk said:


> I think part of the idea is that only hyenas can actually become gnolls, so a human can at best become a cultist? I dunno though.



Yeah, that's a part I'd get rid of, if I use this rage zombie/cordyceps demon idea.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, that's a part I'd get rid of, if I use this rage zombie/cordyceps demon idea.



just give it a generic name and some unit types and you would have a whole new monster type.


----------



## Charlaquin

Faolyn said:


> Some of the stuff in Volo's seems to indicate that it's almost more like they're possessed than anything else. The sidebar with the guy who lopped off the gnoll's limbs and it kept going--it felt to me like the animating force was something apart from the actual body.
> 
> Which, in and of itself, is a cool and horrific idea. People eat this tainted flesh, which causes a parasitic demon to grow within them and take over. They become effectively rage zombies because of it, but they retain enough of their mind so that they can make decisions and form semi-cohesive groups, and the demonic aspect focuses the rage in a way that suits Yeenoghu.
> 
> Having it limited to gnolls only is dumb, though. Even in that sidebar, the guy "caught" the gnoll's madness and became a cultist. This should be an effect that can spread regardless of race, maybe by sneaking the demon-tainted meat into other people's diets or using it to pollute wells. Gnolls could still be Yeenoghu's favored race (maybe he made them before he became an Archfiend, or maybe he just likes hyenas), but this would allow for lots of gnolls, maybe even a majority of them, to be free of this curse.



Now _that’s_ a dope pitch.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> ...
> Biology is a red herring here. We’re talking about a fantastical world where gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs, magic is real, and most myths are literally true. Biology as we understand it probably isn’t even a thing. The issue is the implication that evil is an _inherent_ trait, passed along bloodlines. That the information is not passed by genes is completely irrelevant.
> ...




So what's confusing to me is that you're okay with biology not being a thing in a world of magic, gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs.  But it's not okay for a god to maintain control, maintain influence on their creations?  The default assumption is that orcs were created to "wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk."  They're a weapon.

Put this another way.  Let's assume some alien civilization out there was at war.  They create "the perfect soldier" by messing with their DNA and creating clones.  They've altered the brain structure and chemistry so that they have no empathy, will not hesitate to follow orders and kill.  But something goes wrong, their commanders die before they can shut down their soldiers and so they are following their last orders to the best of their abilities - kill everyone who is not part of their command structure or a fellow soldier.  In order to continue the never-ending war, they figure out how to make more soldiers.  There's no biological basis for them to have any moral qualms about killing someone outside of their order, in fact they are instinctually driven to kill every "other" that could pose a possible threat.

Sounds to me like standard sci-fi.  Also a lot like orcs.  Except of course, orcs can cross breed with humans because "magic", but if we can have half Vulcans I see no reason we can't have half orcs.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> Put this another way.  Let's assume some alien civilization out there was at war.  They create "the perfect soldier" by messing with their DNA and creating clones.  They've altered the brain structure and chemistry so that they have no empathy, will not hesitate to follow orders and kill.  But something goes wrong, their commanders die before they can shut down their soldiers and so they are following their last orders to the best of their abilities - kill everyone who is not part of their command structure or a fellow soldier.  In order to continue the never-ending war, they figure out how to make more soldiers.  There's no biological basis for them to have any moral qualms about killing someone outside of their order, in fact they are instinctually driven to kill every "other" that could pose a possible threat.
> 
> Sounds to me like standard sci-fi.  Also a lot like orcs.  Except of course, orcs can cross breed with humans because "magic", but if we can have half Vulcans I see no reason we can't have half orcs.




This is kind of similar to how Xenomorphs came to be. They were made as weapons and then wiped out the civilization that made them.

To be clear I don't agree with you on orcs (they're very different than xenomorphs)... just pointing out the similarity in your sci-fi example.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> So what's confusing to me is that you're okay with biology not being a thing in a world of magic, gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs.  But it's not okay for a god to maintain control, maintain influence on their creations?



If they’re directly controlled by a god, they’re not really a race. They’re just automata, and at that point I don’t think “evil” is an accurate description. The god is evil, the creatures it controls are mindless drones.


Oofta said:


> The default assumption is that orcs were created to "wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk."  They're a weapon.



I don’t think that’s consistent with the lore. Gruumsh declared war on the other races only after the other gods cheated his people out of any habitable territory. Moreover, whatever they may have been created for, if they have free will, they should be capable of good. If they lack free will, evil isn’t an appropriate description.


Oofta said:


> Put this another way.  Let's assume some alien civilization out there was at war.  They create "the perfect soldier" by messing with their DNA and creating clones.  They've altered the brain structure and chemistry so that they have no empathy, will not hesitate to follow orders and kill.  But something goes wrong, their commanders die before they can shut down their soldiers and so they are following their last orders to the best of their abilities - kill everyone who is not part of their command structure or a fellow soldier.  In order to continue the never-ending war, they figure out how to make more soldiers.  There's no biological basis for them to have any moral qualms about killing someone outside of their order, in fact they are instinctually driven to kill every "other" that could pose a possible threat.
> 
> Sounds to me like standard sci-fi.  Also a lot like orcs.  Except of course, orcs can cross breed with humans because "magic", but if we can have half Vulcans I see no reason we can't have half orcs.



Yeah, but you wouldn’t call them “evil.” They’re amoral and driven to destruction, but they’re not “evil.”

You can have antagonists that are inherently antithetical to your protagonists. That’s not the same thing as calling a race “evil.”


----------



## Oofta

Urriak Uruk said:


> This is kind of similar to how Xenomorphs came to be. They were made as weapons and then wiped out the civilization that made them.
> 
> To be clear I don't agree with you on orcs (they're very different than xenomorphs)... just pointing out the similarity in your sci-fi example.



That is kind of where I was coming from.  But to me the physical body is just the container for the brain.  So if xenomorphs are okay I see no real difference based on implementation of form.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> That is kind of where I was coming from.  But to me the physical body is just the container for the brain.  So if xenomorphs are okay I see no real difference based on implementation of form.



Xenomorphs aren’t “evil.” They’re alien, predatory, destructive, take your pick. But evil? They don’t even seem sapient.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> Put this another way. Let's assume some alien civilization out there was at war. They create "the perfect soldier" by messing with their DNA and creating clones. They've altered the brain structure and chemistry so that they have no empathy, will not hesitate to follow orders and kill. But something goes wrong, their commanders die before they can shut down their soldiers and so they are following their last orders to the best of their abilities - kill everyone who is not part of their command structure or a fellow soldier. In order to continue the never-ending war, they figure out how to make more soldiers. There's no biological basis for them to have any moral qualms about killing someone outside of their order, in fact they are instinctually driven to kill every "other" that could pose a possible threat.



So orcs are _targeted viruses_ now. To me, they would function as kind of a violent MacGuffin--they exist solely to slow down the PCs while they go after the actual cause, the root of the disease. Which in your case, is Gruumsh. 

Seems like a waste of an orc to me, though.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> That is kind of where I was coming from.  But to me the physical body is just the container for the brain.  So if xenomorphs are okay I see no real difference based on implementation of form.




Eh, I think there is a pretty big difference in Xenomorphs compared to D&D orcs, largely that orcs are capable of forming societies, cultures, and even nations... while xenomorphs are just killer monsters.

There are of course Warhammer Orcs (or Orks if you like 40k) that are really a fungus and don't have gender, or really ancestry. They do have rudimentary culture but its all for "War war all-the-time!" I don't really find 40k orks a very problematic concept (they're really more like germs than any real culture), though I very much find the Eldar vs. Dark Eldar very stupid and lazy.


----------



## Charlaquin

Faolyn said:


> So orcs are _targeted viruses_ now. To me, they would function as kind of a violent MacGuffin--they exist solely to slow down the PCs while they go after the actual cause, the root of the disease. Which in your case, is Gruumsh.
> 
> Seems like a waste of an orc to me, though.



Right, like I said: the god is evil, the creatures it controls are mindless.


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> There are of course Warhammer Orcs (or Orks if you like 40k)



Orkz. Wiv a Z.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Xenomorphs aren’t “evil.” They’re alien, predatory, destructive, take your pick. But evil? They don’t even seem sapient.



That's somewhat debatable (in Aliens Ripley seemed to communicate a threat).  But it also doesn't really matter, Alien was just one example. Star Wars clones could be another.  Their behavior was controlled by a chip, but chip/voice of god are effectively the same McGuffin.

I also suspect you have a different definition of evil than a lot of people.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> It's pretty typical in video games as well.  I'm playing Horizon Zero Dawn right now and, yes, a big part of the game is running around shooting "bandits" in the head with arrows.  One thing I notice about the settlements is that the "good" settlements have women and children running around, the bandits never do.  Same with say, the Far Cry games.
> 
> Are there wives and children of these bandits running around somewhere?  Presumably.  But they never make an appearance.  Maybe they do in some games, I just don't remember playing any.  So I run my home game the same way video games handle children of the designated bad guy: I ignore it.




Sure, which is great. Now, I've never played that game, but I'm going to make a guess. 

The bandits are "human" and so are the people of the good settlements right? So, you have a species that is being presented with good sides and bad sides. 

What's wrong with ackowledging, in the default level of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, where we have written how orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good and some are not? 

Not in your game. I know you don't want it in your game, I understand that and I'm not interested in talking about your game at all. What is wrong with giving the same treatment of seeing two sides to orcs, when we already have so much written about them?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> That's somewhat debatable (in Aliens Ripley seemed to communicate a threat).  But it also doesn't really matter, Alien was just one example. Star Wars clones could be another.  Their behavior was controlled by a chip, but chip/voice of god are effectively the same McGuffin.
> 
> I also suspect you have a different definition of evil than a lot of people.




I would not use clones as an example, they have a ton of free will. Having a chip that forces them to do one evil thing doesn't make all clones evil (when most would likely disobey such order if the chip didn't exist).


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> So orcs are _targeted viruses_ now. To me, they would function as kind of a violent MacGuffin--they exist solely to slow down the PCs while they go after the actual cause, the root of the disease. Which in your case, is Gruumsh.
> 
> Seems like a waste of an orc to me, though.



I'm just quoting the MM.  They are a race created to wage endless war.

P.S.  Or are you going to call me a liar again?  Because you never did respond to my questions in this post.


----------



## Oofta

Urriak Uruk said:


> I would not use clones as an example, they have a ton of free will. Having a chip that forces them to do one evil thing doesn't make all clones evil (when most would likely disobey such order if the chip didn't exist).




You were the one who brought up xenomorphs.  I'm not saying orcs are just like clones or xenomorphs, just that in some ways they are similar.

Get rid of Gruumsh (or sever his ties somehow) and things might work differently even in my home campaign.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> I'm just quoting the MM.  They are a race created to wage endless war.
> 
> P.S.  Or are you going to call me a liar again?  Because you never did respond to my questions in this post.




A blunt interpretation of their description in the MM. I would not say this is exactly true, as Gruumsh commanding his children to do something is very different than explicitly creating them only for war.

I'll add, orcs have plenty of other gods in their pantheon that can affect their behavior, so I don't think having an evil god at the top of their pantheon makes all orcs evil. If that were true, all Drow would be evil, and they are not.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> You were the one who brought up xenomorphs.  I'm not saying orcs are just like clones or xenomorphs, just that in some ways they are similar.
> 
> Get rid of Gruumsh (or sever his ties somehow) and things might work differently even in my home campaign.




I was confused when you compared orcs to clones, as I don't think clones are evil (like, at all). Xenomorphs are IMO (though as @Charlaquin points out, they're more an immoral predatory force than anything sapient).


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> I was confused when you compared orcs to clones, as I don't think clones are evil (like, at all). Xenomorphs are IMO (though as @Charlaquin points out, they're more an immoral predatory force than anything sapient).



I’d say amoral, rather than immoral.


----------



## Oofta

Urriak Uruk said:


> I was confused when you compared orcs to clones, as I don't think clones are evil (like, at all). Xenomorphs are IMO (though as @Charlaquin points out, their more an immoral predatory force than anything sapient).



I freely admit I'm a casual Star Wars fan.  My point was that the clones were literally created for war and ultimately controlled by outside forces.  It's not an exact analogy though, just a similar concept.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, which is great. Now, I've never played that game, but I'm going to make a guess.
> 
> The bandits are "human" and so are the people of the good settlements right? So, you have a species that is being presented with good sides and bad sides.
> 
> What's wrong with ackowledging, in the default level of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, where we have written how orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good and some are not?
> 
> Not in your game. I know you don't want it in your game, I understand that and I'm not interested in talking about your game at all. What is wrong with giving the same treatment of seeing two sides to orcs, when we already have so much written about them?




See this is where I answer a question with my own logic and reasoning and then for some reason I'm blaming everything on colonialism with "nobody" is pushing.

The logical conclusion to your suggestion is reeducation boarding schools for young orcs so that they can be "civilized".  On the other hand, do what makes sense in your campaign as always.  I'll repeat yet again: people should do what makes sense to them and there should be more emphasis on alignment just being the default.  I happen to use the default because it suits a specific role.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Charlaquin said:


> Gnolls _aren’t fiends_ though. If they become fiends in 6e or in a mass errata, I’ll begrudgingly accept that they’re always evil, but unless and until that happens, it’s exactly the same problem as always-evil orcs.
> 
> As to whether or not fiends being always evil is problematic, I don’t think they are personally, but I concede that there are some pretty strong arguments one could make that they are. But, I think they’re fine because the nature of outsiders is that their natures are defined by their alignment, rather than the reverse. If a devil stops being evil, it stops being a devil.




I'm always torn about Gnolls. 

On one hand, I love Gnoll Characters from other media. They are some of my favorites, and I would love to see them able to be played in DnD. 

On the other hand. I enjoy Gnolls as irredeemable monsters. I would actually make them Monstrosities instead of fiends though. Fiend implies a level of magical "weight" that most beings cursed into foul forms lack (see Medusa and Minotaurs from 5e lore). And Gnolls are cursed, they are cursed hyenas. 

So, I always go back and forth about them.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> I freely admit I'm a casual Star Wars fan.  My point was that the clones were literally created for war and ultimately controlled by outside forces.  It's not an exact analogy though, just a similar concept.




I see. The clone example does go against your argument about orcs however, as clones do largely (with the notable Order 66 example) have free will and are essentially "war slaves." It would be wrong to assume all clones are evil and kill on sight, even after Order 66 has occurred.

If orcs were made in a similar way to clones... well, it would be wrong to kill them on-sight too.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> I'm just quoting the MM.  They are a race created to wage endless war.
> 
> P.S.  Or are you going to call me a liar again?  Because you never did respond to my questions in this post.




The endless war came after they were denied land by the gods. So, what were they created for before that?


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> The endless war came after they were denied land by the gods. So, what were they created for before that?



Formless?  Whatever they were before Gruumsh remade them into a weapon?  Is a sword any less a sword if it was once a plowshare?


----------



## Oofta

Urriak Uruk said:


> I see. The clone example does go against your argument about orcs however, as clones do largely (with the notable Order 66 example) have free will and are essentially "war slaves." It would be wrong to assume all clones are evil and kill on sight, even after Order 66 has occurred.
> 
> If orcs were made in a similar way to clones... well, it would be wrong to kill them on-sight too.



I don't really know anything about the clones other than what I've seen in the movies.  It is not, nor was it meant to be a perfect analogy.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> See this is where I answer a question with my own logic and reasoning and then for some reason I'm blaming everything on colonialism with "nobody" is pushing.
> 
> The logical conclusion to your suggestion is reeducation boarding schools for young orcs so that they can be "civilized".  On the other hand, do what makes sense in your campaign as always.  I'll repeat yet again: people should do what makes sense to them and there should be more emphasis on alignment just being the default.  I happen to use the default because it suits a specific role.




So, the answer to North Korea is to kidnap all their children and put them in reeducation camps?

This is your problem, you jump straight from "enemy nation" to "reeducation camps" like that is the only possible route we could take. We can't possibly have allied orcs, because if we did then the only answer to our enemies who happen to be orcs is a reeducation camp. Meanwhile, The Scarlet Brotherhood or the Zhentarim don't get the same response, but those are evil groups of humans. 

There are more options. Stop trying to say that we only have a single possible answer to the problem of enemy nations.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Formless?  Whatever they were before Gruumsh remade them into a weapon?  Is a sword any less a sword if it was once a plowshare?




So... he was looking for a home for his people.... whom he hadn't made yet? 

And, yes, if a plowshare was turned into a sword, that means it used to be a plowshare. So, what were orcs before they were orcs? Because the Lore makes it sound like they were made and ready to go, then Gruumsh said "Okay, we aren't getting out land peaceably, we need to go to war with all of these guys", which means that they weren't MADE for war, they were SENT to war.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> So, the answer to North Korea is to kidnap all their children and put them in reeducation camps?
> 
> This is your problem, you jump straight from "enemy nation" to "reeducation camps" like that is the only possible route we could take. We can't possibly have allied orcs, because if we did then the only answer to our enemies who happen to be orcs is a reeducation camp. Meanwhile, The Scarlet Brotherhood or the Zhentarim don't get the same response, but those are evil groups of humans.
> 
> There are more options. Stop trying to say that we only have a single possible answer to the problem of enemy nations.




This is why I shouldn't bother answering questions.  First, who the **** said North Korean kids are evil?  Anyone?  

I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> I'll repeat yet again: people should do what makes sense to them and there should be more emphasis on alignment just being the default.  I happen to use the default because it suits a specific role.



1) The discussion is what we'd like to see 6e do, not just saying 'you do you, brah'.
2) How about not having a default alignment at all? They have a default in your individual game, but the actual default game doesn't just blanketly call whole races 'evil' for arbitrary reasons? Cool? Cool.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> 1) The discussion is what we'd like to see 6e do, not just saying 'you do you, brah'.
> 2) How about not having a default alignment at all? They have a default in your individual game, but the actual default game doesn't just blanketly call whole races 'evil' for arbitrary reasons? Cool? Cool.



I think default alignment serves a purpose but it should be stressed that it is just a default.  Feel free to differ.

Related: what would the default lore of orcs be if they are not a weapon of war for a vengeful god?  If you keep the same lore, they're still effectively CE whether there's a label attached or not.

P.S. I actually think the default lore is kind of awful.  Gruumsh had a right to be pissed, even if I disagree with his reaction.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> This is why I shouldn't bother answering questions.  First, who the **** said North Korean kids are evil?  Anyone?



No, including Chaosmancer.

Chaosmancer suggested that there be some orcs that are evil and some orcs that are not. You said the logical “solution” to that was to put orcs in re-education camps. Chaosmancer was making a comparison to the real world, where (presumably, if you believe in evil) some people are evil and some people are not. Is the logical solution here to put children in re-education camps? I would argue no. So why would that be the logical solution in fantasyland?

When some orcs are evil and some orcs are not, the “solution,” is to ally with the good orcs, to seek peaceful resolution with the evil orcs when possible, and to fight them when peaceful resolution isn’t possible.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> Related: what would the default lore of orcs be if they are not a weapon of war for a vengeful god?  If you keep the same lore, they're still effectively CE whether there's a label attached or not.
> 
> P.S. I actually think the default lore is kind of awful.  Gruumsh had a right to be pissed, even if I disagree with his reaction.



No, see the default lore is awesome,  _because_ Gruumsh had a right to be pissed. It adds nuance to the conflict. Gruumsh isn’t just evil for the sake of being evil, he’s seeking justice for the wrong that was done to him and his people - perhaps overzealously so, but perhaps not wrongfully so. It makes orcs infinitely more compelling characters, instead of just mindless servants of irredeemable evil. It also makes the other gods less unambiguously good. Maybe Corellon is as flawed as Gruumsh. Maybe there is no right side in war.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Related: what would the default lore of orcs be if they are not a weapon of war for a vengeful god?  If you keep the same lore, they're still effectively CE whether there's a label attached or not.
> 
> P.S. I actually think the default lore is kind of awful.  Gruumsh had a right to be pissed, even if I disagree with his reaction.



I mean like I said before, all the evil creator gods are also highly incompetent. D&D has long adhered to the Hayes code derping of villains always having to be dumb.

Why even have 'evil' gods rather than those who were wronged by the core deities and are beefing with them.

There is a highly underrated Denzel Washington movie called John Q where a man goes to some extreme ends to save his son. Near the end, he breaks down and, referring to his son making sure he isn't in the same situation again tells him to discard his morals and make sure he makes as much money as possible.

Why couldn't Gruumish, pushed to the end of his rope by that jerk elf tormenting him, tell his orcs to do the same? Become strong, protect what is yours. take what you deserve. Do not let the elves grind you down. Grind THEM down first. No more being nice. No more trying with them. To WAAAAAAAGH!


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> I'm just quoting the MM.  They are a race created to wage endless war.
> 
> P.S.  Or are you going to call me a liar again?  Because you never did respond to my questions in this post.



I didn't see that post. I've had boatloads of notices in the last few days. 

But if we're going to be talking about questions that go unreplied-to, you never explained how the DM giving orcs a culture makes them humans with funny teeth instead of, y'know, orcs with a culture. You keep hiding behind the idea that it would somehow be done by in-game force, rather than by a worldbuilding DM, even though we keep telling you otherwise.

So here goes the missing post:



Oofta said:


> Is there an answer in there somewhere about how do we go from my statement "not all storm troopers were evil, some are conscripts who have no choice" to your exact words "Except when people started talking about having evil regimes _you _started to argue against it."?
> 
> What am I arguing against?  I have never argued against having evil regimes.



Sigh. I've addressed this at _least _twice before.

Again: When people brought up having evil regimes, your first responses were all "But they weren't all evil! Some of them were conscripts or kids! Or had other reasons for being in the FEE!"

It's not like you asked "Would every single member of your FEE be evil, or would there be outliers?"

It's not like you asked "would you be OK with your party killing a member of the FEE on sight before checking to see if they were doing evil things first?"

I _do _find it interesting that you're now trying to claim all you were talking about is stormtroopers when you were the one who brought up conscripted Nazis in the first place (presumably in response to someone else's notion that Nazis made for popular video game baddies). 



Oofta said:


> I have a preference that, unlike the real world, you can have good guys fighting bad guys.  That in some cases you can resort to violence to achieve your goals without having the moral dilemma of fireballing some guy just because they were a poor schmuck that was conscripted.



Sure, that's fine.

'Cept what you're saying, and have said, is it's better to kill someone on sight because of their race rather than the choices they consciously made.

Which suggests to me that you are thinking:

That the majority of any FEE is actually going to be innocents who were conscripted into joining.
That all players are like yours and just like unloading fireballs on the enemy and don't like moral quandaries.
Instead of thinking

Maybe only a smallish percentage of the FEE is actually going to be innocents.
Maybe _everyone _in the FEE is irredeemably evil, because it's a *fantasy* evil empire, because anyone who isn't dyed-in-the-wool evil gets exiled or executed the second they stop kicking puppies.
Maybe other tables have a higher tolerance for moral quandaries.
Maybe other tables like rescuing not-evil members from the FEE.
Maybe other DMs are able to make it clearer which members of the FEE are bad guys and which aren't.
Maybe other DMs would only show members of the FEE who were actively engaging in evil.



Oofta said:


> As far as the accusation of lying, when I see a post that says "It doesn't look good when your argument is #NotAllNazis." it sure does sound like you're calling me a nazi sympathizer.



You either didn't know what people are talking about, in which case you should have asked for clarification _before _claiming that people called you something bad, _or _you do know what people were talking about, realized that they weren't calling you something bad, and lied about it.

So yeah. You're clearly not understanding what I've been writing--not if I've had to respond to the same question at least three times now. So basically, I give up on this particular thread. I'll just talk about pig-shaped orcs from now on.


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> No, including Chaosmancer.
> 
> Chaosmancer suggested that there be some orcs that are evil and some orcs that are not. You said the logical “solution” to that was to put orcs in re-education camps. Chaosmancer was making a comparison to the real world, where (presumably, if you believe in evil) some people are evil and some people are not. Is the logical solution here to put children in re-education camps? I would argue no. So why would that be the logical solution in fantasyland?
> 
> When some orcs are evil and some orcs are not, the “solution,” is to ally with the good orcs, to seek peaceful resolution with the evil orcs when possible, and to fight them when peaceful resolution isn’t possible.



What he said was



Chaosmancer said:


> So, the answer to North Korea is to kidnap all their children and put them in reeducation camps?



I don't even know where that came from.  

The question is:


Chaosmancer said:


> ...What's wrong with ackowledging, in the default level of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, where we have written how orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good and some are not?
> ...



First, I have no clue how much more often I can acknowledge that different campaigns can and should handle things differently.  I don't have the 5E version of Eberron, but my understanding is that they change the lore for orcs.  Cool beans.

But ... "orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good" sounds to me exactly like the justification used for the boarding schools that had the goal of reeducating "savages".

I really don't understand why _you_ don't acknowledge that the idea that in order to reform someone you have to get them to reject their heritage and culture is bad.

In any case, it's a gotcha question which is why I'm not going to bother answering.  If you don't accept my logic, so be it.


----------



## Faolyn

Urriak Uruk said:


> A blunt interpretation of their description in the MM. I would not say this is exactly true, as Gruumsh commanding his children to do something is very different than explicitly creating them only for war.
> 
> I'll add, orcs have plenty of other gods in their pantheon that can affect their behavior, so I don't think having an evil god at the top of their pantheon makes all orcs evil.



True: they have a god of strength and loyalty, a god of strategy and tactics, and a god of fertility, healing, and hearth and home. And their evil gods are seen more as boogeymen to be feared than as gods to be worshipped.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Faolyn said:


> True: they have a god of strength and loyalty, a god of strategy and tactics, and a god of fertility, healing, and hearth and home. And their evil gods are seen more as boogeymen to be feared than as gods to be worshipped.




Indeed. It is interesting as well that Gruumsh as head of the pantheon is Chaotic Evil, and although the other orc gods are listed as evil (which I think is dumb, but whatever), they're not all Chaotic. Luthic is Lawful!

And Goblinoid deities are even stranger, as it is implied that goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears are not the same species, but that Maglubiyet defeated and enslaved the other goblin gods and forced the three races together.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> But ... "orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good" sounds to me exactly like the justification used for the boarding schools that had the goal of reeducating "savages".



Right, _that’s weird_ why is the first place your mind goes to in response to orcs having diverse cultures “guess they need to be civilized”?



Oofta said:


> I really don't understand why _you_ don't acknowledge that the idea that in order to reform someone you have to get them to reject their heritage and culture is bad.



I do think that idea is bad. I just don’t think it’s a logical extension of not all orcs being evil.


----------



## Wolf72

Wow, it's a long thread!

I prefer my orcs Tolkien/1e (maybe MERP too) ... Evil, then Evil again.  Grummsh? Still Evil, perhaps with a valid complaint ... or a totally skewed point of view. Orcs, Ogres, Goblins+, Gnolls, et. al.; I like the bad guys to bad.  (my first experience was the Basic set then AD&D, never thought of a good Orc until 3x then WoW.)

Counterbalancing that, I really, really like WoW Orcs.  But I feel they become another version of Humans: Some good, many bad, some neutral -- they gain a lot of depth and flavor, maybe too much for me.


----------



## Charlaquin

Wolf72 said:


> Wow, it's a long thread!
> 
> I prefer my orcs Tolkien/1e (maybe MERP too) ... Evil, then Evil again.  Grummsh? Still Evil, perhaps with a valid complaint ... or a totally skewed point of view. Orcs, Ogres, Goblins+, Gnolls, et. al.; I like the bad guys to bad.  (my first experience was the Basic set then AD&D, never thought of a good Orc until 3x then WoW.)



People like what they like. Feel free to do what you like in your own games, but I think it would be best for WotC to move away from inherently evil races as a default.


Wolf72 said:


> Counterbalancing that, I really, really like WoW Orcs.  But I feel they become another version of Humans: Some good, many bad, some neutral -- they gain a lot of depth and flavor, maybe too much for me.



The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also _still_ not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?


----------



## Mecheon

Charlaquin said:


> The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also _still_ not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?



The irony is Warcraft of all things has done a good job at making a group of varied orcs with diverse cultures.

I mean, 90% of said varied orcs were enemies to us due to the time-travel business of Warlords, but they were all there for different reasons, and we did get them allied to us in the end!... Where they removed all of the interesting cultures

(of course the RPers didn't take that well and just brought back the interesting stuff)


----------



## Tonguez

Charlaquin said:


> People like what they like. Feel free to do what you like in your own games, but I think it would be best for WotC to move away from inherently evil races as a default.
> 
> The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also _still_ not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?



With the WoW Orcs though its not that they were diverse, its that their relationships, emotional reactions  behaviours and their appearance was almost identical to humans. You could tell exactly the same story using Humans instead of Orcs - at which point, are they really Orcs or


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty _because of a curse_” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.



Well that’s unfair to Mercer. That isn’t even accurate, really. Orcs _aren’t _inherently bloodthirsty in Exandria. They’re aggressive and prone to violence, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as bloodthirsty, and “inherently” implies they can’t escape it, which they can. 

He’s building on ideas from 4e lore regarding minotaurs and Gnolls, where the influence of the demons who marked their history is a set of impulses they have to fight against and train to control. 


Urriak Uruk said:


> My mistake. I haven't caught up to the point that morally good gnolls were introduced.



Campaign One, IIRC. 


Urriak Uruk said:


> You can disapprove of it as much as you'd like, and settings like Eberron (and I suppose Wildemount as well) don't use the lore Volo's does so that gnolls are more morally ambiguous. That said, the Volo's lore for gnolls I think provides a justification for how they are pretty unambiguously evil (if you want to use that lore).
> 
> Anyway, I believe on the gnoll topic we are starting to get to the point where people are just saying "Well I don't want all gnolls to be evil in _my _game," which is totally fine. But that topic is one I don't care much to engage in.



Well no, I think most of us don’t want Gnolls to be as they are in Volos guide because it is a total change to what Gnolls have ever been before, that removes a wide swath of story options for Gnolls. 



Oofta said:


> I also suspect you have a different definition of evil than a lot of people.



nah I think it’s a fairly standard definition. 


Oofta said:


> The logical conclusion to your suggestion is reeducation boarding schools for young orcs so that they can be "civilized".



No, it isn’t.



Charlaquin said:


> No, see the default lore is awesome,  _because_ Gruumsh had a right to be pissed. It adds nuance to the conflict. Gruumsh isn’t just evil for the sake of being evil, he’s seeking justice for the wrong that was done to him and his people - perhaps overzealously so, but perhaps not wrongfully so. It makes orcs infinitely more compelling characters, instead of just mindless servants of irredeemable evil. It also makes the other gods less unambiguously good. Maybe Corellon is as flawed as Gruumsh. Maybe there is no right side in war.



In a game with cosmic good and evil, it does bother me a bit when the good gods aren’t really good.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well that’s unfair to Mercer. That isn’t even accurate, really. Orcs _aren’t _inherently bloodthirsty in Exandria. They’re aggressive and prone to violence, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as bloodthirsty, and “inherently” implies they can’t escape it, which they can.
> 
> He’s building on ideas from 4e lore regarding minotaurs and Gnolls, where the influence of the demons who marked their history is a set of impulses they have to fight against and train to control.



Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I don’t much care for Mercer’s takes on orcs, goblins, or gnolls, but there is more nuance to it than “orcs are bloodthirsty because of a curse.”


doctorbadwolf said:


> In a game with cosmic good and evil, it does bother me a bit when the good gods aren’t really good.



I’m not a fan of “cosmic good and evil,” so this doesn’t really bother me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I don’t much care for Mercer’s takes on orcs, goblins, or gnolls, but there is more nuance to it than “orcs are bloodthirsty because of a curse.”



Alright. 


Charlaquin said:


> I’m not a fan of “cosmic good and evil,” so this doesn’t really bother me.



Okay that’s fine, but i assume you can see the issue with a world that does have cosmic good and evil, and then has good gods that aren’t really good? Like, you needn’t like that worldbuilding element to understand it, right?


----------



## steeldragons

I'm not wading through 20 pages of "pig faced orcs are from here/aren't from there/weren't/were pig-faced in 1e" or "weren't pig-faced in the modules" [which is not true]. So I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet or not...But "Orcs," as opposed to "Goblins," were larger and pig-faced because they were coming/being envisioned by the game originators from THIS work by the Brothers Hildebrandt. Note the "snouts," not just on the little pink guy (No doubt one of those peasly "Moria goblins") but on the big bruisers. 

THOSE are where D&D orcs came from [and, at least at my table/settings, never left].


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay that’s fine, but i assume you can see the issue with a world that does have cosmic good and evil, and then has good gods that aren’t really good? Like, you needn’t like that worldbuilding element to understand it, right?



Yeah, definitely. If good and evil are cosmic forces, ambiguity in the goodness and evilness of the gods is internally inconsistent.

Well... Unless good and evil are forces that exist even beyond the gods, and the gods aren’t any more inherently good or evil than mortals are.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, definitely. If good and evil are cosmic forces, ambiguity in the goodness and evilness of the gods is internally inconsistent.
> 
> Well... Unless good and evil are forces that exist even beyond the gods, and the gods aren’t any more inherently good or evil than mortals are.



That, to me, defeats the purpose of even having gods or cosmic good and evil.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> That, to me, defeats the purpose of even having gods or cosmic good and evil.



I dunno. Think about, like, Greek mythology. Maybe a heavier focus on order vs. chaos than good vs. evil, but the concepts certainly existed, and were cosmic forces. And the gods were no more inherently good nor evil than mortals. They were every bit as petty and flawed as us. Cosmic forces like Good and Evil existed beyond the gods, as fundamental truths of the cosmos.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> This is why I shouldn't bother answering questions.  First, who the **** said North Korean kids are evil?  Anyone?
> 
> I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.




I didn't say North Korea kids were evil, now did I? 

The point was, you keep saying that if we have good orcs, at all, the only answer to orcs that are adversarial or choose to not pursue peace (ie, act evil) is to take their children and put them in re-education camps. 

North Korea has taken a very agressive stance on most of the world. They are adversaries who are choosing not to pursue peace. They have a culture that is steeped in propaganda against us. That is fairly close to what I imagine a tribe of orcs who promotes raiding human settlements would be like. So, if the only possible answer to those orcs is reeducation camps... why aren't you advocating that that is the only possible answer to ALL adversaries? Why is this the only possible solution to enemy nations?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> What he said was
> 
> 
> I don't even know where that came from.




From you seeming to think that that is the only way to respond to an enemy nation. I... laid that out. Maybe not in the first sentence, but clearly in that post



Oofta said:


> The question is:
> 
> First, I have no clue how much more often I can acknowledge that different campaigns can and should handle things differently.  I don't have the 5E version of Eberron, but my understanding is that they change the lore for orcs.  Cool beans.
> 
> But ... "orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good" sounds to me exactly like the justification used for the boarding schools that had the goal of reeducating "savages".
> 
> I really don't understand why _you_ don't acknowledge that the idea that in order to reform someone you have to get them to reject their heritage and culture is bad.
> 
> In any case, it's a gotcha question which is why I'm not going to bother answering.  If you don't accept my logic, so be it.




I think I had too many phrases in the middle of that. 

Here was the question without the fluff. "What's wrong with ackowledging, in the default level of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, that some orcs are good and some are not?" 

The stuff about " where we have written how orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect," was to show that... we've written a lot about orcs. This isn't some race like Boggles that have a single entry and some minor lore. There are so many details about what orcs believe, how their culture works, ect ect. We can't just say "but that is a detail we aren't concerned with" when it comes to why can't we have some good orcs. 

In your game you have never shown a female orc. In the default of DnD we know how the Default orc culture ranks females, their role in the tribe, their practices, where they live, their political power. All of this information that you haven't bothered with, the game of dungeons and dragons DID bother with. 

So... why can't we bother with laying out good orcs?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> I dunno. Think about, like, Greek mythology. Maybe a heavier focus on order vs. chaos than good vs. evil, but the concepts certainly existed, and were cosmic forces. And the gods were no more inherently good nor evil than mortals. They were every bit as petty and flawed as us. Cosmic forces like Good and Evil existed beyond the gods, as fundamental truths of the cosmos.



Two issues with that. 

Firstly, Greek myth is definitely not about cosmic good and evil. At all. Not even remotely. Like...it literally bears no relation whatsoever, on any level, with cosmic good and evil. 

Second, the evils of the gods is likely at least a little exaggerated by playwrights, who were criticized by their peers for telling versions of the stories of the gods that make the gods look bad. 

More to the point, even the concepts of order and chaos aren’t even cosmic in the same way that they are in D&D or in a lot of fantasy fiction. The gods aren’t the gods of Order, none of them are dedicated to Order as a high level concept, they’re just The Gods of Olympus, who overthrew the more wild and destructive titans.

If you present a world in which there are Gods of Good, as such, and Good is a cosmic force that _matters_, then the Gods of Good must actually _be_ Good.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Two issues with that.
> 
> Firstly, Greek myth is definitely not about cosmic good and evil. At all. Not even remotely. Like...it literally bears no relation whatsoever, on any level, with cosmic good and evil.



I didn’t say Greek myth was _about_ cosmic good and evil. But Greek philosophers absolutely conceived of good and evil as fundamental forces of the cosmos.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Second, the evils of the gods is likely at least a little exaggerated by playwrights, who were criticized by their peers for telling versions of the stories of the gods that make the gods look bad.



Sure. Point is, their gods were complex. Generally viewed as overall positive, but absolutely not unambiguous bastions of goodness.


doctorbadwolf said:


> More to the point, even the concepts of order and chaos aren’t even cosmic in the same way that they are in D&D or in a lot of fantasy fiction.



Chaos is absolutely 100% a cosmic force in Greek myth, and it is antithetical to the Gods (well, to the Olympians, anyway), and to the proper way of things - which is to say, order.


doctorbadwolf said:


> The gods aren’t the gods of Order, none of them are dedicated to Order as a high level concept, they’re just The Gods of Olympus, who overthrew the more wild and destructive titans.



The “God(s) of Thing(s)” notion is a very modern one, and not at all consistent with... basically any ancient religions, but _certainly_ not Greek myth. The Olympians were the Olympians. Complex and nuanced as any human. Certainly you would make sacrifices to specific gods for specific reasons, but to conceptualize them as “Gods _of_ this or that” is to woefully oversimplify them.


doctorbadwolf said:


> If you present a world in which there are Gods of Good, as such, and Good is a cosmic force that _matters_, then the Gods of Good must actually _be_ Good.



Sure. My point is that there don’t need to be Gods of Good for Good to be a cosmic force that matters. If you like, think of it like Goodness itself _is_ the “God of Good,” and all Good-aligned gods are lesser Gods that, in a very literal sense, owe allegiance to it. Allies of Good, not embodiments of it.

But, I digress. To reiterate my answer to your question, yes, I can see how moral ambiguity in Gods of Good in a setting that has such things is internally inconsistent, even if it’s not a setting conceit I much care for.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> I didn’t say Greek myth was _about_ cosmic good and evil. But Greek philosophers absolutely conceived of good and evil as fundamental forces of the cosmos.



Philosophers didn’t make up the myths or determine the nature of the gods. 


Charlaquin said:


> Sure. Point is, their gods were complex. Generally viewed as overall positive, but absolutely not unambiguous bastions of goodness.



Sure, and don’t exist in a cosmology conceived of as being Order and Chaos as the driving cosmic forces of the universe. The gods aren’t especially orderly, because they aren’t gods of order like Bahamit in FR is a god of good and order. 


Charlaquin said:


> Chaos is absolutely 100% a cosmic force in Greek myth, and it is antithetical to the Gods and to the proper way of things (which is to say, order.)



I think you’re defining “Chaos as a cosmic force” vastly too broadly if you think it applies unambiguously to Greek myth. 


Charlaquin said:


> The “God(s) of Thing(s)” notion is a very modern one, and not at all consistent with... basically any ancient religions, but _certainly_ not Greek myth. The Olympians were the Olympians. Complex and nuanced as any human. Certainly you would make sacrifices to specific gods for specific reasons, but to conceptualize them as “Gods _of_ this or that” is to woefully oversimplify them.



This seems to be completely out of left field? I didn’t bring of gods of things. 


Charlaquin said:


> Sure. My point is that there don’t need to be Gods of Good for Good to be a cosmic force that matters.



I didn’t say that there did. I said that if there are gods of good, which there are in D&D , then the rest of what I said follows. I am only saying the things I’ve said, not other things. 


Charlaquin said:


> If you like, think of it like Goodness itself _is_ the God of Good, and all Good-aligned gods are lesser Gods that, in a very literal sense, owe allegiance to it. Allies of Good, not avatars of it.



No. That isn’t how the D&D cosmology works.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Philosophers didn’t make up the myths or determine the nature of the gods.



Ok?


doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, and don’t exist in a cosmology conceived of as being Order and Chaos as the driving cosmic forces of the universe.



I don’t know how you can possibly come to the conclusion that Chaos isn’t a driving cosmic force in Greek myth. It was the fundamental state of the cosmos prior to the emergence of Gaia  (and also kind of an entity - the Greeks were big on personifying concepts) and pretty much everything that occurred from that point on was a gradual process of forging order out of that initial Chaos.


doctorbadwolf said:


> The gods aren’t especially orderly, because they aren’t gods of order like Bahamit in FR is a god of good and order.



That’s kind of my whole point.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I think you’re defining “Chaos as a cosmic force” vastly too broadly if you think it applies unambiguously to Greek myth.



I think I’m applying it pretty appropriately. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re using it to mean.


doctorbadwolf said:


> This seems to be completely out of left field? I didn’t bring of gods of things.



You’ve literally been talking about Gods of Good and Gods of Order. That’s precisely the God of Things trope.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I didn’t say that there did. I said that if there are gods of good, which there are in D&D , then the rest of what I said follows. I am only saying the things I’ve said, not other things.



I said I understand how ambiguous morality in settings where Good and Evil are cosmic forces would be an undesirable thing - except in cases where the Gods are not embodiments of those cosmic forces. You said that would defeat the purpose of Good and Evil as cosmic forces. This is just me disagreeing with that position.


doctorbadwolf said:


> No. That isn’t how the D&D cosmology works.



I mean, D&D cosmology works any way the DM wants it to. But I’ll agree it’s not how the Great Wheel cosmology typically works.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Ok?
> 
> I don’t know how you can possibly come to the conclusion that Chaos isn’t a driving cosmic force in Greek myth. It was the fundamental state of the cosmos prior to the emergence of Gaia  (and also kind of an entity - the Greeks were big on personifying concepts) and pretty much everything that occurred from that point on was a gradual process of forging order out of that initial Chaos.



A mythology wherein gods and heroes fight chaotic beings because they have to in order to establish their own power or to protect home and family isn’t necessarily a mythology in which Chaos is a fundamental force of the universe that one might mystically align oneself with. It’s just the cosmic version of establishing cities and fighting bears in order to take their territory and make a farm there. Fantasy works like D&D are doing a fundementally different thing from most real world mythology. 


Charlaquin said:


> That’s kind of my whole point.
> 
> I think I’m applying it pretty appropriately. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re using it to mean.
> 
> You’ve literally been talking about Gods of Good and Gods of Order. That’s precisely the God of Things trope.



No, it isn’t. Good and Order are not archery and games and war. The Gods of Good are gods whose nature is Good, not gods who govern Good in the way a lot of people imagine Thor to govern storms. Notice how in D&D Bahamuts alignment is Lawful Good, but there is no Domain for either concept. Good and war are in two wholly different categories of ideas. 


Charlaquin said:


> I said I understand how ambiguous morality in settings where Good and Evil are cosmic forces would be an undesirable thing - except in cases where the Gods are not embodiments of those cosmic forces. You said that would defeat the purpose of Good and Evil as cosmic forces. This is just me disagreeing with that position.
> 
> I mean, D&D cosmology works any way the DM wants it to. But I’ll agree it’s not how the Great Wheel cosmology typically works.



Okay? The discussion is about the published D&D cosmology, not either of our homebrews. I have worlds that have no gods, and worlds where “evil” gods are basically non-existent but some gods are indifferent to mortals, but when I play in a published world I tend to mostly take its high level concepts as they are.

The Olympians are great because they protect the order that benefits Greeks, and make the rain happen and the sun set and those things happen in a predictable manner so things like cities and farms can work. That doesn’t ask of them that they be Good. They didn’t even expect their heroes to be especially Good. Even if we accept the idea that Order and Chaos are comparable to Law and Chaos in D&D , and I don’t, that doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the question of Good and Evil, so this whole Greek discussion is a tangent. In order to be relevant, you’d have to be making points about the Greek Gods being _chaotic _in spite of being gods of order.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> A mythology wherein gods and heroes fight chaotic beings because they have to in order to establish their own power or to protect home and family isn’t necessarily a mythology in which Chaos is a fundamental force of the universe that one might mystically align oneself with. It’s just the cosmic version of establishing cities and fighting bears in order to take their territory and make a farm there. Fantasy works like D&D are doing a fundementally different thing from most real world mythology.
> 
> No, it isn’t. Good and Order are not archery and games and war. The Gods of Good are gods whose nature is Good, not gods who govern Good in the way a lot of people imagine Thor to govern storms. Notice how in D&D Bahamuts alignment is Lawful Good, but there is no Domain for either concept. Good and war are in two wholly different categories of ideas.



Ok, we’re talking past each other on the Greek thing, and it’s not especially relevant anyway. Forget it.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay? The discussion is about the published D&D cosmology, not either of our homebrews.



I said I thought it was a positive that the 5e default lore on Gruumsh and Corellon doesn’t have a clear right or wrong side, as it brought in some welcome nuance. You said that the gods’ morality being ambiguous is a negative in a setting where good and evil are cosmic forces. I said that didn’t bother me because I’m not a big fan of cosmic good and evil. You asked if I understood why that would be undesirable in a setting that _did_ have cosmic good and evil, to which I answered yes, unless in that setting the gods were not necessarily aligned with those cosmic forces. You said that would defeat the point of having cosmic good and evil, which I disagreed with. We’re like 4 layers removed from talking about published D&D cosmology at this point. If you follow the conversation, we’re talking about a purely hypothetical setting, which has cosmic good and evil, but does not have its gods closely aligned with those forces, and whether or not that defeats the point of cosmic good and evil. I still maintain that it doesn’t.

But whatever. We’re so far removed from pig-faced orcs at this point, I think we should probably drop it.


----------



## Azzy

Urriak Uruk said:


> Indeed. It is interesting as well that Gruumsh as head of the pantheon is Chaotic Evil, and although the other orc gods are listed as evil (which I think is dumb, but whatever), they're not all Chaotic. Luthic is Lawful!



Here's where I gronard out and complain about things in newer (post-1e) editions....

In 1e AD&D, orcs were Lawful Evil and Grummsh was also LE. In fact, almost all of the orc deities were LE (other than Shargaas and Yurtrus who were NE—the latter with lawful tendencies). In Greyhawk, orcs were frequently used as mercenaries by the Great Kingdom of Aerdy. The whole Chaotic Evil thing is a product of 3e and something that I've never got in line with. _grumble grumble grumble_

Don't get me started on the new gnolls and how it conflicts with previous lore.


----------



## BRayne

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I don’t much care for Mercer’s takes on orcs, goblins, or gnolls, but there is more nuance to it than “orcs are bloodthirsty because of a curse.”
> 
> I’m not a fan of “cosmic good and evil,” so this doesn’t really bother me.



I mean the Wildemount version of orcs straight up says that while the curse is believed to exist in world, it's not actually real


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Right, _that’s weird_ why is the first place your mind goes to in response to orcs having diverse cultures “guess they need to be civilized”?
> 
> 
> I do think that idea is bad. I just don’t think it’s a logical extension of not all orcs being evil.



It's the justification for them not being evil.  That orcs can be okay if they are not raised by orcs and reject their heritage and religious beliefs is objectionable.  At least that's what I get when I read "where we have written how orcs are raised, *who *raises them, their *beliefs*, their *superstitions*, their symbology, their tools, their *myths *and ect ect, that some orcs are good and some are not?"

So if they aren't raised by other orcs (at least for the first generation), get rid of all that silly heritage and accept "proper" religion and superstitions that they can be good.

Which is not to say you can't have a whole mix of orcs.  You can.  The MM talks about Obould turning his back on Gruumsh.  I just think that part of the appeal of the game for a lot of people is fighting evil monsters and it doesn't matter what label (i.e. aberration, fiend, humanoid) we slap on them and what form they take.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> It's the justification for them not being evil.  That orcs can be okay if they are not raised by orcs and reject their heritage and religious beliefs is objectionable.  At least that's what I get when I read "where we have written how orcs are raised, *who *raises them, their *beliefs*, their *superstitions*, their symbology, their tools, their *myths *and ect ect, that some orcs are good and some are not?"
> 
> So if they aren't raised by other orcs (at least for the first generation), get rid of all that silly heritage and accept "proper" religion and superstitions that they can be good.
> 
> Which is not to say you can't have a whole mix of orcs.  You can.  The MM talks about Obould turning his back on Gruumsh.  I just think that part of the appeal of the game for a lot of people is fighting evil monsters and it doesn't matter what label (i.e. aberration, fiend, humanoid) we slap on them and what form they take.



Again, that wasn't what I meant by that line. 

And, while we do use the example of an orc raised by non-orcs as an example, by advocating for good orcs... we are advocating for good orcs who raise good orcs. An orc culture with some being evil and some being good doesn't require us to have the good orcs abandon orcish culture. The only possible reason for that currently is because there is no good orcish culture... because Orcs are considered innately evil, seemingly from birth. 


However, Drow are still elves. Duergar are still Dwarves. Githyanki are still With. We have plenty of examples of splits in a culture between two people of the same "species", there is no reason that this should be an impossible writing challenge for DnD.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> Again, that wasn't what I meant by that line.
> 
> And, while we do use the example of an orc raised by non-orcs as an example, by advocating for good orcs... we are advocating for good orcs who raise good orcs. An orc culture with some being evil and some being good doesn't require us to have the good orcs abandon orcish culture. The only possible reason for that currently is because there is no good orcish culture... because Orcs are considered innately evil, seemingly from birth.
> 
> 
> However, Drow are still elves. Duergar are still Dwarves. Githyanki are still With. We have plenty of examples of splits in a culture between two people of the same "species", there is no reason that this should be an impossible writing challenge for DnD.



Do what makes sense for your campaign.

Does repeating this for the thousandth time help?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> So if they aren't raised by other orcs



This is where you go astray from what other people are actually saying. 

It’s not “raised by non-Orcs”, it’s “raised by orcs that aren’t evil”. That’s it.

Well, that and you’re still treating it like a change that occurs in-world, as if orcs will go from evil to non evil from one generation to the next within the canon lore. That is not what is being proposed.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> it doesn't matter what label (i.e. aberration, fiend, humanoid) we slap on them and what form they take.



It does matter. Not to you, and that’s fine, but to rather a lot of other people. Aberrations and fiends aren’t presented as people that you can play as, they are creatures. Most of them don’t even reproduce biologically, and the only one that does (mindflayers) does so as a parasite that kills its host in order to make a new Illithid.

Orcs are people, within the game world.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with that, that is why people care about orcs being default evil and not about fiends.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Do what makes sense for your campaign.
> 
> Does repeating this for the thousandth time help?



That si not the discussion at hand. We are talking about the default game.

Does repeating _that _for the billionth time help?


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> Do what makes sense for your campaign.
> 
> Does repeating this for the thousandth time help?



I don’t know, does it help to repeat for the thousandth time that we’re not talking about anyone’s individual campaign but about the direction we think WotC should move in published material?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Do what makes sense for your campaign.
> 
> Does repeating this for the thousandth time help?




Nope, WoTC isn't running games at individual tables. Their lore writing can't be considered in doing what is right for my table. It has to reach beyond that.


----------



## Vaalingrade

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay that’s fine, but i assume you can see the issue with a world that does have cosmic good and evil, and then has good gods that aren’t really good? Like, you needn’t like that worldbuilding element to understand it, right?



FR did it for a while, what with the Wall of the Faithless and no gods rebelling against Ao.


----------



## steeldragons

Orcs are evil. 

They were created by an elder deity in the ancient ages. It was a deity of the beasts who created many of the "bestial" species in existence today, and more that have been long forgotten. The elder god fell to the depredations of Evil and went mad, infusing a great deal of madness, anger, cruelty, and other violent passions into his later creations, which would become his army with which to drown the world in blood. 

When the elder gods were overthrown, most of them and their demonic progeny destroyed or banished from the world of mortals, the armies of wild beastmen were also, largely, defeated and destroyed. Those that survived were scattered through the lands to claw together an existence in their violence and bloodlust, plagued by a thirst for dominance over and suffering of others, that will never be purged from the tainted shriveled spirit at the core of their creation. 

The most widespread of these species of evil still to be found in a variety of lands, lurking in the dark places of the world, are the Orc. From roving bands of murderous marauders to cudgelled together tribal groups held together by powerful leaders or cruel masters, some orc tribes can form quite large communities. Thankfully, this only tends to happen far removed from the realms of goodly peoples. But all civilized nations keep furtive watch for any incursion of Orcish raiders or soldiers in the service of some iron-fisted warlord or other servant of Evil. 

NOTE: NOT MY ART, but love this rendition and pretty spot on for my conception of what an Orc would look like and be equipped. My setting's are more medium olive to dark green, with black (like full inky black) and "blue" (more of a slate or dull grey) sub-varieties.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is where you go astray from what other people are actually saying.
> 
> It’s not “raised by non-Orcs”, it’s “raised by orcs that aren’t evil”. That’s it.
> 
> Well, that and you’re still treating it like a change that occurs in-world, as if orcs will go from evil to non evil from one generation to the next within the canon lore. That is not what is being proposed.



I'm also certain that the people that wrote about half-orcs living in "Tribes and Slums" didn't mean anything by it either.  I agree that multiple generations could be different under your interpretation (I meant to add that and did not).  However, I think saying a group is evil because of their cultural and religious practices are evil is not any better than making them supernaturally created and influenced to be evil.  There are talking heads on TV right now who will tell you that people are evil because of where they come from, what religion they follow, what cultural practices they adhere to.

Listen.  If you want your orcs to be malleable on alignment and personality as humans that's fine.  It's perfectly 100% okay.  I don't know how many times I can repeat that.  I'm just stating preference and the way they have pretty much been depicted in every MM to date.  My preference is that they stand out and have a clearly defined role.  If orcs can have that flexibility then I personally do not see why every creature with human levels of intelligence would not all have that flexibility.  However, I want creatures that have always been and will always be monsters whether they have 2 legs, 2 arms and a head roughly in the form of a human or they a floating ball with eye stalks.

I think switching from species/race to culture/religion just changes the goalpost from racism to religious and cultural bigotry.  There is no perfect answer which is why I prefer orcs that look and act less human, not more.


----------



## Oofta

So we keep going round and round on this.  I state, this is what I do and why I think it's better.  Other's respond saying "well why can't we".  I respond that you can. Then it's "but we aren't talking about your game".

I'm just giving my preference and I think the way orcs are currently depicted is fine.  Off the top of my head the direction for 6E would be:

Keep the same basic lore
Expand out the side-bar in the MM a bit and talk about alternatives
Have a section in the DMG that talks about making orcs, and making all entries in the MM your own with suggestions including an emphasis on alignment being just the default option for monsters used as adversaries. 
While you're at it fix some of the problematic wording in the PHB and either bring back ability score penalties for all non-human races or never apply them to any playable race. 
Make the flexible ability score/proficiency stuff an option (but I'd keep the current default).
I don't know how you can talk about what the game should be without talking about what the game is and how I personally use the tools we're given to construct an engaging and relatable fantasy world.  Beyond that, it's apparently pointless to discuss why and how I came to my conclusions.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> FR did it for a while, what with the Wall of the Faithless and no gods rebelling against Ao.



Yeah FR is kind of a cosmological mess, in general.


Oofta said:


> I'm also certain that the people that wrote about half-orcs living in "Tribes and Slums" didn't mean anything by it either.  I agree that multiple generations could be different under your interpretation (I meant to add that and did not).  However, I think saying a group is evil because of their cultural and religious practices are evil is not any better than making them supernaturally created and influenced to be evil.  There are talking heads on TV right now who will tell you that people are evil because of where they come from, what religion they follow, what cultural practices they adhere to.
> 
> Listen.  If you want your orcs to be malleable on alignment and personality as humans that's fine.  It's perfectly 100% okay.  I don't know how many times I can repeat that.  I'm just stating preference and the way they have pretty much been depicted in every MM to date.



That's fine.


Oofta said:


> My preference is that they stand out and have a clearly defined role.



So do I. Them having free will doesn't challenge that.


Oofta said:


> If orcs can have that flexibility then I personally do not see why every creature with human levels of intelligence would not all have that flexibility.



I don't personally get how you could not see the difference between fiends and humanoids, but it is what it is. 

In my own system, demons (the common term for the kind of creature that dnd calls fiends) have a sort of free will, because they have chosen to be what they are in order to not serve a higher power that they were made to serve, or have become demons via attaining power by way of "evil" acts and trafficking with existing demons. There are demons, though extremely rare, who value mortal lives and want to help, or who wish to make amends for their evil and become something else, but they become, as they do that work, something separate from other demons, and eventually might become a wholly different kind of creature, up to and including returning to a past form, or reincarnating in a mortal frame. 

But in DnD, a Devil can no more stop being Lawful Evil without becoming something else than a Djinn can become a being of water without becoming a Marid. Grazzt isn't a devil anymore, but Zariel is, because both of them are external beings made of the cosmic ideals of alignment, and changing their morality and priorities and methodologies changes the type of creature they are. 

I hope that at least helps you understand what other people are talking about with fiends being fundementally different from humanoids.


Oofta said:


> However, I want creatures that have always been and will always be monsters whether they have 2 legs, 2 arms and a head roughly in the form of a human or they a floating ball with eye stalks.



Cool. Pretty much everyone else does, too. They just don't want orcs and gnolls and bugbears and drow to be that, because they have been playable for ages, and they are depicted as people in too much media for it to not be squick for a lot of people to then see them depicted as "always evil monstrous savages".


Oofta said:


> I think switching from species/race to culture/religion just changes the goalpost from racism to religious and cultural bigotry.



How? How is having good and evil cultures for one more race among many races that have good and evil cultures somehow indicative of religious and cultural bigotry? Does having an evil human empire equal cultural bigotry?


Oofta said:


> There is no perfect answer which is why I prefer orcs that look and act less human, not more.



I really wish I could figure out what the underlying disconnect is here. Why/how does "not always evil" = "basically evil"?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> I don't know how you can talk about what the game should be without talking about what the game is and how I personally use the tools we're given to construct an engaging and relatable fantasy world.  Beyond that, it's apparently pointless to discuss why and how I came to my conclusions.




I want to narrow in on this, because this is the point I feel like that keeps tripping the conversation up. 

You can't talk about changing what is, and not be able to talk about anything outside of what is. If someone is talking about redesigning silverware, and you say "there are forks, spoons and knives, and that is all there is, so I don't know how you can design beyond that" then you are shutting down the conversation. 

Yes, we are talking about changing the default lore of Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons. Making something new. Maybe with a lot of the old pieces, there is good stuff there to work with, but the very process of changing something means that we have to look beyond what currently exists. 

It doesn't matter that you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the things that exist, sure, that's great, but you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the new material too. Or you can do something else entirely. The point is what should WoTC put in the books. And, despite the decades and decades of DnD, despite the fact that there are DnD worlds without violent murderous orcs as the default, that default is what people see. That is all that is in the MM, that is all that is in the PHB, and that is all that is in Volo's Guide. Which, while the old guard might see Volo's guide as setting specific, the newer players who don't know that Volo only lives in the Forgotten Realms, don't see it that way. They see Volo's and Mordekainen's as general books, not setting specific. 

So, I don't think can just expand the sidebar saying alignment is optional and put non-violent orc options in the DMG. Not if we are going to have Half-Orcs in the PHB. We need to go beyond what currently exists if we want to change what currently exists, and there are more than a few of us that want that for the game.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> How? How is having good and evil cultures for one more race among many races that have good and evil cultures somehow indicative of religious and cultural bigotry? Does having an evil human empire equal cultural bigotry?



If a specific group that has, let's say non-caucasian looks, is evil only because of their religion and culture I see a very close tie to real world religious bigotry that is sadly far too common.  It's not like a group of hobbits (who are typically depicted as northern European) is suddenly going to start worshipping Gruumsh and turn evil.

Besides, I want some variety other than the evil cult of the week.  Can't really get away from it, but at least orcs are a slightly different spin.



doctorbadwolf said:


> I really wish I could figure out what the underlying disconnect is here. Why/how does "not always evil" = "basically evil"?



Monsters serve a purpose in the game.  If orcs have the same flexibility as humans, I have no reason to use them since the half dozen or so "standard" races is already too many for my tastes.

I think if every monster in the book can be any alignment there are lore issues as well as monsters no longer fitting various niches.  I think it's easier to add happy-go-lucky tree hugging orcs into your campaign if that's what you want than to take them out.  I have a group of happy-go-lucky tree hugging goblins (well, actually they'd probably try to figure out how to use the tree sap to make explosives, but still) in my campaign because it makes sense with my lore.

While it should be emphasized more, the entries in the MM just depict orcs that you are likely to encounter as adversaries.  Since I have no use in my campaign (queue the "we're not just talking about your campaign complaint) for non-evil orcs they don't exist.  The variations on orcs that are not adversarial should, IMHO, be left to individual campaigns.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> I want to narrow in on this, because this is the point I feel like that keeps tripping the conversation up.
> 
> You can't talk about changing what is, and not be able to talk about anything outside of what is. If someone is talking about redesigning silverware, and you say "there are forks, spoons and knives, and that is all there is, so I don't know how you can design beyond that" then you are shutting down the conversation.
> 
> Yes, we are talking about changing the default lore of Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons. Making something new. Maybe with a lot of the old pieces, there is good stuff there to work with, but the very process of changing something means that we have to look beyond what currently exists.
> 
> It doesn't matter that you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the things that exist, sure, that's great, but you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the new material too. Or you can do something else entirely. The point is what should WoTC put in the books. And, despite the decades and decades of DnD, despite the fact that there are DnD worlds without violent murderous orcs as the default, that default is what people see. That is all that is in the MM, that is all that is in the PHB, and that is all that is in Volo's Guide. Which, while the old guard might see Volo's guide as setting specific, the newer players who don't know that Volo only lives in the Forgotten Realms, don't see it that way. They see Volo's and Mordekainen's as general books, not setting specific.
> 
> So, I don't think can just expand the sidebar saying alignment is optional and put non-violent orc options in the DMG. Not if we are going to have Half-Orcs in the PHB. We need to go beyond what currently exists if we want to change what currently exists, and there are more than a few of us that want that for the game.




Sounds like the ship of Theseus to me, I like orcs as they are even if I think some wording should change.  You don't.  What else is there to discuss?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Besides, I want some variety other than the evil cult of the week.  Can't really get away from it, but at least orcs are a slightly different spin.



We have a lot of terrible jackholes in real life and few are cultists. 

And the entire spectrum of religious bad guys is artificially narrowed due to alignment (specifically gods being aligned) where you can't have clerics who are... wrong. Like a fanatic Pelorite that wants to sunlaser all non-Peolrites for not being Perlorites, Or a group of Melora worshippers who go full-on animal wrongs group.

There's a lot you can do that isn't 'they are evil because of how they are born or because the writer is too lazy and they are a monoculture'.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> We have a lot of terrible jackholes in real life and few are cultists.
> 
> And the entire spectrum of religious bad guys is artificially narrowed due to alignment (specifically gods being aligned) where you can't have clerics who are... wrong. Like a fanatic Pelorite that wants to sunlaser all non-Peolrites for not being Perlorites, Or a group of Melora worshippers who go full-on animal wrongs group.
> 
> There's a lot you can do that isn't 'they are evil because of how they are born or because the writer is too lazy and they are a monoculture'.



I'm talking about entire group default alignment not individuals.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> I'm talking about entire group default alignment not individuals.



Entire groups of default alignment is exactly the thing we’re trying to move away from. Not shifting from default aligned races to default aligned cultures, but to completely eliminate the idea of groups of sapient beings having default alignments (outsiders notwithstanding, because they operate under a different rule where changing their alignment would change the type of outsider they are).


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> If a specific group that has, let's say non-caucasian looks, is evil only because of their religion and culture I see a very close tie to real world religious bigotry that is sadly far too common.  It's not like a group of hobbits (who are typically depicted as northern European) is suddenly going to start worshipping Gruumsh and turn evil.




Why can't there be non-orc worshippers of Gruumsh? 

Why must Gruumsh be the only orc god that matters? Even the Drow have more than Lolth, with Elistraea being of note in this example. 



Oofta said:


> Monsters serve a purpose in the game.  If orcs have the same flexibility as humans, I have no reason to use them since the half dozen or so "standard" races is already too many for my tastes.




You seem to miss that this has already happened. The game hasn't fully caught up to it, but Orcs already have the same moral flexibility as humans, elves, gnomes, Dragonborn, dwarves, halflings, Goliaths, ect ect



Oofta said:


> Sounds like the ship of Theseus to me, I like orcs as they are even if I think some wording should change.  You don't.  What else is there to discuss?




It isn't like the Ship of Theseus at all. I know this for a fact, because I've seen orcs in other fantasy worlds that aren't universally evil, and have a culture that can be good and evil, and they are still recognizably orcs. 

I guess I'm still just flummoxed why you think this is impossible, or why this is going to inevitably lead to re-education camps, or them just being boring humans. There doesn't seem to be this issue with any other situation, so why is this so hard for orcs?


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> Why can't there be non-orc worshippers of Gruumsh?
> 
> Why must Gruumsh be the only orc god that matters? Even the Drow have more than Lolth, with Elistraea being of note in this example.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to miss that this has already happened. The game hasn't fully caught up to it, but Orcs already have the same moral flexibility as humans, elves, gnomes, Dragonborn, dwarves, halflings, Goliaths, ect ect
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't like the Ship of Theseus at all. I know this for a fact, because I've seen orcs in other fantasy worlds that aren't universally evil, and have a culture that can be good and evil, and they are still recognizably orcs.
> 
> I guess I'm still just flummoxed why you think this is impossible, or why this is going to inevitably lead to re-education camps, or them just being boring humans. There doesn't seem to be this issue with any other situation, so why is this so hard for orcs?



We have different preferences. I've explained mine you've explained yours.

I don't see anything else to add.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> If a specific group that has, let's say non-caucasian looks, is evil only because of their religion and culture I see a very close tie to real world religious bigotry that is sadly far too common.



...You have specifically said orcs (who have non-caucasian looks) are evil only because of their religion and culture...


----------



## Oofta

Charlaquin said:


> Entire groups of default alignment is exactly the thing we’re trying to move away from. Not shifting from default aligned races to default aligned cultures, but to completely eliminate the idea of groups of sapient beings having default alignments (outsiders notwithstanding, because they operate under a different rule where changing their alignment would change the type of outsider they are).



It's easy to add that in for individual campaigns.  The MM has the default adversary version, different versions should be encouraged but left up to the campaign.  Especially because I think it should apply to all intelligent creatures and at a certain point there's an issue with page count.

All, just my opinion of course.  Feel free to differ.


----------



## Charlaquin

Oofta said:


> It's easy to add that in for individual campaigns.



No, it’s not.


Oofta said:


> The MM has the default adversary version,



Right, I don’t think it should. Easier to remove nuance if for some reason you don’t want it than to add it if you do.


Oofta said:


> different versions should be encouraged but left up to the campaign.



Sure.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> ...You have specifically said orcs (who have non-caucasian looks) are evil only because of their religion and culture...



They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.



describe what the material evil is? describe pure sociological evil if that would work better?
give us a description a definition so we can at least have ground for the topic to discuss.
as at the end of the day, it is not about orcs really but can we make a pure evil species?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> I'm talking about entire group default alignment not individuals.



I'm talking about groups too, just not races and with actual philosophy instead of alignment because that's just generally icksome to me and I'd like D&D to knock that crap off.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.



They were made to be part of a religion (Gruumsh); therefore, their religion makes them evil. It's no different than a child being indoctrinated into a religion by their parents, only in your case, the orcs' parent is actually the god. 

You can't go around saying that _"If a specific group that has, let's say non-caucasian looks, is evil only because of their religion and culture I see a very close tie to real world religious bigotry that is sadly far too common"_ but do the exact same thing in your campaign and not acknowledge the hypocrisy.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Oofta said:


> They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.



Except, they weren't. Gruumsh only sent them to war after the race already existed, they weren't made warlike or evil. Also, if they have agency to choose their actions and choose to worship their deities, they aren't naturally evil because evil is a choice not a nature.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm talking about groups too, just not races and with actual philosophy instead of alignment because that's just generally icksome to me and I'd like D&D to knock that crap off.



You do you, I've stated my opinion.


----------



## steeldragons

Evil, in Dungeons & Dragons (and most fantasy rpgs) is an objective, independent force. It exists. Period. There are creatures that are, literal, embodiments of Evil. There are deities who do the same. There is Magic that, again, objectively, IS Evil. It merely IS. Like Good. Like Neutrality. Everyone with their situational ethics and desires to annul Alignment as a game element, let alone mechanic, seems to have a real problem with wrapping their heads around this.

There is OBJECTIVE Evil, as a force, as an "energy" (if you prefer), a magic, and, yes, creatures (and deities which are simply bigger/immortal/more powerful "creatures"). They ARE Evil.

HUMANS "choose" to be Evil because humans CAN choose. They have free-will. Other species who one fluffs (r lore states) are "free-willed" can CHOOSE to be Evil or not. NOT any/all creatures have this freedom of will, the option of "choice."

There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.

NOR, importantly, do they necessarily WANT the option. A devil does not WANT to become an angel. An Ettin does not WANT to "be kind" to the halfling about to be its lunch (nor will it feel any remorse about treating it as and having it for "lunch"). They do not philosophize or opine on their "nature" or the Nature of Evil (or Good). Evil IS what they are and know. It is Power. It is what exists in the complete absence of Good. It is to be obeyed, and feared, and exerted over others. Whether you tell yourself it is for "their own good" [LE], pure selfish gain/ends [NE], or because of some inherent cruelty and destructive nature that "just likes to watch things squirm and suffer" [CE], Evil exists in and of itself. It is simply not in the "spirits" (or "souls" if you give such creatures "souls") of certain beings.

It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversarial and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.


----------



## Oofta

Mind of tempest said:


> describe what the material evil is? describe pure sociological evil if that would work better?
> give us a description a definition so we can at least have ground for the topic to discuss.
> as at the end of the day, it is not about orcs really but can we make a pure evil species?



I think the role of monsters in D&D and fiction (fantasy fiction in particular) is a bigger topic.

It's just a general descriptor of outlook.  In the case of orcs, a very warlike disposition of destroying the enemies of Gruumsh.


----------



## Vaalingrade

steeldragons said:


> There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.



Except all the canonical characters that prove this isn't the case. Not to mention the playable PC versions.


----------



## Faolyn

steeldragons said:


> There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.





steeldragons said:


> It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversairal and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.



Of course it's "simple" to just decide that some creatures are Always Evil. It's simpler because you don't have to think of motivations for a creature to act in an evil manner, even if the motivation is as _simple _as "has no reason to care about anyone outside of themselves or their immediate friends and family, therefore does things that are accidentally harmful to others."

The question is, _is it better? _Does it make for a more interesting, nuanced, or fun game? 

Also, I don't really see how giving everything a free will--by which I mean, everything intelligent to be able to think about its choices--is "impractical to a setting's internal consistency." Could you explain what you mean?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Oofta said:


> I think the role of monsters in D&D and fiction (fantasy fiction in particular) is a bigger topic.
> 
> It's just a general descriptor of outlook.  In the case of orcs, a very warlike disposition of destroying the enemies of Gruumsh.



so they are not made of evil just of a hostile religious sect?

look if you want to prove your point you going to have to do better than that as that is what those who disagree with you think.


----------



## steeldragons

Vaalingrade said:


> Except all the canonical characters that prove this isn't the case. Not to mention the playable PC versions



D&D doesn't have a "canon." 

The only thing I can presume you are referring to is Drizzt...Who is an aberration, by admission of the character's creation and his fiction. The "good drow" is "canon" if you take all things Forgotten Realms/Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore as its own contained universe of irrefutable fact. Which you can/are more than welcome to. That doesn't make it "canonical" to D&D or fantasy rpgs more broadly.


----------



## Mind of tempest

steeldragons said:


> D&D doesn't have a "canon."
> 
> The only thing I can presume you are referring to is Drizzt...Who is an aberration, by admission of the character's creation and his fiction. The "good drow" is "canon" if you take all things Forgotten Realms/Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore as its own contained universe of irrefutable fact. Which you can/are more than welcome to. That doesn't make it "canonical" to D&D or fantasy rpgs more broadly.



it kind of does it has settings and what is in the rule books which let you play them.

look can you explain a justifiable reason for an always evil species?


----------



## steeldragons

Faolyn said:


> Of course it's "simple" to just decide that some creatures are Always Evil. It's simpler because you don't have to think of motivations for a creature to act in an evil manner, even if the motivation is as _simple _as "has no reason to care about anyone outside of themselves or their immediate friends and family, therefore does things that are accidentally harmful to others."
> 
> The question is, _is it better? _Does it make for a more interesting, nuanced, or fun game?
> 
> Also, I don't really see how giving everything a free will--by which I mean, everything intelligent to be able to think about its choices--is "impractical to a setting's internal consistency." Could you explain what you mean?



If every Goblin can mull over its conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...

All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?

If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.

I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.

That's all there is to it. Every creature of a certain intelligence in the game COULD be Good. MIGHT not be Evil. Well, then, nothing to see here, folks. Everyone put down the dice and go home.

Those monsters and their "enslave the world demon cultist necromancer masters," they're really just misunderstood. Deep down, they're really people of conscience and "good faith." We shouldn't be too hard on them. Let them just "do them" and their potential to benefit society can blossom...ya know, after we've all been enslaved and our cities sacked and razed. But you can't hold THAT against them.

D&D 6e, "Diplomacy & Dispensation."


----------



## Faolyn

steeldragons said:


> If every Goblin can mull over it's conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...
> 
> All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?
> 
> If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.
> 
> I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.



So that's when you focus on what the goblins et all are _doing. _Are these goblins trying to kill you? Are these goblins engaging in slavery, kidnapping, torture, or breeding vicious monsters to set loose on an unsuspecting population? Yes? Then kill them. Or, give them a chance to surrender first. The DM can always say they refuse to surrender.

But just killing goblins because they're existing while green... Dude, really.

So, options:

Don't have goblins as your bad guys. Undead, fiends, and constructs (as well as fey and celestials) make good options for monsters that can _logically _not have free will--and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that one of those types to be "programmed" to act in a certain way than it makes for a flesh-and-blood creature to be like that. Or use true monsters like chimeras, manticores, or even dragons, which can easily be written as being more animal than person, no matter their intelligence.

Have goblins as the bad guys, but--especially if you're playing with kids--have their villainy be able to be thwarted with cleverness or diplomacy.

Have the goblins as the bad guys, but not _because _they're goblins. If humans can be bandits, slavers, cultists, or just jerks, then so can goblins. And _also _have humans, elves, dwarfs, etc., as bandits, slavers, cultists, and jerks.

But if the only reason you have your goblins and drow and orcs as Always Evil is so you can kill them without feeling bad--then maybe you should reevaluate your game.

And honestly, nothing about this hurts setting lore.


----------



## Chaosmancer

steeldragons said:


> Evil, in Dungeons & Dragons (and most fantasy rpgs) is an objective, independent force. It exists. Period. There are creatures that are, literal, embodiments of Evil. There are deities who do the same. There is Magic that, again, objectively, IS Evil. It merely IS. Like Good. Like Neutrality. Everyone with their situational ethics and desires to annul Alignment as a game element, let alone mechanic, seems to have a real problem with wrapping their heads around this.
> 
> There is OBJECTIVE Evil, as a force, as an "energy" (if you prefer), a magic, and, yes, creatures (and deities which are simply bigger/immortal/more powerful "creatures"). They ARE Evil.




I don't disagree with any of this.

Creatures that are the literal embodiment of EVIL are called "Fiends" you also have a few Fey that follow this like Hags. I'd also say Abominations hit that note.



steeldragons said:


> HUMANS "choose" to be Evil because humans CAN choose. They have free-will. Other species who one fluffs (r lore states) are "free-willed" can CHOOSE to be Evil or not. NOT any/all creatures have this freedom of will, the option of "choice."




I find it incredibly hard to have Evil without Free Will. Sure, if you are a literally embodiment of EVIL your nature doesn't allow a choice, but once you leave that realm, being Evil involves a choice. So, if you aren't a literal embodiment and you don't have a choice, I struggle to see how you are evil.



steeldragons said:


> There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.




I disagree. And DnD disagrees.

Drow don't have a choice? They chose to follow Lolth, and they can choose to follow Elistraea instead. Driz'zt literally is an example of choosing to be good.

Giants follow Blue/Orange Morality according to DnD. They get interpreted as good and evil, but to the Giants they are Mot or Mog.

So, clearly, these races have free will and have choice. Thus, Evil isn't baked in. It can't be and the lore presented still make sense.



steeldragons said:


> NOR, importantly, do they necessarily WANT the option. A devil does not WANT to become an angel. An Ettin does not WANT to "be kind" to the halfling about to be its lunch (nor will it feel any remorse about treating it as and having it for "lunch"). They do not philosophize or opine on their "nature" or the Nature of Evil (or Good). Evil IS what they are and know. It is Power. It is what exists in the complete absence of Good. It is to be obeyed, and feared, and exerted over others. Whether you tell yourself it is for "their own good" [LE], pure selfish gain/ends [NE], or because of some inherent cruelty and destructive nature that "just likes to watch things squirm and suffer" [CE], Evil exists in and of itself. It is simply not in the "spirits" (or "souls" if you give such creatures "souls") of certain beings.




I'll note that most serial killers don't want the option to not be like they are either. The ability to introspect isn't limited like that



steeldragons said:


> It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversarial and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.




Sure, it would have been possible.

But DnD didn't do that. They try and sort of claim that they did that, but the evidence is simply not there. Once you move away from Fiends, Abominations and Evil Fey, you really are in the realm of beings having the free-will to choose their own way.

EDIT: 
RE: D&D doesn't have a "canon."

Yes it does. That is why I can say Gruumsh is the God of the Orcs. Or that Demogorgon is the Prince of Demons. DnD has had a Canon for decades.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

steeldragons said:


> There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.




This is just dumb and inaccurate to the lore. Like, there are several instances of drow being non-evil and even good. I can pick out modules as well where an individual in the other monsters you list is good. So yes, these races _do _have choice!

The idea that being evil is in your DNA is one of the most racist tropes in existence.


----------



## Chaosmancer

steeldragons said:


> If every Goblin can mull over its conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...
> 
> All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?
> 
> If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.
> 
> I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.
> 
> That's all there is to it. Every creature of a certain intelligence in the game COULD be Good. MIGHT not be Evil. Well, then, nothing to see here, folks. Everyone put down the dice and go home.
> 
> Those monsters and their "enslave the world demon cultist necromancer masters," they're really just misunderstood. Deep down, they're really people of conscience and "good faith." We shouldn't be too hard on them. Let them just "do them" and their potential to benefit society can blossom...ya know, after we've all been enslaved and our cities sacked and razed. But you can't hold THAT against them.
> 
> D&D 6e, "Diplomacy & Dispensation."




First of all, DnD has never been "a game for children". 

Secondly, this something that literally happens in all of fiction and every major franchise In existence

Star Wars, Halo, Elder Scrolls, Lord of the Rings (the orcs during the Age of Man become more neutral in one of the notes for the setting, meaning that they were always capable of it), Call of Duty. 

Literally any game where you ever fight something that isn't an animal, a robot or a demon. 

Superhero Games. Legend of the Five Rings. On and On and On and On. 

So, no need for the hand wringing "but if Orcs can be good, then DnD is about MURDER and we can't morally justify that. Better if they can't possibly be good. Oh, by the way, human bandits are attacking you and being manipulated by an Elven Vizier to bring conflict between the Elves and Humans." We've handled this issue just fine in fiction since the invention of fiction.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Faolyn said:


> The question is, _is it better? _Does it make for a more interesting, nuanced, or fun game?



Nuanced, no. Fun, yes, if you find pretend nuance and moral quandaries less fun than pretend fighting.

So, if it makes the game more fun for some people, why shouldn't those people be able to do that?


----------



## Faolyn

jmartkdr2 said:


> Nuanced, no. Fun, yes, if you find pretend nuance and moral quandaries less fun than pretend fighting.
> 
> So, if it makes the game more fun for some people, why shouldn't those people be able to do that?



Well, yeah, finding innovative, non-violent solutions to problems _is _a lot of fun.

It's not that people can't have always-evil races, as weird as that is--it's when you say "you can't have them not be always-evil because then it's murder and oh no the game lore!" when those are things that are easily changed with just a little thought and effort on the part of the people playing the game.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Faolyn said:


> Well, yeah, finding innovative, non-violent solutions to problems _is _a lot of fun.



For you. Not for everyone. Fun is subjective.


Faolyn said:


> It's not that people can't have always-evil races, as weird as that is--it's when you say "you can't have them not be always-evil because then it's murder and oh no the game lore!" when those are things that are easily changed with just a little thought and effort on the part of the people playing the game.



I haven't seen anyone describe the game they actually run in a way that I find unacceptable. There's a ton of strawmen, but so what?


----------



## steeldragons

Faolyn said:


> But just killing goblins because they're existing while green... Dude, really.



Nooo, not "really, Dude."  Nobody said anything about -nor is there the slightest relevance to- their skin color. But way to miss the whole point.

You're killing goblins because "they're existing while EVIL." which -I am submitting- is a perfectly reasonable innate state of being for certain [not real] creatures in a [not real] magical fantasy world.

Some folks need to really back up and do some examination of all the "that's racist/racism" shlock they're trying to, both, infuse to the game and accusing others where it is entirely unwarranted.

I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures...and then getting all worked up pretending these are some kind of real world analogue for racial strife, inject racism into my game and demand social justice debates in the fantasy game/world of make-believe. It's a game of heroic adventure in a world of magic for crying out loud.


----------



## Wolf72

Charlaquin said:


> People like what they like. Feel free to do what you like in your own games, but I think it would be best for WotC to move away from inherently evil races as a default.
> 
> The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also _still_ not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?



 I guess I'm really old school, it was much easier to have a legitimate group to hate.

To much flavor + humans with green plates stapled to their heads: The point here is that humanity, imo, loses some of its uniqueness as humanoid races become more and more similar (ironically through differences) in their breadth of flavor.

You are absolutely right, in my campaign this is how it is etc. -- but that's true no matter what during an era of D&D.  

I am totally cool with some races being very gray in their uses (the some bad, some good, some neutral, etc).  

I, however, do like having some races that are iconic whether they be good or evil.  There is no question in my mind that in Tolkien's books that orcs are utterly evil -- they aren't simply fighting over resources and tradition and what-have-you.

I know it's probably just nostalgia and perhaps a bit of short cut in a campaign, I just like it 'old-school' for many things.


----------



## Wolf72

steeldragons said:


> I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures...and then getting all worked up pretending these are some kind of real world analogue for racial strife, inject racism into my game and demand social justice debates in the fantasy game/world of make-believe. It's a game of heroic adventure in a world of magic for crying out loud.



Yup.  I think that's along the lines I was feeling as well.


----------



## Faolyn

steeldragons said:


> Nooo, not "really, Dude."  Nobody said anything about -nor is there the slightest relevance to- their skin color. But way to miss the whole point.



Yes, you _are _missing the point.

If you're killing goblins _just _because they're goblins, then that's a problem.



steeldragons said:


> You're killing goblins because "they're existing while EVIL." which -I am submitting- is a perfectly reasonable innate state of being for certain [not real] creatures in a [not real] magical fantasy world.



Are they actually engaging in Evil? Are they actually killing and enslaving and hurting others? Or is it like in the Sims, where you can take Evil Showers and cook Evil Dinners? Because a creature that isn't actually doing anything evil--and no, I don't mean "just right now" shouldn't be considered evil.

And more to the point, there are humans, even in a game world, who are actually killing and enslaving and hurting others, but for some reasons humans don't have that Always Evil tag. 



steeldragons said:


> Some folks need to really back up and do some examination of all the "that's racist/racism" shlock they're trying to, both, infuse to the game and accusing others where it is entirely unwarranted.
> 
> I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures...and then getting all worked up pretending these are some kind of real world analogue for racial strife, inject racism into my game and demand social justice debates in the fantasy game/world of make-believe. It's a game of heroic adventure in a world of magic for crying out loud.



I don't find it heroic to kill a goblin just for being a goblin.


----------



## Vaalingrade

jmartkdr2 said:


> Nuanced, no. Fun, yes, if you find pretend nuance and moral quandaries less fun than pretend fighting.
> 
> So, if it makes the game more fun for some people, why shouldn't those people be able to do that?



Look, I like pretend fighting. Violence is not only the answer, but the question and also an ancillary conversation.

But. I would rather fight for reasons that don't skeeve me out and imitate the same people who want to kill/harm/insult/disenfranchise me for being born a way they consider 'wrong' (and being third generation 'wrong' to boot!).


----------



## steeldragons

Faolyn said:


> Are they actually engaging in Evil? Are they actually killing and enslaving and hurting others?



OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?

I'm really pretty done here. Let's just agree to be thankful neither of us have to play at the others' table. 

Enjoy your "D&D is a place for enacting real world social justice, unlimited possibilities for all, everything can be anything, thus mean nothing, and resolve amicably. Who amongst us can say what Evil really is?" Good times.


----------



## Faolyn

steeldragons said:


> OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?



Why do people encounter humans, elves, or dwarfs in your games?

If your party _sometimes _fights them because they're bad guys, and _sometimes _just trades with them, or gets plot hooks from them, or helps them out of a jam, then that's *exactly* why you would encounter goblins and other, similar creatures.

Is that really so hard to understand?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Vaalingrade said:


> But. I would rather fight for reasons that don't skeeve me out and imitate the same people who want to kill/harm/insult/disenfranchise me for being born a way they consider 'wrong' (and being third generation 'wrong' to boot!).



Then don't. Ask the question why the goblins are evil. You'll get told about all the evil stuff they did

If that isn't enough for you, keep digging, but don't complain about other people being satisfied with that kind of answer.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

steeldragons said:


> OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?




You know, I'm going to roleplay as a Scarlet Brotherhood member for a second (and avoid real-world connotations), and replace a single word of your quote here.

_"OF COURSE they are. It's what *Baklunish *DO. Why? Oh right, because *Baklunish* are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?"_

Man, the Scarlet Brotherhood is a really intolerant organization for categorizing a whole group of humans like this with no evidence except their own prejudices. I really like fighting that assassin's guild of supremacists!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

steeldragons said:


> OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?



That's a pretty circular argument. Goblins are Evil. Why? Because Goblins do evil things. Why? Because goblins are Evil!!!

In my world, goblins are more complex than just giant pests that deserve squashing by casual adventurers. They actually have culture, religion, and wars not based on evil, but on ideas that humans (and other humanoid races) can understand and empathize with. They worship my world's "God" of Magic (not really a real god, it doesn't have a physical form and isn't really sentient, it's more of my world's version of the Weave, if it were put in a blender and held together in a ball with super-glue. But they worship it, and it grants them divine and arcane magic, and can even turn some of the goblinoids into arcane angels). They base their culture around this religion, and the religion isn't inherently evil, it's just very rigid on its thinking of psionics (and there is a race of psionic people that they hate and routinely go to war with).

Now, some of these goblins are truly evil, wanting to completely eradicate innocent/passive psionic races just because they dare to exist, however, there are other goblins that are more accepting and shun the practice of psionics but don't berserk every time they see a psychic character. Some are good, some are bad. Like humans.

Does that make them humans, though? Are they just a group of humans in silly hats? No, they're not. They're still goblins. They're still small, sneaky, yellow-green skinned, big-nosed humanoids, and are distinct from humans, elves, dwarves, and the rest of the races in my world. Being like humans in their ability to have more than one alignment doesn't make them human, anymore than the fact that a cow having hooves and a deer has hooves doesn't them the same thing or invalidated by the other.

Orcs are the same way in my world. So are Gnolls, Bugbears, Hobgoblins, Drow, Kobolds, and pretty much every other humanoid race in my setting. But they're still unique, and IMHO, are more interesting because they are more complex, not boring or idiotic.


----------



## steeldragons

Urriak Uruk said:


> You know, I'm going to roleplay as a Scarlet Brotherhood member for a second (and avoid real-world connotations), and replace a single word of your quote here.
> 
> _"OF COURSE they are. It's what *Baklunish *DO. Why? Oh right, because *Baklunish* are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?"_
> 
> Man, the Scarlet Brotherhood is a really intolerant organization for categorizing a whole group of humans like this with no evidence except their own prejudices. I really like fighting that assassin's guild of supremacists!



<shrug>'kay...?


----------



## Charlaquin

Wolf72 said:


> I guess I'm really old school, it was much easier to have a legitimate group to hate.



I don’t deny that it’s easier. You know what they say about what things in life are worth doing though.


Wolf72 said:


> To much flavor + humans with green plates stapled to their heads:



How? Why can’t anyone explain to me how “not one fixed alignment” = “basically human.” It makes zero sense to me. Is lack of nuance literally the only distinguishing trait people give their non-human races? 


Wolf72 said:


> I, however, do like having some races that are iconic whether they be good or evil.  There is no question in my mind that in Tolkien's books that orcs are utterly evil -- they aren't simply fighting over resources and tradition and what-have-you.
> 
> I know it's probably just nostalgia and perhaps a bit of short cut in a campaign, I just like it 'old-school' for many things.



And again, feel free to like what you like. But we’re talking about what WotC should do in the official books, not what people do in their own campaigns. I think the responsible thing for WotC to do is to not depict entire races as monolithic, especially not monolithically evil.


----------



## Mecheon

steeldragons said:


> It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversarial and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.



Orcs have been playable in D&D longer than I have been alive. Dozens upon dozens of people have played as orcs as anything raging from "Chill warrior" to "Very angry wizard". We have so, so, SO many examples of orcs having free will that its ridiculous. Hell, even the 'Oh Gruumsh won't let them' arguments are null and void because of the existence of Many Arrows in FR, which Gruumsh was against.

Its possible to say it, but its also doesn't match up with the history of the game or make things more interesting.



steeldragons said:


> OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?



Goblins do *mischief*, not necessarily evil. So there's plenty of reasons. Maybe you need a reagent but nowhere you can find sells it, so you've gotta go down, down to Goblin Town and deal with whatever they want to trade for it (which isn't going to be anything normal, but not anything you can't afford). Maybe the Queen of the Elves has kidnapped a human princeling against his will to serve as her concubine and you've gotta infiltrate the Royal Palace to get him back and avoid a diplomatic incident, so who better to get in than the sort-of-fey with a massive chip on their shoulder against elves to begin with?


----------



## Doug McCrae

steeldragons said:


> HUMANS "choose" to be Evil because humans CAN choose. They have free-will. Other species who one fluffs (r lore states) are "free-willed" can CHOOSE to be Evil or not. NOT any/all creatures have this freedom of will, the option of "choice."
> 
> There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.




The lore has, at times, said that the evil of orcs, and the other creatures you mention, is not innate or homogeneous.

The Roger Moore article Half-Orcs in Dragon #62 (June 1982) gives an environmental explanation.

Orcs are like this [evil] because of the influence of their deities… and because of their own past. Sages have uncovered much evidence showing that orcs developed in regions generally hostile to life; survival was difficult​
"Influence of their deities" in this case means religious instruction –  "This attitude [short-term thinking] is reinforced in their religious ceremonies".

The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993), for 2e AD&D, provides rules to play humanoids, such as goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs, as PCs. PC humanoids can be of any alignment. The entries also suggest that alignment is not homogeneous even for NPC monsters as they merely "tend toward" the listed alignment. The entry for goblins is typical: "Goblins tend toward lawful evil. PC goblins may be of any alignment, but are usually lawful neutral."

The following selection of monster alignments is taken from the 3.5e Monster Manual (2003):


BugbearUsually chaotic evilDrow  Usually neutral evilGiant, fireOften lawful evilGiant, frostOften chaotic evilGiant, hill  Often chaotic evilGoblinUsually neutral evilHobgoblinUsually lawful evilOrc  Often chaotic evil

"Usually" and "often" are explained in the Alignment section of the Glossary. Note that there are even occasional exceptions for monsters who are "always" of a particular alignment such as angels and demons.

_Always_: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.​_Usually_: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.​_Often_: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.​


----------



## Urriak Uruk

steeldragons said:


> <shrug>'kay...?




I shouldn't bother using explaining the point because you clearly don't care, but an argument being "They're evil because they're evil! That's why! Just look at them and their evil-ness!" is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Doug McCrae

steeldragons said:


> I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures




Orcs, and similar creatures such as goblins and hobgoblins are already almost completely anthropomorphised. They are flesh and blood. They require food, water, and shelter. They are mortal. They can be injured and die. They feel pain. They are humanoid and of roughly human size. They have opposable thumbs, and use tools. They wear clothing. They construct buildings. They can talk, and have language. They are social. They have culture. They have religion. They live in organised societies. They have children. They give birth to helpless infants that must be cared for.

The main way in which they are unlike humans is, as you say, that they are evil.

In my view there are two reasonable directions in which to take orcs and other evil humanoids -- make them less evil or make them less human.

The latter could involve making them more like demons -- lack normal biological processes, do not bear children (perhaps they are spawned magically in vats or occur 'naturally' in places where evil acts have been committed) -- or beasts -- no societies, language, culture, tool-use, etc.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Urriak Uruk said:


> I shouldn't bother using explaining the point because you clearly don't care, but an argument being "They're evil because they're evil! That's why! Just look at them and their evil-ness!" is pretty ridiculous.



Normally, yes.  You're right.  If we were talking about any real world associations, you'd be correct.  But this is a game after all, and we do have to admit that for a game, it is normal (and OK) to simplify things into clear black and whites, because a lot of people don't want to play a game with the complexities and nuances of real life.  They want to escape real life into something less morally ambiguous.  There are games I've played where the Allies are the clear good guys, and the Axis are the bad guys, for example.

As long as you're avoiding racial or cultural overtones that impart negative stereotypes to real life peoples, it's OK to have clear cut good guys and bad guys in a game.   Just like it's OK to not have any bad guys and every creature is complex and nuanced.  It comes down to what you prefer in a game.

I happen to think D&D should support both equally, and thus don't support defaulted alignments because that makes it harder for the latter while the former don't need to change anything.  But if you have it null and leave it up to each table, then both latter and former do the same thing without either needing more work than the other.

I just want to caution calling people ridiculous for wanting a game to be without moral complications everywhere.  Because it's a game.  And it's escapism for a lot of folks


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Sacrosanct said:


> Normally, yes.  You're right.  If we were talking about any real world associations, you'd be correct.  But this is a game after all, and we do have to admit that for a game, it is normal (and OK) to simplify things into clear black and whites, because a lot of people don't want to play a game with the complexities and nuances of real life.  They want to escape real life into something less morally ambiguous.  There are games I've played where the Allies are the clear good guys, and the Axis are the bad guys, for example.
> 
> As long as you're avoiding racial or cultural overtones that impart negative stereotypes to real life peoples, it's OK to have clear cut good guys and bad guys in a game.   Just like it's OK to not have any bad guys and every creature is complex and nuanced.  It comes down to what you prefer in a game.
> 
> I happen to think D&D should support both equally, and thus don't support defaulted alignments because that makes it harder for the latter while the former don't need to change anything.  But if you have it null and leave it up to each table, then both latter and former do the same thing without either needing more work than the other.
> 
> I just want to caution calling people ridiculous for wanting a game to be without moral complications everywhere.  Because it's a game.  And it's escapism for a lot of folks




Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying _being evil_ directly and universally to race.


----------



## Oofta

Urriak Uruk said:


> Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying _being evil_ directly and universally to race.



If you leave all the fluff text on orcs alone, they would still be evil without the alignment note.  If you have multi-cultural orcs, how do you do it so that it works with multiple campaigns?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Urriak Uruk said:


> Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying _being evil_ directly and universally to race.



Don't disagree. In fact, I do agree and apply as such at my own table. On the same token, for a game at their table, all the justification they need is to say "they're evil". They don't need any further justification. I mean, we've spent the last several threads on this topic saying we don't care what they do at their own table. So if their table is "goblins are evil cuz I said so", then OK. I don't need any more info.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> If you leave all the fluff text on orcs alone, they would still be evil without the alignment note.  If you have multi-cultural orcs, how do you do it so that it works with multiple campaigns?



"Some orcs are peaceful, existing as hunters, farmers, and trappers. Others are vicious raiders, performing vile acts for evil gods and spirits. Still others are just boisterous bruisers, enjoying a good fight without any need for it to end in death. In general, orcs tend to have strong emotions and are often reactionary, taking strong umbrage to perceived or actual slights which sometimes has lead to battle when they couldn't be pacified."


----------



## Chaosmancer

steeldragons said:


> OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?
> 
> I'm really pretty done here. Let's just agree to be thankful neither of us have to play at the others' table.
> 
> Enjoy your "D&D is a place for enacting real world social justice, unlimited possibilities for all, everything can be anything, thus mean nothing, and resolve amicably. Who amongst us can say what Evil really is?" Good times.




I know you seem to find this entire conversation amusing, but there is something I just cannot work my head around. 

We have no problem, zero issues, not even an eyeblink about humans who are murdering, enslaving, and hurting other people. This isn't even contreversial, it happens in every game. We also have humans who are not murdering, enslaving, and hurting others. Again, this isn't an issue. 

We have entities of pure evil, whose very existence is evil. They are incapable of not murdering, enslaving or hurting others. We have names for these entities. Demons, Devils, Abominations, Hags. These creatures from other worlds are made of evil. There is no issue with this. 


Goblins and Orcs are not Fiends. They are not evil Fey. They are not Abominations. They could be, if that is the story you want to tell, you could totally do so, but DnD chose not to make them so. In the case that they are not those things, that they are not evil incarnated into flesh... why is it so hard to imagine having orcs or goblins that are not murdering, enslaving or hurting others? We have giants like that, we have drow like that, we have chromatic dragons like that. Why not orcs and Goblins? Why are orcs and Goblins MORE evil than Drow or Chromatic dragons? Why is this a step to far and so impossible to do? 

You laughed at my last post, but I'm serious. You seem to have this vision of DnD that none of these characters who are good from an evil race exist, but they do. So, why is what we are asking so impossible as to destroy the game as we know it?


----------



## Wolf72

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t deny that it’s easier. You know what they say about what things in life are worth doing though.
> 
> How? Why can’t anyone explain to me how “not one fixed alignment” = “basically human.” It makes zero sense to me. Is lack of nuance literally the only distinguishing trait people give their non-human races?
> 
> And again, feel free to like what you like. But we’re talking about what WotC should do in the official books, not what people do in their own campaigns. I think the responsible thing for WotC to do is to not depict entire races as monolithic, especially not monolithically evil.




What they say is "You do you, and let me do me" ... What's right for you and your game, is well right for you and your game.  Great.  I think we all agree.  If want your [choose traditionally evil humanoid] that well defined, awesome.  Like I said earlier, I really like the history of Orcs in WoW.  I just feel that I like my antagonists to be a little more two dimensional at times, especially if they're the grunts/mobs/mooks of the world.

Can't answer the alignment question completely, Humans are the "unpredictable everything" it's been their shtick for a while.  Orcs are [were!] a fairly universal evil that you count on being evil.  If you think the PTB expand things, ok.  I'm sure they'll a bit of both, produce a splatbook/source that expands the roles of the race to more inclusive of everything.

Every so often I reread through my 1e DMG.  Gygax has some very precise points about why the game is focused the way it is.  (That being said, I'm not trying to start any fanboyism v. bashing posts.)  The game has changed by leaps and bounds when it comes to fluff, it's more complex, richer, and at times overwhelming.  

Monolithic Evil? Meh, agree to disagree.  You have a very good and modern point.  They can do as they please.  My first time playing D&D was ... a very long time ago and I had fun disengaging from realism in fantasy gaming.  While I like my evil to stay evil (simple or complex reasons, I don't care.  I have enough time playing D&D I am more than capable of making my campaign my own work), I won't flip out if they change it, I won't flip if they don't.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sacrosanct said:


> Don't disagree. In fact, I do agree and apply as such at my own table. On the same token, for a game at their table, all the justification they need is to say "they're evil". They don't need any further justification. I mean, we've spent the last several threads on this topic saying we don't care what they do at their own table. So if their table is "goblins are evil cuz I said so", then OK. I don't need any more info.




Okay, but there is that thing we keep seeing that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. 

"At my own table" 

Sure, great. Do whatever you want at your table. Dress in a toga and have people call you Lord Toga-Pants, I don't care. But WoTC? Why are we going to say that they can get away with "they are just evil" when they have made at least one entire book this edition exploring the culture, beliefs, afterlife and societal structure of these beings? 

I'm sure if we took everything written about Goblins from the 3rd edition til now, we would have more written about Goblin Culture than has been written for any single alien race from Star Trek. There is SO MUCH goblin lore. They clearly care enough about goblins to explore them, so can't they do something more interesting than "because they are?" 

Especially when, if we look at what they have said, Goblins are evil because they have been brutalized and enlaved by an Evil God-Killing entity that forces them into an eternity of endless fighting for his armies. That seems kind of a like a big deal to look at a race with that FACT about them and say "but they are evil because they are evil, and you really don't need to know more about them"


----------



## Wolf72

Chaosmancer said:


> You laughed at my last post, but I'm serious. You seem to have this vision of DnD that none of these characters who are good from an evil race exist, but they do. So, why is what we are asking so impossible as to destroy the game as we know it?




Speaking out of turn, and possibly out of place ... but where did SD claim that it was an impossibility for those races to have very rare good members?  

I thought he was getting at the 99% of them are evil, those rare anomalies, are just that.  And quite possibly make some good reading. (Man I wish I could have kept up with with RA Salvatore, but I'll be content rereading my spine broke Icewind Dale Trilogy).


----------



## Sacrosanct

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, but there is that thing we keep seeing that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.
> 
> "At my own table"
> 
> Sure, great. Do whatever you want at your table. Dress in a toga and have people call you Lord Toga-Pants, I don't care. But WoTC? Why are we going to say that they can get away with "they are just evil" when they have made at least one entire book this edition exploring the culture, beliefs, afterlife and societal structure of these beings?
> 
> I'm sure if we took everything written about Goblins from the 3rd edition til now, we would have more written about Goblin Culture than has been written for any single alien race from Star Trek. There is SO MUCH goblin lore. They clearly care enough about goblins to explore them, so can't they do something more interesting than "because they are?"
> 
> Especially when, if we look at what they have said, Goblins are evil because they have been brutalized and enlaved by an Evil God-Killing entity that forces them into an eternity of endless fighting for his armies. That seems kind of a like a big deal to look at a race with that FACT about them and say "but they are evil because they are evil, and you really don't need to know more about them"



I apologize if I misread or misconstrued what was going on, but it didn't seem like steeldragons was talking about making the game officially like what they wanted, but was talking about their own personal table and preferences. I think their comment about "thankfully we don't game at each other's table" gave me that impression that it was a personal take thing, rather than an official position wotc should take


----------



## Wolf72

Some transparency here: I have not read every page, it's after school hours, kids in bed and I have to pick and choose my vice for the night (D&D, Battletech, Diablo3, ... so wish I had time for WoW ).

From what I did read, I assumed (always a good way to derail any sane thinking) is that SD supported that in a fantasy world, we can and have made things that really are that straight forward.  Opening up a race to have this rich, vibrant, brutal, decadent, etc. history can get out of hand for some or just to much extra information.  Historically those races have been evil, that's it.  You want more, do it.  

Replacing goblins with the Scarlett Brotherhood is like apples and oranges, lots of similarities, but many key differences.  The Brotherhood is an evil, supremacist organization, been that way since 1e and haven't really changed (Last source I have on them is the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer).

I think this thread is breaking down into some old school cranks (me!) wondering why ya'll are changing the world upside down?  Newer kids  on the block totally enjoying modernizing things, but us old farts don't want you to forget (or never know) what it "used" to be like.  

(I'm so far beyond buying new fluff material anyway -- WoTC, go whicever way you think will appeal to more people)


----------



## steeldragons

Chaosmancer said:


> In the case that they are not those things, that they are not evil incarnated into flesh... why is it so hard to imagine having orcs or goblins that are not murdering, enslaving or hurting others?



Who said it was difficult to imagine?



Chaosmancer said:


> We have giants like that, we have drow like that, we have chromatic dragons like that.



Other Drizzt, I have no idea to whom you are referring. ...and I really don't consider some last minute sidekick generated for as much "oo wow how funky broody different" as the ONE good drow in the Forgotten Realms as a model upon which to base making any/all creatures allowed to think/do whatever they want.


Chaosmancer said:


> Why not orcs and Goblins? Why are orcs and Goblins MORE evil than Drow or Chromatic dragons? Why is this a step to far and so impossible to do?



No one said orcs or goblins were "more evil" than Drow or Chromatics...though they, indisputably and irretrievably, are evil also.

Also, I never said -nor even implied- it was something that is "impossible to do." It's simply unnecessary and undesirable for the game.


Chaosmancer said:


> You laughed at my last post, but I'm serious. You seem to have this vision of DnD that none of these characters who are good from an evil race exist, but they do. So, why is what we are asking so impossible as to destroy the game as we know it?



That is, also, untrue and not anything I ever said.

The only one of these "good from an evil race" characters that you seem to think are so widespread and popular, is Drizzt. I know he exists. I just see no reason that he should/does (after all this time). This singular afterthought from some Salvatore book should be "trend setting," let alone dictating anything, within the game. A single character in some fiction is not grounds for altering how every species or every imaginary creature and culture across D&D is "just like humans" -even though Dripz only exists in Forgotten Realms, whether they use him as the 'Elf" species picture in PHB or not.

Again, not "impossible." Never said that. Just unwanted...and unnecessary as almost all "change for change's sake" -more often than not, these days, exulted by the ridiculous label of "innovation" - is.


----------



## steeldragons

Sacrosanct said:


> I apologize if I misread or misconstrued what was going on, but it didn't seem like steeldragons was talking about making the game officially like what they wanted, but was talking about their own personal table and preferences. I think their comment about "thankfully we don't game at each other's table" gave me that impression that it was a personal take thing, rather than an official position wotc should take



Right. This.

Nothing I (or any of us here) say is going to matter to what WotC ultimately does anyway.


----------



## Wolf72

was just thinking "Hey, get your cultured hides out of my hack-slash-and-monster-bash" (Vice versa applies here)


----------



## Vaalingrade

steeldragons said:


> The only one of these "good from an evil race" characters that you seem to think are so widespread and popular, is Drizzt. I know he exists. I just see no reason that he should/does (after all this time). This singular afterthought from some Salvatore book should be "trend setting," let alone dictating anything, within the game. A single character in some fiction is not grounds for altering how every species or every imaginary creature and culture across D&D -even though Dripz only exists in Forgotten Realms, whether they use him as the 'Elf" species picture in PHB or not.



Just with the drow as an example, are you just unaware that good drow are numerous enough to have a goddess and everything, or just purposefully ignoring them for effect?

Also the idea that probably the single most recognizable D&D character is 'an afterthought'? I don't even like him and... really?


----------



## steeldragons

Vaalingrade said:


> Just with the drow as an example, are you just unaware that good drow are numerous enough to have a goddess and everything, or just purposefully ignoring them for effect?



I'm not ignoring them. They are irrelevant to any game not occuring in Forgotten Realms....and/or any version of Forgotten Realms that doesn't include her or good drow.



Vaalingrade said:


> Also the idea that probably the single most recognizable D&D character is 'an afterthought'? I don't even like him and... really?



Allegedly, he was whipped up because someone, during the writing of Crystal Shard, told Salvatore, "Wulfgar needs a sidekick." So he came up with Drizzt. Clearly, I don't like him or consider him important to the game. But I'm not just saying that as some kind of "bash." That's literally how he came to be.

SO, what's that saying? That that's what has become (and yes, I understand they went on to give him his own trilogy...or more?) the "most recognizable D&D character," which is really still only applicable to people who know D&D, the Forgotten Realms, and/or Salvatore's books.


----------



## steeldragons

In closing, YES to evil pig-faced orcs!

That is all.


----------



## Vaalingrade

steeldragons said:


> I'm not ignoring them. They are irrelevant to any game not occurring in Forgotten Realms....and/or any version of Forgotten Realms that doesn't include her or good drow.



Are we back to arguing personal games when the thread is about the default game --where FR for better or worse is the default setting for 5e again?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Not quite sure where people are getting the idea that this thread is exclusively about the future of DnD as though we're somehow involved in those decisions. OP certainly didn't say so.


----------



## Faolyn

steeldragons said:


> Other Drizzt, I have no idea to whom you are referring. ...and I really don't consider some last minute sidekick generated for as much "oo wow how funky broody different" as the ONE good drow in the Forgotten Realms as a model upon which to base making any/all creatures allowed to think/do whatever they want.











						Drow
					

Drow (sing & pl; pronounced: /draʊ/ drow or: /droʊ/ dro), also known as dark elves, deep elves, night elves, and the Dark Ones among orcs, were a dark-skinned sub-race of elves that predominantly lived in the Underdark. They were hated and feared due to their cruelty, though some non-evil and an...




					forgottenrealms.fandom.com


----------



## Vaalingrade

jmartkdr2 said:


> Not quite sure where people are getting the idea that this thread is exclusively about the future of DnD as though we're somehow involved in those decisions. OP certainly didn't say so.



The title specifically citing that they want the porcs to be in 6e and then everyone else talking about that until being derailed.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Vaalingrade said:


> The title specifically citing that they want the porcs to be in 6e and then everyone else talking about that until being derailed.



Ah, missed that. It's a silly idea anyways. Pig-orcs aren't _better_ in any particular way (and I tend to use them!)

But talking about how individuals handle it isn't 'derailing' the thread - threadcrapping is probably doing more to disrupt the conversation than considering anecdotes. If someone's talking about their home game, either engage with the comment as it is, or don't engage with it.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Oofta said:


> If you leave all the fluff text on orcs alone, they would still be evil without the alignment note.  If you have multi-cultural orcs, how do you do it so that it works with multiple campaigns?




This is true; the fluff text on orcs makes it fairly clear that orcs are evil. I disagree with that text, and find it sets a poor precedent for having a race that is evil... well, it isn't actually made clear beyond "Gruumsh says so." I find this especially poor considering how orcs in their characterization is compared to the worst stereotypes made against African and indigenous cultures. I encourage you to listen to this podcast episode by Three Black Halflings, as they explain it far better than I ever could.









						"Let's Hamilton This Guy" - Systemic Racism in Fantasy
					

Today we three share some tales from the table and answer some questions before discussing an amazingly written article by James Mendez Hodes entitled "Orcs, Britons, And The Martial Race Myth, Part I: A Species Built For Racial Terror", which talks about the intrinsic problems within Lord of...




					art19.com
				




I see no problem with orcs having a singular culture, I just have a problem with the culture _being evil_. You can have a culture that isn't defined by being evil. You can even have a country ruled by an evil regime, but that is not the same as 100% of all members of this race being evil.



Sacrosanct said:


> Don't disagree. In fact, I do agree and apply as such at my own table. On the same token, for a game at their table, all the justification they need is to say "they're evil". They don't need any further justification. I mean, we've spent the last several threads on this topic saying we don't care what they do at their own table. So if their table is "goblins are evil cuz I said so", then OK. I don't need any more info.




I think it is problematic for any table to establish that a race of creatures that is capable of forming bloodlines is 100%, unredeemable-y evil. It perpetuates racist stereotypes in the real-world about how genetics and race leads to smarter/better people (most of that science is complete racist bunk).

That said, I think you can craft a humanoid race that is devoid of such ties; I personally find the 5E fluff explanation of gnolls (hyenas that eat demon-tainted flesh) or Warhammer Orkz (humanoids born of a contagious fungus instead or mammal reproduction), or even lycanthropes (magical curse) as acceptable and divorced from real-world narratives. But the idea that every orc born will always be evil being the default assumption extremely uncomfortable, especially considering how half-orcs are a PHB core race. It sets a bad precedent for how race is portrayed in fantasy, and fantasy literature (and other forms of media) does indeed affect how people view diversity.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Faolyn said:


> "Some orcs are peaceful, existing as hunters, farmers, and trappers. Others are vicious raiders, performing vile acts for evil gods and spirits. Still others are just boisterous bruisers, enjoying a good fight without any need for it to end in death. In general, orcs tend to have strong emotions and are often reactionary, taking strong umbrage to perceived or actual slights which sometimes has lead to battle when they couldn't be pacified."




This reads a bit like some horoscopes I've read about myself (Aries). Honestly not a criticism, as those are designed to point out flaws and benefits in every person.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Wolf72 said:


> Replacing goblins with the Scarlett Brotherhood is like apples and oranges, lots of similarities, but many key differences.  The Brotherhood is an evil, supremacist organization, been that way since 1e and haven't really changed (Last source I have on them is the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer).




I don't think you really understood my play there; I was saying that the Scarlet Brotherhood (who are Suel) would say much of the same things SD said about goblins, but they would say it about Baklunish (a different group of humans). So I was attempting to point out that the words SD was using were extremely similar to race supremacists.


----------



## Umbran

steeldragons said:


> Again, not "impossible." Never said that. Just unwanted...and unnecessary as almost all "change for change's sake"...




Here's the point that you seem to completely miss.  This is not, "for change's sake".  

This is for sake of taking one small step away from systemic problems.  

Get on board with that, or not, as you prefer.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oofta said:


> Since I have no use in my campaign (queue the "we're not just talking about your campaign complaint) for non-evil orcs they don't exist. The variations on orcs that are not adversarial should, IMHO, be left to individual campaigns.



You deride people for pointing out that we aren’t talking about your campaign...and then explicitly say that the game in general should be a certain way, which is unavoidably a comment on the game as a whole, not your campaign.

Orcs should be diverse. They are a player race, and that isn’t going to go away.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

I don't really have any objection to whatever variation of orc people have in their own campaign, but the lore on orcs in D&D has been pretty consistent:

1) They are a normal humanoid race that produces with sexual reproduction, meaning they have male orcs, female orcs, and children of both sexes.
2) They can reproduce with humans with little difficulty.
3) There has been enough cases of non-evil orcs from Basic and 1E onwards that we know that they are able to be alignments other than evil.
4) They tend to have a culture and religion that exults physical prowess and the right of the strong to take what they want. Their culture also looks upon other species with disdain.

Therefore it seems fairly inarguable that in TSR/WoTC released lore, orcs are a variety of humanoids, like humans, elves, gnomes et al, they are not a hivemind, they generally will be evil, but not always.  And it seems even evil orcs (like Robilar's henchman, Quij) are able to work with non-orcs to accomplish non-destructrive outcomes.

Is there even a D&D campaign where this is not true? Krynn doesn't have orcs, but goblinoids fill substantially the same niche.

So yeah having orcs without a default alignment makes sense (unlike a demon or devil). I don't really see the issue. Want evil orcs? Go for it. No more difficult than having evil humans or elves. Do your players worry when they kill a human bandit in the game? Why do you need your enemies to be souless automatons?


----------



## QuentinGeorge

steeldragons said:


> Other Drizzt, I have no idea to whom you are referring. ...and I really don't consider some last minute sidekick generated for as much "oo wow how funky broody different" as the ONE good drow in the Forgotten Realms as a model upon which to base making any/all creatures allowed to think/do whatever they want.




There was literally a non-evil drow in the Vault of the Drow adventure, part of the series where they were introduced. I think it's pretty clear Gygax was under the impression drow had free will. I don't know if Gygax even intended for the Lolth-worshipping drow to be typical of the whole race rather than just that one city.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

People keep bring up Tolkien's orcs, which is weird, because D&D orcs have a less magical and more mundane origin and culture than Lord of the Rings. So if Tolkien was troubled by the treatment of orcs in his own work, I can't imagine he'd be cool with considering the D&D orcs inherently evil and fit for killing on discovery.

(Not to mention D&D orcs are basically steppe raiders, whereas Tolkien orcs are the soulless minions of industrialised war)


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Doug McCrae said:


> Orcs, and similar creatures such as goblins and hobgoblins are already almost completely anthropomorphised. They are flesh and blood. They require food, water, and shelter. They are mortal. They can be injured and die. They feel pain. They are humanoid and of roughly human size. They have opposable thumbs, and use tools. They wear clothing. They construct buildings. They can talk, and have language. They are social. They have culture. They have religion. They live in organised societies. They have children. They give birth to helpless infants that must be cared for.
> 
> The main way in which they are unlike humans is, as you say, that they are evil.
> 
> In my view there are two reasonable directions in which to take orcs and other evil humanoids -- make them less evil or make them less human.
> 
> The latter could involve making them more like demons -- lack normal biological processes, do not bear children (perhaps they are spawned magically in vats or occur 'naturally' in places where evil acts have been committed) -- or beasts -- no societies, language, culture, tool-use, etc.




This. They've already been "made human" by the lore they have accumulated.


----------



## Minigiant

To me it all comes down to creature type.

*Orcs as Humanoids*

Orcs are humanoids with big teeth, large muscles, darkvision,and powerful builds. They can reproduce with humans. Their largeness nudges their cultures and societies to favoring size, strength, might, and intimidation. Orcs can be any alignment.

*Orcs as Monstrosities/Monstrous humanoids.*

Orcs are pig-men, half boar half man. They were created by a deity or an arcanist. Orcs are mostly evil as the pork brain constantly tells them to take other people's stuff and only a few can channel that towards agents of evil.

*Orcs as Fey*

Orcs are corrupted versions of elves or the elf ancestor race. They are the elf-pig version of the fey centaur elf-horse and the fey satyr's elf-goat. They are Unseelie and evil.

*Orcs as Fiends.*
Orcs are legit demons. Half Orcs are a version of Tielfing. All Orcs are evil. Being extraplanar outsiders, their minds are not human and are always CE barring some sort of magic or a world event.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Minigiant said:


> To me it all comes down to creature type.
> 
> *Orcs as Humanoids*
> 
> Orcs are humanoids with big teeth, large muscles, darkvision,and powerful builds. They can reproduce with humans. Their largeness nudges their cultures and societies to favoring,strength, might, and intimidation. Orcs can be any alignment.
> 
> *Orcs as Monstrosities/Monstrous humanoids.*
> 
> Orcs are pig-men, half boar half man. They were created by a deity or an arcanist. Orcs are mostly evil as the pork brain constantly tells them to take other people's stuff and only a few can channel that towards agents of evil.
> 
> *Orcs as Fey*
> 
> Orcs are corrupted versions of elves or the elf ancestor race. They are the elf-pig version of the fey centaur elf-horse and the fey satyr's elf-goat. They are Unseelie and evil.
> 
> *Orcs as Fiends.*
> Orcs are legit demons. Half Orcs are a version of Tielfing. All Orcs are evil. Being extraplanar outsiders, their minds are not human and are always CE barring some sort of magic or a world event.




Yes, and they have been consistently portrayed as "Orcs are Humanoids" for ALL of D&D's history.


----------



## Minigiant

QuentinGeorge said:


> Yes, and they have been consistently portrayed as "Orcs are Humanoids" for ALL of D&D's history.




I'd argue that  Orcs were monstrosities Pre-3e and humanoid 3e and onward. That's the disconnect.

Many people refuse to admit that before 3rd edition, orcs were not humanoid and closer to a beastman like the old minotaur and harpies.


----------



## Hussar

Minigiant said:


> I'd argue that  Orcs were monstrosities Pre-3e and humanoid 3e and onward. That's the disconnect.
> 
> Many people refuse to admit that before 3rd edition, orcs were not humanoid and closer to a beastman like the old minotaur and harpies.



That's not right though.

Pre-3e, orcs were specfically delineated as humanoids.  They were specifically called out as such.  Numerous times in many places.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> I'd argue that  Orcs were monstrosities Pre-3e and humanoid 3e and onward. That's the disconnect.
> 
> Many people refuse to admit that before 3rd edition, orcs were not humanoid and closer to a beastman like the old minotaur and harpies.



In 1st edition orcs where classed as humanoid, but humans, elves, halflings, gnomes and dwarves were not.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Orcs in 2nd edition:

_Orcs are a species of aggressive mammalian carnivores that band together in tribes and survive by hunting and raiding. Orcs believe that in order to survive they must expand their territory, and so they are constantly involved in wars against many enemies: humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, and other orc tribes.

Orcs vary widely in appearance, as they frequently crossbreed with other species. In general, they resemble primitive humans with grey-green skin covered with coarse hair. Orcs have a slightly stooped posture, a low jutting forehead, and a snout instead of a nose, though comparisons between this facial feature and those of pigs are exaggerated and perhaps unfair. Orcs have well-developed canine teeth for eating meat and short pointed ears that resemble those of a wolf. Orcish snouts and ears have a slightly pink tinge. Their eyes are human, with a reddish tint that sometimes makes them appear to glow red when they reflect dim light sources in near darkness. This is actually part of their optical system, a pigment which gives them infravision. Male orcs are about 5½ to 6 feet tall. Females average 6 inches shorter than males. Orcs prefer to wear colors that most humans think unpleasant: blood red, rust red, mustard yellow, yellow green, moss green, greenish purple, and blackish brown. Their armor is unattractive besides — dirty and often a bit rusty.

Orcs have an average lifespan of 40 years. They have a gestation period of 10 months and produce two to three offspring per birth. Infant mortality is high. Orcs are carnivores, but prefer game meats or livestock to demihumans and humanoids.

It is said that orcs have no natural enemies, but they work hard to make up for this lack. Orc tribes have fearsome names such as Vile Rune, Bloody Head, Broken Bone, Evil Eye, and Dripping Blade.

Orcs are skilled miners who can spot new and unusual constructions 35% of the time and sloping passages 25% of the time. They are also excellent weaponsmiths._


Nothing there says that they are "created by arcanists or deities". In fact it says they reproduce naturally.


----------



## Minigiant

Hussar said:


> That's not right though.
> 
> Pre-3e, orcs were specfically delineated as humanoids.  They were specifically called out as such.  Numerous times in many places.




They were _called_ humanoids.
They didn't _act like_ humanoids.

That was the problem. Orcs acted like smart animals but since they had arms and legs, the game called them humanoid.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> They were _called_ humanoids.
> They didn't _act like_ humanoids.
> 
> That was the problem. Orcs acted like smart animals but since they had arms and legs, the game called them humanoid.



Smart animals avoid humans, they don't try and eat them and thereby get themselves annihilated.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> Smart animals avoid humans, they don't and eat them and thereby get themselves annihilated.




In D&D smart animals are monstrous humanoids.

If you have orcs be always or mostly evil by nature and not capable of making a no evil society, they aren't humanoids. They a big smart chimps with tusks


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> In D&D smart animals are monstrous humanoids.
> 
> If you have orcs be always or mostly evil by nature and not capable of making a no evil society, they aren't humanoids. They a big smart chimps with tusks



Chimps have a society, although they also seem to share at least some capacity for evil with humans. The properly smart animals are the wolves who put their ears down, turned their head on one side, and made themselves useful to humans.

1st edition was a bit prone to misusing the English language, since it uses "humanoid" to mean "humanoid monster". In 1st edition humans weren't humanoid. Go figure!

But how did orcs behave in first edition? Mostly they stood around in small underground rooms waiting for someone to come and kill them and steal their stuff.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Wolf72 said:


> Speaking out of turn, and possibly out of place ... but where did SD claim that it was an impossibility for those races to have very rare good members?
> 
> I thought he was getting at the 99% of them are evil, those rare anomalies, are just that.  And quite possibly make some good reading. (Man I wish I could have kept up with with RA Salvatore, but I'll be content rereading my spine broke Icewind Dale Trilogy).




"Very rare Good members" isn't what I'm talking about first of all. And While he hasn't directly stated it was impossible he did say (and I'm summarizing) that if it were possible for orcs and goblins deep down, to be good, then all those times that the players killed them are murder, and the characters are evil and that isnt appropriate for a kids game. 

It was just a few posts ago, so it shouldn't be too hard to find


----------



## Chaosmancer

Sacrosanct said:


> I apologize if I misread or misconstrued what was going on, but it didn't seem like steeldragons was talking about making the game officially like what they wanted, but was talking about their own personal table and preferences. I think their comment about "thankfully we don't game at each other's table" gave me that impression that it was a personal take thing, rather than an official position wotc should take




Which, again, hey that's cool. I'm not going to kick down people's doors. 

But, we have stated, repeatedly, that an aspect of this discussion is what WoTC should do officially for the future of DnD. The OP started with that same premise, what should WoTC do. If this was only about what we would like to do at our own tables, the conversation would have been over. I made the changes I wanted to, nothing more to discuss. But, we aren't talking about individual tables, we are trying to discuss where the game should go in the future.


----------



## Chaosmancer

steeldragons said:


> Who said it was difficult to imagine?




You seem to have been having difficulty with it, implying that it was impossible to do so and still have the game work as intended.



steeldragons said:


> Other Drizzt, I have no idea to whom you are referring. ...and I really don't consider some last minute sidekick generated for as much "oo wow how funky broody different" as the ONE good drow in the Forgotten Realms as a model upon which to base making any/all creatures allowed to think/do whatever they want.




See, you seem to think that just because Driz'zt was first, there is no reason to consider any other good Drow. There is an entire Goddess in charge of an entire community of Good Aligned Drow, whose portfolio is literally redemption. Why does "driz'zt was too edgy" erase the lore of the game world? 

Storm King's Thunder features a good aligned Frost giant named Harshnag the Grim showing that it isn't just Drow too.

And this isn't just a Forgotten Realms thing either, Verden Leafglow is a Green Dragon from the Dragonlance Series who was a good aligned green dragon that helped end a war. 

And then you have Eberron, where none of these races is inherently evil.

And personally, I don't care that you don't care, but if you want to make the claim that Giants, Drow and Chromatic Dragons can't be good, then the literal evidence that they can be is pretty unassailable.



steeldragons said:


> No one said orcs or goblins were "more evil" than Drow or Chromatics...though they, indisputably and irretrievably, are evil also.
> 
> Also, I never said -nor even implied- it was something that is "impossible to do." It's simply unnecessary and undesirable for the game.




Sorry, it isn't undesirable and whether or not it is neccessary is a moot point. It has happened. 

And, here is my point. Drow and Chromatics are not irretrievably evil. Proven point, they can turn good. Lux was a Red Dragon from FR that had a change of conscious and turned good. It does happen. Elistraea is literally the goddess of good drow

So, either Orcs and Goblins was more evil than drow and chromatics, and actually irretrievably evil... or they aren't. And my money goes on them not being irretrievably evil



steeldragons said:


> That is, also, untrue and not anything I ever said.
> 
> The only one of these "good from an evil race" characters that you seem to think are so widespread and popular, is Drizzt. I know he exists. I just see no reason that he should/does (after all this time). This singular afterthought from some Salvatore book should be "trend setting," let alone dictating anything, within the game. A single character in some fiction is not grounds for altering how every species or every imaginary creature and culture across D&D is "just like humans" -even though Dripz only exists in Forgotten Realms, whether they use him as the 'Elf" species picture in PHB or not.
> 
> Again, not "impossible." Never said that. Just unwanted...and unnecessary as almost all "change for change's sake" -more often than not, these days, exulted by the ridiculous label of "innovation" - is.




Hey look, not just Drizz't. There are examples from DnD and a variety of settings going back decades. So, you are just plain wrong. The only one who is super famous that everyone knows might be Drizz't, but that is like saying that just because you know one famous person from Alaska that you don't need to believe anyone else lives there. 

Your claim is just flat wrong.



steeldragons said:


> Right. This.
> 
> Nothing I (or any of us here) say is going to matter to what WotC ultimately does anyway.




Maybe, maybe not. Things certainly will never change if we just shrug and act like it doesn't matter though


----------



## Chaosmancer

jmartkdr2 said:


> Not quite sure where people are getting the idea that this thread is exclusively about the future of DnD as though we're somehow involved in those decisions. OP certainly didn't say so.




Title of the thread

"Bring back the Pig Faced orcs *for 6th edition* change up hobgoblins is there a history of the design change"

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet that 6th edition isn't being made at individual tables, bet it is being made by WoTC.

Edit: Sorry, guess I shouldn't respond before reading a few more posts. Hate catching up.


----------



## Hussar

Minigiant said:


> They were _called_ humanoids.
> They didn't _act like_ humanoids.
> 
> That was the problem. Orcs acted like smart animals but since they had arms and legs, the game called them humanoid.



What are you talking about?  Orcs had cities and even countries.  Adventures like The Silver Key presented orcs as having entire cities and cultures.  

Orcs, right from the get go, have never been "smart animals".  They were city building expansionists with language and culture and history.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> "Some orcs are peaceful, existing as hunters, farmers, and trappers. Others are vicious raiders, performing vile acts for evil gods and spirits. Still others are just boisterous bruisers, enjoying a good fight without any need for it to end in death. In general, orcs tend to have strong emotions and are often reactionary, taking strong umbrage to perceived or actual slights which sometimes has lead to battle when they couldn't be pacified."




That's rather generic and hardly a complete "culture" or indicative of much of anything.  I think you'd have to have a few hundred words to actually establish a "feel".  I also think it leans into "hot tempered [insert race here]".  That's fine of course, I wouldn't expect much more.  Now do the same for drow, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc..  Make them all distinct and unique.

Or ... do like I said in #3 of my post of what I would change in 6E, have a section in the DMG (and a more prominent section in the MM) about alternatives to the default adversarial monsters listed in the Monster Manual.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> Just with the drow as an example, are you just unaware that good drow are numerous enough to have a goddess and everything, or just purposefully ignoring them for effect?
> 
> Also the idea that probably the single most recognizable D&D character is 'an afterthought'? I don't even like him and... really?




I just want to point out that the good drow you are discussing are campaign specific to the Forgotten Realms.  FR is not D&D.


----------



## Oofta

doctorbadwolf said:


> You deride people for pointing out that we aren’t talking about your campaign...and then explicitly say that the game in general should be a certain way, which is unavoidably a comment on the game as a whole, not your campaign.
> 
> Orcs should be diverse. They are a player race, and that isn’t going to go away.




So your response to my _queue the "we're not just talking about your campaign complaint"_ is to complain that we aren't talking about my campaign.  Thanks for the consistency, I guess.

You wanted me to state what I thought 6E should do, I did that over here.  How orcs are handled and whether they should be a playable race in any specific campaign should be left up to the DM and table.


----------



## steeldragons

Umbran said:


> Here's the point that you seem to completely miss.  This is not, "for change's sake".
> 
> This is for sake of taking one small step away from systemic problems.
> 
> Get on board with that, or not, as you prefer.



There's a systemic problem with how D&D presents monstrous humanoids? Really? 

Systemic problems in the default game, I mean, of course, not individual tables. Gotta make sure we make that distinction. It seems very important to some folks for some reason.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

not-so-newguy said:


> View attachment 135282
> 
> This is how I picture Orcs and it will always be how I will picture Orcs. It's a mook staple of... erm .... Jabba the Hutt.
> 
> Edited in order to defeat my arch-nemesis English Grammar.



I think the future direction of the Orcs will be less Gamorreans and more Gamora. I'm fine with that.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think the future direction of the Orcs will be less Gamorreans and more Gamora. I'm fine with that.



It's funny because it's true.


----------



## steeldragons

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think the future direction of the Orcs will be less Gamorreans and more Gamora. I'm fine with that.



Though I can't actually roll my eyes any louder (because as soon as I saw this post I agreed!), I am fairly certain you are correct.


----------



## not-so-newguy

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think the future direction of the Orcs will be less Gamorreans and more Gamora. I'm fine with that.



No doubt you're right. 

Captain Kirk will definitely hook up with her.


----------



## not-so-newguy

Hey everybody, my Half-Kirk barbarian is so bada$$.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

steeldragons said:


> Those monsters and their "enslave the world demon cultist necromancer masters," they're really just misunderstood.



This is wildly disingenuous. The cult that wants to enslave the world is evil because it’s members have chosen to do evil work upon the world. 

If a group of guys walks into a mall with assault rifles and bombs, and you shoot them to stop them, you haven’t committed murder.

Likewise, when my gnome rogue ganked the necromancer who was defiling a temple to break one of the seals that keep demons out of the world, raising the local dead in the process to kill the living, he performed a Good act. The fact that the necromancer could theoretically be redeemed doesn’t matter, she had to be stopped.

We call adventurers who kill with no motive other than looting “murder-hobos” for a reason. We don’t call adventures who stop the cult of elemental evil that, even though they are killing humans and genasi and aarakokra, all of whom are certainly possessed of free will.


----------



## Oofta

not-so-newguy said:


> Hey everybody, my Half-Kirk barbarian is so bada$$.



And. So. Melo. Dramatic.


----------



## not-so-newguy

Oofta said:


> And. So. Melo. Dramatic.



My barbarian invokes his barbarian rage.
Half-Kirk: KAAAAAAHN!!!!
----------------------------------------------
ok, I'll stop.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> They were _called_ humanoids.
> They didn't _act like_ humanoids.
> 
> That was the problem. Orcs acted like smart animals but since they had arms and legs, the game called them humanoid.



Except they were tool making city building, skilled miners and crafts folk, with a culture and language and ability to learn other languages. Literally their entire history in D&D . They have literally never been why you describe.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> I just want to point out that the good drow you are discussing are campaign specific to the Forgotten Realms.  FR is not D&D.




"They only exist in the most popular setting in DnD, that is practically the default for the setting." Oh and Eberron which is another massively popular setting (the goddess doesn't exist, but Good Drow do). Oh, and Exandria where they specifically have a Drow empire that isn't evil.

And... hmm, no drow good or evil in Ravnica, Theros, or Ravenloft.


Doesn't that cover every published setting for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition? Meaning that, if you are using an official setting, you either have no Drow, or Drow that could be Good or Evil? So.. what part of DnD 5e is limited to just evil Drow and nothing else?


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> Except they were tool making city building, skilled miners and crafts folk, with a culture and language and ability to learn other languages. Literally their entire history in D&D . They have literally never been why you describe.





To me, ttoolmaking and city building doesn't make you a humanoid  Being able to choose ones path and alignment does.


Pigmonster orcs are monstrous humanoids to me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> To me, ttoolmaking and city building doesn't make you a humanoid  Being able to choose ones path and alignment does.
> 
> 
> Pigmonster orcs are monstrous humanoids to me.



Their alignment is listed as often or usually not always. THey can choose.


----------



## Umbran

steeldragons said:


> I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures...and then getting all worked up pretending these are some kind of real world analogue for racial strife, inject racism into my game and demand social justice debates in the fantasy game/world of make-believe. It's a game of heroic adventure in a world of magic for crying out loud.




*Mod Note:*

Then, by all means, go play it that way, and stay out of conversations about things you aren't interested in. We'll make this easier, by relieving you of the ability to respond to the thread.  Go find something to discuss that you actually find constructive.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> "They only exist in the most popular setting in DnD, that is practically the default for the setting." Oh and Eberron which is another massively popular setting (the goddess doesn't exist, but Good Drow do). Oh, and Exandria where they specifically have a Drow empire that isn't evil.
> 
> And... hmm, no drow good or evil in Ravnica, Theros, or Ravenloft.
> 
> 
> Doesn't that cover every published setting for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition? Meaning that, if you are using an official setting, you either have no Drow, or Drow that could be Good or Evil? So.. what part of DnD 5e is limited to just evil Drow and nothing else?



Yes, I agree.  They exist in campaign specific books.  Which is what I said.


----------



## Umbran

Oofta said:


> Yes, I agree.  They exist in campaign specific books.  Which is what I said.




Technically _setting_ specific books.

"The default presentation should meet _my_ needs/preference and everyone else should have to adapt on their own," seems like it works... until two people say it and they have notably different needs or preferences, of course.


----------



## Charlaquin

Umbran said:


> Technically _setting_ specific books.
> 
> "The default presentation should meet _my_ needs/preference and everyone else should have to adapt on their own," seems like it works... until two people say it and they have notably different needs or preferences, of course.



Right, which is why a default that leaves room for the _possibility_ of any alignment is ideal. For specific settings, you can opt out of any alignment you don’t want whatever group to have.


----------



## Umbran

Charlaquin said:


> Right, which is why a default that leaves room for the _possibility_ of any alignment is ideal.




I think the ideal default is the one that sells better.

I also think that "villain humanoid species" is a tenet of older gamers (dare I mix threads and call it a grognard-notion?).  These are folks who are aging out of the market.  The winner in this will ultimately be what the next generation of gamers is apt to like better.


----------



## Azzy

QuentinGeorge said:


> There was literally a non-evil drow in the Vault of the Drow adventure, part of the series where they were introduced. I think it's pretty clear Gygax was under the impression drow had free will. I don't know if Gygax even intended for the Lolth-worshipping drow to be typical of the whole race rather than just that one city.



As far as Lolth-worship, 1e D&DG says, "The dark elves worship demon lords from the Abyss. The best known example is the worship of the Demon Queen Lolth."

As far as drow having free-will—that's inarguable given that, by the rules that Gygax wrote for the 1e UA—drow are capable of being rangers (which MUST be good-aligned).


----------



## Charlaquin

Umbran said:


> I think the idea default is the one that sells better.



Certainly it is from WotC’s perspective.


----------



## Azzy

Minigiant said:


> I'd argue that  Orcs were monstrosities Pre-3e and humanoid 3e and onward. That's the disconnect.
> 
> Many people refuse to admit that before 3rd edition, orcs were not humanoid and closer to a beastman like the old minotaur and harpies.



You might want to go back and read your AD&D lore again. Orcs had societies, villages, were capable of being craftsmen, etc.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> That's rather generic and hardly a complete "culture" or indicative of much of anything.  I think you'd have to have a few hundred words to actually establish a "feel".  I also think it leans into "hot tempered [insert race here]".  That's fine of course, I wouldn't expect much more.  Now do the same for drow, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc..  Make them all distinct and unique.



That's a paragraph written on the fly on a forum post. You expect me to come up with multiple generic-but-distinct cultures in the space of a couple of minutes? _Seriously_?

Nothing wrong with orcs being emotional. That's a bit of biology that both makes sense _and _is divorced from alignment. An emotional orc can be deeply romantic, strongly patriotic, a champion of the downtrodden, a zealot worshiper, a ruthless tyrant, a violent murderer, or more.

Here's a basic idea for drow: They're elves who live underground. Gasp! The subterranean world is as beautiful and natural as the surface world, after all.



Spoiler: Pictures, Spoilered for Size







(Crystal Caves, Bermuda)




(Fingal's Cave, Scotland)




(Waitomo Glowworm Cave, New Zealand)



So if you get elves wherever you get places of natural beauty, then of course you'd get elves underground.

You want to use Lolth? So some elves, ages ago, sought power and made deals with demons. Their descendants continue to maintain these deals, and _some _of them are the rulers of large cities. The common folk are just normal elves, trying to live their lives, but the rulers control them with a demon-iron fist--and demon-granted magic. Other Lolth-worshipers live more in hiding, trying to recruit the unsuspecting into their cults.



Oofta said:


> Or ... do like I said in #3 of my post of what I would change in 6E, have a section in the DMG (and a more prominent section in the MM) about alternatives to the default adversarial monsters listed in the Monster Manual.



Or, make the various humanoids more neutral in alignment and have sections on how to make them into adversaries.

*Orcs: *If used as adversaries, their tendency towards hot-headedness means they don't do well in large, highly-disciplined armies, but make for excellent raiders in groups of a hundred or fewer.​​*Elves:* If used as adversaries, their highly magical natures and typical sense of superiority means that they are probably best used as controllers who seek to prevent "lesser" species from becoming equals, such as by preventing other people from learning higher magics.​
Stuff like that.


----------



## Faolyn

Chaosmancer said:


> And... hmm, no drow good or evil in Ravnica, Theros, or Ravenloft.



Actually, there _had _been a bunch of drow in Ravenloft, in the domain of Arak. But they're dead now.


----------



## Charlaquin

Faolyn said:


> Actually, there _had _been a bunch of drow in Ravenloft, in the domain of Arak. But they're dead now.



I just have the night elves be drow


----------



## Umbran

Charlaquin said:


> Certainly it is from WotC’s perspective.




I think that holds also from the perspective of gaming overall.  

WotC, and D&D, are the tide upon which all gaming rises and falls.  Until a 900-lb gorilla comes along to unseat the 800-lb one, then D&D selling well is a boon to all gamers, even those whose preference ceases to be the default presentation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Umbran said:


> I think that holds also from the perspective of gaming overall.
> 
> WotC, and D&D, are the tide upon which all gaming rises and falls.  Until a 900-lb gorilla comes along to unseat the 800-lb one, then D&D selling well is a boon to all gamers, even those whose preference ceases to be the default presentation.



Personally I’m more concerned with the content of the game than its sales.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Azzy said:


> As far as drow having free-will—that's inarguable given that, by the rules that Gygax wrote for the 1e UA—drow are capable of being rangers (which MUST be good-aligned).



You're right. Checking the text, it's quite explicit -- "Drow are generally evil and chaotic in nature, though player characters are not required to be so" (page 10). It says much the same about duergar -- "While the majority of the members of this sub-race are of lawful evil alignment (with neutral tendencies), player characters who are gray dwarves may be of any alignment" (page 10).


----------



## Mirtek

Charlaquin said:


> Certainly it is from WotC’s perspective.



And that's apparent in how WotC is acting.

Orcs have become more and more de-villianized from 2e onward. Only for the Sundering leading up to 5e to reverse all of this.

Razing the Kingdom of Many-Arrows to the ground and having Cattie Brie re-incarnate with what's basically a divine verdict from Mielliki (of all deities) stating that all orcs and goblionoids are evil and should be put to the sword, including babies (yes that was actually mentioned in one of the Drizzt novels).

Then they published Volo's and make them even more into relgious fanatics. Yes, all those orc deities existed before, but that's all they did. They were introduced in Monster Mythology, received a few sentences in passing here and there, but otherwise never were really prominent.

Until WotC chose to pull them to the front. "Orcs: The Godsworn" that's certainly a new direction as before they never really mentioned anyone but Gruumsh and even him not that feverishly.

Obviously WotC thought the "tamed orcs" were disliked by people and turning them back into "kill on sight beasts" would sell better.

Then they noticed that they may have misscalculated and now just do the exact opposite.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Mirtek said:


> And that's apparent in how WotC is acting.
> 
> Orcs have become more and more de-villianized from 2e onward. Only for the Sundering leading up to 5e to reverse all of this.
> 
> Razing the Kingdom of Many-Arrows to the ground and having Cattie Brie re-incarnate with what's basically a divine verdict from Mielliki (of all deities) stating that all orcs and goblionoids are evil and should be put to the sword, including babies (yes that was actually mentioned in one of the Drizzt novels).
> 
> Then they published Volo's and make them even more into relgious fanatics. Yes, all those orc deities existed before, but that's all they did. They were introduced in Monster Mythology, received a few sentences in passing here and there, but otherwise never were really prominent.
> 
> Until WotC chose to pull them to the front. "Orcs: The Godsworn" that's certainly a new direction as they never really mentioned anyobe but Gruumsh and even him not that feverishly before.
> 
> Obviously WotC though the "tamed orcs" were disliked by people and turning them back into "kill on sight beasts" would sell better.
> 
> Then they noticed that they may have misscalculated and now just do the exact opposite.



It goes back even further than that.

Many have noticed that the language going between the 4e MMs, which did a lot of world and culture building and was generally careful about using problematic terms when talking about the 'monster' races (see especially: Gnolls) and the 4e Monster Vault became a lot more... colorful. Like the authors' voice in the Vault has the same palpable sneering hatred for non demi-humans that Volos has without the conceit of being written in-universe.


----------



## Minigiant

Azzy said:


> You might want to go back and read your AD&D lore again. Orcs had societies, villages, were capable of being craftsmen, etc.




Doesn't make them humaniod people if players, author's, and DMs force them all to be mind controlled to evil.


----------



## Azzy

Minigiant said:


> Doesn't make them humaniod people if players, author's, and DMs force them all to be mind controlled to evil.



Huh? The authors certainly didn't, nor did any of the players or DMs that I've known.


----------



## Faolyn

Charlaquin said:


> I just have the night elves be drow



I prefer to go full fey. I rather like the sith and shee, although I combined them into a single species since the idea of one arak fey per alignment was just silly.


----------



## Wolf72

steeldragons said:


> In closing, YES to evil pig-faced orcs!
> 
> That is all.



Agreed.

Drow as good is a mostly FR thing.  OR once in a great while thing if you are using the 1e Unearthed Arcana and you have your Longsword two-weapon wielding Ranger a short few years before Crystal Shard hit the shelves.  (Mine made it to 8th level, had a permanent limp and lost 2 points of con due to being resurrected twice ... I got my a** handed to me a few times ... stupid black dragon!)

Well, on second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place. -- Not sure how that fits, but it's what I was feeling over the last few threads.


----------



## Wolf72

Urriak Uruk said:


> I don't think you really understood my play there; I was saying that the Scarlet Brotherhood (who are Suel) would say much of the same things SD said about goblins, but they would say it about Baklunish (a different group of humans). So I was attempting to point out that the words SD was using were extremely similar to race supremacists.



Oh, I got that.  As SD pointed out before (someone correct me if I'm under/overstating something) it's a fantasy setting that originally did not have as much social realism as many are introducing now.  Many of us are happy that way, woot.  Many want to change it, woot.  But don't claim that it was something that it was not.

I don't think it fits.  I feel like you'll be telling me that the orcs in LoTR really weren't that bad and it was the Elves who were evil ones.  Switch a few words and you can easily go down that rabbit hole.

Or that's how the Scarlet Brotherhood would justify their actions.  It's not like there is a history of goblins turning out the way they did from centuries of persecution and mistrust.  I mean, they could have been if that's the way you want them.  But that is not how they were originally introduced.  They really were evil and meant to be the targets of the heroes.

For a lighter hearted version: Read the real story of the 3 little pigs ... The Wolf was framed, it was all the pigs fault (one of the more fun kids books).


----------



## Oofta

Umbran said:


> I think the ideal default is the one that sells better.
> 
> I also think that "villain humanoid species" is a tenet of older gamers (dare I mix threads and call it a grognard-notion?).  These are folks who are aging out of the market.  The winner in this will ultimately be what the next generation of gamers is apt to like better.



Funny.  Saying that you believe it's okay for orcs to be evil in some campaign settings  that shouldn't be an issue and it's verboten.  Have an age bias and it's not a big deal.  

I currently game with several 20 somethings.  We've discussed it, none of them have an issue with all orcs they will ever encounter in our campaigns being evil.  They accept that it's just a game, and it's a game that uses monsters.  So saying it's "only" old timers that want evil orcs is simply not true.  It's not like everyone of any group will agree on any topic in the first place. 

Obviously a survey a half dozen millennials gen Xers isn't comprehensive.  Depending on how you word the survey, you may even get different results.  Just relaying that it's not "just" older gamers.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Umbran said:


> I think the ideal default is the one that sells better.
> 
> I also think that "villain humanoid species" is a tenet of older gamers (dare I mix threads and call it a grognard-notion?).  These are folks who are aging out of the market.  The winner in this will ultimately be what the next generation of gamers is apt to like better.



Ehh maybe but I was introducing lawful and chaotic good orcs into my games in 1981 and yes that means I am godawfully oldish now (50). My point is that this concept does not strike me as new. Just rediscovered. 

In general, I think there's a lot of story potential around "evil race forged by demons/evil gods/old ones/mean wizards" turn out to be inherently no more evil than anyone else, but rather have been manipulated by the Big Bad to be such is a fun direction to explore in gaming. 

That said....I have a campaign setting where orcs are seething spawn of chaos with few redeemable qualities (and they all look like AD&D 1E pig faced orcs), another campaign where orcs are noble and independent people who have a bad rap because they are believed to have been born from the blood of a chaos god (these orcs look like WoW orcs), another campaign where they are cunning warlords descended from elves who seek to dominate the world (these orcs match the Tolkien look seen in the movies), and still another campaign where they are actually closely related to humans and descend from neanderthal stock, and are generally only regarded as bad because they backed the wrong king in a war a century ago.

I do the same thing with Drow, and even have a campaign where there are now drow at all, and elves are just as multiethnic as humans depending on location and climate and the evil elves are actually high elves who were enslaved by goblins and whose descendants turned the tides on their slavers around, becoming the masters of goblinoid society in turn....but they are not dark elves. In another campaign however the dark elves are actually shadowspawn created by Old Ones as a mockery of fair elves. And in another campaign the dark elves are actually the dock-alfar of the Feywild, dedicated to the unseelie court. 

This is the deal with D&D: no matter what the default campaign or Forgotten Realms say, you can (and should) make it your own.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Wolf72 said:


> Oh, I got that.  As SD pointed out before (someone correct me if I'm under/overstating something) it's a fantasy setting that originally did not have as much social realism as many are introducing now.  Many of us are happy that way, woot.  Many want to change it, woot.  But don't claim that it was something that it was not.
> 
> I don't think it fits.  I feel like you'll be telling me that the orcs in LoTR really weren't that bad and it was the Elves who were evil ones.  Switch a few words and you can easily go down that rabbit hole.
> 
> Or that's how the Scarlet Brotherhood would justify their actions.  It's not like there is a history of goblins turning out the way they did from centuries of persecution and mistrust.  I mean, they could have been if that's the way you want them.  But that is not how they were originally introduced.  They really were evil and meant to be the targets of the heroes.
> 
> For a lighter hearted version: Read the real story of the 3 little pigs ... The Wolf was framed, it was all the pigs fault (one of the more fun kids books).




I mean, you seem to miss the point. I won't deny that Greyhawk or Lord of the Rings were made with races of goblinoids or orcs that are meant to be evil through-and-through. They were made that way.

What I am saying, is that this as a concept reinforces some of the beliefs that real-world supremacists believe. They believe that some races are superior (genetically, culturally, whatever excuse they invent) than others. They'll even cite classic fantasy, and point out things like how Tolkien was partly inspired by Mongolians when devising the look of orcs.

So no, I don't think orcs as presented in either Greyhawk or LotR are meant to be "not that bad" or something. But I do think that this trope is overused in classic fiction and one that real-world racists love to see circulated.

That doesn't mean I don't think you can create an enemy that is meant to be "kill-on-sight." Warhammer orks (a fungus) or Tyranids (a hive-mind) or even 5E gnolls (a fiendish curse) are good examples. But a race that has tribes, gender, raises children? This is something that shouldn't be continued.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Urriak Uruk said:


> I mean, you seem to miss the point. I won't deny that Greyhawk or Lord of the Rings were made with races of goblinoids or orcs that are meant to be evil through-and-through. They were made that way.
> 
> What I am saying, is that this as a concept reinforces some of the beliefs that real-world supremacists believe. They believe that some races are superior (genetically, culturally, whatever excuse they invent) than others. They'll even cite classic fantasy, and point out things like how Tolkien was partly inspired by Mongolians when devising the look of orcs.
> 
> So no, I don't think orcs as presented in either Greyhawk or LotR are meant to be "not that bad" or something. But I do think that this trope is overused in classic fiction and one that real-world racists love to see circulated.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't think you can create an enemy that is meant to be "kill-on-sight." Warhammer orks (a fungus) or Tyranids (a hive-mind) or even 5E gnolls (a fiendish curse) are good examples. But a race that has tribes, gender, raises children? This is something that shouldn't be continued.



It is a fair argument that if the orcs are portrayed as having a society, culture, children, etc. then at minimum the game ought to include some clarity on just why they are predominantly evil....I sometimes think certain cultures are "CE or LE" mostly because they by definition cannot get along with or be accepted by a more traditional view of D&D's human cultures as mostly historically flawed and medieval....in other words, evil is in the eye of the beholder. But D&D has been moving away from strictly historical/medieval defaults for fantasy settings for at least 30 years now. 

OTOH if the orcs are really just Fantasy Nazis then that could explain it, but the truth is.....adding more flavor and detail into the Why of it All is so much more interesting to me, and if an entire category is CE or LE I'd like to know why (gnolls in 5E as you point out being a fine example of this).


----------



## Bitbrain

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back
> 
> why?
> 1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
> hobgoblin
> 1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)




Orcs - I completely disagree.  Orcs behaving/becoming more and more like humans is far more interesting in my opinion than having orcs just be some monstrous threat.

Hobgoblins - Um... 5e basically flavored these guys as the fantasy Roman Legion to the orcs’ Barbarian Horde.  That makes them feel plenty distinct in my opinion.


----------



## Wolf72

Urriak Uruk said:


> I mean, you seem to miss the point. I won't deny that Greyhawk or Lord of the Rings were made with races of goblinoids or orcs that are meant to be evil through-and-through. They were made that way.
> 
> What I am saying, is that this as a concept reinforces some of the beliefs that real-world supremacists believe. They believe that some races are superior (genetically, culturally, whatever excuse they invent) than others. They'll even cite classic fantasy, and point out things like how Tolkien was partly inspired by Mongolians when devising the look of orcs.
> 
> So no, I don't think orcs as presented in either Greyhawk or LotR are meant to be "not that bad" or something. But I do think that this trope is overused in classic fiction and one that real-world racists love to see circulated.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't think you can create an enemy that is meant to be "kill-on-sight." Warhammer orks (a fungus) or Tyranids (a hive-mind) or even 5E gnolls (a fiendish curse) are good examples. But a race that has tribes, gender, raises children? This is something that shouldn't be continued.




That's some muddied waters there. If someone is citing a fantasy world or a fantasy world seems to somehow reinforce some real world supremacist agenda I think we need to take a step back.  If Fiction can't be separated from Non-fiction, we have some bigger issues.  My fantasy world is just that, the real world is ... well, real.  If what you say is that alarming, my entire fantasy and fiction collection needs to go. Buh-bye Wheel of Time, Malazan series, LotR, The Black Company, all the others I can't name off the top of my head.

Yes, you can use real world inspirations.  Sure, you can look to a favorite fantasy for inspiration.  And yes, some people will put them to dark ends no matter what you do.  But to claim that an Evil race from a purely fantasy game is supporting or opening the ideas of real world racism is a heavy burden.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Wolf72 said:


> That's some muddied waters there. If someone is citing a fantasy world or a fantasy world seems to somehow reinforce some real world supremacist agenda I think we need to take a step back.  If Fiction can't be separated from Non-fiction, we have some bigger issues.  My fantasy world is just that, the real world is ... well, real.  If what you say is that alarming, my entire fantasy and fiction collection needs to go. Buh-bye Wheel of Time, Malazan series, LotR, The Black Company, all the others I can't name off the top of my head.
> 
> Yes, you can use real world inspirations.  Sure, you can look to a favorite fantasy for inspiration.  And yes, some people will put them to dark ends no matter what you do.  But to claim that an Evil race from a purely fantasy game is supporting or opening the ideas of real world racism is a heavy burden.




I won't quibble too much on other works of fiction, as each explains "evil races" in their own way (do orcs in LotR really have "baby orcs?"). But in a game like Dungeons & Dragons, which is inherently collaborative story-telling, having the default text out of the PHB/DMG/MM needs to avoid any association to supremacist language.

For example, look at this text for Half-Orcs and their alignment;

_Half-Orcs__ inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-Orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil._

I encourage you to listen to Three Black Halflings, a podcast that explains much of D&D's problematic history while also being funny and useful for running games generally. They point out how language like this sets an extremely bad precedent, as it's essentially saying "As a mixed-race person, you need to deal with being inherently half-EVIL." This is something real mixed race people sometimes feel, and reading text like that... well, it's kind of effed up. It's literally something that Apartheid South Africa used to categorize people. I get you don't feel that way, but people part of marginalized groups _do _want this kind of language changed.

Anyway, I'm clearly not convincing anyone so I think I'm done commenting, but I'll say that there really is no drawback to making such changes. The game doesn't become worse by making some races a little more complicated (instead of just _even the babies are evil!_), or making their lore more divorced from real ancestry (looking at you, 5E gnolls).


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Yes, I agree.  They exist in campaign specific books.  Which is what I said.




Every single setting book that they exist in. 

So why is the default that they must be evil, but every setting that includes them makes them able to be good or evil? Doesn't that seem like... the default is wrong? 

It like saying that "by default I'm at work, except when I'm off work which is monday, tuesday, wednesday and thursday, but only those specific days". That is half the week, so how is the default that you are working when 4/7 of the time you aren't?


----------



## Charlaquin

Urriak Uruk said:


> (do orcs in LotR really have "baby orcs?").



Yes


----------



## wicked cool

Bitbrain said:


> Orcs - I completely disagree.  Orcs behaving/becoming more and more like humans is far more interesting in my opinion than having orcs just be some monstrous threat.
> 
> Hobgoblins - Um... 5e basically flavored these guys as the fantasy Roman Legion to the orcs’ Barbarian Horde.  That makes them feel plenty distinct in my opinion.



And yet they were created as enemies. As you say the barbarian horde (like the tv show Vikings). The additional problem is 1/2 orcs have been become a more common race. I prefer my orcs to be like the Tolkien orcs and want to eat the humans

hobgoblins are legionnaires and fight better together but there’s very little creativity on wotc’s side for hobgoblin generals/etc. The last creative hobgoblin was toed from dragon lance. Much more effort has been put into kobolds, gnolls and bugbears


----------



## Hussar

Wolf72 said:


> That's some muddied waters there. If someone is citing a fantasy world or a fantasy world seems to somehow reinforce some real world supremacist agenda I think we need to take a step back.  If Fiction can't be separated from Non-fiction, we have some bigger issues.  My fantasy world is just that, the real world is ... well, real.  If what you say is that alarming, my entire fantasy and fiction collection needs to go. Buh-bye Wheel of Time, Malazan series, LotR, The Black Company, all the others I can't name off the top of my head.
> 
> Yes, you can use real world inspirations.  Sure, you can look to a favorite fantasy for inspiration.  And yes, some people will put them to dark ends no matter what you do.  But to claim that an Evil race from a purely fantasy game is supporting or opening the ideas of real world racism is a heavy burden.



What are you talking about?  Erikson deconstructs so much of the inherent racism in fantasy in the Malazan series.  He has entire books deconstructing the tropes and racism.  He's talked about it publicly, many times.  

The Black Company?  Again, not sure what you are talking about at all.  There's nothing I recall in the series that even tangentially relates to the topic.

Good grief, do we need to repeat it again?  The problem with orcs (and a couple of other humanoids) is that the language used describing these races directly parallels the language used by racists to describe real world peoples.  

For orcs this becomes especially problematic since, according the information we have, half-orcs are among the most popular played races in the game.  One stat I saw pegged it at 5%.  Which puts it in Gnome Effect territory, meaning that out of 4 groups of 5 players, one of those groups will have someone playing an orc, or, to put it another way, this affects 1/4 of the groups out there.  

Now, some groups, like @Oofta's have decided that this isn't an issue. And that's perfectly, 100% groovy.  No problems.  But, at the end of the day, who cares?  I'm sorry @Oofta, but, why should I care that your group doesn't care about this issue?  If you can ignore the issue, you can ignore the fixed issue too.  It makes no difference to you, so, why not let those who DO care actually have what they want?  What does it cost you?  What are you losing?  As far as I can see, you lose absolutely nothing, and other people gain.  Net win.

It utterly baffles me when people argue against changes that have zero impact upon themselves.  Why do you care?


----------



## Bitbrain

wicked cool said:


> And yet they were created as enemies. As you say the barbarian horde (like the tv show Vikings). The additional problem is 1/2 orcs have been become a more common race. I prefer my orcs to be like the Tolkien orcs and want to eat the humans
> 
> hobgoblins are legionnaires and fight better together but there’s very little creativity on wotc’s side for hobgoblin generals/etc. The last creative hobgoblin was toed from dragon lance. Much more effort has been put into kobolds, gnolls and bugbears




Barbarian Horde as a contrast/comparison to the vastly more regimented society of the hobgoblins.  Not in the context of morality.

I don’t care if orcs were originally created to be villains and nothing else.  I perceive orcs as a humanoid species, therefore I think it is more interesting to have some tribes of orcs be good guys that you can trade with and fight alongside, and others be villains that you can fight against.

By creative, you mean WOTC hasn’t created another fleshed out hobgoblin NPC in a position of command?  Might want to check out _Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage_.  There are quite a few hobgoblin warlords in that adventure and they each have their own distinct personality and goals.


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> Every single setting book that they exist in.
> 
> So why is the default that they must be evil, but every setting that includes them makes them able to be good or evil? Doesn't that seem like... the default is wrong?
> 
> It like saying that "by default I'm at work, except when I'm off work which is monday, tuesday, wednesday and thursday, but only those specific days". That is half the week, so how is the default that you are working when 4/7 of the time you aren't?




Are they?  I don't remember any in Greyhawk (there was an orc servant IIRC to Robilar, but Robilar was evil).  Dragonlance didn't have orcs, I never used Mystara enough to know.  Eberron does a whole bunch of weird stuff which leaves ... wait for it ... Forgotten Realms.

In any case it just goes to show that people can change the base assumption.  I think if you want to vary from the base assumption for any monster in the book it should be part of world building.  The MM is the generic plain version that should be used as a starting point giving the description that fits adversaries for the PCs.  The MM does not and cannot represent every aspect of every creature ever used in every campaign setting.  For that matter, the races represented in the PHB have pretty minimal mono-cultures as well.  Because it's just a default.

Any variation from the base whether that's for monsters (of all types) or playable races IMHO should be left up to the campaign setting.  There should also be a big section in the DMG and maybe even in the MM on doing this, stressing that what you get out of the box is just a starting point.  I just don't see why orcs should be singled out over every other intelligent creature.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Are they?  I don't remember any in Greyhawk (there was an orc servant IIRC to Robilar, but Robilar was evil).  Dragonlance didn't have orcs, I never used Mystara enough to know.  Eberron does a whole bunch of weird stuff which leaves ... wait for it ... Forgotten Realms.




Huh, I didn't know you spelled "Drow" as orc. I mean, you do remember we were talking about Good Drow, right? 

And, I also can't seem to find my 5e copies of Greyhawk, Mystara and Dragonlance? Can you tell me what years those new campaign settings for 5th edition dungeons and dragons were published? 


Oh, sorry, mid conversation you abadoned saying that Drow are evil by default in 5e and instead switched back to orcs are evil by default in older editions of dungeons and dragons. Silly me. Well, we can discuss older versions of orcs, but I'd still like to hear about how Drow are supposed to be default evil in 5e and how that is totally the default despite half of the published settings having them be good or evil, and the other half not featuring them at all.



Oofta said:


> In any case it just goes to show that people can change the base assumption.  I think if you want to vary from the base assumption for any monster in the book it should be part of world building.  The MM is the generic plain version that should be used as a starting point giving the description that fits adversaries for the PCs.  The MM does not and cannot represent every aspect of every creature ever used in every campaign setting.  For that matter, the races represented in the PHB have pretty minimal mono-cultures as well.  Because it's just a default.
> 
> Any variation from the base whether that's for monsters (of all types) or playable races IMHO should be left up to the campaign setting.  There should also be a big section in the DMG and maybe even in the MM on doing this, stressing that what you get out of the box is just a starting point.  I just don't see why orcs should be singled out over every other intelligent creature.




It isn't just orcs. Heck, Drow are in the Players Handbook, despite being less popular than orcs and goblins. 

And, again, why does the base assumption have to fit the model of them being mono-cultured evil? Doesn't have to be the case for Dwarves or Elves. Those races are allowed to be a lot more complex, why not orcs and goblins? 

I mean, you say that the Elves are mono-cultured, but they have seeds for good and evil elves right there in the PHB. Same with Dwarves. It is obviously there and there is obviously not a problem with it, so, why not give that same treatment to the other popular player options? 

And the MM is capable of showing adversaries who could be good or evil. Cloud Giants, Azer, Ghosts, 
Dryads, Treants, Djinni and Marid, Myconids. And a lot of these races get less written about them than orcs and goblins and drow. So, if we can have those MM entries able to support being adversaries, good, or evil, then why not for the larger entries on Orcs, Goblins and Drow?


----------



## Oofta

Chaosmancer said:


> "They only exist in the most popular setting in DnD, that is practically the default for the setting." Oh and Eberron which is another massively popular setting (the goddess doesn't exist, but Good Drow do). Oh, and Exandria where they specifically have a Drow empire that isn't evil.
> 
> And... hmm, no drow good or evil in Ravnica, Theros, or Ravenloft.
> 
> 
> Doesn't that cover every published setting for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition? Meaning that, if you are using an official setting, you either have no Drow, or Drow that could be Good or Evil? So.. what part of DnD 5e is limited to just evil Drow and nothing else?



Yeah, I mixed them up.  But it doesn't matter because it's the same answer.  The PHB explicitly stated that you should ask your DM.

I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Oofta said:


> I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.



Or humans.


----------



## Wolf72

Hussar said:


> What are you talking about?  Erikson deconstructs so much of the inherent racism in fantasy in the Malazan series.  He has entire books deconstructing the tropes and racism.  He's talked about it publicly, many times.
> 
> The Black Company?  Again, not sure what you are talking about at all.  There's nothing I recall in the series that even tangentially relates to the topic.
> 
> Good grief, do we need to repeat it again?  The problem with orcs (and a couple of other humanoids) is that the language used describing these races directly parallels the language used by racists to describe real world peoples.
> 
> For orcs this becomes especially problematic since, according the information we have, half-orcs are among the most popular played races in the game.  One stat I saw pegged it at 5%.  Which puts it in Gnome Effect territory, meaning that out of 4 groups of 5 players, one of those groups will have someone playing an orc, or, to put it another way, this affects 1/4 of the groups out there.
> 
> Now, some groups, like @Oofta's have decided that this isn't an issue. And that's perfectly, 100% groovy.  No problems.  But, at the end of the day, who cares?  I'm sorry @Oofta, but, why should I care that your group doesn't care about this issue?  If you can ignore the issue, you can ignore the fixed issue too.  It makes no difference to you, so, why not let those who DO care actually have what they want?  What does it cost you?  What are you losing?  As far as I can see, you lose absolutely nothing, and other people gain.  Net win.
> 
> It utterly baffles me when people argue against changes that have zero impact upon themselves.  Why do you care?



Erikson: so there were no groups of elves (wait, were they elves? memory failing here) that had any claim to a superiority complex? or any of the ancient races?  Maybe we read different books.  Did I find his books racist? Not at all, they were works of fiction.  

Black Company et. al. -- Look, the point has been made that the language used has been used by those touting a racist agenda.  You could open any of those books, swap a few words and viola you have now turned any literature we have in fantasy and fiction into someone else's agenda.  It's been quite a while since I read them, but I'm pretty sure the fate of White Rose had she not been rescued as a young child would have been quite offensive.

I have ZERO problems with what WotC does with orcs.  I just don't think that tying correlations that have a real world impact into a fantasy setting is as strong as some make it to be, mostly because the ability to twist A into B is way to easy anywhere. 

Ignore it? well you've just repeated the moral of the argument.  If you don't like it, don't use it. I totally agree, just don't apply so much meta-thought to a situation to create something that isn't.  How is the orc issue not racist? Well, they are not real.

What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ... At some point the end user has a responsibility to act a in a mature manner and be able to have responsible conversations with other humans.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Wolf72 said:


> What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ... At some point the end user has a responsibility to act a in a mature manner and be able to have responsible conversations with other humans.



The hair being split is: it's not that any depiction of orc will _make_ someone racist. If you weren't already inclined that way, you won't read the MM fluff text and suddenly start to think it's proof that some real-world group of people are inferior or inherently evil. No one's arguing that.

However, for people affected by racism, seeing language that _mirrors_ racist talk can be uncomfortable. If said talk is being said by bad guys, or as proof that they are bad guys, or otherwise treated as wrong in some sense, it's usually fine, though. Racists are bad, so 'saying racist stuff' is a good way to kick the puppy.

But, and this is where WOTC has gotten in trouble lately: if racist-like talk is treated as _true and accurate_ in the setting, that makes people who are victims of racism uncomfortable with the game as a whole. And no one, especially not WOTC, wants people to feel that way.

Where are the limits? Well, that's tough, and will require constant work to keep track of. We aren't going to solve it here, and frankly I don't know if it can ever be permanently solved since the public's ideas about race and racism are constantly changing. What WOTC can do is work on it, consistently, and try to get better. People will appreciate the effort, and forgive the occasional misstep if the effort is clear.

I don't have the book but I've been told that how Volo's describes orcs is pretty bad, so not doing that would be a start. Getting rid of alignment entries for races as a whole would probably be good, since most races would vary. You could probably leave them in for individuals and monster stat blocks for stuff like 'orc raider' and 'drow priestess' though, because those clearly don't speak for all orcs/drow. Make sure that any 'inherently evil' groups are clearly fantastical in nature (that is, the reason for them being evil isn't the same as a racist trope.)The usual suggestions, really.


----------



## Faolyn

Wolf72 said:


> How is the orc issue not racist? Well, they are not real.
> 
> What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ...



Orcs may not be real, but the language used to describe them is often the same language used to denigrate real-life people. Look at the orc section in Volo's, which says that orcs can be "domesticated" _as if they were animals _but will still retain their bloodlust. 

_That's _what needs to be avoided. It's not up to players to ignore that paragraph; it's up to WotC to not include it in the first place.


----------



## Wolf72

If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion, they might as well not print anything at all.  Something somewhere will strike a cord with someone about some horrific event in their life.

When you split hairs, your arguments become razor thin and so circumstantial you'll be paralyzed with bringing up something that hits home to someone or some group.  Or the simple act of describing something is spot on to something that actually happened.

rabbit hole ... long and winding rabbit hole.  

As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse.  This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches.   Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way.  Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.

I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy.  If something hits home, I'm sorry.  Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere.  You cannot avoid it.  Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.

Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.

If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point.  I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.  

BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist.  To an extant, that is ... "correct/right".  That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back).  Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.  I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.

Time to step away (always easier said than done).  My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Wolf72 said:


> If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion, they might as well not print anything at all.  Something somewhere will strike a cord with someone about some horrific event in their life.
> 
> When you split hairs, your arguments become razor thin and so circumstantial you'll be paralyzed with bringing up something that hits home to someone or some group.  Or the simple act of describing something is spot on to something that actually happened.
> 
> rabbit hole ... long and winding rabbit hole.
> 
> As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse.  This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches.   Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way.  Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.
> 
> I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy.  If something hits home, I'm sorry.  Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere.  You cannot avoid it.  Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.
> 
> Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.
> 
> If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point.  I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.
> 
> BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist.  To an extant, that is ... "correct/right".  That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back).  Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.  I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.
> 
> Time to step away (always easier said than done).  My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.



This is the discourse. Art deserves to be deconstructed, talked about, examined... If there were easy answers, we wouldn't be talking about it.

In my view, there are many ways to love art. One way is to critique and examine it.

The entire genre of fantasy is rooted in the often xenophobic story of "us-versus-them" / civilization vs barbarians, light vs darkness, etc etc etc

That doesn't stop fantasy from being really fun or engaging.

But the discourse here is: how do we hold onto what we love about fantasy (literature, movies, games) without carrying forward racist tropes and stereotypes?


----------



## Faolyn

Wolf72 said:


> As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse.  This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches.   Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way.  Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.



This _isn't _the point here. We're not talking about individual traumas. We're talking about not using bigoted language and not making sweeping generalizations about entire species.



Wolf72 said:


> I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy.  If something hits home, I'm sorry.  Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere.  You cannot avoid it.



Yes, you can avoid it. 

For instance: rape. D&D books don't have it and barely even allude to it anymore, to the point that they now have "political marriage" as the reason for half-orcs (_orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, [...] When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born._). Rape is blatantly horrific, commonplace, will resonate everywhere, _and_ is quite historical. D&D manages to avoid it just fine. 

So that means that they can have orcs, drow, and other humanoids as having a wide an alignment spread as humans., with _some _being adversaries and _some _being allies and _some _being completely neutral.

_Why _does that concept bother you?



Wolf72 said:


> Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.
> 
> Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.



Except that the books are presenting this as an in-game fact, not "Volo is a kind of poop-bag whose opinions can be safely ignored." If you go by the canon lore as of that point, orcs are savages, no matter what, although they can be "domesticated," as if they were animals, if raised by non-orcs.



Wolf72 said:


> If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point.  I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.
> 
> BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist.  To an extant, that is ... "correct/right".  That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back).  Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.  I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.



None of us are saying that RPG players can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy and thus need to be coddled. 

What we're pointing out is that, when we bring up the problematic tropes involved, people like _you _are downplaying them by coming up with completely unrelated hypothetical instances ("what if my family member had been murdered?") or saying that anyone who wants to remove the bigotry is ignorant ("My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.") rather than address the actual issue. 

So _my _advice to you is, think about where _you're _coming from, and think about why _you _are so hesitant to change.


----------



## Wolf72

Talk about splitting hairs ... individual to groups becomes a fine line.  How many instances does something need to be before you get to your magic number?  Because that one number below, well you just told them they don't count.

Wha - What? No sweeping generalization of different races (species)? Ok, I guess you don't want to play D&D.  It is a game of stereotypes of races with sweeping generalizations. (at least until bring out more racial spat books for another edition)

The concept of having general alignments does not bother me.  If you would like to change the way the game works or is fluffed do it. But don't accuse them of something that is not true.

Do not 'downplay' your stance that demonizes (seriously, if you had to summarize the argument it would be "this supports real world racism") the industry because of what they use or have written and that it in some way relates and has a major impact on the real world. (It does relate, but welcome to anything ever written).

Avoids rape?  I'm sorry Tanis Half-Elven, your mom and dad just had irreconcilable differences.  I'd consider my DL/DLA collection as canonical as Volo is this case.  (Heck Half-races in many descriptions of this game were the product of non-consensual relationships).

You want an unrelated hypothetical issue? Orcs, Goblins, Dragons, Elves, keep going list, are ... not ... real.

Just say what you mean, dude.  Correct me if I'm wrong -- "I want the game to move to on to a less [insert concerns here] format" -- leave it at that.  The more precise arguments you make, the more you've gotten away from the _game _and the more people are going to retaliate against each other.

I know exactly where I'm coming from.  I don't think erasing the past is the way to go.  Before you say "I'm not", you are.  These things did happen in the game and are forever part of its history, use them or not at level you and your group are comfortable with.   You have taken a paradigm of racism and managed to apply it on so many levels it has gone over the top and would like to do a sweeping change of a trope of the game.  But the game is based on tropes, and stereotypes, and cliches. I don't think there needs to be a change, woot.  You do, woot.  I do feel like some are trying to coddle the next iteration of the game.

Play the game as we see fit.  But if someone prefers that their bad-guy-mook-mob-blah-blah-blah be evil "and that's that", please don't accuse them, me, anyone of supporting racism or being insensitive to those who suffer through racism because we feel our orcs are mostly incurably evil.

If that was not the intent, it really feels like that was being said at many levels.  Many posters simply said, "play your game, it is _your_ game". That's all it should be, ease up on the rhetoric. Guess that applies to everyone here.


----------



## jmartkdr2

I want the game to move on to a less racist format.


----------



## Sithlord

My favorite thing to do to as a
Dm is have an orc or drow tell them how they are different and misunderstood and just want to live in peace and be good... and then sneak attack or take advantage of them at the most opportune time when the players are their weakest.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> My favorite thing to do to as a
> Dm is have an orc or drow tell them how they are different and misunderstood and just want to live in peace and be good... and then sneak attack or take advantage of them at the most opportune time when the players are their weakest.



why?


----------



## Sithlord

Mind of tempest said:


> why?



Because a player that doesn’t know a orc or drow is evil deserves what he gets.

why did the snake bite you... because it’s a snake.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> Because a player that doesn’t know a orc or drow is evil deserves what he gets.
> 
> why did the snake bite you... because it’s a snake.



for starters that only works as a statement if you assume it is a venomous snake which is not always true and secondly, why are they evil?


----------



## Sithlord

Mind of tempest said:


> for starters that only works as a statement if you assume it is a venomous snake which is not always true and secondly, why are they evil?




because they were made that way. But I use them as an allegory for barbarians at the gates of civilization envious of their accomplishments and even if they win they will not have what the people they conquered had because they don’t have the knowledge to maintain such a civilization or city.
I used most races like they were used in fairy tales.. as allegory. There is no Darwin or genetics. Animals talk. Unicorns are in forests.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> because they were made that way



define how you mean that? 
as drow at least are a culture of elves thus logically free to not be evil.


----------



## Sithlord

Mind of tempest said:


> define how you mean that?
> as drow at least are a culture of elves thus logically free to not be evil.



I edited my post to expand the points.


----------



## Faolyn

Wolf72 said:


> Talk about splitting hairs ... individual to groups becomes a fine line.  How many instances does something need to be before you get to your magic number?  Because that one number below, well you just told them they don't count.



The line is what the actual books write. I don't care what you do in your home game.



Wolf72 said:


> Wha - What? No sweeping generalization of different races (species)? Ok, I guess you don't want to play D&D.  It is a game of stereotypes of races with sweeping generalizations. (at least until bring out more racial spat books for another edition)



I guess if you don't want to make _cultures _for your PC races, then yes, D&D is a game of stereotypes.



Wolf72 said:


> The concept of having general alignments does not bother me.  If you would like to change the way the game works or is fluffed do it. But don't accuse them of something that is not true.



What did I accuse them of? If it's the bit where I talked about Volo's, that's a direct quote from the book. From "Roleplaying an Orc":



> _Most orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it's possible that an orc, if raised outside its culture, could develop a limited capacity for empathy, love, and compassion.
> 
> No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task._



If it's something else, please actually quote what I said.



Wolf72 said:


> Do not 'downplay' your stance that demonizes (seriously, if you had to summarize the argument it would be "this supports real world racism") the industry because of what they use or have written and that it in some way relates and has a major impact on the real world. (It does relate, but welcome to anything ever written).



Since you didn't quote me, I have no idea what you're referring to here.



Wolf72 said:


> Avoids rape?  I'm sorry Tanis Half-Elven, your mom and dad just had irreconcilable differences.  I'd consider my DL/DLA collection as canonical as Volo is this case.  (Heck Half-races in many descriptions of this game were the product of non-consensual relationships).



From the Wikipedia article on Tanis:



> _Two accounts of Tanthalas Quisif-Nan Pah's (Tanis' elven name) birth exist. Both agree that Tanis was born in Qualinost. The first account is the Chronicles Trilogy, which states that Tanis was a product of rape. It is also described in the first chapter of Kindred Spirits. The violent nature of his conception, the nature of his birth, and the choice of his mother to die from shock after her assault all influenced the way the elves regarded Tanis and shaped his developmental years.
> 
> The second account of Tanis' origins is later presented in The Inheritance series. Here the story is elaborated on: his mother, Elansa Sungold, was originally kidnapped by Brand's brigands, however, she later fell in love with him, resulting in Tanis. At that time, Elansa was also married to the prince and so the prince tried to "rescue" her from Brand. When she refused to leave, he fought Brand and they both died. Pregnant with Brand's child, Elansa goes back to Qualinost pretending she was raped to protect her and Tanis._



Kindred Spirits was written 30 years ago, and Inheritance, 20 years ago. Two _novels _are hardly "the norm." And novels are _not _worldbooks. They're _stories_, while worldbooks are effectively encyclopedias or history texts. 

Yes, D&D avoids rape. It certainly doesn't treat it the way it treats evil humanoids; i.e., the norm.



Wolf72 said:


> You want an unrelated hypothetical issue? Orcs, Goblins, Dragons, Elves, keep going list, are ... not ... real.



So... what...?

The _language used to describe them _is the same sort of bigoted language used to describe _real _people at times.



Wolf72 said:


> Just say what you mean, dude.  Correct me if I'm wrong -- "I want the game to move to on to a less [insert concerns here] format" -- leave it at that.  The more precise arguments you make, the more you've gotten away from the _game _and the more people are going to retaliate against each other.



I have, and so have others, repeatedly: we want setting books that avoid Always Evil or even Mostly Evil humanoids, at least when those humanoids are also canonical PC options.

Orcs, goblins, drow, etc., should be treated no differently than humans, halflings, elves, etc. They can be good guys, they can be bad guys, they can be neutral guys. And if they're bad guys, then they need a motivation beyond "they're an orc, goblin, or drow."

_You _are the one who has a problem with that.



Wolf72 said:


> I know exactly where I'm coming from.  I don't think erasing the past is the way to go.  Before you say "I'm not", you are.



No, I'm wanting to change how it will be depicted _in the future._



Wolf72 said:


> These things did happen in the game and are forever part of its history, use them or not at level you and your group are comfortable with.   You have taken a paradigm of racism and managed to apply it on so many levels it has gone over the top and would like to do a sweeping change of a trope of the game.  But the game is based on tropes, and stereotypes, and cliches.



Tropes, stereotypes, and clichés change all the time. The time of the Always Evil orc or drow is over.



Wolf72 said:


> I don't think there needs to be a change, woot.  You do, woot.  I do feel like some are trying to coddle the next iteration of the game.



So, do you require female characters to have lower maximum Strength scores than male character? Do you assume that all PC half-orcs are part of that small percentage that can pass for humans? Is "elf" a race or a class? Do you use THAC0? Do you say all paladins have to be Lawful Good and can't be in the same party as a rogue? Do you assume that drow worship _lots _of demons, or just Lolth?

I assume you have accepted the changes the game has made since it was first created. So why are you so against changes being made _now_?



Wolf72 said:


> Play the game as we see fit.  But if someone prefers that their bad-guy-mook-mob-blah-blah-blah be evil "and that's that", please don't accuse them, me, anyone of supporting racism or being insensitive to those who suffer through racism because we feel our orcs are mostly incurably evil.
> 
> If that was not the intent, it really feels like that was being said at many levels.  Many posters simply said, "play your game, it is _your_ game". That's all it should be, ease up on the rhetoric. Guess that applies to everyone here.



Since you apparently haven't realized it from the thousand times it's been said already by many people in this thread: *We are not talking about your game. We are talking about what WotC is doing.*

For some reason, when we say that WotC is starting to move away from using bigoted language, people like you get upset and offended. Why is that?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Wolf72 said:


> If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion



There is almost never any legitimate reason to do so.


----------



## Maxperson

wicked cool said:


> Not sure exactly sure when orcs were changed but I argue they should be changed back
> 
> why?
> 1) orcs have been becoming more and more human like and its made them less interesting plus like drow they are a future problem for an everchanging society
> 2) if not maybe a variant
> 3) the orc name is from "pig faced"
> 
> hobgoblin
> 1) hobgoblins need something . Over the years kobolds, gnolls, bugbears  and even goblins have become more interesting. Kobolds became inventors and the design has greatly improved. Same with gnolls. hobgoblins have been dulled down (they are the military/armored slightly stronger goblin) and often get sort of lumped in with orcs (theres nothing that really jumps out about a hobgoblin)
> 2) I think they need a change-Maybe they are cannibals, maybe they have a unique spell/ability , give them a distinct appearance   (I would make them more like the falmer of elder scrolls-scary)



The pictures are drawn poorly, but this is the description of 5e orcs, "Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, a*nd piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks*."

That fits the 1e pictures perfectly.  It's the 5e pictures that have the disconnect, not the orcs themselves.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> because they were made that way. But I use them as an allegory for barbarians at the gates of civilization envious of their accomplishments and even if they win they will not have what the people they conquered had because they don’t have the knowledge to maintain such a civilization or city.
> I used most races like they were used in fairy tales.. as allegory. There is no Darwin or genetics. Animals talk. Unicorns are in forests.



that is not how barbarians often worked, it only happened that way to rome for far more complex reasons mostly local economics and other things.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Sithlord said:


> because they were made that way. But I use them as an allegory for barbarians at the gates of civilization envious of their accomplishments and even if they win they will not have what the people they conquered had because they don’t have the knowledge to maintain such a civilization or city.
> I used most races like they were used in fairy tales.. as allegory. There is no Darwin or genetics. Animals talk. Unicorns are in forests.



Right. So you use always evil monsters as an allegory for (your misguided idea) of real 'uncivilised' humans. Thank you for demonstrating the racism involved in practice, should be plain to see to anyone.


----------



## Sithlord

Mind of tempest said:


> that is not how barbarians often worked, it only happened that way to rome for far more complex reasons mostly local economics and other things.



This is completely make believe. They are the allegory of envy laziness and sloth.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sithlord said:


> because they were made that way. But I use them as an allegory for barbarians at the gates of civilization envious of their accomplishments and even if they win they will not have what the people they conquered had because they don’t have the knowledge to maintain such a civilization or city.
> I used most races like they were used in fairy tales.. as allegory. There is no Darwin or genetics. Animals talk. Unicorns are in forests.



That’s an inherently racist allegory, though. You can tell fairy stories without using racist allegories. Or allegories at all. (See; Tolkien)


----------



## Maxperson

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. So you use always evil monsters as an allegory for (your misguided idea) of real 'uncivilised' humans. Thank you for demonstrating the racism involved in practice, should be plain to see to anyone.



Uncivilized humans existed among all races.  Which race is he using over any of the others?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Wolf72 said:


> If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion, they might as well not print anything at all.  Something somewhere will strike a cord with someone about some horrific event in their life.
> 
> When you split hairs, your arguments become razor thin and so circumstantial you'll be paralyzed with bringing up something that hits home to someone or some group.  Or the simple act of describing something is spot on to something that actually happened.
> 
> rabbit hole ... long and winding rabbit hole.




I spy... the slippery slope fallacy!


----------



## Sithlord

Maxperson said:


> Uncivilized humans existed among all races.  Which race is he using over any of the others?



No. Not all.  You must see racism in everything.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s an inherently racist allegory, though. You can tell fairy stories without using racist allegories. Or allegories at all. (See; Tolkien)



There's nothing inherently racist about something that applies to literally every race.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Sithlord said:


> This is completely make believe. They are the allegory of envy laziness and sloth.



true they are not real but why should they conform to your belief instead of some else's?

also, they are really bad as ideas of envy and laziness is covered by sloth.
finally sacking cities is not an activity for the lazy it take great effort and planning.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> because they were made that way. But I use them as an allegory for barbarians at the gates of civilization envious of their accomplishments and even if they win they will not have what the people they conquered had because they don’t have the knowledge to maintain such a civilization or city.
> I used most races like they were used in fairy tales.. as allegory. There is no Darwin or genetics. Animals talk. Unicorns are in forests.



Why would "barbarians" be _envious _of "civilized accomplishments"? In the real world, "civilized" people killed off "barbarians" so they could take their stuff and/or get slave labor, which makes the barbarian's retaliation actually rather just.

Most _fairy tale _non-humans were one-off trickster fey, not whole races. If they were an allegory for anything, it was for the _humans _to stay on the path, follow the rules, don't take (magical) shortcuts,  be kind to people you meet on the road (they could be a fairy in disguise), and don't make bargains with strange people, and if you do, don't break your end of the bargain.

Unicorns were incredibly vicious creatures that impaled elephants on their horns and represented male virility, which is why they liked virgins.


----------



## Sithlord

Mind of tempest said:


> true they are not real but why should they conform to your belief instead of some else's?
> 
> also, they are really bad as ideas of envy and laziness is covered by sloth.
> finally sacking cities is not an activity for the lazy it take great effort and planning.



I don’t use wow orcs or Klingon orcs. But you are right in that we can each portray them however we want in our own settings. We can make believe however we want. All this talk about genetics and how species work in the real world is just too sci-fi for a mythological role playing game. Orcs made by Grumsh. Dwarves by Moradin. Halflings by yondalla. Gnolls by yeenog... however you spell it.  I’m not even sure dna exists in these worlds.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> Why would "barbarians" be _envious _of "civilized accomplishments"? In the real world, "civilized" people killed off "barbarians" so they could take their stuff and/or get slave labor, which makes the barbarian's retaliation actually rather just.



You just showed that his barbarians are not based on the real world barbarians?


----------



## Oofta

Maxperson said:


> Uncivilized humans existed among all races.  Which race is he using over any of the others?



Those poor downtrodden blue eyed blonde haired vikings would be my guess. 

But it depends on who you ask.  It could be vikings, mongols, American Indians, Visigoths, black people and so on.  It's kind of a Rorsach test, fill in what you want.

Bad words have been used to describe real world people.  Some of the same bad words have been used to describe imaginary monsters.  But there are only so many words in the English language.  Should some of the verbiage be rewritten?  I've said before and I'll repeat, yes.

But the basic concept as a default?  They fill a niche.  Trying to parse which monsters it's okay to be (effectively) always evil just depends on who you ask. Much of our human sense of right and wrong, good and evil is instinctual and bred into us.  I have no problem with other fantasy species that are effectively manufactured having different instincts.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Faolyn said:


> Why would "barbarians" be _envious _of "civilized accomplishments"? In the real world, "civilized" people killed off "barbarians" so they could take their stuff and/or get slave labor, which makes the barbarian's retaliation actually rather just.




The interaction between the nomadic and sedentary civilisations is probably one of the longest and mutually antagonistic rivalries in human history, marred by mutual distrust and misunderstanding. But the relationship was co-dependent in a way. Most conquerors relied on the military strength of nomadic groups to conquer and main control of territory, but without the sedentary population you couldn't get the benefits of ruling over lots of land (ie, wealth) and your armies wouldn't have decent armour or weapons. What finally tilted the balance was the dawn of the industrial age when non-sedentary civilisations were finally completely outmatched.

The Mongols were awesome armies, but they couldn't have got anywhere without the wealth and technology of China or the trade route of the Silk Rode. The Arabs conquered most of Persia and the Roman Empire, but relied on the existing population there to gain wealth. Later Caliphs maintained controlled solely with Turkish slave armies.

Which ties into how i have my goblinoids and orcs, as one large group. Orcs are the nomadic fringe of the "Orschan" population, and goblinoids the sedentary, settled populated. That's why orcs are raiders and hobgoblins fight in armoured units.


----------



## Faolyn

Maxperson said:


> You just showed that his barbarians are not based on the real world barbarians?



Yeah, so why would his barbarians be envious of civilized accomplishments?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Mind of tempest said:


> that is not how barbarians often worked, it only happened that way to rome for far more complex reasons mostly local economics and other things.




Considering the origins of the classes - that view point of the _barbarian_ would be the most popular.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, so why would his barbarians be envious of civilized accomplishments?



Same reason any country is envious of the accomplishments of its neighbors.  People want what others have that's good.  Lots of wars have happened over it.  Even more have come up with other pretexts to go to war for it.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Maxperson said:


> Same reason any country is envious of the accomplishments of its neighbors.  People want what others have that's good.  Lots of wars have happened over it.  Even more have come up with other pretexts to go to war for it.



It wasn't really envy of such, but people like to live comfortably and have nice things.

One thing shows like Game of Thrones gets wrong about nomadic civilisations is it has them running around in animal skins and devoid of luxuries. That's not exactly true to life. The whole point of raiding was to get wealth you couldn't make yourself. 

Compare a Dothraki for instance, to how actual Mongols liked to dress.


----------



## Maxperson

QuentinGeorge said:


> It wasn't really envy of such, but people like to live comfortably and have nice things.
> 
> One thing shows like Game of Thrones gets wrong about nomadic civilisations is it has them running around in animal skins and devoid of luxuries. That's not exactly true to life. The whole point of raiding was to get wealth you couldn't make yourself.
> 
> Compare a Dothraki for instance, to how actual Mongols liked to dress.



That sounds like envy to me.  If you want the nice things of others that you can't make yourself, you are envious of them. I agree about the Dothraki, though.  They had quite a bit of wealth from those they conquered and received tribute from.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Maxperson said:


> That sounds like envy to me.  If you want the nice things of others that you can't make yourself, you are envious of them. I agree about the Dothraki, though.  They had quite a bit of wealth from those they conquered and received tribute from.



Sort of. But the attitude was less "wow, look what they have? so lucky. I want it." and more "we have the right to take what we want from the soft settled folk since might makes right".Groups like the Mongols and Turks long resisted becoming sedentary folk themselves even when most of the subjects were since they saw it as a kind of weak "unfree" existence. However the natural forces eventually transformed most of the groups (look at how the southern Europeans transformed the Germans and Scandinavians, the people of Syria and the Levant transformed the Arabs and Turks, and the folk of Mesopotamia transformed the Parthians).


----------



## Sithlord

QuentinGeorge said:


> Sort of. But the attitude was less "wow, look what they have? so lucky. I want it." and more "we have the right to take what we want from the soft settled folk since might makes right".Groups like the Mongols and Turks long resisted becoming sedentary folk themselves even when most of the subjects were since they saw it as a kind of weak "unfree" existence. However the natural forces eventually transformed most of the groups (look at how the southern Europeans transformed the Germans and Scandinavians, the people of Syria and the Levant transformed the Arabs and Turks, and the folk of Mesopotamia transformed the Parthians).



That just how they justify their envy.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Sithlord said:


> That just how they justify their envy.



You're oversimplifying it and keep in mind, you have been raised in the mindset of sedentary civilisation so you're going to have problem adjusting your thought processes to a completely different lifestyle. But it's not true generally, since if they were really envious of that lifestyle they would have settled themselves and lived like that. It's not that simple.


----------



## Maxperson

QuentinGeorge said:


> You're oversimplifying it and keep in mind, you have been raised in the mindset of sedentary civilisation so you're going to have problem adjusting your thought processes to a completely different lifestyle. But it's not true generally, since if they were really envious of that lifestyle they would have settled themselves and lived like that. It's not that simple.



Not envious of the lifestyle.  Envious of the things.  Why settle down and do it yourself when you can just take what you envy?


----------



## BookTenTiger

Maxperson said:


> Uncivilized humans existed among all races.  Which race is he using over any of the others?



Orcs

@Sithlord  is applying the descriptor of "uncivilized" to an entire race.

That is practicing racism.

Now to be fair, it's practicing racism in a fantasy setting. Just like how if I were to play a campaign in which the characters attempted to wipe out every orc, I would be practicing genocide in a fantasy setting.

It's fine to do that at your own game! But I know I don't want WotC making that a default for playing D&D.


----------



## Sithlord

QuentinGeorge said:


> You're oversimplifying it and keep in mind, you have been raised in the mindset of sedentary civilisation so you're going to have problem adjusting your thought processes to a completely different lifestyle. But it's not true generally, since if they were really envious of that lifestyle they would have settled themselves and lived like that. It's not that simple.



I’m not making a real life social economic system   Just an allegory for greedy envious people that will kill to take what other peoples work for. And many wars have been fought for that reason


----------



## Maxperson

BookTenTiger said:


> Orcs
> 
> @Sithlord  is applying the descriptor of "uncivilized" to an entire race.
> 
> That is practicing racism.



It doesn't meet either definition of racism, though. 


BookTenTiger said:


> Now to be fair, it's practicing racism in a fantasy setting. Just like how if I were to play a campaign in which the characters attempted to wipe out every orc, I would be practicing genocide in a fantasy setting.
> 
> It's fine to do that at your own game! But I know I don't want WotC making that a default for playing D&D.



I don't care if they make them more neutral and leave it to specific settings to change orcs.  It's not as if there weren't good orcs living in society along side humans in the Forgotten Realms of 3e, including in positions of authority. In practice, they've already been what you are asking for.


----------



## Sithlord

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't meet either definition of racism, though.
> 
> I don't care if they make them more neutral and leave it to specific settings to change orcs.  It's not as if there weren't good orcs living in society along side humans in the Forgotten Realms of 3e, including in positions of authority. In practice, they've already been what you are asking for.



I also have entire fictional made up races that have a utopian civilization without poverty as NPC’s. I guess that’s racist too.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Sithlord said:


> I’m not making a real life social economic system   Just an allegory for greedy envious people that will kill to take what other peoples work for. And many wars have been fought for that reason



You have every right to play the game how you want. You even have the right to play out racist allegories if you want.

But do you think WotC should be doing that as a default (for example, in 6e)?

I feel like all these orc threads come down to people saying two things:

1) Wizards of the Coast should continue to move the default game away from racist tropes.

2) Nobody can make me change how I play my game.

The thing is, those two arguments are compatible. WotC can continue to evolve the game, and people can critique the tropes of fantasy settings, AND you can keep playing the game how you want.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Not envious of the lifestyle.  Envious of the things.  Why settle down and do it yourself when you can just take what you envy?



That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't meet either definition of racism, though.



I mean, I'm going by the dictionary.com version here:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

When we refer to orcs as a "race" and then say "all orcs are ___" in order to justify killing them... that's racism in practice. It's fantasy racism, but it's still practicing racism.



> I don't care if they make them more neutral and leave it to specific settings to change orcs.  It's not as if there weren't good orcs living in society along side humans in the Forgotten Realms of 3e, including in positions of authority. In practice, they've already been what you are asking for.




It seems like we agree then? Wizards of the Coast should continue to take steps to remove racism from the game, as it has been doing for a while now. Yeah?


----------



## Sithlord

QuentinGeorge said:


> You're oversimplifying it and keep in mind, you have been raised in the mindset of sedentary civilisation so you're going to have problem adjusting your thought processes to a completely different lifestyle. But it's not true generally, since if they were really envious of that lifestyle they would have settled themselves and lived like that. It's not that simple.



They might not have had the capacity or knowledges to maintain such a civilization.


----------



## Sithlord

doctorbadwolf said:


> That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.



I’m sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. But that maps to real world history quite accurately.  Not that a fictional history has to be a map of real history. Their history can be an allegory for something else.


----------



## Sithlord

doctorbadwolf said:


> That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.



Just maybe we have another race that is an allegory of the noble savage. Which was a also complete fiction.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> I also have entire fictional made up races that have a utopian civilization without poverty as NPC’s. I guess that’s racist too.



Are you saying that they're inherently _better _than other races?


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> Are you saying that they're inherently _better _than other races?



Um...  they created a fictional society without poverty and evil in their society. You do the math.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sithlord said:


> I’m sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. But that maps to real world history quite accurately.  Not that a fictional history has to be a map of real history. Their history can be an allegory for something else.



If you believe that nomadic people as lazy, uncreative, greedy, people who just want to steal wealth, you are objectively wrong. There is nothing to “agree to disagree” about.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> They might not have had the capacity or knowledges to maintain such a civilization.



So you're saying that they're incapable of building houses? That they can't farm or raise animals for food? They can't produce any sort of good with which to trade? Neolithic humans could do all these things. _Animals _can do some of them.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> Um...  they created a fictional society without poverty and evil in their society. You do the math.



No, you come out and tell me. 

Did they create this society because they are inherently better people?


----------



## Sithlord

doctorbadwolf said:


> If you believe that nomadic people as lazy, uncreative, greedy, people who just want to steal wealth, you are objectively wrong. There is nothing to “agree to disagree” about.



Where did I say all. I said this race. There may be other fictional nomadic races that are used as an allegory for the noble savage.


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> No, you come out and tell me.
> 
> Did they create this society because they are inherently better people?



No you tell me.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.



That's just not true.  Nomadic people didn't stay for long periods in one spot, so the wouldn't have mining for iron, gold and other metals.  For those they would need to trade or take.  Along with that, they wouldn't have other things that exist in a settled area and would need those as well.  It's not laziness or a lack of creativity.  It's simply a different lifestyle.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> No you tell me.



If that race had worked to better their society by meeting everyone's needs and treating everyone well, then the answer would be no, that's not racist. The fact that you refused you answer _twice _shows to me that you know that the actual answer is "no, they're just better than the other races" which is, in fact, very bigoted.


----------



## Maxperson

BookTenTiger said:


> I mean, I'm going by the dictionary.com version here:
> 
> "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race* is superior* and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group* is inferior* to the others."



There is no superiority or inferiority in the language describing orcs. The killing of orcs is also not based on a belief or doctrine about differences.  In D&D, orcs as written ARE savage killers of humans.  The humans killing the orcs also kill humans that kill humans.


BookTenTiger said:


> It seems like we agree then? Wizards of the Coast should continue to take steps to remove racism from the game, as it has been doing for a while now. Yeah?



Other than it's not racism.


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> If that race had worked to better their society by meeting everyone's needs and treating everyone well, then the answer would be no, that's not racist. The fact that you refused you answer _twice _shows to me that you know that the actual answer is "no, they're just better than the other races" which is, in fact, very bigoted.



Yes. I am saying that the fictional race in a made up setting not resembling the real world that has eliminated poverty and is good only acts to better themselves without harming others is better than the fictional made up race that is evil and wants to take what others have earned and kill them in the process. Not that hard of a decision of which society any sane person would want to live in.


----------



## Faolyn

Maxperson said:


> That's just not true.  Nomadic people didn't stay for long periods in one spot, so the wouldn't have mining for iron, gold and other metals.  For those they would need to trade or take.  Along with that, they wouldn't have other things that exist in a settled area and would need those as well.  It's not laziness or a lack of creativity.  It's simply a different lifestyle.



That assumes they actually _need _those materials. Stone and bone make for decent enough weapons. Coupled with what you might find in a magical world--or make or shape with magic--and they might not have any particular need to either trade or steal from anyone else.


----------



## Faolyn

Sithlord said:


> Yes. I am saying that the fictional race in a made up setting not resembling the real world that has eliminated poverty and is good only acts to better themselves without harming others is better than the fictional made up race that is evil and wants to take what others have earned and kill them in the process. Not that hard of a decision of which society any sane person would want to live in.



"Worked to better themselves" is *not* the same as "inherently better."

So yes, "inherently better" and "inherently evil" are both very racist takes.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> That assumes they actually _need _those materials. Stone and bone make for decent enough weapons. Coupled with what you might find in a magical world--or make or shape with magic--and they might not have any particular need to either trade or steal from anyone else.



Stone and bone work unless the people around you are using iron or steel.  Then they don't work well enough at all.  I suppose they might have some sort of steel beetle with a carapace as hard as steel, but it's unlikely and up to the DM.  If so, then that lack is taken care of.  Otherwise, they need to trade or take.


----------



## Faolyn

Maxperson said:


> Stone and bone work unless the people around you are using iron or steel.  Then they don't work well enough at all.  I suppose they might have some sort of steel beetle with a carapace as hard as steel, but it's unlikely and up to the DM.  If so, then that lack is taken care of.  Otherwise, they need to trade or take.



Again, there's magic. And possibly dragonbone.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Sithlord said:


> They might not have had the capacity or knowledges to maintain such a civilization.



Capacity, certainly - it is hard to settle down into towns and cities without land that can support large scale agriculture but knowledge? That was never the case. Building shelters and growing crops is no beyond the intellectual capacity of any group. The reason historically the steppe regions produced so many nomadic groups is because it was unsuitable for most agriculture apart from horse-rearing and sheep herding - as contrasted to the fertile river valleys where sedentary civilisation began.  Nomadic lifestyle though, cannot manufacture refined goods, especially luxuries, which is what sets up most sedentary/civilised clashes, since generally nomadic military power was superior. Agriculture requires a lot of labour to work, however, whereas the sheep herds could be left to the women, children and elderly while the men in their prime raided their sedentary neighbours.


----------



## BookTenTiger

QuentinGeorge said:


> Capacity, certainly - it is hard to settle down into towns and cities without land that can support large scale agriculture but knowledge? That was never the case. Building shelters and growing crops is no beyond the intellectual capacity of any group. The reason historically the steppe regions produced so many nomadic groups is because it was unsuitable for most agriculture apart from horse-rearing and sheep herding - as contrasted to the fertile river valleys where sedentary civilisation began.  Nomadic lifestyle though, cannot manufacture refined goods, especially luxuries, which is what sets up most sedentary/civilised clashes, since generally nomadic military power was superior. Agriculture requires a lot of labour to work, however, whereas the sheep herds could be left to the women, children and elderly while the men in their prime raided their sedentary neighbours.



Nomadic life was better on the lower back, too. We haven't been farming for long enough in sedentary communities to adapt to all the bending, carrying, and heavy labor yet.

So to be accurate to history, any characters from sedentary communities should have 1 Level of Exhaustion from lower back pain at the start of the campaign.


----------



## Sithlord

Faolyn said:


> "Worked to better themselves" is *not* the same as "inherently better."
> 
> So yes, "inherently better" and "inherently evil" are both very racist takes.



Okay. I know what you are saying now. I don’t believe it is racist to have an inherently evil fictional fantasy race in a fantasy world.  Carry on. Nothing further for me and you to discuss on this topic.  I kind of thought I was clear on that from the beginning.


----------



## Oofta

Faolyn said:


> So yes, "inherently better" and "inherently evil" are both very racist takes.



It's no more racist to say that a tiger is dangerous than to say fictional monsters are evil if the fiction says they are.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> That's just not true.  Nomadic people didn't stay for long periods in one spot, so the wouldn't have mining for iron, gold and other metals.  For those they would need to trade or take.  Along with that, they wouldn't have other things that exist in a settled area and would need those as well.  It's not laziness or a lack of creativity.  It's simply a different lifestyle.



Maybe look back at what you actually said that I replied to.
_You_ implied laziness and lack of creativity, not me, with your ridiculous “why make the thing you want when you can just take what you envy” comment. Don’t try to reverse it now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

BookTenTiger said:


> Nomadic life was better on the lower back, too. We haven't been farming for long enough in sedentary communities to adapt to all the bending, carrying, and heavy labor yet.



It should be noted that nomadic life was far from easy, however, and a lazy person would have quite a difficult time surviving.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

QuentinGeorge said:


> Capacity, certainly - it is hard to settle down into towns and cities without land that can support large scale agriculture but knowledge? That was never the case. Building shelters and growing crops is no beyond the intellectual capacity of any group. The reason historically the steppe regions produced so many nomadic groups is because it was unsuitable for most agriculture apart from horse-rearing and sheep herding - as contrasted to the fertile river valleys where sedentary civilisation began.  Nomadic lifestyle though, cannot manufacture refined goods, especially luxuries, which is what sets up most sedentary/civilised clashes, since generally nomadic military power was superior. Agriculture requires a lot of labour to work, however, whereas the sheep herds could be left to the women, children and elderly while the men in their prime raided their sedentary neighbours.



One small note; agricultural labor was done just as much by women as by men, in most of the world. Your post implies that shepherding is easy, and thus could be left to the women, which in turn implies that women are less capable workers, both implications being very, very, false.


----------



## Wolf72

"Tropes, stereotypes, and clichés change all the time. The time of the Always Evil orc or drow is over." -- Say that first, most problems solved

"I guess if you don't want to make _cultures _for your PC races, then yes, D&D is a game of stereotypes." -- Do as you need, when you need. Alignments and stereotypes are there as tools, tweak them or not when you feel like. Sometimes I get deep, other times not.

"I assume you have accepted the changes the game has made since it was first created. So why are you so against changes being made _now_?" -- you are absolutely right here.  Why? not against them.  More accurately I don't feel or see the need for them.  My problem is how wide a net has been thrown and the allusion that those who support the old school game are feeding, supported, or the very least not speaking out against racism.

"Since you apparently haven't realized it from the thousand times it's been said already by many people in this thread: *We are not talking about your game. We are talking about what WotC is doing." *Well, we are talking about 'my' game, 'your' game, what have you. If you haven't realized from a thousand times before, said by many people in this thread WotC isn't being racist. There is context to everything, apply that context to help you separate real from fantasy.

"What did I accuse them of? If it's the bit where I talked about Volo's, that's a direct quote from the book. From "Roleplaying an Orc": " -- pick one.  Either chose what the feeling of the thread is, or what only have ever posted.  Several comments have put forth by different posters have made claims.  You had one direct quote.  My apologies, _You_ have not directly accused anyone that, just alluded that I support bigotry based on game based on complete and utter fantasy.

"For some reason, when we say that WotC is starting to move away from using bigoted language, people like you get upset and offended. Why is that?" Here again, you want to claim or allude to something not as true as you'd like it to be.  When you call out "Why is that" it really comes off as snarky and only being used to get some sort of dig in there.  I've explained my reasons too.  I grew up with Orcs are Evil, I've read countless books where Orcs are Evil, watched some very long movies where Orcs are Evil.  Why is that racist or bigoted?  If I refuse to let the scorpion ride on my back to cross the river, is that bigoted? If the Inn/barkeep is a crabby Half-orc who dislikes elves as much as elves dislike him and continually calls them Faeries (they're grey elves) am I supporting bigotry or having a developed NPC (even if it is a simple trope).  They gave us starting points, work from there, I see that claim of bigoted language as not as strong as you seem to feel it is.


"And if they're bad guys, then they need a motivation beyond "they're an orc, goblin, or drow." -- Why?  the publisher puts out the general ideas, the users expand, refine, redefine as they see fit. They say Orcs are Evil, then you ask yourself why,  then do your magic and own it. Or maybe at this time you don't see the need to expand on them, it simply 'is'. 

_"You _are the one who has a problem with that." What you call problem, I call role-playing opportunity. My first character when the UA came out? A good drow ranger. Had to overcome a lot reactions in towns. I didn't feel like TSR was trying undermine my life or teach me how to treat other people. I seem to recall that it was mentioned that the Drow are a wholly evil race and that a PC drow needs to come up a reason for not being 'normal' -- it's what we did, we did not see that wholly evil phrase as justification for never happening, it meant we were challenged to change it through our game and experience.

"people like you" -- you see here, that's bigoted language.

Cool DLA info, thanks for the refresher.  My copy of Dragons of Autumn Twilight came out 37 years ago (the next two shortly after), and while it may not have all the exact information on Tanis I remember, it is probably my strongest influence.  Also my original (and near dilapidated ) DLA p63: Many half-elves were engendered during this period of rapine and violence.  It happened, it did not normalize it nor nor tacitly support it in my opinion.

... what I'm trying to get at is, You think I'm offended by changing the fluff of the game.  I'm not.  There has been very strongly claims or fears of racism permeating out of the game.  When some one says that TSR/WotC are using language that racists have used, it doesn't mean they are supporting that nor do they approve the message.  The context matters, I can separate my D&D, Shadowrun, Battletech, from my real life and maintain my grip of right versus wrong.  Volo was harsh and said something harsh ... actually kind of Lawful evil-ish imo.  I know a bit here and there about the character, is he normally that way? If so, something to consider if your PCs encounter him.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

doctorbadwolf said:


> One small note; agricultural labor was done just as much by women as by men, in most of the world. Your post implies that shepherding is easy, and thus could be left to the women, which in turn implies that women are less capable workers, both implications being very, very, false.




That's not what I meant. What I am trying to get across that nomadic military strength was derived from being able to put your entire able-bodied male population into the field. Sedentary societies required their men and women at home producing food to survive. That's what wars in pre-modern Europe were short and with small numbers of troops. Extended wars led to famines and problems with the harvest. There's a lot of strange ideas that medieval europe was having huge battles constantly. No then, as always, wars were a waste of resources.

On the other hand, herds could be managed without the entire population for extended periods of time and could also be brought with the army as it moved. Easy? No. Less labour intensive? Yes. Until the modern era there was no separation of "men's work" and "women's work", everyone worked because they had to.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

For those who are interested, here's a good historical rundown of the nomadic vs. settled dichotomy, and how much of popular knowledge (especially as portrayed in popular entertainment) is wrong.

Collections: The Fremen Mirage, Part I: War at the Dawn of Civilization


----------



## doctorbadwolf

QuentinGeorge said:


> That's not what I meant. What I am trying to get across that nomadic military strength was derived from being able to put your entire able-bodied male population into the field. Sedentary societies required their men and women at home producing food to survive. That's what wars in pre-modern Europe were short and with small numbers of troops. Extended wars led to famines and problems with the harvest. There's a lot of strange ideas that medieval europe was having huge battles constantly. No then, as always, wars were a waste of resources.
> 
> On the other hand, herds could be managed without the entire population for extended periods of time and could also be brought with the army as it moved. Easy? No. Less labour intensive? Yes. Until the modern era there was no separation of "men's work" and "women's work", everyone worked because they had to.



Apologies, I should have clarified that I didn’t think you meant to imply those things, I was just seeking to make those points clear.


----------



## Faolyn

Maxperson said:


> There is no superiority or inferiority in the language describing orcs. The killing of orcs is also not based on a belief or doctrine about differences.  In D&D, orcs as written ARE savage killers of humans.  The humans killing the orcs also kill humans that kill humans.



If ALL orcs are savage killers, while only SOME humans are, that's bigoted and not cool.


----------



## Faolyn

Oofta said:


> It's no more racist to say that a tiger is dangerous than to say fictional monsters are evil if the fiction says they are.



Tigers aren't capable of higher reasoning. Orcs are.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> If ALL orcs are savage killers, while only SOME humans are, that's bigoted and not cool.



Why?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Oofta said:


> Yeah, I mixed them up.  But it doesn't matter because it's the same answer.  The PHB explicitly stated that you should ask your DM.
> 
> I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.




And that has nothing to do with the question either. 

Why are we saying that the default for Drow is that they are Evil, when they are allowed in the PHB, and every single officially published setting for the edition has them as not solely evil, if they exist at all? 

Is default DnD somehow different from every DnD setting in 5e?


----------



## Faolyn

Press "Reply" in order to actually reply to an individual.



Wolf72 said:


> "I guess if you don't want to make _cultures _for your PC races, then yes, D&D is a game of stereotypes." -- Do as you need, when you need. Alignments and stereotypes are there as tools, tweak them or not when you feel like. Sometimes I get deep, other times not.



You are trying to claim that D&D is a game of stereotypes; therefore, we must use stereotypes because to do otherwise is not to play D&D. (_"Ok, I guess you don't want to play D&D. It is a game of stereotypes of races with sweeping generalizations.")_



Wolf72 said:


> "I assume you have accepted the changes the game has made since it was first created. So why are you so against changes being made _now_?" -- you are absolutely right here.  Why? not against them.  More accurately I don't feel or see the need for them.  My problem is how wide a net has been thrown and the allusion that those who support the old school game are feeding, supported, or the very least not speaking out against racism.



If you are actually against the game itself changing because _you _prefer old-school style gaming, then yeah, you may actually be part of the problem here.

Especially when you realize that you can _still have _old-school style gaming in your own game.



Wolf72 said:


> "Since you apparently haven't realized it from the thousand times it's been said already by many people in this thread: *We are not talking about your game. We are talking about what WotC is doing." *Well, we are talking about 'my' game, 'your' game, what have you.



No, we're not. We're talking about _the _game. Which you are apparently against changing because you prefer old-style gaming.

Nobody cares about your game. We're talking about the books they put out.



Wolf72 said:


> If you haven't realized from a thousand times before, said by many people in this thread WotC isn't being racist. There is context to everything, apply that context to help you separate real from fantasy.



They _have used _language with racist connotations in the past. They are hopefully moving away from that.

It doesn't matter if the language is about real people or fantasy people. The goal is to not use it at all--not to pretend it doesn't matter because it's against a fictional people.



Wolf72 said:


> "For some reason, when we say that WotC is starting to move away from using bigoted language, people like you get upset and offended. Why is that?" Here again, you want to claim or allude to something not as true as you'd like it to be.  When you call out "Why is that" it really comes off as snarky and only being used to get some sort of dig in there.  I've explained my reasons too.



Well then, _why _are you so upset that WotC is moving away from Always Evil races and bigoted language? It can't be just because it's "not old school" enough.



Wolf72 said:


> I grew up with Orcs are Evil,



So did I. Orcs were Evil, Elves were Good, THAC0 was a thing, etc.

Just because "its what you're used to" doesn't make it better. 



Wolf72 said:


> I've read countless books where Orcs are Evil, watched some very long movies where Orcs are Evil.  Why is that racist or bigoted?



Because those things are saying that _every _orc is evil, or that any non-evil orc is an incredibly rare anomaly. 



Wolf72 said:


> If I refuse to let the scorpion ride on my back to cross the river, is that bigoted?



Scorpions are animals.

Orcs, goblins, and drow are not. They talk, think, can use magic, have religions and politics, and can choose things. 



Wolf72 said:


> If the Inn/barkeep is a crabby Half-orc who dislikes elves as much as elves dislike him and continually calls them Faeries (they're grey elves) am I supporting bigotry or having a developed NPC (even if it is a simple trope).



Do... do you not understand the difference between individuals and entire groups of people?



Wolf72 said:


> They gave us starting points, work from there, I see that claim of bigoted language as not as strong as you seem to feel it is.



You also seem to think people and unintelligent arthropods are the same thing and that individuals are the same as groups, so I don't think your vision is all that great.



Wolf72 said:


> "And if they're bad guys, then they need a motivation beyond "they're an orc, goblin, or drow." -- Why?  the publisher puts out the general ideas, the users expand, refine, redefine as they see fit. They say Orcs are Evil, then you ask yourself why,  then do your magic and own it. Or maybe at this time you don't see the need to expand on them, it simply 'is'.



Because (A) that's what writers generally do, if they're good writers, and (B) because it's both lazy and bigoted to just say "all orcs are evil just 'cuz."



Wolf72 said:


> _"You _are the one who has a problem with that." What you call problem, I call role-playing opportunity. My first character when the UA came out? A good drow ranger.  Had to overcome a lot reactions in towns. I didn't feel like TSR was trying undermine my life or teach me how to treat other people.



Again, and? 

Oh, I get it. You don't like it when WotC tries to push the idea of non-evil orcs or drow because _it makes you feel like you've maybe done something bad._ Gotcha.



Wolf72 said:


> ... what I'm trying to get at is, You think I'm offended by changing the fluff of the game.  I'm not.



For someone who claims to not be offended by it, you've spent a lot of words on talking about how much you don't like it.



Wolf72 said:


> There has been very strongly claims or fears of racism permeating out of the game.  When some one says that TSR/WotC are using language that racists have used, it doesn't mean they are supporting that nor do they approve the message.



And I don't think anyone here has said that WotC is racist. We've said that they've used language that's racist. It's probably totally by accident. That doesn't make it OK.



Wolf72 said:


> The context matters, I can separate my D&D, Shadowrun, Battletech, from my real life and maintain my grip of right versus wrong.  Volo was harsh and said something harsh ... actually kind of Lawful evil-ish imo.  I know a bit here and there about the character, is he normally that way? If so, something to consider if your PCs encounter him.



And yet, he's Chaotic Good. Fortunately, I don't run in the Realms.


----------



## Wolf72

Chaosmancer said:


> And that has nothing to do with the question either.
> 
> Why are we saying that the default for Drow is that they are Evil, when they are allowed in the PHB, and every single officially published setting for the edition has them as not solely evil, if they exist at all?
> 
> Is default DnD somehow different from every DnD setting in 5e?



I'm thinking that most settings updated them to the setting. Which settings are you referring to?  I know squat about Eberron, so I can't help there.

In Greyhawk they're evil.  In 1e, 2e, 3e, PF ... they're evil.  There are always exceptions, but they're supposed to be "rare".  In FR they're evil, but there is a small group who aren't.


----------



## Faolyn

Maxperson said:


> Why?



_Seriously?_

Do you not understand the problem saying "all members of this race are bad"?


----------



## Charlaquin

BookTenTiger said:


> Nomadic life was better on the lower back, too. We haven't been farming for long enough in sedentary communities to adapt to all the bending, carrying, and heavy labor yet.
> 
> So to be accurate to history, any characters from sedentary communities should have 1 Level of Exhaustion from lower back pain at the start of the campaign.



Many anthropologists would argue agriculture was a mistake. For a lot of reasons.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

The sides are dug in, and no actual exchange of ideas is going on at this point.  It seems the only thought or consideration going on is in thinking up retorts.  That's not of any value.  Thread closed.


----------

