Charles Phipps
2008-02-17, 05:24 PM
The Orc thread has brought out the age old argument of the 'realism' of Alignment and evil races. Honestly, it's something that will never be settled because certain people have different views on what constitutes realistic or evil.
For some people, the noble Orc is something that's meant to be little different than the majority of rapine and looting cultures that you find in either human history or in George Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice. Depending on your interpretation, this actually may qualify them as evil with others balking at the wholescale labelling of Spartans and Roman armies with the LE monikor.
Others prefer the more mystical version that Orcs are effectively a fantasy version of Buffy Vampires or Daleks. In other words, the Orc is nothing more than an incarnate embodiment of destruction of chaos. They're a metaphor for the worst elements of humanity brought to life with nothing good inside them except by happenstance.
Orcs are all, innately, sociopaths or malopaths that are drawn to chaos and destruction.
Certainly, the later seems less realistic. However, who asked for realism in a campaign setting with fireballs? Mileage may vary tremendously in games. One of the most fun ironies of White Wolf is that Vampire: The Masquerade is one of the most moral games in the world because the whole point is you're destined to become evil then die.
So, this is a discussion of how the 'Alignment assumptions' of canon D&D affects your games.
For me, I've got to say that the conflict between Good and Evil gets pretty much tossed out at my table for being replaced with "Law vs. Chaos." I'm not a Warhammer fan but I tend to prefer Shades of Gray vs. Pure Evil as a general rule.
At my table, there's some universal constants.
* Dwarves hate Elves and war on them whenever they aren't united against Orcs or Hobgoblins.
* Paladins Hate Harpers and Vice Versa.
* The Gods of Lawful Goodness despite the Seldarine and other Free Spirited Gods.
* The Forces of Chaos and Lawful Evil (Orcs and Hobgoblins) will ally against Dwarves and Elves when they unite, otherwise they war.
* Very few Evil individuals are genuinely serving Evil as a purpose. Servants of Gods like Hextor and Bane often are very honorable and just genuinely believe fascism is the way, baby.
* Likewise, "Good" is pretty much in the eye of the Beholder with Just Men frequently at Loggerheads with other faiths on it.
* Humans are drawn to both sides of the Law vs. Chaos conflict and are the Wild Cards in any such conflict.
Personally, I rarely have player characters serving specifically the cause of Law vs. Chaos. If they do, it's because they're flawed in some way because there's really no point to it. However, it allows for the generation of alot of artificial conflict that cripples the forces of good every bit as much as the bad guys are crippled by their own infighting.
I imagine the way I run things would be a problem for a lot of people.
For some people, the noble Orc is something that's meant to be little different than the majority of rapine and looting cultures that you find in either human history or in George Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice. Depending on your interpretation, this actually may qualify them as evil with others balking at the wholescale labelling of Spartans and Roman armies with the LE monikor.
Others prefer the more mystical version that Orcs are effectively a fantasy version of Buffy Vampires or Daleks. In other words, the Orc is nothing more than an incarnate embodiment of destruction of chaos. They're a metaphor for the worst elements of humanity brought to life with nothing good inside them except by happenstance.
Orcs are all, innately, sociopaths or malopaths that are drawn to chaos and destruction.
Certainly, the later seems less realistic. However, who asked for realism in a campaign setting with fireballs? Mileage may vary tremendously in games. One of the most fun ironies of White Wolf is that Vampire: The Masquerade is one of the most moral games in the world because the whole point is you're destined to become evil then die.
So, this is a discussion of how the 'Alignment assumptions' of canon D&D affects your games.
For me, I've got to say that the conflict between Good and Evil gets pretty much tossed out at my table for being replaced with "Law vs. Chaos." I'm not a Warhammer fan but I tend to prefer Shades of Gray vs. Pure Evil as a general rule.
At my table, there's some universal constants.
* Dwarves hate Elves and war on them whenever they aren't united against Orcs or Hobgoblins.
* Paladins Hate Harpers and Vice Versa.
* The Gods of Lawful Goodness despite the Seldarine and other Free Spirited Gods.
* The Forces of Chaos and Lawful Evil (Orcs and Hobgoblins) will ally against Dwarves and Elves when they unite, otherwise they war.
* Very few Evil individuals are genuinely serving Evil as a purpose. Servants of Gods like Hextor and Bane often are very honorable and just genuinely believe fascism is the way, baby.
* Likewise, "Good" is pretty much in the eye of the Beholder with Just Men frequently at Loggerheads with other faiths on it.
* Humans are drawn to both sides of the Law vs. Chaos conflict and are the Wild Cards in any such conflict.
Personally, I rarely have player characters serving specifically the cause of Law vs. Chaos. If they do, it's because they're flawed in some way because there's really no point to it. However, it allows for the generation of alot of artificial conflict that cripples the forces of good every bit as much as the bad guys are crippled by their own infighting.
I imagine the way I run things would be a problem for a lot of people.