D&D 5th Edition XIV: Hippy Druid Love, baby!

[russdm]

So, people requested a new thread.

Discuss 5th Edition here, at Kitchen Stadium! Let Iron Chef Begin!!!!

[obryn]

Here's the paragraph in question:

By contrast, the 3rd Edition Monster Manual listed orcs as "often chaotic evil." Even setting aside the question of the orc babies, that seems to raise a lot of moral questions. How do I know that any particular orc band is evil? I can't just stumble into an orc lair and start killing them. I need to make sure they're evil. I need to observe their actions and verify that they're doing evil things. And even then, maybe I should be more concerned with rehabilitating them than with killing them. Basically, orcs are people, too. Orcs in this view aren't a corruption of nature, evil by virtue of their very existence. They're criminals, or an enemy nation. Their culture is evil, they're raised to be evil, but they don't have to be evil. So slaughtering their babies is evil, too.

That's not fantasy, frankly, at least not in its classic sense. That's the sciences of anthropology and psychology.

Monsters are monsters, not people.

While this may not be true for all Fantasy games, it's probably best to be held true in D&D. Leave the moralizing to less-mainstream games and individual DM prerogative.

This only applies to Orcs sitting around doing nothing.

In a D&D-style fantasy, is it really hard to have those Orcs pose an active threat against someone or something? Behaving in evil and destructive ways, as opposed to just "being Evil."

Not everybody is looking for introspective soul-searching and philosophy in D&D. But it's hardly a stretch to say, "these guys need sworded because of a specific threat they pose," and "eh, the Monster Manual says 'evil' so let's just kill 'em." That's just an excuse for lazy adventure writing, IMO.

-O

[Flickerdart]

The writer is clearly missing a huge thing about alignment - being evil is not punishable by death. A pickpocket stealing from a poor merchant might be evil. A cruel drill sergeant might be evil. A work-focused businessman might be evil. Until any of these people have committed crimes that warrant capital punishment, attacking them is illegal.

[hamishspence]

He's also missing the fact that, at least in the Hobbit, Goblin (orc) children are mentioned- Gollum's reminiscing over having caught and ate "a small goblin-imp".

It's only the LoTR movies that's explicit that they "spring into being fully grown" - based on a very old concept that was discarded early on.

[Turalisj]

I vote for: D&D 5th Edition XIV: Not in my Fantasy Game!

[hamishspence]

I liked the theory voiced here one or two times- that all the common humanoids descended from a progenitor race- mongrelfolk- but, unwilling to admit this, they insist mongrelfolk are hybrids rather than progenitor survivors.

[SiuiS]

I only started talking about realism because you had. But, you know what? Fine. You win this argument on the Internet, through the fine art of twisting your opponent's points around. I'm done.

Oh, don't give me that. I never brought up realism, I brought up comparative preparedness, which you turned into realism. My entire point was that a light, fast offensive warrior is not defined by lack of equipment. This isn't a Internet Argument, I'm making an actual point, and am bringing up actual things you've said – my very first statement was "two guys of equal skill, guy with better gear will win";

"Theres a reason for that. Two equally skilled guys, fighting? Guy with armor is gonna win. Guy with shield is gonna win. And mechanically, "really good with fast, light weapon" and "really good with big, heavy weapon" are the same thing. You'd need a separate mechanic to make them different, just like your need armor to be separate from defense."

And my very next statement was about verisimilitude, which is what makes sense in the context of the game, the story, the system and the cultural zeitgeist;

"But it has always striven for verisimilitude until 4e, and early games based the power of monsters off of comparison to realistic troop units, not the other way around. This 'realism' has been a valid point since game inception. Or were you not around for "intelligent enemies will attack the AC 10 head 50% of the time if you aren't wearing a helmet"?"

I also asked a contextual question to clarify how far back you went for your comparison of "what D&D definitely always has been" (). I used 'realism' in little marks for a reason, and used it AFTER you did. There has been no twisting. You said "yeah, if you like realism, but it shouldn't be here" and I said, "realism does not factor into this at all", every time.

So instead if declaring me Forum Anathema as if it were a valid rebuttal; restarting, fresh slate, because despite your animosity and casual dismissal this is a valid discussion which can come to an actual conclusion;

Light weight, fast offence fighters are viable but should not be viable at all levels with nothing more than starting gear. They need additional gear, just like everyone else. This does not invalidate light, fast offence as a warrior type. It does still fit with the idea of preparation and equipment (both mathematical bonuses) being equally important as skill (also a mathematical bonus).

Do you still think this invalidates monks or swashbucklers?

Here's the paragraph in question:

By contrast, the 3rd Edition Monster Manual listed orcs as "often chaotic evil." Even setting aside the question of the orc babies, that seems to raise a lot of moral questions. How do I know that any particular orc band is evil? I can't just stumble into an orc lair and start killing them. I need to make sure they're evil. I need to observe their actions and verify that they're doing evil things. And even then, maybe I should be more concerned with rehabilitating them than with killing them. Basically, orcs are people, too. Orcs in this view aren't a corruption of nature, evil by virtue of their very existence. They're criminals, or an enemy nation. Their culture is evil, they're raised to be evil, but they don't have to be evil. So slaughtering their babies is evil, too.

That's not fantasy, frankly, at least not in its classic sense. That's the sciences of anthropology and psychology.


This only applies to Orcs sitting around doing nothing.

In a D&D-style fantasy, is it really hard to have those Orcs pose an active threat against someone or something? Behaving in evil and destructive ways, as opposed to just "being Evil."

Not everybody is looking for introspective soul-searching and philosophy in D&D. But it's hardly a stretch to say, "these guys need sworded because of a specific threat they pose," and "eh, the Monster Manual says 'evil' so let's just kill 'em." That's just an excuse for lazy adventure writing, IMO.

That's interesting.

I agree. "All orcs are evil" shouldn't mean orcs who just sit there are evil; it means orcs who just sit there are resting during an actively evil, malignant activity. If they can communicate this – make it clear there are no Orc settlements, only roving marauder war camps; there are no innocent orcs, every Orc found is doing evil at the time; orcs aren't people, they are primal manifestations of entropy with animal cunning which spring from the my thing world-borders – then the game tone will be set. You will lose some of the charm of 2/3e, though.

It also works in that you can always opt not to dot his, but then it's one of those changes to your campaign you're supposed to tell the players about, so they should be forewarned.

I liked the theory voiced here one or two times- that all the common humanoids descended from a progenitor race- mongrelfolk- but, unwilling to admit this, they insist mongrelfolk are hybrids rather than progenitor survivors.

Haha. Yeah~

[Kurald Galain]

The writer is clearly missing a huge thing about alignment - being evil is not punishable by death. A pickpocket stealing from a poor merchant might be evil. A cruel drill sergeant might be evil. A work-focused businessman might be evil. Until any of these people have committed crimes that warrant capital punishment, attacking them is illegal.

That doesn't matter if your paladin is Chaotic Good

[Turalisj]

That doesn't matter if your paladin is Chaotic Good

Yes. Yes it does.

Lawful Neutral paladin on the other hand, might as well be named Batman.

[SiuiS]

Yes. Yes it does.

Lawful Neutral paladin on the other hand, might as well be named Batman.

Maybe not. They can't keep grandfathering alignment in. They'll have to pull a 4e and re-write (and redefine) everything.

[hamishspence]

They'll have to pull a 4e and re-write (and redefine) everything.

To quote TV Tropes:

Nothing can be trusted by virtue of its nature or appearance in Points of Light. Metallic Dragons can be evil, elves can be slave traders, orcs can be noble savages, a diabolist might be a staunch defender of the innocent, an eldritch monster from beyond the stars might be granting powers to help avert The End of the World as We Know It ... you have very little way of knowing.

This was what I liked most about it.

I don't like the idea of them going right back to 1e's "monsters exist to be killed by the players" approach.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't like the idea of them going right back to 1e's "monsters exist to be killed by the players" approach.

But that's 4E's approach as well, to the point where monsters are expected to live for 3-4 combat rounds only, and aren't given any abilities beyond that. How is that going "back" to anything?

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more in terms of them having dropped "Always X" alignment, made many Evil-Only PRCs into Classes that allow unaligned and good characters, and so on and so forth.

A Morality Kitchen Sink, rather than pure Black And White Morality, so to speak.

[Tehnar]

Why not just have a morality in roleplaying chapter? Where killing sentients is discussed, and what steps to take in your campaign to get the playstyle you want and its ramification.

[Morty]

As dubious as I am to get into an alignment debate, I'm not sure if the model of orcs that spring from the ground as murderous cannibal adults can be really called 'evil', anyway. Evil, to me, is a conscious choice to do the wrong thing for your personal gain, material or otherwise. If a creature is hard-wired into being violent and destructive, is it really evil? The same would apply to inherently good creatures, but funnily enough, you don't see those very often. I wonder why... Of course, whether or not we call such a creature evil is really immaterial, because either way, other beings need to defend themselves from them. But describing them as 'evil' isn't really accurate.

Really, the 'inherently evil' orcs, goblinoids and whatnot seem like an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. People want sapient, intelligent enemies capable of forming societies, creating plans and acting strategically, but they also want them to be universally monsters they can kill without compunctions. But trying to combine the two ends in dissonance.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why not just have a morality in roleplaying chapter? Where killing sentients is discussed, and what steps to take in your campaign to get the playstyle you want and its ramification.

This would probably be the best solution: Thing is this would require the 5E team to admit there are multiple ways to play the game, and we can't have that.

[Clawhound]

Just as important: can the team design a game where some characters aren't thrown into moral traps that destroy their character concept?

If you then create such a game, has the game lost an important aspect? Have you lost a tension necessary when playing such a character?

[1337 b4k4]

If a creature is hard-wired into being violent and destructive, is it really evil? The same would apply to inherently good creatures, but funnily enough, you don't see those very often.

Once again, this is something that D&D got right the first time. Original alignment is Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic and leaves the question of whether an individual creature (or group of creatures) is "evil" or not out of the alignment debate. While it does note that "chaotic behaviors" are often "evil behaviors" it does not that they are not synonymous and that a chaotically aligned individual might just be a "happy go lucky, unpredictable personality"

[Person_Man]

RE: Alignment

D&D is a game, not a simulation of real life if magic and monsters existed, or a logical treatise on morality.

The point of alignment in the context of a game is to provide a shorthand way of describing your character, NPCs, and monsters. Instead of having to write out a page of back story for orcs in my campaign world, I can just say "Usually Chaotic Evil." This is very important for new and young players, because it helps introduce them to roleplaying without requiring a high level of intellectual sophistication or effort. It's also helpful for players who enjoy "break down the door" campaigns that focus on combat without throwing away everything related to roleplaying.

It allows you to just look orcs and say "oh, orcs are usually Evil" and kill them. And not "hey, these orcs are people too. Perhaps I shouldn't be killing them. I should investigate their culture to find out more about what truly drives them and whether or not my violent actions are justified. And now that I think about it, it's rarely moral to kill anyone unless they're directly threatening me, my family, or my way of life. Perhaps I should return to my home town and invest more in the Profession Skill."

If you don't like that style of play, that's ok. The game is flexible enough that you can easily change the alinement rules, ignore the alignment rules, or add long back stories to anything, without sacrificing or changing 99% of the other rules. But the default rules should be easily understood and usable, not a long moralizing digressions.

[Segev]

I think the core of the paragraph quoted in green's message is that it's okay to have a dungeon populated by orcs who are a threat because they generically ravage the nearby areas, and not enter into moral quandaries when discussing whether it's "okay" to wipe them out entirely. Orcs are monsters if the DM says they're generally acting like them. D&D isn't exactly emulating modern social mores wherein we quibble over whether the people in that building are ALL members of the terrorist cell, or some are merely human shields.

Orcs are monsters so that we can disregard those questions. There's little need for the concept of "collateral damage" when killing monsters.



Now, for an interesting potential twist, what if you actually changed race when you changed alignment? What if Chaotic Good people morphed into elves as their behavior brought them closer to that ideal? Lawful Neutral people morph into Dwarves, etc. You could make 9-race "families" that are all one species scattered across multiple alignments, even.

A very rough use of the d20srd.org monster filter provides 9 races (and variants) that are small humanoids, and we could arrange it thusly (as an example):

Derro are CE, Goblins are NE, Kobolds are LE, Tallfellow Halflings are LN, Deep Halflings are TN, Lightfoot Halflings are CN, Forest Gnomes are CG, Svirfneblin are NG, and Rock Gnomes are LG.

Obviously, you'd have to rebalance the stats so that there weren't some that are double or sextuple the CR of their other-aligned kin, but it could be an intersting way to set things up.

"That goblin is evil and obviously deserves what's coming to him!" "That's racist!" "No, if he weren't evil, he'd be a halfling or a gnome."

[hamishspence]

Personally I think The Giant said it best:

"Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures."

[Kurald Galain]

It allows you to just look orcs and say "oh, orcs are usually Evil" and kill them. And not "hey, these orcs are people too. Perhaps I shouldn't be killing them.

The writer of a certain popular D&D-based webcomic vehemently disagrees with this notion...

[Morty]

If you don't like that style of play, that's ok. The game is flexible enough that you can easily change the alinement rules, ignore the alignment rules, or add long back stories to anything, without sacrificing or changing 99% of the other rules. But the default rules should be easily understood and usable, not a long moralizing digressions.

The article we're discussing disagrees with you, since its conclusion seems to be that you can't have fantasy without inherently evil sapient species.

[hamishspence]

In a lot of fantasy, while such beings might exist, the vast majority of the adventurer's time is spent fighting humans- with monsters representing a tiny minority of their opponents.

Conan springs to mind.

[obryn]

"That goblin is evil and obviously deserves what's coming to him!" "That's racist!" "No, if he weren't evil, he'd be a halfling or a gnome."

Leaving aside how terrible D&D's alignment structure is, this would make every character subject to the same sort of nonsense as Paladins are in some editions.

And also, no.

Personally I think The Giant said it best:

"Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures."

This is certainly where I have been for years. I have no issues with demons, devils, etc. being supernatural forces of evil. That's fine. It's when you get into orcs, goblinoids, etc. that it becomes kind of troubling if you stop to think about it. (And I think now, in 2013, quite a few people have stopped to think about it already.)

-O

[SiuiS]

Personally I think The Giant said it best:

"Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures."

Why aren't orcs supernatural? Marauding pigmen that spring from badlands? Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls... These are fairy creatures, low grade elemental evil. A bugabear is literally a boogie monster, after all.

I understand the premise of biological (ie natural in the evolutionary sense) monsters not being evil, but I reject the premise that a monster who is a hairy, sharp toothed shadow under a four year old's bed who is only there when the lights go off is a biological monster.

We're checking one assumption, why not others? Why is "I'm assuming monsters are monsters" badc and yet "I'm assuming monsters have an ecosystem and are not supernatural monsters" okay?

[Craft (Cheese)]

The writer is clearly missing a huge thing about alignment - being evil is not punishable by death. A pickpocket stealing from a poor merchant might be evil. A cruel drill sergeant might be evil. A work-focused businessman might be evil. Until any of these people have committed crimes that warrant capital punishment, attacking them is illegal.

But that makes everything so much easier! When the party spots a group of Orcs drinking, sparring, and singing songs around a campfire, that's an opportunity for an ambush and some easy XP.

Evil as shorthand for "kill this" means you don't have to go through all the trouble of doing boring stuff like establishing context, creating opportunities for meaningful choice, or encouraging well-developed character motivations. You get to the loot and the XP so much faster!

[hamishspence]

Given how much variation in depiction of them there is in fiction, folklore and so forth- one can't exactly say that "low level elemental evil" is the norm rather than the exception.

Personally I'd make all races something the DM has to put together of their own accord (possibly using Human as a base).

Halflings- Humans with the Short modification.
Dwarves- Humans with the Short and Strong modifications
Elves- Humans with the Fey modification
Orcs- Humans with the Strong and Tough modifications
Sahaugin- Humans with the Fishfolk modification.
Lizardfolk- Humans with the Scaled One modification


And so forth. People who want Evil orcs could give them a Corrupted modification- those who don't, wouldn't.

[SiuiS]

But that makes everything so much easier! When the party spots a group of Orcs drinking, sparring, and singing songs around a campfire, that's an opportunity for an ambush and some easy XP.

Evil as shorthand for "kill this" means you don't have to go through all the trouble of doing boring stuff like establishing context, creating opportunities for meaningful choice, or encouraging well-developed character motivations. You get to the loot and the XP so much faster!

Or, the DM could be intelligent and not have monsters be humans in funny suits. Why are orcs sitting around a campfire with beers, talking about their bros? This is a terrible example, even as a sarcastic set up. If everyone is going to look the same sitting around a fire talking about their bros and conquests, then there's no reason not to kill them – they're barely caricatures anyway, and exist for whatever the DM contrived at the moment, rather than as a people or culture.

Given how much variation in depiction of them there is in fiction, folklore and so forth- one can't exactly say that "low level elemental evil" is the norm rather than the exception.

Personally I'd make all races something the DM has to put together of their own accord (possibly using Human as a base).

Halflings- Humans with the Short modification.
Dwarves- Humans with the Short and Strong modifications
Elves- Humans with the Fey modification
Orcs- Humans with the Strong and Tough modifications
Sahaugin- Humans with the Fishfolk modification.
Lizardfolk- Humans with the Scaled One modification


And so forth. People who want Evil orcs could give them a Corrupted modification- those who don't, wouldn't.

That is kinda neat, yeah.

[Ziegander]

Why aren't orcs supernatural? Marauding pigmen that spring from badlands? Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls... These are fairy creatures, low grade elemental evil. A bugabear is literally a boogie monster, after all.

I understand the premise of biological (ie natural in the evolutionary sense) monsters not being evil, but I reject the premise that a monster who is a hairy, sharp toothed shadow under a four year old's bed who is only there when the lights go off is a biological monster.

It's an interesting point of view, but the reason orcs aren't supernatural is because not once in D&D history have they been presented as anything even close to supernatural.

Do they live on the Material Plane? Yes.
Do they breed true among themselves, producing live offspring? Yes.
Do they need to eat, sleep, and breathe in order to survive? Yes.
Do they bleed and have internal organs? Yes.

So, are they biological?
Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? No.
Is there a lot of evidence to suggest that they are? Yes.

Or, the DM could be intelligent and not have monsters be humans in funny suits. Why are orcs sitting around a campfire with beers, talking about their bros? This is a terrible example, even as a sarcastic set up.

I'm sorry, but this... I don't even. Why can't Orcs sit around a campfire enjoying the company of their peers like any other intelligent species?