D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Aldarc]

I don't think so.

Okay.

 

[Maxperson]

So it is a false equivalence the say the default orc is evil just like the default zombie is evil because you don't have a spell to summon orcs, but you do for zombies? What kind of logic is that supposed to be?

So then, what does it mean when it says "Chaotic Evil" on the Orc statblock? Is it just a friendly suggestion?

You're not even making an effort to understand. LOL

Well, the designers wrote orcs as stupidly evil then. Not my fault, I'm just following RAW.

First, not all fluff is a rule. Most of it isn't, really. Second, even if it was, I've proven that you aren't.

RAW for the spell tells us to look at the statblock, so we must take the statblock as written, no changes.

The spell specifically says to use the statblock, so to go outside of that isn't RAW with regard to the spell. I guess you aren't getting that the spell uses two different sets of rules. 1) The spell, and 2) Zombie stat block.

But, if we are just placing a monster in the world, then we are allowed to use the other rules in the Monster Manual?

You aren't bound by the RAW of the Spell, so you can use the other rules in the MM for placement of encounters. If you use the spell, the spell RAW dictating the use of the statblock comes into play as well.

Are you trying to be funny here, because that is just such a narrow view of the game I don't understand how you expect me to take that seriously.

I guess I just have a better understanding of the rules than you do. No worries.

If the rule exists for monsters to have different alignments, then it applies to all monsters, not just the ones that the PCs have no hand in.

False. Rules, you know, interact with each other. They don't exist in isolation If you don't know that, it explains your problems with this thread.

And, if players have no ability to alter the default game, then why should the PCs assume good orcs when they come across a tribe of orcs?

I don't know. Why should they?

They can't alter the default, the default is evil, so they are well within reason to treat the orcs as evil. They can't change it after all.

They can assume evil all they want. Being evil doesn't give you license to just hack them down, though. Do that without justification and you are evil, too.

So how does this interact with the RAW that "Orcs aren’t interested in treaties, trade negotiations or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods. "

Since that fluff isn't a rule, it's up to you the DM to decide.

RAW is conflicting (I swear I argued that before....) and so which RAW should we follow? (I believe the last time this came up, I was told that the answer is to follow the default statblock in the Monster Manual, so the orcs will still be evil. Wonder if that still holds true)

Rulings over rules(or in this case fluff), man. You get to decide how conflicts resolve. You are well within your rights to declare that orcs never make alliances and effectively remove half-orcs as a race and make them singular exceptions or say they don't exist at all.

 

[Maxperson]

A really good homebrew. I understand a bit more your position. To each his own I guess.

Yeah. That's a pretty cool homebrew.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the designers wrote orcs as stupidly evil then. Not my fault, I'm just following RAW.

Orcs = Stupidly Evil.

Yeah, sounds about right since forever - why mess with it now?

 

[Maxperson]

Orcs = Stupidly Evil.

Yeah, sounds about right since forever - why mess with it now?

Heh. They may not be bright, but they don't always attack everything on sight, either.

 

[Lanefan]

Yuan-Ti in my setting are snake people because they contain the divine essence of snake gods. They have a complicated system of ritual cannibalism to concentrate the divine essense, leading to more snake-like individuals.

Interesting take.

The loss of half-orcs actually predates 5e. I had a player in 4e who really was uncomfortable that most half-orcs came from rape, so they asked me to change it.

I've just never had it that most come from rape. I also have it more finely-tuned than just "half" - you can be anything from 1/8 to 7/8 Orc depending what you roll, and these "Part-Orcs" can reproduce just like anyone else. (thus, a child of a Human and a 5/8 Orc would be 2/8 Orc, I round the fractions down)

Elf-Human crossbreeds work the same way; and it gets even messier if a Part-Elf and a Part-Orc get together.

I just kept the change as I moved, making orcs a much more reasonable race than they are normally presented.

My working assumption is that any PC Part-Orc has been raised in a civilized society, much like a Human. Full Orcs aren't available as PCs, and are generally more like the stereotypical "Stupidly Evil" seen in many places.

I also have them as monotheistic - it's a might-makes-right culture and Gruumsh killed off all their other deities.

To date, I have not had anyone interested in half-elves, so none have existed. It isn't a question I'm terribly interested in, so I haven't considered the world-building too much. I do have a lot of "cross-breed" races when it comes to humans, so I might still allow them, but I'll have to change somethings around on the Orc end if I do.

I'm shocked nobody's looked at Half-Elves, unless they got hosed somehow in 5e.

Dragonborn were originally (in my first homebrew) formerly elves who messed around with dragon magic. There were then slave races and an ancient war, but I'm thinking for my new world of having them be the creations of dragons. They make kobolds as servants, dragonborn as soldiers and diplomats, ect. But I haven't fully decided on that yet.

Were I to have them in my game they'd be in effect Part-Dragons.

I've already done the legwork ages ago on determining what can breed with what, and some shapeshifting Dragons can breed with Humans (and Elves), so it's not a big jump to get to something like Dragonborn. I don't want them as PCs though.

 

[Lanefan]

And yet, the black and white situation is where most players like their games. Most people do not want to question whether the bad guy is evil or not. They want actions. They do not want to feel cheap for killing the bad guy but they want to feel heroic. Gray areas are best for one shot adventures and scenarios.

I disagree with the last bit there.

There's tons of space for a non-heroic Game-of-Thrones style setting where pretty much everyone is gray if not outright evil, and the goals are furtherance of your own and-or family's aims along with sheer survival. Limiting that to a one-shot would be a colossal waste.

 

[Helldritch]

I disagree with the last bit there.

There's tons of space for a non-heroic Game-of-Thrones style setting where pretty much everyone is gray if not outright evil, and the goals are furtherance of your own and-or family's aims along with sheer survival. Limiting that to a one-shot would be a colossal waste.

A whole gray campaign is welcome once in a while. In my book this is considered a one shot that lasted 2 years. I did play Vampire, Werewolf and Cthuluh and there is enough gray in there to entertain those who like gray. As a player I love gray. Especially in Vampire the Masquerade. But as a DM, I prefer a Heroic style where good and evil are clear and easy to identify. Once in while there might be a villain that tries to pass as a good person but I often leave a few hints that it ain't so.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're not even making an effort to understand. LOL

What part am I not trying to understand? You seemed to emphasize that one was using the default because it was being created by a spell, and the other doesn't need to follow the default.

If you have some other point I'm missing, well, I'm missing it.

First, not all fluff is a rule. Most of it isn't, really. Second, even if it was, I've proven that you aren't.

No, you proved that RAW is conflicting. Not the same thing

The spell specifically says to use the statblock, so to go outside of that isn't RAW with regard to the spell. I guess you aren't getting that the spell uses two different sets of rules. 1) The spell, and 2) Zombie stat block.

Ok. So, they spell says to use the statblock. It does not call out the zombie as being evil.

New Rule section: The statblock says zombies are evil, but the rules of monster alignment allow that to be changed.

So, by RAW, the spell could create non-evil zombies. Because we are talking about two different sets of rules. And, I actually argued this exact same point. I argued that the spell and the monster statblock did not match up completely, allowing it to be more likely that the spell created non-evil versions of the monster.

The response I got in exchange, was that the statblock said zombies were evil, therefore the spell creates evil zombies.

So, you are arguing something I said in defense of RAW non-evil Animate Dead, which you previously argued against.

You aren't bound by the RAW of the Spell, so you can use the other rules in the MM for placement of encounters. If you use the spell, the spell RAW dictating the use of the statblock comes into play as well.

I'm sorry, which part of the RAW of the spell says that we can't use the other rules of the MM that effect monster statblocks?

The spell says nothing about the monster created being evil. You are claiming that the spell dictates we can only use the statblock as written, but the rules of statblocks allow us to alter the alignment of the creature.

If we can do it RAW for one creature, we can do it RAW for another.

If you say that we cannot change the alignment of the undead created by the spell by RAW, then we need to know why that the rules for alignment within the MM do not apply to all monsters equally.

I guess I just have a better understanding of the rules than you do. No worries.

If you want to assume a superior position, feel free to make yourself a nice place. But if you can't back up your arguments, then you don't.

False. Rules, you know, interact with each other. They don't exist in isolation If you don't know that, it explains your problems with this thread.

Yes, rules interact with each other.

So why are you trying to isolate the rules of Animate Dead and not allow them to interact with the other rules in the game?

My position is quite literally to allow the rules for Animate Dead to interact with the rules for alignment in the Monster Manual. Your position is that these rules cannot interact. You are arguing for isolation, not me.

I don't know. Why should they?

You are the one arguing they aren't evil. You are the one with the burden of proof here.

The position was "these orcs are evil, the default says they are evil" you are the one who jumped up and said that was wrong. You are the one who needs to prove your case.

They can assume evil all they want. Being evil doesn't give you license to just hack them down, though. Do that without justification and you are evil, too.

Self Defense.

You know, there even is a section of law for self defense that allows you to act under the reasonable assumption that the person you are fighting is an imminent threat to your life.

Orcs are an imminent threat to the life of the party who comes upon them. Because the default orc is evil and will attack them.

Since that fluff isn't a rule, it's up to you the DM to decide.

Rulings over rules(or in this case fluff), man. You get to decide how conflicts resolve. You are well within your rights to declare that orcs never make alliances and effectively remove half-orcs as a race and make them singular exceptions or say they don't exist at all.

You seem to keep forgetting that I am a DM. When I was arguing for a RAW way to make undead non-evil. I was a DM, here, talking about the RAW lore and rules for orcs? I am a DM.

When I presented the conflict between the RAW of undead, I was told that I was free to change it, but RAW was that they were evil.

Now, when you are presented with a conflict between RAW for orcs, you are still saying I'm free to change it, but that I probably shouldn't follow RAW in making them evil.

What is the difference here?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A really good homebrew. I understand a bit more your position. To each his own I guess.

Yeah. That's a pretty cool homebrew.

Interesting take.

Thank you.

I've just never had it that most come from rape. I also have it more finely-tuned than just "half" - you can be anything from 1/8 to 7/8 Orc depending what you roll, and these "Part-Orcs" can reproduce just like anyone else. (thus, a child of a Human and a 5/8 Orc would be 2/8 Orc, I round the fractions down)

Guy read the 4e entry, came to me. He was uncomfortable, I saw no problem in creating the solution by just making half-orcs orcs. Led to much cleaner lore when I was building things, so I kept it.

I also have them as monotheistic - it's a might-makes-right culture and Gruumsh killed off all their other deities.

My current lore has Luthic in charge. Gruumsh refused to let the orcs work steel or use magic, so Luthic disposed him (reluctantly) because her children were dying and they couldn't use the tools they needed.

New Moons are when she goes to his prison to ask if he has reconsidered his position.

I'm shocked nobody's looked at Half-Elves, unless they got hosed somehow in 5e.

No, half-elves are incredibly powerful in 5e. No one has been interested in them. Couldn't tell you why.