D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Faolyn]

They haven't ever been objectively evil as a race just because their god made them that way. Starting with 3e, orcs were often CE, which meant that 40-50% were. In 5e the alignment is only a suggestion and the book says the DM can use any alignment he wants for any creature. Eberron orcs are not all evil in 5e. So despite the 5e orc fluff, they are not all evil. However, if an orc IS evil, whether through choice or Gruumsh, it is objectively evil.

In 1e and 2e far fewer of them were not evil, but they still existed.

Have you actually read their descriptions pre-3e? For instance, from 1e:

Ditto 2e:

And there's nothing in their description that suggests that this isn't nearly universal. All 2e notes is some humans are as bad as orcs and that orcs prefer game meat over that of sentient beings. "Not cannibals" is not a glowing endorsement.

 

[Maxperson]

Have you actually read their descriptions pre-3e? For instance, from 1e:

View attachment 139845
View attachment 139844

Ditto 2e:

View attachment 139846
View attachment 139847

And there's nothing in their description that suggests that this isn't nearly universal. All 2e notes is some humans are as bad as orcs and that orcs prefer game meat over that of sentient beings. "Not cannibals" is not a glowing endorsement.

That's why I said....

"In 1e and 2e far fewer of them were not evil, but they still existed."

And it had nothing to do with their write-up. The fluff doesn't determine how common an alignment is. The alignment rules for monsters do.

 

[Faolyn]

Mostly, but the bolder part isn't necessarily true. Nothing says that they had to go deep into the underdark. It's just as plausible that they simply feared the elves would follow them down into the dark and so they went deep just to be sure.

"Only by fleeing deep into the Underdark did the quaggoths survive."

Even if you want to claim they overreacted and went deeper than they had to, this rather shows that they were that afraid of the elves.

No. Alignment is something objective in D&D. Orcs are not evil because of some resistance to land taking. Those orcs that are evil, are evil because they are actually evil. Not all orcs are evil by RAW.

"They're evil because they're evil." What?!

The only way you can interpret the wording that way is if you homebrew alignment to be subjective. Otherwise that interpretation fails on its face. The evil orcs are objectively evil. The good orcs are objectively good. And the neutral orcs are objectively neutral.

Where do you see that D&D alignment is objective? Which makes no sense, because if the alignments were objective--if something was literally evil because it's evil--then every member of that race would be evil. And vice versa. Nobody would or could change alignments, which can clearly happen because you can play a good or neutral orc.

 

[Maxperson]

"Only by fleeing deep into the Underdark did the quaggoths survive."

Even if you want to claim they overreacted and went deeper than they had to, this rather shows that they were that afraid of the elves.\

Which I acknowledge in my post by agreeing that it was mostly correct what was said.

"They're evil because they're evil." What?!

Meaning that it's not something outside of them making them evil. They are evil, because they have an evil alignment and evil is objective in D&D, not subjective.

Where do you see that D&D alignment is objective? Which makes no sense, because if the alignments were objective--if something was literally evil because it's evil--then every member of that race would be evil. And vice versa. Nobody would or could change alignments, which can clearly happen because you can play a good or neutral orc.

I has always been objective. Entire planes are hard coded to it, in some editions alignments were even cosmic sides to join. An evil act will always be an evil act. It doesn't matter if a society views it as good or not, if they practice it they are engaging in evil. Same with good acts.

 

[Faolyn]

That's why I said....

"In 1e and 2e far fewer of them were not evil, but they still existed."

And it had nothing to do with their write-up. The fluff doesn't determine how common an alignment is. The alignment rules for monsters do.

And they didn't have those rules in 1e or 2e. There aren't even rules for it in 5e, just the note that you the DM can do whatever you want with it. 3e had rules for it by listing percentages.

(Also, default doesn't mean "most common." It means "everything is like this, unless deliberately changed.")

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I've never cared for orcs even before they became a lightning rod for controversy. I'd love it if they and Gruumsh got retconned out of existence. At the very least they could be turned back into pigmen so people wouldn't care so much about how they're portrayed.

 

[Faolyn]

Which I acknowledge in my post by agreeing that it was mostly correct what was said.

Meaning that it's not something outside of them making them evil. They are evil, because they have an evil alignment and evil is objective in D&D, not subjective.

Except that they have been specifically made evil by their religious beliefs (which is an outside force), which led to Volo's most racist comment about how an orc raised away from that culture can be "domesticated."

And since their religion is based around gods that are real, and their gods are urging them to continue the slaughter of other races, that too is something outside of them.

I has always been objective. Entire planes are hard coded to it,

Except the alignment of planes can be changed--see the layer of Arcadia that got sucked into Mechanus because the actions of the Harmonium made it more Neutral than Good.

in some editions alignments were even cosmic sides to join. An evil act will always be an evil act. It doesn't matter if a society views it as good or not, if they practice it they are engaging in evil. Same with good acts.

So all PCs are evil because killing someone is an evil act. Even if society says that killing someone in self-defense or defense of others isn't evil.

 

[Maxperson]

And they didn't have those rules in 1e or 2e. There aren't even rules for it in 5e, just the note that you the DM can do whatever you want with it. 3e had rules for it by listing percentages.

Sure they did. You've always been able to make individual exceptions to the rules.

This is from 2e: "Alignment shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered." The exceptions aren't even rare. They're just uncommon. Every 5th tribe or orcs could be non-evil and still be an uncommon exception.

1e had to rely on Rule 0.

(Also, default doesn't mean "most common." It means "everything is like this, unless deliberately changed.")

That the DM is free by RAW to have any alignment of orc he wants, means that all alignments are out there. It's jut the CE ones that are encountered by default.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that they have been specifically made evil by their religious beliefs (which is an outside force), which led to Volo's most racist comment about how an orc raised away from that culture can be "domesticated."

Not all orcs follow Gruumsh. Those orcs have no Gruumsh beliefs to make them evil.

And since their religion is based around gods that are real, and their gods are urging them to continue the slaughter of other races, that too is something outside of them.

Again, except for all the orcs that don't follow Gruumsh.

Except the alignment of planes can be changed--see the layer of Arcadia that got sucked into Mechanus because the actions of the Harmonium made it more Neutral than Good.

Yep. You can go from objectively one alignment to objectively another. They didn't get there by believing evil was good, though. They got their by changing their beliefs to match that of Mechanus. There was no subjectivity involved.

So all PCs are evil because killing someone is an evil act. Even if society says that killing someone in self-defense or defense of others isn't evil.

Killing is not inherently evil. Murder is. Killing in war(legitimate battles, not massacres of civilians), self-defense, defense or another, and execution are examples of non-evil killing.

 

[Maxperson]

I've never cared for orcs even before they became a lightning rod for controversy. I'd love it if they and Gruumsh got retconned out of existence. At the very least they could be turned back into pigmen so people wouldn't care so much about how they're portrayed.

I think that would be an overreaction.

They still are pigmen. This is the 5e description, "Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."