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

[Helldritch]

If orcs were pig-people I highly doubt whether they would be depicted much. And like it or not there are probably three better known settings than any D&D setting, all of which feature orcs fairly centrally; Lord of the Rings, Warcraft, and Warhammer.

Pig faced orcs are so far outside mainstream depictions of orcs that they'd be one of the D&D odditites like the flumph.

Both yes and no. The pig faced orcs are now out of the mainstream because of Warcraft, World of Warcraft and LotR. The last one is a bit arguable depending on which orcs you look at but at some point, in the gaming community, the pig faced orc were the mainstream.

Yes, some people wanted to play orcs even before the 1980s but most if those that I ever been aware of were using this to play "the other side" and see what would come out of playing monsters facing adventurers... These games were usually short, about 3 or 6 sessions and once the fad faded, you would see them go back to standard gaming.

With the advent of Warcraft, the story line of the orcs was so good that many wanted to play these orcs. With WoW, it became a thunderous and resounding demand as orcs were no longer viewed as weak introduction monsters but as an honorable and tragic race to play.

And for those who wonder about the half orcs, they got introduced as the answer for the LotR half orcs of Sarouman...

All this to say that orcs being always evil or any other races for that matter should be campaign setting dependant. The warning in the MM that the default alignment can be changed and that it is optional, has never been so much needed than it is now. Yet, many ignore it.

 

[Aging Bard]

Totally misses my point. I said that there is likely a large portion of the player base who isn't aware this is being discussed because they don't follow the hobby online. It is impossible for those people to be attentive and listen because the debate in question isn't even a thing they are aware of and probably never will be. You are placing an impossible burden on that portion of the player base.

No I did not, and no I am not. To not be aware of these issues is to be willfully ignorant. You don't have to be "online" to recognize racism in popular culture. You are entirely too forgiving of racists. That reflects badly on you. Being anti-racist is hard work but it needs to be done, even in gaming.

 

[Faolyn]

The description is what matters, not the failure of the artist and WotC approval person. If you read the description, they are in fact pig people.

I have read the description. They haven't been pig people since 1e. They are not pig people in 2e either.

And considering there have been likely hundreds, maybe thousands of orc artists over the decades, both working for TSR/WotC and not, and the vast majority of them have not illustrated orcs as pigs, rather indicates that you need to read something other than their 1e description, which only talks about their snouts and ears.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's the same as saying "all orcs are evil." Because of course a DM can do anything they want. The DM can have a setting with no gravity and give all the PCs trucks. But by RAW all orcs are evil.

It's WRITTEN. IT'S RAW. I'm not talking about a house rule or rule 0.

 

[Maxperson]

You said "Basically, you look at a personality and each alignment is a box. The biggest box is your alignment. The rest are the aspects that fall outside of your alignment. If they're mostly the same size, you're neutral."

That's not an explanation of how it works. That's just a tired excuse. For instance "if they're mostly the same size, you're neutral." But how close is "mostly the same size"? 55/45? 60/40? If someone is 70% lawful and 30& chaotic, what does that make them? What if they're 40% chaotic, 25% neutral and 35% chaotic? And how do you, personally, measure how lawful or chaotic something is? If something seems random to everyone or nearly everyone, but actually follows a huge, elaborate plan, is that lawful or chaotic? Is Chaos, of the type involving butterflies and hurricanes, actually chaos or law?

And how is labeling a creature "neutral evil" going to tell you how it reacts in any particular situation? And do all neutral evil creatures react in the same way to that situation? If not, then how is that label useful, or more useful than actually giving it a few sentences of motivation?

Look. If you don't get it, don't use it. A whole lot of us do get it and do use it just fine.

 

[Fenris-77]

Declaring an entire mortal race to be evil is racialization.

Or it could be magic! Nothing says that applies to every individual, just to to most of them. Demons, for example, or whatever. Anyway, if you want to play with no good or evil go right ahead, be my guest, but your shrill temporizing is neither convincing nor appropriate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The description is what matters, not the failure of the artist and WotC approval person. If you read the description, they are in fact pig people.

Piggish is a term for having an upturned nose, not literally a pig.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe it would be easier if we called Orcs priggish.

 

[Maxperson]

I have read the description. They haven't been pig people since 1e. They are not pig people in 2e either.

And considering there have been likely hundreds, maybe thousands of orc artists over the decades, both working for TSR/WotC and not, and the vast majority of them have not illustrated orcs as pigs, rather indicates that you need to read something other than their 1e description, which only talks about their snouts and ears.

I couldn't care less about the art. Orcs in 5e literally have and I quote, "Piggish faces." They are pig people. In 3e they had and I quote, "and a piglike face." They were pig people. In 2e they had and I quote, "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." They were basically pig people. Now, maybe 4e was different, but 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e all had orcs as pig people.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let's pretend they're pigfolk.

Why would that matter to the fact that they're sapient beings and that it's dumb that they're 'evil' because the god of elves is a jackass?