D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Faolyn]

That's the story I was referencing.

Yes, he's "evil" in that his plan for revenge is to simply kill everyone else. But I think it's hard to say that's more evil than tricking an entire race of people into being stuck with inhospitable land for eternity. Looking back at US History, I doubt many people would view events such as the Trail of Tears as "good," and the Gruumsh story has times during which it comes across as a version of that on a cosmic scale.

The original myth, from Dragon #62:

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven gods drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. “All the lots are taken!” they said tauntingly. “Where will your people dwell, OneEye? There is no place left!”

There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it forth over the world. The shaft blotted out the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: “No. You lie. You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps; One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell . . . here!” With that, Gruumsh struck the forests with his spear, and a part of them withered with rot. “And here!” he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening mighty rifts and chasms. “And here!” and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust.

“And here!” and the black spear gouged the meadows, and made them barren.

“There!” roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. “There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they shall survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day shall come when they cover the world, and shall slay all of your collected peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!”

Assuming this is true for any given world, yeah, it doesn't put any of the gods in a good light.

 

[Lanefan]

Unfortunately, people saw the "often chaotic evil" line without looking that "often" means "half or fewer".

Or, like me, read "often" to mean "usually", and went from there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Worth Noting: Cat's can barely see within one foot of their face.

The way their eyes are positioned and the structure of the eye makes them very good at pouncing at a distance. But once something is close it becomes a fuzzy shape that they can't really focus on.

Part of why they have whiskers.

Doesn’t change that he watched it cover 20 feet of tile right past him and didn’t do more than flop on his side & swat at it after it was more than a yard away, then look at me as if to say, “I tried, but it got away!”

 

[Hexmage-EN]

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven gods drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. “All the lots are taken!” they said tauntingly. “Where will your people dwell, OneEye? There is no place left!”

There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it forth over the world. The shaft blotted out the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: “No. You lie. You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps; One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell . . . here!” With that, Gruumsh struck the forests with his spear, and a part of them withered with rot. “And here!” he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening mighty rifts and chasms. “And here!” and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust.

“And here!” and the black spear gouged the meadows, and made them barren.

“There!” roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. “There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they shall survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day shall come when they cover the world, and shall slay all of your collected peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!”

I find it interesting that this story both says "Gruumsh's people were cheated out of having a land to call their own" and "Gruumsh declared his people should be colonizers, kill all other peoples, and claim the whole of the world".

Also why wasn't everybody pissed that the human gods got the "can live anywhere you like" lot? Who thought that was a good idea?

 

[Steampunkette]

I'd say the method of creation doesn't matter a lick, @Argyle King.

If someone is born via invitrofertilization or we one day create an AI advanced enough to be a thinking being, they'll still be culpable for their actions so long as they're free willed and sapient. Cognizant of their actions and their consequences.

Like you'd never accuse a toddler of Murder for pulling the trigger of a gun they're playing with. Nor is it suicide if they accidentally shoot themself. It's just a tragic accident. That's still a human person who has killed someone, but there's no culpability 'cause they're completely incapable of making a moral decision. Practically any decision, really.

As to the Tolkienesque Orcs: They're sapient. They're also free-willed, as we see them disobey orders, kill each other for loot, and flee from a battle they've been ordered to. So declaring them all evil and that their entire race is itself evil -really- plays into racist tropes and ideologies.

In your D&D example you've just described a Murder. Someone killing another person for personal gain. It can never -be- justified to kill someone to enrich yourself. Now to kill someone because they're attacking you? Sure. To kill someone because they're an immediate danger to others? Sure. To kill someone who is an enemy of the realm while you serve the realm? People generally agree that's okay but it's dicey in my book.

Nature vs Nurture isn't something I've actually -ever- seen anyone want to explore in D&D. Some people obliquely reference it, typically when the party is about to adopt a Goblin or Kobold or something as a team-mascot and/or baby... But actually -exploring- it? It would take so much time and effort to compare and contrast and in the end it's all a foregone conclusion based on the story as written. Either the character's nature wins or their nurture wins not based on any exploration but entirely on DM Fiat.

With something like an angel it may seem egotistical to declare them unaligned... sure. I don't deny that. But it's not a real being. It's a fictional character we make up and it's goodness, evilness, or unalignedness is entirely up to us. There earnestly isn't a Cosmic Being involved that gets a higher say than we, the audience-participants.

I'm not sure I understand your final paragraph.

 

[Argyle King]

The original myth, from Dragon #62:


Assuming this is true for any given world, yeah, it doesn't put any of the gods in a good light.

While responding to this thread, I thought more about Oofta's questions concerning the cleric character.

Another possible avenue to approach is that the figure of Gruumsh is completely fictional. The whole story about him losing an eye and such is actually a misinterpretation of a story about Vecna (while he was alive) finding a way to bend early orcs to his will. Perhaps the "real" Gruumsh was a different figure entirely. Depending on how it was all put together, you could keep the general idea of Tolkien's orcs being twisted versions of something else -bent to the service of evil, while still exploring the idea that orcs have the ability to take back their own identity and being something other than the villains they've been painted to be by the rest of the world.

In one of my home settings for a non-D&D game, orcs and humans were once the same race. "Humans" were the tribes of primitive proto-humans who had the good fortune of being uplifted and guided by a group of beings which fill a role similar to elves. "Orcs" are the tribes who (for whatever reason) did not receive the same help, so they had to develop on their own through hardship.

Perhaps that could all be blended together to create a story in which "Gruumsh" (actually Vecna or some other BBEG) stole members of [species of choice] to turn them into lackeys/fodder/evil servants/etc. The revelation of the new gospel could shed light on this and create conflict because it now means that orcs may have a claim to something currently owned/occupied by what has traditionally been an enemy species. Are the [original species] willing to welcome converted orcs back to the homeland after eons of seeing them as monsters and enemies? Would most orcs even want to rejoin with [original species] after so much animosity over the years? Are there agents of the divine beings involved who have reason to keep the information secret? If there's a real Gruumsh somewhere, what happened to his divine spark and how would it change things for him to re-emerge (with help from the PC cleric)?

 

[Argyle King]

I'd say the method of creation doesn't matter a lick, @Argyle King.

If someone is born via invitrofertilization or we one day create an AI advanced enough to be a thinking being, they'll still be culpable for their actions so long as they're free willed and sapient. Cognizant of their actions and their consequences.

Like you'd never accuse a toddler of Murder for pulling the trigger of a gun they're playing with. Nor is it suicide if they accidentally shoot themself. It's just a tragic accident. That's still a human person who has killed someone, but there's no culpability 'cause they're completely incapable of making a moral decision. Practically any decision, really.

As to the Tolkienesque Orcs: They're sapient. They're also free-willed, as we see them disobey orders, kill each other for loot, and flee from a battle they've been ordered to. So declaring them all evil and that their entire race is itself evil -really- plays into racist tropes and ideologies.

In your D&D example you've just described a Murder. Someone killing another person for personal gain. It can never -be- justified to kill someone to enrich yourself. Now to kill someone because they're attacking you? Sure. To kill someone because they're an immediate danger to others? Sure. To kill someone who is an enemy of the realm while you serve the realm? People generally agree that's okay but it's dicey in my book.

Nature vs Nurture isn't something I've actually -ever- seen anyone want to explore in D&D. Some people obliquely reference it, typically when the party is about to adopt a Goblin or Kobold or something as a team-mascot and/or baby... But actually -exploring- it? It would take so much time and effort to compare and contrast and in the end it's all a foregone conclusion based on the story as written. Either the character's nature wins or their nurture wins not based on any exploration but entirely on DM Fiat.

With something like an angel it may seem egotistical to declare them unaligned... sure. I don't deny that. But it's not a real being. It's a fictional character we make up and it's goodness, evilness, or unalignedness is entirely up to us. There earnestly isn't a Cosmic Being involved that gets a higher say than we, the audience-participants.

I'm not sure I understand your final paragraph.

If the method of creation doesn't matter, I think the OP has a valid point.

My last paragraph was comparing how a redcap is or isn't a person despite looking like one versus how other creatures in D&D are considered people.

In the case of the D&D example, you're likely right in that it would be considered murder. A question I've raised elsewhere is how the profession of dungeon delver or typical PC adventurer can exist through the lens of modern views on morality. To what length must I go to prove that a thing is not a person nor has any possibility of being redeemed before drawing a sword or casting a spell is an ethical decision?

`
Edit: In response to me, I've often had people say that I am arguing absurdity. However, there are actual real-world belief systems in which the possibility of harming life is so frowned upon that it even changes how a person is expect to eat (or not eat at all in some cases). In other cases, I've had people accuse me of using the Thermian Argument; however, I'm of the opinion that -from a logic standpoint- it is valid to take into consideration how things work in a given situation.

Which isn't the same as saying that real-world racism and the like should be justified through fiction; it most certainly shouldn't be, but I believe there is some amount of fallacy involved in positing that a situation built upon completely different circumstances ought to adhere to the circumstances with which I am familiar. In fact, I would go so far is to say that position (which you have not in any way stated) runs the risk of being arguably more racist because it follows the line of thinking that just because a situation looks a certain way to me, that means the reality expressed by people in a different set of circumstances should be rendered invalid because it does not conform to the world as I know it.

I actually agree with much of what you're saying. I believe you're right in saying that sentient AI, vat-born humans, and the like are effectively people. At the same time, I think that raises other questions. If an AI is sentient but also has some prime directive which allows it to deem me undesirable and kill me, or harm me in some way am I expected to hold onto an innate respect for that AI's sentience as a condition for my goodness? From the less serious standpoint of simply playing a game, is it "evil" to role-play characters who kick in a dungeon door, kill things for points (XP,) and take their belongings?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If the method of creation doesn't matter, I think the OP has a valid point.

My last paragraph was comparing how a redcap is or isn't a person despite looking like one versus how other creatures in D&D are considered people.

In the case of the D&D example, you're likely right in that it would be considered murder. A question I've raised elsewhere is how the profession of dungeon delver or typical PC adventurer can exist through the lens of modern views on morality. To what length must I go to prove that a thing is not a person nor has any possibility of being redeemed before drawing a sword or casting a spell is an ethical decision?

That’s it. The game was founded on “monsters.” It did not really anticipate this level of moral quandry.

there really aren’t dungeon delving heroes. Then again we have done away with treasure for xp.

Whether you like the shift or not is a an individual preference. I am torn…

 

[Steampunkette]

If the method of creation doesn't matter, I think the OP has a valid point.

My last paragraph was comparing how a redcap is or isn't a person despite looking like one versus how other creatures in D&D are considered people.

In the case of the D&D example, you're likely right in that it would be considered murder. A question I've raised elsewhere is how the profession of dungeon delver or typical PC adventurer can exist through the lens of modern views on morality. To what length must I go to prove that a thing is not a person nor has any possibility of being redeemed before drawing a sword or casting a spell is an ethical decision?

Method of creation doesn't matter. Appearance doesn't matter. Sapience and Free Will matter.

If the Redcap has both, then he is evil and all redcaps are evil and we're in the same "All of a race is evil" boat all over, again. And the one example in the castle just makes it all the worse because it shows they get a choice and all choose evil but one. In which case the OP is right and it's just a problem waiting to happen. Though less of one because as I previously noted the Redcap has no cultural trappings or examples of "Peopleness" such as families, jobs, or societies. They're just murderhobos, the lot of 'em.

As to redemption... It doesn't matter.

Morality isn't "They could be better, tomorrow, than they are, today, so I must let them kill me, now, to avoid depriving them of the chance!"

Are you in danger? If yes, fight back. Kill if you have to. There's no big conundrum, there. The issue you're presenting lies earlier: The choice to travel to the dungeon and get that treasure no matter how many orc lives it costs. At -that- moment you've made the choice, and everything that flows from it is consequence.

Are you doing it because that treasure is needed to save the world/kingdom/village? Or are you doing it to enrich yourself?

 

[Malmuria]

If the method of creation doesn't matter, I think the OP has a valid point.

My last paragraph was comparing how a redcap is or isn't a person despite looking like one versus how other creatures in D&D are considered people.

In the case of the D&D example, you're likely right in that it would be considered murder. A question I've raised elsewhere is how the profession of dungeon delver or typical PC adventurer can exist through the lens of modern views on morality. To what length must I go to prove that a thing is not a person nor has any possibility of being redeemed before drawing a sword or casting a spell is an ethical decision?

Why is that a problem for dnd? You don't even have to go to modern views; the characters themselves might have a variety of opinions as to what constitutes murder and range of motivations for why they are doing what they are doing. If you assume that entering the dungeon will and should inevitably result in a (very fun) tactical combat mini game, then you might struggle for reasons why your character should fight what they encounter. But if you don't assume combat as the point of the game, merely one element, then play opens up.

And in fact this is perfectly consistent with classic play, which stocks the very large space of the dungeon with multiple factions of intelligent creatures and any number of monstrosities (all of which might react favorably or not to the pcs, depending on the reaction roll). Maybe your party unite the fractured groups inhabiting the caves of chaos to overtake the keep (and take its treasure)--you can do that!

The irony, imo, is that it's actually more modern xp-for-combat style dnd that creates incentives for seeing encountered creatures as mostly opportunities for combat, and thus, for the morally inclined player or character, as inherently evil piles of xp (incidentally, this tracks with the way that the British would characterize native groups as monsters for the purpose of justifying violence and plunder).