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

[Doug McCrae]

D&D 5e is unusual in making humanoid evil innate and unchangeable. The only other edition that does so is AD&D 1e, though it's less explicit.

In OD&D (1974) orcs can be Neutral or Chaotic (synonymous with evil in OD&D). In the AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide (1979), orcish evil is one of their "natural tendencies". Roger Moore's article in Dragon #62 (1982) gives environmental causes. In Unearthed Arcana (1985), The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993), and D&D 3e (2000) humanoid evil is only a tendency, not universal. D&D 4e Monster Manual (2008): "a monster's alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule."

D&D 5e Player's Handbook (2014):

The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)​

D&D 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016):

No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task.​

This post describes these changes in more detail.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

This post describes these changes in more detail.

I read that thread (and similar ones) a while ago.

The problem I have is the equivalency given.

Orcs are not as they are as a culture because of their genetics. They are how they are because of their god who directly influences them.

It sounds nice to directly conflate the pseudo-science based racism described and the fictional reasons why they tend to be so savage (evil in their actions as a whole). Too many readers and posters make the point that the Orcs are racist, that, in a leap, they actually represent black people.

I find that logic completely unsound. They are not the same and any critical thinking and comparison will show that.

For me the point is to acknowledge the uncomfortable circumstances and proximity any of these determined by birth type descriptions have to people that have had their lives negatively affected by the racist pseudo-science writings in the past. To understand that the way the Orcs are described can echo the Zulu’s assaulting Rourke’s Drift and that they are the villains in the piece, always the villains (any real study of the history of that time period disproved that in an instant).

So even if I can logically argue that the rules make it clear that alignment is not absolute (I am fairly sure I brought up Orcs being neutral or chaotic in 0e ages ago), I see a reason for discarding alignment for humanoid NPCs. Because logic does not immediately salve and stop the impact of hate over a long period of time and if more people feel more comfortable to join the hobby I enjoy, I only benefit.

Redcaps, however, are not people.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

D&D 5e is unusual in making humanoid evil innate and unchangeable. The only other edition that does so is AD&D 1e, though it's less explicit.

In OD&D (1974) orcs can be Neutral or Chaotic (synonymous with evil in OD&D). In the AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide (1979), orcish evil is one of their "natural tendencies". Roger Moore's article in Dragon #62 (1982) gives environmental causes. In Unearthed Arcana (1985), The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993), and D&D 3e (2000) humanoid evil is only a tendency, not universal. D&D 4e Monster Manual (2008): "a monster's alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule."

D&D 5e Player's Handbook (2014):

The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)​

D&D 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016):

No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task.​

This post describes these changes in more detail.

WotC had already started backpedaling on that when they began talking about Eberron, instead claiming that it was Moradin's supernatural influence that made dwarves act the way he intended and Gruumsh's influence that made orcs act according to how he intended. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount essentially ran with this when describing orcs and other "evil" races, saying that the supernatural influence of Gruumsh had long since faded and that priests of Gruumsh were lying about orcs being inherently more violent.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Orcs are not as they are as a culture because of their genetics. They are how they are because of their god who directly influences them.

"Genetics" is probably an inappropriate word to use as it's too modern and scientific. But "genetics" is usually understood to refer to traits that are "natural" (1e), "innate", "inborn", or "instinctive" (5e).

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Given that D&D "races" really are more along the lines of species, I personally can't help but wonder what a world where the other relatives of homo sapiens persisted to the present day (like neanderthals and homo florensis aka hobbits) would be like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Given that D&D "races" really are more along the lines of species, I personally can't help but wonder what a world where the other relatives of homo sapiens persisted to the present day (like neanderthals and homo florensis) would be like.

Yep. And at least to me a fantasy world with many intelligent species is kinda like that. Though there also are some even more different ones like lizardfolk. But that's more like 'what if dinosaurs had evolved intelligence' or something like that. And sure in a fantasy world they may be actually created rather than evolved, but the ned result is the same.

So to me 'they're all actually exactly the same' is boring. If that's the case, then I don't want to have the fantasy species to begin with.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Given that D&D "races" really are more along the lines of species, I personally can't help but wonder what a world where the other relatives of homo sapiens persisted to the present day (like neanderthals and homo florensis aka hobbits) would be like.

Apart from their ability to produce offspring together such as half-elves and half-orcs. My understanding is that, as modern biology uses the term, this would make them all one species.

Tolkien makes a similar point about his elves in Letter #153 (1954): "Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring – even as a rare event." Here, Tolkien is using "race" as a synonym for "species".

 

[Oofta]

Given that D&D "races" really are more along the lines of species, I personally can't help but wonder what a world where the other relatives of homo sapiens persisted to the present day (like neanderthals and homo florensis) would be like.

It should be obvious that different species behave differently based on the forces of evolution. For example, vampire bats (yes, blood sucking bats from South America) tend to show empathy and kindness to other vampire bats. That's not unusual, but what is unusual is that they even do it with unrelated bats. This seemed to be pretty heretical when first discovered because most animals are effectively only concerned about their genetic legacy - children and close relatives.

Initially people thought maybe they had just missed it in other species. However, it turns out that vampire bats are just one of the exceptions to the general rule, most animals are not particularly willing to share or help unrelated animals (obviously there are exceptions). It turns out that vampire bats had gone through some evolutionary bottle necks that made the sharing and compassionate behavior beneficial.

Most species? Like the male lion that will kill the cubs when they defeat the old alpha to become the new alpha of the pack will kill the cubs so the lionesses will instead have his cubs. So in a society where the alpha anthropomorphic lions still have harems with other males challenging them to a fight for control of the harem on a regular basis they may well do the same. They may not look at killing children they did not sire as evil or as anything unusual, it's just the way it works. For that matter they may look at other species, sentient or not, as either competition to be eliminated or prey.

Or not. It's all just made up.

 

[Oofta]

Apart from their ability to produce offspring together such as half-elves and half-orcs. My understanding is that, as modern biology uses the term, this would make them all one species.

Tolkien makes a similar point about his elves in Letter #153 (1954): "Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring – even as a rare event." Here, Tolkien is using "race" as a synonym for "species".

According to 5E rules "it's magic". After all, where do you think centaurs originally came from?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Apart from their ability to produce offspring together such as half-elves and half-orcs. My understanding is that, as modern biology uses the term, this would make them all one species.

I'm a bit fuzzy on this myself, but from what I understand humans are supposed to have intermingled with certain other non-human relatives at some point in the distant past. How this works IDK.

D&D settings are very inconsistent on the issue. Some say that only certain "races" are able to have offspring, while in the world of Critical Role elves and dwarves can have kids, although the offspring are always either an elf or a dwarf (man, it would be weird to be a dwarf with an elf dad and brother who will both most likely outlive you and your dwarf mom).