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

[Crimson Longinus]

What does evil mean?

It's a value judgement based on the opinions of the person making it so it is absurd for the game to try objectively define it especially for creatures that are not even close to human.

 

[Cadence]

Of course I can use my imagination. That's why don't use racial alignments in the first place. Every single time I decide to include a creature, I use my imagination to figure out what the creature is like and why the PCs are encountering them.

Do you decide on creature type first and then try to figure out motivation, or do you decide on motivation and then pick a creature type that seems good for the atmosphere?

The question is, why are the orcs your PCs encounter generally evil? Could it be because the book says that orcs are evil and you've decided that there's plenty of good orcs, but they're all off-screen where nobody will ever see them? If so, how is that any different than saying that all orcs are evil?

Are most of the encounters PCs have with protagonists? (When traveling through the countryside, are all of the innocuous and peaceful encounters described?). It feels like a ton of non-evil folks are pushed off screen and the evil (or trying to harm the party ones) are a lot more common in game than in game world in a lot of games.

 

[Oofta]

Of course I can use my imagination. That's why don't use racial alignments in the first place. Every single time I decide to include a creature, I use my imagination to figure out what the creature is like and why the PCs are encountering them.

The question is, why are the orcs your PCs encounter generally evil? Could it be because the book says that orcs are evil and you've decided that there's plenty of good orcs, but they're all off-screen where nobody will ever see them? If so, how is that any different than saying that all orcs are evil?

For me? Because that's the role they play in my game. I already limit playable races because I don't like having dozens upon dozens of sentient races running around. The half dozen or so I do have is already too much.

Sometimes I have enemies that are races that happen to live in the general area so they'll be human, elf, dwarf, whatever. Sometimes I want monsters as a threat. Sometimes the monsters happen to look vaguely human. If they weren't monsters I wouldn't bother using them.

 

[Umbran]

It is a religious belief. There are multiple different gods that all claim to have created everything, and others who claim to have created specific races. They can't all be true.

IIRC, in the Forgotten Realms there's actually a defined objective truth. It may not be that everyone in the game-world-fiction knows it, but I think they've made clear who actually created what.

 

[Maxperson]

The bigger question is, if this thread is not ultimately shut down will it go on infinitely or will we just have an infinite number of threads discussing basically the same topic?

The latter from my experience.

 

[Faolyn]

Why? Like, just why go through all these hoops?

How is that a hoop? More specifically, how is it any different than what we have now, where monsters are divided up by type (giant, monstrosity, plant) and by alignment? If anything, my version is less complex, since there'd be only a single division instead of two.

What is Evil even meaning here? If people want to say 'humanity, on the whole of history, is more evil than not' and I think an argument can certainly be made, then....what's the big deal if Dragons are most of the time 50.1%, evil?

How does that 50.1% work out for you? Serious question. Do you say "hey, the PCs should encounter a green dragon!" and then roll a die to find out if this dragon is evil or not-evil? Do you exercise your DM fiat and declare "this green dragon is actually Neutral Good"? Do you just say that the green dragon your PCs encounter is Lawful Evil but since not all green dragons are LE, that's OK, even if the PCs never encounter a non-LE green dragon?

Why, does this matter at all when you can do whatever you want at your table, and there is a setting (if not more) which actively promotes the design principles, morality, and world view you seem to believe we ALL must accept as the one true truth.

So rather than a setting that actively promotes the design principles, morality, and world view that you think I thing we should all accept, we should use a setting that actively promotes the design principles, morality, and world view that you want everyone accept.

Tell me, what upsets you so much about the idea of removing racial or species-wide alignments?

This is also a serious question. Because it's clearly bothering you.

My Orcs rule a civilized nation. It's a brutal dictatorship. They care for their people, and slaughter anyone not them.

OK. And? Are you saying that everyone should have orcs like you do? That the MM should be written for you and ignore all other possibilities?

So what is? Amorphous, 'anything goes'. Eberron style cosmopolitan settings.

Hard pass.

Why?

 

[Steampunkette]

Well we do know that some devils can have children. In the succubus entry: "Fiendish Offspring. Succubi and incubi can reproduce with one another to spawn more of their kind."

So are succubi offspring all evil? Is it "okay" to say that the urak-hai from the LOTR movies were always evil because they weren't naturally born?

Fun note:

Incubus means "To lie upon" where Succubus means "To lie beneath". Concubus means "To lie beside".

So the standard "Succubi are girls, Incubi are boys!" thing just doesn't work linguistically 'cause there are -always- bottoms.

That said... Succubi and Incubi can mate and produce more of "Their Kind" which means their kids are tops and bottoms but still part of the same demonic lustbunny umbrella.

Concubi are Switches.

 

[Umbran]

You're not wrong.

But at least I wouldn't be occupying stolen land.

I mean, that gets tangled. Not everyone in Europe feels that folks who have been away for generations really has a right to come back and take up land, jobs, etc.

 

[Faolyn]

Do you decide on creature type first and then try to figure out motivation, or do you decide on motivation and then pick a creature type that seems good for the atmosphere?

50/50. Although I should specify that fore me, "creature type" actually means "creature native to the area" or even literal creature type not "creature of a specific alignment." If I decide the PCs encounter undead, I either pick an appropriate undead or make one of my own.

Are most of the encounters PCs have with protagonists? (When traveling through the countryside, are all of the innocuous and peaceful encounters described?).

Many, not most. Especially since I don't have Always Evil races.

And I frequently do describe innocuous or peaceful encounters, because my PCs like them. At the very least, such encounters are mentioned, with the option for the PCs to explore them further. In one of my games, the totem barbarian enjoys casting speak with animals for just this purpose.

It feels like a ton of non-evil folks are pushed off screen and the evil (or trying to harm the party ones) are a lot more common in game than in game world in a lot of games.

That may be because most encounters are expected to be combat encounters. Removing both Always Alignment races and moving to milestone leveling encourages PCs to explore and be willing to find non-violent solutions.

 

[Steampunkette]

I mean, that gets tangled. Not everyone in Europe feels that folks who have been away for generations really has a right to come back and take up land, jobs, etc.

Oh, sure. But they also feel like they should be able to sell things to whomever they choose.

So if I buy a house in Europe it's fiiiiiine.