• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oofta

Legend
...

I don't believe that's what you meant to say or what you actually think, but it's really what it sounds like to me.

To me it sounds a lot like you're saying "I'm not saying you're a racist, but everything you say is racist because I decided it is". The poster has an opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's. His game does not need to meet your approval or anyone else's approval other than his group. In no way have they made any assertions about real world people.

There is no one true way to play D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Well, 'cubi--although I like the term concubus, now that I've learned of it--are neither demons nor devils this edition. It may very well be that for fiends like them (and hellhounds and other such off-brand fiends), they have to reproduce because they aren't tied to a particular plane in the same as demons, devils, and yugoloths are, and thus can't use that plane's evil energies to make more of their kind.

Yes, technically they are fiends, not categorized as demon or devil. You are technically correct, the best kind.

But it just dodges the question. Is it okay for fiends to be (effectively) always evil?
 

Vyshan

Villager
Cattle-raising redcaps that drain a bit of blood from their farm animals to keep their caps soaked. Still move around looking for fresh prey.
 

It always feels bizarre to me that someone would be upset that Goliaths are stronger than Halflings. Maybe that can just be a size thing though (S/M/L have different ranges of Str and Dex?). I do understand why having that for PC races can take away the fun for some people. But if there was a race of rock elementals, intelligent gorillas, or quicklings, it kind of feels like they should get a higher con, str, and dex, respectively, to me... Are there no differences in PC race choices that are far enough apart that they should have different physical stat ranges (what if we allow pixies and hill giants?).
I get people having a problem with mental stat differences between D&D races, but the idea that some people honestly find it problematic that goliaths could have a tendency to be stronger than halflings or cat people could have a tendency to be more dexterous than dwarves is kind of hard for me to wrap my head around.
 

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?
I just decided for my current campaign that orcs exist if anyone wants to play as one (or a half-orc), but since they've been such a lightning rod of negative publicity all the orcs are permanently offscreen because I have no use for them in any capacity.

Since I'm running an Underdark campaign, though, I've featured multiple drow. The most prominent one is a Chaotic Evil magic shop owner who plays nice in the central hub of the campaign but has a lot of shady connections and two bodyguards that are possessed by demons under his thrall. There's also a Lawful Neutral priestess of Erathis, a Neutral (with Evil tendencies) priestess of the Raven Queen, and a Chaotic Neutral (with Evil tendencies) scion of a noble house. All are from a city that was destroyed by a rogue Demonweb spider, and all but the last one despise Lolth for different reasons. However, they all came from a Lolthite civilization, which has affected their view of the world even if they hate Lolth (kind of like how atheists or agnostics from Christian backgrounds can retain certain Christian ideas despite not following the religion themselves).

I've also got duergar in the setting that are mostly Evil, but the dwarves in the area are mostly Evil themselves so there's functionally little difference between them other than abilities and allegiances to opposing homelands. The duergar keep slaves and the dwarves use prisoners shuttled down to the Underdark for labor. The dwarves ostensibly follow Moradin, but for most it's a faith unaccompanied by good works, while the duergar are more pious towards their god Laduguer.

The nearby deep gnomes are Neutral, but have been so traumatized from multiple betrayals both within and without in the last few decades that they've become paranoid isolationists who have adopted a more aggressive stance against anyone who even gets within several miles of their home, teaming up with myconids to use the slain as spore servant guards for the joint myconid/deep gnome colony. The individual deep gnome families barely trust each other at this point and mostly keep to themselves.

Basically, most of the NPCs are some flavor of Neutral or Evil. The few actually Good ones are either powerless or pawns of the more powerful Evil characters.
 
Last edited:

Mirtek

Hero
@Hexmage-EN There's no forum threads about Leucrotta getting the short end of the stick on being evil, or how Black Dragons should be good and heroic or at least not "Always Evil" or whatever.
Actually the treatment of dragons and that it should be changes comes up in almost every one of the threads, even if dragons were not the specific threat starter
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Yes, technically they are fiends, not categorized as demon or devil. You are technically correct, the best kind.

But it just dodges the question. Is it okay for fiends to be (effectively) always evil?
I've already explained this, in this thread, I believe. But: in D&D, fiends are made of literal distilled evil. They aren't shown to have any sort of free will. So, in typical D&D, yes. I think it's perfectly fine for fiends--and other supernatural beings--to be always evil.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
To me it sounds a lot like you're saying "I'm not saying you're a racist, but everything you say is racist because I decided it is". The poster has an opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's. His game does not need to meet your approval or anyone else's approval other than his group. In no way have they made any assertions about real world people.

There is no one true way to play D&D.
No, Scribe's personal game doesn't need to meet my approval. But when they are saying that their view of how the races are treated should be the way that races are treated in D&D, that removing alignment from them is a horrible thing to do because then those races can't be treated the way they are in Scribe's game, then yes, I think it's fair to call out the problematic aspects of their game.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I've already explained this, in this thread, I believe. But: in D&D, fiends are made of literal distilled evil. They aren't shown to have any sort of free will. So, in typical D&D, yes. I think it's perfectly fine for fiends--and other supernatural beings--to be always evil.
Apologies if this has been answered.

If there is no "alignment" then what is distilled evil? What is "free will"? Are they not able to decide their mission or not able to decide how to carry it out either? Are angels "distilled good"? Without free will does that mean no fallen angels?

What makes something supernatural? Is that anything without the humanoid descriptor? Or do they need to be extra-planar? Do they need to not breed in the "usual way"? Not breed in the usual way on the prime material plane? [Edit: In a lot of books and tales in our world, are elves and gnomes considered pretty supernatural?]
 
Last edited:

Mirtek

Hero
You're not wrong.

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

Or, well. At least after a fashion. Like it was stolen (There's parts of Germany and France that have changed hands so many times it's borderline hilarious), sure, but it was stolen from my people every time on both sides of the family. So it'd be like reclaiming my heritage while also stabbing my heritage in the back by occupying land stolen from my heritage...
Not just parts of Germany and France. There's no part of Europe that today is settled by the same people that first lived there after ariving when it was truly unoccupied land.

Countless migrations, wars and conquests have seen to that. Just look at that rough draft of the different groups of people trampling over each other


And it didn't get any better in the centuries and mileniums after 500 CE
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top