Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
We're not actually discussing orcs, though. This is just alignment so far.Do we really need yet another thread shut down for a discussion of the race that shall not be named?
We're not actually discussing orcs, though. This is just alignment so far.Do we really need yet another thread shut down for a discussion of the race that shall not be named?
OK, so what's the context?But to argue a term like LE provides NO context to a D&D player? I guess I just don't see it.
What's the name of the kingdom? I'll look it up.Can you prove that? It seems to me that I played a game with one DM who in 3e had a country of non-evil orcs.
No, you've shown me one source, of a country that hasn't been mentioned by the game in decades, with invading orcs who were civilized by other people. Not orcs who weren't evil on their own.If you're talking about official sources, well I've already shown you multiple examples of settings with orcs that weren't evil and lived with humans, including the Forgotten Realms. So yes, it did happen.
No.
You can have evil actions and call them evil. You can have evil individuals. You can have evil groups.
But there needs to be more than just a label. Come up with motivations for them to be evil. An Always Evil race makes no sense. It wouldn't function, especially the creatures are mortal beings who need to raise young and live in a group to survive.
You can definitely have individuals or a group of creatures with an evil goal: summon destructive entities; steal and kill for personal profit; genocide another race because they don't like them for whatever reason; hurt or control a group for power. But just saying "they're evil because I need a bad guy for this adventure" is a weak reason.
As the OP, let me try to steer this ship back on course...
Here's a revised idea:
In D&D, evil should be subjective.
Right now in D&D, evil is objective. It is in Alignment, in Spell Names, and embedded in rules such as the bite of a werewolf.
In my opinion, evil should be subjective. What is considered Good or Evil should come from the campaign lore, the perspective of the characters, and the opinions of NPCs.
The red dragon eating a sacrificed villager is definitely considered evil from the perspective of the villagers. But to the dragon, what he's doing is good (for himself). After all, if he doesn't eat a villager each year, those villagers might lose their fear and go after his hoard!
One thing that has been brought up is the idea of Evil as shorthand. Labelling the red dragon as Chaotic Evil is a quick way to describe his actions and intentions. I agree that a shorthand is useful, but I still see the shorthand of "Evil" as trying to make evil Objective instead of Subjective. Personally, I would rather a shorthand like this:
Red Dragon (Intimidating, Greedy, Pyromaniac)
With that shorthand, I can easily play the red dragon and make quick choices about how it will act. This red dragon will favor scaring people, getting gold, and will often set things on fire. Furthermore, this doesn't make the conflict any more complex. It's still a pretty black-and-white issue. The red dragon is bad for the villagers. The heroes can kill it. Or offer it gold. Or steal its gold!
So when I say that "D&D doesn't need evil," I don't mean that evil should be taken out of D&D. I mean that D&D operates just fine without Objective Evil.
This is a fine description and the terms are useful.As the OP, let me try to steer this ship back on course...
Here's a revised idea:
In D&D, evil should be subjective.
Right now in D&D, evil is objective. It is in Alignment, in Spell Names, and embedded in rules such as the bite of a werewolf.
In my opinion, evil should be subjective. What is considered Good or Evil should come from the campaign lore, the perspective of the characters, and the opinions of NPCs.
The red dragon eating a sacrificed villager is definitely considered evil from the perspective of the villagers. But to the dragon, what he's doing is good (for himself). After all, if he doesn't eat a villager each year, those villagers might lose their fear and go after his hoard!
One thing that has been brought up is the idea of Evil as shorthand. Labelling the red dragon as Chaotic Evil is a quick way to describe his actions and intentions. I agree that a shorthand is useful, but I still see the shorthand of "Evil" as trying to make evil Objective instead of Subjective. Personally, I would rather a shorthand like this:
Red Dragon (Intimidating, Greedy, Pyromaniac)
With that shorthand, I can easily play the red dragon and make quick choices about how it will act. This red dragon will favor scaring people, getting gold, and will often set things on fire. Furthermore, this doesn't make the conflict any more complex. It's still a pretty black-and-white issue. The red dragon is bad for the villagers. The heroes can kill it. Or offer it gold. Or steal its gold!
So when I say that "D&D doesn't need evil," I don't mean that evil should be taken out of D&D. I mean that D&D operates just fine without Objective Evil.
Sidebar but I'm curious how a concept I like to explore would work in your campaign.Protection/detect evil and good is really mislabeled in 5E. That gives more flexibility for different campaign settings but can be confusing.
In my campaign world, necromancy and undead are evil because the soul of the dead person is tied to the animated body and unable to move on. But my take on it means little or nothing for other campaigns.