D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

[Maxperson]

If you use the alignment, it means that all or most orcs are bloodthirsty, sadistic, and cruel.

No it doesn't. It means what the DM wants to to mean per RAW. RAW encourages the DM to switch up alignments for monsters.

If you say that they typically enjoy combat, then you have orcs who prefer honorable warriors, orcs who prefer being bloody marauders, orcs who prefer down-n-dirty tavern brawls, and everything else in between. And you can still have orcs that don't like combat.

You literally have more choices if you don't have racial alignments without having to resort to coming up with excuses for why this one orc isn't evil.

You have literally 0 more choices your way. You can by RAW give any orc any alignment, and since alignments are not straightjackets, there isn't a trait that you can give an orc that isn't already covered.

 

[Faolyn]

It doesn't show any such thing. They could have been good and they would still worry if their loyalties were to a good country. Or neutral and loyal to a good, neutral or evil country. It doesn't even come close to showing that they were evil.

If they were good or neutral, why were they working for an evil organization like the Zhentarim? Where you are literally indentured to evil gods? Which has the purpose of controlling the world? What, did all of those orcs just signed the contract without reading it? Thought they could change the system from within? Uh-huh. You're really grasping at straws here.

And it's fantastic how you called me out for leaving out the unimportant second paragraph, and then you left out the important part of it.

"...but most have been treated well enough in Thesk to consider reconsider their loyalties, should the call to arms come once again."

Except I quoted that. And all that means is that the humans and gnomes that make up Thesk were nice enough, not that the orcs were good before they moved in.

By RAW, sure.

He still used RAW in making those orcs.

Yes, and then he promptly subverted it by outright saying that no creature was bound by alignment.

I quoted it above. There are other countries in the Realms that also treat orcs well. I'm not going to look them up for you. I quoted the proof of their existence above and that's good enough.

I don't care about countries in the Realms that treat orcs well. I'm looking for countries made up of non-evil orcs. As in, orcish countries. Not countries where orcs live. So either you've completely misunderstood what I was looking for or you can't find any.

 

[Scribe]

And for the umpteenth time, Eberron was specifically written to subvert alignments. Keith Baker has strongly implied that he wouldn't have used alignment if he didn't have to (he said that removing alignments wasn't "an option," which to me indicates that if it had been an option, he may very well have taken it). Using Eberron to indicate that alignments can be changed is utterly ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Its literally the proper application of the Alignment system, when applied to one's own setting.

If you dont like it, change it.

Its not ridiculous at all. Its using the system as intended. There is nothing which explicitly say's Orc's must be evil and it cannot be changed, and so the Eberron interpretation is as valid as any other, but it is applicable to that setting. This is the system working as intended.

If you use the alignment, it means that all or most orcs are bloodthirsty, sadistic, and cruel.

If you say that they typically enjoy combat, then you have orcs who prefer honorable warriors, orcs who prefer being bloody marauders, orcs who prefer down-n-dirty tavern brawls, and everything else in between. And you can still have orcs that don't like combat.

You literally have more choices if you don't have racial alignments without having to resort to coming up with excuses for why this one orc isn't evil.

It doesnt mean that at all. It mean's for the specific orc's at that moment, in that location, in that encounter, that they are an Alignment of XX.

You CAN say 'they typically enjoy combat' while you still have orcs that dont like combat.
You CAN say 'they typically are CE' while still having Orcs which are not CE.

It makes no difference at all.

If the DM says "Every Orc on this Plane is CE" its the same as saying "Every Orc on this Plane is a Bloodthirsty Reaver."

They are the same thing.

If you dont use Alignment, you describe each Orc encounter as a unique instance.
If you DO use Alignment, you can STILL switch up the Alignment of the Orcs in each encounter as a unique instance.

You, as a DM can do this for each Orc, each Group of Orcs, each Village, each Nation, or each Plane of existence, as you see fit.

OR

You can say that this is all done at 2 levels higher than Orcs, above the Gods, at the 'Alignment as Cosmic Force' level.

Because thats the actual intent of the thread to deconstruct.

 

[Faolyn]

No it doesn't. It means what the DM wants to to mean per RAW. RAW encourages the DM to switch up alignments for monsters.

And RAW means that orcs are treated as Chaotic Evil by default. Read the actual description for orcs. Everything about it is CE. There's nothing in their description that actually supports DMs using other alignments. Going by RAW, it's "orcs can be any alignment but you have to do all the work to completely rewrite them to support them."

You have literally 0 more choices your way. You can by RAW give any orc any alignment, and since alignments are not straightjackets, there isn't a trait that you can give an orc that isn't already covered.

You have all the choices. Because it means that you don't have to come up with an excuse for why these orcs aren't evil.

 

[Maxperson]

If they were good or neutral, why were they working for an evil organization like the Zhentarim?

Why would neutral have an issue with working for the Zhentarim.

Where you are literally indentured to evil gods? Which has the purpose of controlling the world? What, did all of those orcs just signed the contract without reading it? Thought they could change the system from within? Uh-huh. You're really grasping at straws here.

You do know that most of Zhentil keep is just a normal city, right? Common folk. Good people. It's the government that's bad. Bad governments hire mercenaries, and neutral mercenaries would work for anyone.

Except I quoted that. And all that means is that the humans and gnomes that make up Thesk were nice enough, not that the orcs were good before they moved in.

It doesn't mean that they were evil, either.

Yes, and then he promptly subverted it by outright saying that no creature was bound by alignment.

No creature has ever been bound by alignment. In any edition. It has always been something you could go against any time you felt there was a good reason.

 

[Maxperson]

And RAW means that orcs are treated as Chaotic Evil by default. Read the actual description for orcs. Everything about it is CE. There's nothing in their description that actually supports DMs using other alignments. Going by RAW, it's "orcs can be any alignment but you have to do all the work to completely rewrite them to support them."

Why would the DM need any support beyond the alignment section to make good orcs?

Because it means that you don't have to come up with an excuse for why these orcs aren't evil.

I wouldn't bother with a reason for why these orcs aren't evil. I don't need one. That fact that you think that there needs to be an "excuse" is telling.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is it ridiculous? Its literally the proper application of the Alignment system, when applied to one's own setting.

If you dont like it, change it.

I'd love to, at the source.

Also, "default" doesn't mean "common." It means "the only way, unless you actively change it."

And quite frankly, why shouldn't you guys be the ones to add alignment instead of making the rest of us have to remove it?

Its not ridiculous at all. Its using the system as intended. There is nothing which explicitly say's Orc's must be evil and it cannot be changed, and so the Eberron interpretation is as valid as any other, but it is applicable to that setting. This is the system working as intended.

Then it's a bad system, because nothing in the MM supports non-evil orcs. Why should I have to completely rewrite them? In other threads, you've acted horrified at the idea of having to add "typical racial alignments" to PC races, even going so far as to say you won't buy books that don't include alignments. Is it that hard for you to understand that we feel the same way about having to remove those alignments?

It makes no difference at all.

If the DM says "Every Orc on this Plane is CE" its the same as saying "Every Orc on this Plane is a Bloodthirsty Reaver."

They are the same thing.

Sure. But that's what a DM should be saying about their campaign. The game itself shouldn't write every orc as if they're bloodthirsty reavers and force us to make changes. Bloodthirsty reavers should be an option that's presented, not the only one that's presented.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd love to, at the source.

Also, "default" doesn't mean "common." It means "the only way, unless you actively change it."

Sure, but the very easy fix is to just change the default.

And quite frankly, why shouldn't you guys be the ones to add alignment instead of making the rest of us have to remove it?

Because it takes a lot of work to create an alignment system, where it only takes you zero seconds to ignore it.

 

[Faolyn]

Why would neutral have an issue with working for the Zhentarim.

Why would a neutral being want to be tied to an evil god and part of an organiation that wants to take over the world? If the answer is just money, then that individual isn't neutral, they're evil.

You do know that most of Zhentil keep is just a normal city, right? Common folk. Good people. It's the government that's bad. Bad governments hire mercenaries, and neutral mercenaries would work for anyone.

So by that logic, you're fine with the vast majority of orcs and drow being Good-aligned people with horrible leadership, right?

Anyway, why haven't these common, good people overthrown their bad governments?

It doesn't mean that they were evil, either.

Then <citation required>. Because you're still grasping at straws here.

No creature has ever been bound by alignment. In any edition. It has always been something you could go against any time you felt there was a good reason.

And again, if that were actually the case, that would have been reflected in all of the books and adventures put out by TSR and WotC. And it hasn't been.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would a neutral being want to be tied to an evil god and part of an organiation that wants to take over the world? If the answer is just money, then that individual isn't neutral, they're evil.

The only thing a mercenary is tied to is gold, and greed isn't enough to make someone evil.

So by that logic, you're fine with the vast majority of orcs and drow being Good-aligned people with horrible leadership, right?

Do you know the difference between various pieces of lore, or do you think every evil thing is the same? Drow are not Zhentil Keep. The lore on them is very different. False Equivalences are false, so let's please leave out the fallacious reasoning.

Anyway, why haven't these common, good people overthrown their bad governments?

Make a PC and die for the cause, but expecting commoners to go at something so powerful and die is not reasonable.

Then <citation required>. Because you're still grasping at straws here.

I provided the citation. Nothing there says evil, and much implies neutrality at the very least.

And again, if that were actually the case, that would have been reflected in all of the books and adventures put out by TSR and WotC. And it hasn't been.

It has been in every PHB and DMG ever made. Alignment has never been a straightjacket and has been changeable through actions since its inception. Just because you choose to ignore all of the books put out by TSR and WotC that show it, doesn't mean that "it hasn't been."