D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Hussar]

/snip can a nation of 50,000 drow living underground, cut off from the outside world except when they raid - can they almost all be evil?

See, there's the problem I'm having. "Cut off except when they raid"? How can a society exist like this? That's not how it works. Neighbours trade and mix because that's what happens. Expecially when we're talking about societies of highly intelligent, virtually immortal individuals who spend considerable time rubbing shoulders with other intelligent races. Even if it's just slaves, that interaction affects things.

Communication might be slower, of course, but, it still happens. And it happens a lot.

The whole mono-culture approach is just really hard to swallow.

 

[Scott Christian]

See, there's the problem I'm having. "Cut off except when they raid"? How can a society exist like this? That's not how it works. Neighbours trade and mix because that's what happens. Expecially when we're talking about societies of highly intelligent, virtually immortal individuals who spend considerable time rubbing shoulders with other intelligent races. Even if it's just slaves, that interaction affects things.

Communication might be slower, of course, but, it still happens. And it happens a lot.

The whole mono-culture approach is just really hard to swallow.

Yes, and they can trade with the duergar and mind flayers and maybe even the goblins that live down below as well. All of whom feel like backstabbing, slavery, and other moral monstrosities are completely acceptable. And they have been told by their god that the above worlders are evil; they stole the above world. So much so it makes drow sick when they stay up there in the sun. Could they ever need more evidence that their god is right than always feeling sick in daylight?

 

[Reynard]

So my problem with "factionalism versus racism" in D&D as a way to avoid negative stereotyping is that it is a distinction without a difference.

At the risk of talking too much about real world issues, let me explain what I mean this way:

It is bad to say that all orcs are dangerous, evil threats, but it is okay to say that all members of the Orc Supremacist Society are because they raid human villages and such are. That's fine, at a very surface level. But if the goal is to stop dangerous real world stereotyping bleeding into D&D, it's really no better. There are a lot of complex reasons why young orc men join the OSS, and branding all of them as evil terrorists is simplistic and problematic.

My point is this: generally speaking, in action adventure storytelling where victory is measured by conflict, we want troops to mow down: nazis, terrorists, bandits, cultists, etc... But if your goal is to eliminate the kind of gross generalizations that take races out of the categories for those things, then it is a little hypocritical to just shrug and accept "faction" members as acceptable for summary execution. Why are we drawing the line here versus there, is my question.

And listen, I get why people think "all orcs are evil" is bad in context. My point is that if we really want to confront this idea in D&D that violence is the solution, then we can't simply kick the can down from "race" to "faction."

 

[Faolyn]

So my problem with "factionalism versus racism" in D&D as a way to avoid negative stereotyping is that it is a distinction without a difference.

At the risk of talking too much about real world issues, let me explain what I mean this way:

It is bad to say that all orcs are dangerous, evil threats, but it is okay to say that all members of the Orc Supremacist Society are because they raid human villages and such are. That's fine, at a very surface level. But if the goal is to stop dangerous real world stereotyping bleeding into D&D, it's really no better. There are a lot of complex reasons why young orc men join the OSS, and branding all of them as evil terrorists is simplistic and problematic.

My point is this: generally speaking, in action adventure storytelling where victory is measured by conflict, we want troops to mow down: nazis, terrorists, bandits, cultists, etc... But if your goal is to eliminate the kind of gross generalizations that take races out of the categories for those things, then it is a little hypocritical to just shrug and accept "faction" members as acceptable for summary execution. Why are we drawing the line here versus there, is my question.

And listen, I get why people think "all orcs are evil" is bad in context. My point is that if we really want to confront this idea in D&D that violence is the solution, then we can't simply kick the can down from "race" to "faction."

Except that factions are joined by choice, but one doesn't choose one's race.

 

[Reynard]

Except that factions are joined by choice, but one doesn't choose one's race.

I think that if we view factions with more nuance and the motivating factors to align with them we would find that most Cobra agents are not there by "choice" in any meaningful way.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is bad to say that all orcs are dangerous, evil threats, but it is okay to say that all members of the Orc Supremacist Society are because they raid human villages and such are. That's fine, at a very surface level. But if the goal is to stop dangerous real world stereotyping bleeding into D&D, it's really no better. There are a lot of complex reasons why young orc men join the OSS, and branding all of them as evil terrorists is simplistic and problematic.

What.

Branding race supremacists who actively choose to attack civilian populations (ie - committing terrorism) as terrorists is a function of language, not 'simplistic' or 'problematic'.

If they were just obnoxious whiny orc frat boys who get together and oink angrily about how humans keep them from getting girls and making oil paintings of themselves as the Joker, you'd have a point.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The incident in question I believe, and I've quick clicked through this multiple times so it may be flawed.

Desna Priests/Faithful received warning of issue with the Wardstone.
Desna Priests take it to the authorities.
Desna Priests are rebuffed.
Desna Priests break the law.

Now, if thats the way it went, and I think it is but I've got a blinding headache and dont want to play through it again right now, then as far as a LN Inquisitor is concerned, its 'Guilty'.

Then fast forward, the city is in flames, hes been 'proven' right in his eyes, and everywhere he looks there are Cultists and Demons, and hes been attacked by one at least.

Thats the scenario where you find him talking to the Desna Priest, ready to drop some judgment.

LN Inquisitor together with allies murders CG priest who does not fight back. LN Inquisitor of the god of Justice does not attempt to arrest priest or hold any sort of trial. Or even cast Zone of Truth.

LN Inquisitor was also burning witches at the stake before the most recent invasion. As far as I can tell, there is no indication that witches in Golarion have any effect on the Worldwound. LN Inquisitor feels uncomfortable when confronted by one of his victims, a NG stigmatized witch.

LG God of Justice does not deny spells to LN Inquisitor for any of the above.

 

[Oofta]

I think real world politics are incredibly complex. While I do think there are evil people, people join or are conscripted into groups that do evil things for all sorts of reasons. By the end of WW II, children as young as 12 we're being used to man artillery for the Germans.

It's a lot more complex than I want most of the time. If I want that kind of complexity there are plenty of options.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think real world politics are incredibly complex. While I do think there are evil people, people join or are conscripted into groups that do evil things for all sorts of reasons. By the end of WW II, children as young as 12 we're being used to man artillery for the Germans.

It's a lot more complex than I want most of the time. If I want that kind of complexity there are plenty of options.

I concur.

This is why I strongly disfavour humanoids who reproduce in a "normal" way, have free(ish) will, a child stage, non-combatants, and so on as block "Evil" factions. Because otherwise it's very hard to work around situations where the PCs are likely to come into contact with the non-combatants, question whether the humanoids really went to be there, and so on.

For block "Evil" factions I prefer beings who lack free will, or at the very least don't have non-combatants, kids and so on. Or factions where literally everyone has actively chosen to sign up to Evil (certain kinds of cult, for example).

 

[FrozenNorth]

I disagree, I think the issue is expecting to operate it by absolutes, when that's simply not how it functions.

Alignment, is not a straight jacket.

This is very far from expecting alignment to operate by absolutes. At this point, alignment is completely divorced from any real world morality.

If unjustly burning people at the stake is not enough to qualify for the Evil alignment, what is?

If a person only kills one extremely wealthy relative for his fortune, but otherwise takes few moral or immoral actions otherwise, would you consider them Neutral?

Yes, I believe it does.

He's not some bloodthirsty reaver. He's not a closet cultist. He's an appointed official who's duty is to protect the city, by law.

That is operating on a cartoon-level on evil. Halruun is not LE because he may feel slightly bad about burning people at the stake. Not enough to stop mind you, and only when confronted by a person he attempted to burn.

And why would he stop, after all, his LG goddess doesn’t consider this a sufficiently serious transgression to deny him his divine spells.

My impression, is he regrets having burned Ember (I also killed him for it on my first play through...) while Regill for example? Wouldn't care at all.

Or, like most people, he doesn’t like being confronted by his mistakes.

For all that you are accusing the people who criticize the game of lacking nuance, this view of alignment that requires Evil to be unapologetically unrepentantly evil (to the point, as described elsewhere in this thread, where you are randomly attacking passerby) is the one that lacks nuance.