D&D General The Case for Evil Orcs (Minor Rings of Power Spoilers)

[Vaalingrade]

This is why I wanted to avoid that line of argument when @Vaalingrade originally brought it up -- it's really thorny and will very quickly lead to discussions of real world atrocities, religions and ideologies.

Ideologies like... labeling whole peoples evil in order to justify destroying them.

That's the thing. You can't avoid something but closing your eyes and charging headlong into it.

 

[Reynard]

Applying the word 'evil' to an entire people is D&D morality making it a moral implication. If they didn't want moral implications, they would have... not used language to imply morality.

Evil is a game term. "Evil" doesn't serve much useful purpose in the real world because it's really hard to pin down since different individuals and institutions define it so wildly differently.

 

[Reynard]

Ideologies like... labeling whole peoples evil in order to justify destroying them.

That's the thing. You can't avoid something but closing your eyes and charging headlong into it.

It. Is. A. Game.

 

[Maxperson]

Applying the word 'evil' to an entire people is D&D morality making it a moral implication.

In game, yes.

If they didn't want moral implications, they would have... not used language to imply morality.

But I want a moral implication in the game. I want inherently evil races to be morally okay to kill. I want non-inherently(insert alignment here) races to require consideration of moral implications before killing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not if the table doesn't have a problem with it, no. There are lots of games out there, and they don't all see "abhorrent" the way you do.

But in this hypothetical, @EzekielRaiden is at the table, so clearly it isn’t the case that the table doesn’t have a problem with it, or at least not everyone at the table. I would expect someone who had a problem with it to leave the table, and to explain to the group why they are doing so.

 

[Cruentus]

The funny thing is, in my own games orcs and similar humanoids can be anything they want, even if many are evil by human standards. I just object to giving people a hard time about it if they play differently at their own tables.

In my games, I've tried something slightly different: removed all mention of "good" and "evil" from characters, monsters, gods, and spells. So, Protection from Evil is just "protection" and protects against things attempting to harm you. Detect Evil doesn't work.

If the PC's continually charge into the neighboring Orc kingdom and attack their villages, then, in the eyes of the Orcs, the PC's are "evil", and the Orcs, if its in their best interest, will respond. In the eyes of the PCs, why, of course, the PCs are "good" for going after the "evil" orcs. And vice versa. In an Orc's eyes, there is nothing remotely "evil" in their society and what they do and how they go about doing it, they're good, and regularly attacked for no good reason by those humans over the hills.

They're all free to act and react as they wish based on their society, or their individual personalities, without being "good" and "evil", which, really in DnD and other games, are there purely as game mechanics: see spells, alignment, gods, magic items, etc.

Ultimately each table will make their own decision how they engage with morality in their fictional worlds, as I'm sure there aren't very many people who aren't aware of these particular types of discussion nowadays.

Edit: Oh, and it goes without saying, that Session 0 deals with these types of issues in any game to be played (or should), so, yeah...

 

[Vaalingrade]

It. Is. A. Game.

It's also a game when enemies have motivations, but that was a problematic element to be avoided.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just because someone engages with a harasser doesn't mean that the person they're engaging with isn't a harasser. Telling someone else "the way you play your game makes you a racist" is condemning them as a person, and that remains true even if they turn around and say "no it doesn't."

As a general rule it's better to talking about the game, rather than talking about the people who play it (which includes dropping not-so-subtle implications about what sort of person they are), and things will be more pleasant all around.

Well, we are going to just agree to disagree then.

To me... this is a public discussion forum. And if you make a post that other people take a moral stance on or they believe you are being insulting/racist/misogynistic/homophobic or whatever (implied or otherwise)... then you should accept you're potentially going to be criticized for it or at the very least responded to in argument/discussion. And you don't get to declare yourself free from response just because you got your potential insult/racism/misogyny/homophobia out first.

It's really simple as far as I'm concerned... if you don't wish to be criticized for how you play D&D... don't post here how you play D&D. Even if it's just general methods of gaming and has nothing to do with political issues. You then never have to worry about what other people think of you when you do.

 

[Reynard]

It's also a game when enemies have motivations, but that was a problematic element to be avoided.

It might be that the motivation of the Dark Lord is to destroy everything-- because "Dark Lord" -- and therefore the motivation of his carefully crafted minions is to destroy everything for the Dark Lord. In the very same game, you might have humans aligned with the Dark.Lord whose motivations are much more complex and nuanced -- use the chaos and destruction caused by the rampages of the Dark Lord's minions to secure land and power, for example.

As usual people are forced to construct strawman in order to establish their position as valid.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Generally speaking, insulting others on ENworld is discouraged. I would call implying that a poster is a bad person because of their playstyle an insult.

yes and I think if we report someone who even suggest that a poster is racisit for wanting always evil orcs that will get this thread shut real quick