• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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 General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, that lends an air of nihilistic sophistry to the setting, which I find quite morally ambiguous. Factor into the fact that the setting prides itself having a city where angels and demons can have a friendly drink together in a bar, and I'd say you have quite a bit more moral ambiguity than what seems to be otherwise presumed regarding objective morality.
Well, not so much a friendly drink as one where both sides hate each other, but are forbidden to fight by a ruler powerful enough to hold off greater gods. It makes the perfect neutral setting to meet and discuss necessary things, like terms or whatnot, without the meeting devolving into a fight(angels) or betrayal(demons and devils). I don't see that as morally ambiguous, but I can see where you are coming from.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Viruses are alive. Pinnochio was not (at first). Heck; he spent his entire story trying to become alive.
Viruses are absolutely sentient, but not sapient. So it depends on where you draw the line. Some definitions of sapience include only humans, so elves wouldn't be people. Other people define sapience as the ability to make moral judgments. In a realm is varied as fantasy there are a few races who are intelligent but unable to make moral judgments. If you draw the line at sentience (which I do) then you can genocide grass.
No, viruses are NOT alive. No, they are not sentient. They do not respire, maintain homeostasis, reproduce by their own machinery - let alone possess structures capable of awareness. In virology, non-viable examples are referred to as "inactivated" rather than dead. I encourage you to learn some basic high-school level biology if you are unclear on the matter, rather than insinuating fictions.
 


Considering the popularity of Greyhawk, which focuses on morally ambiguous protagonists; Planescape, which focuses on a morally ambiguous cosmology and ideologies; and Eberron, which focuses on a a morally ambiguous political landscape, I'm not sure if this assessment really matches a lot of actual D&D play. Maybe the play of settings like Forgotten Realms that seems to presume more heroic protagonistic play without as much moral complexity.
Greyhawk, Ravenloft and Mystara are pretty much black and white. Unless I missread 30 years of RPG and Fandom...The grey started with Forgotten Realms but it was not that much. It really started with Eberron and Darksun where monstrous races were allowed for the first time. Planescape is definitively not grey (but it does have some).

Further on Greyhawk. The only real morally ambiguous protagonist is Mordenkainen. His view on neutrality is an extreme but he will move against evil when it is necessary from his point of view. Tenser left the circle because of the moral ambiguity of Mordenkainen. The Great Kingdom (if you ever tell me that Ivid is ambiguous...), The Scarlet Brotherhood, The Pomarj, The Lands of Iuz... Even Greyhawk City are not really in the shades of grey. A few of the main NPC maybe (the mayor mainly) but they are held in checks by the mages' guild and the various churches.

The grey areas that you claim are mainstream are comming from supplement bonus books like the complete humanoids and it got worse by 3.5ed. People wanted to play monsters but did not wanted to be considered monsters... This is a reflection of our society where grey is becoming the normality as moral standards are eroding fast. We, as a society, have a lot more tolerance for diverse ways of doing things and actions. We find a lot of weird excuses for abberrant behaviors and we firmly believe in redemption and the ability to reform oneself or the others. In D&D, evil is evil and you can see directly what it does.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I encourage you to learn some basic high-school level biology if you are unclear on the matter, rather than insinuating fictions.

Mod Note:
Being technically correct does not excuse being rude.

Please treat people on this site with respect, even (actually especially) when they know less than you. For one thing, the board requires it. For another, if you insult people, they are unlikely to actually learn anything from you.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
Just because my fridge is objectively in my kitchen, doesnt mean I cant ever move it.

Then it'll objectively be somewhere else.

A person with an evil alignment is objectively evil, regardless of what the person (or anyone else) subjectively assumes or thinks about their morality.

Doesnt mean they have to be evil forever though. They can change alignment like anyone else, at which point their alignment changes to a new objective alignment.

This is just going to go in circles, because objective positioning is a weird way to look at something that only has three points.

I'll leave this behind with one last example. Let us take an Orc, massive and powerful warrior.

Town 1, the most powerful person is a tyrannical warlord who enlsaved the town. The Orc kills him, and the people view him as a savior for releasing them from their bonds. To them, he is good, a hero.

Town 2, the most powerful person is a saint, a warrior of light who helps the downtrodden and protects the people. The Orc kills him, and the people view him as a monster who sundered their hope. To them, he is evil, a villain.

Objectively, is he Evil or Good?

Let us say that over a million towns, he only kills three people seen as good people. All the rest were clearly villains. Does that change your answer?

Sure, your fridge is in your kitchen. But, let us say that you don't actually own your home, and the bank takes custody of your property. The Fridge has not moved. Yet, it is now no longer in your kitchen. If something is objectively true in the moment, but objectively false later, without changing the object itself, only time, is it ever objectively true?



Umm, yeah. Accepting surrender, prohibiting (and stopping) further murder and bloodshed, while treating your prisoner/ captive with mercy, dignity and respect, and seeking to redeem them is, in fact good.

And every colonial power who ever existed agrees with you.

Clearly the orc gods are evil, they are encouraging war against the "civilized" race. So, you will ban worship of them, correct? And, you want to redeem them, so you will install churches to the good gods in their place, teaching them the correct religions.

Have to keep an eye on the orcs to make sure they abide by the treaty, and they are your prisoners after all, so you will install overseers to watch them. Maybe move them from their current homes into homes more conveniently located for you to observe them.

What jobs could they have? Most jobs involve tools that could be used as weapons. So, the safest options would be to monitor the tools, make sure they aren't hording items that could be used as weapons. Only the most trusted orcs who agree with your overseers that their people need redeemed would be allowed to gain knowledge such as blacksmithing, which is vital to the community, but could lead to weapons being created.

Their cultural rituals would need to be banned. Most orc rituals involve violence and bloodshed and clearly are no longer acceptable. Maybe you could take a few and change them to better suit the type of rituals that you find acceptable.

I could go on, but I think you can see that while what you are saying sounds good, the reality matches with some of the most evil actions ever taken upon the face of earth. And, you defend it the exact same way. You are good and doing good, the people you are helping are evil and need guidance.


And I also said ''UNLESS THE DM RULES OTHERWISE''. Multiple times. Which you're ignoring for what I can only assume is intellectual dishonesty, and your bizarre obsession with being obtuse..

To answer your question (again, and for the billionth time); Orcs and Undead are evil by default, unless the DM rules otherwise.

EXACTLY

Unless the DM says otherwise means I am talking about RAW. So, RAW, all orcs must be evil just as all zombies must be evil.

Why must they be evil? Because the Monster Manual says so.

This isn't dishonesty or being obtuse. This is literally what you have said. That things are evil because that is RAW according to the Monster Manual. Unless homebrewed to be otherwise. So, every single sentient member of those 75 races I listed is evil, by default, by RAW.

Because Warforged are alive, and Modrons are not. Warforged are not contructs; they're humanoids. They (Warforged) have been expressly alive (and living) since they were introduced in 3.5.

In game, Warforged are often treated with prejudice as many people see them as constructs (robots) lacking life. We (the players of the game) know they're not constructs, they're actually humanoids, and they're alive.

You are dodging the question. What about warforged makes them alive while Modrons are not alive.

Them being Humanoid? Dragons aren't humanoid, are they alive? Beasts and Plants aren't humanoid, are they alive?

Of course they are, because being Humanoid has nothing to do with being alive. And in 3.5 they were contructs, a sub-type called "living constructs" but I would ask the same question then as I am now, what makes them alive?

Sentient thought? Not necessary to be alive.
Free-will? Not necessary to be alive.

Warforged do not grow and change physically. Constructs are capable of learning new information, as are "greater undead" so the ability to learn can't determine life.

So, what makes warforged alive? Or, is your official position "warforged are alive because they are alive". Which is yet another tautological argument of "it is because it is".
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Where would a DM go for Zombie stats? Let me think...

The same place you would go to get Orc stats.

And, if the zombie is evil because the monster manual stats say they are evil, then the orc is evil because the monster manual stats say the orc is evil.

You can't have it both ways. You can't declare that Animate Dead always makes an evil zombie, because the statblock in the monster manual says zombies are evil, and at the same time say that not all orcs are evil because the monster manual statblock allows for you to change it.


You're confused because you are making up arguments for me that I never made. Not once did I say anything about changing the default for orcs.

The same applied to both stat blocks. If you want to change the stat block for orcs to read LG, that's homebrew. If you want to change the stat block for skeletons and zombies to LG, that's homebrew.

If you want to make some exceptions for this orc or that zombie, it's covered by RAW in the alignment section and would not be homebrew.

Understand now?

Yes, so the default is that all orcs are evil. Any tribe of orcs will default to evil and attack you.

And if I wanted to say that my necromancer creates non-evil zombies, that is RAW, because for "this" zombie it is not evil.




I'm gald you found it funny. I argued for good undead based upon egyptian mythology. I was dismissed. You don't get to then turn around and pull out Vikings and argue them to prove your point.



Either they kill everyone as soon as they see them(your statement) or they don't. Which is it?

Maybe I mistyped. I said they would attack and try and kill everyone in the party. Of course, I also was being slightly sexist by picturing an all-male party. That is my mistake.

So, they attack the party on sight. Kill them men, rape the women, and then kill them afterwards if they don't escape.

Half-orcs then being rare and the result of the women who escaped.

Better?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top