D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Chaosmancer]

The shades of grey of our society is permating our game of black and white truths. What makes D&D fun, whatever the edition, is the fact that moraly, it is very clear. Evil is evil, period. You do not ask if something is evil. You draw your swords and spells and slay the beasts. If you want to play shades of gray, it is quite ok, but it is not raw (or rai for that matters). It never was and never will.

The problem with this is that some of the most evil actions from human history were also presented as black and white.

The soldiers did not question if something was evil, they drew their swords and slew the devil worshipping heathen in droves. Treated people as less than human, because in there minds, they were less than human.

The more I do worldbuilding, the more I move away from black and white situations. About the only "evil humanoid" race I still keep are Gnolls, because I want to have something and them as essentially demons gives me a good way to keep them evil.

But orcs and goblins? They are people. Goblins are definitely antagonists, orcs are actually just another player race (I got rid of half-orcs a while back). Yuan-ti are wierd, but not evil by default. Same with the Drow.

Because I get uncomfortable with "these people are evil, you can kill them without worrying" because it reminds me of the worst parts of our own history.

 

[Greenfield]

I'm quietly laughing at the idea that Viruses are sentient. Look up the word some time. It means "able to perceive or feel things". Doesn't qualify.

Hell, they barely qualify as "alive", in that they don't reproduce (at least not on their own), don't consume food and don't respond to stimuli. They're little more than DNA sequences that get taken into cells as food, then try to take over the cell's function. The cell, in trying to reproduce itself, reproduces the virus instead.

By itself the virus is an amino acid cluster No brains, no nervous system, no sentience.

Definition. noun, plural: lives. noun, plural: lives. (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. (2) The biota of a particular region.

 

[Iry]

don't respond to stimuli.

It's my understanding they do respond to stimuli. Nothing complex, but enough to the signal digestion of a cell wall or injection. I'm certainly open to being educated on the subject.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is a False Equivalence on your part. A summon monster spell that summoned orcs would always summon an evil orc unless the DM homebrewed the spell to be otherwise. You are conflating two different things and then falsely attributing them to me. Stop it. I'm getting sick and tired of you constantly falsely attributing arguments to me that I don't make.

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

If you play evil stupidly, then sure. I don't play evil stupidly, so it's not a given that you will be attacked just because evil.

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

First, no, that's not how RAW works. The spell does not say to look at the alignment section of the MM. It says to use the stat block. If you are the DM, feel free to homebrew the spell to make that change, though. Second, you could only do that if you are the DM and change things. Players have no ability to alter the default game.

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

Wrong. From Half-Orcs...

"Whether united under the leadership of a mighty warlock or having fought to a standstill after years
of conflict, orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, joining forces into a larger horde to the terror
of civilized lands nearby. When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born."

Oh, look. Further proof that orcs don't just attack everything on sight.

 

[Helldritch]

That's certainly possible.

I don't think so.

 

[Lanefan]

But orcs and goblins? They are people. Goblins are definitely antagonists, orcs are actually just another player race (I got rid of half-orcs a while back). Yuan-ti are wierd, but not evil by default. Same with the Drow.

Because I get uncomfortable with "these people are evil, you can kill them without worrying" because it reminds me of the worst parts of our own history.

Tangential question: did you do away with all the other cross-breed 'races' along with Half-Orcs? E.g. do you still have Half-Elves? Dragonborn? If you do, then what's the rationale behind knocking off Half-Orcs?

I ask because at least in my view Yuan-Ti are themselves a cross-breed, or started out as such, and it seems you still have those.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is a False Equivalence on your part. A summon monster spell that summoned orcs would always summon an evil orc unless the DM homebrewed the spell to be otherwise. You are conflating two different things and then falsely attributing them to me. Stop it. I'm getting sick and tired of you constantly falsely attributing arguments to me that I don't make.

So it is a false equivalence the say the default orc is evil just like the default zombie is evil because you don't have a spell to summon orcs, but you do for zombies? What kind of logic is that supposed to be?

So then, what does it mean when it says "Chaotic Evil" on the Orc statblock? Is it just a friendly suggestion?

I mean, for the skeleton and zombie, it was a rule. Unless it was changed by the DM, that creature was evil, no matter what circumstances surrounded the situation. But for Orcs it isn't a rule? Because I can't use magic to summon them?

That seems to be just a plain facetious argument. You were claiming that we needed to follow the default statblock for a monster. I am only applying that exact same standard to a different monster.

If you don't like that standard, I wonder why you presented that standard in the first place.

If you play evil stupidly, then sure. I don't play evil stupidly, so it's not a given that you will be attacked just because evil.

Well, the designers wrote orcs as stupidly evil then. Not my fault, I'm just following RAW.

First, no, that's not how RAW works. The spell does not say to look at the alignment section of the MM. It says to use the stat block. If you are the DM, feel free to homebrew the spell to make that change, though. Second, you could only do that if you are the DM and change things. Players have no ability to alter the default game.

Wait wait wait.

RAW for the spell tells us to look at the statblock, so we must take the statblock as written, no changes.

But, if we are just placing a monster in the world, then we are allowed to use the other rules in the Monster Manual?

Are you trying to be funny here, because that is just such a narrow view of the game I don't understand how you expect me to take that seriously. If the rule exists for monsters to have different alignments, then it applies to all monsters, not just the ones that the PCs have no hand in.

And, if players have no ability to alter the default game, then why should the PCs assume good orcs when they come across a tribe of orcs? They can't alter the default, the default is evil, so they are well within reason to treat the orcs as evil. They can't change it after all.

I'm just stunned by this argument, it is so limiting. It's only purpose seems to be to divide things to the point where you get to be right no matter which side you argue. If you want something to be evil, you argue "this is the default" if you want something to not be evil, you argue "well, the rules say you don't have to follow the default"

Wrong. From Half-Orcs...

"Whether united under the leadership of a mighty warlock or having fought to a standstill after years
of conflict, orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, joining forces into a larger horde to the terror
of civilized lands nearby. When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born."

Oh, look. Further proof that orcs don't just attack everything on sight.

Ah, great.

So how does this interact with the RAW that "Orcs aren’t interested in treaties, trade negotiations or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods. "

RAW is conflicting (I swear I argued that before....) and so which RAW should we follow? (I believe the last time this came up, I was told that the answer is to follow the default statblock in the Monster Manual, so the orcs will still be evil. Wonder if that still holds true)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tangential question: did you do away with all the other cross-breed 'races' along with Half-Orcs? E.g. do you still have Half-Elves? Dragonborn? If you do, then what's the rationale behind knocking off Half-Orcs?

I ask because at least in my view Yuan-Ti are themselves a cross-breed, or started out as such, and it seems you still have those.

Yuan-Ti in my setting are snake people because they contain the divine essence of snake gods. They have a complicated system of ritual cannibalism to concentrate the divine essense, leading to more snake-like individuals.

The loss of half-orcs actually predates 5e. I had a player in 4e who really was uncomfortable that most half-orcs came from rape, so they asked me to change it. I just kept the change as I moved, making orcs a much more reasonable race than they are normally presented.

To date, I have not had anyone interested in half-elves, so none have existed. It isn't a question I'm terribly interested in, so I haven't considered the world-building too much. I do have a lot of "cross-breed" races when it comes to humans, so I might still allow them, but I'll have to change somethings around on the Orc end if I do.

Dragonborn were originally (in my first homebrew) formerly elves who messed around with dragon magic. There were then slave races and an ancient war, but I'm thinking for my new world of having them be the creations of dragons. They make kobolds as servants, dragonborn as soldiers and diplomats, ect. But I haven't fully decided on that yet.

 

[Helldritch]

The problem with this is that some of the most evil actions from human history were also presented as black and white.

Of course, that is the way of evil. See the thread about how a to play an evil priest. I posted how a priest of Hextor (LE) would act to appear ok, if not downright good, in society. That is until he gets his way. All the trick is in the shades of gray.

The soldiers did not question if something was evil, they drew their swords and slew the devil worshipping heathen in droves. Treated people as less than human, because in there minds, they were less than human.

Again, being tricked by evil is not being evil your self. Yet, the good aligned soldiers will question the method. Quite a few German soldiers did it in the second world war. A lot of them were surrendering not because they were in inferior positions, but because they knew their leader had tricked them. Gestapo and SS shock troops were shooting down deserter and those that were trying to change things. It is the way of evil to trick you into gray areas to make you believe that what you do is right. It works only for a time. Even during the inquisition there were priests that were hiding women accused of witchcraft because they knew they were not.

The more I do worldbuilding, the more I move away from black and white situations. About the only "evil humanoid" race I still keep are Gnolls, because I want to have something and them as essentially demons gives me a good way to keep them evil.

And yet, the black and white situation is where most players like their games. Most people do not want to question whether the bad guy is evil or not. They want actions. They do not want to feel cheap for killing the bad guy but they want to feel heroic. Gray areas are best for one shot adventures and scenarios.

But orcs and goblins? They are people. Goblins are definitely antagonists, orcs are actually just another player race (I got rid of half-orcs a while back). Yuan-ti are wierd, but not evil by default. Same with the Drow.

Ishh... Read again the history of how those races were created (and in the case of Yuan-ti, still are) in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and LoTR. The more modern the setting, the less truth there is about the "evilness" of some races. But the Yuan-ti are demon worshippers given shape by their demon lord. They sought their fate willingly (save for the almost mindless slave race the Yuan-ti created for themselves).

Because I get uncomfortable with "these people are evil, you can kill them without worrying" because it reminds me of the worst parts of our own history.

Again, this is a game, not the real world. Evil in the real world is a subjective concept. In a fantasy world, it is real and tangible. Do not mix the both of them together. One has no bearing on the other.

 

[Helldritch]

Yuan-Ti in my setting are snake people because they contain the divine essence of snake gods. They have a complicated system of ritual cannibalism to concentrate the divine essense, leading to more snake-like individuals.

The loss of half-orcs actually predates 5e. I had a player in 4e who really was uncomfortable that most half-orcs came from rape, so they asked me to change it. I just kept the change as I moved, making orcs a much more reasonable race than they are normally presented.

To date, I have not had anyone interested in half-elves, so none have existed. It isn't a question I'm terribly interested in, so I haven't considered the world-building too much. I do have a lot of "cross-breed" races when it comes to humans, so I might still allow them, but I'll have to change somethings around on the Orc end if I do.

Dragonborn were originally (in my first homebrew) formerly elves who messed around with dragon magic. There were then slave races and an ancient war, but I'm thinking for my new world of having them be the creations of dragons. They make kobolds as servants, dragonborn as soldiers and diplomats, ect. But I haven't fully decided on that yet.

A really good homebrew. I understand a bit more your position. To each his own I guess.