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

[Maxperson]

Wow, that’s a whole lot of stuff that I guarantee not everyone is going to agree is true of lawful evil characters. Again, ask any 10 people what lawful evil means and you’ll get 12 different answers.

Because alignment is vague, not a straightjacket like you and @Faolyn want it to be. There are variations of belief and action within LE that allow the DM to play that alignment in different ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because alignment is vague, not a straightjacket like you and @Faolyn want it to be. There are variations of belief and action within LE that allow the DM to play that alignment in different ways.

I don’t want alignment to be a straight jacket. I don’t want alignment to be a thing. But if it’s going to be a thing, it should at least justify itself by ever mattering.

 

[Faolyn]

So your argument is.

If used as short hand (CE) to describe a 'typical' and 'general' behavior set for a given race, the game is encouraged to create more, and players are encouraged to play them.

Yet, describing the activities or behaviors of a race in a general sense, does not do the same thing?

Nope. Because when you describe activities or behaviors you can use neutral terminology. You can say that orcs enjoy engaging in rough, even violent activities, but that could mean they really like orcball, or that they have Klingon-like courtship rituals. You can even say that orcs like combat, but that could be anything from honorable battle to massacres to wild brawling. But that's different from saying they're bloodthirsty or sadistically cruel, which limits them only being evil.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t want alignment to be a straight jacket. I don’t want alignment to be a thing. But if it’s going to be a thing, it should at least justify itself by ever mattering.

It more than already has, though. A great many DMs are like me and use alignment as a general RP aid for monsters and NPCs. A lot of players who are new or aren't as creative as some also use it to help guide the RP of their characters. Those things alone justify it remaining in the game forever. It has a lot of function and use, even if you two don't use it.

 

[Scribe]

Nope. Because when you describe activities or behaviors you can use neutral terminology. You can say that orcs enjoy engaging in rough, even violent activities, but that could mean they really like orcball, or that they have Klingon-like courtship rituals. You can even say that orcs like combat, but that could be anything from honorable battle to massacres to wild brawling. But that's different from saying they're bloodthirsty or sadistically cruel, which limits them only being evil.

Right, totally fair.

But what I'm asking is within the context of describing, what the 'short hand' label implies.

If the issue is the label as one understands it (CE) and that is then described "they are bloodthirsty, sadistic, and cruel with no sense of order or law" that accomplishes the same thing, no?

Yes we COULD use neutral terminology, but if the label is described more fully, it amounts to the same thing.

 

[payn]

Dont get the argument folks, 5E stripped it all down to not mattering. Doubt that's going to change going forward.

 

[Scribe]

Dont get the argument folks, 5E stripped it all down to not mattering. Doubt that's going to change going forward.

Yeah, I think it will remain as this general high level label system, as a short hand for behavior that can be expanded upon or assumed to mean things depending on the individual group.

 

[Faolyn]

@Faolyn This is what it says about the orcs in the Unapproachable East.

"The Zhent's came to the aid of Thesk against the Tuigan Horde a dozen years ago. After helping to win the battle against the Horde, the Zhents opted to leave their orc units stationed in Thesk. Over the intervening years, hundreds of other orcs and half-orcs have come to join their fellows in one of the few human nations that has shown the capacity to tolerate their kind."

I found that exact quote on Realmshelp.org. I can't help but notice you left out the second paragraph:

The oligarchs worry that the orc soldiers are still loyal to Zhentil Keep. If this is true, the Zhents could conceivably activate these troops at any time and destroy Thesk from within. For this reason, many of the orcs who came to Telflamm have been relocated, but most have been treated well enough in Thesk to reconsider their loyalties, should the call no arms come once again.

So this very clearly shows that the orcs had been evil--or at least evil enough that the Thesk were still worried about them--but that they only stopped being evil because of the humans and gnomes of Thesk. Since detect evil in 3e (when Thesk was last detailed) could detect evil humanoids, it's likely that the Theskans would actually be able to tell.

So no orcs had to be civilized. Other orcs came to live with the humans. Multiple nations in the Forgotten Realms allow orcs. "Few" is more than 2, so at least 3 human nations do so.

And for the umpteenth time, Eberron has non-evil orcs all over the place. It is a another example(beyond the at least 3 above) of orcs that are not evil in 3e.

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.

Where are the "three" groups of orcs that aren't evil? You still have shown one: Thesk. And you are claiming that since other orcs went to Thesk, they must be coming from equally non-evil societies--as opposed to emigrating from evil societies to a non-evil one. Which is far more likely, since you still haven't named any other non-evil orc societies.

Also, "multiple nations allow orcs" is not "an orc nation that isn't evil." All that does is show that, in the Realms, orcs still need to be "civilized" by other people or they're still Chaotic Evil. Even Obould Many-Arrows is still Chaotic Evil when he should be changed to Lawful Evil at least.

 

[Maxperson]

So this very clearly shows that the orcs had been evil--or at least evil enough that the Thesk were still worried about them--but that they only stopped being evil because of the humans and gnomes of Thesk. Since detect evil in 3e (when Thesk was last detailed) could detect evil humanoids, it's likely that the Theskans would actually be able to tell.

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.

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."

And for the umpteenth time, Eberron was specifically written to subvert alignments.

By RAW, sure.

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.

He still used RAW in making those orcs.

Where are the "three" groups of orcs that aren't evil? You still have shown one: Thesk. And you are claiming that since other orcs went to Thesk, they must be coming from equally non-evil societies--as opposed to emigrating from evil societies to a non-evil one. Which is far more likely, since you still haven't named any other non-evil orc societies.

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.

 

[Faolyn]

Right, totally fair.

But what I'm asking is within the context of describing, what the 'short hand' label implies.

If the issue is the label as one understands it (CE) and that is then described "they are bloodthirsty, sadistic, and cruel with no sense of order or law" that accomplishes the same thing, no?

Yes we COULD use neutral terminology, but if the label is described more fully, it amounts to the same thing.

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.