Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8534908" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>If that were actually the claim I had presented and intended to defend, then yes, you would be correct. It's not, and I really don't understand how you got that. Yes, that's <em>a</em> claim that has been made in this thread, but the specific point I was making--and which we had been discussing prior--was that many real, actual players <em>actually do</em> use orcs as no-thought KoS targets, to the point that that's essential to what "an orc" is as far as they're concerned.</p><p></p><p>In sequence as quoted:</p><p>Immaculata, speaking more broadly rather than necessarily of their own game, said, "Orcs are the stormtroopers of the D&D universe. They are evil, and only there to be chopped into pieces by the heroes, without us feeling to much over it." That's...literally exactly what I was telling you that people do. That people really, truly do just see orcs as Inherently Acceptable Targets, without even a fig-leaf justification.</p><p></p><p>Hexmage's core point is, as you said, that alignment is more critical to "what D&D is" than orcs. But, beneath that point, there is another: to make an orc <em>not inherently evil</em> is to weaken alignment, so <em>if</em> we must choose between non-evil orcs and no orcs, no orcs is preferable. Being inherently evil is implicitly essential to what an orc is; to remove their inherent evil is to weaken alignment; alignment is more important than orcs; therefore, if one must go, it should be orcs.</p><p></p><p>And Oofta is openly stating exactly what I spoke of: "I don't have a problem with evil monsters no matter what form they take or what fluff is given." How is that not an explicit "it doesn't matter how sapient or human-like a monstrous race is, if they're pure evil, they're pure evil, and that's fine."?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, I do hold that opinion--or, rather, since you asked for clarity, "No one should intentionally have human-like sapient beings that are inherently aligned, whether good, evil, or something else"--but that's not the point I was making here. I was, <em>very specifically</em>, arguing against your point that almost nobody uses orcs et al. as "no need to think, just kill 'em" monsters. These quotes seem perfectly cromulent for demonstrating that point: that <em>plenty</em> of completely real people <em>really do</em> have sapient-looking beings that are Just Pure Evil, and thus there's never any reason to feel bad about killing them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8534908, member: 6790260"] If that were actually the claim I had presented and intended to defend, then yes, you would be correct. It's not, and I really don't understand how you got that. Yes, that's [I]a[/I] claim that has been made in this thread, but the specific point I was making--and which we had been discussing prior--was that many real, actual players [I]actually do[/I] use orcs as no-thought KoS targets, to the point that that's essential to what "an orc" is as far as they're concerned. In sequence as quoted: Immaculata, speaking more broadly rather than necessarily of their own game, said, "Orcs are the stormtroopers of the D&D universe. They are evil, and only there to be chopped into pieces by the heroes, without us feeling to much over it." That's...literally exactly what I was telling you that people do. That people really, truly do just see orcs as Inherently Acceptable Targets, without even a fig-leaf justification. Hexmage's core point is, as you said, that alignment is more critical to "what D&D is" than orcs. But, beneath that point, there is another: to make an orc [I]not inherently evil[/I] is to weaken alignment, so [I]if[/I] we must choose between non-evil orcs and no orcs, no orcs is preferable. Being inherently evil is implicitly essential to what an orc is; to remove their inherent evil is to weaken alignment; alignment is more important than orcs; therefore, if one must go, it should be orcs. And Oofta is openly stating exactly what I spoke of: "I don't have a problem with evil monsters no matter what form they take or what fluff is given." How is that not an explicit "it doesn't matter how sapient or human-like a monstrous race is, if they're pure evil, they're pure evil, and that's fine."? I mean, I do hold that opinion--or, rather, since you asked for clarity, "No one should intentionally have human-like sapient beings that are inherently aligned, whether good, evil, or something else"--but that's not the point I was making here. I was, [I]very specifically[/I], arguing against your point that almost nobody uses orcs et al. as "no need to think, just kill 'em" monsters. These quotes seem perfectly cromulent for demonstrating that point: that [I]plenty[/I] of completely real people [I]really do[/I] have sapient-looking beings that are Just Pure Evil, and thus there's never any reason to feel bad about killing them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism
Top