Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 919973" data-attributes="member: 172">I have sort of a simulationist bent.Cultures among humans vary in ways that some parts of which, we, from our admittedly biased modern perspective*, would call evil.* - Which is, of course, pretty much codified in the D&D alignment system.If you are talking about a race that is "usually" or "often" evil, you are not talking about a race that is "born to be bad" (like demons or devils or gem'haddar), but rather, a race that has a predominant culture that sees victimization of other intelligent creatures as right and proper**.** - Spare any political commentary, please. We are still talking about D&D as an ideal.In many cases, the cultures that evolve in some races would not be that unlike specific human cultures that would or could evolve. However, there may be some racial insticnts or deep seated cultural aspects that tend to keep them in these sorts of destructive behaviors.But this doesn't say anything about individual characters. Orcs may have a brutal culture that affects its members, but each individual still makes its own choices. This, IMO, is more than sufficient a grounds for moral ambiguity. Does your paladin kill goblin babies because they will invariable grow up and be evil? In my campaign, that would be an ex-paladin, as the paladin is falling victim to pre-determined judgements about children that could, in the proper environment, turn out to be good.Perhaps this is just a long-winded way of saying that both a) using "evil races" is reasonable and beleivable and b) using them is NOT tantamount to discarding moral ambiguity.</blockquote>

Verification