D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Chaltab]

Wellll..... why are we decribing a people as only raiding your territory and the territories of your neighbours if they aren't inherently evil?

Here's a thought, why not give descriptions of orcs that AREN'T primarily raiding territory and commiting violence?

I mean they did that, and people said they were turned into Mexicans. WOTC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's just a matter of choosing who does the damning.

 

[Hussar]

Or to recognize being violent isn't necessarily being evil.

There are many people who are violent due to the fact they commit violent acts. Violence is not evil, in an of itself. Sometimes violence can be used in the defense of others. Violence is also commited in contests and sports, does that make those individuals evil? Of course not.


I would ask you the same thing. A word is just a word, after all. If someone does violence, I call them violent.

Give this a try.

Do you like hockey or football? Do you talk about these sports with your friends? Next time you talk about either one, insert the word violent in front of either every time. So, it's not, "Did you see the hockey game last night?" it's "Did you see the violent hockey game last night?"

Or, better yet, insert the word violent in front of any noun really. Violent sport. Violent husband. Violent animal. Funny. None of those are neutral. There is virtually nothing you can do violently that isn't negative and bad.

It's baffling that people want to pretend that dictionaries and common usage don't exist.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No one is connecting, say, the descriptions of gnomes to any real world groups. Or mind flayers or beholders.

Sorry, this just reminded me of something I saw a while back:

 

[Gradine]

Who knows what is right? By whose standard? By what culture? In what era? What do we owe each other? Am I my brother's keeper? And so on... The weak do not suffer what they must. They can choose to fight back in their own defense, they suffer by their own choice.

Survival of the fittest is nature's way---it is neither good nor evil. Sometimes you survive by teamwork, other times by acting on your own. The weak can work together to overcome the strong. Then the strongest of the weak becomes the strong.

To say "the orc is violent and savage and must therefore be slaughtered on sight because these things make it evil" is justifying many of the atrocities mankind as perpetrated on ourselves throughout history. If the orc attacks and you must destroy it in your own defense, this is not evil. It is survival of the fittest. You are fitter than the orc. Or are you just evil for doing so?

No culture has the right to destroy another simply because they deem it evil, or that culture is evil itself. The orc conquest and destroys because they do so to survive--for plunder, food, equipment, etc. and their means for destroying is savagery and violence.

I dunno, man, if I can't convince someone that caring about and for other people is good and exploiting and harming others for your personal gain is evil I don't know where we're going to see eye-to-eye on much at all morally or ethically.

I mean at least we're on the same page with the bolded part, but I dunno we're gonna get much closer than that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I was imagining that the races at opposite poles would probably be at odds, but the ones fairly near each other (and the ones on the good side) would probably get along.

Not to mention even races that are divinely inspired towards a specific alignment could still have factionalism and cultural distinctions.

Plus the classic "opposites attract" concept.

I'm thinking

Humans = LG
Dwarves = LN
Goblinoids = LE
Gnomes = CG
Elves = CN
Orcs = CE
Halflings = TN

Still trying to work out good options for NG and NE.

i probably would've swapped orcs and goblinoids as LE and CE respectively, orcs with a code of honour and goblins being the typical gremlin representation, though i know hobgoblins are part of goblinoids...

edit: aasimar and warforged might be an interesting opposite for NG/NE, aasimar as the celestial blooded 'pure souls' and warforged as the artificial imitation of life as created by mortals, who veer into 'evil' as they go to extreme lengths of 'putting themselves first' as a response to being a species created to serve.

 

[TiQuinn]

That all sounds very Klingon to me.

Good thing the writers of Star Trek did the work 30 years ago to no longer make them the evil empire of the ST universe.

 

[ezo]

Give this a try.

A pleasure!

Do you like hockey or football? Do you talk about these sports with your friends? Next time you talk about either one, insert the word violent in front of either every time. So, it's not, "Did you see the hockey game last night?" it's "Did you see the violent hockey game last night?"

Done.

Or, better yet, insert the word violent in front of any noun really. Violent sport. Violent husband. Violent animal. Funny. None of those are neutral. There is virtually nothing you can do violently that isn't negative and bad.

Of course there is!

Violent sport = rough sport. Is that negative or bad? Not really at all. Dangerous? Sure. Is that bad? Not if you like danger and the rush it brings.

Violent husband = protects his wife. Wife gets hit on by a guy at a bar. Violent husband tells the guy to back of and stop harrassing his wife. Not bad, right?

Violent animal = ferocious and lethal. Kills quickly when hunting its prey. Sounds good to me.

All neutral or even good. So, there is a lot you can do violently that can be positive or good.

It's baffling that people want to pretend that dictionaries and common usage don't exist.

Right, so use a dictionary already:

Violence is not, in an off itself, evil. Not that baffling if you think about it.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, not engaging anymore. Not worth the effort. There is no way that this is going to be a productive conversation.

 

[ezo]

I mean at least we're on the same page with the bolded part, but I dunno we're gonna get much closer than that.

Then do you at least see why saying orcs are inherently evil and can be slaughted on sight is, itself, evil?

And NO WHERE, does it say orcs are inherently evil. I've never claimed most orcs don't commit evil acts, and do so violently, but that does not make them evil and justify killing them on sight without cause.

If you can see that, then sure we're as close as we need to be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Give this a try.

Do you like hockey or football? Do you talk about these sports with your friends? Next time you talk about either one, insert the word violent in front of either every time. So, it's not, "Did you see the hockey game last night?" it's "Did you see the violent hockey game last night?"

Or, better yet, insert the word violent in front of any noun really. Violent sport. Violent husband. Violent animal. Funny. None of those are neutral. There is virtually nothing you can do violently that isn't negative and bad.

It's baffling that people want to pretend that dictionaries and common usage don't exist.

I do think orcs being violent is generally something we are meant to see as bad (they are meant to be a monstrous threat and being violent is part of that threat).

But I think when you are talking about sports, the effect of inserting the word violence is very different from say inserting it in front a husband. And saying something like a violent bear, is also very different. We would all judge someone who proves to be a violent husband pretty harshly. Would we judge a violent bear? It is just being a bear. Bears can be violent.