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

[ezo]

Yeah, not engaging anymore.

So, you tell me to "Give this a try" and I do, and then back out? Ok.

Not worth the effort. There is no way that this is going to be a productive conversation.

Yeah, at least we agree on this.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

At risk of being controversial, I will admit that I depict my beavers as fey spies who plot the downfall of civilization.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At risk of be controversial, I will admit that I depict my beavers as fey spies who plot the downfall of civilization.

I confess that fire ants in my setting were spawned from hell. A player once asked if he could play a lone good fire, and I told him "No, they are inherently evil!"

 

[pemerton]

« Orcs survive through savagery and force of numbers. Theirs is a life that has no place for weakness, and every warrior must be strong enough to take what is needed by force. 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. »

So, not evil?

Everyone knows that an insatiable desire for battle is just a variant on an insatiable desire for sunning oneself in a field of dandelions!

 

[Older Beholder]

I never stated causation was a factor. You (and people who have been arguing about it) have tried to make it about causation.

But let's extend the metaphors. Let's take all the negative stereotypes about gamers. They are antisocial. They are nerds. They are fat. They don't understand hygiene. They are weaklings who can't do a single pushup. They hate girls. Now, let's make a monster named Grognard, make them chaotic evil, and put them in the Monster Manual as creatures to fight or bully. Let's make nearly every encounter with them one where the characters are supposed to beat them up or mock them. And we'll say "but some grognards can be good people".

How do you feel about my grognard? I'm sure people will not connect them to real gamers. You certainly wouldn't be offended that they use the same language used to mock gamers in the real world. They're made up. Silly elf game. Get rekked grognard!

I mean, the game didn't tell me to go beat up gamers. It just said I'm justified in disliking fat, smelly, awkward creatures.

No offense, right?

Given the reaction to a clown named 'Thaco' being in one book, I think we know the answer to this.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, if we say a "violent bear entered the town", it is universally seen as bad. And, adding this to an animal is shifting the goal posts since animals are incapable of being good or evil.

But, adding violent to a person, just like saying violent husband, is ALWAYS bad. There is no example of adding the word violent to a person where it is seen as a good thing. And this is why this conversation will never actually make any headway because the goalposts will always be shifted. A violent animal isn't evil, so a violent person isn't evil? How is that not a false equivalence.

There's no way that this argument is being made in good faith.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, if we say a "violent bear entered the town", it is universally seen as bad. And, adding this to an animal is shifting the goal posts since animals are incapable of being good or evil.

I mentioned it because you included "violent animal" on your list. So my point was just that the connotation of 'violent' shifts depending on what you are talking about. I don't disagree with your baseline point, is is orcs are meant to be generally evil or bad in most editions.

But, adding violent to a person, just like saying violent husband, is ALWAYS bad.

I think violent is often bad if added to a person. But not always. In the example you give it is clearly bad because you chose the word husband. If I saw 'he is a violent boxer', that isn't necessarily bad. Sometimes that is what you want in a boxer. Violent definitely can be bad. But I also think what heightens it in the example you use is it is invoking domestic abuse by attaching it to a husband.

There is no example of adding the word violent to a person where it is seen as a good thing. And this is why this conversation will never actually make any headway because the goalposts will always be shifted. A violent animal isn't evil, so a violent person isn't evil? How is that not a false equivalence.

I just gave you one. I don't disagree with you that orcs are generally seen as evil (and as you know I have been saying evil orcs should be allowed to exist in the game). But I don't think the word violent alone denotes evil.

Again, I mentioned the animal because you brought it up. But it connects to orcs because we are talking about a species. If orcs are by nature violent, but the setting doesn't present them as evil, I can easily see a world where a violent orc is just an orc being true to its nature. Even if it has nothing to do with nature, violent alone doesn't tell us if the orc is good or evil, it is what they use that violence for. I think it would be fair to characterize humans as violent for example. That doesn't make humans evil.

There's no way that this argument is being made in good faith.

I don't think anyone is engaged in bad faith here. People may be missing one another's points, not making their point as logically as they could or succumbing to poor logic in their reasoning. But we are kind of lost in the weeds here, because as I mentioned, I agree with your core point that orcs are generally depicted as evil, so I am not trying to make a bad faith argument. I just think you can't say a word like violent necessarily tells us if something is evil (the evil orc really stems more in my mind from its cruelty, its sense of superiority to other races, etc. But I also think if you look at the 2E description of orcs I mentioned earlier, it gets very close to having orcs be more of a mirror image of humans that is just a shade darker. Again this line kind of stands out for me:

Orcs have a reputation for cruelty that is deserved, but humans are just as capable of evil as orcs.

 

[Scribe]

The idea that violence is bad, for this combat sports fan, is one that just doesnt work.

For a game that has at its base COMBAT, and fictionalized killing, I just cannot get behind this being an actual problem.

Spoiler: Dont click if you dont like fighting.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, number one. My posts are not that long. I refuse to respond when you start fisking my posts. If you want to have a conversation, do not fisk my posts.

Number 2. I did not bring up animals. That was @ezo. I simply included it as an example of the bad faith goalpost shifting that permeates this conversation.

Number 3. You are hyperfocused on a single word -- violent - to the exclusion of the MOUNTAIN of verbiage around the issue. How is this not bad faith?

 

[Mistwell]

At risk of be controversial, I will admit that I depict my beavers as fey spies who plot the downfall of civilization.

That's the best dam theory of the whole thread.