D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[Oofta]

but then we must ask why is gruumsh is evil?

They have anger issues and created an entire race for the sole purpose of watching the world burn. Sounds pretty chaotic evil to me.

Not to mention because they don't exist in the real world and it makes a handy antagonist in an a game that over-simplifies just about everything. It's just the default and good enough starting point for a lot of people. Even then Gruumsh and his followers have more depth than the vast majority of villains in TV, movies, and video games.

 

[TheSword]

I don't know. Very few gods have any meaningful impact on D&D products.

The point is, because that's the most recent source, it's preserving a sort of messed-up/nonsensical situation. Actually there's probably 3E or maybe even later books which assert Clangeddin as LG, but I am not going to dig through my shelves to check lol.

I’ve just read the full write up in Faiths and Pantheons for 3e. It’s clear there that Clangeddin is god of war, but also valor, defending others and honorable combat. The write up makes it pretty clear why he’s LG.

 

[cowpie]

I understand and agree with the moral point you're making. Stereotyping and bigotry is wrong, and I've understood this for decades (as far as I'm concerned it's basic morality, and a core value in my moral compass that's unshakeable). I've known this for so long that I no longer feel the need to explain myself, or tell other people about it, like spreading the gospel. Call me grumpy, but if I'm willing to give a player the benefit of the doubt, I've come to expect it in return.

Since that's who I am, I feel I can be trusted to choose to have orc bandits like Blorg in the game who are acting evil, without having to spend valuable prep time fleshing this out every game. It's impractical when I only have 15 minutes. Also, the players are probably going to kill him off soon, so that prep is going to be wasted anyway. If a player asks me in a game about Blorg's motivations, I'll just make something up on the fly.

What I'm really taking issue with, is how making a big deal out of singling out Orcs as an example of how D&D is morally failing, enables some disruptive players to engage in bad behavior in the name of upholding this moral standard. Because of this, I no longer use Orcs in games, because now there's always "that guy" who's going to assume the worst, just because I have orc bandits. They will jump up on a soapbox to "call this out", interrupt the game, and imply wrongdoing, even if it's not taking place. Strangely, if I have poorly fleshed out human bandits, or inherently evil demons, or a BBEG (like a Sauron) they don't seem to care (?)

In my experience, I've found that accusing someone of being morally bankrupt, or guilt tripping them in front of a group, is guaranteed to anger them, and cause a fight. I don't allow it during game sessions, because it's disruptive. I view it as a form of hogging the spotlight. I have had to cancel games (and ultimately kick a player) over this, because they couldn't just let it go. Bad behavior is still bad behavior, even when done ostensibly for a good cause.

What I want is to agree with the players that we all already know that people are complicated, and that their motivations for evil are there (but unspoken) before the game starts, and then be done with it. Calling out during my game, is not allowed.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I understand and agree with the moral point you're making. Stereotyping and bigotry is wrong, and I've understood this for decades (as far as I'm concerned it's basic morality, and a core value in my moral compass that's unshakeable). I've known this for so long that I no longer feel the need to explain myself, or tell other people about it, like spreading the gospel. Call me grumpy, but if I'm willing to give a player the benefit of the doubt, I've come to expect it in return.

Since that's who I am, I feel I can be trusted to choose to have orc bandits like Blorg in the game who are acting evil, without having to spend valuable prep time fleshing this out every game. It's impractical when I only have 15 minutes. Also, the players are probably going to kill him off soon, so that prep is going to be wasted anyway. If a player asks me in a game about Blorg's motivations, I'll just make something up on the fly.

What I'm really taking issue with, is how making a big deal out of singling out Orcs as an example of how D&D is morally failing, enables some disruptive players to engage in bad behavior in the name of upholding this moral standard. Because of this, I no longer use Orcs in games, because now there's always "that guy" who's going to assume the worst, just because I have orc bandits. They will jump up on a soapbox to "call this out", interrupt the game, and imply wrongdoing, even if it's not taking place. Strangely, if I have poorly fleshed out human bandits, or inherently evil demons, or a BBEG (like a Sauron) they don't seem to care (?)

In my experience, I've found that accusing someone of being morally bankrupt, or guilt tripping them in front of a group, is guaranteed to anger them, and cause a fight. I don't allow it during game sessions, because it's disruptive. I view it as a form of hogging the spotlight. I have had to cancel games (and ultimately kick a player) over this, because they couldn't just let it go. Bad behavior is still bad behavior, even when done ostensibly for a good cause.

What I want is to agree with the players that we all already know that people are complicated, and that their motivations for evil are there (but unspoken) before the game starts, and then be done with it. Calling out during my game, is not allowed.

This seems like a Bad Player problem rather than a 5e or WotC problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’ve just read the full write up in Faiths and Pantheons for 3e. It’s clear there that Clangeddin is god of war, but also valor, defending others and honorable combat. The write up makes it pretty clear why he’s LG.

I've read it too, and thought about it extensively back in the day, and I don't feel it can add up to LG, particularly with the fixation on literal genocide of his enemies.

 

[cowpie]

This seems like a Bad Player problem rather than a 5e or WotC problem

Sorry, I forgot to quote the thread I was responding to, which was explaining that it was important to always give incidental villains motivations, rather than have inherently evil villains (in this case orcs), per WOTC's policy spotlighting them. I was explaining that since I've long known that people are not inherently evil, and that I have limited prep time, I felt in unnecessary to use these characters as a vehicle in a game to publicly teach others right from wrong The world will not be a worse place if occasionally a throwaway bad guy is just a throwaway bad guy in a private game where adult players already know right from wrong.

The bad behavior piece is definitely a player issue, but in this case the player (who was young and immature in other ways) was emboldened because they were parroting WOTC's policy to excuse being disruptive. This could be an unintended consequence of the policy.

 

[TheSword]

I've read it too, and thought about it extensively back in the day, and I don't feel it can add up to LG, particularly with the fixation on literal genocide of his enemies.

That must be the AD&D version. The 3e version doesn’t mention genocide. It just mentions take any opportunity to attack evil giants. Which seems like a pretty good thing to do to me.

 

[Faolyn]

How about Blorg the Orc is a follower of Gruumsh so therefore we know he's evil because only someone evil would follow that god?

Is Blorg committing evil deeds? Because "leading a band of sadistic murderers" implies that he and his band are out there sadistically murdering people. But if Blorg is just a lay worshiper and only goes to Shrine on Bloodmass and Eyepoke days, then maybe no.

If Blorg is doing evil things because he worships Gruumsh, then sure. Slaughter away.

 

[Faolyn]

They have anger issues and created an entire race for the sole purpose of watching the world burn. Sounds pretty chaotic evil to me.

Only because the other gods cheated him and took all the good land for themselves, and then made fun of him for losing out.

Maybe the demihuman gods are the real baddies.

 

[Oofta]

Is Blorg committing evil deeds? Because "leading a band of sadistic murderers" implies that he and his band are out there sadistically murdering people. But if Blorg is just a lay worshiper and only goes to Shrine on Bloodmass and Eyepoke days, then maybe no.

If Blorg is doing evil things because he worships Gruumsh, then sure. Slaughter away.

If someone is a true devotee of Gruumsh, slaughter is worship. At least in my campaign world.

Only because the other gods cheated him and took all the good land for themselves, and then made fun of him for losing out.

Maybe the demihuman gods are the real baddies.

Yeah, the description in Volos is kind of crap. Gruumsh has a pretty different origin story in my campaign world. In short, Gruumsh wanted the best of the fertile valleys, the riches of the mountains and forests and so on. Basically tried to bully the rest of the gods into submission and giving him the best of everything with the threat of creating orcs if he didn't get his way.

But orcs work quite differently in my campaign world in other ways as well (no one has ever seen a baby orc).