D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Maxperson]

*struggling not to respond snarkily*

Um, good?

Yes, exactly. Given this fact, do you see how no formal mechanic existed in 2e to differentiate two different monsters with the alignment entry 'Chaotic Evil' on the basis of that alignment alone?

What I'm failing to see is why it matters. Alignment is just a behavior pattern. No edition of D&D has made CE for demons different from CE for orcs, or even humans for that matter. CE is CE. Any differentiation between demons and orcs came from other mechanics and/or fluff.

And do you also see how the caveat written at the front of the book that not all creatures necessarily had the listed alignment also did not and could not distinguish two different monsters with the same alignment entry 'Chaotic Evil' on the basis of that alignment alone since it applied to them euqally, and to the contrary under the rules the alignment entry 'Chaotic Evil' on say both orcs and balors connected the two monsters rather than differentiated them?

I don't think it's relevant. Alignment has never, in any edition, differentiated monsters of the same alignment.

This is what I see. CE doesn't connect orcs to balors, any more than it connects them to CE PCs or NPCs. They behaved similarly, but that's it. That's not a connection. What you are doing is like saying a bully in New York is somehow connected to a bully in Nevada. I disagree. Similar behavior does not equate to a connection. Now, if he bully in New York had the same father as the bully in Nevada, THAT would be a connection.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Personally I believe that any killing of another sentient being, whether you can justify it or not, is evil. It might be considered a necessary evil, such as when killing to protect innocents, but that doesn't make it good in my book. Heck, I think that most killing of even non-sentient living creatures is evil. Squashing that spider that was minding its own business? Evil. Not your soul will burn in hell for all eternity evil, but still evil. I catch and release whenever I can for that reason. That doesn't however make mine an objective truth. At best, it is my truth, purely subjective. If an objective truth of good and evil exists, the definition of it is presumably the domain of an unknowable higher power.

Emphasis added by me.

That's a great point, because in the context of the game, there is an objective truth of good and evil. Defining good and evil in the game is the domain of the game itself (particularly the alignment system), the DM, and the Deities (if any) of the world in use. Some mix of these, with the DM being the primary arbitrator.

Of course, the players probably have some input as well. The Gygax quotes I posted highlighted the fact that the actual definition of good and evil doesn't necessarily have to coincide with what (most?) people would consider good or evil.

As a player, it's good to have a general idea of what the definition is within the game, but that doesn't mean they'll have the whole definition, or even the right one.

Regardless, good and evil, and alignment in general, play a very small part in 5e at this point. So it's really a question as to whether it's a thing for you and your group.

 

[Celebrim]

What I'm failing to see is why it matters.

Ok, going back to the start of this side trek, the topic was, "In a particular DM's campaign, what is the definition of an 'orc'?" To simplify the discussion, I said that we could lump pretty much all definitions into one of two groups. Either orcs are people, or orcs are demons.

If orcs are people, then orcs are capable of both good and evil, and individual orcs should be primarily judged by their actions, and not the fact that they are orcs. If orcs are people, then it is at least possible that the fact that they are CE is a result of nurturing rather than inherent racial destiny, and an orc raised outside of a culture of violence and cruelty might adopt less evil ways, and likewise an orc exposed to new experiences might repent or reform their ways. Orcs in other words, because they are people might be predisposed to evil, but would not be evil inevitably.

But if orcs are demons, then orcs are not capable of both good and evil. The fact that you know an individual is an orc is sufficient reason to believe that the orc is not merely misguided, but wholly evil and wholly ruined. A demon is not evil because of its nurture, but as a result of its inescapable nature. You can't reform a demon. You can't convert a demon. A demon cannot learn from its experiences and repent. A demon can't be raised to be something other than a demon. Since demons are literally made of evil, any attempt to cleanse a demon of evil requires destroying the demon completely and replacing it with something that is ultimately no longer a demon.

So I brought up earlier that beginning in 3e, the D&D game began to suggest overtly in the entries that even though orcs and demons were both Chaotic Evil, that they weren't the same sort of chaotic evil. Orcs became mechanically humanoids that were usually Chaotic Evil, where as demons were outsiders that were always Chaotic Evil. Even though they shared the same alignment, the game was stating that despite this, they could be differentiated because the entry specifically added new keywords to each monster entry's alignment description. The mechanics of an orc began to express the idea of orcs being people, and not demons.

The global caveat at the front of the book in 2e which you claimed made me wrong about this, in fact doesn't express the idea that orcs and demons are different, since it applies to them equally. Thus, your statement that my claim was not accurate, was made on the basis of not understanding what my claim was or why it was important. In fact, as you've continued to defend your claim that my claim was not accurate, you've repeatedly undermined your own argument by admitting the very facts that make my original claim accurate.

I don't think it's relevant. Alignment has never, in any edition, differentiated monsters of the same alignment.

Yes, but it very much matters whether a CE being is a person, or a demon. If the CE being is a person, it has the rights and dignities due to a person, for example (assuming you are CG) it would be subject since you are also a person to the ethic of reciprocity - "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." But if the CE being is a demon, it isn't is a "you", but an evil thing without rights and dignities owed it. Early D&D tended to define "orc" as being essentially a lesser sort of demonic creature, suitable for encountering on the first level of dungeon, and the question of the orcs personhood was either generally not brought up or answered decidedly in the negative. (Compare Trollocs in 'Eye of the World' or the Goatmen in Diablo.) This is in keeping with the role that they played in Tolkien's legendarium. However, as D&D evolved, people began to more and more treat every intelligent race as being a person. This actually reached it height in late 2e, when even demons tended to be defined as people (for example, see Planescape:Torment), ultimately defining demon out of existence. In 3e however, and even more so in 5e, there has been an explicit separation of evil monsters into two groups, those that are, though evil, still people, and those that are demons.

As a side note, this explicit separation parallels a decision I made in the late 1980's about my homebrew campaign, when I officially made goblins into a sort of "person" sharing a common backstory with elves, humans, dwarves, orine, and idreth ("free peoples"), but moved races like gnolls, kobolds, minotaurs and the like into a completely different group with a completely different backstory ("lesser servitors"). Thus, goblins are certainly people, but gnolls are certainly demons and in my campaign a philosopher could explain why and anyone with enough ranks in Know (Religion) actually knows why. To put it briefly, goblins have free will and gnolls do not.

Similar behavior does not equate to a connection.

Things are connected if they have the same fundamental nature, or to put it another way, if things have the same fundamental origin. For example, a famous declaration of that principle is, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." In other words, all men are connected by their common origin, nature, and purpose. If orcs have a common origin and nature with humanity, then they are likely to have the same inalienable rights. But we cannot make the same assertion about things that do not have the same nature or purpose as humanity. They would have their own separate nature and inherent rights. The more dissimilar the natures, the more different you'd expect those rights to be.

Or in other words, depending on the backstory we give to orcs, we can define them as persons who should be treated as persons, or as monsters that should be treated as monsters. Since outside of Green Ronin's "Book of the Righteous", D&D has tended to be very vague on cosmological backstory and its implications, we can't expect any two tables to in any way agree on the definition of "orc". We can make assertions about what sort of definition a table is likely adopt on the basis of which edition was current when they started play, but even then that would be more of a 'usually' than an 'always' case.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, going back to the start of this side trek, the topic was, "In a particular DM's campaign, what is the definition of an 'orc'?" To simplify the discussion, I said that we could lump pretty much all definitions into one of two groups. Either orcs are people, or orcs are demons.

If orcs are people, then orcs are capable of both good and evil, and individual orcs should be primarily judged by their actions, and not the fact that they are orcs. If orcs are people, then it is at least possible that the fact that they are CE is a result of nurturing rather than inherent racial destiny, and an orc raised outside of a culture of violence and cruelty might adopt less evil ways, and likewise an orc exposed to new experiences might repent or reform their ways. Orcs in other words, because they are people might be predisposed to evil, but would not be evil inevitably.

But if orcs are demons, then orcs are not capable of both good and evil. The fact that you know an individual is an orc is sufficient reason to believe that the orc is not merely misguided, but wholly evil and wholly ruined. A demon is not evil because of its nurture, but as a result of its inescapable nature. You can't reform a demon. You can't convert a demon. A demon cannot learn from its experiences and repent. A demon can't be raised to be something other than a demon. Since demons are literally made of evil, any attempt to cleanse a demon of evil requires destroying the demon completely and replacing it with something that is ultimately no longer a demon.

So I brought up earlier that beginning in 3e, the D&D game began to suggest overtly in the entries that even though orcs and demons were both Chaotic Evil, that they weren't the same sort of chaotic evil. Orcs became mechanically humanoids that were usually Chaotic Evil, where as demons were outsiders that were always Chaotic Evil. Even though they shared the same alignment, the game was stating that despite this, they could be differentiated because the entry specifically added new keywords to each monster entry's alignment description. The mechanics of an orc began to express the idea of orcs being people, and not demons.

The global caveat at the front of the book in 2e which you claimed made me wrong about this, in fact doesn't express the idea that orcs and demons are different, since it applies to them equally. Thus, your statement that my claim was not accurate, was made on the basis of not understanding what my claim was or why it was important. In fact, as you've continued to defend your claim that my claim was not accurate, you've repeatedly undermined your own argument by admitting the very facts that make my original claim accurate.

Okay. You are wrong that the 2e global caveat doesn't express the idea that orcs and demons are different. It expresses the idea that no creature can be boxed into an alignment unless the monster entry expressly says so, and that they are all capable of good and evil. So 2e lets you know that both orcs AND demons are people.

Yes, but it very much matters whether a CE being is a person, or a demon. If the CE being is a person, it has the rights and dignities due to a person, for example (assuming you are CG) it would be subject since you are also a person to the ethic of reciprocity - "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." But if the CE being is a demon, it isn't is a "you", but an evil thing without rights and dignities owed it. Early D&D tended to define "orc" as being essentially a lesser sort of demonic creature, suitable for encountering on the first level of dungeon, and the question of the orcs personhood was either generally not brought up or answered decidedly in the negative. (Compare Trollocs in 'Eye of the World' or the Goatmen in Diablo.) This is in keeping with the role that they played in Tolkien's legendarium. However, as D&D evolved, people began to more and more treat every intelligent race as being a person. This actually reached it height in late 2e, when even demons tended to be defined as people (for example, see Planescape:Torment), ultimately defining demon out of existence. In 3e however, and even more so in 5e, there has been an explicit separation of evil monsters into two groups, those that are, though evil, still people, and those that are demons.

Starting in 2e, all creatures, including demons, were inherently "people" capable of good and evil. Unless a monster entry expressly said otherwise.

As a side note, this explicit separation parallels a decision I made in the late 1980's about my homebrew campaign, when I officially made goblins into a sort of "person" sharing a common backstory with elves, humans, dwarves, orine, and idreth ("free peoples"), but moved races like gnolls, kobolds, minotaurs and the like into a completely different group with a completely different backstory ("lesser servitors"). Thus, goblins are certainly people, but gnolls are certainly demons and in my campaign a philosopher could explain why and anyone with enough ranks in Know (Religion) actually knows why. To put it briefly, goblins have free will and gnolls do not.

In 1e, things were different as far as I can tell. Alignment wasn't flexible when it came to monsters. In the late 80's you would have had to make that decision yourself. Starting in 1989 with 2e, you no longer had to. All creatures were inherently people at that point, even if DMs didn't realize that and/or play them that way.

 

[Celebrim]

You are wrong that the 2e global caveat doesn't express the idea that orcs and demons are different. It expresses the idea that no creature can be boxed into an alignment unless the monster entry expressly says so, and that they are all capable of good and evil.

The second sentence doesn't provide evidence of the first. In fact, if you read the second sentence again, you'll find what you said provides evidence that the first sentence is wrong.

So 2e lets you know that both orcs AND demons are people.

I was wondering if someone would notice that. Yes, you are right. It does do that. Which is why I said that by late 2e, that idea had fully taken hold, so that demons had been defined out of existence.

Starting in 2e, all creatures, including demons, were inherently "people" capable of good and evil. Unless a monster entry expressly said otherwise.

That might well be true. I just consider that not only foolish nonsense, but inherently uninteresting. It's more interesting to have both categories.

All creatures were inherently people at that point, even if DMs didn't realize that and/or play them that way.

It is wrong that all intelligent things are inherently people, and it would be wrong to think that way. I would really care because it is a game and not real, but as we get closer in our understanding as subcreators, that we can begin to create intelligent things that are real, it is not only wrong to think that way but dangerously wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

The second sentence doesn't provide evidence of the first. In fact, if you read the second sentence again, you'll find what you said provides evidence that the first sentence is wrong.

You're right. They are the same in that they can both be different alignments.

I was wondering if someone would notice that. Yes, you are right. It does do that. Which is why I said that by late 2e, that idea had fully taken hold, so that demons had been defined out of existence.

That was a short lived idea 3e introduced demons with the explicit alignment of "Always chaotic evil". Orcs on the other hand were "often chaotic evil", and ogres were "usually chaotic evil".

That might well be true. I just consider that not only foolish nonsense, but inherently uninteresting. It's more interesting to have both categories.

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I like the "Always CE" of demons. On the other hand, I like having the very rare one in a million good demon as a possibility.

It is wrong that all intelligent things are inherently people, and it would be wrong to think that way. I would really care because it is a game and not real, but as we get closer in our understanding as subcreators, that we can begin to create intelligent things that are real, it is not only wrong to think that way but dangerously wrong.

For purposes of the game and "people" being those creatures that can be good or evil, 2e had all creatures being inherently people. You brought up the "people" term. I just went with it. If there's a different term you are more comfortable with, let me know.

 

[Eltab]

Everybody who patronizes the bar recognizes and remembers the bouncer. The Battlemaster just got himself a reputation. This reputation will spread at the speed of grapevine. It will NOT be flattering or heroic.

Have NPCs react to him (and his friends) as if this was the real story (because that's what rumor and gossip turned it into): Battlemaster picked a fight with the tavern bouncer and killed him in cold blood, right in the middle of the bar. The man was just doing his job! He didn't mean any real harm to anybody.

That act was Evil, but is atone-able. (Justice must be served, too - pay weregild, or be put in the stocks for a day & a night of public humiliation, or be banished from town or something.) If the Battlemaster does this over and over again, then he and his player have to have an unpleasant talk with the DM about alignment.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm trying to explain why your way of looking at things doesn't make everyone else's way wrong, any more than their way makes your way wrong.

Which is weird, since I already know that and never once said anything that indicated otherwise.

Are you actually interested in that, or have you already made a decision?

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not discussing what each of us DMs can choose for an aswer - just the one presented in the books.

I'm saying no one knows what they are talking about until orc is defined for a particular campaign world.

Again, I've only been talking about orcs (and, since I want to be sure it hasn't been forgotten, the other numerous lower case 'e' evil creatures that are arbitrarily treated differently than other potentially evil creatures) as defined in the D&D books. So this whole "no one knows what they are talking about until orc is defined" thing makes it seem like you don't understand that there are definitions of these creatures presented by D&D books.

You've defined what orc means at your table...

I've actually not mentioned anything about how orcs are treated at my table beyond something I said way back in this thread - that I prefer to judge the motive behind an act, rather than the act itself, to determine if there has been any out-of-alignment behavior.

That's so ridiculous, I'm going to quote it again.

Of course it wouldn't make sense! Orcs aren't real, and aren't interchangeable with humanity (which is real).

You've missed the point, despite my attempts to help you see it. I will rephrase the point in hopes that you get it: You've just said of orcs precisely what a hate-filled, violent racist might say of the people of whatever race(s) they are racist towards - and you did so for the reason of attempting to explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable that an intelligent, civilized, self-aware organism that differs from human by no more of a degree than elves do, shouldn't be treated the same as humans and elves are.

Yes, it's fictional. Fictional racism and genocide, which is presented as Good behavior.

In most fantasy settings, orcs aren't a race.

That's true in the sense of the real-world usage of race, but clearly mistaken in the sense of the use of the word races within the D&D game - where the books explicitly call orc a race.

*puts head in hands*

Are you aware that I've had people come up to me and say that because of my skin color, I wasn't really a person. That I was in fact a fake person who had been cooked in an oven by Satan in mockery of real people, and as a consequence of my different creation I did not really have a soul? In other words, they weren't saying that I merely was a different race of humanity, but that I was a whole other species ultimately incapable of inherent good because I was the construct of a dark and evil power - that is to say, an non-person, or an "orc". This is my real life experience. I'm not making that up. So yes, I'm aware racism is a real thing, but I'm talking about imagined fantasy worlds which have all sorts of different things in them that aren't things in reality.

How can you have been the victim of that kind of dehumanizing racism and not see the clear parallel to orcs?

They are literally the same as demihumans - created by their chief god and set into the world to, hopefully, flourish - and yet the demihumans have declared them to be some other thing which doesn't deserve the fine treatments that they do, such as not being killed on sight. And you, a victim of that kind of racism in real life, are spending what appears to be significant effort to convince me that, because orcs are made up, it is somehow not (a fictional depiction of) racism.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I like the "Always CE" of demons. On the other hand, I like having the very rare one in a million good demon as a possibility.

The problem becomes that the subverted trope ends up becoming more prevalent than the trope, on the grounds that people always think they are being edgy and creative in subverting the trope.

So for example, coming at this from the opposite direction, 99% of all Paladins in D&D related literature are jerks that end up as fallen Paladins, death knights, blackguards or whatever. So for example, as soon as the Paladin was introduced in 'Neverwinter Nights', I knew that she was going to fall. Maybe perhaps if there really had been 1,000,000 Paladin protagonists portrayed in a noble manner, it might be interesting to have a story with that one paladin that falls. But in fact, what you see presented is nothing like that.

After you kick the trope over enough times in order to subvert it, you destroy the trope and the very thing that makes kicking it over interesting. Besides which, it is so obvious, and such a stock character, that it ceases to actually be creative.

For me, if you want to have a character that plays against the type, make it a character where the thing itself is not defined by the type. For example, I have a troll bard/sage that plays the violin. That plays against type without destroying what the thing itself is, because troll is a fairly broad somewhat vague term open to interpretation, and a troll artist and intellectual is still a troll. We have all these other things - ogres, trolls, hill giants, whatever - where you can play with the idea of an unexpectedly noble character. But, after that, we still need to preserve something to represent the idea of a being that can't play against type.

For purposes of the game and "people" being those creatures that can be good or evil, 2e had all creatures being inherently people. You brought up the "people" term. I just went with it. If there's a different term you are more comfortable with, let me know.

No, no, it's not you. It's me. It's a personal peeve, and I shouldn't let it irritate me.

I have a professional interest in AI, and some small knowledge on the subject. And invariably, whenever you start talking about AI with laymen, invariably they start going off one robot rights and how having AI's as property is slavery and all sorts of similar frankly deranged nonsense that they think is being moral and righteous because clearly a robot is a direct parallel to a member of the human race. Sometimes they get so angry about it that you are afraid they are going to punch you in the face. And the truth is, if you want to act immorally, and you want to create monsters, then by all means act like AI's are inherently people and demand they be treated with such. I can think of no surer way to end up with a Butlerian Jihad or Skynet or some other dystopian crap. So I'm trying to force people to think seriously about what things like 'intelligence' and 'human' and 'person' really mean.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ok, going back to the start of this side trek, the topic was, "In a particular DM's campaign, what is the definition of an 'orc'?"

That's not where this side trek started, but if you honestly think that it was I can see why our exchange has been so fruitless.

Where we really started our exchange was with you quoting me saying the bouncer in this scenario asked the fighter in this scenario "to give them better treatment than that which they seemed intent to give.", which I said while explaining that we don't have enough information about the scenario for their to be only one perspective from which to view it, and you saying to me "Yes, but that is what Good aligned characters do by definition."

Which I then brought into question by pointing out that D&D presents people, nations, and organizations (all fictional, of course) that promote (fictional behavior that is) racism and genocide and are capital 'G' Good.