D&D General The Case for Evil Orcs (Minor Rings of Power Spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Because one of those is fighting someone because they're opposed to you on an idealogical level, and the other is going after them because of how they born. How are these even comparable? You're comparing an entire race, literately available for anyone to play as an option, to an idealogical choice

Going after the soldiers of the Jerk Empire is a vastly different thing than targetting someone because of how they were born
Is it? Did those soldiers of the Jerk Empire choose to be born there, be subject to its ideologies from birth, be conscripted into its armies?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
I mean, ideally you'd have turncoats, folks who aren't buying into the regime, various other people and whatnot joining up with the other side for power, fame, fear....

But, you've found the solution. Regimes be evil, races aren't. Plus, folks remember and like the stories of people driven to fight each other through circumstance, through who had things been different they may have been friends. No one cares about Orphanageburner the Bandit who burns orphanages because he's Chaotic Evil and your players will reduce him to a bloodied smear on the ground in 3 rounds, tops
But if the regime and the race are the same thing, as far as the actual play is concerned, does that make a difference?
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
They don't have to comment from a moralistic point if view. I would consider that rather rude.
Are you suggesting that if someone posts here and says "This is how I play the game and you don't get to make a moral judgement on how I do it" that that's enough to shield them from any responses?

That's an interesting take. "I'm making a comment on a public discussion forum, but no one else is allowed to discuss it."
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Are you suggesting that if someone posts here and says "This is how I play the game and you don't get to make a moral judgement on how I do it" that that's enough to shield them from any responses?

That's an interesting take. "I'm making a comment on a public discussion forum, but no one else is allowed to discuss it."
Generally speaking, insulting others on ENworld is discouraged. I would call implying that a poster is a bad person because of their playstyle an insult.
 



billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Are you suggesting that if someone posts here and says "This is how I play the game and you don't get to make a moral judgement on how I do it" that that's enough to shield them from any responses?

That's an interesting take. "I'm making a comment on a public discussion forum, but no one else is allowed to discuss it."
Discuss it? Or badwrongfun it? Or subtly imply the person who posted is a racist?
 

Reynard

Legend
Ah but the usual reason for why there are inherently evil races is because the evil god that created them doesn't give them the same amount of free-will that good gods give to their creations. Thus inherently good races tend to be race because the sentient races created by good gods, have free-will thus can choose to act in a evil manner.
But is free will necessary for "good"? That's another philosophical discussion that is probably too involved for this thread because we would have to define both "good" and "free will."
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Dropping thinly-veiled hints that anyone who plays the game in a manner a given poster doesn't approve of will, and should, have their character publicly impugned by that poster is cyberbullying.
I... don't think we have the same definition of cyberbullying.

Because that's not cyberbullying.
 

theCourier

Explorer
Let's be real. This is not about individual game tables. Everyone can play in and DM the type of game they want to run, and there's nothing anyone on any social media can do about it. I, personally, think good and evil races are boring af so it's a trope I avoid. And yet I still play a game based on traipsing around dangerous locales for the sake of profit. There's tools in these games to avoid the type of play I don't want (e.g., morale rolls, reaction rolls, combat being very dangerous and swingy), so I'm able to make it work just as people who DO want those tropes are able to make them work.

This is about the actual game's text and play culture changing, and people acting like that's infringing or irreversibly changing the hobby or their ability to run the games they want... And that's not true. I mean, people who don't want evil orcs or biological essentialism in their game have been catering their games towards that style for years, and letting other people know that that's how their game is being run. So... that's going to be true of people on the opposite side of the argument now. You can do it, though, it's not that big a deal. Just let people know what you're doing, and let them decide if that's the game for them.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
This cuts in both directions. Choosing to cyberbully and harass people who play the game in a manner you don't approve of is not okay even if you call it "criticism."
At what point does comments here on the EN World boards become cyberbullying or harassment? And don't the moderators already account for that?

If someone makes a post that other respond to in kind and state they disagree with it... if that response is not flagged and locked by moderators, then I don't think we can call that response cyberbullying or harassment. If the original poster did not respond BACK to the person, and that responder just kept quoting the original post and asked/demanded a return response multiple times... or if the poster responded back to actually say "I don't wish to discuss this with you" and the responder didn't take no for an answer... then yes, we could say then it was cyberbullying and harassment, and the moderators would probably boot that person out of the thread if not give them a ban for a period of time.

But if you are the original poster and you comment back at someone who responded to you, and you argue your point trying to convince them why their response was wrong... you can't then say you're being harassed. You engaged with them. You made that choice to engage and discuss/argue. And when you do that... you don't get to declare that your side of the argument can't be criticized. That's not how forums work.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Then what's your in-game morality then?

If your game's morality says the PCs are allowed to kill things and it does not affect their morality... then you don't need an "Always evil" race. The PC are allowed to kill anything-- good or evil. Having an "Always evil" race is pointless. A target's alignment has no bearing on whether PCs can kill something so making hard declarations such as "X are always evil" does not matter.
It can be both. It's okay to kill inherently evil races, but non-inherently evil races require moral considerations. It's not the dichotomy you are portraying.
But putting that aside for the moment... what exactly is the point of the original post? Is it to suggest in a roundabout way that WotC should be okay with including "Always evil" humanoid races in their books? If that's the ultimate endpoint and conclusion of the original post... then of course the answer from all indications is "WotC is not going to do that regardless of the points made by other people to do it". So we can throw that idea right out the window.

Or is the point to suggest that players who choose to include "Always evil" humanoid races should not be looked at by other players (here on EN World for instance) as bad people or potentially racist? Well... I can understand WHY someone would want to make that argument... but that's not really their call, is it? You can't tell someone not to think of you as a bad person... that person is going to think whatever it is they want. The only way you're going to get that person to not believe you aren't a bad person is to not do what they think is bad... even if you truly believe your belief is justified or that you are being treated unfairly.
I can't answer that. The OP is the only one who can say what he meant.

What I can say is that the opinions of me by people I don't know on a forum that are based on an opinion that they have formed and isn't fact, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Which means the only option is to not care what some people think of you. You do you. Or your table does your table.
This is how it should be. We each do what we do at our tables and so long as those at are tables are having a good time, we are doing it right.
Don't come HERE onto EN World and declare that you are doing it at your table and think that then shields you from criticism or other people considering your beliefs or actions to be bad. Or if you REALLY need to declare it here... then just be perfectly fine with other people thinking you are a bad person and not care what they think. But if that's the case... there's then no reason to argue with anyone about it. :)
(y)
 


Reynard

Legend
We're in the D&D forum. D&D orcs are people. They have children, cities. this has been a canon fact for decades, since the existence of half orcs. Heck, Orcs are going to be a base race come 1D&D. Heck, the one I can think of that isn't just "Some humanoid" is goblyns from Ravenloft and Ravenloft's whole, deal
You seem to be intentionally ignoring the actual subject of the thread, which is that (general) you CAN have orcs that aren't "people" as you defined it above -- and that using "orc" as short hand for "inherently evil servitor race of a cosmic evil." It's got next to nothing to do with any portrayal of orcs as complex people, as I stated in the OP.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
At what point does comments here on the EN World boards become cyberbullying or harassment? And don't the moderators already account for that?
"At what point" is going to be nebulous and ill-defined, but I'll go ahead and say that while there are certain actions that people should be called out as immoral for engaging in, Dungeons & Dragons isn't one of them, regardless of how someone plays the game. For that matter, saying "don't the moderators already account for that?" comes very close to suggesting that anything you do is fine so long as the mods don't sanction you for it, essentially outsourcing any sense of restraint or responsibility to them.
If someone makes a post that other respond to in kind and state they disagree with it... if that response is not flagged and locked by moderators, then I don't think we can call that response cyberbullying or harassment.
No, I think we can. I think that just because this site's administrators let something go doesn't mean that it's necessarily okay. The mods are just people, and are prone to making mistakes. You should not surrender your judgment for theirs.
If the original poster did not respond BACK to the person, and that responder just kept quoting the original post and asked/demanded a return response multiple times... or if the poster responded back to actually say "I don't wish to discuss this with you" and the responder didn't take no for an answer... then yes, we could say then it was cyberbullying and harassment, and the moderators would probably boot that person out of the thread if not give them a ban for a period of time.
That's an example of cyberbullying, but it's not the only example. If you make it clear that you're (in the general sense of "you") going to attack the morality of someone for playing a fantasy elf game in a manner that you don't personally approve of, you're a harasser, and you're making it more difficult for people to post about their game out of anxiety that they may then have to deal with your harassment.
But if you are the original poster and you comment back at someone who responded to you, and you argue your point trying to convince them why their response was wrong... you can't then say you're being harassed. You engaged with them. You made that choice to engage and discuss/argue. And when you do that... you don't get to declare that your side of the argument can't be criticized. That's not how forums work.
Just because someone engages with a harasser doesn't mean that the person they're engaging with isn't a harasser. Telling someone else "the way you play your game makes you a racist" is condemning them as a person, and that remains true even if they turn around and say "no it doesn't."

As a general rule it's better to talking about the game, rather than talking about the people who play it (which includes dropping not-so-subtle implications about what sort of person they are), and things will be more pleasant all around.
 

Reynard

Legend
Is it? Did those soldiers of the Jerk Empire choose to be born there, be subject to its ideologies from birth, be conscripted into its armies?
This is why I wanted to avoid that line of argument when @Vaalingrade originally brought it up -- it's really thorny and will very quickly lead to discussions of real world atrocities, religions and ideologies.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Discuss it? Or badwrongfun it? Or subtly imply the person who posted is a racist?
If a poster says something here on the boards that someone else thinks is racist... that second person is allowed to respond and say so. No, they don't get to be insulting about it or call the person a flat-out racist or anything like that (and if they did, the moderators would most likely boot them)... but they also don't have to be silent on it.

The original poster then has a choice to make... either to engage with the discussion/argument, or disengage with it. And I'm saying that if you choose to engage with the responder and argue your point... you do not get to declare that the person doesn't get to respond back (because you're being "bullied" or its "rude" or any such thing.)

So long as the responder isn't being a jerk in their response (and if they are... that's what we have the Ignore and the Reporting functions)... they can argue the other side as much as you do. And you probably aren't going to change their mind nor they you. Which means you both are going to have to agree to disagree, and accept that the other person might possibly think you are-- anything-- and there's nothing you can do about that.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top