D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Hexmage-EN]

I think that would be an overreaction.

They still are pigmen. This is the 5e description, "Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."

They're described as a race of savages and look enough like humans to make people equate them to racist stereotypes. That's why orcs are always the go to in these conversations. Every now and then someone might say goblins or yuan-ti or gnolls or whatever are problematic, but 99% of the time it's orcs.

If orcs still looked like this:

Instead of this:

I highly doubt people would care how they were depicted.

Either make them pig people again or get rid of Gruumsh and move them from the Monster Manual to the Player's Handbook.

 

[Maxperson]

They're described as a race of savages and look enough like humans to make people equate them to racist stereotypes. That's why orcs are always the go to in these conversations. Every now and then someone might say goblins or yuan-ti or gnolls or whatever are problematic, but 99% of the time it's orcs.

If orcs still looked like this:
View attachment 139850
Instead of this:
View attachment 139852
I highly doubt people would care how they were depicted.

I can't help where people choose to go with their beliefs. The description is of pig people, which the artwork reflects. They just aren't the silly looking pig people of yore.

 

[Aging Bard]

They're described as a race of savages and look enough like humans to make people equate them to racist stereotypes. That's why orcs are always the go to in these conversations. Every now and then someone might say goblins or yuan-ti or gnolls or whatever are problematic, but 99% of the time it's orcs.

If orcs still looked like this:
View attachment 139850
Instead of this:
View attachment 139852
I highly doubt people would care how they were depicted.

Either make them pig people again or get rid of Gruumsh and move them from the Monster Manual to the Player's Handbook.

My orcs are 1e, and you are exactly right.

 

[Maxperson]

My orcs are 1e, and you are exactly right.

My orcs are both 1e and 5e, since despite different artwork, both are the same pig people.

 

[Aging Bard]

My orcs are both 1e and 5e, since despite different artwork, both are the same pig people.

I think lots of people would disagree with you, which is why we have the Great Orc Disjunction. I understand your views and sympathize, but they might be in the minority.

 

[Maxperson]

I think lots of people would disagree with you, which is why we have the Great Orc Disjunction. I understand your views and sympathize, but they might be in the minority.

It wouldn't be the first majority view that was wrong. In any case, I'm not going to get into an orc discussion, because that just gets threads shut down.

 

[Faolyn]

Not all orcs follow Gruumsh. Those orcs have no Gruumsh beliefs to make them evil.

Canonically, and outside of specific settings, they do. Unless you, the DM, specify otherwise.

Yep. You can go from objectively one alignment to objectively another. They didn't get there by believing evil was good, though. They got their by changing their beliefs to match that of Mechanus. There was no subjectivity involved.

But it shows that the plane wasn't "hard wired" to an alignment.

Killing is not inherently evil. Murder is. Killing in war(legitimate battles, not massacres of civilians), self-defense, defense or another, and execution are examples of non-evil killing.

Those are types of killing that society has said are not evil. Which you said doesn't count.

Besides, PCs frequently massacre civilians (those orcish noncombatants), make preemptive strikes, and kill creatures just to take their stuff.

 

[Faolyn]

I can't help where people choose to go with their beliefs. The description is of pig people, which the artwork reflects. They just aren't the silly looking pig people of yore.

Having tusks does not equal pig people.

 

[Cadence]

Having tusks does not equal pig people.

How about having tusks and having previous lore that said pig people?

 

[Maxperson]

Canonically, and outside of specific settings, they do. Unless you, the DM, specify otherwise.

It doesn't say all orcs. It just talks about the default orcs. Other orcs exist and they don't have to follow Gruumsh.

But it shows that the plane wasn't "hard wired" to an alignment.

No it doesn't. You had one hard wired plane that got re-wired and became hard wired to Mechanus. Hard wiring doesn't equate to permanent and unchanging. It just makes it more difficult to change, and it's very, very, VERY rare for a plane to shift like that..................because of the hard wiring.

Those are types of killing that society has said are not evil.

Show me where all killing = evil. It never has in D&D, so I'm not sure where you're going to find that.

Which you said doesn't count.

No. I said subjective morality doesn't count. I view cannibalism as evil. Some tribes in the Amazon still eat people and view it as normal and good. In D&D, which is based on Western morality and has made that Western morality objective, it wouldn't matter if a cannibal viewed cannibalism as good. It would still be evil. Western morality doesn't view those types of killing I mentioned as evil, so in D&D they objectively aren't. I wouldn't classify them as good, either, but they aren't evil.

Besides, PCs frequently massacre civilians (those orcish noncombatants), make preemptive strikes, and kill creatures just to take their stuff.