D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Ruin Explorer]

Are demons and devils evil?

I get that you think this is a counter-argument, but it isn't, indeed it illustrates the problem with your argument very well. Demons and devils are all evil (barring weird counter-magic) because the lore and text assert that they are all evil because they are essentially magical representatives of evil. We don't just believe it because their statblock has an evil alignment on it.

Whereas this is both not stated in the lore/text for Orcs or the like, and indeed is given specific counter-examples exist in the lore in various settings, and in the fact that players can be Orcs and choose an alignment (they are not limited to CE, nor all E or anything) also means it is not the case (and this again, a rule in the game). They are mere flesh-and-blood beings like any other. You could make a race which was "like Orcs but demons!" or whatever, or state that Orcs in your setting ARE demons, that's fine, but as I said, it's a wacky bit of homebrew, not a valid interpretation of the rules, nor canon.

 

[Oofta]

I get that you think this is a counter-argument, but it isn't, indeed it illustrates the problem with your argument very well. Demons and devils are all evil (barring weird counter-magic) because the lore and text assert that they are all evil because they are essentially magical representatives of evil. We don't just believe it because their statblock has an evil alignment on it.

Whereas this is both not stated in the lore/text for Orcs or the like, and indeed is given specific counter-examples exist in the lore in various settings, and in the fact that players can be Orcs and choose an alignment (they are not limited to CE, nor all E or anything) also means it is not the case (and this again, a rule in the game). They are mere flesh-and-blood beings like any other. You could make a race which was "like Orcs but demons!" or whatever, or state that Orcs in your setting ARE demons, that's fine, but as I said, it's a wacky bit of homebrew, not a valid interpretation of the rules, nor canon.

FR and Eberron are not D&D. It's been stated repeatedly that it's okay for demons and devils to be evil because they are not human.

Orcs are no more human than fiends.

 

[Bohandas]

I believe we call that dehumanization, which is again a problem.

Not when the characters aren't human. At that point humanizing the characters is the problem. It displays a lack of creative thought. Why would we expect a creature that has an explicitly different level of intelligence, lives less than three quarters of of a human lifespan, and was built from scratch by a violent loutish cosmic frat boy to have an outlook anything similar to human.

A similar thing goes for the elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc.

And on the topic of elves, elves are done pretty wrong. In addition to being too human in general they bear very little resemblence to folkloric fair-folk elves, they bear even less resemblence to modern cookie and toy making elves, and honestly they're not even super close to Tolkien's elves (whose influence I suspect is why they don't resemble the other two kinds of elves).

 

[Bohandas]

Okay, short version. Eberron is not D&D. Orcs are listed as CE in the MM. Therefore unless you change it for your campaign the majority of, if not all, orcs are CE

Orcs are listed as "often CE" as in more often than any other alignment, but less than half of the time because otherwise it would be "usually CE" or "always CE"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

FR and Eberron are not D&D.

The FR is effectively a canon part of D&D. One of the main MMs has Volo's name in the title. Orcs being optionally playable is an unarguable part of D&D, and not just in Eberron. Orcs have moral freedom by default, in D&D. That their 5E statblocks are all/largely CE merely reflects the default status of those particular types. This has been consistent across basically every edition possibly barring 1E.

It's been stated repeatedly that it's okay for demons and devils to be evil because they are not human.

By whom? The cat's mother?

What an utterly meaningless claim, and without any kind of citation or evidence. That's basically weasel words.

Orcs are no more human than fiends.

Yeah they're actually a hell of a lot closer to a human than a fiend is. That's not even arguable. They're mortal beings for starters, not immortal representatives of evil.

@Bohandas - actually 5E does say "Usually Chaotic Evil".

But still that's only usually. There's no restriction on the alignment of Orcs. Oofta is flatly wrong to assert in any way that there is, RAW.

 

[DND_Reborn]

All this debate is interesting to a point, but I think a lot of it reflects why alignment has little bearing on the game in 5E compared to earlier editions.

I agree wholeheartedly with @Oofta and @Bohandas because orcs are not humans.

Now, does that meant they deserve to be killed on sight because they are evil? No. Not IMO. Only an evil character would accept that outlook. Defeated, driven off, imprisoned, killed to protect others or yourself or in defense of your property or land--sure, I can buy that. But just to kill them because they exist? No. THAT is evil and any PC in my game who acts as such will find their alignment shifting...

I recall when I first began with this group and we ran through the Keep on the Borderlands. The DM explained our goal was to capture and return with prisoners for questioning, with a generous bounty of 25 gp per capture. Well, being a lot of new players, I let them make the decisions and it was a murder hobo-fest for a while. Finally, I stepped in to remind them, "Hey, guys, you know we're supposed to be taking at least some of them alive, remember?" They were like, "Oh, yeah... let's use non-lethal finished on the next ones."

Anyway, I hope people would also notice things like Champion and other NPC-types have any humanoid listed, not any PC-playable or acceptable race. Want an orc Champion, go for it! Want that orc Champion to be Lawful Good, not an issue because a Champion has any alignment. Once you break out of the "orc" molds as presented in the MM and other books, you can do anything and still be both following the canon and rules of the game and also satisfying any sensibilities you have.

I have always allowed any creature to be any alignment, but that is me personally. Are the vast majority of orcs in my games evil? You bet! But occasionally one might be neutral, and work with the party, or even good, and become a lasting ally. Our main DM plays it the same way. It has nothing to do with real world comparisons or prejudices!

For example, while playing Against the Giants, our half-orc (with STR 19) impressed upon the orcs working for the giants his strength and ferocity in battle. They were given the choice to abandon the giants or be destroyed. They agreed to leave, at which point the PC even offered them a place in our territory as allies if they wish. Some accepted. Most didn't and just fled. Could those who fled kill other people and such someday? Very likely, and if we found them doing so we would defeat or kill them again. They might be executed as prisoners of war, or held as prisoners for labor, or something else.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was thinking about how to better explain my issue with orcs not always being evil.

The basic argument is that even though the MM says they're evil, it's really just talking about the majority of orcs being chaotic evil barring specific campaign changes.

So:

• Orcs are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
• If you take orcs out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
• You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
• Once they get rid of all that orcish mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

Then say that orcs really represent the "ignorant savage" trope.
Go back and replace "orcs" with "indigenous people".

• Indigenous people are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
• If you take indigenous people out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
• You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
• Once they get rid of all that indigenous people mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

I find that disturbing. I'd rather have orcs be hard-wired to be evil and leave the influence of culture out of it.

Aha, now this is a very interesting and well-reasoned argument. And I would agree with you, that’s pretty messed up. I don’t think it’s more messed up than “this group of people is inherently evil because their evil gods made them that way, so it’s ok to kill them,” but you’re absolutely right that “these people are only evil because their evil culture taught them to be that way” is also colonialist and gross. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s basically the same trope with a different hat on.

Now take it a step further, and say that the idea that their culture is evil is the product of human bigotry. There isn’t really any cultural tendency towards evil among orcs, they’ce just been vilified by the colonialist humans.

They are not real, they are not human, they are not Native Americans, First Nation, Aborigines, Inuit or any other indigenous people nor are they a stand-in for them. Because deciding that they are a stand in means I will never, ever, use them in a campaign unless I change them so that the majority are good or neutral like humans*.

So, you’ve recognized that the treatment of orcs in fantasy is messed up, but rather than change the way you represent them in your own games, your solution is to just play the trope straight and say “in my game they don’t represent the thing they usually represent in this trope.”

They just become another race and no longer serve a distinct purpose.

Do dwarves not serve a distinct purpose because they’re not always evil? What’s the difference? Why do some races need to be always evil to serve a distinct purpose but not others?

As far as why we have evil orcs and occasionally evil dwarves that's also easy to justify.

Moradin wanted to create children that were happy and had free will. He hoped they would worship him, but he realizes that praise without a choice isn't really praise. Freedom of thought is more important than blind obedience. Unfortunately it does mean that his creations can make mistakes or go directions Moradin does not approve of.

Right, so this is basically the biblical reason that God created humans. Angels‘ praise was meaningless because they weren’t capable of doing anything else, so God created a new people in His image that were free to choose good and evil, so that the choice to be good would have meaning. You see this repeated in all sorts of fantasy, and it’s a pretty good explanation for why mortal races’ alignments are mutable when extraplanar creatures’ alignments are generally not (barring something kind of magical influence). My question is, why does this explanation extend to some mortal races but not others?

On the other hand Gruumsh didn't want happy and free children. He wanted slaves and minions that would be tools of his will. He wanted yes-men who will never question him and blindly obey. In other words, what all evil dictators want. No dissent, just praise. Except unlike human dictators, Gruumsh created his followers as orcs.

Then why create mortal followers? If all he wanted was CE servants, demons should have sufficed. The very purpose of creating mortal followers is that their devotion is made meaningful by being a choice. If you don’t want your followers to have a choice, just make more non-mortal servants.

 

[Charlaquin]

By whom? The cat's mother?

What an utterly meaningless claim, and without any kind of citation or evidence. That's basically weasel words.

To be fair, it’s not that far off from my claim that it’s fine for demons to be always CE because they’re extraplanar entities. And I’d be more than happy to extend the benefit of the doubt that this is a misunderstanding of that position rather than a willful misrepresentation of it.

 

[Bohandas]

Then why create mortal followers? If all he wanted was CE servants, demons should have sufficed.

Don't demons come from mortals more often than not? Also, mortals are probably easier to boss around (Not because they're less powerful mind you - Gruumsh is plenty tough enough to take on any demon - but because they're less crazy)

 

[Bohandas]

By whom? The cat's mother?

"The cat's mother"? What does that mean?