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

[Oofta]

You’re moving the goalposts, and still presenting a blatantly false version of what people are arguing.

The distinction is that orcs are not supernatural creatures, but rather a natural race.

The “tag” is there because of that, not the other way around.

Demons, meanwhile, are not a race, much less a natural one.

I've always been 100% clear and consistent on my opinion. You may not agree with my opinion, that's your prerogative.

Whether demons, hags, harpies, beholders are a race or other classification you want to put them in is irrelevant to me. Orcs are an imaginary creature just like the rest. Whether creatures are sentient and intelligent matters In my opinion, but their general physical form "humanoid" does not in my opinion.

So please stop making accusations that are unfounded and saying that because I disagree I'm somehow lying. Thanks.

 

[jasper]

Then why isn’t a succubus a humanoid?

Because the game is using it as a GAME TERM.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

And IME, what is more common is there to be a discussion about orcs, and someone complains about newer interpretations and how orcs should just go back to always evil.

Which kinda makes sense because Combat is one of the three pillars of the game, people think that fighting to the death is the only way to fight, and these pesky things called morals.

Having something that you don't need any big questions about why they are here (fiends), who made this (constructs) or other ones. YOu just need to kill the because they're jerks. A terrestrial creature that basically exists to be killed by players like ants in a greasefire is a useful thing for both gameplay and worldbuilding.

 

[Aldarc]

I've always been 100% clear and consistent on my opinion. You may not agree with my opinion, that's your prerogative.

Could you at least try to be honest about what other people are arguing then?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

But the one I don't get is the repeated insistance that the monster manual claims orcs are "usually" evil. It doesn't. Savage ... constant war and hatred of elves in particular ... bloodlust ... lust for slaughter ... strength and power are the greatest virtues. Check. Usually evil? Not in the book.

But I get accused of lying and ignoring things that don't exist in the Monster Manual. Good grief.

So, even ignoring that orcs aren't always evil by actual RAW, including the MM, it would both be a bad thing if they were and it would not make sense.

(bold, underline, size change, and colour change added by me)

I've been watching this thread but haven't had the time to type up a long and thorough argument (considering that a: people here have been doing so already, b: people on many other websites have done so already, and c: I'm of the opinion that debate with the intent to persuade is a waste of time if both sides have dug their heels in, vexing as it is). So for now I'll just highlight @doctorbadwolf 's point above. It's an "ubiquitous DND trope" that gets it "totally wrong" in their opinion, and also mine.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}

One of the things mentioned above is that killing a group on sight simply based on their race is evil. Can we more-or-less agree to this?

If so, then...do orc tribes in your world attack and kill elves on sight? Dwarves? If they do, what does this mean about orcs in your world? Do you, in your individual games, have orcs who try to have non-violent associations with elves and other "classic" orc enemies?

I would like to think we all agree on that. But in that light orcs "as a whole" are evil in my worlds. They do kill and torture for fun and enjoy mayhem. The strongest rule by dominating and intimidating the weak. But I do agree there are always exceptions for alignment for any creature in my games. Sometimes those exceptions have banded together because they realize they are different and will manage to find a place among other folk and live in peace, even if an uneasy one.

 

[Lem23]

I don't see justifying one sentient, intelligent race being always evil while another is only sometimes evil because of a tag that gets thrown on when no other tag fits. Feel free to hold a different opinion.

So...orcs are always evil, but drow are only sometimes evil (Drizzt and the various other clones), dwarves are only sometimes good, elves are only sometimes good, humans are all over the shop, etc.

You realise that you're undermining your own point here, right?

 

[Oofta]

So...orcs are always evil, but drow are only sometimes evil (Drizzt and the various other clones), dwarves are only sometimes good, elves are only sometimes good, humans are all over the shop, etc.

You realise that you're undermining your own point here, right?

I've never said anything one way or another about drow and their alignment. I don't use the Forgotten Realms setting where campaign specific rules apply. I explained why I rule that races create by good gods have more freedom of will and are less hard-wired.

Anything else you'd like to accuse me of?

 

[Oofta]

(bold, underline, size change, and colour change added by me)

I've been watching this thread but haven't had the time to type up a long and thorough argument (considering that a: people here have been doing so already, b: people on many other websites have done so already, and c: I'm of the opinion that debate with the intent to persuade is a waste of time if both sides have dug their heels in, vexing as it is). So for now I'll just highlight @doctorbadwolf 's point above. It's an "ubiquitous DND trope" that gets it "totally wrong" in their opinion, and also mine.

Which is fine. I just draw the line differently. If saying that some sentient, intelligent creatures are always evil is problematic I'd be okay with that. I'd probably still disagree because it's a game, but I'd get it.

What bothers me is that monsters like hags are somehow not part of this discussion. Seriously? A creature that is always female, always evil, uses illusion and subterfuge but will kill you and cook you for supper is not part of this conversation? Who says that they don't have free will to choose to not be evil? For that matter, where does it state that succubi don't have free will?

People hang a whole bunch of baggage on monsters as presented in the books which is perfectly fine. But those are all individual DM rulings and campaign specific in my opinion.

But we can't ever get past the "orcs are people too" and what implications that has.

 

[Lem23]

I've never said anything one way or another about drow and their alignment. I don't use the Forgotten Realms setting where campaign specific rules apply. I explained why I rule that races create by good gods have more freedom of will and are less hard-wired.

Anything else you'd like to accuse me of?

You claim that orcs always have to be evil because the MM lists them as so, and the text says they're often guilty of evil acts. The MM also lis t s Drow as evil, the text talks about their evil acts etc, exactly as the orc text does. And yet, in the PHB you can play non evil drow, and not just in FR. Why do you take it as read that orcs always have to be evil, when a similar race can apparently be non evil too? Can you explain that inconsistency if you're unable to explain the other one I mentioned above?