D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment.

Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019​

(Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously).

Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates your character's alignment, and no class is restricted to certain alignments. You determine your character's moral compass. I see discussions that refer to such rules, yet they don't exist in 5th edition D&D.

Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals. If any of those tools don't serve your group's bliss, don't use them. The game's system doesn't rely on those tools.

D&D has general rules and exceptions to those rules. For example, you choose whatever alignment you want for your character at creation (general rule). There are a few magic items and other transformative effects that might affect a character's alignment (exceptions).

Want a benevolent green dragon in your D&D campaign or a sweet werewolf candlemaker? Do it. The rule in the Monster Manual is that the DM determines a monster's alignment. The DM plays that monster. The DM decides who that monster is in play.

Regarding a D&D monster's alignment, here's the general rule from the Monster Manual: "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!

"Why are player characters punished for changing their alignment?" There is no general system in 5th-edition D&D for changing your alignment and there are no punishments or rewards in the core rules for changing it. You can just change it. Older editions had such rules.

Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.

"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.

"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.

"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.

"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn't really matter. Whether I plot down evil and then describe in the flavor section how it's evil, or describe how it's evil and then decide it's evil, it's the same difference.

No Max, there is a vast difference.

If we go with "Nazis are Evil. Because they are evil they kill people" then it is their very nature that drives them. Even if they did nothing but sit in an empty room they would be evil.

But if we go with "Nazi's kill people. Because they kill people they are evil." Then it is their actions which drive the morality being told.

We get to the same place, but we get their by acknowledging free will and allowing nuance. Or by slapping down a label and okaying us to take our two minutes of hate out on whichever creature has the right label.

So first, this thread has traveled back and forth across all of the editions and to Tolkien and back, so 1e is relevant. Second, WotC decided to axed most of the good creatures and use the evil ones, since good creatures aren't used even close to as often as evil ones. 5e is a poor edition to use for what you are trying to use it for.

So, there are no good creatures who are ugly in 5e. Which was my point. So, 5e is actually the perfect edition for my point. Because it was the edition I was talking about.

Also, you made the claim that you could find Good, Ugly creatures for any edition, your exact Quote being "I'm sure I could find examples in every edition. "

So, if you want to backtrack and retract your own assertion, feel free.

If I want to play WoW, I play WoW. When I play D&D, I expect things to be a bit more realistic and not have every humanoid in the game come with spawn points.

Right, better to have the evil children for us to kill, that is what DnD is about.

 

[Remathilis]

Because at the meta-rule level, it is easier to simplify than to make more complex.

What? No! It's easier to start with a simple idea and then layer on complexities than it is to go in reverse! To borrow a more "fleshed out" idea, the notion of elves as woodland protectors and lovers of magic is a simple concept that encapsulates the stereotypical elf, but each subrace (high elf, wood elf, sun elf, dark elf, moon elf, sea elf, averial elf, Sylvanesti elf, Areniel elf, dusk elf, eladrin, shadar-kai, etc, etc.) has added to the lore in some unique way. They didn't create two-dozen different elves and then simplify them to "typical elves like forests, bows, and magic".

Jeez, next you'll argue it's easier to teach Calculus first and then teach multiplication!

Orcs didn't get a lot of detail for two reasons: 1.) They generally aren't PCs and they don't need the same attention as a PC race and 2.) They're role is limited to low level mooks. The only real reason I can see for making them more complex is to make them a viable PC choice with no repercussions. It won't be enough to say "There are good orcs too!" if the only orcs PCs see in modules and adventures are the evil raider types. A kingdom of orcs that exists just beyond the horizon might as well not exist if orcs are still viewed as CR 1/2 random encounters. Let's be frank about this; the only way this is going away is when orcs become just like elves; a major part of most settings and a viable PC option that nobody will look askance at. This isn't about "why are all orcs evil" it's about "why are orcs evil at all" and it's going to end when all the humanoids in the Monster Manual are recast as sympathetic species co-existing amongst elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Maybe the next reprint of Phandelver will replace the goblin tribe with halfling bandits and the drow antagonist with a regular moon elf, and then put some goblins, orcs, and drow townfolk in Phandalin. Equality!

 

[Mercurius]

If I understand correctly, then the reason this is even a debate is because some players of color are deeply disturbed by D&D’s language regarding humanoids.

I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that the debate exists because some people are disturbed. I have no idea about numbers, but I don't think the outrage is coming primarily from people of color. Anyhow, I think it is more of an interpretive framework than it is an ethnic demographic. Meaning, some players of a specific ideological or interpretive framework are disturbed.

As far as the Zen analogy, it refers to the basic stages of cognitive development in Zen. Before Zen, one sees the world as they've been taught, without questioning. During Zen, everything gets up-turned and one begins to see the world isn't as they thought it was, that it is always filtered via the mind's projections, which provide countless ways to be lost. After Zen--to what degree I can express it--one is able to differentiate between the mind's projections and the world as it is.

 

[Maxperson]

No Max, there is a vast difference.

If we go with "Nazis are Evil. Because they are evil they kill people" then it is their very nature that drives them. Even if they did nothing but sit in an empty room they would be evil.

But if we go with "Nazi's kill people. Because they kill people they are evil." Then it is their actions which drive the morality being told.

We get to the same place, but we get their by acknowledging free will and allowing nuance. Or by slapping down a label and okaying us to take our two minutes of hate out on whichever creature has the right label.

We're talking about Beholders, not Nazis. The game doesn't equate to real life, but yeah, I agree that in real life you can't peg any race as one alignment.

So, there are no good creatures who are ugly in 5e. Which was my point. So, 5e is actually the perfect edition for my point. Because it was the edition I was talking about.

Okay, but so what. It's a meaningless statement. They took good creatures out(both ugly and attractive) because people don't use them, not because they were ugly.

Also, you made the claim that you could find Good, Ugly creatures for any edition, your exact Quote being "I'm sure I could find examples in every edition. "

Meh. I was trying to be lazy, but...

Cloud giants in 5e are 50% chance of being good and are ugly as sin. Djinnis are ugly. Storm giants in Volo's are ugly. These are all human looking good creatures. And I was still lazy. I didn't even look at all the good creatures.

So, if you want to backtrack and retract your own assertion, feel free.

No need. I'm not wrong.

Right, better to have the evil children for us to kill, that is what DnD is about.

If that's what you want to do with them, go for it. It's certainly not what I said, though.

 

[Baba]

So, I have been thinking about how people engage with morality when roleplaying.

I settled on four modes that seem to cover most of the games/gamers I have been exposed to:

• A) The default morality of the characters and ingame society is quite similar to that of the players and real, modern society, often with some small adjustments due to the setting.
• B) The default morality of the characters and ingame society is different from that of the players and real, modern society.
• C) As B, and in addition there is an objectively true ingame morality that is different from whatever the players believe in real life.
• D) As B or C, and some of the ingame beliefs/truths echo real life beliefs/concepts that are controversial (or downright terrible).

I don't think any of these modes are morally objectionable in themselves. I seldom use A myself, but I enjoy both B, C and D. And d&d5 can handle all of these without need for any great adjustment.

But the one we're discussing in this thread is D, I would say: The assumed ingame morality and fantasy race descriptions echoes real life racism. (I know everyone does not agree, but there have been 1k posts about that already.)

I think that could be fine, but it is still probably best to change, because D can be a tricky balancing act. In my experience, D works best if:

1. There's a point to it. (In this case, I'm not sure it makes the game better in any way. You could use the game to explore racism, for examble, but I don't think that is what most players are looking for.)
2. It's a conscious choice for those playing. (In this case I suspect it's often not. Neither was it for the original game creators. Then you are not playing with the controversial beliefs, you are just reproducing them.)
3. Those playing feel comfortable with the subject matter and their coplayers. (Wotc are not obliged to make games everyone is comfortable with, but I think they WANT broad appeal, and in this case I think that is a good thing.)

So it seems to me that wotc has chosen the most sensible path.

 

[Mecheon]

If I want to play WoW, I play WoW. When I play D&D, I expect things to be a bit more realistic and not have every humanoid in the game come with spawn points.

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic, you wouldn't be going with D&D orcs. Things being "Always X" isn't realistic. I hate to say Warcraft, through having nuanced characters who run the gamit from Trying To Make A New Future in the form of Thrall, Defending The New Future in Saurfang, Not Learning From The Past (plus a bit of Trying To Uphold An Ideal in exactly the wrong way) in Garrosh, and Defending The Regime (even if you don't agree with it) in Nazgrim, is realistic orcs. They do multiple different things and have different ideas in 'em

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic, you wouldn't be going with D&D orcs. Things being "Always X" isn't realistic.

Sure it is. We have a fantasy reason, "Their god makes it that way with his power." for them to be that way. That makes it plenty realistic for a fantasy world. Realism =/= mirrors reality.

I hate to say Warcraft, through having nuanced characters who run the gamit from Trying To Make A New Future in the form of Thrall, Defending The New Future in Saurfang, Not Learning From The Past (plus a bit of Trying To Uphold An Ideal in exactly the wrong way) in Garrosh, and Defending The Regime (even if you don't agree with it) in Nazgrim, is realistic orcs. They do multiple different things and have different ideas in 'em

That's not the part I was talking about, though. I was talking about creatures basically having spawn points in D&D, which is what is being suggested above.

 

[Mecheon]

Sure it is. We have a fantasy reason, "Their god makes it that way with his power." for them to be that way. That makes it plenty realistic for a fantasy world. Realism =/= mirrors reality.

Except that isn't internally consistent. This is where the problem hits; This is inconsistent with every other race in the game and, hell, even in-game lore at points

Let's break this down:

1: Inconsistency with other gods

"Gods making you X" does not work for any other race. Leaving off the two races with no dedicated creator god (Humans and halflings), it doesn't work for dwarves, doesn't work for elves (Of any stripe, I'm including Drow in here), doesn't work for gnomes. Therefore, if gods can make an entire race be an alignment with their power, this needs to be expressed through others. This is clearly not the case through various other races. Hell, the ONE race this is logical for is gnolls given their specific lack of free will and basically being demons in this edition, and, well, 5E gnolls are easily their least popular interpretation. Goblins likewise have this a a semi-implied thing, but goblins are, per the lore of the game, free to rebel and have figures that specifically exist to thumb their nose at said goblin gods in the form of the 5E lore of Nilbogs.

If making all of your followers a specific alignment was a power D&D gods had, one would expect multiple gods to have this. So the easy and obvious answer is, let's go to Lolth. Lolth blatantly does not have this power. She rules through a combination of fear and micromanaging the drow like she's playing an RTS game. However, literately the first introduction of the Drow is about them basically joining up with another cult. Likewise (Theories about him being a secret champion of Lolth aside), Dritz's regular thumbing the nose at Drow convention and the entire idea of renegade Drow in general shows this to be something Drow don't have

And if Drow of all races don't have it, why all of a sudden would orcs?

2: Inconsistency with Game Lore

Now, here's where I hit the obscurer bits of my D&D knowledge: There's at least one random book out that calls Many Arrows, y'know, FR's orcish kingdom, an affront to Gruumsh. It isn't what he wants from orcs and priests of Gruumsh specifically try to destroy the thing. This mangles your argument as you've got orcs acting against their perceived "Always Chaotic Evil", and going about things a different way while still paying some homage to their god as much as he hates it.

The sheer existence of Many Arrows prevents "The god of the orcs is so interfering in orcish lives he is able to control their alignments" from being possible, as it would not exist if he was capable of doing so.

Therefore, your statement
"The orcish god has enough power over them to force an alignment on them" requires "The orcish god has power over them to Control Them". The existence of Many Arrows prevents this, as Many Arrows is an orcish kingdom that flies in direct opposite to what Gruumsh wants from orcs.

Therefore, orcs are sapient and capable of coming to their own opinions about things and orcs being "Always Chaotic Evil" is not internally consistent with how gods are presented or how orcs are presented, and that's even before we get to them being playable.

 

[Mercurius]

At this point it almost seems like there are four "alignments" with regards to these issues as a whole. I'll use random colors that have no symbolic meaning other than relating to each other on a spectrum.

RED: Massive change and/or cancellation is required, including removal of offending products and/or significant re-writes. Very different direction going forward.

ORANGE: Some change/removal of past products makes sense, deepen/clarify disclaimers, review and edit 5E products with more cultural consulting moving forward.

GREEN: Let history be history, fantasy be fantasy. General disclaimers are OK and some modifications for the future are fine, but don't go overboard.

BLUE: Don't mess with traditions - remove disclaimers. Just play (or don't play) the damn game.

My sense is that the Red and Blue folks are small but vocal percentages of the overall community, no matter what the noise on twitter is. Most here are somewhere in the Orange-to-Green spectrum. The obvious solution lies there, perhaps in some form of "YELLOW."

Most of the problems lie in one or more of three areas, as I see it:

• Red-Orange people think that Green people are Blue; or Blue-Green people think that Orange people are Red.
• Red-Orange or Blue-Green people aren't willing to consider Yellow options.
• In more reasonable discussions, Orange and Green people not agreeing on what Yellow is or should be.

There are probably other problems, but those are what came to mind as I was writing this.

For me the key to "solving" these issues is 1) Recognizing that Red and Blue are extreme views, and the solution (and most people) lies somewhere in-between; and 2) You don't have to be Yellow to accept and even embrace Yellow solutions. Yellow is a compromise for both, but because of that, it is the most inclusive option for a diversity of views and interpretive frameworks.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Right, but let me ask you this.

Why did they peg it as evil?

Was it evil because it was a beholder? Or was it evil because it was a manipulator seeking treasure and death?

That's the point. The point is that instead of just plopping down a "evil" label, we get to see why it is evil. It is evil because of X, and therefore anything that does X is evil. I could make any creature an Insane Manipulator seeking treasure and death and they'd all be evil, so it opens us up to caring about their actions instead of just putting them in a box and moving on.

Some in this thread have incorrectly concluded that their debaters think that it's OK to go out of your way to slaughter Evil creatures even if they didn't harm you in the first place, just because they are Evil. It may not be your point but I am using this post to clarify that it's not morally acceptable either. If Orcs are Evil superpredators, it's OK to kill them when they raid your village, but it's not OK to get out of your way to reach an orcish village and kill them all. Same with, say, wolves. We removed them from our city centres and can understand that shepherds act to protect their flocks while thinking that flying to some remote place where you can find wolves to kill them randomly is a little excessive.

There is a point here that you aren't considering. I bolded it.

If the human surrenders it is a crime to kill them.

So, if a mindflayer surrenders... shouldn't it also be a crime?

It should if the mindflayer has free will. If he's some extension of the hive mind of his city, irremediably Evil, and its only way of feeding is eating human brains, then killing him is less problematic. If he's a free-willed mind flayer, with the liberty to choose how it acts and feeds, it is a human with tentacles and killing him would be a crime as well.

Maybe but let us step back from the curtain for a moment. Why are they surrendering? See, the Dungeon Master has full control here. If the human cultist refuses to surrender... then the players aren't under any compulsion to not kill them. It isn't like they are forced to never kill a human after all, heck, when they fireballed the first group of cultists they killed a lot of them.

I like to play my NPCs who value the continuation of their lives. Most of them will surrender, because very few causes are worth fighting to the death. In real life, 99.9% (this is hyperbole, I don't know the real statistics) of offenders are simply arrested, they don't fight to the death with the police forces. I play my NPCs like that. Sure, you will find cultists who will try to do a stand-off like some millenarian sects did in real life, but even them they don't all fight to the death when surrounded. And even if they killed them "inadvertantly", the PCs will be hard pressed to explain why they used lethal force as the first resort by the authorities. Typical scenario: Village elders hire the PC to resolve problem with a group of evil-worshipping forest dwellers who decided their presence encroaches on their forest and kills farmers here and there. If the PC come back and say "oh, don't worry any longer about them, we wiped them all", the elders will worry they have invited the same sort of wackos that they faced in the first place.

So, making orcs intelligent humanoids with complex morality does not mean that players suddenly can't kill them. Because if they don't surrender... then you kill them. The issue only gets complicated when the enemy starts surrendering, and at that point, the DM wants this to be a a decision.

And why wouldn't intelligent, free willed orcs surrender less than human would do in the same situation? If they are just humans with a mask, they should behave like human opponents. If they are the extension of the will of Gruumsh, then they will behave like Gruumsh want them to do, and he cares about them the same as one care for his hairs... nice to have but ultimately expandable. He will see very little interrest in having them surrender and will ingrain in them the desire to fight to the death.

If I have a mindflayer surrender, I want my players to stop and consider it, to have their morals tested. It is a monster that is unredeemable, but can you just kill something that is surrendering? If I expected my players to just shrug, kill it and say "its a monster, killing it is fine" then I wouldn't have bothered having it surrender. Because there would be no point in it.

If a mind flayer is surrendering, despite it being totally irremediably evil, it must be a part of a scheme. Plus, once it is established that mind flayer can only sustain themselves by feeding on people, there is literally no solution to handle a mind flayer infestation. Keeping them in jail and letting them starve is probably ethically worse. Despite humanities' interest in preserving biodiversity, noone advocated against the eradication of smallpox.

Because at the meta-rule level, it is easier to simplify than to make more complex.

It is easier for you to say "these orcs you will encounter are raiders and murderers" while at the meta level we have a complex society to draw from, than for us to go create a complex society from "kill anything that is a player race"

I think this is the point of miscommunication we keep running into. People are free to run whatever they want in their campaigns, we are just asking for a change at the meta-level, and it is far easier to simplify evil motivations for a group of people than it is to make caricatures of evil and violence more complex.

The easier way to accomodate all playstyle should be to have BOTH "caricature of evil" (orcs and mindflayers of old) AND complex evil (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings... who happen to be evil), instead of having ONLY "always evil creature" (something I don't see anyone advocating) or having ONLY "morally complex creatures" (as the change of the meta-level you advocate for would result). When you have both, you just have to choose the right opponent to tell the story you want to tell, when you only have one type of evil, you have to tweak it. I agree that it is easier to simply than complexify, so the choices, in term of decreasing simplicity, are (a) "have both evil and free-willed races" > (b) "have only free-willed races" > (c) "have only always evil races". If I get your position right, you're saying the b is easier than c to handle (which I agree) while I am saying that a is easier to deal with than b.

Heck, watch any movie where the action hero faces off against a "criminal group" and you'll likely have humans being shot and killed across the screen for nearly an hour with no deeper motivations than "they are the bad guys". While we can still understand that humans are complex and capable of many different moral frameworks.

I think I'd fall asleep before the hour has passed, because the setup of labelling criminal group evil and warranting killing them all is not appealing to me, when it is obvious that we're speaking of human beings.

Why does every problem you just listed for identifying the "bad" orcs not apply to this?

Isn't that human barbarian tribe worshiping a different religion than the "civilized" folk? Could they just tend to be violent and Evil and a menace to society? What happens if you kill their warriors, don't they have wives and children?

So, you can't actually use the human barbarian tribe. In fact, you seem to not be able to use anything that worships or has family units (by the way, evil orcs already do this in default DnD 5e, you've just labeled them evil and decided not to worry about the orc children)

And that is actually the clutch, all of these things you are laying out that will ruin the game for you if Orcs are suddenly not evil, already exist. They are already religious radicals with families and described like super predators. The difference is you are using the label of "evil" to hide behind and not see that as a problem.

Well, for the rest of us, the label of evil hasn't really ever been enough to hide those facts. In fact, the point that we are supposed to label them evil with no further consideration beyond that, and therefore killing them is perfectly acceptable is again part of the problem.

So, if you can run an evil human barbarian camp without an existential crisis, then I don't get why orcs should be any different.

And since exactly, we don't run an evil human barbarian camp without an existential crisis (because even labelling them barbarians, unless speaking of the PC class of course, is telling a lot about the culture the PCs are from), then I guess you can get why orcs and mindflayers should be different.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that isn't internally consistent. This is where the problem hits; This is inconsistent with every other race in the game and, hell, even in-game lore at points

Let's break this down:

1: Inconsistency with other gods

"Gods making you X" does not work for any other race. Leaving off the two races with no dedicated creator god (Humans and halflings), it doesn't work for dwarves, doesn't work for elves (Of any stripe, I'm including Drow in here), doesn't work for gnomes. Therefore, if gods can make an entire race be an alignment with their power, this needs to be expressed through others. This is clearly not the case through various other races. Hell, the ONE race this is logical for is gnolls given their specific lack of free will and basically being demons in this edition, and, well, 5E gnolls are easily their least popular interpretation. Goblins likewise have this a a semi-implied thing, but goblins are, per the lore of the game, free to rebel and have figures that specifically exist to thumb their nose at said goblin gods in the form of the 5E lore of Nilbogs.

So the inconsistency here is irrelevant. So what if no other gods have done the same thing. They could if they wanted to, but have chosen not to. If say we changed the lore for Lolth and the Drow to make them evil because she is inciting chaos, violence and intrigue within them, it works!

If one of a kind things have to go away due to inconsistency, the Tarrasque must leave as well.

If making all of your followers a specific alignment was a power D&D gods had, one would expect multiple gods to have this.

There's no reason to think that they don't.

So the easy and obvious answer is, let's go to Lolth. Lolth blatantly does not have this power. She rules through a combination of fear and micromanaging the drow like she's playing an RTS game.

Gods work according to their nature. Lolth thrives on the intrigue and infighting, so she encourages it. She might also thrive on it happening through free will, so doesn't choose to force it within the Drow.

Going to a real world example, me. If I had the power to force love, I wouldn't use it. I want people to love me for me, not because they are forced to do so.

Just because Lolth does not choose to use the power, doesn't meant that she cannot do it. Or maybe she can't. So what. It's okay for even gods to have one of a kind powers.

And if Drow of all races don't have it, why all of a sudden would orcs?

Why not. D&D is nothing if not an exception based game. These are the rules and these here are abilities that give PCs and NPCs exceptions to them. It makes perfect sense for a god to be an exception.

Now, here's where I hit the obscurer bits of my D&D knowledge: There's at least one random book out that calls Many Arrows, y'know, FR's orcish kingdom, an affront to Gruumsh. It isn't what he wants from orcs and priests of Gruumsh specifically try to destroy the thing. This mangles your argument as you've got orcs acting against their perceived "Always Chaotic Evil", and going about things a different way while still paying some homage to their god as much as he hates it.

The sheer existence of Many Arrows prevents "The god of the orcs is so interfering in orcish lives he is able to control their alignments" from being possible, as it would not exist if he was capable of doing so.

Therefore, your statement
"The orcish god has enough power over them to force an alignment on them" requires "The orcish god has power over them to Control Them". The existence of Many Arrows prevents this, as Many Arrows is an orcish kingdom that flies in direct opposite to what Gruumsh wants from orcs.

Control exists in variety and degrees. It's entirely possible, probable even, given 5e lore, that Gruumsh can make them evil, but not control their every action. He instills within them the desire, but they still have the will to overcome or change it a bit.

Therefore, orcs are sapient and capable of coming to their own opinions about things and orcs being "Always Chaotic Evil" is not internally consistent with how gods are presented or how orcs are presented, and that's even before we get to them being playable.

Not necessarily. Having control over how they engage their evil is different from being able to overcome Gruumsh's limited ability to make them evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What? No! It's easier to start with a simple idea and then layer on complexities than it is to go in reverse! To borrow a more "fleshed out" idea, the notion of elves as woodland protectors and lovers of magic is a simple concept that encapsulates the stereotypical elf, but each subrace (high elf, wood elf, sun elf, dark elf, moon elf, sea elf, averial elf, Sylvanesti elf, Areniel elf, dusk elf, eladrin, shadar-kai, etc, etc.) has added to the lore in some unique way. They didn't create two-dozen different elves and then simplify them to "typical elves like forests, bows, and magic".

Jeez, next you'll argue it's easier to teach Calculus first and then teach multiplication!

Nazi's get thrown around a lot, because they are such a versatile example. Let us be frank for a second, the Nazi party and Germany from the end of the First World War to the end of the Cold War is a complicated and nuanced situation, there was a lot going on, across the entire globe and presenting them with full accuracy means tackling all those details.

But it is pretty easy to simplify them down to "Those guys were evil."

However, if you take a group that is, say, Evil murderous raiders who hate all Player Character Races, it is a lot more complicated to figure out how to take that and turn it into a multi-faceted culture with good and bad guys. In fact, every time I've had to do it, the first thing I have to do is ignore the fact that they are murderous evil raiders who hate all the player character races and start from scratch.

So yes, it is easier to start from a complicated culture and then simplify it back down. Heck, your own example shows this.

"the notion of elves as woodland protectors and lovers of magic"

Elves that do not live in Woodlands being: Sun Elves (mostly living in cities), Dark Elves (living underground), Sea Elves (Living in ocean), Averial Elves (Living on a Glacier or the Plane of Air), Areniel Elves (Living on an Island and have a kingdom), Dusk Elves (seem to be in Ravenloft), Shadar-Kai (Living in the Shadowfell)

That is 7/12, over half not associated with half of your description. And "love magic" isn't universal either, since most of the Elves in 4e and 5e have "Wood Elf" which are usually more hardy and less magically inclined.

So your simple concept actually can't even describe most elves. But, it is adequate, because you are taking a very complex and multi-layered culture, and simplifying it down.

Orcs didn't get a lot of detail for two reasons: 1.) They generally aren't PCs and they don't need the same attention as a PC race and 2.) They're role is limited to low level mooks. The only real reason I can see for making them more complex is to make them a viable PC choice with no repercussions. It won't be enough to say "There are good orcs too!" if the only orcs PCs see in modules and adventures are the evil raider types. A kingdom of orcs that exists just beyond the horizon might as well not exist if orcs are still viewed as CR 1/2 random encounters. Let's be frank about this; the only way this is going away is when orcs become just like elves; a major part of most settings and a viable PC option that nobody will look askance at. This isn't about "why are all orcs evil" it's about "why are orcs evil at all" and it's going to end when all the humanoids in the Monster Manual are recast as sympathetic species co-existing amongst elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Yeah, they didn't use to be player options, but ever since the half-orc they started down this path. They've been a PC option now for a long time.

I'd also say that being regulated to low level mooks isn't a factor, there are plenty of low-level threats that are tied to high level threats.

And you might be right, they might become a standard player option instead of the half-orc. I mean, the half-orc has been standard since at least 3e, so it might be time for them to just put full blooded orcs into the book.

Maybe the next reprint of Phandelver will replace the goblin tribe with halfling bandits and the drow antagonist with a regular moon elf, and then put some goblins, orcs, and drow townfolk in Phandalin. Equality!

Sure, why not. Would actually make the adventure easier since the halfings can't hide as a bonus action during the first scene.

We're talking about Beholders, not Nazis. The game doesn't equate to real life, but yeah, I agree that in real life you can't peg any race as one alignment.

You are ignoring the point. You are saying there is no difference between the two, and I am showing you the difference. I am using Nazi's because if I used beholders you would ignore me by saying "but beholder's are evil, read their statblock" and then I would have wasted my time trying to explain the difference.

There is a difference between saying something is evil, then ascribing it evil actions vs saying something is committing evil actions, then describing it as evil. The second way shows that it is the actions we are judging.

Okay, but so what. It's a meaningless statement. They took good creatures out(both ugly and attractive) because people don't use them, not because they were ugly.

Except for angels, unicorns, Couatls, Aarcrocka, Storm Giants, Centaurs, All the Good Dragons, Empyreans.... but yeah, they took out good creatures, ugly and beautiful. Sure.

Meh. I was trying to be lazy, but...

Cloud giants in 5e are 50% chance of being good and are ugly as sin. Djinnis are ugly. Storm giants in Volo's are ugly. These are all human looking good creatures. And I was still lazy. I didn't even look at all the good creatures.

Wow, really?

Djinnis look exactly like people, only blue.
Cloud Giant looks exactly like a person, just cel-shaded art and wearing what I assume are lip piercings
And the Volo Storm Giant is just purple with a slightly wider nose than normal.

So, you pointed to three just average looking people, as a comparison to say these?

And I was lazy too, I just googled DnD 5e Monster and grabbed two images. I didn't even look for Evil or Ugly.

If that's what you want to do with them, go for it. It's certainly not what I said, though.

You are insisting that they absolutely must exist, and that they must be evil, otherwise it isn't DnD. What else are you going to do with them? Keep them in a zoo?

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic, you wouldn't be going with D&D orcs. Things being "Always X" isn't realistic.

I'm beginning to think this is a straw man, not a real point. Let m make it clear.

"Always evil" is a misnomer. It hasn't been true in 20+ years of not longer. Every book that has offered the option to play an orc has allowed the PC to pick any alignment they want. The DM has always had the ability to make unique NPCs that differed from evil as well. There is no rule that says "all orcs are always evil 100% of the time" so if everyone can stop that argument, we can move on.

The argument is around how often are they evil and how often they are not.

The debate as I see it is that since orcs are coded with certain racial stereotypes and are usually evil antagonists, the game implies that orcs are a stand-in for the racial group being stereotyped and thus the game is also saying that group is evil. The solution being discussed has two parts to it.

A.) Remove or severely limit the racial stereotypes or racist language used to describe orcs. (Good)
B.) Make orcs no longer primarily evil and antagonists. (Bad)

Why bad? Well again too reasons. First, the game already has a wide list of strong warrior races and the orc doesn't bring much to the table that dragonborn, goliaths, and the half-orc does. Second, orcs are defined by being "bad". Orcs and drow and other races like it are played to play against the type; you're a race normally seen as a monster who is trying to be a hero and defy their origin. People didn't play Drizzt clones because drow ranger was the most mechanically powerful combo in 2e or 3e, but because they wanted to be an antihero.

So if the game already allows non-evil PC humanoids to exist, why do we need to remove the alignment from the stat blocks?

Because some people don't want evil orcs at all. They want orcs to be like elves; another racial choice with no penalty for playing them. They want to come from non-evil homelands with non evil family. They want to walk into town without being harassed by the guards and order a drink in the tavern without everyone starring at them. Because to them, it brings up images of scared white people who lock thier car doors when a black man walks by.

So it's no longer that "all orcs are evil", but "orcs shouldn't be treated as if they are evil". And it starts with orcs and drow because they are popular and have some baggage that needs to be addressed. But it's going to end with both of those races (and I wager a fair amount of others when it's all said and done) being reduced to just another PC choice next in the PHB or some supplement having all the menace removed from them. They will be green-skinned humans with darkvision and powerful build.

 

[Azzy]

While that may be true of some Imperial officers, it's important to remember that the Stormtroopers were a mix of clones (PT), recruits (OT) and children stolen and indoctrinated from birth (ST). Many were brainwashed from birth to serve the Empire/FO never questioning the cause. There are as many examples of Renegade stormtroopers as there are Renegade drow.

Yet I don't think it's a far stretch to label the Stormtroopers LE based on the society they were raised in. Likewise a drow would have to fight his impulses and programming to be anything but CE.

And keep this in mind: Palpatine had entire legion's of Sithtroopers under his command on Exegol that not only were raised under imperial military training, but also Sith teachings. And they stayed on Exegol for decades under Palpatine's control. And Palps is equal to a powerful wizard in D&D; imagine what a God could do...

And, yet, none of them were born evil. Which is kinda the point that I was making—they aren't evil by nature, instead they're evil because of choice or indoctination. (The clone troopers, are an interesting case here—it's difficult to call them evil considering that they have a programming that overides their free will that makes them unquestionly follow orders and it's the ones giving orders that are evil. Compare this to recruits, indoctrinated children, and real life nazis that do have freewill.) If the argument was only that "some" or "many" orcs are evil because of the society they were raised in then my previous point would have been unnecessary. However, what I'm arguing against is the notion that orcs are inherently evil—something that has not been true in any previous edition. Hence, the other part of the post that you respoonded to:

"WotC changing the orc entry to have the alignment unspecified as a whole and instead used at the individual level doesn't change that you can have orcs as the bad guys. Just, now, instead of them being born evil they are now evil based on allegiance and ideology (with those that aren't a part of that particular organization or ideology aren't necessarily evil). Considering that there have been depictions of orcs that aren't evil in previous edition, the only change here is the acknowledgement of such and a presentation that reflects it."

 

[Chaosmancer]

If a mind flayer is surrendering, despite it being totally irremediably evil, it must be a part of a scheme. Plus, once it is established that mind flayer can only sustain themselves by feeding on people, there is literally no solution to handle a mind flayer infestation. Keeping them in jail and letting them starve is probably ethically worse. Despite humanities' interest in preserving biodiversity, noone advocated against the eradication of smallpox.

I'm chopping a lot of your post, because while it was all well-written it seemed to be approaching things in a specific manner.

See, if the solution to killing a mind flayer is going to be to just kill it, then the DM should not (in my opinion) ever have them surrender.

You are correct, people will try to preserve their own lives in reality, but if getting captured just means dying anyways, then surrendering makes no sense. And if I fully expect my players to kill them anyways, then I won't bother having them surrender.

Or, in the example of your Village Elder asking for a cult to be cleared out, what is the punishment for the worship of a demon that literally wants to kill everything, and the bloody sacrifice of people in obscene rituals for personal power, and the premediated murder of dozens by poisoning the water supply? Well, I imagine... it is the death penalty. Putting them to hard labor for their crimes? They just need a shiv and an hour, and your prison yard now has demons or undead running amok.

So, since the likely penalty is death anyways... why have them surrender? Run sure, fight to kill the party and maybe survive, definitely. But surrender? That would be a terrible option.

And there is a second bit here. I never have something surrender, if it is planning on betraying the party with no chance of them convincing it otherwise. Because if surrendering targets become traitors... then the party is going to per-emptively kill them and then instead of a cultist I'm hoping to see redeemed and act as an information source for the PCs, I've just got another cooling corpse.

Now, I get people have different styles of games, and that might play into this, but I've never once had an issue with my players on this respect. Because it is just generally assumed I don't try and pull a fast one on them, and they know when the moral questions are being asked.

The easier way to accomodate all playstyle should be to have BOTH "caricature of evil" (orcs and mindflayers of old) AND complex evil (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings... who happen to be evil), instead of having ONLY "always evil creature" (something I don't see anyone advocating) or having ONLY "morally complex creatures" (as the change of the meta-level you advocate for would result). When you have both, you just have to choose the right opponent to tell the story you want to tell, when you only have one type of evil, you have to tweak it. I agree that it is easier to simply than complexify, so the choices, in term of decreasing simplicity, are (a) "have both evil and free-willed races" > (b) "have only free-willed races" > (c) "have only always evil races". If I get your position right, you're saying the b is easier than c to handle (which I agree) while I am saying that a is easier to deal with than b.

See, but there are always evil creatures. Mind Flayers, Aboleths, Demons, Undead, Devils, Hags. All of those are fine. The issue is having humanoids like Orcs and Goblins, and then declaring they are the same as Demons and Devils, evil at birth.

And it really is the being born thing that gets me. Gnolls being evil is fine for me, if we use the Gnolls that come into being from a hyena eating a corpse killed by a gnoll. They are never children, they are monsters created by murder. I can be okay with that.

But, when I have a creature that starts as a baby, and I have to declare that that baby is evil, because those creatures are always evil, despite them being intelligent and capable of choice... I don't follow that. I can't say babies are evil.

Why bad? Well again too reasons. First, the game already has a wide list of strong warrior races and the orc doesn't bring much to the table that dragonborn, goliaths, and the half-orc does. Second, orcs are defined by being "bad". Orcs and drow and other races like it are played to play against the type; you're a race normally seen as a monster who is trying to be a hero and defy their origin. People didn't play Drizzt clones because drow ranger was the most mechanically powerful combo in 2e or 3e, but because they wanted to be an antihero.

I'd say this misses two things (symmetry)

1) Your idea that they don't bring much to the table misses the fact that orcs are incredibly iconic. Unlike Goliaths which are pretty much limited to DnD, Orcs are in essentially every fantasy game there is. From Tolkien, to Warhammer, to Shadowrun. to League of Legends if an image search is anything to go by. Oh, and Warcraft, Hearthstone and Magic the Gathering. Dragonborn also bring this Cache, because, well, Dragons. Half-Orcs are really so deeply tied to Orcs though that you can't really say "Orc PCs aren't needed thematically, because we have half-orcs" because the very existence of half-orcs requires orcs.

2) Not everyone wants to be a anti-hero going against the established lore. In fact, if they are pulling on one of those other sources, like maybe Warcraft? Then playing a good orc is no different that playing anything else. And, in a society where you some orcs can be evil, you can still be rebelling against your clan. Heck, I've seen plenty of human rogues who are trying to turn over a new leaf after being raised by an assassin's guild. There are plenty of ways to get your edge, and assuming people want to play a very specific story might bot be true.

 

[Maxperson]

Except for angels, unicorns, Couatls, Aarcrocka, Storm Giants, Centaurs, All the Good Dragons, Empyreans.... but yeah, they took out good creatures, ugly and beautiful. Sure.

I didn't say ALL good creatures are gone, but they took out a bunch of them.

Wow, really?

Djinnis look exactly like people, only blue.

An ugly person, yes. The whole point of this, which you seemed to have missed, probably due to skipping posts, is that there was a claim that there are no good humanoid looking UGLY creatures.

Cloud Giant looks exactly like a person, just cel-shaded art and wearing what I assume are lip piercings
And the Volo Storm Giant is just purple with a slightly wider nose than normal.

Both ugly humanoid looking good creatures.

So, you pointed to three just average looking people, as a comparison to say these?

No, I pointed at three ugly ones. Not one of them is average.

You are insisting that they absolutely must exist, and that they must be evil, otherwise it isn't DnD. What else are you going to do with them? Keep them in a zoo?

No. I'm saying that I don't run D&D WoW and creating spawn points for adult versions of things doesn't work for me or my players. In MY game they must exist. I was very specific about that being for my game. We want the world to make sense and orcs, bugbears, etc. having families make sense, so they exist in my game.

You do you for your game.

And don't be putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that anything in this thread "wasn't D&D."

 

[Mecheon]

So the inconsistency here is irrelevant. So what if no other gods have done the same thing. They could if they wanted to, but have chosen not to. If say we changed the lore for Lolth and the Drow to make them evil because she is inciting chaos, violence and intrigue within them, it works!

If one of a kind things have to go away due to inconsistency, the Tarrasque must leave as well.

Y' might notice from my posts, but I'm a nerd who's big on worldbuilding and that good ol' wonderful world verisimilitude. This is the world's ability to go by its rules and make sense logically. And that's why I've considered the excuse of "The gods did it!" to be weak, because

The lore could change, but that would make it so the Dritz books make no sense (Nevermind any of the other many, many, MANY tales of drow breaking away from their civilisation out there), so it won't. But, this establishes a thing: Gods have how they want people to be, but cannot control them to that degree that they have to.

There is nothing inconsistent about the Tarrasque. It works by its own rules which remain consistent. The thing is, we have a data point of One for the Tarrasque, whereas for Gods we have a data point of "A bloody ton"

There's no reason to think that they don't.

Novels and lore show that this does not occur even when it would benefit the deity. As such, there is substantial reason to think they don't. Lolth is the clear example of someone who would A: Use this every opportunity it is up, and B: Has a vested interest in using it.

Gods work according to their nature. Lolth thrives on the intrigue and infighting, so she encourages it. She might also thrive on it happening through free will, so doesn't choose to force it within the Drow.

Going to a real world example, me. If I had the power to force love, I wouldn't use it. I want people to love me for me, not because they are forced to do so.

Just because Lolth does not choose to use the power, doesn't meant that she cannot do it. Or maybe she can't. So what. It's okay for even gods to have one of a kind powers.

While she thrives on it, she has opportunities she has to give up the sims3-mezo.sav method of control and get down there to slap people's heads together. She can't just mind-control people into doing her will, has no way outside of propaganda at stopping people from joining up with other deities, and has never shown this ability when it would be useful to her. Sure, she loves her infighting, but she ain't a fan of people siding up with the other drow deities to the point they tend towards being dead in a few editions (though being around and alive in this one is a better idea)

Gods in D&D are given established powersets. They can send visions. They can respond to prayers. They've never been shown the ability of "Control an entire race's position in terms of an alignment axis". This is contrary to pre-existing information, and is contrary to actions of orcs in the world.

Why not. D&D is nothing if not an exception based game. These are the rules and these here are abilities that give PCs and NPCs exceptions to them. It makes perfect sense for a god to be an exception.

There has never been any establishment of this being the case. You're requiring both the race and the deity to be exceptions to literately every other thing out there, even considering player orcs. Its far more sensible, in universe, that.... This just isn't the case and orcs can be whatever they want but due to culture tend towards a certain alignment.

Control exists in variety and degrees. It's entirely possible, probable even, given 5e lore, that Gruumsh can make them evil, but not control their every action. He instills within them the desire, but they still have the will to overcome or change it a bit.

Theses two contradict each other. Either he forces them to all be Chaotic Evil, or he doesn't. And 5E lore is pretty clear on the "He doesn't".

Not necessarily. Having control over how they engage their evil is different from being able to overcome Gruumsh's limited ability to make them evil.

The way its written in at least one book they're pretty clearly thumbing the nose at him. I'd have to get the source but its basically Gruumsh really wanting to get rid of it

So, no. "Gruumsh makes all orcs chaotic evil" is not a workable solution. It is not an established poweset, does not match with other examples of deities who'd want to do the same (Lolth), and doesn't match with how orcs are portrayed. It is a non-solution, never has been a reliable explanation for it, and doesn't make internal sense in how orcs are portrayed.

I will die on the hill that "Everything is alignment X" is stupid.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that's the problem. Orcs have never been like tigers, mosquitoes, or locusts (if they were they would have neutral alignment in most editions). Orcs are almost exactly the same as humans. They are sentient, intelligent beings. They have language. They wear clothing. They use tools. They are social beings. They live in societies. They raise children.

This is my summary of the issue, slightly expanded from a previous post:

1. Orcs and similar monsters are almost exactly the same as humans: shape, size, biological needs, bear children, social beings, etc.
2. The respects in which they are not like humans correspond to racist ideas about non-white people: evil, bloodthirsty, devil worship, widespread cannibalism* and human** sacrifice, sexual threat, fecund, dominant "genetic" traits, bestial, physically superior, low intelligence, uncivilised, primitive, superstitious, always tribal, incapable of forming state societies.
3. These traits are racial, biological, and inherited. This is the same as race "science", which started in the late 19th century and continues to the present day.
4. Orcs and similar monsters do possess some real non-negative traits of non-white peoples - non-white skin, shamans and witch doctors, hobgoblin's Japanese-style armour, etc.

*Referring to eating any sentient being not just their own kind
**Or any other sentient being

There have been concerns about orc (and other evil humanoid) children in D&D for decades. It's been a contentious point for almost as long as the game has existed.

EDIT:This here is the problem. You say that orcs are "not something remotely like a real people" then you go on to say that they make fun opponents because... they are a lot like people!

You could argue that, given your description of orcs as virtually identical to humans, why have them at all? Their role could be filled just as easily with more humans.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say ALL good creatures are gone, but they took out a bunch of them.

An ugly person, yes. The whole point of this, which you seemed to have missed, probably due to skipping posts, is that there was a claim that there are no good humanoid looking UGLY creatures.

Both ugly humanoid looking good creatures.

No, I pointed at three ugly ones. Not one of them is average.

How do you figure they are ugly? Legitimately, is having a blue or purple skin tone make you ugly? I do not understand what you are saying here. I mean, they aren't photo-realistic, but that Djinni is just a guy with a beard.

Also, I don't skip posts, but thanks for the accusation.

No. I'm saying that I don't run D&D WoW and creating spawn points for adult versions of things doesn't work for me or my players. In MY game they must exist. I was very specific about that being for my game. We want the world to make sense and orcs, bugbears, etc. having families make sense, so they exist in my game.

You do you for your game.

And don't be putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that anything in this thread "wasn't D&D."

Right, forgot, talking to Max I have to be hyper specific.

You said that you aren't playing WoW, and that you are playing DnD, and therefore you want things to be more realistic, because... well you didn't specifically say so if I follow that I'm putting words in your mouth.

I can only assume thought that by saying DnD is more realistic you are judging that Warhammer 40k is less realistic. By the way, I notice that you keep referencing World of Warcraft, but spore based orcs which were my example come from Warhammer 40k. Warcraft orcs are actually a complex society with both good and evil, Warhammer 40K orcs are just mindlessly destructive fungus in humanoid shapes.

But, I can understand the mistake if you were just skimming my post

But, your spawn point argument literally does not make sense. Other DnD creatures do have "spawn points" such as Demons, Meenlocks, or Sorrowsworn.

So, why would it make no realistic sense to have other creatures follow that archetype? Gnolls are not born, they are created when a hyena eats the corpse of a humanoid killed by a gnoll. Mindflayers aren't born, they are created when a psionic parasite infests and devours the brain of a host creature. Beholders are only sort of born, being created in a fully adult form by the dreams of other beholders.

So, why must Orcs have families? Why must orcs have babies? Why must those orcs be evil instead of a complex society? You are claiming other solutions will not work, because they aren't realistic enough, so it is on you to prove your point, not just repeat your claims with no argument other than "realism".

You could argue that, given your description of orcs as virtually identical to humans, why have them at all? Their role could be filled just as easily with more humans.

The same could be said of Halflings, Gnomes, Elves, Dwarves, Goliaths, Shifters, Half-Elves, Dragonborn, Tabaxi, Tritons...

The list is quite long. And sure, maybe "lives a really long time" makes Elves/Dwarves different (though then I could ask why you need both of them) but halflings and Goliaths? They are pretty much just humans.

 

[Maxperson]

Y' might notice from my posts, but I'm a nerd who's big on worldbuilding and that good ol' wonderful world verisimilitude. This is the world's ability to go by its rules and make sense logically. And that's why I've considered the excuse of "The gods did it!" to be weak, because

The lore could change, but that would make it so the Dritz books make no sense (Nevermind any of the other many, many, MANY tales of drow breaking away from their civilisation out there), so it won't. But, this establishes a thing: Gods have how they want people to be, but cannot control them to that degree that they have to.

There is nothing inconsistent about the Tarrasque. It works by its own rules which remain consistent. The thing is, we have a data point of One for the Tarrasque, whereas for Gods we have a data point of "A bloody ton"

Sure and we have had gods with unique power levels(Ao) and abilities. You might find "the gods did it" to be weak, but the gods do things in fantasy worlds where gods exist. I don't find it weak, because it doesn't make sense that in a universe full of gods, that they won't do anything.

As for invalidating prior lore like the Drizzt books, invalidating prior lore is what WotC is all about. They drastically change lore every edition. Just look at Gnolls, Orcs and more.

Novels and lore show that this does not occur even when it would benefit the deity. As such, there is substantial reason to think they don't. Lolth is the clear example of someone who would A: Use this every opportunity it is up, and B: Has a vested interest in using it.

The novels and lore also show that deities are limited in scope by their portfolios. Just because something is beneficial, does not mean that a god will do it if it's not up the alley of the god's portfolio/role.

Gods in D&D are given established powersets. They can send visions. They can respond to prayers. They've never been shown the ability of "Control an entire race's position in terms of an alignment axis". This is contrary to pre-existing information, and is contrary to actions of orcs in the world.

But some gods have been shown to have unique abilities, so granting Gruumsh this unique ability to control an entire race is not inconsistent with both the gods having unique abilities, and D&D mantra of creating exceptions.

There has never been any establishment of this being the case. You're requiring both the race and the deity to be exceptions to literately every other thing out there, even considering player orcs. Its far more sensible, in universe, that.... This just isn't the case and orcs can be whatever they want but due to culture tend towards a certain alignment.

Only the god. He's the only exception necessary. The race follows based on HIS exception

I will die on the hill that "Everything is alignment X" is stupid.

As a personal opinion, I agree with you. I've already said that I've played my Orcs differently for many years. I just don't have a personal issue with the lore, the exceptional nature of Gruumsh's power, or that being the game's default. I