Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8035031" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Right, but let me ask you this. </p><p></p><p>Why did they peg it as evil? </p><p></p><p>Was it evil because it was a beholder? Or was it evil because it was a manipulator seeking treasure and death? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then do it for 5e please. Because you listed a whole lot of 1e stuff, and nothing from 5e which is the edition we are talking about.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a point here that you aren't considering. I bolded it. </p><p></p><p>If the human surrenders it is a crime to kill them. </p><p></p><p>So, if a mindflayer surrenders... shouldn't it also be a crime? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because at the meta-rule level, it is easier to simplify than to make more complex. </p><p></p><p>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" </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here is the problem, in fact Star Wars is a great example, because they have Aliens. </p><p></p><p>Storm Troopers are human right? So why are Han, Leia and Luke not evil storm troopers? They are humans right? </p><p></p><p>Or, their is a Twi'lek in Jaba the Huts gang right? Are all Twi'leks gangsters? </p><p></p><p>So, this is the problem, clearly seeing one person of a species in a role in Star Wars does not tell us anything about the species as a whole. So why should it for Orcs? </p><p></p><p>Storm Troopers and Nazis are both human groups being opposed by humans. It is clear that their is an organization or idealogy that is being fought. Orcs are being opposed by humans and elves, making this about different species in conflict.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why does every problem you just listed for identifying the "bad" orcs not apply to this? </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8035031, member: 6801228"] 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. Then do it for 5e please. Because you listed a whole lot of 1e stuff, and nothing from 5e which is the edition we are talking about. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Here is the problem, in fact Star Wars is a great example, because they have Aliens. Storm Troopers are human right? So why are Han, Leia and Luke not evil storm troopers? They are humans right? Or, their is a Twi'lek in Jaba the Huts gang right? Are all Twi'leks gangsters? So, this is the problem, clearly seeing one person of a species in a role in Star Wars does not tell us anything about the species as a whole. So why should it for Orcs? Storm Troopers and Nazis are both human groups being opposed by humans. It is clear that their is an organization or idealogy that is being fought. Orcs are being opposed by humans and elves, making this about different species in conflict. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes
Top