Forgotten Realms, genocide of goblinkin(and orcs) encouraged by good gods?

[Kioras]

I am not sure how this will play with the offical settings, but I just started reading Night of the Hunter: Companions Codex, I by R A Salvatore, that is taking aprt int he new realms, and one of the characters who can almost be considered a choosen of Mielikki stated she was advised by her goddess that the various goblinkin and orcs are different then the 'good' races, and by large should be removed.

This was pretty shocking to me, as I do not like the moral absolutism that brings and is a bit of a strike to me against the Forgotten Realms setting. Stating the the race and culture is pure evil and the drow are even redemable as a whole, but the goblinkin are not. The goblinkin are created to destroy, nothing more, to be a blight on the land. As told by Mielikki they are a scourge and challenge to those who would serve goodly purpose. They are not people, but monsters, full goblinkin do not have a conscience. Raising a lion would be safer then raising a goblin child.

This was from around page 45 in the novel.

It is good aligned to be a murder hobo against goblinoids, burning there villages and wiping them out. It makes what happened with Redcloak and his goblins in Order of the Stick seem a reflection of the offical settings.

I am not sure how this will affect the official setting rules, and how it back dates to the prior editions however.

[Codex]

Yep. The moral of D&D: Goblinoids are all vicious, evil creatures, that must all be wiped out for the sake of the good races. This is why when people say that RC's plan is stupid I laugh inside.

[Kioras]

Yep. The moral of D&D: Goblinoids are all vicious, evil creatures, that must all be wiped out for the sake of the good races. This is why when people say that RC's plan is stupid I laugh inside.

I prefer Eberrons take on goblinkin, making them another potential player race or a race with actual sensible motives, not just lol evil little xp packets.

Placing a 'normal' race at the same point as demons and devils is just sloppy world building at this point in time in the settings.

[Morty]

It is good aligned to be a murder hobo against goblinoids, burning there villages and wiping them out. It makes what happened with Redcloak and his goblins in Order of the Stick seem a reflection of the offical settings.

That's because it is. Redcloak's story is a challenge to the classical D&D paradigm that sapient races designated as "evil" and "monsters" are only fit for extermination.

The mention of drow is also amusing, because it showcases the glaring double standard here - drow are also evil, serving a crazy spider demon-goddess, but they're the "cool" evil race that can be redeemed, or at least produce edgy anti-heroes. And even if not, they're actually treated like people, if evil people. Goblinoids and orcs are just dumb, ugly cannon fodder.

[Jeivar]

The mention of drow is also amusing, because it showcases the glaring double standard here - drow are also evil, serving a crazy spider demon-goddess, but they're the "cool" evil race that can be redeemed, or at least produce edgy anti-heroes. And even if not, they're actually treated like people, if evil people. Goblinoids and orcs are just dumb, ugly cannon fodder.

Another interpretation would be to look at goblinoids as talking crocodiles: Simply inherently aggressive. In the same vein as a crocodile cannot be domesticated, a goblinoid raised by humans would still be violent and unempathetic because that's just their nature, whereas drow are generally evil because they're raised in a terrible, nasty culture.

If one WANTS to include moral grey areas in a campaign there is nothing wrong with that, but since we are talking about fictional nonhuman beings I think my version has merit as well.

[Morty]

Another interpretation would be to look at goblinoids as talking crocodiles: Simply inherently aggressive. In the same vein as a crocodile cannot be domesticated, a goblinoid raised by humans would still be violent and unempathetic because that's just their nature

At which point you should stop pretending they're sapient beings with an alignment. Crocodiles are Neutral, just like other animals - beings which are hard-wired into being aggressive like crocodiles shouldn't be treated differently because they walk on two legs.

[hamishspence]

Considering that he wrote Dark Mirror (short story with a nonevil goblin) and The Orc King (in which the orcs finally make peace with the rest of the North, and in flash-forward scenes Drizzt is seen fighting groups that commit hate crimes against orcs) I am surprised at the idea that all this would be dumped for 5e.

Maybe this character will turn out to be being deceived and manipulated by someone posing as their deity?

[Jeivar]

Maybe this character will turn out to be being deceived and manipulated by someone posing as their deity?

That would be a pretty clever twist.

[Kioras]

Considering that he wrote Dark Mirror (short story with a nonevil goblin) and The Orc King (in which the orcs finally make peace with the rest of the North, and in flash-forward scenes Drizzt is seen fighting groups that commit hate crimes against orcs) I am surprised at the idea that all this would be dumped for 5e.

Maybe this character will turn out to be being deceived and manipulated by someone posing as their deity?

I am pretty sure this is a retcon that is coming directly from Wizards. The character in question, learned all the information while in a personal demi-plane setup personally by the goddess.

Wizards probably decided they wanted less grey in the forgotten realms, and maybe a bunch of good lead hooks for adventures in the silver march's area.

I don't personally like it, especially when I read her speaking completely seriously about wiping them out to the last. It may read to some as less strict then I took it however.

I guess that makes murder hobo'n all goblinkin and orcs fully acceptable way for adventures to get xp.

[russdm]

I guess that makes murder hobo'n all goblinkin and orcs fully acceptable way for adventures to get xp.

This has been the standard for D&D and its so called "Heroic" fantasy. I don't think WotC is going to alienate all of the players that enjoy playing murderhobos by making changes like that?

As for Redcloak and what happened to him, that is the standard presumed default by the game and its designers. Its different in Eberron only with Murderhobo-ing against Goblins being business as usual elsewhere.

As for being "Heroic", its frankly not.

[12owlbears]

Well to be fair I can't think of many examples of non-evil goblins in the forgotten realms setting and also it could be that they want to simplify things for next and remove the ethical dilemma of fighting goblins. Also if you can't kill goblins what else are first level adventurers supposed to fight. To clarify I'm not condoning genocide or anything I'm just saying sometimes it's nice to have a simple adventure with good guys and bad guys with out thinking too much about it.

[Codex]

That's because it is. Redcloak's story is a challenge to the classical D&D paradigm that sapient races designated as "evil" and "monsters" are only fit for extermination.

The mention of drow is also amusing, because it showcases the glaring double standard here - drow are also evil, serving a crazy spider demon-goddess, but they're the "cool" evil race that can be redeemed, or at least produce edgy anti-heroes. And even if not, they're actually treated like people, if evil people. Goblinoids and orcs are just dumb, ugly cannon fodder.

The difference between Drow and Goblinoids: Drow have the potential to be attractive. Goblinoids don't, ergo they must all be exterminated.

[Kioras]

The difference between Drow and Goblinoids: Drow have the potential to be attractive. Goblinoids don't, ergo they must all be exterminated.

Obviously the Forgotten Realms suffers under a tyranny of the Beautiful. If your race cannot be considered comely to players, into the villain xp bin you go. You are now XP to go.

Yeah, Forgotten Realms is an old setting, that applies the old evil is ugly trope. The thing that gets me as a player and reader is Good aligned characters being completely willing to exterminate another sentient race.

It does make you wonder how these evil fodder races have survived so long, without regular purging of the population's, especially when they are portrayed as dumb, evil and unable to cooperate.

[awa]

At which point you should stop pretending they're sapient beings with an alignment. Crocodiles are Neutral, just like other animals - beings which are hard-wired into being aggressive like crocodiles shouldn't be treated differently because they walk on two legs.

I do actually like the idea that non humans are actually non humans not just humans with green skin. If that means there moral code is inherently at odds with our own so be it. A species could be intelligent but completely incapable of empathy in regards to members of other species. It might just get a huge endorphin rush when it sees something weaker then it get hurt. You are confusing lack of morality with lack of intelligence. You could argue there not really evil becuase they don't have a choice but by that logic the undead who Must kill to live isn't evil either and in a philosophical sense I might agree but for the purposes of smite evil and detect evil I cant.

The problem with doing it for say forgotten realms is almost all the monsters are just humans with pointed ears (or whatever) very few nonhuman races have as much cultural diversity as real world humans. An elf has vastly more in common with a dwarf then I have with an aztec. Since goblins and orcs have not been portrayed as being any thing worse then evil humans deciding they are completely irredeemable falls flat.

So in conclusion im not inherently opposed to a sapient that is inherent evil as defined by a humans moral code. But goblins in forgotten realms is not a good place to do it.

[Akal Saris]

Considering that he wrote Dark Mirror (short story with a nonevil goblin) and The Orc King (in which the orcs finally make peace with the rest of the North, and in flash-forward scenes Drizzt is seen fighting groups that commit hate crimes against orcs) I am surprised at the idea that all this would be dumped for 5e.

Maybe this character will turn out to be being deceived and manipulated by someone posing as their deity?

You took the words right out of my mouth! If it was another author, I would just shrug, but RA Salvatore has a track record of non-evil goblinoids in his writing, so this seems quite out of place.

[Warskull]

Well to be fair I can't think of many examples of non-evil goblins in the forgotten realms setting and also it could be that they want to simplify things for next and remove the ethical dilemma of fighting goblins. Also if you can't kill goblins what else are first level adventurers supposed to fight. To clarify I'm not condoning genocide or anything I'm just saying sometimes it's nice to have a simple adventure with good guys and bad guys with out thinking too much about it.

This is ultimately the answer as to why goblins and orcs are pure evil and must be killed.

They were created to fill a niche. It wouldn't be fun to kill nothing but unintelligent monsters. The players need an enemy who can organize, think, and react. Something that can be interesting to fight. The problem is killing people creates a moral quandary. So 'evil races' were created to fill the intelligent cannon fodder niche. Goblins and Orcs are bad guys because sometimes you need a bad guy. An clearly defined bad guy is useful for action set pieces.

Sure it means as a race they are kind of shallow, but they don't exist to be a masterpiece of writing. They exist to be something the Paladin can stab without worry. If good characters had to debate the ethics of every fight D&D wouldn't be as fun. Sometimes you just need a big dumb fight.

If they turned goblins and orcs into proper races something else would have to be created to take their place.

[awa]

I'm not certain a mook race is actually necessary I do just fine with bandits and cultists in some of my more human focused games.

The only thing you need to do to make wiping out a group of goblins or orcs okay is make the ones your fighting bad guys. This isnt a goblin village its a bandit camp which happens to be populated by goblins which is also why there are no women and children there.

[Morty]

The difference between Drow and Goblinoids: Drow have the potential to be attractive. Goblinoids don't, ergo they must all be exterminated.

Yeah. Once the possibility of a busty drow maiden in a skin-tight catsuit is introduced, you can bet any money that she'll be a player-available option before long.


Obviously the Forgotten Realms suffers under a tyranny of the Beautiful. If your race cannot be considered comely to players, into the villain xp bin you go. You are now XP to go.

Yeah, Forgotten Realms is an old setting, that applies the old evil is ugly trope. The thing that gets me as a player and reader is Good aligned characters being completely willing to exterminate another sentient race.

It does make you wonder how these evil fodder races have survived so long, without regular purging of the population's, especially when they are portrayed as dumb, evil and unable to cooperate.

The "good is beautiful, evil is ugly" paradigm is as old as dirt and deeply entrenched in human psyche. Beautiful, noble elves exterminating ugly, stupid and evil goblins (or orcs, or however else you call the conveniently evil and weak race) is just one of its iterations.

[Scots Dragon]

This whole thing just strikes me as wrong and unfitting with the setting. Especially given that the whole idea of ugly humanoid races being automatically evil is completely and utterly at odds with many statements that have come before.

We are talking about the same setting which canonically has good-aligned undead, and I'm not talking the occasional attractive vampires here and there but out-and-out rotting corpse zombies and good-aligned liches. It's the setting where some of the first heroic characters introduced actually wound up including a saurial paladin.

It's especially unfitting when you think back upon 2nd edition's handling of what happens when a Forgotten Realms nature goddess (Eldath, in this case) interacts with orcs. In that edition, those orcs wound up worshipping the good goddess and became peaceful farmers and hunter-gatherers known as the ondontis who were so in touch with nature that they became 'reverse drow', able to cast various semi-druidic spell-like abilities, only taking up arms when they needed to. They unfortunately became subsequent targets of the Zhentarim and many of them were enslaved, creating a plot-hook by which you could introduce good-aligned orcs while having evil-aligned humans in the same place.

In this new 5th edition, apparently the response to orcs from a nature deity is 'KILL IT WITH FIRE!'


Yeah, this is going to be filed next to 'Wall of the Faithless' in the long list of things that I personally tend to ignore.

[wumpus]

While I still haven't bought the appropriate books, didn't the [mostly good] gods of OOTS create goblins (and other greenskins) as "tasty little balls of xp"? I can't tell how much the encourage the continual slaughter of goblins (I haven't noticed any prophets being told to spread the word of NPC race equality), but I'm certain they are aware that such things are not good (the presumed fall of paladins while slaughtering goblin villages should be obvious).

Another odd side effect of this is that Paladins are held to a considerably higher standard than the gods. Unless the original [creator] gods originally fell after the creation of the greenskins (for xp purposes), I will stand with my claim that paladins are typically more good (higher on the alignment chart) than gods. -Note this isn't necessarily true: Miko presumably didn't commit an evil act before she fell, but she was certainly drawn and written as if she was borderline LN.

All this is ignoring the colossal evil that would be involved if a god made the concerted effort to lead a genocide. If a nature goddess is simply telling a follower "kill these goblins", she may be looking at a much bigger picture and wanting goblins removed from what she sees as a particular garden. If she tells her followers (presumably starting with the priesthood) to "kill *all* the goblins" (or even "kill any goblin you see"), she obviously belongs in the deep end of the alignment chart.

The real problem is that D&D evolved from tabletop wargames. The idea that "alignment" was pretty much the same as "red" and "blue" teams in a wargame shows up occasionally and causes all sorts of problems.

[Zubrowka74]

Also if you can't kill goblins what else are first level adventurers supposed to fight

Rats! Googols of relentless rats!

On a more general note, Tolkien himself based the appearance of his orcs on the human people that were the farthest away from the english ideal of beauty at that time, the mongols IIRC.

[Joe the Rat]

Even Tolkien thought always evil orcs was a bad idea. We also do not see them outside of a war setting. They may be cruel and brutish, but they are hunted no differently than the human allies of Mordor.

Yeah, the village-burning thing is a bit of moral dissonance from a "good" source... I do hope there's a twist to that at some point. Because otherwise RAS has set up a scene for no other reason than to show that the good guys are a bunch of jerks.

[Tanuki Tales]

While I still haven't bought the appropriate books, didn't the [mostly good] gods of OOTS create goblins (and other greenskins) as "tasty little balls of xp"? I can't tell how much the encourage the continual slaughter of goblins (I haven't noticed any prophets being told to spread the word of NPC race equality), but I'm certain they are aware that such things are not good (the presumed fall of paladins while slaughtering goblin villages should be obvious).

Another odd side effect of this is that Paladins are held to a considerably higher standard than the gods. Unless the original [creator] gods originally fell after the creation of the greenskins (for xp purposes), I will stand with my claim that paladins are typically more good (higher on the alignment chart) than gods. -Note this isn't necessarily true: Miko presumably didn't commit an evil act before she fell, but she was certainly drawn and written as if she was borderline LN.

All this is ignoring the colossal evil that would be involved if a god made the concerted effort to lead a genocide. If a nature goddess is simply telling a follower "kill these goblins", she may be looking at a much bigger picture and wanting goblins removed from what she sees as a particular garden. If she tells her followers (presumably starting with the priesthood) to "kill *all* the goblins" (or even "kill any goblin you see"), she obviously belongs in the deep end of the alignment chart.

The real problem is that D&D evolved from tabletop wargames. The idea that "alignment" was pretty much the same as "red" and "blue" teams in a wargame shows up occasionally and causes all sorts of problems.

Using OotS as an example isn't appropriate because the setting doesn't have universal, empirical good and evil, they have it as defined by the gods who created their verse. So a Paladin who slaughters goblins doesn't fall not because they didn't commit an evil act, but because they didn't commit an evil act as defined by the gods.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

I prefer Eberrons take on goblinkin, making them another potential player race or a race with actual sensible motives, not just lol evil little xp packets.

Placing a 'normal' race at the same point as demons and devils is just sloppy world building at this point in time in the settings.

There are some lovely Dragonshard articles on goblinoids. I hope this translates over to Eberron well in 5e.


Well to be fair I can't think of many examples of non-evil goblins in the forgotten realms setting and also it could be that they want to simplify things for next and remove the ethical dilemma of fighting goblins. Also if you can't kill goblins what else are first level adventurers supposed to fight. To clarify I'm not condoning genocide or anything I'm just saying sometimes it's nice to have a simple adventure with good guys and bad guys with out thinking too much about it.

Okay, here are my notes on the subject of unintelligent XP fodder:

Aberration

Gibbering horrors from Beyond. Some may be benign and tolerate humans enough for cults to interact with them in a non-hostile manner.
Beasts that have been mutated so thoroughly that they possess entirely supernatural physiology. This might be as simple as two creatures fused together, or may include strange beasts like rust monsters.


Animal

Evil influences can warp the minds of normal animals, making them hostile.
Dinosaurs, full stop.
Dire animals fit in with dinosaurs, but can also be the result of rampant nature magic.
Normally neutral beasts can be magically commanded to serve divine spellcasters or magical sentients in coordinated fashion. Nothing is quite so terrifying as a thousand rodents ruining the bowstrings and provisions of an army during the night.


Construct

Golems can be made of anything. Cheap or hodgeodge materials should be more common than stone and metal. More abstract things could be possible, like darkness or sound. It's important to note that most golems are humanoids of various size with little to no special abilities, their composition only improves their toughness and melee attacks.
Golems are a no-nonsense way for a wizard to defend his home.
Old battlefields may host war machines that are still operational.
A half-golem who receives enough golem parts would count as a construct. Some of this type of construct may be nothing more than a brain in a jar.


Dragon

Many unintelligent dragons like wyvrens are highly territorial apex predators.
Dragons can sire half-dragon beasts to use as their servants, or generally make the area around their lair more dangerous.
The legend of dragon-soldiers growing from dragon teeth could refer to unintelligent flesh-constructs.


Elemental

Unintelligent elementals usually take forms analogous to normal animals, like fire snakes or lightning sharks. More dangerous unintelligent elementals can be fluid shapeshifters.
Elementals are graceful, natural creatures. They are often part of larger ecosystems. They often have sophistocated behavior even if they are not sapient.
The most basic elementals are made of earth, fire, air, or water.
Exotic elementals can be composed of nonstandard elements or even abstract concepts, such as crystals, darkness, electricity, or blood.


Fey

Unintelligent fey are usually animals with otherworldly traits, very similar to outsiders (though the difference between an intelligent feybeast and a sapient one may only be a matter of age). They are often fey simply from their connection to their masters.
Feybeasts are animals weak to cold iron possessed of abilities of flight, teleportation, and/or enchantment.
Plant-spirits can also be fey, having many of the traits of the plant they are connected to (poison, thorns, etc).


Magical Beast

The most simple magical beasts are normal animals with one magical trait and some cosmetic changes. They can have some kind of elemental power light spitting lightning, or have access to more exotic or powerful abilities.
Some magical beasts are graceful hybrids made from two or more animals. Other than their anatomy, they're still normal animals. They might be notable for the magical properties of their fur, feathers, horn, bone, etc.


Ooze

Oozes can be natural creatures that decompose things. Only under rare circumstances do they grow large enough to be a threat to a person.
Oozes mostly are dangerous because of their acidic touch and natural resilience. More magical oozes may have elemental abilities or grow inside their victims' flesh.
Most oozes become large enough to kill due to magical or alchemical influence.
A mad alchemist could intentionally create oozes for research and profit.
Quasi-domesticated oozes could be used as biological weapons.


Outsider

Fiendish version of animals make for good slaves of organized Baatezu, or corrupt creatures influenced by the aftermath of a rampaging Tanar'ri. Some of these might be shapeshifting creatures such as imps.
Half-fiendish creatures inherit immense power. Unlike summoned outsiders, they have no planar limitation on their powers and cannot be banished.
Baatezu might not be intelligent, they may just be eyes, ears, and mouths for their conniving masters.
Tanar'ri do not need to be intelligent to be dangerous. They are simple rampaging monsters.
Don't forget extra horns, spikes, and elemental breath for added measure.


Plant

The standard carnivorous plant is a hazard due to its ability to immobilize its prey and use poison. These may be best-used as environmental complications to larger encounters.
A carnivorous plant needs to be rooted in a favorable position to be successful. Usually in an enclosed space where it can't be sniped.
A druid could create mobile plant-creatures in any shape he wished. Attached to animal skeletons, built as large masses with seige weapons embedded, etc etc.
Carnivorous fungus are fun too.
Mobile plants may have useful medicinal or alchemical properties.


Undead

Most of the varieties of undead have some circumstances that cause them to rise. These are often because of crimes committed in life, and/or negative emotions at the time of death.
Undead can be formed from ambient negative emotions or evil influence. One type of undead may be a mass of corpses fused together into a single monstrosity.
D&D ghouls are classic virus-zombies.


Vermin

Giant insects are very straightforward wild animals with a decent reason to eat humans (or ignore them, as the case may be).
Fits in with dinosaurs for a lost world setting.
Bear in mind that most insects have very specialized adaptations and abilities, especially in social insects.

[12owlbears]

Okay, here are my notes on the subject of unintelligent XP fodder

And I'm sure that given enough time I could come up with reasons why killing those things is unethical. Goblins make good antagonists for early adventures because their iconic and their not too challenging, constructs oozes and undead all have enough immunities and special qualities that I don't think I would send them against a level 1-2 party and by the time the party is the appropriate level to start fighting outsiders and aberrations they've probably already killed hundreds of goblins/orcs/whatever. On the subject of gods this doesn't really make the genocide thing ok but I'm pretty sure the goblin gods say the same thing about the other races.

[awa]

there are cr 1 outsiders and aberrations
and human zombies are basically only dangerous at level 1 or 2

[Scots Dragon]

There are a couple of ways around the whole situation of orcs-and-goblins-as-early-level-adventuring-fodder.

First and foremost; don't use them as tasty little balls of experience points. If you want to have your party battling goblins, give them more of a reason than 'because they're goblins'. This specific group of goblins is evil and going around doing evil and nasty things to people, so it's basically defending innocents from evil. The other victims could also be non-evil goblins or orcs, to drive the point home. The only goblin babies are the ones you're saving from being stabbed.

The second thing is, you don't technically need to use goblins. You can use evil humans in the same position, and indeed still use non-evil orcs and goblins as victims of their actions. This can also apply if you're working with a mostly-evil adventuring party. You can give your players lots of opportunities to do evil things by using non-evil orcs and goblins as their targets.



But the idea presented in Night of the Hunter is so barbaric that I'm almost tempted to abandon the Forgotten Realms because of it.

[Morty]

And I'm sure that given enough time I could come up with reasons why killing those things is unethical. Goblins make good antagonists for early adventures because their iconic and their not too challenging, constructs oozes and undead all have enough immunities and special qualities that I don't think I would send them against a level 1-2 party and by the time the party is the appropriate level to start fighting outsiders and aberrations they've probably already killed hundreds of goblins/orcs/whatever. On the subject of gods this doesn't really make the genocide thing ok but I'm pretty sure the goblin gods say the same thing about the other races.

Or maybe, here's a crazy thought - you accept that fighting sapient beings will always carry certain moral connotations and stop bending over backwards to remove them. If good or neutral-aligned PCs fight them, it's because they threaten them and/or innocent people and there's no other choice but to fight. Or maybe there is, in which case it may be a good thing to do to pursue those options. You don't need to cook up disturbing justifications for why murdering certain species is always good and just.

[SiuiS]

I am not sure how this will play with the offical settings, but I just started reading Night of the Hunter: Companions Codex, I by R A Salvatore, that is taking aprt int he new realms, and one of the characters who can almost be considered a choosen of Mielikki stated she was advised by her goddess that the various goblinkin and orcs are different then the 'good' races, and by large should be removed.

This was pretty shocking to me, as I do not like the moral absolutism that brings and is a bit of a strike to me against the Forgotten Realms setting. Stating the the race and culture is pure evil and the drow are even redemable as a whole, but the goblinkin are not. The goblinkin are created to destroy, nothing more, to be a blight on the land. As told by Mielikki they are a scourge and challenge to those who would serve goodly purpose. They are not people, but monsters, full goblinkin do not have a conscience. Raising a lion would be safer then raising a goblin child.

This was from around page 45 in the novel.

It is good aligned to be a murder hobo against goblinoids, burning there villages and wiping them out. It makes what happened with Redcloak and his goblins in Order of the Stick seem a reflection of the offical settings.

I am not sure how this will affect the official setting rules, and how it back dates to the prior editions however.


Yep. Goblins aren't people. That's not a racists statement saying that someone who is a person shouldn't be considered one; it's acknowledging that by the default rules Faerun was based on, goblin kin are literally evil, malformed vermin.

It's not a thing people like, because it's not an idea that many even grok as being paradigmatic rather than a moral quandary. This is from the paradigm of a world which allows bipedal creatures to lack sapience but still present it, which allows actual, physical evil to exist and seemingly behave like a creature, and which relies as much on mysticism as science. It's perfectly valid to throw that out. Just ask yourself; how valid is this proclamation? Is it possible for a chrch to disagree with itself? Is it possible for a god to be wrong, or have an agenda?


"All goblinkin are vermin" can be a perfectly rational expression of a scientific fact. It can also be a terribly biased view into the mind of a speciesist genocidal jerk. Having a canonical answer has never before stopped DMs from deciding themselves, and there's no reason to think it will now. :)

[hamishspence]

That's because it is. Redcloak's story is a challenge to the classical D&D paradigm that sapient races designated as "evil" and "monsters" are only fit for extermination.

Indeed.

Given how much FR fiction hammered home the notion that goblinoids aren't all murderously malevolent - and that a lot of their behaviour can be put down to culture rather than "inherent nature" - this is a huge step backward.

[Kioras]

But the idea presented in Night of the Hunter is so barbaric that I'm almost tempted to abandon the Forgotten Realms because of it.



Indeed.

Given how much FR fiction hammered home the notion that goblinoids aren't all murderously malevolent - and that a lot of their behaviour can be put down to culture rather than "inherent nature" - this is a huge step backward.

It was quite weird reading that planetouched such as tieflings are still people, since they have a conscience, but the goblinkin and orcs do not qualify. Any of the presented good or neutral goblin-kin/orcs were explained away as having a trace of another races ancestory in there blood also.

That is the biggest issue I have, it is not a situation I would want to present in games, where wiping out a goblin village down to the last living being is acceptable, or even a good result.

Killing everything down to the last man, women and child and having it as a GOOD thing to happen in official literature, supplements and materials is quite barbaric. I don't like the idea of the good aligned characters speaking of that, as if there is no problem in the world with it. It is taken as fact, advised to them by their God and cannot be disputed.

Having them as 'violent, brutish primitives' that sometimes come swarming out of the 'steppes' every once in a while was the way things always seemed to be before. They had the inclination for evil soley based on their religion and culture enforced by their Gods. Seperate them from the Evil God enforced culture and they should be neutral as every other material plane sentient being. In any games I run, that is how I would want to present them, and present any conflicts with tribes and 'civlization' in the more classic issue of population pressures foring them outward as displaced tribes trying to claim thre own area.

In the offical materials, we would then have an answer to the classic alignment question of 'Does a paladin fall if they kill goblinkin children?' In the information based on this book, the answer would be no.

[Morty]

Indeed.

Given how much FR fiction hammered home the notion that goblinoids aren't all murderously malevolent - and that a lot of their behaviour can be put down to culture rather than "inherent nature" - this is a huge step backward.

Maybe eventually their changed their stance. I know that when I read the Icewind Dale trilogy, I was very put off by its double standard-ridden moral stance. The barbarians invaded the Ten Towns with more or less the same intentions as the giant and goblin-kin horde - to kill, loot and enslave. Except the barbarians did it of their own volition rather than being controlled by an insane wizard. Yet the barbarians were spared and later became the townspeople's allies, whereas the giants and goblin-kin were slaughtered indiscriminately. And at some point, Drizzt actually looks forward to torturing an orc.

[hamishspence]

I think that was Bruenor (Drizzt recommends using Regis's pendant of charming instead) - but it's true that Salvatore's approach to goblinoids and orcoids has changed a lot over time.

Maybe it's come full circle and we're back at the beginning again?

[russdm]

Maybe it's come full circle and we're back at the beginning again?

Of the end of the world? or the end of the illusion?

[Anium]

Or... maybe Mielikki is fighting against a goblin deity and needs his power halved by killing worshippers. As a good aligned deity will probably change her mind, or she thinks is impossible to kill them all.

[hamishspence]

Of the end of the world? or the end of the illusion?

Of Salvatore's portrayal of D&D morality - far more like The Crystal Shard than The Orc King.

[Nightgaun7]

Who cares? They're just goblins.

[Scots Dragon]

Who cares? They're just goblins.

Some of us kind of dislike the implications inherent in labelling any intelligent creature as automatically being pure and unrelenting evil from birth.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Some of us kind of dislike the implications inherent in labelling any intelligent creature as automatically being pure and unrelenting evil from birth.

There are also a lot of related issues that adventurers run into. This includes what you do with kobold eggs/babies, what you do with unconscious and stabilized goblins, and the implications of having to torture orcs for information before they destroy villages.

[12owlbears]

There are also a lot of related issues that adventurers run into. This includes what you do with kobold eggs/babies, what you do with unconscious and stabilized goblins, and the implications of having to torture orcs for information before they destroy villages.

Yeah but not a lot of adventurers really encounter those situations. Now this is anecdotal evidence so feel free to ignore it but in my experience the only time I've ever been in a game where players encounter situations was one instance where I was the GM. Some people find "stopping an adventure to hear a lecture on how racism is bad" preachy. Now I'm sure different groups have different experience, but from my experience most people would rather not think to deeply about the ethics of adventuring. On an unrelated note why is it more wrong to kill sentient creatures than non-sentient creatures. Non-sentient creatures don't have the ability to make choices so if their attacking it's because they don't know better. Sentient creature presumable have some understanding of right and wrong and thus if they detect as evil it is because they chose to follow the "evil" path(of course real world morality is infinitely more complex than good and evil but that's a different discussion). On a slightly related note kobolds eat babies....just throwing that out their.
edit: woops I meant non-sapient thanks Tanuki Tales

[Tanuki Tales]

Yeah but not a lot of adventurers really encounter those situations. Now this is anecdotal evidence so feel free to ignore it but in my experience the only time I've ever been in a game where players encounter situations was one instance where I was the GM. Some people find "stopping an adventure to hear a lecture on how racism is bad" preachy. Now I'm sure different groups have different experience, but from my experience most people would rather not think to deeply about the ethics of adventuring. On an unrelated note why is it more wrong to kill sentient creatures than non-sentient creatures. Non-sentient creatures don't have the ability to make choices so if their attacking it's because they don't know better. Sentient creature presumable have some understanding of right and wrong and thus if they detect as evil it is because they chose to follow the "evil" path(of course real world morality is infinitely more complex than good and evil but that's a different discussion). On a slightly related note kobolds eat babies....just throwing that out their.

What's wrong with killing non-sentient beings? Or did you mean non-sapient beings? I think you meant sapience, because I've never met anyone who had issues killing mindless undead and constructs (and potentially oozes). Vermin is a gray area, but I've never agreed with them having their own type and actually being portrayed as so lacking in intellect compared to other animals that they're immune to mind affects.

[awa]

I don't know from my entomology class many insects are incapable of learning and the ones who can tend to only be able to in limited areas. That said it is amazing what they can manage on instinct.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

I don't know from my entomology class many insects are incapable of learning and the ones who can tend to only be able to in limited areas. That said it is amazing what they can manage on instinct.

If you go that route, your monstrous humanoids can't have languages. You should probably also limit their tool use (nothing more complicated than an obsidian axe).

[awa]

If you go that route, your monstrous humanoids can't have languages. You should probably also limit their tool use (nothing more complicated than an obsidian axe).

Why would you say that? Most monstrous humanoids while not particularly bright are within human int ranges there not animals. And some of the smarter animals nearly have languages as it is. Few monstrous humanoids use anything more complex then clubs anyways and among the ones who do many are depicted stealing there gear/ relying on slaves and even the ones who do make their own metal weapons didn't necessarily invent the techniques to do so themselves.

Im just not sure i understand your comment at all.

And if the complaint was about hands how is a stone ax easier to use then a metal one?

And just like termites show us you don't need to be smart to build amazing things

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Why would you say that? Most monstrous humanoids while not particularly bright are within human int ranges there not animals. And some of the smarter animals nearly have languages as it is. Few monstrous humanoids use anything more complex then clubs anyways and among the ones who do many are depicted stealing there gear/ relying on slaves and even the ones who do make their own metal weapons didn't necessarily invent the techniques to do so themselves.

Im just not sure i understand your comment at all.

And if the complaint was about hands how is a stone ax easier to use then a metal one?

And just like termites show us you don't need to be smart to build amazing things

I thought you were suggesting that one solution to the slaughtering sentients prolbem is to make monstrous humanoids as smart as crows or social insects.

[Tanuki Tales]

I don't know from my entomology class many insects are incapable of learning and the ones who can tend to only be able to in limited areas. That said it is amazing what they can manage on instinct.

Sentience is usually, as far as I'm aware, having the ability to perceive and interact with the world around you and I know animal rights movements have made the term broadened to also include the ability to feel pain and pleasure. I don't believe learning plays into just sentience, but rather other parts of consciousness.

I'm not saying vermin should be necessarily as intelligent as mammalian life in games terms, but I don't think they're mindless either. Except jellyfish and man-o-wars, because they literally lack brains.

[Archaos]

The big difference between Goblins and Drow is that drow were elves in the past and there is (was) a good Drow goddess that wanted to help and redeem them.

Goblins and orcs don't have any god that is like that. There are also savage and like bloodlust. At least Drow are far more civilized.

It's not hypocrisy or double standards. Drow are far more likely to be redeemed when you take their heritage into account and that they're sponsored by a good god.

[Tanuki Tales]

Goblins and orcs don't have any god that is like that. There are also savage and like bloodlust. At least Drow are far more civilized.

The irony of the bolded is deeply amusing to me.


It's not hypocrisy or double standards. Drow are far more likely to be redeemed when you take their heritage into account and that they're sponsored by a good god.

Fun fact, this happened to the Orcs too when they worshipped a non-evil deity.

[russdm]

Fun fact, this happened to the Orcs too when they worshipped a non-evil deity.

This almost effectively demonstrates that Evil could be considered Nurture rather than Nature for Non-Fiend races. We should have Evil elves already that aren't drow because there is no reason why some races should have a monopoly on being made up of mainly goodies. Elves are usually treated as good or neutral, they tend to almost act like real jerks in most parts of Faerun.

Point: The game encourages genocide of goblinkin and orcs, so its suprising that people find that good gods do in Faerun weird, even though in standard the good gods do so anyway.

We should consider that MurderHoboing is considered one of D&D's sacred cows that can never be allowed to die, and that the new edition is returning this particular aspect of D&D back into full force.

[hamishspence]

Elaith Craulnober was pretty Evil, and not a drow.

The Vyshantaar Empire consisted of Sun Elves - and they ended up becoming very Evil.

[Scots Dragon]

Elaith Craulnober was pretty Evil, and not a drow.

The Vyshantaar Empire consisted of Sun Elves - and they ended up becoming very Evil.

The Eldreth Veluuthra are mostly elves, and are pretty damn evil given their wish to exterminate all other races, particularly humanity. Of course, they're actually so far in defiance of the 'virtues of elf-kind' that they don't have clerics. Not because they dislike clerics and are irreligious, but simply because none of the Seldarine elect to grant them spell-casting due to the fact that even the most utterly amoral member of the elven pantheon thinks 'you know what? I'm not touching that particular bag of crazy'. Mostly because the Seldarine lacks evil deities, or at the very least, Corellon Larethian won't allow evil deities to be part of the pantheon and thus they kind of faded into obscurity or joined the Dark Seldarine.

Speaking of which, Vhaeraun worshippers will occasionally work with the Eldreth Veluuthra. The simple fact of the matter is that the player character races can be of any alignment, and frequently are.

The problem raised by this thread is that apparently this doesn't apply to orcs or goblin-kind. Even though the Forgotten Realms has had guidelines which allow for orcs to turn away from evil since the initial Campaign Set was released. Seriously; it's the last paragraph in the entry on the 'Goblin Races' that occasional individuals will turn their back on their more brutal lives and seek to live in more peaceful situations. It mentioned nothing about these individuals needing to be of human heritage, but mentioned that they'd face adversity due to the less-than-stellar reputation of their various races. And given certain issues of release dates, that basically means that the Forgotten Realms in general acknowledged the genuine possibility of good orcs and goblins a good year before it acknowledged the possibility of a good drow.

So... yeah. That whole thing about orcs and goblins being irredeemably evil is factually incorrect and should be ignored.

Especially given the justification as to why they're irredeemable and the drow aren't is that drow are merely influenced by an evil deity. Which is, you know, apparently now completely inapplicable to the race which literally had a Forgotten Realms adventure module dedicated to them under the title Sons of Gruumsh. I'm not entirely sure how, but apparently it is.

You know what? I've said it before, but yeah.... I'm done. The last Forgotten Realms product released without a bunch of asterisks added to the text, as far as I'm concerned, was Cloak & Dagger.

[Tanuki Tales]

To be fair, older edition Orcs were more outsider than humanoid. They sprung up literally from Gruumsh's blood and if that had been carried seriously into third, they'd probably be a race of native outsiders like Planetouched.

But that was left behind long ago.

[Envyus]

Hell back in 3rd ed Orcs were only often Chaotic evil meaning that the majority of them were not chaotic evil and the second most common alignment was chaotic neutral. The Drow meanwhile were usually neutral evil meaning at least 50% of them had that alignment with the second most common alignment being chaotic evil.

Meaning you had a much better chance running into a good Orc then a good Drow.

[Jakodee]

I hate the idea of sentient meaning "thinks like a human, mabye a little different". Goblins could be "evil" because they are inherently aggressive and lack the mental rush humans can get from acts of kindness. Although this is looking more like an antisocial creature now and wouldn't be a generic cannon foder monster. Who knows the explanation for these alighnment questions?

[Tanuki Tales]

I hate the idea of sentient meaning "thinks like a human, mabye a little different".

Seeing as that's not what the word sentient means, I'd hate it too. :smalltongue:

Though I agree with there being different valid flavors of sapience.

[Axinian]

I've never understood the need for an "invariably evil, no exceptions" race for the PCs to fight. It's just not necessary, not even in a murder-hobo style game. This just invites potentially hostile philosophical debate where none is needed. If you want PCs to fight goblins... just have them fight evil goblins. No need to make them incarnations of hate and malice.

Besides, if you're a true murder-hobo, you don't care about the alignment of your foes. :smalltongue:

[awa]

Sentience is usually, as far as I'm aware, having the ability to perceive and interact with the world around you and I know animal rights movements have made the term broadened to also include the ability to feel pain and pleasure. I don't believe learning plays into just sentience, but rather other parts of consciousness.

I'm not saying vermin should be necessarily as intelligent as mammalian life in games terms, but I don't think they're mindless either. Except jellyfish and man-o-wars, because they literally lack brains.
Remember d&d has more then one mental stat Mindless (int -) does not mean they cant perceive the world that's wisdoms job insects have a wisdom score there inability to learn or adapt is why they have no int.

Moths and other insects circle/ smash into light bulbs sometimes until they kill themselves becuase they are trying to use the sun or moon to navigate and they are programed to assume the brightest light source in the sky is the sun / moon. Now an animal with an int score should figure out that bright light is not the sun after he crashes into it a few times but insects will sometimes literally kill themselves becuase they cant figure it out.

[Morty]

Elves are usually treated as good or neutral, they tend to almost act like real jerks in most parts of Faerun.


That's another double standard. Going by the racial alignments in the Monster Manual, meeting an evil or neutral elf is every bit as likely as meeting a good or neutral goblin. Meeting a good or neutral orc is more likely. Likewise for good and evil halflings. And yet, no one will bat an eyelash at an evil elf or good halfling, but a neutral orc or goblin is treated as a one-in-a-million freak occurrence.

[Scots Dragon]

That's another double standard. Going by the racial alignments in the Monster Manual, meeting an evil or neutral elf is every bit as likely as meeting a good or neutral goblin. Meeting a good or neutral orc is more likely. Likewise for good and evil halflings. And yet, no one will bat an eyelash at an evil elf or good halfling, but a neutral orc or goblin is treated as a one-in-a-million freak occurrence.

I suppose as one of the resident old-school types, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition had the following general rule on alignment in every single monstrous supplement, or an approximation of it;


ALIGNMENT shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered.


Alignment: The general behaviour of the average monster of that type. Note that exceptions may be encountered.


ALIGNMENT shows the general behaviour of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered, especially within the misty confines of Ravenloft.

And finally I must mention Al-Qadim. On the southern continent of Zakhara, the various 'monster races' are welcomed as a standard part of society. That includes goblins, orcs, ogres, and various other types of goblinkin living as accepted members of society in peace with others.

And since Al-Qadim is literally just 'the Forgotten Realms, but southward a bit', that's basically another piece of evidence which states that the hobofodder race idea is complete and utter nonsense.

[Coidzor]

Gotta cut into the powerbase of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and their lik, after all, and what better way than to make sure that they get less out than what they put in, especially in terms of higher-leveled servitors?

[Scots Dragon]

Gotta cut into the powerbase of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and their lik, after all, and what better way than to make sure that they get less out than what they put in, especially in terms of higher-leveled servitors?

And Mielikki's just got to resort to mass murder instead of, y'know, conversion and showing people a better way? I mean, it's not like a neutral good goddess of nature, whose allies include the goddess of farming and healing, the god of renewal and self-perfection, and whose actual sister is the goddess of peace with an already-existing group of good-aligned orcish worshippers, would ever consider a non-violent solution to orcs. No, instead she'd declare all orcs to be automatically evil and get Drizzt to go around stabbing them all.

A much better solution, if you ask me. I'm almost ashamed I didn't think of it myself, y'know.

[Morty]

I suppose as one of the resident old-school types, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition had the following general rule on alignment in every single monstrous supplement, or an approximation of it;

I suspect it's yet another case of changing something from the older editions without thinking about the implications - 3e keeps the description of the "monster" races as nigh-uniformly evil, but its rules say they're just as likely to be neutral as elves and dwarves are, and as likely to be good as an elf or dwarf is to be evil.

I'm also reminded of an area described in the 3.0 FRCS, in which a population of orcs live peacefully alongside humans. No divine intervention was necessary - they're just the descendants of a Zhentarim mercenary army that settled down there after some big war in which the Zhentarim actually fought together with the good guys against a bigger threat.

[russdm]

And Mielikki's just got to resort to mass murder instead of, y'know, conversion and showing people a better way? I mean, it's not like a neutral good goddess of nature, whose allies include the goddess of farming and healing, the god of renewal and self-perfection, and whose actual sister is the goddess of peace with an already-existing group of good-aligned orcish worshippers, would ever consider a non-violent solution to orcs. No, instead she'd declare all orcs to be automatically evil and get Drizzt to go around stabbing them all.

A much better solution, if you ask me. I'm almost ashamed I didn't think of it myself, y'know.

But that solution doesn't allow adventurers to slaughter orcs like you are supposed to in a "heroic" Fantasy story. This isn't Game of Thrones here with its Psuedo-Fantasy Medieval Drama!

[Coidzor]

Using OotS as an example isn't appropriate because the setting doesn't have universal, empirical good and evil, they have it as defined by the gods who created their verse. So a Paladin who slaughters goblins doesn't fall not because they didn't commit an evil act, but because they didn't commit an evil act as defined by the gods.

Goes back to Euthyphro, really (Edit: Always amusing how much Euthyphro can come up with WRT to D&D.)


Yeah. Once the possibility of a busty drow maiden in a skin-tight catsuit is introduced, you can bet any money that she'll be a player-available option before long.

And how!


And Mielikki's just got to resort to mass murder instead of, y'know, conversion and showing people a better way? I mean, it's not like a neutral good goddess of nature, whose allies include the goddess of farming and healing, the god of renewal and self-perfection, and whose actual sister is the goddess of peace with an already-existing group of good-aligned orcish worshippers, would ever consider a non-violent solution to orcs. No, instead she'd declare all orcs to be automatically evil and get Drizzt to go around stabbing them all.

To be fair to Drizzt, that's really all he's good for, stabbing lower-level orcs. Gotta give the boy something to do with himself, after all.

[Nightgaun7]

Orcs and goblins, with their inherent tendency to evil, can't be trusted even if they claim to be good. Murder 'em all just to be safe.

Why yes, Zarus is my favorite deity.

[Talakeal]

It was quite weird reading that planetouched such as tieflings are still people, since they have a conscience, but the goblinkin and orcs do not qualify. Any of the presented good or neutral goblin-kin/orcs were explained away as having a trace of another races ancestory in there blood also.


Is that actually in the book or just hyperbole? Because that actually makes me a little offended in IRL.

[Tanuki Tales]

Is that actually in the book or just hyperbole? Because that actually makes me a little offended in IRL.

They don't call it "Fantastic Racism" for nothing. :smalltongue:

[awa]

Is that actually in the book or just hyperbole? Because that actually makes me a little offended in IRL.

Personally i have never felt that a non human having an nature inherently at odds with humans morality is an unfortunate implication. The exception to that is when the race is a stand in for a real world people make a race that has an uncontrollable avarice fine i got no problem with that give them big hook noses then the unfortunate implications start. I have seen few depictions of orcs that resemble real world peoples (and the ones that do tend to be more sympathetic anyways) so the fact that they are evil does not say anything about the real world.

That said I still don't like this change to forgotten realms becuase first i feel it's unnecessary, second its deeply at odds with all the material that comes before it, and third it flies in the face tone of the setting.

Iin forgotten realms basically all non aberrations THINK like humans. The various races feel just like different human cultures and have much less diversity then real world peoples. so singling this one group out makes absolutely no sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

At which point you should stop pretending they're sapient beings with an alignment. Crocodiles are Neutral, just like other animals - beings which are hard-wired into being aggressive like crocodiles shouldn't be treated differently because they walk on two legs.

This is actually a conceit of 3rd edition. Reading back on 1st Edition D&D, quite a few animals are listed as having INT above 3 and even having their own language. They also qualified for alignments other than neutral. This group of intelligent animals included most primates, but also dolphins, ancient rhinoceros and giant beavers. Logically, corvids and several other birds should've fallen in this category too, though I don't recall them being in the monster manual.

Usually, only primitive animals such as dinosaurs or giant insects were considered non-intelligent and running only on instinct - and "non-intelligent" was a step below "animal intelligence".

Generally, if you accept modern knowledge of animal intelligence, or the mythic version where animals had their own languages (D&D still has traces of that even in 3rd edition), then killing animals can not be held as morally different than killing humanoids. Though it should be noted that in context of Alignment system, killing humanoids (etc.) isn't always evil either.

[Morty]

I see. I was not aware of that, but I don't exactly have a problem with Good characters not killing anything, sapient or not, unless they really have to, so my point remains unchanged.

[Kioras]

Is that actually in the book or just hyperbole? Because that actually makes me a little offended in IRL.

Yes, it is actually stated like that in the book itself, when this is discussed.

[Talakeal]

Yes, it is actually stated like that in the book itself, when this is discussed.

That's a pretty strong argument for nature over nurture on the part of the designers. Amongst human even our basic desires such as food, avoiding pain, and reproducing have certain individuals who naturally have no interest in them or consciously choose to go without them. To say that ALL goblinoids have an "evil gene" which they simply cannot overcome is ridiculous, and to imply that the only way to escape it is by being a hybrid is silly. I am not even going to go into the idea of a "soul" being genetic.

I wonder how many races lack free will, and if some of them have their trigger set to something besides "evil", for example evles with the inescapable desire to be good hard coded into their blood or dwarves with the same position towards law.

[Sartharina]

The thing here is that people aren't people as we know them in the typical fantasy, except for humans and possibly halflings. The races AREN'T the same as real-world races - They are extensions of their deities or divine forces. The "Talking Crocodiles" analogy is apt - just make them intelligent and malevolent. Yes, orcs, gnolls, and Goblins CAN be treated on the same level as demons, at least intellectually. They merely happen to be 'native' to the mortal plane, and not have all the cool immunities and special features that come from being Demons. It doesn't stop them from being an engineered weapon of destruction, conquest, and anticivilization.

As for saying "But why are animals Neutral if they can't make Moral decisions?" - I'd say animals actually embody how far neutrality is allowed to go. Most people interpret "Neutral" as way too far toward "Good" in fantasy, because of how 'tame' and friendly the middle class of the First World is. Yes, animals live at the expense of others, but that's required to live. Even most human bandits/outlaws are probably 'neutral', though they tend to have Evil leaders.

As far as the possibility of Good goblinoids - I figure there are two ways to handle it:
1. Purging the taint/corruption. If a goblinoid becomes good, it stops being a goblinoid, and becomes a 'real' person (Read - Human or Halfling). Elves and dwarves can undergo a similar process if they reject what makes them Elves/Dwarves.
2. Obvious Exception. These guys are essentially the goblinoid version of a Socio/Psychopath, except inverse, 'cursed' (by the Evil God's standards) to have a conscience and be drawn to the forces of light (Just as some humans are 'cursed' in fantasy to be inherently drawn to evil. We call them mental disorders in the real world, but only because we have a greater tolerance for mindraping people into being what we want them to be 'for their own good', and the neuroscience to create drugs and targeted therapy to make the mindrape effective)

[Talakeal]

The thing here is that people aren't people as we know them in the typical fantasy, except for humans and possibly halflings. The races AREN'T the same as real-world races - They are extensions of their deities or divine forces. The "Talking Crocodiles" analogy is apt - just make them intelligent and malevolent. Yes, orcs, gnolls, and Goblins CAN be treated on the same level as demons, at least intellectually. They merely happen to be 'native' to the mortal plane, and not have all the cool immunities and special features that come from being Demons. It doesn't stop them from being an engineered weapon of destruction, conquest, and anticivilization.

As for saying "But why are animals Neutral if they can't make Moral decisions?" - I'd say animals actually embody how far neutrality is allowed to go. Most people interpret "Neutral" as way too far toward "Good" in fantasy, because of how 'tame' and friendly the middle class of the First World is. Yes, animals live at the expense of others, but that's required to live. Even most human bandits/outlaws are probably 'neutral', though they tend to have Evil leaders.

As far as the possibility of Good goblinoids - I figure there are two ways to handle it:
1. Purging the taint/corruption. If a goblinoid becomes good, it stops being a goblinoid, and becomes a 'real' person (Read - Human or Halfling). Elves and dwarves can undergo a similar process if they reject what makes them Elves/Dwarves.
2. Obvious Exception. These guys are essentially the goblinoid version of a Socio/Psychopath, except inverse, 'cursed' (by the Evil God's standards) to have a conscience and be drawn to the forces of light (Just as some humans are 'cursed' in fantasy to be inherently drawn to evil. We call them mental disorders in the real world, but only because we have a greater tolerance for mindraping people into being what we want them to be 'for their own good', and the neuroscience to create drugs and targeted therapy to make the mindrape effective)

That is all well and good, but it really blurs the line between "humanoid" and "outsider". If the orcs are all the physical embodiments or evil / Gruumsh's will, and are unable to make moral decisions for themselves without first changing their species, aren't they just devils who happen to inhabit the material plane?

[INDYSTAR188]

Considering that he wrote Dark Mirror (short story with a nonevil goblin) and The Orc King (in which the orcs finally make peace with the rest of the North, and in flash-forward scenes Drizzt is seen fighting groups that commit hate crimes against orcs) I am surprised at the idea that all this would be dumped for 5e.

Maybe this character will turn out to be being deceived and manipulated by someone posing as their deity?

This was my thought as well.

[Coidzor]

That is all well and good, but it really blurs the line between "humanoid" and "outsider". If the orcs are all the physical embodiments or evil / Gruumsh's will, and are unable to make moral decisions for themselves without first changing their species, aren't they just devils who happen to inhabit the material plane?

Well, it's more the line between person and monster, if we abstract away from the specific version where they're fleshy, self-replicating extensions of a deity's will, and, honestly if they're just *fingers* instead of many *bubbles* I'd say they're more lovecraftian horror than devil. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIbVYXHnaBU)

My understanding is that pre-Dragonlance conceptions of certain monstrous humanoids such as Minotaurs and similar beastmen followed a similar vein where something was just naturally predisposed towards violence and eating sophonts, when they weren't just (the classical conception of) animals (as lesser, different entities) with tool and weapon use. Though, when you do that, it's hard to explain anything larger than a band of them without getting into either metaphysically or ecologically troublesome territory. IIRC, anyway.

Having something as just plain monsters usually requires a fair bit of unknown about them too though, IIRC.

Why one would backpedal to such a stance from a more nuanced one is beyond me though.

[Talakeal]

Why one would backpedal to such a stance from a more nuanced one is beyond me though.

The goal of 5E seems to be to win back all the players they have lost over time; and I imagine they figure that more nuanced and complex monsters is one of the things that has driven people away from D&D over time, so they are undoing it to win them back. Clearly players who want to think of monsters as people would have already left for White Wolf, after all, so why cater to them in D&D?

[Joe the Rat]

The goal of 5E seems to be to win back all the players they have lost over time; and I imagine they figure that more nuanced and complex monsters is one of the things that has driven people away from D&D over time, so they are undoing it to win them back. Clearly players who want to think of monsters as people would have already left for White Wolf, after all, so why cater to them in D&D?

But we leave the Drow in as a player option, because they're not ugly.

Wait, should that have been in my serious voice?

[Coidzor]

But we leave the Drow in as a player option, because they're not ugly.

Wait, should that have been in my serious voice?

Really, the Drow are there because who doesn't love having a layman's misunderstanding about BDSM and leatherplay on display in their games.

[Sartharina]

That is all well and good, but it really blurs the line between "humanoid" and "outsider". If the orcs are all the physical embodiments or evil / Gruumsh's will, and are unable to make moral decisions for themselves without first changing their species, aren't they just devils who happen to inhabit the material plane?

Part of the problem is people approach races in fantasy and theistic worlds in general from the wrong perspective. Mortals are largely irrelevant, because the "players" (Of the setting) are the gods. It's kind of like Godus, I think. People are supposed to serve Gods, not the other way around (Or are you a slave to your people, unable to quit games like The Sims, Godus, Black+White, Civilization, and Dwarf Fortress, or make your own decisions because 'it's what's best for my people, who I must serve" - Mortals are just as relevant to deities as Sims are to us.)

The Big Neutral Overdeity, Ao, is the system administrator and server host for the Forgotten Realms. He made a bunch of people to populate the world, but his only job is to ensure the world remains fair for the deities playing

Lets say the first player is Correllon. He's not so much into building stuff, but does like the world that's made. He takes the autonomous 'people' milling about and creates a race of Elves based on them, so he can watch them explore the world, laugh, sing, dance in the starlight, make love, create art, etc. He essentially makes them 'perfect people' who won't kill each other, enjoy being free-spirited (For more dynamic experiences), as immortal as impossible, friendly with all the wildlife, and not as dependent on taking life to live themselves. All of this is in their nature, because he shaped them this way. He's also a 'good" god, and wants all his people to be happy - that said, his own entertainment comes first and foremost (But he's entertained by his people being happy)

Next player to join is Moradin. He wants to build magnificent wonders and sprawling fortresses and kick ass. He makes the Dwarves to be ideal soldiers and builders. Being a Good god himself, he also tries to ensure they're protected, are happy, but also are able to kick ass on demand and not balk at creating the magnificent wonders he wants to grace the world with. So dwarves are honest, hard-working, long-lived (So they don't suffer delays from the lead contractor falling over dead when overseeing a megaproject), hardy, loyal, and all that other good stuff. Its in they're natures, because Moradin shaped them to be that way. Of course, Corellon likes the world as it is, and tends to bicker with Moradin between leaving a beautiful mountain vista as it is, or turning it into a mighty carved fortress.

Third person to join is Gruumsh. This guy's a complete *******, and wants to be the biggest God on the server. So he makes the Orcs and shifts their nature to make them eternally warlike and aggressive. It is in their nature to fight each other to weed out the weak, incompetent, and unlucky and raise the levels of the stronger ones, then go off and try to conquer the world. The Orcs are made in Gruumsh's image, and thus are designed to brutally kick ass and reproduce as 'efficiently' as possible, without regard for longevity, compassion, or empathy. Wrecking Corellon and Moradin's games are what he loves most, forcing the two to ally against him.

Other racial and general dieties come in to fill the blanks. Nonracial dieties are more interested in grabbing those that others make and using them to their own ends - for example, Tempus just likes war and asskicking, so will grab anyone interested in being a badass mother****er and having them bash skulls until they're dead: He wants conflict and war and awesome battles, without caring about the actual lives of his soldiers (Though he loves it when they survive to fight another day). Talos, likewise, sees the world as a great big sandbox to throw highly destructive storms at and wreck ****. Sometimes he posts videos on GodTube of the more hilarious or awesome destruction sequences.

Mortals to deities are as relevant as Sims(Or the equivalent in any other God game) are to the average player. From this perspective, we can also actually see the Cosmic Alignments play out - "Good" deities care about the lives of their sims, and work to make them succeed. "Neutral" doesn't really care about the well-being of the Sims - they just tools and means to more important ends (Like building castles, or gathering information, or staging massive battles). "Evil" enjoys making the Sims suffer, and laughs/smiles at their helplessness against its whims. You can also see the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos also form from the perspective of "Deities playing a God Game MMO" instead of "Individuals fighting from the surface of the world".

And Ao is just interested in keeping the world running and the deities in some semblance of balance so no single player is completely ruining the fun for everyone else.


But yeah - compared to Deities, we are but maggots, WRITHING in the filth of Our OWN CORRUPTION!

[Morty]

But we leave the Drow in as a player option, because they're not ugly.

Wait, should that have been in my serious voice?

Probably, because that's what is actually going to happen.

[Gorfnod]

The thing that reallly throws this whole story upside for me is that back in the Transitions trilogy, I believe in the first book, when they were looking for Gauntlgrym they found some areas that were clearly built by dwarfs and orcs working together and living in harmony for centuries. I also remember that that book had flash forwards to the future, whether or not this "future" has gone by in the current timeline I am not sure, but at that time an orc from Many-Arrows was set to marry an elf.

This all led me to believe at the time that Salvatore was building up the orcs for something huge and I really hope that this new "orcs are EVIL" is not as simple as it seems.

[Sartharina]

My problem with the situation is that they're using The Forgotten Realms, which has had precedent for orcs not being "Always Chaotic Evil". While I don't have a problem with such races as a concept or in general (As seen in my above posts), plopping that onto an existing campaign setting that was originally otherwise is supposed to be a "no, don't do that".

Of course, that being said, it could still be the Good Gods (Especially racial ones) wanting the Orcs to be genocided because they're abominations, even though the people on the world would rather get along. Cosmic Good (As defined by the Good Gods) says Orcs are the spawn of evil and should be destroyed or turned into non-orcs. But the sims living in the world would don't see the bigger cosmic alignment picture as something that's as important, and can't be bothered with the games of capricious gods.

[Talakeal]

Part of the problem is people approach races in fantasy and theistic worlds in general from the wrong perspective. Mortals are largely irrelevant, because the "players" (Of the setting) are the gods. It's kind of like Godus, I think. People are supposed to serve Gods, not the other way around (Or are you a slave to your people, unable to quit games like The Sims, Godus, Black+White, Civilization, and Dwarf Fortress, or make your own decisions because 'it's what's best for my people, who I must serve" - Mortals are just as relevant to deities as Sims are to us.)

The Big Neutral Overdeity, Ao, is the system administrator and server host for the Forgotten Realms. He made a bunch of people to populate the world, but his only job is to ensure the world remains fair for the deities playing

Lets say the first player is Correllon. He's not so much into building stuff, but does like the world that's made. He takes the autonomous 'people' milling about and creates a race of Elves based on them, so he can watch them explore the world, laugh, sing, dance in the starlight, make love, create art, etc. He essentially makes them 'perfect people' who won't kill each other, enjoy being free-spirited (For more dynamic experiences), as immortal as impossible, friendly with all the wildlife, and not as dependent on taking life to live themselves. All of this is in their nature, because he shaped them this way. He's also a 'good" god, and wants all his people to be happy - that said, his own entertainment comes first and foremost (But he's entertained by his people being happy)

Next player to join is Moradin. He wants to build magnificent wonders and sprawling fortresses and kick ass. He makes the Dwarves to be ideal soldiers and builders. Being a Good god himself, he also tries to ensure they're protected, are happy, but also are able to kick ass on demand and not balk at creating the magnificent wonders he wants to grace the world with. So dwarves are honest, hard-working, long-lived (So they don't suffer delays from the lead contractor falling over dead when overseeing a megaproject), hardy, loyal, and all that other good stuff. Its in they're natures, because Moradin shaped them to be that way. Of course, Corellon likes the world as it is, and tends to bicker with Moradin between leaving a beautiful mountain vista as it is, or turning it into a mighty carved fortress.

Third person to join is Gruumsh. This guy's a complete *******, and wants to be the biggest God on the server. So he makes the Orcs and shifts their nature to make them eternally warlike and aggressive. It is in their nature to fight each other to weed out the weak, incompetent, and unlucky and raise the levels of the stronger ones, then go off and try to conquer the world. The Orcs are made in Gruumsh's image, and thus are designed to brutally kick ass and reproduce as 'efficiently' as possible, without regard for longevity, compassion, or empathy. Wrecking Corellon and Moradin's games are what he loves most, forcing the two to ally against him.

Other racial and general dieties come in to fill the blanks. Nonracial dieties are more interested in grabbing those that others make and using them to their own ends - for example, Tempus just likes war and asskicking, so will grab anyone interested in being a badass mother****er and having them bash skulls until they're dead: He wants conflict and war and awesome battles, without caring about the actual lives of his soldiers (Though he loves it when they survive to fight another day). Talos, likewise, sees the world as a great big sandbox to throw highly destructive storms at and wreck ****. Sometimes he posts videos on GodTube of the more hilarious or awesome destruction sequences.

Mortals to deities are as relevant as Sims(Or the equivalent in any other God game) are to the average player. From this perspective, we can also actually see the Cosmic Alignments play out - "Good" deities care about the lives of their sims, and work to make them succeed. "Neutral" doesn't really care about the well-being of the Sims - they just tools and means to more important ends (Like building castles, or gathering information, or staging massive battles). "Evil" enjoys making the Sims suffer, and laughs/smiles at their helplessness against its whims. You can also see the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos also form from the perspective of "Deities playing a God Game MMO" instead of "Individuals fighting from the surface of the world".

And Ao is just interested in keeping the world running and the deities in some semblance of balance so no single player is completely ruining the fun for everyone else.


But yeah - compared to Deities, we are but maggots, WRITHING in the filth of Our OWN CORRUPTION!

As if the gods in Forgotten Realms didn't seem bad enough, you have to impose all this on them to?

How would humans fit into the above scenario?

Also, how do you define a theistic world? For example, what would you say about my campaign world: It is based on Greek mythology. Humanity was created by Prometheus during the age of the titans. After the theft of sacred fire humans gained free will and the wisdom to challenge the gods and use their magic against them. The Olympians are younger than humanity and actually draw strength from mortal prayer and belief, and after the theft of fire this belief made them strong enough to overthrow the Titans and take the heavens for themselves. How would you analyze a campaign setting like that from this perspective?

[Sartharina]

As if the gods in Forgotten Realms didn't seem bad enough, you have to impose all this on them to?

How would humans fit into the above scenario?

Also, how do you define a theistic world? For example, what would you say about my campaign world: It is based on Greek mythology. Humanity was created by Prometheus during the age of the titans. After the theft of sacred fire humans gained free will and the wisdom to challenge the gods and use their magic against them. The Olympians are younger than humanity and actually draw strength from mortal prayer and belief, and after the theft of fire this belief made them strong enough to overthrow the Titans and take the heavens for themselves. How would you analyze a campaign setting like that from this perspective?

You say this makes Gods look bad. Have you ever played any video games? (Especially strategy or God games). How much do you actually care about those people? Does your lack of care/commitment to those people make you a bad person? They're just as real to each other as I am to you, and just as unreal/inconsequential to us as we are to deities.

A Theistic world is any that is created by Gods for the pleasure of the gods. As for Olympian settings - The gods are fallible, but unless you have a death-wish, it's stupid to go against them. It's not fair, but then again, nothing is. It's just the way things are, and you can either accept that and go along with it or try to change it and likely end up in eternal torture for your efforts because the Gods can do that, and there's not a damn thing you actually can do about it.

Whether you think deities are right or wrong doesn't matter, because, as a mortal, nothing about you actually matters unless a god chooses to make it matter. And even then, it's only the reaction of the god that matters.Your life and opinion, like mine, is as irrelevant as Pikeman #485 in any RTS.

[Talakeal]

You say this makes Gods look bad. Have you ever played any video games? (Especially strategy or God games). How much do you actually care about those people? Does your lack of care/commitment to those people make you a bad person? They're just as real to each other as I am to you, and just as unreal/inconsequential to us as we are to deities.

A Theistic world is any that is created by Gods for the pleasure of the gods. As for Olympian settings - The gods are fallible, but unless you have a death-wish, it's stupid to go against them. It's not fair, but then again, nothing is. It's just the way things are, and you can either accept that and go along with it or try to change it and likely end up in eternal torture for your efforts because the Gods can do that, and there's not a damn thing you actually can do about it.

Whether you think deities are right or wrong doesn't matter, because, as a mortal, nothing about you actually matters unless a god chooses to make it matter. And even then, it's only the reaction of the god that matters.Your life and opinion, like mine, is as irrelevant as Pikeman #485 in any RTS.

Here is the thing, people in a video game aren't real. They can't think for themselves, feel pain, or feel emotions. No technology available to man has anything but the most rudimentary self awareness. If they did, yes, I damn well would consider myself evil for making people an AI and not caring about its well being.

This goes even further in Forgotten Realms and similar fiction. The whole purpose of a god in most such settings is to put a humanoid face onto an uncaring and incomprehensible universe. The gods are fundamentally people. They are never shown to act, think, or usually even look different than mortal creatures. Mortals can and do outsmart, befriend, kill, become lovers of, and even replace the gods in FR, and it doesn't take much optimization at all to be smarter or more skilled than a deity, even within their own portfolio.

A more apt comparison between would probably be something like adults and children. The gods are better, but not significantly so, and are fundamentally the same sort of creature, just a more advanced form.

[Sartharina]

Here is the thing, people in a video game aren't real. They can't think for themselves, feel pain, or feel emotions. No technology available to man has anything but the most rudimentary self awareness. If they did, yes, I damn well would consider myself evil for making people an AI and not caring about its well being.They feel/think they can, to an extent allowed by their simulation. We also only think for ourselves, feel pain, feel emotions/etc to the extent allowed by our world. Gods have similar justifications for their dismissal of mortals, because we cannot experience life in the same way they do, or even comprehend what it's like to be able to do so, just as a Sim has no idea how to do what it does.

"People make Gods to put a face on uncaring concepts" is a non/antitheistic viewpoint of dieties: One that posits that Gods are created by people, not the other way around (As it is in theistic worlds).

[Talakeal]

They feel/think they can, to an extent allowed by their simulation. We also only think for ourselves, feel pain, feel emotions/etc to the extent allowed by our world. Gods have similar justifications for their dismissal of mortals, because we cannot experience life in the same way they do, or even comprehend what it's like to be able to do so, just as a Sim has no idea how to do what it does.

"People make Gods to put a face on uncaring concepts" is a non/antitheistic viewpoint of dieties: One that posits that Gods are created by people, not the other way around (As it is in theistic worlds).

I meant from the author's perspective. You only have Olympian style gods if you are trying to have them behave like and interact with humans. Otherwise forgotten realms deities would be like Azethoth or something.

Nothing in FR really shows deities as being beyond mortals. Take Mystra for example. Her predecessor was killed by a mortal. She herself is an ascended mortal. She has a mortal lover. She takes on a mortal appearance. She has clearly recognizable goals, motives, and actions. It is fully possible for a human to be smarter, wiser, more skilled, and even a better wizard than she is. She has never been depicted as anything more than a mortal with a handful of nifty divine rank powers.

[Blightedmarsh]

One could argue that the war between good and evil is not a diametrically opposed clash of virtues but instead they are imperfectly opposed competing systems.

I say imperfect because their are things they hold in common and many things that good and eveil just don't care about. Things like the survival of the universe, family (the desire to reproduce), strength and power are just good businesses sense for all concerned. Things like personal honor, freedom and order are just beyond the remit of plane old good and evil.

It is ok for a goblin to be evil. An evil goblin would believe in his evil system, follow its evil tenets and be rewarded in its evil afterlife. Such a goblin would view acts of good as bad-wrong; things utterly antithetical with its believe system.

Conversely It is OK for a good god to want to kill them all. These beings are a self multiplying vectors for the opposing system; like a virus. The level of hostility is reciprocal and it brings us all down to the same level. In the end goblins and gods are just cogs in the great engines driving the world.

[Sartharina]

I'd say its possible that interspecies/racial tolerance and empathy aren't inherently 'Good', but rather "Human" things (With the idea of "people"ness as a quality completely separate from race and species being a uniquely human concept), due to several qualities that make humans unique, such as no guaranteed afterlife (Instead of a racially-defined one that can be opted-out of, while humans must opt-in to an afterlife), their dramatic differences in personality and appearance across the species, and also from at least one of their creation myths stating they actually are made from all the other races and species.

[Blightedmarsh]

Under this interpretation humanity is a slightly Lovecraft creature; a thing subtly but fundamentally other from the wider world. We try to interpenetrate the universes black and white morality under the influence of our own blue and orange ethos and it doesn't quite work out right.

Gods help the world when humans become gods.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

[Sartharina]

Under this interpretation humanity is a slightly Lovecraft creature; a thing subtly but fundamentally other from the wider world. We try to interpenetrate the universes black and white morality under the influence of our own blue and orange ethos and it doesn't quite work out right.

Gods help the world when humans become gods.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" Under that interpretation, every race is a slightly Lovecraftian creature. Other races have qualities possessed by humans, but carried to an extent incomprehensible to human minds (But it doesn't stop them from trying and coming up with decent allegories, simulations, and approximations).

[Blightedmarsh]

Yeah I can run with that; anything is better than humans with funny ears.

[hamishspence]

The thing that reallly throws this whole story upside for me is that back in the Transitions trilogy, I believe in the first book, when they were looking for Gauntlgrym they found some areas that were clearly built by dwarfs and orcs working together and living in harmony for centuries. I also remember that that book had flash forwards to the future, whether or not this "future" has gone by in the current timeline I am not sure, but at that time an orc from Many-Arrows was set to marry an elf.

This all led me to believe at the time that Salvatore was building up the orcs for something huge and I really hope that this new "orcs are EVIL" is not as simple as it seems.

Seconded. Though it wasn't an elf, but a human- called Handel Aviv. They were going to be married in the Glimmerwood though - which was elven territory.