D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Morty]

In which case, so in your opinion every character has to act exactly like Shadow from Digger, constantly asking everything if they are sentient or not, and then putting everything through a litmus test to see if it is sapient?

Funny how you were just explaining what is and isn't a strawman and now you're throwing a textbook case of one around. I'm not sure why I should answer this question, seeing as it's in no way related to my position.

Again, some people just want to sit around and kill stuff. Why is their fun something that you want to not have in D&D?

I don't want to have it because I think it's bad writing and bad design. Not something a good game ought to have. How is it different from everything else people have declared bad and undesirable in this thread and others?

Ok, this part I can buy. However, I don't think anything in the current description contradicts this line of play. The Orc description details what motivates an orc, specifically expansion of territory, and acquisition of females. Nowhere does it say that orcs will kill everything on sight and can't be negotiated with. Orcs and such are only always-evil if you interpret them to be.

The reason that new players don't stop and try to negotiate with the orcs isn't because they are told that the orcs can't be negotiated with. It's because they never think to because they're too busy having fun smashing orcs in the face.

Certainly some players enjoy the negotiation approach more, but I can't see anything that would prevent them from taking that approach. Heck, there's even rules expressly written for doing just such a thing.

In the end, it just comes down to what your group enjoys. If you like smashing in and beating orcs in the face, then you're provided for. If you'd rather have an eloquent debate with the orcs about objectivisim and the morality of looting, then nothing's stopping you from doing that either.

See, I don't think the reason many players just skip straight to murdering everything with green skin and fangs they see lies entirely in the way they view the game. The fact is that the books call these races Evil, with a capital E in addition to painting them in the worst possible light. It doesn't matter that they're only "usually/ofen evil". The implication is that they're Evil, so it's okay to kill them. Don't tell me you've never seen this approach expressed. And I think that it's bad design and bad writing.
The Usually/Often Evil part is funny in 3.x D&D, anyway. Technically speaking, you're more likely to meet a Good orc than an Evil elf and just as likely to meet a Good goblin as an Evil elf. But it's in no way represented in the actual fluff and descriptions.