Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Dr.Samurai]

Or even modern Japan, for that matter.

[Brookshw]

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

Let's not go into RW countries/cultures please.

[Mordar]

This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.

"Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal I can do much with beyond disagree.

I do not believe diversity/inclusion to be a necessary (but presumably not sufficient?) characteristic for a culture/society/race to be good. I believe there are individual characteristics sufficient to make a society under current game definitions Evil. I believe there are characteristics that are necessary to be Good (respect for life being paramount), but I do not think I believe there are any characteristics that are sufficient on their own.

Diversity/inclusion requires an array of preconditions, and stating that it is a hallmark and a good society cannot exist without it seems to ignore those preconditions. Opportunity. Resources. Bilateral intention. As such, I do not believe it to be necessary.

On the other end of the map from my PEDR sits a small chain of islands, separated from the main continent by a maelstrom. Populated by blue goblins. These are the only blue goblins in the world. The settlements have democratically elected leadership, venerate and respect elders, protect young, adult and old alike, have codified laws, share in effort and reward, practice pragmatic and ethical altruism. The settlements share resources and work together, especially in times of strife. They form a council that acts to the benefit of all member settlements. They cannot be Good?

That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good.

Or if you don't have sufficient resources to accommodate expansion, so you will rescue the person lost in the desert, nurse them back to health and then deliver them safely to their destination...but your narrow band of arable land and small stream-fed pond fish population can only support your settlement of 100 or so gnomes. Or even if you do, the Gnolls Next Door want to retain their hereditary constitutional monarchy while your Kobold Enclave maintains its theocratic government driven by the Divinity of Compassionate Kobold Paladinhood.

Or...your community of Deep Gnomes knows that if you let the Duergar integrate into the community you'll be working the spice mines in no time, and if the Menzo Drow say they want to diversify your town, what they mean is they want to incorporate more spiders and a lot fewer gnomes through an innovative but non-optional career and lifestyle redevelopment initiative.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Let's not go into RW countries/cultures please.

Sorry, good catch on your part.

[Psyren]

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

We definitely can't discuss that here and I think you know that.
Moreover - all owls are birds, not all birds are owls.

An arbitrary distinction that I don't think anyone has supported or substantiated.

It's not arbitrary at all. Volition has always been a component of morality; it's the reason why we don't call viruses immoral, or why the actions of dominated creatures are judged differently.

Psyren... this is an untenable position. There's no way you actually believe this.

What's untenable about it?

Diversity/Inclusion is a superficial metric. In fact, all of you are arguing for diverse/inclusive EVIL societies, instead of ones made up purely of orcs or drow. It's extremely easy to imagine that the Hill Giant Steading is instead the Raider's Steading, and is filled with elves and dwarves and halflings and trolls and giants that all want to equal raid and pillage and conquer. Their diverse nature doesn't make them good.

That doesn't matter. Because if we allow these peoples to maintain their culture and lore (gasp! I know, but bear with me) then maybe others won't want to live there! So if dwarves are taciturn dark-dwellers toiling away at their crafts and mining and drinking lots of beer etc... and elves don't particularly take to that culture and lifestyle then it makes sense that we wouldn't see a bunch of elves living among the dwarves. That doesn't make the dwarves "not good", it makes them distinct.

If you wash away all the stuff that makes the races what they are, which we all know is the accusation levied against WotC at the moment, then MAYBE you can expect that all the races would be mingled in together amongst each other.

Traditionally that's been the purview of human nations, where the other races can come together.

What you guys want is that instead of PC adventurers representing the people that buck trends or break free of cultural norms, you want EVERY MEMBER of EVERY RACE to buck trends and break free of cultural norms.

If you think diversity and inclusion are superficial then that's going to make it very hard for us to see eye to eye.

And the only monocultures I'm advocating for are a compromise to meet you halfway. Lolth is a goddess, she should have the capability to oppress a city or three. That allows you to have loci of evil drow without it being biodeterminism. Both sides get what they want, or at least I thought.

[JusticeZero]

I can tolerate the quantifiable Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos, with Neutrals thrown in on all sides), and believe the measurement can be accurate and consistent...but the validity is an interesting question. Is it really measuring what whomever thinks it is?

Careful, whenever I raise this point, the reaction is quite dismissive and focused on ethical theories which arguably don't apply in the trope set of D&D and descendants thereof, because those theories do not create the sort of non-nuanced, absolute results that the tropes require in order to create the absolute and impartially measurable results that the system requires.
Indeed, if you look at the discussions in this thread, "Good" and "Evil" are being discussed as absolute properties independent of relative relationships between agents.

I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will.

Free will is an issue, but honestly a separate one. In this case though, an absolute alignment has some consequences, relative to the Problem Of Evil.

1. If an agent is validly and measurably Absolute Good, they must perform Good acts at every point of choice, and cannot have free will.
2. If an agent is measurably Absolute Good and in possession of free will — and therefore prone to making some non-Good choices — then the validity of the measurement is in question.

I have found that the validity of the test is beyond questioning; any suggestion that the test can be gamed or falsified into giving spurious results has been met with disbelief, incredulity, and hostility.

While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one..

And here we see an example, if a small one, of asserting alignment as a material property.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not arbitrary at all. Volition has always been a component of morality; it's the reason why we don't call viruses immoral, or why the actions of dominated creatures are judged differently.

I am referring to the playable/nonplayable distinction you keep insisting on.

What's untenable about it?

I think I demonstrated that in the post you're quoting. What is unclear?

If you think diversity and inclusion are superficial then that's going to make it very hard for us to see eye to eye.

A superficial metric to determine morality. Someone isn't good by virtue of wanting diversity and inclusion.

And the only monocultures I'm advocating for are a compromise to meet you halfway. Lolth is a goddess, she should have the capability to oppress a city or three. That allows you to have loci of evil drow without it being biodeterminism. Both sides get what they want, or at least I thought.

There are far more than "three" evil drow cities in the Underdark. The loci are the goodly drow.

And this hasn't been biodeterministic since its inception, because again, you've been able to play renegade drow for almost 50 years. One was included in the first module to feature them. And they've been included since. Etc.

[Psyren]

I am referring to the playable/nonplayable distinction you keep insisting on.

Those go hand in hand. A species can't be both playable and lack volition, otherwise how is the player roleplaying their decision-making process? Are they following a prewritten script that you hand them during session zero?

I think I demonstrated that in the post you're quoting. What is unclear?

I don't see what's untenable about the idea that Good cultures value tolerance and inclusivity. That's table-stakes.

A superficial metric to determine morality. Someone isn't good by virtue of wanting diversity and inclusion.

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.

There are far more than "three" evil drow cities in the Underdark. The loci are the goodly drow.

How many there are in the Underdark is irrelevant; they are sufficient evidence of Lolth's power without needing a crutch of biodeterminism across all Drow on the planet or in the multiverse.

And this hasn't been biodeterministic since its inception, because again, you've been able to play renegade drow for almost 50 years. One was included in the first module to feature them. And they've been included since. Etc.

So after 50 years IRL or centuries in-universe, none of these renegade drow have been able to establish or integrate themselves into non-evil communities or cultures?

[Brookshw]

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.

Still feels kind of extreme. We can pass each other a million times without saying a word to each other and yet and if I see you get in a car accident on the highway I can immediately pull over, grab my first aid kit, and help; that doesn't mean if I see you pulled over on the side of the highway taking a piss I need to stop and chat, right? I think the thing that's often lost in the discussion is that some want to see inclusiveness held up as the shining light,where as for others the bar is set at not being exclusive, and they are indeed different things.

[Dr.Samurai]

Those go hand in hand. A species can't be both playable and lack volition, otherwise how is the player roleplaying their decision-making process? Are they following a prewritten script that you hand them during session zero?

Who, apart from constructs, lacks volition in D&D?

I don't see what's untenable about the idea that Good cultures value tolerance and inclusivity. That's table-stakes.

Psyren, let's try and avoid word games. Dwarves can be tolerant and inclusive and still live in mostly homogenous communities. You are placing a physical requirement on being "good", which is that communities have some number of diverse peoples in them.

I can't imagine that anyone would agree with this standard.

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.

So you say, but I'd like to see you address our specific rebuttals to this, such as Mordar's, Brookshw's, and my own.

How many there are in the Underdark is irrelevant;

It's not irrelevant. It's always been the case that there are good drow, it just wasn't ENOUGH for you and others. You want more good, less evil. So the numbers are indeed absolutely relevant.

they are sufficient evidence of Lolth's power without needing a crutch of biodeterminism across all Drow on the planet or in the multiverse.

Drow were never biodeterministic. Nor were orcs.

So after 50 years IRL or centuries in-universe, none of these renegade drow have been able to establish or integrate themselves into non-evil communities or cultures?

I thought they did. I thought there was that good drow deity. I am not sure what this would do for you; the drow are renegades from... evil drow culture.

[Mordar]

Careful, whenever I raise this point, the reaction is quite dismissive and focused on ethical theories which arguably don't apply in the trope set of D&D and descendants thereof, because those theories do not create the sort of non-nuanced, absolute results that the tropes require in order to create the absolute and impartially measurable results that the system requires.
Indeed, if you look at the discussions in this thread, "Good" and "Evil" are being discussed as absolute properties independent of relative relationships between agents.

I believe you can measure (at least in a threshold presence style of measurement) Good and Evil and Law and Chaos because there are spells that detect those things. I believe that a game might very well have a clear definition of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. I do not necessarily believe, however, that Good is always synonymous with good, Evil with evil, Law with law, Chaos with chaos...though those last two might tend to cleave more true. Similarly, a D&D Evil person can do good, and even some Good. Within that capacity, the test is accurate, consistent and valid.

In short, I guess I'd say "Detect Evil detects the presence, above a set threshold, of the quality the setting in which it is cast, defines Evil. That definition of Evil may not be the same as local or regional definitions of Evil and/or evil, where "evil" is defined by the morality of the people playing the game that contains said spell." So, casting Detect Evil will return an accurate, consistent, valid result for the presence of Evil. The test is not fallible (assuming no contravening magic in play). However, that doesn't tell the caster if the target is necessarily a "bad guy". Within this capacity...well, it might be using a ruler to measure color.

Free will is an issue, but honestly a separate one. In this case though, an absolute alignment has some consequences, relative to the Problem Of Evil.

1. If an agent is validly and measurably Absolute Good, they must perform Good acts at every point of choice, and cannot have free will.
2. If an agent is measurably Absolute Good and in possession of free will — and therefore prone to making some non-Good choices — then the validity of the measurement is in question.

I have found that the validity of the test is beyond questioning; any suggestion that the test can be gamed or falsified into giving spurious results has been met with disbelief, incredulity, and hostility.

Is this ("must perform Good acts at every point") game-supported? Any version of D&D acceptable for purposes of this conversation. Other games could apply too...

Potentially tricky - an agent is "absolute" Good and *will* or *must* perform Good at every point of choice? And is it "must perform Good" or is it "mustn't perform Evil"? Because that is the whole crux of the "I can't leap over tall buildings" point. Then, of course, we can also spin into the drain of "Must it be net Good, maximum Good, Good as projected by some reasonable chain of events..." which should have the whole Logic Bomb effect on any Absolute (Alignment) beings.

Not sure about measurability of "absolute" Good - Detect (Alignment) is a binary, not a scalar, right?

Is the Good (or Evil) of these beings immutable? That seems to not be the case given Fallen/Redeemed.

And here we see an example, if a small one, of asserting alignment as a material property.

In terms of measurability by the test, absolutely. But Evil doesn't necessarily mean evil. That's my conceit.

I don't see what's untenable about the idea that Good cultures value tolerance and inclusivity. That's table-stakes.

That's not the only Good quality they should have, sure - but lacking that quality is a pretty big indicator that you're not dealing with a Good culture.

Previously you said "...the hallmark...", and that an isolationist monospecies culture cannot be good ("oxymoron"), using diversity and inclusion. Hence my response that it is not necessary. Tolerance means something different to me, and I would agree with "lacking that quality" is a potential flag that a society is non-Good, but not a guarantee.

- M

[Brookshw]

So you say, but I'd like to see you address our specific rebuttals to this, such as Mordar's, Brookshw's, and my own.

For clarity, I'm not in lockstep with you and Mordar; while I think Psyren's a bit extreme on this point of inclusiveness and diversity = goodness, you and Mordar are making a number of arguments I'm not in agreement with but don't have time to rebut.

[gbaji]

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron.

Add me to the list of folks kinda looking askance at this one. While I agree that evil socieities are going to tend to restrict the potential for diversity, and inclusivity, and tolerance for such, the cause/effect relationship does not swing in the other direction. It's entirely possible to have cultures which are somewhat uniform and non-diverse, but are absolutely good. Doubly so when considering a fantasy setting.

I think that those traits are generally applied to human cultures. It's commonly used in sci-fi/fantasy to distiguish humans from other races. A good part of that, of course, is that the folks playing those games, or watching those films/series are humans (that's us!), so we tend to put ourselves at the center of the stories playing out. It's why humans are the ones who form the core of the Federation in Star Trek. The same concept is expressed directly in Babylon5. The other races are all happy just hanging out and doing their own thing, and only interacting with others to the degree they feel they need to (which does not make them evil at all), but humans seem to have this desire to mix things up and actually spend time getting to know everyone else. Again. It's a setting thing, and allows the stories/settings to prominently feature humans (oftten despite the fact that humans are usually shown to be weaker, less magical, or less technological than other races in these settings).

This is certainly a feature of most fatasy settings. Human cities and kingdoms tend to act as the centers for trade and commerce and whatnot, and tend to be teaming with all sorts of different people from all over, including lots of different folks of all the different races in the setting. Again, this is mostly because humans play the game, so we tend to view things from our own point of view, so we want familiar settings to play in, but then we need to justify being able to play a dwarf or elf or whatever in the same game as our fellow players, so.... human places have elves, and dwarves, and whatnot in them. But, when we go travel to "dwarftown", guess what we see? Dwarves. When we go to elftown, we see elves. Cause, as players, when we go to those places, we are going to "other" places, which need to be different than the one we just came from, so they have just the race that's there.

I suppose we could call this a failing, maybe. But what's the solution? Just assume that all races are equally present everywhere, and only differentiate them based on geography, trade goods, natural resources and whatnot? That's now tending towards a very very vanilla setting.

I think diversity and inclusion are very human traits. And, as humans, we apply a "good" label to that, but it's a very human centric view to then apply "not-good" to any other race which does include those traits.

Careful, whenever I raise this point, the reaction is quite dismissive and focused on ethical theories which arguably don't apply in the trope set of D&D and descendants thereof, because those theories do not create the sort of non-nuanced, absolute results that the tropes require in order to create the absolute and impartially measurable results that the system requires.
Indeed, if you look at the discussions in this thread, "Good" and "Evil" are being discussed as absolute properties independent of relative relationships between agents.

Well. At the end of the day, we are playing a game in an imaginary setting. I do think there's a point at which the focsus is on the fact that this is "not the real world", and we just accept that and move on.

We can take every single aspect of our fantasy gaming super seriously, and spend tons of time examining those things, and coming up with ways they are analgous to "real world" philosophical concepts (especially when looking at alignment), and then spend huge amounts of time wringing our hands over the RW ethical implications of the effects of fantasy game alignment considerations. Or we can just play the game, accepting that this is not our world, and that the characters we play do not exist in our real world, and that we should maybe not worry too much about whether "Joe plays a half-orc assassin, who kills people for money, so maybe Joe is an evil person for playing that character, and I need to be worried that he's going to kill me in my sleep".

I think there's value in separating things that exist in a fantasy RPG setting, and how different things (especially alignment) are viewed within such games, and how people actually view these things, or act on these sorts of things, in the real world. At the end of the day, RPGs are about playing people who are "not us".

[Dr.Samurai]

For clarity, I'm not in lockstep with you and Mordar; while I think Psyren's a bit extreme on this point of inclusiveness and diversity = goodness, you and Mordar are making a number of arguments I'm not in agreement with but don't have time to rebut.

I didn't think for a second that we were in lockstep lol, but I appreciate you feel strongly enough to make the point .

I don't think anyone in this thread is in lockstep with me for that matter. But I probably feel as strongly in one direction as some people do in the other, especially when these arguments are made "on my behalf" but generally worsen the things that I like and make everyone else walk on eggshells.

Add me to the list of folks kinda looking askance at this one. While I agree that evil socieities are going to tend to restrict the potential for diversity, and inclusivity, and tolerance for such, the cause/effect relationship does not swing in the other direction. It's entirely possible to have cultures which are somewhat uniform and non-diverse, but are absolutely good. Doubly so when considering a fantasy setting.

Indeed.

I think that those traits are generally applied to human cultures. It's commonly used in sci-fi/fantasy to distiguish humans from other races. A good part of that, of course, is that the folks playing those games, or watching those films/series are humans (that's us!), so we tend to put ourselves at the center of the stories playing out. It's why humans are the ones who form the core of the Federation in Star Trek. The same concept is expressed directly in Babylon5. The other races are all happy just hanging out and doing their own thing, and only interacting with others to the degree they feel they need to (which does not make them evil at all), but humans seem to have this desire to mix things up and actually spend time getting to know everyone else. Again. It's a setting thing, and allows the stories/settings to prominently feature humans (oftten despite the fact that humans are usually shown to be weaker, less magical, or less technological than other races in these settings).

This is certainly a feature of most fatasy settings. Human cities and kingdoms tend to act as the centers for trade and commerce and whatnot, and tend to be teaming with all sorts of different people from all over, including lots of different folks of all the different races in the setting. Again, this is mostly because humans play the game, so we tend to view things from our own point of view, so we want familiar settings to play in, but then we need to justify being able to play a dwarf or elf or whatever in the same game as our fellow players, so.... human places have elves, and dwarves, and whatnot in them. But, when we go travel to "dwarftown", guess what we see? Dwarves. When we go to elftown, we see elves. Cause, as players, when we go to those places, we are going to "other" places, which need to be different than the one we just came from, so they have just the race that's there.

I suppose we could call this a failing, maybe. But what's the solution? Just assume that all races are equally present everywhere, and only differentiate them based on geography, trade goods, natural resources and whatnot? That's now tending towards a very very vanilla setting.

I think diversity and inclusion are very human traits. And, as humans, we apply a "good" label to that, but it's a very human centric view to then apply "not-good" to any other race which does include those traits.

All of this is QFT.

This is why I say that people making these claims/complaints don't seem to understand the game they're playing, or are refusing to accept the premises in the first place, and want to transform it into something more palatable to them. It's undeniable.

"D&D is for everyone" so long as you disparage everything that's come before and change it into something else.

Well. At the end of the day, we are playing a game in an imaginary setting. I do think there's a point at which the focsus is on the fact that this is "not the real world", and we just accept that and move on.

We can take every single aspect of our fantasy gaming super seriously, and spend tons of time examining those things, and coming up with ways they are analgous to "real world" philosophical concepts (especially when looking at alignment), and then spend huge amounts of time wringing our hands over the RW ethical implications of the effects of fantasy game alignment considerations. Or we can just play the game, accepting that this is not our world, and that the characters we play do not exist in our real world, and that we should maybe not worry too much about whether "Joe plays a half-orc assassin, who kills people for money, so maybe Joe is an evil person for playing that character, and I need to be worried that he's going to kill me in my sleep".

I think there's value in separating things that exist in a fantasy RPG setting, and how different things (especially alignment) are viewed within such games, and how people actually view these things, or act on these sorts of things, in the real world. At the end of the day, RPGs are about playing people who are "not us".

Very well said.

[Witty Username]

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.

I saw a video recently of a dude showing off his "Warboss Orkka NobuDakka" based off of Oda Nobunaga but through the lens of 40k.

Nothing to do with this conversation, just cool.

[Brookshw]

I saw a video recently of a dude showing off his "Warboss Orkka NobuDakka" based off of Oda Nobunaga but through the lens of 40k.

Nothing to do with this conversation, just cool.

40k orks and their conversions are usually awesome, feel free to link the video!

[Psyren]

Who, apart from constructs, lacks volition in D&D?

With regards to moral decisions? Fiends, Celestials, many Aberrations, many Undead...

Psyren, let's try and avoid word games. Dwarves can be tolerant and inclusive and still live in mostly homogenous communities. You are placing a physical requirement on being "good", which is that communities have some number of diverse peoples in them.
...
So you say, but I'd like to see you address our specific rebuttals to this, such as Mordar's, Brookshw's, and my own.

Once again - all owls are birds, not all birds are owls.
Evil monospecies cultures are isolationist. Not all isolationist cultures are evil monospecies.

When a good dwarf society is homogenous - which, again, let me know if there's a specific printed example you're thinking of for this - it's not because Moradin commanded them to stay away from 'inferior races' like Lolth did. It's because of other reasons - like they live under a big mountain where those other races can't exist as easily. But if a bunch of rock gnomes move there, they're not going to get enslaved or murdered in the middle of the night either like a high elf moving to Menzo would.

It's not irrelevant. It's always been the case that there are good drow, it just wasn't ENOUGH for you and others. You want more good, less evil. So the numbers are indeed absolutely relevant.

The numbers need to be such that attacking a drow on sight just because they're a drow is never justified. Same for orcs.

[Witty Username]

Free will is an issue, but honestly a separate one. In this case though, an absolute alignment has some consequences, relative to the Problem Of Evil.

1. If an agent is validly and measurably Absolute Good, they must perform Good acts at every point of choice, and cannot have free will.
2. If an agent is measurably Absolute Good and in possession of free will — and therefore prone to making some non-Good choices — then the validity of the measurement is in question.

I have found that the validity of the test is beyond questioning; any suggestion that the test can be gamed or falsified into giving spurious results has been met with disbelief, incredulity, and hostility.

I am not familiar with a version of the Problem of Evil that didn't include omnipotence and omniscience as part of its assumptions.

Would this mean flaws of competence would be describable as Evil? I am not sure if I understand the point.

[Mordar]

I saw a video recently of a dude showing off his "Warboss Orkka NobuDakka" based off of Oda Nobunaga but through the lens of 40k.

Nothing to do with this conversation, just cool.

40k orks and their conversions are usually awesome, feel free to link the video!

Now the questions...(a) what clan? and (b) are 40k Orks always Evil, or just always Chaotic?

No joy in searching for the video/reference. Backed into the video...

Red as expected. Like the overlaying shoulder plates. Would have preferred a little less combi-gun, but it is Dakka after all...

- M

[Brookshw]

Now the questions...(a) what clan? and (b) are 40k Orks always Evil, or just always Chaotic?
- M

(B) Pffft. Orks is best. Duh.

[Mordar]

(B) Pffft. Orks is best. Duh.

...for use as ablative armor.

- M

[Dr.Samurai]

With regards to moral decisions? Fiends, Celestials, many Aberrations, many Undead...

So Zariel choosing to become a fiend is not a "moral" decision? And then choosing to become a celestial again is not a "moral" decision?

What text is there that supports aberrations not having free will?

Evil monospecies cultures are isolationist. Not all isolationist cultures are evil monospecies.

This is a different point.

When a good dwarf society is homogenous - which, again, let me know if there's a specific printed example you're thinking of for this - it's not because Moradin commanded them to stay away from 'inferior races' like Lolth did. It's because of other reasons - like they live under a big mountain where those other races can't exist as easily. But if a bunch of rock gnomes move there, they're not going to get enslaved or murdered in the middle of the night either like a high elf moving to Menzo would.

This strikes me as a weak way to make the point you want to make, but with this phrasing I understand the point you're trying to make.

I don't know that it's true, given that Menzo has about 115 free orcs that live there, and 115 free humans that live there. Seems to me that even evil homogenous societies can have different kinds of people living there.

The numbers need to be such that attacking a drow on sight just because they're a drow is never justified. Same for orcs.

Oh, I see. So then... Forgotten Realms is still borked right? Because almost all drow are "udadrow", the evil kind. The other two kinds are "so secretive" that almost know one knows of their existence.

So if the only drow I know of are the kinds that pillage, raid, kidnap, and kill, I suppose a violent reaction still makes sense right?

[Grim Portent]

Now the questions...(a) what clan? and (b) are 40k Orks always Evil, or just always Chaotic?

No joy in searching for the video/reference. Backed into the video...

Red as expected. Like the overlaying shoulder plates. Would have preferred a little less combi-gun, but it is Dakka after all...

- M

With regards to B, always Evil. As in 100%, every ork is evil unless it's got some kind of mental disorder that makes it stop being like an ork. Orkz are bioweapons with an instinctive drive to destroy things and reshape their surroundings towards serving their militaristic society, with the sole purpose of continuing an endless and pointless war against everything. They are cruel to one another and to non-greenskins simply because they enjoy it, not for the sake of malice or anything, but because they are programmed to consider might good and weakness bad on a genetic level. A bunch of freshly spawned boyz with no mature orkz to tell them what to do will instinctively bludgeon each other into submission with rocks and sticks until one emerges as the leader. They eat each other when no other food is available, eat humans and eldar and so on without a care,* engage in slavery instinctively, torture, inhumane medical experiments, runaway industrial practices with no safety or environmental standards, and of course generally fight everything and anything they encounter with genocidal intent.

Because of how most of them work and their general lack of intelligence I wouldn't even say the average ork boy is a moral agent though, they aren't really able to change and their decision making process is incredibly simplistic, I don't think they can even understand right and wrong.

Oddboyz can be more morally complex, especially Freebootaz, because they are independantly minded and weird, which tends to result in them being more intelligent, and the habit of hanging out with other races makes Freebootaz in particular learn about other value systems from people they have generally earned at least some respect for. Nowhere near enough to stop being horrible creatures mind you, but maybe less horrible than other orkz. Painboyz on the other are even generally more evil than normal boyz because their medical instincts tend to lead to various forms of sadistic experimentation.


*In and of itself I don't consider cannibalism evil, a dead body is a dead body after all. It's that orkz kill people to eat them that I consider bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

. Dwarves can be tolerant and inclusive and still live in mostly homogenous communities. You are placing a physical requirement on being "good", which is that communities have some number of diverse peoples in them.

I can't imagine that anyone would agree with this standard.

I certainly don't, and neither did the Galadrim nor Thranduil's people.

Psyren, your use of the term isolationist is an anachronism - using a 20th century idiom for a pseudo-medieval assumption - in this conversation about the TTRPG. It is borderline going where I almost went with Japan (and I thanked Brookshw for catching me before we headed there) that you tried to bust my onions about.

Yoru approach to this is a part of the problem. To be fair to you, you are not the only contributor who does this, but it's a problem:
throwing your assumptions out as an axiom or a truth.

[Mordar]

*In and of itself I don't consider cannibalism evil, a dead body is a dead body after all. It's that orkz kill people to eat them that I consider bad.

Since they are really myconids, does it really count as cannibalism?

On topic, Squats never interested me. Similarly, Votann holds no attraction. I wonder why that is...

- M

[Psyren]

So Zariel choosing to become a fiend is not a "moral" decision? And then choosing to become a celestial again is not a "moral" decision?

That's exactly the point. The only way for Zariel, an angel, to do something non-angelic was to stop being an angel. It was literally impossible for her to remain an angel and be evil. And she was an extremely exceptional individual. Do you not see how that is a different existence than that of an orc or drow?

What text is there that supports aberrations not having free will?

I said "many" - but which ones do you think do? Mind Flayers don't. Aboleths don't. Beholders don't. They enter the world wanting to dominate, enthrall and/or destroy all other sentient life. If you're looking for a species that it is presumptively okay to use violence against, use those instead of orcs.

This is a different point.

This strikes me as a weak way to make the point you want to make, but with this phrasing I understand the point you're trying to make.

I don't know that it's true, given that Menzo has about 115 free orcs that live there, and 115 free humans that live there. Seems to me that even evil homogenous societies can have different kinds of people living there.

SCAG only mentions slaves and impermanent traders:

"If you aren’t a drow in the City of Spiders, you aren’t worth a name. All manner of surface-dwellers — orcs and elves, humans and halflings — are brought here to serve as slaves to the drow in their refuge. The constant fear of punishment, from one’s mistress or another, more powerful drow, keeps most slaves obedient, even when they aren’t directly supervised."

Oh, I see. So then... Forgotten Realms is still borked right? Because almost all drow are "udadrow", the evil kind. The other two kinds are "so secretive" that almost know one knows of their existence.

So if the only drow I know of are the kinds that pillage, raid, kidnap, and kill, I suppose a violent reaction still makes sense right?

Something 'making sense' to your character's narrow worldview and being morally justified in a cosmic sense are two different things. That you can explain why you attacked a drow or orc on sight doesn't mean your act would be free of consequences, both legal and metaphysical.

[Mordar]

That's exactly the point. The only way for Zariel, an angel, to do something non-angelic was to stop being an angel. It was literally impossible for her to remain an angel and be evil. And she was an extremely exceptional individual. Do you not see how that is a different existence than that of an orc or drow?

Absolutely different. But...she made a choice and then lost "angelhood", right? Even before that it seems there were some non-Good (but non-Evil?) actions. So she had to have had the ability to make those decisions before the end of the Ride.

- M

[Dr.Samurai]

That's exactly the point. The only way for Zariel, an angel, to do something non-angelic was to stop being an angel. It was literally impossible for her to remain an angel and be evil. And she was an extremely exceptional individual. Do you not see how that is a different existence than that of an orc or drow?

I don't see how Zariel, a being "made" of good, can CHOOSE to be evil, without exercising free will. Are you suggesting that turning evil is some sort of biological process that angels undergo?

I said "many" - but which ones do you think do? Mind Flayers don't. Aboleths don't. Beholders don't. They enter the world wanting to dominate, enthrall and/or destroy all other sentient life.

So how are there rogue mind flayers? How are there alhoons, a taboo so hated they are destroyed by mind flayers? Why is the greatest fear and bogeyman of the mind flayer race the "Adversary" a mind flayer that retains its memories and is an enemy to the race?

Why are there magic items spread throughout illithid colonies that continuously condition the mind flayers?

If you're looking for a species that it is presumptively okay to use violence against, use those instead of orcs.

Fantasy violence is justified against fantasy villains; anyone threatening your life or the world or the innocent, etc is someone that the good guys oppose REGARDLESS of race. So if it happens to be a bunch of orcs amassing under an orc warlord, that's fine.

SCAG only mentions slaves and impermanent traders:

SCAG is only one source. The wiki tells us that 1% of the free population is made up of orcs, and another 1% is made up of humans.

Something 'making sense' to your character's narrow worldview and being morally justified in a cosmic sense are two different things.

1. It's not a narrow worldview. So to bring it back to Drizz't since the example of drow and Drizz't single-handedly rebuts practically every single point made in this thread, let's again consider when Drizz't is freezing to death on the surface world and come upon by 2 elves. The first elf wants to kill him in cold blood because he is drow. The second elf feels pity for him and not only chooses that they spare Drizz't, but she builds him a fire to survive the night. The first elf's perspective to kill Drizz't is not "narrow". All the elf knows is that drow are the sworn enemies of the elves and inflict violence on them in night raids, killing them and kidnapping them for slavery. This is not a "narrow" perspective, and had the elf killed Drizz't it would have been tragic, and I'd probably argue it would be wrong, despite their experiences. But it's based entirely on a practical worldview. That the second elf chooses to spare him and save his life is a testament to her own remarkable morality. The first elf we can think of as sort of the regular person with a practical perspective. The second elf is motivated more by an ideology, and is exceptional for it.

2. You do not represent a position of "cosmic sense".

That you can explain why you attacked a drow or orc on sight doesn't mean your act would be free of consequences, both legal and metaphysical.

Not the point of the question. We're trying to get down to what the ideal world would look like for the claims you are making. We now know it's not just a numbers game. We need it so that "kill on sight" is not a thing. Which means that worldwide everyone would need to consider any race of beings to be not even 50/50 good/evil, but actually mostly good/neutral. This is the highway to blandness.

[Brookshw]

Absolutely different. But...she made a choice and then lost "angelhood", right? Even before that it seems there were some non-Good (but non-Evil?) actions. So she had to have had the ability to make those decisions before the end of the Ride.

- M

Since we're not in the 5e forum and all editions (and games for that matter) are fair game, it's a moot issue, previous editions contained plenty of instances of fiends turning good while still being friends, and vice versa, there was even a small contingent if risen fiends chilling in the upper planes trying to figure out how to convert more of their kin in 2e.

[Dr.Samurai]

... there was even a small contingent if risen fiends chilling in the upper planes trying to figure out how to convert more of their kin in 2e.

That sounds awesome!