Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Psyren]

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.

I totally agree that prior editions handled it differently. But that just means that in those editions, the moral thing to do would be to take the time to ascertain the outlook of the thing you're attacking before you attack it no matter what it is, and therefore that what Samurai and Jophiel seem to want - a world where there is an entire species that is "fair game" for good creatures to use violence on - would not have been possible at all, resulting in no compromise with their position. And that's fine too.

So I'll ask the overarching question - is a game where such creatures exist desired, or not?

[Brookshw]

I totally agree that prior editions handled it differently. But that just means that in those editions, the moral thing to do would be to take the time to ascertain the outlook of the thing you're attacking before you attack it no matter what it is, and therefore that what Samurai and Jophiel seem to want - a world where there is an entire species that is "fair game" for good creatures to use violence on - would not have been possible at all, resulting in no compromise with their position. And that's fine too.

So I'll ask the overarching question - is a game where such creatures exist desired, or not?

I think we both know there's no such thing as a universal desire for any type of game, just different levels of vocality. Personally, I don't mind the 'blandness' people decry because I can a) use older lore, b) make up whatever I want at the table level, or c) play a different game that is more geared to what I'm looking for at that moment

[Psyren]

I think we both know there's no such thing as a universal desire for any type of game, just different levels of vocality. Personally, I don't mind the 'blandness' people decry because I can a) use older lore, b) make up whatever I want at the table level, or c) play a different game that is more geared to what I'm looking for at that moment

I'm not asking for a universal desire, I'm asking them what they specifically want. Because if they're actually okay with no races that are acceptable targets then we can put this whole tangent to bed. But if what they want are orcs and drow to be acceptable targets then homebrew is the only option, and rightly so.

[Brookshw]

I'm not asking for a universal desire, I'm asking them what they specifically want. Because if they're actually okay with no races that are acceptable targets then we can put this whole tangent to bed. But if what they want are orcs and drow to be acceptable targets then homebrew is the only option, and rightly so.

I'll leave it to 'them' to answer as that issue is way outside of my objection. That said, looking outside of WoTC is an easy solution if people are concerned with 'blandness', to use the headlining issue as an example, the Midgard setting by KP has viking dwarves, traditional dwarves trying to restore lost halls, and mercenary dwarves who make a practice of hostage taking, ransom, and quasi-slavery. There's flavor available if you're willing to look.

[Witty Username]

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

Behold, and be Enlightened!

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

Ah, thanks for finding that, I was at work and my phone isn't good for hyperlinking

Speaking to 40K, and whether orks (or anyone else in 40K) is always evil
"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt"
- Blood Raven Librarian, Unnamed

--

I'm not asking for a universal desire, I'm asking them what they specifically want. Because if they're actually okay with no races that are acceptable targets then we can put this whole tangent to bed. But if what they want are orcs and drow to be acceptable targets then homebrew is the only option, and rightly so.

I can only speak for myself, but my ultimate goal is for species to have value, either mechanical or thematic. for D&D specifically, it has always struggled with this mechanically, as it is perceived that a species must be limited in scope, and so the ones that reach interest to me are treated as outliers in need of balance adjustment (Volo's Yuan-ti is evocative but powerful, so it got the nerf bat), so we need some amount of thematic compliment. Thematic tend to be things like culture, and behavior.
From a realism standpoint, if two species are isolated from each other for an extended period they will develop differently, in the modern world this is a difficult proposition but in Feudal times this is a simple fact of geography. D&D maps to feudal, so it at least makes sense that different species would have distinct cultures.* Essentially the mechanics of how cultures form in reality, applied to a world with more than one, intelligent? sentient? civilized? eh, human-ish species**
What this means is at the species level games should include cultural information at the species level, even if it is setting specific. And at that point it is a matter of degrees, for example humans in most fantasies are the "read error" to non specific to make any claims about either by culture or region.

So far so good, now the 'bad guys'. Drow, Orc, etc. are the ones that have been represented as having dominant cultures that trend to what the game considers 'Evil.' I don't have issues generally with this, for a couple reasons. One, as mentioned we are talking about cultures, while a claim that an intelligent species can be Immutably Evil*** is dubious, a culture or society has a lot less of a hurdle to hit this claim. And for it to have value in the species block it doesn't need to be always true, just dominant. Orcs are resilient, and orcs are evil have similar truth value in game terms, but we have no issue referring to orcs as resilient because that is true more often than not.
From a DS9 episode I rather like to illustrate:
-"Cowardice? A Klingon?"
-"It's been known to happen. The Klingons are as diverse a people as any other. Some of them are strong, and some of them are weak."

And so for me at least, I haven't had much of an issue with D&D as it has been, since most of its language has been for the most part generalization (generally, generalizations are false and whatnot). Drow are evil, adept at magic and have a revulsion to sunlight is a true statement, taken as common, not compulsory. A sidebar to clarify such is fine, removing all context seeing it as a disservice to players is what I would definitely be against. And I am concerned that Wotc may be moving in that second direction.

And to be clear, I personally reject the idea that target is evil is a justification, at any level of this discussion. A common red flag I use for my evil characters is killing the monsters without concern, because in my mind, that alone is sufficient for a character to be evil.

*this is also the norm of SciFi writing, as intelligent life is often recognized as developing entirely independently. Even relatively similar Aliens can have radically different mindsets, as much do to history as Biology.
** I don't particularly like any of this terminology, intelligent is a nebulous concept along with sentience that humans don't have a monopoly on, anyone with half a brain can recognize a dog as intelligent, many animals have traits that could pretty reasonably be considered sentience, and civilized is not great either, since humans tend to be bad at recognizing societies as such without getting all snobish about it. I personally think this has more to due with thumbs and language then how big brain humans consider themselves
*** I want to draw a distinction, since the Always evil has been thrown around and I want to be specific in what I think is meant and what I mean. Immutable Evil is Evil that cannot change, Always Evil is, True in all cases for a given set. For example, Humans could be Always Evil in a setting, since all that requires it to be true for a particular time and place, Immutably Evil cannot be, since that implies that it would be true for all times and places. One could see fiends this way, since Evil is definitional, a non-Evil fiend, isn't. I would tend to prefer Always, as every fiend is Evil, but has the potential for good. But I go over this to attempt clarity not get hung up on semantics, this is not a matter of difference but what I would rather give emphasis.

So Dwarves,
Culture trends, engineering, stonework, loyalty or codes of conduct tend to be common, value of practicality is a minor one that occasionally sees prominence.
the blood and bone stuff, subterranean, dark-vision or similar, tough as balls, light on magic: either by low affinity or inherent resistance (these days think the second one plays better with the crowds)
I tend to like Dwarves as a rung higher on tech level than the average, things like the Rapier, and Renascence weapons being Dwarven inventions could be a neat take. Have dwarves be responsible for the oldest fencing schools, even if elves have gotten better at it over time.

[OldTrees1]

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.

All 3 citations are false. Illithids, Aboleths, and Beholders do have free will and have always had free will.

Aberrations are one of my favorite creature types. I don't know of any examples of a sapient aberration species that lacks free will. There could be one, it would fit with the aberration type, but the vast majority don't fit your mold.

Large Luigi for example is a LN Beholder. Xanathar is a LE Beholder, and clearly has free will.

[Psyren]

All 3 citations are false. Illithids, Aboleths, and Beholders do have free will and have always had free will.

And with their "free will" they all choose to, respectively, "harvest entire races for their own twisted ends," "dream of overthrowing the gods and regaining control of the world," and "dismiss all other creatures as lesser beings, toying with them or destroying them as they choose." Such variability, wow.

[Jophiel]

therefore that what Samurai and Jophiel seem to want - a world where there is an entire species that is "fair game" for good creatures to use violence on

This is a strawman that keeps coming up from people opposed to "Always Evil Races", i.e. that people just want stuff you can mindlessly slaughter, and an idea that never gets promoted by people who are actually in favor of said races. In fact, I've directly addressed it earlier in the thread and it's been tossed around elsewhere but if people can't get it after a million pages and still think this is the goal despite being directly told otherwise, then it's no wonder people are also stuck on "Evil races are boring", yadda yadda.

[JusticeZero]

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.

We are in full agreement on this.

However, we are discussing capital E Evil, Capital G Good, etc — those things which can be measured with reliability but which have questionable validity.

There is literally no reason to discuss small g good, small e evil, et cetera. These things simply do. not. matter. If something is Always Evil, it can be extremely good so long as it remains Evil, so the only discussion that matters is "How does the relevant universe's physics derive its measurement of Good or Evil?" And philosophical discussion misses the point, because it's simply too refined and nuanced of a tool.

"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."

I don't even agree with that. Casting certain magical effects is known to alter the alignment of the caster in absence of any external moral considerations, for example. We can certainly postulate that the game universe follows theories of alignment to which we as players do not subscribe, in part because the existence of a universal, non-relative measuring system is in defiance of many established theories of ethics we might use. Since the tropes violate our ethics in one regard, we can certainly picture that it violates it in others. While it might approximate our ethics, it fails to mirror it; it is not sufficiently valid.

Is this ("must perform Good acts at every point") game-supported?

Consider a demon who performs evil acts, or a depraved angel. If they retain their status and original detectible alignment then they are highlighting that the test is reliable but not valid. They can do whatever they want; their alignment cannot change.
If they will lose their status and alignment, then they will tend to random walk away from "Absolute Alignment". The races of Angels and Demons lose their status of "Always Good/Evil".

[MonochromeTiger]

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.

A few points of contention. First, I disagree that Orkz are Evil for one of the points you bring up yourself, they're a bio-weapon literally designed for the sole purpose of fighting and winning a war, one they failed to actually win even at their high point since the faction that made them got wiped out through a combination of enemy action and their own mistakes (the Old Ones' mistakes, not the mistakes of the Krork). Second, it can be argued that the imposed inclination toward fighting to the point that it's pretty much their end goal rather than a way of getting their goals as well as their very questionable views on death puts them in a weird space of not really getting why anyone wouldn't be as enthusiastic about fighting as them.

That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent enough to get those concepts, there was a War of the Beast book series a few years back showing that when they have a high enough population their gestalt consciousness takes them a step back toward the Krork and they revert from "ignore strategy, charge" to "make a show of force then send envoys to demand surrender." Throughout all of that they never lose the drive for warfare, their views on it just evolve from thinking fighting is the end all be all to actually focusing on winning first. Even without going back to being pseudo-Krork they will make deals, your Freebootaz example isn't the only group that will work for others in order to get a bigger fight to enjoy and even with the urge to fight they've still got a working economy for trade between Orkz.

They simultaneously hit the "can they really be evil if it's a built in compulsion" points and the "they know alternatives and still choose to be this way" points and it ends up working simply because they're alien enough that we can accept them not operating based on our own values but still similar enough that they can be understood despite the glaring differences.

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?

If I remember right Zariel stayed an Angel after breaking from the other Angels' stance of noninterference in the war between Devils and Demons, she even stayed an Angel after her failed crusade that she'd already got a clear "no" on. She only really "stopped being an Angel" when she accepted the job offer to run Avernus and kill Demons, and the fact her "turning back" is as simple as realizing she doesn't want to be there doing that and has an opportunity to act on that rather than, say, actually do something to make up for any of the things she did after taking the job, doesn't really point to there being some real objective "do not cross" line to stop being an Angel. If anything it feels more like the only reason she wasn't considered an Angel at that point is because she didn't want to be one when from her perspective she was only really in that position because the other Angels just sat back and mortals couldn't handle things.

Is that a different existence than an Orc or a Drow? Sure. But I'm not seeing where it really proves your point when all it looks like is she decided she wasn't an Angel anymore and made the switch then when she decided she was again she's suddenly back. To continue the forced comparison to Orcs or Drow it would be like a Lolth worshiping Drow randomly throwing up their hands and saying "nope, I'm done, ignore the lifetime of cultural indoctrination I'm actually from (insert city of good aligned Elistraee worshiping Drow here) now" then spending a few weeks cosplaying before seeing a spider and realizing they actually really miss all that casual murder and scheming and are done with that whole alignment swap phase. It's not some cosmically ordained reshaping of reality saying they can't be X, it's sudden onset identity crisis brought on by thinking "wait my side kind of sucks actually" then ended by thinking "wait the other side sucks worse."

[OldTrees1]

And with their "free will" they all choose to, respectively, "harvest entire races for their own twisted ends," "dream of overthrowing the gods and regaining control of the world," and "dismiss all other creatures as lesser beings, toying with them or destroying them as they choose." Such variability, wow.

Uh huh.

1) Are you aware you are doing exactly what you criticized people about in regards to Orcs? You read a statement about the overall group and then decided to use the fallacy of decomposition to claim every individual was identical.
"Illithids harvest entire races for their own twisted ends, therefore every illithid does that."
"Aboleths dream of overthrowing the gods, therefore every aboleth wants to overthrow the gods."
"Humans fight wars, therefore all humans choose to fight wars."
"Lizardfolk respect and fear magic with a religious awe, therefore all lizardfolk have a religious fear of magic"
No, the fallacy of decomposition is silly.

2) Free will is the ability for the person to choose, regardless of how many others agree with the choice or choose similar/different. Even ignoring your fallacy of decomposition and presuming they choose similarly, that would not disprove their free will. Go find a citation that Beholders don't have free will.

[Witty Username]

Consider a demon who performs evil acts, or a depraved angel. If they retain their status and original detectible alignment then they are highlighting that the test is reliable but not valid. They can do whatever they want; their alignment cannot change.
If they will lose their status and alignment, then they will tend to random walk away from "Absolute Alignment". The races of Angels and Demons lose their status of "Always Good/Evil".

Presumably a creature that is Immutably Evil/Good would not take actions contrary to that alignment. Even accounting for agency, there are often a range of choices that many will fall into good or evil.

I recognize as gamers that, statistically speaking
, haven't gotten degrees in moral philosophy, we are limited in how we perceive good and evil. But the frameworks we are capable of can be applied to our fictional universes, in absolute terms. Many systems of ethics lose relativity when the base assumptions are consistent.

[Psyren]

This is a strawman that keeps coming up from people opposed to "Always Evil Races", i.e. that people just want stuff you can mindlessly slaughter, and an idea that never gets promoted by people who are actually in favor of said races. In fact, I've directly addressed it earlier in the thread and it's been tossed around elsewhere but if people can't get it after a million pages and still think this is the goal despite being directly told otherwise, then it's no wonder people are also stuck on "Evil races are boring", yadda yadda.

If that's not what you want, then why are you so opposed to the removal of lore that states, and I quote:

"Savage and fearless, orc tribes are ever in search of elves, dwarves, and humans to destroy."

"Orcs aren't interested in treaties, trade negotiations, or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods."

"When a tribe is on the move, orc warriors are commanded to scour the surrounding landscape for any opportunity to spill blood"

"Orcs pillage and scavenge wherever they go - everything is loot, and loot is always something to be proud of."

"No orc will leave an elf alive."

Tell me - what possible value does 'lore' like this have for a species that isn't meant to be treated like a pestilence to be defended against at all costs? What does leaving it in add to a game where orcs are meant to be playable heroes?

Uh huh.

1) Are you aware you are doing exactly what you criticized people about in regards to Orcs? You read a statement about the overall group and then decided to use the fallacy of decomposition to claim every individual was identical.
"Illithids harvest entire races for their own twisted ends, therefore every illithid does that."
"Aboleths dream of overthrowing the gods, therefore every aboleth wants to overthrow the gods."
"Humans fight wars, therefore all humans choose to fight wars."
"Lizardfolk respect and fear magic with a religious awe, therefore all lizardfolk have a religious fear of magic"
No, the fallacy of decomposition is silly.

2) Free will is the ability for the person to choose, regardless of how many others agree with the choice or choose similar/different. Even ignoring your fallacy of decomposition and presuming they choose similarly, that would not disprove their free will. Go find a citation that Beholders don't have free will.

If they meant "some aboleths do X" then they should probably write that, or errata it out like they did with orcs and drow.

[MonochromeTiger]

Presumably a creature that is Immutably Evil/Good would not take actions contrary to that alignment. Even accounting for agency, there are often a range of choices that many will fall into good or evil.

I recognize as gamers that, statistically speaky, haven't gotten degrees in moral philosophy, we are limited in how we perceive good and evil. But the frameworks we are capable of can be applied to our fictional universes, in absolute terms. Many systems of ethics lose relativity when the base assumptions are consistent.

Except even in universe there aren't really "absolute terms" like some people seem to expect. Ways to fool or mess with the alignment system have existed nearly as long as the system itself has. Spells to detect alignment can be blocked despite Good and Evil supposedly being some almost tangible force of the universe. Helm of Opposite Alignment can make something Good suddenly be Evil or something Evil suddenly be Good despite them not having actually done anything, and depending on how strict your DM/GM is it may not even result in enough of a difference in behavior to actually earn those labels despite the game considering the change official. Then you've got the occasional case of something still pinging as Good or Evil despite that not being how they act simply because the system says they always show as that.

The alignment system as a whole is a mess, more often than not it's just a source of arguments over definition and ends up being interpreted differently from table to table. Even in an official capacity it's not really something set in stone following clear rules because social values change between editions and book releases and different settings are going for different tones or different writers have their own personal hangups one way or another. The fact that the alignment system and the values behind it are a contentious mess people can't seem to agree on is easily proven every time it comes up in the forums in general, let alone when a thread discussing the popularity of Dwarves has turned into a several pages long argument over "always Evil" more than one time so far.

If anything can be taken from this thread I'm fairly sure it's that all the systems moving away from alignment have pretty good reason to do so, even without the other motive of "we aren't sure WotC won't threaten to set their lawyers on us after that last disaster."

[OldTrees1]

If they meant "some aboleths do X" then they should probably write that, or errata it out like they did with orcs and drow.

There is nothing technically incorrect about the sentences. The sentence "Humans have spread out across the planet" does not mean "Each human has spread out across the planet". It is true that Illithids collectively have harvested entire races. It does not follow that each Illithid has participated, much less harvested even a single entire race.

And this is all before we notice that your Beholder quote literally says "as they choose" which implies something somewhere can exercise its free will.


In conclusion, aberrations generally do have free will.

[Witty Username]

Tell me - what possible value does 'lore' like this have for a species that isn't meant to be treated like a pestilence to be defended against at all costs? What does leaving it in add to a game where orcs are meant to be playable heroes?

Most Orcs have been indoctrinated into a life of destruction and slaughter. But unlike creatures who by their very nature are evil, such as gnolls, it's possible for an Orc to develop empathy, love, and compassion.

The very text your citing contradicts your point my dude.
--
As for illathids,
"Unlike colonial mind flayers, rogue Illithids develop a healthy respect for those not of there kind... A renegade mind flayer might become a trusted advisor or powerful ally..."

So a mind flayer not dominated by an elder brain is text supported reasonable for non-evil. There is that well fed line, which is the biggest reason I miss the ring of sustinance (which was unfortunately lost in the purge), since it allowed for fun ideas like this some extra legs.

Not to mention that one from the society of brilliance in bg3.

I do go back to my, this is a 5e problem, not a D&D problem something like 20 pages back.

[MonochromeTiger]

There is nothing technically incorrect about the sentences. The sentence "Humans have spread out across the planet" does not mean "Each human has spread out across the planet". It is true that Illithids collectively have harvested entire races. It does not follow that each Illithid has participated, much less harvested even a single entire race.

And this is all before we notice that your Beholder quote literally says "as they choose" which implies something somewhere can exercise its free will.


In conclusion, aberrations generally do have free will.

Given Psyren's earlier comment I suspect the issue isn't that Aberrations, by the text, have free will and more that while having free will they are still shown as almost universally hostile and aggressive. That is kind of a problem with really discussing free will at all, it can be used for whatever stance someone wants to take and that includes things we might not like or agree with.

In this case it's actually leading to something I find a bit hilarious. By not acknowledging that Aberrations have free will just because the percentage of their population that use it for Neutral or Good alignments is vanishingly small, and in their earlier comment of " If you're looking for a species that it is presumptively okay to use violence against, use those instead of orcs", Psyren is basically saying it's fine to have an always-Evil creature to bash despite disparaging the idea throughout the rest of the thread. And making it all more ironic one of the listed examples, Mindflayers, is mostly Evil because there's an actual effort by the leadership to take the other options away from them. Well, that and the whole needing to eat brains thing but frankly if causing something harm in order to survive is automatically Evil then there isn't a player character out there whose alignment isn't south of Neutral.

[Brookshw]

A few points of contention. First, I disagree that Orkz are Evil for one of the points you bring up yourself, they're a bio-weapon literally designed for the sole purpose of fighting and winning a war, one they failed to actually win even at their high point since the faction that made them got wiped out through a combination of enemy action and their own mistakes (the Old Ones' mistakes, not the mistakes of the Krork). Second, it can be argued that the imposed inclination toward fighting to the point that it's pretty much their end goal rather than a way of getting their goals as well as their very questionable views on death puts them in a weird space of not really getting why anyone wouldn't be as enthusiastic about fighting as them.

That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent enough to get those concepts, there was a War of the Beast book series a few years back showing that when they have a high enough population their gestalt consciousness takes them a step back toward the Krork and they revert from "ignore strategy, charge" to "make a show of force then send envoys to demand surrender." Throughout all of that they never lose the drive for warfare, their views on it just evolve from thinking fighting is the end all be all to actually focusing on winning first. Even without going back to being pseudo-Krork they will make deals, your Freebootaz example isn't the only group that will work for others in order to get a bigger fight to enjoy and even with the urge to fight they've still got a working economy for trade between Orkz.

They simultaneously hit the "can they really be evil if it's a built in compulsion" points and the "they know alternatives and still choose to be this way" points and it ends up working simply because they're alien enough that we can accept them not operating based on our own values but still similar enough that they can be understood despite the glaring differences.

Iirc, Orks during the War of the Beasts, the Orks used their new found intelligence to enslave and eat people, and their ambassador to Terra was pretty clear surrendering wasn't going to end well, it was just better than the alternative. Then again, it's 40k, talking about Good or Evil in the setting is kinda missing the point other than as a comical diversion perhaps.

[Jophiel]

If that's not what you want, then why..

There's probably a dozen or more posts where I've said what I thought an Evil race brings to the game. Why don't you read those instead of making up your own reasons/thoughts for me and demanding that I prove you wrong?

[Grim Portent]

A few points of contention. First, I disagree that Orkz are Evil for one of the points you bring up yourself, they're a bio-weapon literally designed for the sole purpose of fighting and winning a war, one they failed to actually win even at their high point since the faction that made them got wiped out through a combination of enemy action and their own mistakes (the Old Ones' mistakes, not the mistakes of the Krork). Second, it can be argued that the imposed inclination toward fighting to the point that it's pretty much their end goal rather than a way of getting their goals as well as their very questionable views on death puts them in a weird space of not really getting why anyone wouldn't be as enthusiastic about fighting as them.

That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent enough to get those concepts, there was a War of the Beast book series a few years back showing that when they have a high enough population their gestalt consciousness takes them a step back toward the Krork and they revert from "ignore strategy, charge" to "make a show of force then send envoys to demand surrender." Throughout all of that they never lose the drive for warfare, their views on it just evolve from thinking fighting is the end all be all to actually focusing on winning first. Even without going back to being pseudo-Krork they will make deals, your Freebootaz example isn't the only group that will work for others in order to get a bigger fight to enjoy and even with the urge to fight they've still got a working economy for trade between Orkz.

They simultaneously hit the "can they really be evil if it's a built in compulsion" points and the "they know alternatives and still choose to be this way" points and it ends up working simply because they're alien enough that we can accept them not operating based on our own values but still similar enough that they can be understood despite the glaring differences.

To me its a matter of the vast majority of orkz not being capable of abstract thought. Boyz would be some level of mentally incompetent if they were humans with comparable mental capacity, and I personally would feel uncomfortable about holding a human with that low a level of capacity for complex thought legally or morally culpable for their actions. I'd consider them not evil in the sense that they cannot conceive that other people aren't basically the same but weaker versions of themselves, and some don't even seem to grasp that actions have consequences or a sense of self preservation,* which are important parts of morality and sanity respectively.

Nobz, bosses, painboyz, meks, kommandos, freebootaz and the other types of ork that can match or even exceed human intelligence on the other hand clearly are capable of understanding that humans and so forth don't actually enjoy fighting, having their brains experimented on, slaving in factories, and whatever else, they just don't care because the orkz don't really have a concept of empathy or compassion outside of runtherds. These guys are where orkz get to be properly evil, even by their own standards, although its mostly dokz that push into 'evil even for orkz' territory. Obviously they are still alien, but less in a 'what a shame they cannot understand' territory, and more in a 'what a shame they don't want to understand' way.


*Burnaboyz and speed freeks come to mind. Both are highly likely to die by their own actions because burnaboyz have uncontrollable and self-destructive pyromania that is only ever controlled by other orkz beating them half to death when they try to light things on fire at bad times and speed freeks will drive into objects at high speed because they enjoy crashing things, even if said object is a cliff face. Doesn't help they don't put brakes on their vehicles.

[thethird]

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

Out of curiosity, if you want to give it a thought.

Do you see correlation between isolationism and evilness? Is that a direct correlation? Would you argue that an expansionist evil culture is less evil than an isolationist evil culture?

To me they are different metrics, and I don't see the correlation. It's like when 4e went Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

Not wanting to go into real world politics, but feels like saying full working democracies are the only Good societies that can exist.

---

Now as to what really got me to post in the thread. Legend of the runeforger a royal road story, is strongly centered around dwarves. It explores their society, their culture, and their mentality. It's very interesting and distinct from human perspective. If you people would like to give dwarves a chance it has given me a lot of ideas of how to get them in my future stories.

[Psyren]

There's probably a dozen or more posts where I've said what I thought an Evil race brings to the game. Why don't you read those instead of making up your own reasons/thoughts for me and demanding that I prove you wrong?

If the above quotes are what you support, I can only be happy that the game has left those desires behind then.

In this case it's actually leading to something I find a bit hilarious. By not acknowledging that Aberrations have free will just because the percentage of their population that use it for Neutral or Good alignments is vanishingly small, and in their earlier comment of " If you're looking for a species that it is presumptively okay to use violence against, use those instead of orcs", Psyren is basically saying it's fine to have an always-Evil creature to bash despite disparaging the idea throughout the rest of the thread.

Having *something* remain in the game as an abject irredeemable monster (e.g. something explicitly alien or literally made of evil) is the only compromise position I can think of between the folks who want a playable humanoid race to be that and those who find the idea abhorrent. If you have an actual suggestion, feel free to provide it.

There is nothing technically incorrect about the sentences. The sentence "Humans have spread out across the planet" does not mean "Each human has spread out across the planet". It is true that Illithids collectively have harvested entire races. It does not follow that each Illithid has participated, much less harvested even a single entire race.

And this is all before we notice that your Beholder quote literally says "as they choose" which implies something somewhere can exercise its free will.


In conclusion, aberrations generally do have free will.

Do you see any difference in mindset or designer intent between their monster entry and the race entry of an orc, then?

[OldTrees1]

Given Psyren's earlier comment I suspect the issue isn't that Aberrations, by the text, have free will and more that while having free will they are still shown as almost universally hostile and aggressive. That is kind of a problem with really discussing free will at all, it can be used for whatever stance someone wants to take and that includes things we might not like or agree with.

My only point was that sapient aberrations generally DO have free will.

I replied when Psyren was attempting to claim they don't have free will.

Everything downstream of observing Illithids, Aboleth, and Beholders do have free will was not a concern of mine at this time. I just did not want misinformation about aberrations free will. If you order a drink at the Laughing Beholder, then Large Luigi will choose how to respond. Same as if you steal Xanathar's pet fish, then Xanathar will choose how to respond.

Do you see any difference in mindset or designer intent between their monster entry and the race entry of an orc, then?

Yes. Multiple. For example, in multiple editions of D&D (possibly excluding Volo's take), orc populations are depicted as civilizations that it is plausible to form diplomatic ties, ceasefires, and even alliances. In the same editions of D&D aberration populations are depicted as predator civilizations rather than peer civilizations.

Beholders are a bit of an oddball. They are usually depicted similar to stray NPC wizards. Powerful, opinionated, and dangerous if they don't like you.

They have free will, but I expect many more peaceful diplomatic meetings with orcs than with the nearby Aboleth.

[Morgaln]

Do you see any difference in mindset or designer intent between their monster entry and the race entry of an orc, then?

Out of curiosity: why are you okay with portraying mind flayers, beholders and aboleth as always evil, but are not okay with portraying orcs and drow as the same? Clearly sapience is not the distinction, so what is?

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

You are actually misrepresenting what you yourself said. You didn't say evil monospecies cultures are isolationist. You said isolationist monospecies cultures cannot be good. In other words, any culture that tries to keep others from immigrating are evil (or at best neutral) according to you. That is what people are arguing against.

Also, evil monospecies cultures in no way have to be isolationist. They can absolutely go out and conquer land (while murdering everyone else living on said land), take active interest in the politics of other countries and generally have a presence on the world stage. While still being evil and monospecies.

[Errorname]

I have really strong feelings about portraying a basically human race as innately evil, but truly inhuman creatures being universally hostile don't bother me. I don't think you need to say a Mind Flayer has no free will (even though they usually don't) for it to be accepted that the psychic squid monster that sees other sapient life as either a source of food or a disposable incubator for it's spawn has some fundamental incompatibilities between what is good for it and what is good for everyone else.

Ultimately the thing that makes Tolkien style Orcs and other evil humanoids uncomfortable is that they operate as very human sorts of villains. They're functionally human, you could easily replace the Orcs in a narrative with Humans and lose basically nothing in a way that you can't with say a Dragon or a Beholder, but where "this sapient being is fundamentally incompatible with good and civilized society' isn't necessarily going to raise eyebrows if it's talking about giant predatory dragons, it absolutely is if it's talking about what are functionally an exaggerated stereotype of real humans.

[Xervous]

With the mention of 40k orkz, instinct, compulsion and intelligence, I have a little thought experiment.

Are lions or orcas evil? The males are known to kill the offspring of rivals in order to secure a bond with the mother of said offspring. I don’t believe an orca doing that on instinct is an evil creature, but if Joe the human pulled that he’s horridly evil. Where on the spectrum between orca and human does it become an evil act?

Or more accurately for the fantastical topic, put it as a slider between a feral drake and a typical D&D dragon.

[Psyren]

I have really strong feelings about portraying a basically human race as innately evil, but truly inhuman creatures being universally hostile don't bother me. I don't think you need to say a Mind Flayer has no free will (even though they usually don't) for it to be accepted that the psychic squid monster that sees other sapient life as either a source of food or a disposable incubator for it's spawn has some fundamental incompatibilities between what is good for it and what is good for everyone else.

Ultimately the thing that makes Tolkien style Orcs and other evil humanoids uncomfortable is that they operate as very human sorts of villains. They're functionally human, you could easily replace the Orcs in a narrative with Humans and lose basically nothing in a way that you can't with say a Dragon or a Beholder, but where "this sapient being is fundamentally incompatible with good and civilized society' isn't necessarily going to raise eyebrows if it's talking about giant predatory dragons, it absolutely is if it's talking about what are functionally an exaggerated stereotype of real humans.

That's more or less the difference I'm getting at. If you want an intelligent enemy that can't be negotiated with, that's exactly why these creatures exist, there's no need to turn to orcs and drow with all their Gygaxian and Tolkienesque baggage.

Out of curiosity: why are you okay with portraying mind flayers, beholders and aboleth as always evil, but are not okay with portraying orcs and drow as the same? Clearly sapience is not the distinction, so what is?

Many D&D aberrations are stand-ins for the 'irredeemably evil alien' trope; see also Xenomorphs, or Daleks, or The Flood, or Reapers from Mass Effect. They're all clearly sapient, but just as clearly you can't negotiate with them nor even meaningfully coexist without some radical change to the setting they're found in. The Borg were on this list too until very, very recently.

And again, aberrations were one example; devils and yugoloths and demons also exemplify this trope, just the more fantasy/mythological version as opposed to science fiction.

Yes. Multiple. For example, in multiple editions of D&D (possibly excluding Volo's take), orc populations are depicted as civilizations that it is plausible to form diplomatic ties, ceasefires, and even alliances. In the same editions of D&D aberration populations are depicted as predator civilizations rather than peer civilizations.

Beholders are a bit of an oddball. They are usually depicted similar to stray NPC wizards. Powerful, opinionated, and dangerous if they don't like you.

They have free will, but I expect many more peaceful diplomatic meetings with orcs than with the nearby Aboleth.

A "predator civilization" that universally preys on sapient life and is itself sapient is evil by D&D standards. Again, I'm not calling them automatons in every aspect of their lives, but when it comes to enslaving and feeding on beings they deem to be "lesser", they don't seem to exercise that choice often, or at all, which to me is little different in practice than not having it. And the designers made them that way so that players would have intelligent enemies to fight that wouldn't devolve every single session into a moral quandary.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: Welp, we've started dipping our toes into "This real-world culture is evil, then", so we're gonna draw this to a close.