Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[Lacuna Caster]

He's outta town now, and the city is ruled by Jirix, who has been demonstrated doing things his own way, and in a way that Redcloak doesn't necessarily agree with... ...In my opinion, no member of Team Evil will ever step foot in Gobbotopia again (with the possible exception of the MitD) and Jirix stamping on that Roach all but confirms that.

We have absolutely no reliable evidence as to what Jirix's policy-making might be independent of Redcloak.

First,

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

We didn't see Gin-Jun fall, unless you mean falling to the ground as a corpse after Miko snapped his neck (while Gin-Jun was in the process of murdering Zhou). It's hardly unprecedented to be a paladin outside an order of paladins; being expelled from the Sapphire Guard wouldn't remove Gin-Jun's paladin-dom.

Second...acolytes, as thinking creatures, are responsible for their actions and their decisions to act. Including their decision of which mixed signal to act on.

Spoiler

Show

I still don't have a copy of the book, so I may have some of the events muddled, but I could have sworn Kish mentioned one the paladins capital-F falling in that scene?

[zimmerwald1915]

We have absolutely no reliable evidence as to what Jirix's policy-making might be independent of Redcloak.

We also know that Redcloak's transfer of power doesn't amount to much.

[Lacuna Caster]

Maybe, but in the end the message becomes "of course the orc kingdom collapsed, those orcs are too dumb and savage to keep it up in the long run".

Canonically D&D orcs do have blanket penalties to mental attributes, and personality does have a biological component. You can debate whether this maps to any real-world human culture or ethnicity, but yes, relative to other species this means orcs would have more trouble sustaining a civilisation.

[hamishspence]

Unfortunately, the orc kingdom collapsed once the heirs of the original orc king stopped being able to maintain control. There was another war, and this time the orcs got stomped.

Canonically D&D orcs do have blanket penalties to mental attributes, and personality does have a biological component. You can debate whether this maps to any real-world human culture or ethnicity, but yes, relative to other species this means orcs would have more trouble sustaining a civilisation.

I've been digging around on various wikis - and I can't find anything that specifically says Kingdom Many Arrows is gone. Having problems, yes, but not destroyed completely. Was it in a novel?

[Keltest]

I've been digging around on various wikis - and I can't find anything that specifically says Kingdom Many Arrows is gone. Having problems, yes, but not destroyed completely. Was it in a novel?

Yes. It was after the Companions of the Hall all got reincarnated. I think the Drow were involved in provoking the orcs as well (different Drow this time though!) The Dwarves decided "ok, enough of this crap, you had your chance, now were kicking you out."

[Emanick]

I stopped reading the series at the start of the second trilogy, after a long and gratuitous slaughter of hundreds of goblins at the cost of a few dwarves. Which for all intents and purposes might as well not have happened, except that Salvatore really wanted to write about it. I'd enjoyed the Icewind Dale trilogy despite that, but that was a bit much.





Maybe, but in the end the message becomes "of course the orc kingdom collapsed, those orcs are too dumb and savage to keep it up in the long run".

That was explicitly contrary to the (actually slightly preachy) message at the end of The Orc King, actually, which is why I find it slightly surprising. That said, consistency hasn’t been Salvatore’s strong point.

On a related note, I’ve been reading through a Faerun sourcebook (The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide) and it explicitly comes down on the “orcs are genetically predisposed to evil” side, so I guess orcs in the Drizzt books are canonically fundamentally different from the ones in Rich’s work.

[hamishspence]

Yes. It was after the Companions of the Hall all got reincarnated. I think the Drow were involved in provoking the orcs as well (different Drow this time though!) The Dwarves decided "ok, enough of this crap, you had your chance, now were kicking you out."

I got the impression from the TV Tropes overview, that after the war, they were heading back to peace - was this after that?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...LegendOfDrizzt


Always Chaotic Evil
Played distressingly straight in the "Companions Codex", where not only do the Orcs of Many-Arrows go on the warpath once again, in the first novel, Cattie-Brie claims to have received a message from Mielikki that goblinkin essentially don't have souls and can't ever hope for redemption, making the founding of Many-Arrows a great mistake on Drizzt's part. Slightly subverted, though; Drizzt cannot bring himself to believe that this is true (and it's subtly implied that it just may be a lie sent to Cattie-Brie by Lolth to corrupt Drizzt), and it's noted that the Orcs only went on the warpath when a "traditionalist", named Hartusk, usurped the throne from Obould's descendent Lorgru.

Lorgru himself is an aversion; like Obould, he believes that peace is better for the orcs than war was, he has an honorable side that compelled him to spare the life of an elven warrior (something that Hartusk used to help muster the support to overthrow him), and once helped back to the throne, he immediately forces the orcs to call off their war and return to peace.

On a related note, I’ve been reading through a Faerun sourcebook (The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide) and it explicitly comes down on the “orcs are genetically predisposed to evil” side, so I guess orcs in the Drizzt books are canonically fundamentally different from the ones in Rich’s work.

That's 5e - 5e has tended to do away with greyer morality where it can, and go back to 1e-style hack and slash.

It even makes gnolls much more overtly demonic (they don't reproduce normally but are demonically corrupted hyenas) when older editions had them as just another humanoid race that, in some places, happened to worship demons.

[Keltest]

I got the impression from the TV Tropes overview, that after the war, they were heading back to peace - was this after that?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...LegendOfDrizzt


Always Chaotic Evil
Played distressingly straight in the "Companions Codex", where not only do the Orcs of Many-Arrows go on the warpath once again, in the first novel, Cattie-Brie claims to have received a message from Mielikki that goblinkin essentially don't have souls and can't ever hope for redemption, making the founding of Many-Arrows a great mistake on Drizzt's part. Slightly subverted, though; Drizzt cannot bring himself to believe that this is true (and it's subtly implied that it just may be a lie sent to Cattie-Brie by Lolth to corrupt Drizzt), and it's noted that the Orcs only went on the warpath when a "traditionalist", named Hartusk, usurped the throne from Obould's descendent Lorgru.

Lorgru himself is an aversion; like Obould, he believes that peace is better for the orcs than war was, he has an honorable side that compelled him to spare the life of an elven warrior (something that Hartusk used to help muster the support to overthrow him), and once helped back to the throne, he immediately forces the orcs to call off their war and return to peace.



That's 5e - 5e has tended to do away with greyer morality where it can, and go back to 1e-style hack and slash.

It even makes gnolls much more overtly demonic (they don't reproduce normally but are demonically corrupted hyenas) when older editions had them as just another humanoid race that, in some places, happened to worship demons.

Its been a while since ive read the books, but I swear I remember the dwarves up and giving the orcs the boot. Bruenor in particular is certainly not happy that it took that long for the dwarves to make up their minds on the subject.

[hamishspence]

Its been a while since ive read the books, but I swear I remember the dwarves up and giving the orcs the boot.

Maybe that was in the previous series? Or after whatever book put Lorgru back on the throne?

The wiki suggests he was put back in Vengeance of the Iron Dwarf:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Lorgru


I lost interest in the main plotline around Gauntlgrym - relying on second-hand info rather than reading the books themselves.

[Fyraltari]

We also know that Redcloak's transfer of power doesn't amount to much.

They didn't mention Jirix at all in that strip. It was always clear that Redcloak intends to reclaim his title of Supreme Leader once the Plan is successful, but honestly, what are the odds of that ?

[HalfTangible]

Maybe, but in the end the message becomes "of course the orc kingdom collapsed, those orcs are too dumb and savage to keep it up in the long run".

I'm sure that's how the dwarves interpreted it (consider how we'd think of a country that fell within 15 years) but an orc society that lasts for a few hundred years would be a huge wake-up call to any humans who notice it.

[martianmister]

This thread reminds me Icewall trilogy. For some reason...

[Euclidodese]

We have absolutely no reliable evidence as to what Jirix's policy-making might be independent of Redcloak.

Evidence no, inference yes. He delivered a warm speech with jokes which Redcloak disapproved of, he stamped on the demon roach, symbolically severing his last remaining tie with Team Evil, and he referred to himself as a 'peacetime leader,' distancing his era of rule from Redcloak's.

And that's all we have to go on, the rest of his scenes have shown him as a pretty stand up guy, and a likeable character, but ultimately his role has been relatively minor so far.

So no, no 'evidence,' but I think we have some solid signposting with which to build a theory about Jirix's future behaviour.

[brian 333]

Posted in the wrong topic. My apologies.

[KorvinStarmast]

What do you call primary/secondary worlds? Is that a psychology thing?

No, a fantasy writing thing, and even a philology thing.

JRR Tolkien wrote a very good essay some decades ago called "On Fairy Stories" wherein he tries to describe the means by which a fantasy or myth storyteller engages his reader or audience. The primary world (mundane) is what connects the real life reader to the story because of all the things in the story that are like real life. The secondary world is everything magical and fantastical, and is not found in the real world. (Science fiction and speculative fiction authors have a similar challenge).

How one weighs how much primary and how much secondary to put into one's story will inform how successful it is. Getting the mix "just right" can be tricky.

it's worth noting that Tolkien's professional expertise was philology, not linguistics (they are related) which particularly explores how language and stories and poems and songs fit together as language evolves. Whether one likes his stories or not, he understood both voice and structure in stories due to his professional area of expertise.

[Morty]

That was explicitly contrary to the (actually slightly preachy) message at the end of The Orc King, actually, which is why I find it slightly surprising. That said, consistency hasn’t been Salvatore’s strong point.

On a related note, I’ve been reading through a Faerun sourcebook (The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide) and it explicitly comes down on the “orcs are genetically predisposed to evil” side, so I guess orcs in the Drizzt books are canonically fundamentally different from the ones in Rich’s work.

That's 5e - 5e has tended to do away with greyer morality where it can, and go back to 1e-style hack and slash.

It even makes gnolls much more overtly demonic (they don't reproduce normally but are demonically corrupted hyenas) when older editions had them as just another humanoid race that, in some places, happened to worship demons.

Yeah, the supposedly modular 5e rejected presenting "monstrous" humanoid species as people as "anthropology rather than fantasy". I'm not even making it up. Not that it was much better before that. 4e was already stripping all nuance from those races. But 3e-era material paid some lip service to the idea they're not all evil.

The 3.0 Forgotten Realms book has a community of orc mercenaries who were hired by the Zhentarim for some war or other and then settled down. They've integrated peacefully into the area, which has a large population of half-orcs for that reason. It's a really weird outlier in a setting that otherwise has orcs, goblinoids and such as designated enemies and very little else.

I'm sure that's how the dwarves interpreted it (consider how we'd think of a country that fell within 15 years) but an orc society that lasts for a few hundred years would be a huge wake-up call to any humans who notice it.

It should be, but was it?

[hamishspence]

Yeah, the supposedly modular 5e rejected presenting "monstrous" humanoid species as people as "anthropology rather than fantasy". I'm not even making it up. Not that it was much better before that. 4e was already stripping all nuance from those races. But 3e-era material paid some lip service to the idea they're not all evil.

The 3.0 Forgotten Realms book has a community of orc mercenaries who were hired by the Zhentarim for some war or other and then settled down. They've integrated peacefully into the area, which has a large population of half-orcs for that reason. It's a really weird outlier in a setting that otherwise has orcs, goblinoids and such as designated enemies and very little else.

4e had the same Theskian half-orcs. The 4e-era novels and 4e FRCS least, noted that the Sword Coast North orcs had built a civilization (Many Arrows) which had established some diplomatic ties to its neighbours.

Goblinoids were also statted as a player race in Dragon Magazine Online (hobgoblins specifically, I think, though I'm not certain), and a later splatbook (Into The Unknown: A Dungeon Survival Handbook) statted out regular goblins for players to play.

5e seems to be doubling down on the "orcs are for killing" rhetoric - though the Kingdom of Many Arrows is still shown on the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide map, its old capital, Dark Arrow Keep, appears to be missing.

[Keltest]

It should be, but was it?

The humans had their own problems. Nesme was crushed and Silverymoon did not handle the Spellplague very well at all. Luskan was a near-anarchic pirate den run by Jarlaxle and his Drow. Neverwinter had a giant rock dropped on them by a fire primordial. All in all, it wasn't a good time for humans in the north.

[Lacuna Caster]

It's something of a tangent, but I thought I'd mention how this is handled in Burning Wheel. Orcs and elves are basically treated as being the same species, it's just that elves are fueled by their grief and orcs by their hatred. Most orcs will never realise they're immortal because their society is so relentlessly savage that few survive past adulthood, but some of their bigwigs are centuries old and accordingly formidable, and it's theoretically possible, albeit rare, for an elf to 'fall' into orc-hood. So the answer there is: Yes, all orcs are evil. But it's the evilness that makes them orcs, and not vice versa.

Tolkien himself went back and forth on whether Orcs should be terrestrial demons beyond any significant prospect of redemption, or, at least in part, tragic victims of enslavement and a malthusian struggle for existence, so Burning Wheel's solution is... well, not inconsistent with the source material, let's put it that way.


The question of whether fantasy fiction should depict entire intelligent species as having an intrinsic disposition toward good or evil is a little trickier. I think the orcs in Tolkien mainly represented the kind of world that Sauron is inclined to build, but there is a certain argument that Tolkien equated Evil == Ugly in ways that are naive at the least. I think it's less problematic in science fiction, since you can at least appeal to evolutionary psychology to explain divergent survival strategies under different ancestral environments, but fantasy doesn't have that kind of underlying premise. It's become more fashionable these days to go Klingon-style and treat the 'savage' fantasy races as rowdy, tribalistic proud-warrior types, and I suppose I see no harm in a little novelty, all else equal.

The thing is, however, that D&D is mechanically very focused on a dungeon-crawling hack'n'slash paradigm for play, and while it's all well and good to talk about nuance and diversity and representation, the rules themselves don't provide particularly deep support for solving problems with conversation, for example. It is a game about breaking into people's homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their stuff. The only way for that to work without the PCs looking like *******s is for their enemies to be uniformly horrible people, but when you mix that in with some eminently reasonable assumptions about dungeon ecology you get fantasy racism as a byproduct. I'm not saying it's impossible to work around that, but I think D&D itself would need some non-trivial mechanical adjustments in order to not encourage it.

[hamishspence]

It is a game about breaking into people's homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their stuff. The only way for that to work without the PCs looking like *******s is for their enemies to be uniformly horrible people, but when you mix that in with some eminently reasonable assumptions about dungeon ecology you get fantasy racism as a byproduct.

I think Don't Split The Party commentary (plus various other things The Giant has said on the boards) has made it clear just how much The Giant dislikes these two things, and how much OOTS is about subverting the assumption that this is "just the way D&D has to be".

I'll be interested in seeing exactly what OoTS will do with it, toward the end.

[Lord_Drayakir]

I think Don't Split The Party commentary (plus various other things The Giant has said on the boards) has made it clear just how much The Giant dislikes these two things, and how much OOTS is about subverting the assumption that this is "just the way D&D has to be".

I'll be interested in seeing exactly what OoTS will do with it, toward the end.

And that was the crux of my original point. D&D has certain assumptions that you need to make, otherwise it stops being D&D. Because why draw the line at orcs/goblins? Demons and dragons are stated to be 99% evil, but there's that 1%, so maybe you shouldn't just kill demons. Killing non-sentient monsters seems harmful to the environment, why not just use magic to drive them away?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what Rich Burlew is trying to do, but it would be akin to somebody that wants to do piracy without taking something that doesn't belong to you. D&D is a complex combat mechanics system that has a thin layer of "generic high fantasy" paint. Now, if you wanted to do more nuanced stuff, then go for something like WoD or Shadowrun.

Imagine how much cooler OotS would be if it were a Shadowrun comic?

[factotum]

The thing is, however, that D&D is mechanically very focused on a dungeon-crawling hack'n'slash paradigm for play, and while it's all well and good to talk about nuance and diversity and representation, the rules themselves don't provide particularly deep support for solving problems with conversation, for example.

That's arguably because solving problems with conversation is part of the "role playing" that makes the game an RPG. There aren't rules for how to draw a map or build a town, either, because the game expects the DM to do those jobs.

[georgie_leech]

Imagine how much cooler OotS would be if it were a Shadowrun comic?

I'm not sure if I can really accept "imagine how much cooler this thing you enjoy would be if it had completely different characters, history, setting constraints, and literal laws of physics."

[Lacuna Caster]

That's arguably because solving problems with conversation is part of the "role playing" that makes the game an RPG. There aren't rules for how to draw a map or build a town, either, because the game expects the DM to do those jobs.

When your game text has dozens-to-hundreds of pages dealing with how to stab, burn, crush or disintegrate a variety of opponents, and does not have dozens-to-hundreds of pages dealing with how to resolve political conflict, this sends a message about what players are likely and/or ought to be doing.

There are, in fact, RPGs that provide fairly explicit and detailed mechanics for building towns and the NPCs that inhabit them, with an eye toward (possibly) using nonlethal conflict to solve the problems therein. Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World, for example. Sorceror and Sword, with the proviso that the map is invented as you go along. Burning Empires, on a planetary scale, with direct input from the players during the build-process. Some of this has crept in to 5E in terms of the DMG advice about providing a home base for the players, but it's still a stub compared to other games' treatment.

[Fyraltari]

It's something of a tangent, but I thought I'd mention how this is handled in Burning Wheel. Orcs and elves are basically treated as being the same species, it's just that elves are fueled by their grief and orcs by their hatred. Most orcs will never realise they're immortal because their society is so relentlessly savage that few survive past adulthood, but some of their bigwigs are centuries old and accordingly formidable, and it's theoretically possible, albeit rare, for an elf to 'fall' into orc-hood. So the answer there is: Yes, all orcs are evil. But it's the evilness that makes them orcs, and not vice versa.

Tolkien himself went back and forth on whether Orcs should be terrestrial demons beyond any significant prospect of redemption, or, at least in part, tragic victims of enslavement and a malthusian struggle for existence, so Burning Wheel's solution is... well, not inconsistent with the source material, let's put it that way.

I actually have known people to propose that very solution to Middle-Earth, assuming that Orcs come from ELves (the professor flip-flopped on that too), and seeing how Elves injuries seem to heal according to their mental state (compare Maedhros' and Gwindor's recoveries after their respective captures) and the professor's comment of how WWI "made Orcs of us all" it could be that an Orc who stops being evil turns into an Elf again.

The question of whether fantasy fiction should depict entire intelligent species as having an intrinsic disposition toward good or evil is a little trickier. I think the orcs in Tolkien mainly represented the kind of world that Sauron is inclined to build, but there is a certain argument that Tolkien equated Evil == Ugly in ways that are naive at the least.

Not completely disagreeing but it's not entirely clear-cut: Melkor, Sauron, Eöl the Fëanorians (depending on who you ask) and Ar-Pharâzon are both evil and handsome (though they do tend to loose the handsomeness after a while) when the Druedain appear to be the most unflinchingly good tribe of Man and everyone think they are hideous.

I think it's less problematic in science fiction, since you can at least appeal to evolutionary psychology to explain divergent survival strategies under different ancestral environments, but fantasy doesn't have that kind of underlying premise. It's become more fashionable these days to go Klingon-style and treat the 'savage' fantasy races as rowdy, tribalistic proud-warrior types, and I suppose I see no harm in a little novelty, all else equal.

It makes more sense too, a society of evil people isn't really sustainable. Empathy is a (generally) naturally selected trait for a reason.

The thing is, however, that D&D is mechanically very focused on a dungeon-crawling hack'n'slash paradigm for play, and while it's all well and good to talk about nuance and diversity and representation, the rules themselves don't provide particularly deep support for solving problems with conversation, for example.

Isn't that precisely what Charisma is for ?

It is a game about breaking into people's homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their stuff. The only way for that to work without the PCs looking like *******s is for their enemies to be uniformly horrible people, but when you mix that in with some eminently reasonable assumptions about dungeon ecology you get fantasy racism as a byproduct. I'm not saying it's impossible to work around that, but I think D&D itself would need some non-trivial mechanical adjustments in order to not encourage it.

True enough.

Demons and dragons are stated to be 99% evil, but there's that 1%, so maybe you shouldn't just kill demons. Killing non-sentient monsters seems harmful to the environment, why not just use magic to drive them away?

Exactly. You should make sure the Dragon/Demon /monster is actually evil before killing them.

(The local mortality rate seems to be a good indicator).

[Liquor Box]

As far as I know (which is basically d20srd), it's about as explicitly stated as OP's notion that alignment is innate and aprioristic as per RAW.

Do you mean not at all?

It's just a saner interpretation, but one that's actually supported by the comic.

How is it supported by the comic?

We know that Elan was raised by a kind mother and turned out good, and Nale was raised by a meanie and turned out mean. But we also know that some goblin grow up to be good because their parents were evil. Neither of those seem to me to give much support one way or the other.

Personally I don;t see anything in the comic that supports either interpretation (leaving it totally open), but I am interested if I missed something.

[georgie_leech]

I'm not sure I would call those goblin kids Good. At least, not anymore than I'd be willing to call most rebellious teens Evil. Tempting, but not really fair.

[zimmerwald1915]

As far as I know (which is basically d20srd), it's about as explicitly stated as OP's notion that alignment is innate and aprioristic as per RAW. It's just a saner interpretation, but one that's actually supported by the comic.

Here's what the 3.5 PHB (and not the SRD) has to say on the subject:

Creatures and members of classes shown in italic type on Table 6–1 [which includes archons, lammasus, paladins, guardinals, pseudodragons (but not any of the listed true dragons, which would seem to contradict the MM), eladrins, unicorns, formians, azers, animals, devils, allips, devourers, demons, vampires, and troglodytes] are always of the indicated alignment. Except for paladins, they are born into that alignment. It is inherent, part of their nature. Usually, a creature with an inherent alignment has some connection (through ancestry, history, or magic) to the Outer Planes or is a magical beast.

For other creatures, races, and classes, the indicated alignment on Table 6–1 is the typical or most common one. Normal sentient creatures can be of any alignment. They may have inherent tendencies toward a particular alignment, but individuals can vary from this norm. Depending on the type of creature, these tendencies may be stronger or weaker. For example, kobolds and beholders are usually lawful evil, but kobolds display more variation in alignment than beholders because their inborn alignment tendency isn't as strong. Also, sentient creatures have cultural tendencies that usually reinforce alignment tendencies. For example, orcs tend to be chaotic evil, and their culture tends to produce chaotic evil members. A human raised among orcs is more likely than normal to be chaotic evil, while an orc raised among humans is less likely to be so.

Unstated is that "cultural tendencies" should be thought of as default-setting-specific in addition to the other caveats.

Why they chose to omit this from the SRD I don't know.

[Liquor Box]

Here's what the 3.5 PHB (and not the SRD) has to say on the subject:


Unstated is that "cultural tendencies" should be thought of as default-setting-specific in addition to the other caveats.

Why they chose to omit this from the SRD I don't know.

That suggest that, under the 3.5 rules, both inherent disposition and culture play a role, whic is probably consistent with the real world*.

* Consistent in the context that nature and nurture are both thought to have role in such things in the real world, not to suggest that some races are inherently or culturally more evil than others.

[Thufir]

And that was the crux of my original point. D&D has certain assumptions that you need to make, otherwise it stops being D&D.

No. D&D is a very diverse system which can accommodate many different types of fantasy stories. If you stop making the common assumptions while playing it doesn't stop being D&D, it just means your playing out a different kind of fantasy story in perhaps a different kind of fantasy world. The idea that a very common (perhaps the most common) way of playing is the only way of playing is exactly the sort of thing Rich has railed against.