Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
I wish they would release new material people can discuss.
Well, to be fair they did release the last packet about 2 weeks ago which isn't to bad.
Some creatures I believe should be inherently bad, some are good. Then I think the most of the races should be somewhere in the middle. Personally I think Orcs should tend to be a bit more evil then others, but not 100% corrupted. If a group wants a morally gray tone, there should be enough races to make such game, but other times I think it should be pretty clear cut on who to kill.
In my own world, Orcs are not kill on sight, they have their own town/small city, try to be apart of the world, but I do have other races that fit the bill, goblins are pretty much kill on sight for example. However, if my PCs wanted to try for a peaceful solution, they can attempt, but they would need to overcome some history and such to make it work. Like "Lets work together to get out of this cave, then separate."
Demons are always evil yes? Not just in game terms but within the world.
Orcs are almost always evil. Their souls are just as black as any demons. A few of them are not innately evil. But if you use it like a statisic. say 98.8% of the orc population are undeniably evil. We aren't talking about being "savage" or prone to violence, we are talking about Evil. That 1.2% margin of error is too small for most anyone carrying about when something is doing you harm.
You can argue, are orcish young, & their womenfolk also evil? (Within the 98.8% statistic) Yes they are. Young demons are evil, old demons are evil, female demons are evil.
Just because other media has softened the image of the orc, it doesn't mean that D&D's orcs aren't evil vile creatures. Following that logic should we soften every creature that has a more positive spin in other media? Should vampires sparkle? Should goblins become snarky merchants? Should pixies be vulnerable to pizza related bribes?(okay maybe the last one should be true :P)
Look I'm saying that any of these shouldn't be options or modules or anything. But ask yourself. Should this be core? Is this version of orcs be the staple?
Well, I know for a fact that Monstrous Humanoids (Goblinoids, Orcs, etc) and Chromatic Dragons in 3.5 are "Usually Evil" which means that a notable minority of their populations are actually Neutral or Good aligned. I also know that similar rules apply to 2e AD&D, and likely to earlier editions and 4e as well. So, unless your DM changes the setting specifically to fit that idea, that is not how Orcs work.
I like that Goblins and Orcs are, culturally or racially, Evil and the exceptions are outliers like Evil Elves and Dwarves. The idea that all sentient creatures must be inherently Good is boring and silly, while the idea that we're all Neutral at the start takes away a core part of Humanity's "wear any Hat" identity. I also like the moral issues it raises; the "Orc Babies" issue has killed more Internet Trees than any other RPG idea I can think of, and I would hate to lose it.
But the other extreme is just as stupid; ignoring the rules to demonize (literally!) the Orcs removes the story and setting implications of a Usually Evil race and just makes them into a palette-swap of Zombies. D&D has enough mindless Constructs Magical Beasts and Undead or Evil Outsiders that there is no shortage of cannon-fodder; we don't need more of them badly enough to destroy what the Orc is.
Last edited by Water_Bear : 11-11-2012 at 05:36 PM.
In which case, so in your opinion every character has to act exactly like Shadow from Digger, constantly asking everything if they are sentient or not, and then putting everything through a litmus test to see if it is sapient?
Funny how you were just explaining what is and isn't a strawman and now you're throwing a textbook case of one around. I'm not sure why I should answer this question, seeing as it's in no way related to my position.
Quote:
Again, some people just want to sit around and kill stuff. Why is their fun something that you want to not have in D&D?
I don't want to have it because I think it's bad writing and bad design. Not something a good game ought to have. How is it different from everything else people have declared bad and undesirable in this thread and others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentPaper
Ok, this part I can buy. However, I don't think anything in the current description contradicts this line of play. The Orc description details what motivates an orc, specifically expansion of territory, and acquisition of females. Nowhere does it say that orcs will kill everything on sight and can't be negotiated with. Orcs and such are only always-evil if you interpret them to be.
The reason that new players don't stop and try to negotiate with the orcs isn't because they are told that the orcs can't be negotiated with. It's because they never think to because they're too busy having fun smashing orcs in the face.
Certainly some players enjoy the negotiation approach more, but I can't see anything that would prevent them from taking that approach. Heck, there's even rules expressly written for doing just such a thing.
In the end, it just comes down to what your group enjoys. If you like smashing in and beating orcs in the face, then you're provided for. If you'd rather have an eloquent debate with the orcs about objectivisim and the morality of looting, then nothing's stopping you from doing that either.
See, I don't think the reason many players just skip straight to murdering everything with green skin and fangs they see lies entirely in the way they view the game. The fact is that the books call these races Evil, with a capital E in addition to painting them in the worst possible light. It doesn't matter that they're only "usually/ofen evil". The implication is that they're Evil, so it's okay to kill them. Don't tell me you've never seen this approach expressed. And I think that it's bad design and bad writing.
The Usually/Often Evil part is funny in 3.x D&D, anyway. Technically speaking, you're more likely to meet a Good orc than an Evil elf and just as likely to meet a Good goblin as an Evil elf. But it's in no way represented in the actual fluff and descriptions.
__________________
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.
That's a pretty bad example, since the comic consistently treats most humans as always evil creatures that should be slaughtered for the experience points.
However, OOTS does a good job at pointing out the issues with treating certain race as "always evil".
That's a pretty bad example, since the comic consistently treats most humans as always evil creatures that should be slaughtered for the experience points.
However, OOTS does a good job at pointing out the issues with treating certain race as "always evil".
It was more of a tongue-in-cheek example than a serious counter.
Well, I know for a fact that Monstrous Humanoids (Goblinoids, Orcs, etc) and Chromatic Dragons in 3.5 are "Usually Evil" which means that a notable minority of their populations are actually Neutral or Good aligned. I also know that similar rules apply to 2e AD&D, and likely to earlier editions and 4e as well. So, unless your DM changes the setting specifically to fit that idea, that is not how Orcs work.
I like that Goblins and Orcs are, culturally or racially, Evil and the exceptions are outliers like Evil Elves and Dwarves. The idea that all sentient creatures must be inherently Good is boring and silly, while the idea that we're all Neutral at the start takes away a core part of Humanity's "wear any Hat" identity. I also like the moral issues it raises; the "Orc Babies" issue has killed more Internet Trees than any other RPG idea I can think of, and I would hate to lose it.
But the other extreme is just as stupid; ignoring the rules to demonize (literally!) the Orcs removes the story and setting implications of a Usually Evil race and just makes them into a palette-swap of Zombies. D&D has enough mindless Constructs Magical Beasts and Undead or Evil Outsiders that there is no shortage of cannon-fodder; we don't need more of them badly enough to destroy what the Orc is.
Never said all sentient creatures are good. In fact orcs are sentient, & they are mostly evil. Yes there are a few that are not evil to the core, but just because they aren't evil doesn't mean that they are good.
Also, just because one egg in a couple dozen isn't rotten, doesn't mean you won't throw out the lot. Especially if you can't tell by looking at it
See, I don't think the reason many players just skip straight to murdering everything with green skin and fangs they see lies entirely in the way they view the game. The fact is that the books call these races Evil, with a capital E in addition to painting them in the worst possible light. It doesn't matter that they're only "usually/ofen evil". The implication is that they're Evil, so it's okay to kill them. Don't tell me you've never seen this approach expressed. And I think that it's bad design and bad writing.
Yes, and I don't see that as bad design or bad writing. Orcs are there to be evil antagonists that the players need to fight. They fulfill this role very well. If you want a less clear-cut issue, then you don't use orcs, you use dwarves or elves or gnomes or humans.
The books aren't painting them in the worst possible light, they're describing them exactly how they are, which happens to be really bad. If you don't like that, that's fine, you can use different enemies in your campaign. But you not liking it doesn't make it bad. I personally don't like elves, or how they're portrayed, or really anything about them, but other people love them.
If you think there should be a race of noble savagaes/proud warrior race guys similar to orcs but not always evil, then that's fine. In fact, Half-Orcs fill that role fairly well already. But that doesn't mean you need to warp the already existing aspects of the game which other people like, just to fit your desires.
__________________
Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
Last edited by AgentPaper : 11-11-2012 at 06:02 PM.
Never said all sentient creatures are good. In fact orcs are sentient, & they are mostly evil. Yes there are a few that are not evil to the core, but just because they aren't evil doesn't mean that they are good.
Also, just because one egg in a couple dozen isn't rotten, doesn't mean you won't throw out the lot. Especially if you can't tell by looking at it
Actually, I was addressing you in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs and everyone else in the 2nd. Saying Orcs are pretty much Demons and kill-on-sight is just as ludicrous as saying they're nature-loving hippies; it ignores almost everything we know about them in favor of a 2D cliche.
Orcs in Tolkien were stand-ins for Mongols Bulgars and Magyars, and that idea of brutal uncivilized barbarians living on the outskirts of civilization has been their defining trait in pretty much every bit of media they've appeared in. They are raiders and slavers, plunderers who live in the outlands and attack trade routes or outlying villages, and if left unchecked will eventually form rampaging hordes. But is that because they're born bad, or is it a result of living in a harsh and brutal culture beyond the bounds of civilized life? That idea allows for a lot more complexity and moral ambiguity than either of the options I've seen proposed here.
Last edited by Water_Bear : 11-11-2012 at 06:10 PM.
I don't want to have it because I think it's bad writing and bad design. Not something a good game ought to have. How is it different from everything else people have declared bad and undesirable in this thread and others?
Well because most previous complaints were limited to one or two things within the game that don't affect tone or even require a lot of work to change.
What you argue for on the other hand, pretty much necessitates one or more orders of magnitude of more work, as you now have to add dozens of more playable races (and don't even start denying it, people play monster races because they just want to now, and damn the fluff. When you make most of them sympathetic, you will have even more players demanding to play them or they start whining about racism), and rewrite the entire tone of the work, for what payoff? The game isn't going to suddenly become a better game, because nothing in the game play parts of the game has actually changed, and as everyone said when I brought up something pertaining to the writing: "You can change it yourself if you don't like it".
__________________
Thanks to Ninja Chocobo for the avatar.
I am not perfect, nor do I pretend to be, if you find an error in something I've said, show me.
Actually, I was addressing you in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs and everyone else in the 2nd. Saying Orcs are pretty much Demons and kill-on-sight is just as ludicrous as saying they're nature-loving hippies; it ignores almost everything we know about them in favor of a 2D cliche.
Orcs in Tolkien were stand-ins for Mongols Bulgars and Magyars, and that idea of brutal uncivilized barbarians living on the outskirts of civilization has been their defining trait in pretty much every bit of media they've appeared in. They are raiders and slavers, plunderers who live in the outlands and attack trade routes or outlying villages, and if left unchecked will eventually form rampaging hordes. But is that because they're born bad, or is it a result of living in a harsh and brutal culture beyond the bounds of civilized life? That idea allows for a lot more complexity and moral ambiguity than either of the options I've seen proposed here.
Never said kill on sight. I was trying to say that when you read "evil" you should think "evil". All I did was just compare it to creatures that are of the same alignment. I'm sorry you infer that demons should be "kill on sight". I mean, why can't they be fallen good guys who aren't exactly bad guys? :( Maybe demons are just the barbarians of the planes? Is a baby balor evil? Maybe growing up in hell made him evil :(
So when I say EVIL I'm talking about EVIL in all caps, not a NEUTRAL race in a bad environment. The Monster Manual doesn't say they have to be primitive, but it does say that they are "almost always EVIL"
All I did was just compare it to creatures that are of the same alignment.
...
So when I say EVIL I'm talking about EVIL in all caps, not a NEUTRAL race in a bad environment. The Monster Manual doesn't say they have to be primitive, but it does say that they are "almost always EVIL"
Then turn that around; would you describe Dwarves (Usually LG) as essentially being Archons, that they are "99.8%" going to be exalted paragons of Good and Law with a tiny fraction not even worth mentioning being Evil? I doubt it.
Orcs, by RAW, are usually (~40%) Chaotic Evil with the rest of their population distributed mostly around NE, CN, and TN with a tiny number of Good or Lawful renegades. Dwarves, by RAW, are usually (~40%) Lawful Good with the rest of their population distributed mostly around NG, LN, and TN with a tiny number of Evil or Chaotic renegades. If this is about what the SRD says, our views of them and their demography should be mirror images.
Whether intentional or not, both people who say Orcs are always Evil and people go in the opposite direction of saying they're Neutral like Humans are removing what makes the Orc interesting and long-lasting in fiction. They represent the barbarian peoples out on the edge, people who are our enemies and want to tear down our societies, but still occasionally produce individuals who defy that generalization and can side with the forces of Law and Good. Taking that away is like taking away Dwarven greed because, hey, they're LG after all and thus cannot ever succumb to mad lust for treasure. It diminishes them and makes the setting less interesting.
Then turn that around; would you describe Dwarves (Usually LG) as essentially being Archons, that they are "99.8%" going to be exalted paragons of Good and Law with a tiny fraction not even worth mentioning being Evil? I doubt it.
Orcs, by RAW, are usually (~40%) Chaotic Evil with the rest of their population distributed mostly around NE, CN, and TN with a tiny number of Good or Lawful renegades. Dwarves, by RAW, are usually (~40%) Lawful Good with the rest of their population distributed mostly around NG, LN, and TN with a tiny number of Evil or Chaotic renegades. If this is about what the SRD says, our views of them and their demography should be mirror images.
Whether intentional or not, both people who say Orcs are always Evil and people go in the opposite direction of saying they're Neutral like Humans are removing what makes the Orc interesting and long-lasting in fiction. They represent the barbarian peoples out on the edge, people who are our enemies and want to tear down our societies, but still occasionally produce individuals who defy that generalization and can side with the forces of Law and Good. Taking that away is like taking away Dwarven greed because, hey, they're LG after all and thus cannot ever succumb to mad lust for treasure. It diminishes them and makes the setting less interesting.
Do you have a citing for that figure by chance? Because the word "Usual" and thus "usually" means "common or expected occurrence" no matter which definition you use, which implies a much greater percentage than 40%.
__________________
Thanks to Ninja Chocobo for the avatar.
I am not perfect, nor do I pretend to be, if you find an error in something I've said, show me.
Do you have a citing for that figure by chance? Because the word "Usual" and thus "usually" means "common or expected occurrence" no matter which definition you use, which implies a much greater percentage than 40%.
It's actually not "usually", it's "often", which could reasonably mean less than a majority, but still the most common segment (i.e., 40% or so).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence
"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
Do you have a citing for that figure by chance? Because the word "Usual" and thus "usually" means "common or expected occurrence" no matter which definition you use, which implies a much greater percentage than 40%.
And
Quote:
That's with calling Often at 60% (low in my opinion, being almost a flip of the coin)
As I said up thread, "often" does not mean more than 50%. We have another phrase for that "more often than not."
If I say that earthquakes often occur in California, this doesn't mean that more than 50% of the worlds (or even the US') earthquakes occur in California. Just that in earthquakes frequently occur in California, which they do.
(For reference, of mag 3.5 or greater earthquakes, only 23% of the earthquakes in the us happen in California, but I doubt anyone here would disagree with me if I said I earthquakes often happen in California. Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...top_states.php)
Last edited by 1337 b4k4 : 11-11-2012 at 09:12 PM.
Do you have a citing for that figure by chance? Because the word "Usual" and thus "usually" means "common or expected occurrence" no matter which definition you use, which implies a much greater percentage than 40%.
Water Bear was wrong about the "usually" CE part, as tuggyne noted, but right about the ~40% CE part. Orcs are listed as "often CE," which corresponds to 40-50% CE.
Monster Manual, page 305, under Glossary:
Quote:
Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind. Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian. Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.
__________________
Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.
Sig of Holding
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by abadguy
Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
Do you have a citing for that figure by chance? Because the word "Usual" and thus "usually" means "common or expected occurrence" no matter which definition you use, which implies a much greater percentage than 40%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster Manual, p.305
Alignment: This line in the monster entry gives the alignment this creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creature's origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, Corellon Larethian.
Often: The creature tends towards the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40%-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.
Nuance! In MY D&D?!? It's more likely than you think.
Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil (MM1, p.203) so thus ~45% of Orcs are CE, with the rest having other aligments. I was wrong about how they are distributed though; I assumed the "one space off" rules applied like with Clerics choosing their deity, but the text implies it's random.
(BTW, this quote counts as OGL right? Not sure, since Corellon Larethian is proprietary, but I know the Core books are almost entirely duplicated in the SRD)
-Edit-
DAMN THOSE ACCURSED NINJAS!
Last edited by Water_Bear : 11-11-2012 at 09:35 PM.
Reason: Ninjas
(BTW, this quote counts as OGL right? Not sure, since Corellon Larethian is proprietary, but I know the Core books are almost entirely duplicated in the SRD)
It isn't, but it might or might not be considered fair use. (I looked it up in the SRD earlier, hoping to cite something to end the dispute, but found nothing in the precise spot the printed versions have it.)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence
"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
And there you have it. The only thing that causes 100% evil orcs that you perform genocide on is players.
Although even that I think is a stretch. How many games have you played in/seen where the players overtly go around killing orcs just because they're orcs? Far more common is for the players to hear about a band of orcs that have been attacking a village, and then the players venture out to stop them.
[*]I'm a little worried that if they design a game using web surveys, they'll end up with a game that's good at passing web surveys.
You're not the only one. 5E's main marketing feature is that they try to please everyone. As the saying goes, this will most likely end up pleasing noone. 5E is very likely to become a 3E/4E hybrid that's too much like 3E for the 4E fans, and vice versa. And, you know, this.
What alternatives do they have? If they don't ask people what they think works and what doesn't than people will complain as well. Probably even exactly the same people who complain now.
__________________ Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting
What alternatives do they have? If they don't ask people what they think works and what doesn't than people will complain as well. Probably even exactly the same people who complain now.
The first question is, are they asking the right people. The second question is, will the majority answers be successful in drawing in new people and maintaining them? Because New Coke was also based on listening to people's thoughts.
An issue is that many fans of <insert edition here> will answer that they want 5E to resemble their edition as much as possible... but if it does, they won't buy it because they already have their edition.
Another issue is that certain fans want the exact opposite of certain other fans, so you really can't compromise on a middle ground there. I'm not even convinced modular design will help to reunite mutually exclusive design principles.
What alternatives do they have? If they don't ask people what they think works and what doesn't than people will complain as well. Probably even exactly the same people who complain now.
The nature of their questions is, IMO, wrong. The surveys are all about the fluff and gut feelings, not about the mechanics. It's a lot of, "What's iconic?" and "Does this look like a bugbear to you?"
I loved the idea of the playtest at first, but now I'm thinking, "Do we need another year of this?!" I would really rather the professional game designers put together a professional game rather than listen to the loudest voices who just want a rehash of 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e.
The problem is, now that we're playtesting, not only do I have to rely on the designers to use their judgment, we also have to rely on whatever subset of fans is being vocal about what they want. I trust the designers a lot more than the fans.
The nature of their questions is, IMO, wrong. The surveys are all about the fluff and gut feelings, not about the mechanics. It's a lot of, "What's iconic?" and "Does this look like a bugbear to you?"
I loved the idea of the playtest at first, but now I'm thinking, "Do we need another year of this?!" I would really rather the professional game designers put together a professional game rather than listen to the loudest voices who just want a rehash of 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e.
The problem is, now that we're playtesting, not only do I have to rely on the designers to use their judgment, we also have to rely on whatever subset of fans is being vocal about what they want. I trust the designers a lot more than the fans.
QFT
If there's one thing I've learned from playing RPGs is that if I buy a game, I want it to be one I couldn't have made myself.
I am not a team of professional (read: paid) game developers with a cadre of artists and veteran roleplayers; they should have ideas of their own that they can develop and implement on their own. At the moment, all that the 5e development seems to consist of is The Internet and some guys with a stack of old D&D books cribbing ideas and mechanics and slapping them together into a single book. Not only could I do that, I've seen what those games look like -- pick up any random "fix" of 3.x and you have it. Hobbyists put them together with the input of The Internet and regardless of your opinions on such games it is true that they did not require the resources of WotC to make them.
Has WotC had some good, even innovative, ideas in 5e? Yes -- Expertise Dice and their modular character design were at least novel attempts to grapple with the WotC D&D framework. But those ideas were just jumping-off points: they're not enough to build an entire system around. Yet WotC isn't spending their time developing those mechanics or even introducing new ones. Instead, they are sending out surveys and polishing the skeleton instead of adding meat to the bones.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: WotC is abandoning (at their peril!) their strengths as a game development company and is instead trying to retread the ideas that were popular during their first big hit -- 3.0. Appealing to nostalgia might get you some money in the bank, but it is invariably the death knell of a franchise.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
