If biology is what makes a creature evil, why have them be Humanoids in the first place? Have them be Monstrosities, or Fiends, or Aberrations (most orcs in the Forgotten Realms are invaders from another world, after all), or even Plants (Fungus subtype) if they're like the Orks from WH4k. Also, if they are Humanoids and are just mind-controlled/cursed by their creator to have evil tendencies, that makes it an evil act to kill them, because they're innocent and the real evil is the person/god (Gruumsh) that enslaved them to act in that manner.
No, I said the evil doesn't come from biology, it comes from the extraplanar source. The people who are upset about the concept of their being evil are upset because they mistakenly believe that the evil is comming from biology rather than from an extraplanar source, or think I believe that, and dislike the concept that evil can come from biology. Which it can't really. At best you can get psychosis from biology, but that's not really what we mean when we talk about "Evil." We are talking about evil as a tangible spiritual/supernatural force which eminates from certain outer planes, gods, or other sources; such as perhaps the negetive energy plane?
If biology is what makes a creature evil, why have them be Humanoids in the first place? Have them be Monstrosities, or Fiends, or Aberrations (most orcs in the Forgotten Realms are invaders from another world, after all), or even Plants (Fungus subtype) if they're like the Orks from WH4k. Also, if they are Humanoids and are just mind-controlled/cursed by their creator to have evil tendencies, that makes it an evil act to kill them, because they're innocent and the real evil is the person/god (Gruumsh) that enslaved them to act in that manner.
No, I said the evil doesn't come from biology, it comes from the extraplanar source. The people who are upset about the concept of their being evil are upset because they mistakenly believe that the evil is comming from biology rather than from an extraplanar source, or think I believe that, and dislike the concept that evil can come from biology. Which it can't really. At best you can get psychosis from biology, but that's not really what we mean when we talk about "Evil." We are talking about evil as a tangible spiritual/supernatural force which eminates from certain outer planes, gods, or other sources; such as perhaps the negetive energy plane?
What's the difference, exactly? If orcs are created as evil, how is that not the same as or even part of their biology?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If biology is what makes a creature evil, why have them be Humanoids in the first place? Have them be Monstrosities, or Fiends, or Aberrations (most orcs in the Forgotten Realms are invaders from another world, after all), or even Plants (Fungus subtype) if they're like the Orks from WH4k. Also, if they are Humanoids and are just mind-controlled/cursed by their creator to have evil tendencies, that makes it an evil act to kill them, because they're innocent and the real evil is the person/god (Gruumsh) that enslaved them to act in that manner.
No, I said the evil doesn't come from biology, it comes from the extraplanar source. The people who are upset about the concept of their being evil are upset because they mistakenly believe that the evil is comming from biology rather than from an extraplanar source, or think I believe that, and dislike the concept that evil can come from biology. Which it can't really. At best you can get psychosis from biology, but that's not really what we mean when we talk about "Evil." We are talking about evil as a tangible spiritual/supernatural force which eminates from certain outer planes, gods, or other sources; such as perhaps the negetive energy plane?
Whether or not it comes from biology or a strictly fictional and magical source is completely immaterial for me. Both are problematic for the same reason, that being: It's a statement that a group of people who all look the same can be safely painted with the same brush, and that therefore it's fine to start killing them without any deeper thought on the matter. I should hope I don't need to explain why someone at the table might find that extremely uncomfortable as a concept. But even setting that particular elephant in the room aside, in my personal opinion it's actually more flat and boring than the alternative. If you would like your orcs to be inherently evil for any reason at your table, that is your prerogative, but please understand that it is not some misunderstanding of the "why" that causes me and my table not enjoy that in our games. It's actuallyjust the concept itself.
Now if you want to say, "Orcs aren't inherently evil, some of them can and do make a conscious choice in their lives to be good instead, even if that's a hard choice in the society they were born to." then THAT is something I can happily engage with. There's depth there, there's intrigue, there's space for nuance. And I'm of the firm belief that all of that leads to better narratives and better roleplaying. But that gets shut down immediately if the DM looks at the book and says "Nope, says here always evil. Automatically enforced by evil god magic no less."
If biology is what makes a creature evil, why have them be Humanoids in the first place? Have them be Monstrosities, or Fiends, or Aberrations (most orcs in the Forgotten Realms are invaders from another world, after all), or even Plants (Fungus subtype) if they're like the Orks from WH4k. Also, if they are Humanoids and are just mind-controlled/cursed by their creator to have evil tendencies, that makes it an evil act to kill them, because they're innocent and the real evil is the person/god (Gruumsh) that enslaved them to act in that manner.
No, I said the evil doesn't come from biology, it comes from the extraplanar source. The people who are upset about the concept of their being evil are upset because they mistakenly believe that the evil is comming from biology rather than from an extraplanar source, or think I believe that, and dislike the concept that evil can come from biology. Which it can't really. At best you can get psychosis from biology, but that's not really what we mean when we talk about "Evil." We are talking about evil as a tangible spiritual/supernatural force which eminates from certain outer planes, gods, or other sources; such as perhaps the negetive energy plane?
You seem to be ignoring the many, many times people have pointed out that their evil does not necessarily come from an extraplanar source. Or for that matter, the many, many examples you've been given where they are not evil, and that's just in the FR and other published settings. Different worlds with different lore and different creation myths will inevitably lead to different kinds of orcs. And don't even get me started on homebrew worlds and how they just ignore that the FR even exists, let alone who made what race on Toril.
The point of this errata, or at least one of the points, is to make the creatures setting agnostic. Orcs, and all other creatures, will not be assumed to be the same in every world. Instead, they will behave in a way appropriate to the lore of a given world, as shaped by the DM of a given campaign. WotC is removing the idea that any creature will act in any specific way, and is leaving it up to individual creators, be they creators of settings or individual DMs, how those orcs behave in any given world. That's all that's happening. They are giving people license to let creatures act in whatever way best serves any particular campaign world.
You want every orc in your world to be irredeemably evil, and basically there to act as bags of XP for low- to mid-level PCs. Just black hats and white hats, and it's all very simple. Great. Do that. If other people want their orcs to be nuanced and want PCs to have to think about whether or not any particular orc needs killing. They can do that. You might argue, well, the pro-nuance people could always have done that, but that argument cuts both ways -- you can still make evil orcs.
Honestly, I sometimes think the whole issue boils down to how its changing who needs to do the work. Under the old way, orcs or drow were only good for killing. That was the default, with a handful of exceptions. So, if people wanted nuanced orcs, they were the ones who needed to make the change to the "official canon" and explain it to their players and make sure people understand. Now that's flipped and the default is that the orc you see might actually be a bad person or might be a good person and maybe you should ask questions before you start stabbing. So now people who only want orcs that are only good for killing will be the ones who need to explain to their table that in their world, orcs are "Capitol E" Evil, and its fair game to slaughter any one you see, all the way down to the babies.
At its core, that's the big change. Both options have always been available to everyone, just now it's making a different group of players do the tiniest little bit of extra work to implement their vision.
Why would Orcs from one part of the Multiverse be the same as Orcs from another part?
If they have different cultures, why would they both call themselves "Orc"? They would have totally different languages (just look at our world) and call themselves something unique in both cases; they would not be able to speak with each other - they would even speak different Common between Faerun and Eberron for example.
If they come from different places, why would they look the same? Their enviroment would shape them in different ways over untold generations - IF they would follow natural biological evolutions; both magic and divine intervention could certainly guide them along same or similiar paths.
And if humanoid beings can be from all over the moral spectrum, why should there not exist places in the Multiverse - like Faerun - where Drow and Orcs are evil f*****g bastards 99% of the time?
I mean - looking back from 1935 till now - you can see how isolated societies with limited outside interactions can either evolve or be steered into certain behavioral ways.
TLDR: Races and Societies are NOT BORN evil, but they can certainly BE MADE evil. Why should that not be represented as a storytelling tool or a setting to explore?
You all do know that the books are only a framework, right? A structure to help you build upon your imagination? You create your own setting specific to you... You do not need to enforce nor expect others to accommodate your imagination, nor you theirs.
What's the difference, exactly? If orcs are created as evil, how is that not the same as or even part of their biology?
either 1. because eliminating the supernatural force can eliminate the evil, whereas if the evil was physically sourced then killing Gruumsh for example or banishing him into a soulstone or whathave you wouldn't free the Orcs from his influence; or 2. If the source of evil is external you can potnetially interup it without actually having to destroy that source, at least temporarily; for example if you cast protection from evil on a creature who is otherwise evil, you may, at least for the duration of the spell, sever that creatures connection from the source of evil, which opens up some interesting opportunities. -Similarly, if you need an excuse for why a certain orc turned good against all odds, perhaps by sheer luck, during a raid, they acquired a piece of jewelry, and it turned out to be a ring of protection from evil, so now as long as long as the orc wears it, they are immune from the corrupting influence of Gruumsh. I don't know if this would work if the source of evil is inside or of the body.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
You all do know that the books are only a framework, right? A structure to help you build upon your imagination? You create your own setting specific to you... You do not need to enforce nor expect others to accommodate your imagination, nor you theirs.
Sedge, with respect, the point being made - and acknowledged by the errata - is that while you're free (and possibly even encouraged) to alter the official line from the books, it being the official line still means something. At the very least it says that the company creating the game feels it's the proper baseline to start from. That's problematic when that baseline feels offensive to a not insignificant part of the players, regardless of rule zero.
... if you cast protection from evil on a creature who is otherwise evil, ...
That's not how Protection from Evil (and Good) works in 5E. It's also not how that spell worked in 3rd edition, incidentally, unless you consider creatures the rules tell you are evil as not being innately evil but rather under the effect of magic that compels them to be evil. And if that were the case, it would be extremely surprising to me that such a magical effect, that affects entire worlds' populations of a race, could be countered - even if only temporarily - by a 1st level spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You all do know that the books are only a framework, right? A structure to help you build upon your imagination? You create your own setting specific to you... You do not need to enforce nor expect others to accommodate your imagination, nor you theirs.
Sooooo .... what? The people who demanded that Drow and Orc lore should change are right because people should not expect them to accomodate this lore, but the people who demanded that Drow and Orc lore should change should not have enforced their immagination onto others nor expect others to accommodate their imagination?
It's a statement that a group of people who all look the same can be safely painted with the same brush, and that therefore it's fine to start killing them without any deeper thought on the matter.
Now if you want to say, "Orcs aren't inherently evil, some of them can and do make a conscious choice in their lives to be good instead, even if that's a hard choice in the society they were born to." then THAT is something I can happily engage with. There's depth there, there's intrigue, there's space for nuance. And I'm of the firm belief that all of that leads to better narratives and better roleplaying. But that gets shut down immediately if the DM looks at the book and says "Nope, says here always evil. Automatically enforced by evil god magic no less."
It's a statement that a group of monsters whom may or may not all look the same; I do not know if they do; for all I know Orcs aren't all green, some can be blue or red or grey or purple, and there tusks may be of a different shape or number and their hair, size, build, etc. there is nothing to imply orcs don't have physical diversity internal to their own species; can be safely painted with the same brush and therefore it is fine to start killing them without any deeper thought on the matter. Yes. We need things we can kill without any deeper thought on the matter. What makes orcs so special that out of any given monster, they are the ones you want to transition into the role of 'people' who shouln't be painted with the brush of monster?".
no, I don't want to say that. I DO want to say that Orcs ARE inherintly evil and cannot; and I literally mean cannot, not will not or usually don't/wont, but cannont, make a consious choice to do good; not because of the society in which they were born, but because of their divine master unto whom they are bound. Again for a Faerun campain at least and a character not from one of the exception tribes mentioned already in this thread; IMHO a DM should in fact ask a player of a good Orc "and why/how are you good?" and the player should need to have a better answer in their backstory to explain it than a simple "Because I choose to be."
Orcs being evil isn't supposed to be treated as a stereotype or a faulse perception/presumtion by bigoted humans/elves/dwarves/halflings of a more primal culture of people. Orcs were by design, both in-universe and meta, intended to be actually evil, and the purveyors of evil actions upon communites of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, and various others, so those communities have some excuse to seek out adventures to rescue them from the predations of these horrible monsters.
Besides which, Orcs are just one example here. Even if we were to say that , hey, Orcs have actually become a popular choice among players, let's open them up so we can enjoy more of Orc specific content'. They are doing this for everything. Even Mindflayers and Beholders. I can see Orcs graduating from monster status along with other things that have already had half-human counterparts; but come on, Beholders? Can't you let even some monsters just be monsters?
You seem to be ignoring the many, many times people have pointed out that their evil does not necessarily come from an extraplanar source. Or for that matter, the many, many examples you've been given where they are not evil, and that's just in the FR and other published settings. Different worlds with different lore and different creation myths will inevitably lead to different kinds of orcs. And don't even get me started on homebrew worlds and how they just ignore that the FR even exists, let alone who made what race on Toril.
The point of this errata, or at least one of the points, is to make the creatures setting agnostic. Orcs, and all other creatures, will not be assumed to be the same in every world. Instead, they will behave in a way appropriate to the lore of a given world, as shaped by the DM of a given campaign. WotC is removing the idea that any creature will act in any specific way, and is leaving it up to individual creators, be they creators of settings or individual DMs, how those orcs behave in any given world. That's all that's happening. They are giving people license to let creatures act in whatever way best serves any particular campaign world.
You want every orc in your world to be irredeemably evil, and basically there to act as bags of XP for low- to mid-level PCs. Just black hats and white hats, and it's all very simple. Great. Do that. If other people want their orcs to be nuanced and want PCs to have to think about whether or not any particular orc needs killing. They can do that. You might argue, well, the pro-nuance people could always have done that, but that argument cuts both ways -- you can still make evil orcs.
Honestly, I sometimes think the whole issue boils down to how its changing who needs to do the work. Under the old way, orcs or drow were only good for killing. That was the default, with a handful of exceptions. So, if people wanted nuanced orcs, they were the ones who needed to make the change to the "official canon" and explain it to their players and make sure people understand. Now that's flipped and the default is that the orc you see might actually be a bad person or might be a good person and maybe you should ask questions before you start stabbing. So now people who only want orcs that are only good for killing will be the ones who need to explain to their table that in their world, orcs are "Capitol E" Evil, and its fair game to slaughter any one you see, all the way down to the babies.
At its core, that's the big change. Both options have always been available to everyone, just now it's making a different group of players do the tiniest little bit of extra work to implement their vision.
I'm only talking about FR and similar published settings. I don't mind what the entire multiverse may be getting up to, just those areas where I and mine are likely to be a part of, and when I/we are likely to be a part of them. I know. I disagree with that point. I don't believe all these creatuires should be agnostic. I believe they should remain in the roles for which they were origonally designed. Yes, I agree. I'm basically a bit sour cause I'm up to my elbows in homebrew revisons right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why would Orcs from one part of the Multiverse be the same as Orcs from another part?
If they have different cultures, why would they both call themselves "Orc"? They would have totally different languages (just look at our world) and call themselves something unique in both cases; they would not be able to speak with each other - they would even speak different Common between Faerun and Eberron for example.
If they come from different places, why would they look the same? Their enviroment would shape them in different ways over untold generations - IF they would follow natural biological evolutions; both magic and divine intervention could certainly guide them along same or similiar paths.
And if humanoid beings can be from all over the moral spectrum, why should there not exist places in the Multiverse - like Faerun - where Drow and Orcs are evil f*****g bastards 99% of the time?
I mean - looking back from 1935 till now - you can see how isolated societies with limited outside interactions can either evolve or be steered into certain behavioral ways.
TLDR: Races and Societies are NOT BORN evil, but they can certainly BE MADE evil. Why should that not be represented as a storytelling tool or a setting to explore?
There not; nor I presume are Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, etcetera. Folks are different everywhere. To a certain extent anyway. There are some commonalities. eg, humans always seem to be the versitile ones as opposed to being locked into a specific role on one world where some other creature has all the versatility.
Perhaps, which is why I favor common ancestry, the fact they do for the most part call themselves Orcs, or humans, dwarves etc, across mutliple worlds. There are some exceptions. eg Krynn calls halflings Kendar. Ravenloft has Caliban, which technically are a human subtype but made to fill the role of teh half-orc, perhaps if 5, they are in fact half-orcs or orcs but called something else in Ravenloft.
Are you sure you meant to be replying to me with this one? I don't think they they all look the same, I said that, but agian they are all simiar enough, each creature type, all of them, enough to imply in my mind a common origon of life in the multiverse vs seperate creation events for each copy of the same species on a material plane world. I theorize there may actually be fewer material planes there seem and many worlds are planets within the same prime material plane that could possibly be reached by a spelljammer as much as they could by traveling the ethereal plane.
I'm the one arguing that those places, are the ones where Orcs are evil 99% of the time. It's the other guy who is arguing that it shouldn't be so.
If you are using races and societies to speak of social divisions withing one species, you ar eright. The argument is when the term race is being used to mean different species, that you can say they are all born with something common. i.e darkvision.
When it comes to "Evil" the divide is whether you are using the term evil to mean a set of behavors that exist as a certain social concept; or to mean a tangible force of/or energy from which one can derive power and be influenced by at the mental and psysiological level. Think Emperor Palpetine and other Sith who succomb to darkside corruption. In fantasy settings (at the very least), IMHO and others, it is completely fair to say that physical/physiological affiliation or association with the force and energies of evil; and good for that matter do definitely exist and that each has creatures that are diffinitively associated with them. Thus it is possible for a race: meaning a species, to be born evil, as in to be born with the access and ability to weild this force of energy which corrupts you the more you use it, sometimes without even your knowledge that it is doing so.
folks today, and likely the ones doing the errata, don't like or remember/know or agree with this way of thinking about evil, and are instead treating evil as nothing more than a social concept of behavior which indeed, no one is born with. They therefore see removing alingment affiliations as removing the idea that a species would all think the same way; which indeed, they would not; rather than removing the ability to interact with some external yet tangible force of power and energy that a species would normally posess the means to access and use to fuel there ambitions, goals, etc. whislt being influenced by it at the same time.
... if you cast protection from evil on a creature who is otherwise evil, ...
That's not how Protection from Evil (and Good) works in 5E. It's also not how that spell worked in 3rd edition, incidentally, unless you consider creatures the rules tell you are evil as not being innately evil but rather under the effect of magic that compels them to be evil. And if that were the case, it would be extremely surprising to me that such a magical effect, that affects entire worlds' populations of a race, could be countered - even if only temporarily - by a 1st level spell.
I'm not sure what spell or whatever would be the right one for the example, but I do consider creatures that the rules say are evil, to be evil in a way like how Sith in star wars are evil. i.e. the evil is not necessarily a choice, except for perhaps, but not necessarily, the first time; its a force that once allowed inside you has a corrupting influence upon you and actually causes you to do more evil things. I think anyone can be redeemed from evil, but redemption is also not simply a choice to stop doing evil things in order to not be evil. The actual force/spark/etc. of evil must be excised/excorsised, from any given entity.
To be fair, I think Good works the same way.
I'm on the fence as to whether Neutral means you've never aquiessed to either force; or you've somehow allowed both forces inside of you and can be influenced by either circumstantially, and can likewise gain power from them both; or you've aquessed to a third force of Balance. I think I like a third force of Balance best.
The point of this errata, or at least one of the points, is to make the creatures setting agnostic. Orcs, and all other creatures, will not be assumed to be the same in every world. Instead, they will behave in a way appropriate to the lore of a given world, as shaped by the DM of a given campaign. WotC is removing the idea that any creature will act in any specific way, and is leaving it up to individual creators, be they creators of settings or individual DMs, how those orcs behave in any given world.
But ... isn't this what was happening in the first place? Wizards of the Coast created the Forgotten Realms setting and Faerun, and they decided that the majority of Orcs and Drow in that setting behave in a certain way.
They got it from a fellow by the name of Ed Greenwood, after Gary was already gone. Apparently, for some reason, they wanted to replace Greyhawk as the official setting and the choice was between Realms and Dragonlance.
1.) Absolutely nothing you're arguing is remotely new. This exact same argument - almost word for word, in some cases - was had back in the prerelease cycle to Tasha's Cauldron, when half a dozen significant forum jerkwaffles (who were, admittedly, drastically less civil than you are, so kudos there) spent months turning every thread in DDB into a diatribe about how Evil races were evil and how the game would be ruined forever with all the new changes coming in and around Tasha's. The whole "evil is a cosmic force" thing? Covered, extensively. The whole "evil species are the creations of evil gods" thing? Gone over ad nauseum. The "how will I create menacing villains for my campaign?" question? Asked to the point of madness. I haven't seen a single word in this thread that wasn't said a hundred times or more back in the ol' firestorms of the Tasha's release. We've had Tasha's Cauldron for a year and a half or so now, and the game ain't exploded yet.
2.) Absolutely nothing is stopping you from backhacking all this A.C.E.F. lore back into your games. Hell, Wizards didn't take it out of your games in the first place. They took it out of the books, but "the books" only define your game until you do. Once you've gotten into playing, gotten into building up the story of your table, the world they exist in? The books take a decided backseat. As was said earlier - people were all perfectly fine with saying "if you don't want orcs to be A.C.E.F. in your game, then you make that change! Nothing's stopping you!" prior to Wizards' about-face on racist undertones in the game. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, "nothing's stopping you from making that change" is no longer acceptable as a response? Seems double-standardy and unpleasant.
I do understand that people are going to be feeling some kind of way about having to do work they didn't previously have to do, but I'd point out that in the end it'll be better for you. People who've had to hack and tweak and change and adjust D&D forever because the core rules say "you're not allowed to play the way you want to play" have generally gotten better at playing and running the game due to having to invest harder and work harder to get it to allow us to play. Once you get used to stretching your creator's muscles a bit, you'll be in a better place to both play and run games.
Considering that there hasn't been any significant change in the numbers in a long while, I would be willing to say that majority of people just don't care one way or the other especially since it seems most people didn't even care enough to vote. These changes aren't going to destroy D&D nor are they going to hurt WotC's bottom line, no matter how much sensationalist journalism websites try to spin this to get your clicks.
Does anything in the erratta actually active preclude playing 'always evil orcs' anyway? My understanding was it was just removing that as the default and not inserting a new default setting to replace it. Unless I'm misunderstanding it shouldn't really hurt anyone's interpretation of orcs.
Does anything in the erratta actually active preclude playing 'always evil orcs' anyway? My understanding was it was just removing that as the default and not inserting a new default setting to replace it. Unless I'm misunderstanding it shouldn't really hurt anyone's interpretation of orcs.
You're understanding it perfectly. All it does is remove the absolutism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, I said the evil doesn't come from biology, it comes from the extraplanar source. The people who are upset about the concept of their being evil are upset because they mistakenly believe that the evil is comming from biology rather than from an extraplanar source, or think I believe that, and dislike the concept that evil can come from biology. Which it can't really. At best you can get psychosis from biology, but that's not really what we mean when we talk about "Evil." We are talking about evil as a tangible spiritual/supernatural force which eminates from certain outer planes, gods, or other sources; such as perhaps the negetive energy plane?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
What's the difference, exactly? If orcs are created as evil, how is that not the same as or even part of their biology?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Whether or not it comes from biology or a strictly fictional and magical source is completely immaterial for me. Both are problematic for the same reason, that being: It's a statement that a group of people who all look the same can be safely painted with the same brush, and that therefore it's fine to start killing them without any deeper thought on the matter. I should hope I don't need to explain why someone at the table might find that extremely uncomfortable as a concept. But even setting that particular elephant in the room aside, in my personal opinion it's actually more flat and boring than the alternative. If you would like your orcs to be inherently evil for any reason at your table, that is your prerogative, but please understand that it is not some misunderstanding of the "why" that causes me and my table not enjoy that in our games. It's actually just the concept itself.
Now if you want to say, "Orcs aren't inherently evil, some of them can and do make a conscious choice in their lives to be good instead, even if that's a hard choice in the society they were born to." then THAT is something I can happily engage with. There's depth there, there's intrigue, there's space for nuance. And I'm of the firm belief that all of that leads to better narratives and better roleplaying. But that gets shut down immediately if the DM looks at the book and says "Nope, says here always evil. Automatically enforced by evil god magic no less."
You seem to be ignoring the many, many times people have pointed out that their evil does not necessarily come from an extraplanar source. Or for that matter, the many, many examples you've been given where they are not evil, and that's just in the FR and other published settings. Different worlds with different lore and different creation myths will inevitably lead to different kinds of orcs. And don't even get me started on homebrew worlds and how they just ignore that the FR even exists, let alone who made what race on Toril.
The point of this errata, or at least one of the points, is to make the creatures setting agnostic. Orcs, and all other creatures, will not be assumed to be the same in every world. Instead, they will behave in a way appropriate to the lore of a given world, as shaped by the DM of a given campaign. WotC is removing the idea that any creature will act in any specific way, and is leaving it up to individual creators, be they creators of settings or individual DMs, how those orcs behave in any given world. That's all that's happening. They are giving people license to let creatures act in whatever way best serves any particular campaign world.
You want every orc in your world to be irredeemably evil, and basically there to act as bags of XP for low- to mid-level PCs. Just black hats and white hats, and it's all very simple. Great. Do that. If other people want their orcs to be nuanced and want PCs to have to think about whether or not any particular orc needs killing. They can do that. You might argue, well, the pro-nuance people could always have done that, but that argument cuts both ways -- you can still make evil orcs.
Honestly, I sometimes think the whole issue boils down to how its changing who needs to do the work. Under the old way, orcs or drow were only good for killing. That was the default, with a handful of exceptions. So, if people wanted nuanced orcs, they were the ones who needed to make the change to the "official canon" and explain it to their players and make sure people understand. Now that's flipped and the default is that the orc you see might actually be a bad person or might be a good person and maybe you should ask questions before you start stabbing. So now people who only want orcs that are only good for killing will be the ones who need to explain to their table that in their world, orcs are "Capitol E" Evil, and its fair game to slaughter any one you see, all the way down to the babies.
At its core, that's the big change. Both options have always been available to everyone, just now it's making a different group of players do the tiniest little bit of extra work to implement their vision.
Question:
Why would Orcs from one part of the Multiverse be the same as Orcs from another part?
If they have different cultures, why would they both call themselves "Orc"? They would have totally different languages (just look at our world) and call themselves something unique in both cases; they would not be able to speak with each other - they would even speak different Common between Faerun and Eberron for example.
If they come from different places, why would they look the same? Their enviroment would shape them in different ways over untold generations - IF they would follow natural biological evolutions; both magic and divine intervention could certainly guide them along same or similiar paths.
And if humanoid beings can be from all over the moral spectrum, why should there not exist places in the Multiverse - like Faerun - where Drow and Orcs are evil f*****g bastards 99% of the time?
I mean - looking back from 1935 till now - you can see how isolated societies with limited outside interactions can either evolve or be steered into certain behavioral ways.
TLDR: Races and Societies are NOT BORN evil, but they can certainly BE MADE evil. Why should that not be represented as a storytelling tool or a setting to explore?
#OpenDnD
There's a lot of argument here in the form of:
MY setting has to be YOUR setting.
and
YOUR setting has to be MY setting.
You all do know that the books are only a framework, right? A structure to help you build upon your imagination? You create your own setting specific to you... You do not need to enforce nor expect others to accommodate your imagination, nor you theirs.
either 1. because eliminating the supernatural force can eliminate the evil, whereas if the evil was physically sourced then killing Gruumsh for example or banishing him into a soulstone or whathave you wouldn't free the Orcs from his influence; or 2. If the source of evil is external you can potnetially interup it without actually having to destroy that source, at least temporarily; for example if you cast protection from evil on a creature who is otherwise evil, you may, at least for the duration of the spell, sever that creatures connection from the source of evil, which opens up some interesting opportunities. -Similarly, if you need an excuse for why a certain orc turned good against all odds, perhaps by sheer luck, during a raid, they acquired a piece of jewelry, and it turned out to be a ring of protection from evil, so now as long as long as the orc wears it, they are immune from the corrupting influence of Gruumsh. I don't know if this would work if the source of evil is inside or of the body.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Sedge, with respect, the point being made - and acknowledged by the errata - is that while you're free (and possibly even encouraged) to alter the official line from the books, it being the official line still means something. At the very least it says that the company creating the game feels it's the proper baseline to start from. That's problematic when that baseline feels offensive to a not insignificant part of the players, regardless of rule zero.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's not how Protection from Evil (and Good) works in 5E. It's also not how that spell worked in 3rd edition, incidentally, unless you consider creatures the rules tell you are evil as not being innately evil but rather under the effect of magic that compels them to be evil. And if that were the case, it would be extremely surprising to me that such a magical effect, that affects entire worlds' populations of a race, could be countered - even if only temporarily - by a 1st level spell.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sooooo .... what? The people who demanded that Drow and Orc lore should change are right because people should not expect them to accomodate this lore, but the people who demanded that Drow and Orc lore should change should not have enforced their immagination onto others nor expect others to accommodate their imagination?
#OpenDnD
It's a statement that a group of monsters whom may or may not all look the same; I do not know if they do; for all I know Orcs aren't all green, some can be blue or red or grey or purple, and there tusks may be of a different shape or number and their hair, size, build, etc. there is nothing to imply orcs don't have physical diversity internal to their own species; can be safely painted with the same brush and therefore it is fine to start killing them without any deeper thought on the matter. Yes. We need things we can kill without any deeper thought on the matter. What makes orcs so special that out of any given monster, they are the ones you want to transition into the role of 'people' who shouln't be painted with the brush of monster?".
no, I don't want to say that. I DO want to say that Orcs ARE inherintly evil and cannot; and I literally mean cannot, not will not or usually don't/wont, but cannont, make a consious choice to do good; not because of the society in which they were born, but because of their divine master unto whom they are bound. Again for a Faerun campain at least and a character not from one of the exception tribes mentioned already in this thread; IMHO a DM should in fact ask a player of a good Orc "and why/how are you good?" and the player should need to have a better answer in their backstory to explain it than a simple "Because I choose to be."
Orcs being evil isn't supposed to be treated as a stereotype or a faulse perception/presumtion by bigoted humans/elves/dwarves/halflings of a more primal culture of people. Orcs were by design, both in-universe and meta, intended to be actually evil, and the purveyors of evil actions upon communites of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, and various others, so those communities have some excuse to seek out adventures to rescue them from the predations of these horrible monsters.
Besides which, Orcs are just one example here. Even if we were to say that , hey, Orcs have actually become a popular choice among players, let's open them up so we can enjoy more of Orc specific content'. They are doing this for everything. Even Mindflayers and Beholders. I can see Orcs graduating from monster status along with other things that have already had half-human counterparts; but come on, Beholders? Can't you let even some monsters just be monsters?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I'm only talking about FR and similar published settings. I don't mind what the entire multiverse may be getting up to, just those areas where I and mine are likely to be a part of, and when I/we are likely to be a part of them. I know. I disagree with that point. I don't believe all these creatuires should be agnostic. I believe they should remain in the roles for which they were origonally designed. Yes, I agree. I'm basically a bit sour cause I'm up to my elbows in homebrew revisons right now.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
There not; nor I presume are Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, etcetera. Folks are different everywhere. To a certain extent anyway. There are some commonalities. eg, humans always seem to be the versitile ones as opposed to being locked into a specific role on one world where some other creature has all the versatility.
Perhaps, which is why I favor common ancestry, the fact they do for the most part call themselves Orcs, or humans, dwarves etc, across mutliple worlds. There are some exceptions. eg Krynn calls halflings Kendar. Ravenloft has Caliban, which technically are a human subtype but made to fill the role of teh half-orc, perhaps if 5, they are in fact half-orcs or orcs but called something else in Ravenloft.
Are you sure you meant to be replying to me with this one? I don't think they they all look the same, I said that, but agian they are all simiar enough, each creature type, all of them, enough to imply in my mind a common origon of life in the multiverse vs seperate creation events for each copy of the same species on a material plane world. I theorize there may actually be fewer material planes there seem and many worlds are planets within the same prime material plane that could possibly be reached by a spelljammer as much as they could by traveling the ethereal plane.
I'm the one arguing that those places, are the ones where Orcs are evil 99% of the time. It's the other guy who is arguing that it shouldn't be so.
If you are using races and societies to speak of social divisions withing one species, you ar eright. The argument is when the term race is being used to mean different species, that you can say they are all born with something common. i.e darkvision.
When it comes to "Evil" the divide is whether you are using the term evil to mean a set of behavors that exist as a certain social concept; or to mean a tangible force of/or energy from which one can derive power and be influenced by at the mental and psysiological level. Think Emperor Palpetine and other Sith who succomb to darkside corruption. In fantasy settings (at the very least), IMHO and others, it is completely fair to say that physical/physiological affiliation or association with the force and energies of evil; and good for that matter do definitely exist and that each has creatures that are diffinitively associated with them. Thus it is possible for a race: meaning a species, to be born evil, as in to be born with the access and ability to weild this force of energy which corrupts you the more you use it, sometimes without even your knowledge that it is doing so.
folks today, and likely the ones doing the errata, don't like or remember/know or agree with this way of thinking about evil, and are instead treating evil as nothing more than a social concept of behavior which indeed, no one is born with. They therefore see removing alingment affiliations as removing the idea that a species would all think the same way; which indeed, they would not; rather than removing the ability to interact with some external yet tangible force of power and energy that a species would normally posess the means to access and use to fuel there ambitions, goals, etc. whislt being influenced by it at the same time.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I'm not sure what spell or whatever would be the right one for the example, but I do consider creatures that the rules say are evil, to be evil in a way like how Sith in star wars are evil. i.e. the evil is not necessarily a choice, except for perhaps, but not necessarily, the first time; its a force that once allowed inside you has a corrupting influence upon you and actually causes you to do more evil things. I think anyone can be redeemed from evil, but redemption is also not simply a choice to stop doing evil things in order to not be evil. The actual force/spark/etc. of evil must be excised/excorsised, from any given entity.
To be fair, I think Good works the same way.
I'm on the fence as to whether Neutral means you've never aquiessed to either force; or you've somehow allowed both forces inside of you and can be influenced by either circumstantially, and can likewise gain power from them both; or you've aquessed to a third force of Balance. I think I like a third force of Balance best.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
But ... isn't this what was happening in the first place? Wizards of the Coast created the Forgotten Realms setting and Faerun, and they decided that the majority of Orcs and Drow in that setting behave in a certain way.
#OpenDnD
Well, to be fair, Forgotten Realms wasn't actually created by WoTC. It was one of them that they got from TSR. Faerun was around back in the 90's
EDIT: Apparently TSR Didn't invent it either. Forgotten Realms - Wikipedia
They got it from a fellow by the name of Ed Greenwood, after Gary was already gone. Apparently, for some reason, they wanted to replace Greyhawk as the official setting and the choice was between Realms and Dragonlance.
...I like Greyhawk better than both of those.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Worth noting, Shepherd:
1.) Absolutely nothing you're arguing is remotely new. This exact same argument - almost word for word, in some cases - was had back in the prerelease cycle to Tasha's Cauldron, when half a dozen significant forum jerkwaffles (who were, admittedly, drastically less civil than you are, so kudos there) spent months turning every thread in DDB into a diatribe about how Evil races were evil and how the game would be ruined forever with all the new changes coming in and around Tasha's. The whole "evil is a cosmic force" thing? Covered, extensively. The whole "evil species are the creations of evil gods" thing? Gone over ad nauseum. The "how will I create menacing villains for my campaign?" question? Asked to the point of madness. I haven't seen a single word in this thread that wasn't said a hundred times or more back in the ol' firestorms of the Tasha's release. We've had Tasha's Cauldron for a year and a half or so now, and the game ain't exploded yet.
2.) Absolutely nothing is stopping you from backhacking all this A.C.E.F. lore back into your games. Hell, Wizards didn't take it out of your games in the first place. They took it out of the books, but "the books" only define your game until you do. Once you've gotten into playing, gotten into building up the story of your table, the world they exist in? The books take a decided backseat. As was said earlier - people were all perfectly fine with saying "if you don't want orcs to be A.C.E.F. in your game, then you make that change! Nothing's stopping you!" prior to Wizards' about-face on racist undertones in the game. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, "nothing's stopping you from making that change" is no longer acceptable as a response? Seems double-standardy and unpleasant.
I do understand that people are going to be feeling some kind of way about having to do work they didn't previously have to do, but I'd point out that in the end it'll be better for you. People who've had to hack and tweak and change and adjust D&D forever because the core rules say "you're not allowed to play the way you want to play" have generally gotten better at playing and running the game due to having to invest harder and work harder to get it to allow us to play. Once you get used to stretching your creator's muscles a bit, you'll be in a better place to both play and run games.
Please do not contact or message me.
Considering that there hasn't been any significant change in the numbers in a long while, I would be willing to say that majority of people just don't care one way or the other especially since it seems most people didn't even care enough to vote. These changes aren't going to destroy D&D nor are they going to hurt WotC's bottom line, no matter how much sensationalist journalism websites try to spin this to get your clicks.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Does anything in the erratta actually active preclude playing 'always evil orcs' anyway? My understanding was it was just removing that as the default and not inserting a new default setting to replace it. Unless I'm misunderstanding it shouldn't really hurt anyone's interpretation of orcs.
You're understanding it perfectly. All it does is remove the absolutism.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].