The best thing about volunteering to be the DM is that you can design your world however you see fit. If you want goblins to all be chaotic hungry and orcs - half or otherwise - to be evil ****** slavers then hey, you do you. But don't get mad or frustrated when others like to occasionally step away from the tropes and try something outside of the box.
When I used to play D&D on NWN PW worlds, many of the PW Story or PW roleplay servers would require characters to eat food and such in the game (which I'll admit seems a bit extreme), or would demand they stay in-character with their roleplay, rather than talking out of character in the game (which I find reasonable). I suppose this stems from the desire of players to create a more immersive world by making it feel more real -- aka realistic. That seems like a reasonable goal to me. If you have people randomly talking out of character in the game, that disrupts the immersion for everyone else in the game.
Why then do people scoff at my suggestions that we should strive for greater realism/immersion in this game on these forums? You can't really have it both ways: if realism/immersion matters when it comes to staying in character while playing the game, you can't say it doesn't matter at all and laugh at the idea when it comes to other aspects of the game that I have been bringing up in this thread. To do so is not logical.
And then there was NW PW servers where they wer'nt as extreme, once again, NON of these options are the only ones...
And i find it much more interessting and challenging to try and play a race that is seen as evil by everyone else, if the guy who does it can pull it off without ruining anything for the rest, its even better.
I mean by your statement, because they are branded as evil, the there is no exceptions, no special cases, no unique cases?...
What about Drizzt?, its a well knowed character.
You want an IRL example?
Operation Valkyrie, where during WWII German Army Officials and Civilian Officials, tried to assassinate Hitler to end the war.
If we reduce everyone and everything to a Good OR Bad role, then by that logic Germans where universally Bad and Evil but, we know since then that it was not the truth.
German people where normal people, that wanted to have a good life and were lied to, German Soldiers wern't all Bloodcrazed hungry monsters, they where like any Soldiers someone who fought for their country, and followed the orders given from above.
Its a perfect exemple that because you're labelled as "Bad" or "Evil" by everyone, it doesn't mean that you're forcibly one.
The thing here is that for some reason, you seem to think that people advocate for the "ALL Goblins/Orcs" are good, its not.
What people are saying is that there is a probability that such an individual can exist, with the right circumstances, it is a possibility.
Now such individual would be at Odds with his Kinsman, he would be an outcast even for his own race, and thats something that would drive him to go out in the world and try to either fit in other society, even if it will be full of hardships, or be on his own, avoiding civilisation, but not necesarly be Evil.(Hermit, Lone warrior/mercenary)
D&D is a rich enough universe to be able to fit in anything, as long that you make the necessary efforts.
Also and above everything else, if its okay with the group and DM, then its ok, if its not, then you either roll a different character or you change group.
If You personaly have a problem with that, then talk about it with the guy or the DM, No one is gonna force his way if its problematic, and if he does, then he's an arse and its a bigger issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Orcs don't exist, so saying a half-orc paladin is "unrealistic" is just as ridiculous as me saying universally evil orcs are "unrealistic." Orcs are unrealistic, period. No matter what sort of orc we have in our games. Realism isn't the point of Dungeons and Dragons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
It's not meant to be realistic that's why it's called Fantasy, I respect your opinion but if your looking for something "realistic" D&D is far from it. D&D is a game you can let your imagination run wild so you can make a story out of it. I have a goblin paladin that I love, he was stricken with amnesia and (not wanting to go into too much backstory so I'll just get to the point) woke up believing he was a servant of Torm. At the base it seems like an odd idea but when you actually give it some thought it's actually not impossible and more interesting to see how a Goblin tries to be lawful when he is more inclined to be Chaotic
It's not meant to be realistic that's why it's called Fantasy, I respect your opinion but if your looking for something "realistic" D&D is far from it. D&D is a game you can let your imagination run wild so you can make a story out of it. I have a goblin paladin that I love, he was stricken with amnesia and (not wanting to go into too much backstory so I'll just get to the point) woke up believing he was a servant of Torm. At the base it seems like an odd idea but when you actually give it some thought it's actually not impossible and more interesting to see how a Goblin tries to be lawful when he is more inclined to be Chaotic
I don't think the author means "realistic" by its definition, as being very opposite of fantasy, but means more along the lines of consistent and true to nature.
The desire to be different, and include exception has driven D&D to be very accommodating to every possibility. One thing I think that is lost is that a lot of these creatures and characters are built on strong stereotypes, bonds, and flaws.
If the Classic Orcs vs Humans - which represents Good vs Evil, Civilized vs Primitive, Intelligent vs Instinctual. Is being changed, it's causes the uniqueness of each of the races to get lost.
Anyone can be anything and do anything. So it doesn't really matter what you are anymore.
I see what temps89 is saying. I have heard of characters that made me roll my eyes in disgust, in these forums. However, the cool thing about this hobby is the story. In my case, when I better understood the character I read in a thread (I think a goblin samari), I completely changed my mind.
I myself have a tiefling sorcerer (origin White Dragon) who would much rather not have been a sorcerer so he could just be a cobbler. He's so goody goody he stood up to his party and guilted them into not capturing a troll to be enslaved.
I like the traditional races (except elves, they can all off a cliff), but sometimes, playing a race against the norm is awesome (one day I'll play the LG demon)!
Dunno, don't see how you can talk about realism and immersion while saying that the idea of orcs/goblins/whatever race breaks it for you. Do you really think it's realistic that EVERY single orc/goblin/whatever is good or evil?
Do you bat an eye when you fight evil humans in your campaigns? because if your batting an eye about good orcs or goblins why doesn't an evil human upset you? Your characters are good aren't they? What about evil dwarves? neutral elves?
There's simply nothing realistic about every single example of a race being good or evil unless they are celestial or fiends or what have you.
Played many campaigns that have had good or good leaning races that are typified as evil. Gnolls, Goblins, Orcs, Minotaurs and even a single demon and a single succubus once.
as for other examples I know Drizzt gets used a lot but what about Kaz the Minotaur? Friggin chaotic evil by 5e standards..
/rambling side This was something 3.5 did way better than 4e or 5e was pointing out not EVERYTHING was evil.. 4e and 5e went back on that so you could just launch into villages and slaughter everything without feeling bad about it or having to work out if they actually WHERE evil
"If the Classic Orcs vs Humans - which represents Good vs Evil, Civilized vs Primitive, Intelligent vs Instinctual. Is being changed, it's causes the uniqueness of each of the races to get lost.
Anyone can be anything and do anything. So it doesn't really matter what you are anymore. "
Im not sure how to phrase this other than it only gets lost if you have no imagination. What would a lets say Orc Paladin be like? Would he be shiney armored and virtuous out to save Ma'lady. Or do you think he would be about honorable combat, facing down his enemies and not yielding an inch? Do you think he would be weilding a knightly long or bastard sword? Or do you think he would pick up his father's worn great axe or battle axe a proud symbol of battles fought and blood shed?
What would a Goblin Paladin look like? perhaps more reliance on buffs, group tactics fighting, fading away and coming back in, sneak attacks and diversions.
There's already a big enough difference between your typical male human paladin and your typical male eladrin paladin, I don't see why it would be the same for an orc or a goblin or a gnoll
That darn pesky free will that comes with being a sentient being can be such a hassle, can't it?
Any free-willed creature can choose its own path in life, no matter what its origin, culture, or upbringing. You are what you choose to be. If angels can fall and demons can rise, a heroic orc or goblin shouldn't even make someone blink twice at them. They're unique individuals, not monolithic hive-minds.
It's not meant to be realistic that's why it's called Fantasy, I respect your opinion but if your looking for something "realistic" D&D is far from it. D&D is a game you can let your imagination run wild so you can make a story out of it. I have a goblin paladin that I love, he was stricken with amnesia and (not wanting to go into too much backstory so I'll just get to the point) woke up believing he was a servant of Torm. At the base it seems like an odd idea but when you actually give it some thought it's actually not impossible and more interesting to see how a Goblin tries to be lawful when he is more inclined to be Chaotic
I don't think the author means "realistic" by its definition, as being very opposite of fantasy, but means more along the lines of consistent and true to nature.
The desire to be different, and include exception has driven D&D to be very accommodating to every possibility. One thing I think that is lost is that a lot of these creatures and characters are built on strong stereotypes, bonds, and flaws.
If the Classic Orcs vs Humans - which represents Good vs Evil, Civilized vs Primitive, Intelligent vs Instinctual. Is being changed, it's causes the uniqueness of each of the races to get lost.
Anyone can be anything and do anything. So it doesn't really matter what you are anymore.
I agree with you that making races effectively plug-and-play tends to make things uninteresting. On the other hand, I find that allowing it is fresher than the much more common reverse, which is fantasy writers deciding that these stereotypes, bonds, and flaws should make all nonhuman races monocultural. Worse, when they decide that "being evil and doing evil things" constitutes a culture.
Even if the importance of orcs mirroring humans outweighs treating them as a sapient, autonomous race, a decent mirror should be able to reflect that humans are not unilaterally good. They may not represent the majority of humans, but plenty of us go against the grain of society and do horrific things for selfish reasons. Just the same, an orc should be able to go against the grain of "being evil and doing evil things" and want to dedicate their life to something nobler. Sure, I'd find it boring if that character was played as nothing more than a purely human mindset in an orc's body, but my personal interest isn't the deciding factor in what options players have.
Maybe the setting won't accommodate an orc who wants to be a paladin in the name of justice and virtue. Maybe the setting shouldn't accommodate that. Maybe the road for an orc to become truly accepted as a virtuous paladin will be nigh-impossible, far more difficult than any road a human would ever face. None of that should preclude an orc from wanting to try.
Orcs, as conceived by Tolkien, didn’t have freewill - they were enslaved to the will of Morgoth. Dragons were his creation so, again, evil by nature. The confusion comes when D&D uses familiar tropes and then subverts them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does lead to tensions. I think a DM needs to be clear if they want a traditional, more binary, morality attached to their monsters. I’m toying with a world with a more Tolkienesque creation myth in which orcs and goblins are inherently evil in order to explore a story that impinges on modern sensibilities.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the concept of objective moral truth has more or less gone out the window, and I think that subconsciously underlies some of our thinking.
Honestly, something that has always irked me with most fantasy settings is that Humanity is the dominant race for the most part, and that makes me scratch my head and go "...Really?"
In a campaign where there are Dwarves, Elves, Dragons, Giants, Orcs and literal walking, talking manifestations of Good and Evil faffing about, your bog-standard Human is the dominant race? I've no issue with Humans being everywhere, but dominant? We can't even stop bickering and oppressing each other over the tiniest, most stupid things and yet somehow we managed to take the Big Chair from these guys?
Also, talking about the Drizzt effect, remember that Drizzt did come across a Goblin who tried to join Human society because it was sick of how it's people treated each other, and were treated by others, but supposedly 'good' Humans captured it, beat it, tortured it and eventually killed it because it was a Goblin and therefore less than an animal, a wicked creature, despite the fact it clearly was sentient, sapient and could speak their language, and Drizzt even reflected on the fact that the only reason he got his start in life was because he looked 'attractive' and 'exotic' to others, whereas a Goblin was common and unappealing and thus nobody would rush to it's aid like others had taken to him.
Take a long, hard look at Obould and what he eventually became. Even evil creatures can love each other, cherish their children, dream of a better future. To save his people, Obould brokered a peace treaty that guaranteed Orcs a place under the sun. After all the tragedies and disasters that has befallen Toril, that kingdom still stands when so many others have fallen. Just because most of a race might be evil does not mean all of that race will be. These splinter-factions of the races might be smaller in number, scattered across the nations or dwelling in oppressed minorities amongst their own kind, but the thought of anything that isn't human-like in appearance being automatically evil, anything that is not visually appealing being categorized as 'evil' concerns me on both a writing level and a big red flag.
To me, seeing a Goblin in a Human settlement would be like a big shining "!" hanging over their head. Wh-what is this, why are you here, tell me your story. Why would, if given the option, any sentient being not take the option to carve a better life for themselves? To see the empires and nations all around you and ask "Why can't we have that?" would only be natural. To see Hobgoblins getting together and going "Seriously, the Orcs have a kingdom that's friendly with Dwarves and Elves. ORCS. We're the smart ones, why don't we have this?" and set about allying themselves with a nation or group of similarly lawful ideals and we have a nation of Hobgoblins spring up. They'll still practice slavery, they'll still be a Stratocracy, they'll still be Hobgoblins, but it'll be the start of something amazing.
It is also something to remember that most of Humanity on Toril were savage barbarians who out-Orc'd the Orcs before they 'found' civilisation, either from the Gods or from aping the ways of those they had fought or lived nearby, and it is only after thousands of years that we have cities like Waterdeep, Luskan and the like that stand as powerhouses of Human ingenuity and ambition across the face of Toril. Orcs are, as a rule, brutish and violent because of where they grow up and some biological impulses that lean heavily towards the 'fight' part of the Flight or Fight response. Raise an Orc alongside Human children in a supportive environment and you'll have a big, grey, short-tempered Human with body-image issues. Most mortal races are no more bound to 'good' or 'evil' than any other mortal race. Even Tieflings are not inherently evil, but often pushed into such things by the bigotry and paranoia of their Human kin.
At no point should a Orc wander into a Dwarven settlement and expect to be greeted with open arms. But an Orc that walks up to a Dwarven settlement, drops her arms and armor and asks to be let in, she's willing to work for bed and board and to prove herself might be turned away at first ... but on the second try? The third? After bringing evidence of a threat the Dwarves were ignorant of? After leading a band of her kin who also were sick of the fighting to help the Dwarves in a fight? Eventually the Dwarves might have a few members of their own community who would go "...Hey. She's trying. They're honestly trying. Why not have more friends than enemies?" and come back five years later and we've got a community of Orcs that trade goats and surface crops to the Dwarves for beer and the occasional weapon, things are sometimes tense with more close-minded Dwarves scowling at anyone who trades with the Orcs or the 'sell outs' and some Grumush hardliners trying to bring their 'wayward' kin back to how an Orc 'should be' and you've got a small campaign hook.
A good DM never asks "Why?" and stops there. A good DM asks "Why?" and then asks themselves "Why not?".
Personally I love the fact that paladins have been drawn away from being these overzealous lords of light, good and lawful. It opens the class up to so many concepts and even allows you to play out a death knight-esque character.
It's just like a monk doesn't have to be this mystic kung gu master dude. Your brewmaster could just be a really good unarmed combatant.
5e invites people to use all of their fantasy when designing a character and does it's best to allow you to use a class to fulfill your fantasy instead of being shoehorned in old stereotypes.
Personally, I'm happy D&D has space for and is recognizing that fantasy ideas aren't limited to rehashing Tolkein. I was tired and bored with those "traditional" fantasy ideas a couple decades ago. Let the rest of us enjoy the fantasy that we want to enjoy, not just what a subgroup of fans finds to be "traditional." There's room for us all.
This is clearly important to you. I see the point you are trying to make. But D&D can be anything you want. Look at the campaign Eberron setting. It is an intentionally morally grey setting. There are Orcs who defend the continent of Khorvaire against the fiends trying to escape the demon wastes. The orcs of the shadow marches are said to be a very spiritual people. Most of them live right alongside humans and Interbreeding is something that they are proud to share with the humans.
In my own campaigns I see the world as being one of various cultures. Some are not so good. But no race is absolutely good or evil. I’m the DM and I can do that.
So what is real? Well the fact that you might have read in the Monster manual that goblins are CE, or they were nothing but black hearted monsters in another DMs game, is not it. It’s the world of the DM that is the yardstick by which to gauge what is “real” or immersive. If the DM says every Goblin wants to chop your head off, then you have the situation you are debating. But maybe the DM in a game you join says that in his or her world Goblins are pacifists. Well in that case the evil goblin is the outlier. Every DM knows that there are no absolutes in D&D except that are absolutely free to customize everything to suit your needs. I hate absolute alignments so I don’t have them in my game’s world. If you still can’t feel immersed in a game unless Goblins are absolutely, irredeemable evil, then fine, just find a game that suites you.
As someone who really does like the classic Tolkien kind of fantasy, where orcs and goblins are absolutely evil, I still love it when other people bring different concepts to the table! One of my favorite characters I've ever played alongside was a "good orc" who was often the comic relief, but occasionally dealt with deeper, real-world issues like racism. Both can be fun! Just my two cents...
Orcs don't exist, so saying a half-orc paladin is "unrealistic" is just as ridiculous as me saying universally evil orcs are "unrealistic." Orcs are unrealistic, period. No matter what sort of orc we have in our games. Realism isn't the point of Dungeons and Dragons.
Anyone who knows the difference between realism and verisimilitude should have the good sense to realise that the vast majority of people do not and tend to colloquially use realism as a catch all term when they don't strictly mean "depicting reality." It's a bit like the difference between jealousy and envy. People often say jealousy when they mean envy, but pointing such errors out pedantically takes a special lack of social grace.
Maybe all orcs and goblins being evil is established in traditional fantasy stories, but the great thing about rolepaying is that you write your own story. Maybe in your world Orcs are just like everyone else except greener and buffer. Maybe they're essentially fantasy-klingons, claiming to value martial honour above all else, but actually just as politically conniving as anybody and not evil, but often mistrusted because of past conflicts. The books and the stories that inspired them may give you suggestions for the culture of each race, but you can always decide how much of that applies in your world.
I have spent a few minutes reading over this slightly necro'd thread and have come to see that there are two sides. The first holds that in a game of fantasy where magic is real, where gods hold manifest power, and where platonic ideals of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil can be manifest, the concept of innate goodness or evil is acceptable even in a supposedly sentient free willed individual. The other side recognizes the existing tenets established earlier but believes that free will is more important.
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the first camp has more...ground to stand on so to speak. I'll take up the Orc argument. I love orcs, they are likely my single favorite nonhuman race to explore in D&D as a DM. Orcs to me are not human, not remotely. Their circumstances lead them to live shorter more brutal lives. All of this centers on not only their relationships with their gods, but their relationships with other races. The Orc's main god is not Gruumsh, it is Luthic, but don't tell him that. Luthic sees what her people do, and how little they have in the world, and works to make her children stronger. Gruumsh and the other gods are what she uses to hone her children and keep them strong. Alas, Gruumsh is such a violent short sighted (no pun) male that he often provokes the orcs into warring and battling past the point they should have consolidated their victories and established themselves. So their Hordes break and the orcs are driven back in the caves Luthic and her followers have prepared for them. Luthic salves their wounded pride and nurtures them, allowing their strength to rebuild. This constant crashing wave-like society does not lead to "magnificent" works in the Elven, Dwarven, or even Human sense. Orc artifacts are simple, utilitarian and functional. They have no great cities, no ruined monuments of lost glories, they simply can't keep focused long enough. Sooner, rather than later, Gruumsh sparks some Chieftain or Warlord to form a Horde and start a rampage.
What does that all have to do with "alignment"?
Loads. Gruumsh places within each orc a portion of his rage. Because Gruumsh is not only Chaotic and Evil by definition, his bequest taints all orcs with Chaos and Evil in their souls. Maybe not absolutely, but any orc, barring outside action will tend towards Chaos and Evil because that is the path of least resistance. Kind of like veering right unless you are tracking accurately as you walk. Moreover, Gruumsh is an active participant in the World and pushes his orcs through direct visions, visitations, or less directly through his clerics. Since Gruumsh is a Chaotic and Evil entity by definition, his actions will have outcomes that favor chaos and be considered evil by those that oppose him. Lastly, for generation upon generation Orcs have lived like this: pressured by an angry warlike destructive god to rampage, kill, and attempt to conquer land. It is their natural state. Orcs are then by definition Chaotic and Evil.
What about free will? Well what about it? If Grimshar son of Dilteg the Double Tusked wants to be kind and sweet and collect flowers and sing songs like the elves his hunting party espied last week, he could. His orc fellows will likely beat him severely and perhaps kill him when he says he wants to be elf-like and channel his inner bard. If he can escape his fate great for him. Overall, though orc culture remains unchanged by such aberrations. Like Zaknafien and Drizzit, young Grimshar is unique and forever doomed to live apart from his evil kin.
As a player and DM this way of thinking is richer and more evocative than the alternative.
I hate to leave this on a cliche stolen from a Pixar film, but Syndrome was right, "Where everyone is super, no one will be!" This applies to D&D because the game needs touchstones. There is conflict and struggle in the game, it makes it admittedly better (and more antiseptic if needed) to say that your PC while they hate taking life recognizes that Orcs are vicious and evil beings that would not spare a thought to condemning an entire elvish village to the blade, cutting off every set of ears, and burning the remains to the ground. If instead, everything is relative and morality is more...realistic and more varied, the game can potentially loose something as the PCs no longer have yardstick to define themselves against. "You must be this evil to ride this ride.."
To sum up, D&D works best when Alignment of at least some things can be considered a given. The core races of the PHB are different, they are not beholden to any one path and can choose to be as beatific or diabolical as they wish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm will Stormknight on this one #vanillaMilkshake is my Milkshake.
The best thing about volunteering to be the DM is that you can design your world however you see fit. If you want goblins to all be chaotic hungry and orcs - half or otherwise - to be evil ****** slavers then hey, you do you. But don't get mad or frustrated when others like to occasionally step away from the tropes and try something outside of the box.
"The Epic Level Handbook wasn't that bad, guys.
Guys, pls."
And then there was NW PW servers where they wer'nt as extreme, once again, NON of these options are the only ones...
And i find it much more interessting and challenging to try and play a race that is seen as evil by everyone else, if the guy who does it can pull it off without ruining anything for the rest, its even better.
I mean by your statement, because they are branded as evil, the there is no exceptions, no special cases, no unique cases?...
What about Drizzt?, its a well knowed character.
You want an IRL example?
Operation Valkyrie, where during WWII German Army Officials and Civilian Officials, tried to assassinate Hitler to end the war.
If we reduce everyone and everything to a Good OR Bad role, then by that logic Germans where universally Bad and Evil but, we know since then that it was not the truth.
German people where normal people, that wanted to have a good life and were lied to, German Soldiers wern't all Bloodcrazed hungry monsters, they where like any Soldiers someone who fought for their country, and followed the orders given from above.
Its a perfect exemple that because you're labelled as "Bad" or "Evil" by everyone, it doesn't mean that you're forcibly one.
The thing here is that for some reason, you seem to think that people advocate for the "ALL Goblins/Orcs" are good, its not.
What people are saying is that there is a probability that such an individual can exist, with the right circumstances, it is a possibility.
Now such individual would be at Odds with his Kinsman, he would be an outcast even for his own race, and thats something that would drive him to go out in the world and try to either fit in other society, even if it will be full of hardships, or be on his own, avoiding civilisation, but not necesarly be Evil.(Hermit, Lone warrior/mercenary)
D&D is a rich enough universe to be able to fit in anything, as long that you make the necessary efforts.
Also and above everything else, if its okay with the group and DM, then its ok, if its not, then you either roll a different character or you change group.
If You personaly have a problem with that, then talk about it with the guy or the DM, No one is gonna force his way if its problematic, and if he does, then he's an arse and its a bigger issue.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Orcs don't exist, so saying a half-orc paladin is "unrealistic" is just as ridiculous as me saying universally evil orcs are "unrealistic." Orcs are unrealistic, period. No matter what sort of orc we have in our games. Realism isn't the point of Dungeons and Dragons.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
It's not meant to be realistic that's why it's called Fantasy, I respect your opinion but if your looking for something "realistic" D&D is far from it. D&D is a game you can let your imagination run wild so you can make a story out of it. I have a goblin paladin that I love, he was stricken with amnesia and (not wanting to go into too much backstory so I'll just get to the point) woke up believing he was a servant of Torm. At the base it seems like an odd idea but when you actually give it some thought it's actually not impossible and more interesting to see how a Goblin tries to be lawful when he is more inclined to be Chaotic
I don't think the author means "realistic" by its definition, as being very opposite of fantasy, but means more along the lines of consistent and true to nature.
The desire to be different, and include exception has driven D&D to be very accommodating to every possibility. One thing I think that is lost is that a lot of these creatures and characters are built on strong stereotypes, bonds, and flaws.
If the Classic Orcs vs Humans - which represents Good vs Evil, Civilized vs Primitive, Intelligent vs Instinctual. Is being changed, it's causes the uniqueness of each of the races to get lost.
Anyone can be anything and do anything. So it doesn't really matter what you are anymore.
I see what temps89 is saying. I have heard of characters that made me roll my eyes in disgust, in these forums. However, the cool thing about this hobby is the story. In my case, when I better understood the character I read in a thread (I think a goblin samari), I completely changed my mind.
I myself have a tiefling sorcerer (origin White Dragon) who would much rather not have been a sorcerer so he could just be a cobbler. He's so goody goody he stood up to his party and guilted them into not capturing a troll to be enslaved.
I like the traditional races (except elves, they can all off a cliff), but sometimes, playing a race against the norm is awesome (one day I'll play the LG demon)!
Dunno, don't see how you can talk about realism and immersion while saying that the idea of orcs/goblins/whatever race breaks it for you. Do you really think it's realistic that EVERY single orc/goblin/whatever is good or evil?
Do you bat an eye when you fight evil humans in your campaigns? because if your batting an eye about good orcs or goblins why doesn't an evil human upset you? Your characters are good aren't they? What about evil dwarves? neutral elves?
There's simply nothing realistic about every single example of a race being good or evil unless they are celestial or fiends or what have you.
Played many campaigns that have had good or good leaning races that are typified as evil. Gnolls, Goblins, Orcs, Minotaurs and even a single demon and a single succubus once.
as for other examples I know Drizzt gets used a lot but what about Kaz the Minotaur? Friggin chaotic evil by 5e standards..
/rambling side This was something 3.5 did way better than 4e or 5e was pointing out not EVERYTHING was evil.. 4e and 5e went back on that so you could just launch into villages and slaughter everything without feeling bad about it or having to work out if they actually WHERE evil
"If the Classic Orcs vs Humans - which represents Good vs Evil, Civilized vs Primitive, Intelligent vs Instinctual. Is being changed, it's causes the uniqueness of each of the races to get lost.
Anyone can be anything and do anything. So it doesn't really matter what you are anymore. "
Im not sure how to phrase this other than it only gets lost if you have no imagination. What would a lets say Orc Paladin be like? Would he be shiney armored and virtuous out to save Ma'lady. Or do you think he would be about honorable combat, facing down his enemies and not yielding an inch? Do you think he would be weilding a knightly long or bastard sword? Or do you think he would pick up his father's worn great axe or battle axe a proud symbol of battles fought and blood shed?
What would a Goblin Paladin look like? perhaps more reliance on buffs, group tactics fighting, fading away and coming back in, sneak attacks and diversions.
There's already a big enough difference between your typical male human paladin and your typical male eladrin paladin, I don't see why it would be the same for an orc or a goblin or a gnoll
That darn pesky free will that comes with being a sentient being can be such a hassle, can't it?
Any free-willed creature can choose its own path in life, no matter what its origin, culture, or upbringing. You are what you choose to be. If angels can fall and demons can rise, a heroic orc or goblin shouldn't even make someone blink twice at them. They're unique individuals, not monolithic hive-minds.
I agree with you that making races effectively plug-and-play tends to make things uninteresting. On the other hand, I find that allowing it is fresher than the much more common reverse, which is fantasy writers deciding that these stereotypes, bonds, and flaws should make all nonhuman races monocultural. Worse, when they decide that "being evil and doing evil things" constitutes a culture.
Even if the importance of orcs mirroring humans outweighs treating them as a sapient, autonomous race, a decent mirror should be able to reflect that humans are not unilaterally good. They may not represent the majority of humans, but plenty of us go against the grain of society and do horrific things for selfish reasons. Just the same, an orc should be able to go against the grain of "being evil and doing evil things" and want to dedicate their life to something nobler. Sure, I'd find it boring if that character was played as nothing more than a purely human mindset in an orc's body, but my personal interest isn't the deciding factor in what options players have.
Maybe the setting won't accommodate an orc who wants to be a paladin in the name of justice and virtue. Maybe the setting shouldn't accommodate that. Maybe the road for an orc to become truly accepted as a virtuous paladin will be nigh-impossible, far more difficult than any road a human would ever face. None of that should preclude an orc from wanting to try.
Orcs, as conceived by Tolkien, didn’t have freewill - they were enslaved to the will of Morgoth. Dragons were his creation so, again, evil by nature. The confusion comes when D&D uses familiar tropes and then subverts them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does lead to tensions. I think a DM needs to be clear if they want a traditional, more binary, morality attached to their monsters. I’m toying with a world with a more Tolkienesque creation myth in which orcs and goblins are inherently evil in order to explore a story that impinges on modern sensibilities.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the concept of objective moral truth has more or less gone out the window, and I think that subconsciously underlies some of our thinking.
Honestly, something that has always irked me with most fantasy settings is that Humanity is the dominant race for the most part, and that makes me scratch my head and go "...Really?"
In a campaign where there are Dwarves, Elves, Dragons, Giants, Orcs and literal walking, talking manifestations of Good and Evil faffing about, your bog-standard Human is the dominant race? I've no issue with Humans being everywhere, but dominant? We can't even stop bickering and oppressing each other over the tiniest, most stupid things and yet somehow we managed to take the Big Chair from these guys?
Also, talking about the Drizzt effect, remember that Drizzt did come across a Goblin who tried to join Human society because it was sick of how it's people treated each other, and were treated by others, but supposedly 'good' Humans captured it, beat it, tortured it and eventually killed it because it was a Goblin and therefore less than an animal, a wicked creature, despite the fact it clearly was sentient, sapient and could speak their language, and Drizzt even reflected on the fact that the only reason he got his start in life was because he looked 'attractive' and 'exotic' to others, whereas a Goblin was common and unappealing and thus nobody would rush to it's aid like others had taken to him.
Take a long, hard look at Obould and what he eventually became. Even evil creatures can love each other, cherish their children, dream of a better future. To save his people, Obould brokered a peace treaty that guaranteed Orcs a place under the sun. After all the tragedies and disasters that has befallen Toril, that kingdom still stands when so many others have fallen. Just because most of a race might be evil does not mean all of that race will be. These splinter-factions of the races might be smaller in number, scattered across the nations or dwelling in oppressed minorities amongst their own kind, but the thought of anything that isn't human-like in appearance being automatically evil, anything that is not visually appealing being categorized as 'evil' concerns me on both a writing level and a big red flag.
To me, seeing a Goblin in a Human settlement would be like a big shining "!" hanging over their head. Wh-what is this, why are you here, tell me your story. Why would, if given the option, any sentient being not take the option to carve a better life for themselves? To see the empires and nations all around you and ask "Why can't we have that?" would only be natural. To see Hobgoblins getting together and going "Seriously, the Orcs have a kingdom that's friendly with Dwarves and Elves. ORCS. We're the smart ones, why don't we have this?" and set about allying themselves with a nation or group of similarly lawful ideals and we have a nation of Hobgoblins spring up. They'll still practice slavery, they'll still be a Stratocracy, they'll still be Hobgoblins, but it'll be the start of something amazing.
It is also something to remember that most of Humanity on Toril were savage barbarians who out-Orc'd the Orcs before they 'found' civilisation, either from the Gods or from aping the ways of those they had fought or lived nearby, and it is only after thousands of years that we have cities like Waterdeep, Luskan and the like that stand as powerhouses of Human ingenuity and ambition across the face of Toril. Orcs are, as a rule, brutish and violent because of where they grow up and some biological impulses that lean heavily towards the 'fight' part of the Flight or Fight response. Raise an Orc alongside Human children in a supportive environment and you'll have a big, grey, short-tempered Human with body-image issues. Most mortal races are no more bound to 'good' or 'evil' than any other mortal race. Even Tieflings are not inherently evil, but often pushed into such things by the bigotry and paranoia of their Human kin.
At no point should a Orc wander into a Dwarven settlement and expect to be greeted with open arms. But an Orc that walks up to a Dwarven settlement, drops her arms and armor and asks to be let in, she's willing to work for bed and board and to prove herself might be turned away at first ... but on the second try? The third? After bringing evidence of a threat the Dwarves were ignorant of? After leading a band of her kin who also were sick of the fighting to help the Dwarves in a fight? Eventually the Dwarves might have a few members of their own community who would go "...Hey. She's trying. They're honestly trying. Why not have more friends than enemies?" and come back five years later and we've got a community of Orcs that trade goats and surface crops to the Dwarves for beer and the occasional weapon, things are sometimes tense with more close-minded Dwarves scowling at anyone who trades with the Orcs or the 'sell outs' and some Grumush hardliners trying to bring their 'wayward' kin back to how an Orc 'should be' and you've got a small campaign hook.
A good DM never asks "Why?" and stops there. A good DM asks "Why?" and then asks themselves "Why not?".
Personally I love the fact that paladins have been drawn away from being these overzealous lords of light, good and lawful. It opens the class up to so many concepts and even allows you to play out a death knight-esque character.
It's just like a monk doesn't have to be this mystic kung gu master dude. Your brewmaster could just be a really good unarmed combatant.
5e invites people to use all of their fantasy when designing a character and does it's best to allow you to use a class to fulfill your fantasy instead of being shoehorned in old stereotypes.
Personally, I'm happy D&D has space for and is recognizing that fantasy ideas aren't limited to rehashing Tolkein. I was tired and bored with those "traditional" fantasy ideas a couple decades ago. Let the rest of us enjoy the fantasy that we want to enjoy, not just what a subgroup of fans finds to be "traditional." There's room for us all.
This is clearly important to you. I see the point you are trying to make. But D&D can be anything you want. Look at the campaign Eberron setting. It is an intentionally morally grey setting. There are Orcs who defend the continent of Khorvaire against the fiends trying to escape the demon wastes. The orcs of the shadow marches are said to be a very spiritual people. Most of them live right alongside humans and Interbreeding is something that they are proud to share with the humans.
In my own campaigns I see the world as being one of various cultures. Some are not so good. But no race is absolutely good or evil. I’m the DM and I can do that.
So what is real? Well the fact that you might have read in the Monster manual that goblins are CE, or they were nothing but black hearted monsters in another DMs game, is not it. It’s the world of the DM that is the yardstick by which to gauge what is “real” or immersive. If the DM says every Goblin wants to chop your head off, then you have the situation you are debating. But maybe the DM in a game you join says that in his or her world Goblins are pacifists. Well in that case the evil goblin is the outlier. Every DM knows that there are no absolutes in D&D except that are absolutely free to customize everything to suit your needs. I hate absolute alignments so I don’t have them in my game’s world. If you still can’t feel immersed in a game unless Goblins are absolutely, irredeemable evil, then fine, just find a game that suites you.
As someone who really does like the classic Tolkien kind of fantasy, where orcs and goblins are absolutely evil, I still love it when other people bring different concepts to the table! One of my favorite characters I've ever played alongside was a "good orc" who was often the comic relief, but occasionally dealt with deeper, real-world issues like racism. Both can be fun! Just my two cents...
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Anyone who knows the difference between realism and verisimilitude should have the good sense to realise that the vast majority of people do not and tend to colloquially use realism as a catch all term when they don't strictly mean "depicting reality." It's a bit like the difference between jealousy and envy. People often say jealousy when they mean envy, but pointing such errors out pedantically takes a special lack of social grace.
You knew what he meant.
Maybe all orcs and goblins being evil is established in traditional fantasy stories, but the great thing about rolepaying is that you write your own story. Maybe in your world Orcs are just like everyone else except greener and buffer. Maybe they're essentially fantasy-klingons, claiming to value martial honour above all else, but actually just as politically conniving as anybody and not evil, but often mistrusted because of past conflicts. The books and the stories that inspired them may give you suggestions for the culture of each race, but you can always decide how much of that applies in your world.
Once more into the breach...
I have spent a few minutes reading over this slightly necro'd thread and have come to see that there are two sides. The first holds that in a game of fantasy where magic is real, where gods hold manifest power, and where platonic ideals of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil can be manifest, the concept of innate goodness or evil is acceptable even in a supposedly sentient free willed individual. The other side recognizes the existing tenets established earlier but believes that free will is more important.
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the first camp has more...ground to stand on so to speak. I'll take up the Orc argument. I love orcs, they are likely my single favorite nonhuman race to explore in D&D as a DM. Orcs to me are not human, not remotely. Their circumstances lead them to live shorter more brutal lives. All of this centers on not only their relationships with their gods, but their relationships with other races. The Orc's main god is not Gruumsh, it is Luthic, but don't tell him that. Luthic sees what her people do, and how little they have in the world, and works to make her children stronger. Gruumsh and the other gods are what she uses to hone her children and keep them strong. Alas, Gruumsh is such a violent short sighted (no pun) male that he often provokes the orcs into warring and battling past the point they should have consolidated their victories and established themselves. So their Hordes break and the orcs are driven back in the caves Luthic and her followers have prepared for them. Luthic salves their wounded pride and nurtures them, allowing their strength to rebuild. This constant crashing wave-like society does not lead to "magnificent" works in the Elven, Dwarven, or even Human sense. Orc artifacts are simple, utilitarian and functional. They have no great cities, no ruined monuments of lost glories, they simply can't keep focused long enough. Sooner, rather than later, Gruumsh sparks some Chieftain or Warlord to form a Horde and start a rampage.
What does that all have to do with "alignment"?
Loads. Gruumsh places within each orc a portion of his rage. Because Gruumsh is not only Chaotic and Evil by definition, his bequest taints all orcs with Chaos and Evil in their souls. Maybe not absolutely, but any orc, barring outside action will tend towards Chaos and Evil because that is the path of least resistance. Kind of like veering right unless you are tracking accurately as you walk. Moreover, Gruumsh is an active participant in the World and pushes his orcs through direct visions, visitations, or less directly through his clerics. Since Gruumsh is a Chaotic and Evil entity by definition, his actions will have outcomes that favor chaos and be considered evil by those that oppose him. Lastly, for generation upon generation Orcs have lived like this: pressured by an angry warlike destructive god to rampage, kill, and attempt to conquer land. It is their natural state. Orcs are then by definition Chaotic and Evil.
What about free will? Well what about it? If Grimshar son of Dilteg the Double Tusked wants to be kind and sweet and collect flowers and sing songs like the elves his hunting party espied last week, he could. His orc fellows will likely beat him severely and perhaps kill him when he says he wants to be elf-like and channel his inner bard. If he can escape his fate great for him. Overall, though orc culture remains unchanged by such aberrations. Like Zaknafien and Drizzit, young Grimshar is unique and forever doomed to live apart from his evil kin.
As a player and DM this way of thinking is richer and more evocative than the alternative.
I hate to leave this on a cliche stolen from a Pixar film, but Syndrome was right, "Where everyone is super, no one will be!" This applies to D&D because the game needs touchstones. There is conflict and struggle in the game, it makes it admittedly better (and more antiseptic if needed) to say that your PC while they hate taking life recognizes that Orcs are vicious and evil beings that would not spare a thought to condemning an entire elvish village to the blade, cutting off every set of ears, and burning the remains to the ground. If instead, everything is relative and morality is more...realistic and more varied, the game can potentially loose something as the PCs no longer have yardstick to define themselves against. "You must be this evil to ride this ride.."
To sum up, D&D works best when Alignment of at least some things can be considered a given. The core races of the PHB are different, they are not beholden to any one path and can choose to be as beatific or diabolical as they wish.