1- It will appeal to members of the existing player base that do not like the current direction taken with orcs and drow. And it just tick the one of the other sides of the play base which have not problem with the word race. It will amuse the player base which see the word "race" in d&d as a game term and not the dictionary definition. I the groups I hang out with, this desire to change the word is a huge tempest in a tea cup.
2.- Will have a greater impact, long term, on the fight against discrimination... A wording change in a few books for niche hobby will not do this.
3- Will prevent controversy with existing species and/or future species being labelled as "Evil" .. But I like EVIL I am DM you should thank me for playing Evil. So this just another Barracks Beer discussion between the grunts against the college boys. Personally when I homebrew my world is GOOD vs EVIL. Orcs, gnolls, are cheap and easy XP.
If WOTC wants to change some wording here and there about orcs and drow being "always evil" Go ahead. But changing a word to another word will have no impact. True story. I listen to some Elementary teachers talking about word changes demanded from the school board. It when like this. Can not use "******" any more because the mean kids are using ****** as Insult. Can not use "Gifted" any more because the mean kids are using Gifted as playground insult. Can not use "Special Needs" any more because the mean kids are using Special as insult.
I went to college and I think it’s important to respect people’s feelings and avoid racist/sexist/queerphobic implications. That being said, I also think it’s possible to have a friendly discussion (which this has been) about this topic over a beer or two.
No one is taking away your right to speak.... although, if you insult someone openly in someone's house, you can reasonably expect the house owner to consider you, perhaps, no longer welcome.
And for someone saying we should improve ourselves first and foremost and to retain the right to speak freely, you seem to be complaining a lot about others speaking freely.
Again, no form of police are going to show up at your door and police the manner in which you run your campaign. With due respect, this has been repeated very often now, often specifically to you. No one is trying to force anyone to do anything. To convince people, sure, but you are also trying to convince people of your opinions by way of your posts.
Hardly complaining, merely reacting to people being so determined to avoid offending people and seeing racism/sexism everywhere they look that they seek to stamp it out and change things to such a degree that they see it where there is none and change things that don't need changing.
You can run your game how you please, make whatever changes you want. If you are the DM and I'm one of your players then you are god and I play according to your whims. If I'm not having fun with the story or whatever, we can discuss why and either make changes, you let me know that maybe you're leading up to something and I can be patient or have an attitude adjustment, or we mutually and respectfully agree to go our separate ways.
Or in an extreme case if I'm the player and being utterly unreasonable it is well within your rights to kick me from the table and not let me play again. A firm hand is needed so as many people can have fun at the table.
The reverse can be true as well for overbearing DM's and the players feel stifled and simply aren't having fun with a really bad DM.
Sometimes a story is made better because of mature themes dealing with good and evil with definitive evil being in the campaign and it's easy for the DM to have something already prepared if they need to do a rush job for an encounter because the players went so far off the beaten track. Sometimes all you need is a vanilla story of good vs evil monsters. In fact, I would recommend it for new DMs while they get their feet wet behind the screen before they jump in with more complex stories and settings with experienced players.
I am, in general, against changing things because you want to avoid offending someone if the lore had already been established for decades and there never was a problem before. Whether it's comics, D&D, video games or cinema. Or, rather, I'm against replacing established characters and lore to fit a modern social/political narrative because not everything needs to be seen through that lens. Sometimes something can be just there, an evil to defeat for the heroes to fight and take their treasure.
If someone did have an issue, the very Dungeon Masters Guidebook itself makes it clear that we, the players, can make whatever changes we deem fit to make the game fun for our table.
You can make whatever opinion you want and I won't stop you. I'll debate you, certainly on this particular issue and make the case why I feel the move is stupid. I'll provide a counter-argument with as much evidence as I can gather because I act on the premise that racism/sexism aren't inherently everywhere simply by virtue of existing. I'll raise a fuss if someone says that the only reason to be opposed to changes is because the person opposing it is racist, sexist, xenophobic or whatever because that is the furthest thing from the truth. But I'll respect someone else's opinion and their right to speak it, and I'll defend someone I disagree with should anyone make any efforts to have them banned or silenced for having that view and hope others would offer me the same courtesy.
Unfortunately, if you look at basically every format of social media out there censorship of opinion is a very real thing and it only goes one way.
Also, just as a side note, remember that most of the military officer corps went to college.
I think and this may have changed since I was in back in the 80s, all officers except for Chief Warrant Officers need a degree. But this is USA only. Other countries I don't know.
1- It will appeal to members of the existing player base that do not like the current direction taken with orcs and drow. And it just tick the one of the other sides of the play base which have not problem with the word race. It will amuse the player base which see the word "race" in d&d as a game term and not the dictionary definition. I the groups I hang out with, this desire to change the word is a huge tempest in a tea cup.
2.- Will have a greater impact, long term, on the fight against discrimination... A wording change in a few books for niche hobby will not do this.
3- Will prevent controversy with existing species and/or future species being labelled as "Evil" .. But I like EVIL I am DM you should thank me for playing Evil. So this just another Barracks Beer discussion between the grunts against the college boys. Personally when I homebrew my world is GOOD vs EVIL. Orcs, gnolls, are cheap and easy XP.
If WOTC wants to change some wording here and there about orcs and drow being "always evil" Go ahead. But changing a word to another word will have no impact. True story. I listen to some Elementary teachers talking about word changes demanded from the school board. It when like this. Can not use "******" any more because the mean kids are using ****** as Insult. Can not use "Gifted" any more because the mean kids are using Gifted as playground insult. Can not use "Special Needs" any more because the mean kids are using Special as insult.
I went to college and I think it’s important to respect people’s feelings and avoid racist/sexist/queerphobic implications. That being said, I also think it’s possible to have a friendly discussion (which this has been) about this topic over a beer or two.
Respect...maybe. Treat with civility, definitely. I only question respect because respect is earned, not freely given. Keeping things friendly is also a very good thing to do. I respect Kotath in this discussion because (s)he can make an argument, back it up and it is clear (s)he believes what they are saying, even though, on this particular topic, we have been on opposite sides of the debate.
I know your statement wasn’t pointed at anyone (or at least it doesn’t come across that way) and I agree with it for the most part. Although I’d say root beer instead of beer as I don’t drink. 😁
I want to give people here the ability to actually here from the Devs on why the races are so different from one another. They acutally brought this up at gamehole con in 2015. Its in podcast form and they discuss a lot about their design philosophy for 5e. One of the more interesting things I heard them mention is that the real reason the races (notice btw in the audio Jeremy is already calling them species in 2015) are so fleshed out was so DMs who didn't want to have to invest time in making up lore has something. But the biggest thing they kept saying was, use what you need and change what you don't like.
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
just some food for thought
Dragons have been mentioned and in literature outside of D&D books, dragon alignment typically has nothing to do with colour.
Good aligned Hags and Yuan-ti? Look to anime for examples. Good aligned goblinoids? So many examples all over the place.
And most of these have already been brought up in this thread or related ones.
And in this thread good Drow and Orcs have also been mentioned.
Yet many are still falling back to "Orcs and Drow should not be inherently evil" that's more or less the topic I wanted to bring up.
Dragon colors does in fact in D&D mean something - Chromatic dragons are generally evil because they are servants of Tiamat. Metallic dragons are generally good because they are servants of Bahamut.
I've been following this thread and have only seen dragons brought up once, but thrown to the side very quickly, never once saw Mind Flayers mentioned.
But again everyone keeps returning to only Orcs and Drow in this entire conversation and are only arguing their point of view in relation to these two groups.
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
just some food for thought
Dragons have been mentioned and in literature outside of D&D books, dragon alignment typically has nothing to do with colour.
Good aligned Hags and Yuan-ti? Look to anime for examples. Good aligned goblinoids? So many examples all over the place.
And most of these have already been brought up in this thread or related ones.
And in this thread good Drow and Orcs have also been mentioned.
Yet many are still falling back to "Orcs and Drow should not be inherently evil" that's more or less the topic I wanted to bring up.
Dragon colors does in fact in D&D mean something - Chromatic dragons are generally evil because they are servants of Tiamat. Metallic dragons are generally good because they are servants of Bahamut.
I've been following this thread and have only seen dragons brought up once, but thrown to the side very quickly, never once saw Mind Flayers mentioned.
But again everyone keeps returning to only Orcs and Drow in this entire conversation and are only arguing their point of view in relation to these two groups.
And in this thread good Drow and Orcs have also been mentioned.
Yet many are still falling back to "Orcs and Drow should not be inherently evil" that's more or less the topic I wanted to bring up.
Dragon colors does in fact in D&D mean something - Chromatic dragons are generally evil because they are servants of Tiamat. Metallic dragons are generally good because they are servants of Bahamut.
I've been following this thread and have only seen dragons brought up once, but thrown to the side very quickly, never once saw Mind Flayers mentioned.
But again everyone keeps returning to only Orcs and Drow in this entire conversation and are only arguing their point of view in relation to these two groups.
It's easier to jump on the Drow/Orc thing because they were the ones mentioned in the inflammatory article. Drow are black skinned so obviously (sarcasm in case you missed that) they were a jab at black people. My mind still boggles at people believing that to be true. From time immemorial, white has represented good, and black has represented evil. In the 70s they were put into the game to be a representative of evil. There is no tie to racist attitudes towards black people.
Regarding everything else, most folks just want to avoid the issue in their game because real life current affairs adds too much bitterness to their game.
I suppose every race/origin/species/culture can be the same as every other if that's how you want to play. Kind of like a Star Wars cantina where every race is treated equally, and it's up to the individual to determine their actions. That could be really fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too?
I wouldn't say supernatural creatures are never brought up, though it usually jumps directly to demons. The particular reason it tends to focus on orcs and drow is because orcs correspond to stereotypes used against a wide variety of oppressed real-world racial groups, and one of the primary distinguishing features of drow is black skin. In any case, my general take on it that evil is necessarily a choice (creatures without free will can be inherently malign, but are not evil per se -- for example, diseases). Looking at your examples:
Mind flayers are created through murder (inserting a parasite into a humanoid brain), so the decision to create more mind flayers is reliably evil. The normal mind flayer diet also involves murder (eating living brains), though it's not clear whether it's possible for one to survive without doing so. Thus, it's pretty justified to assume an ordinary mind flayer is evil.
I don't assume chromatic dragons are always evil (though the combination of powerful, liking shiny things, and (since they aren't human) lack of empathy towards humans does make them prone to banditry). On the other hand, how likely are PCs to encounter a dragon unless it's already making a name for itself by being destructive?
I generally assume creatures of the feywild are more fluid in nature than mortal creatures; rather than being born a hag, a fey creature becomes a hag by the choices it makes (I'd probably ignore the Monstrous Motherhood section on the hag entry, but if I kept it, the transformation into a full hag would not be automatic).
For Yuan-Ti, I assume that being a Yuan-Ti Malison or Yuan-Ti Abomination is not something that happens at birth, it's a transformation granted as a result of deeds. Which, the yuan-ti gods being what they are, generally means evil deeds. Thus, it's fair to assume the those types are evil. Purebreed, not so much.
I don't assume automatically evil for goblinoids (or kobolds).
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too?
Mind flayers are created through murder (inserting a parasite into a humanoid brain), so the decision to create more mind flayers is reliably evil. The normal mind flayer diet also involves murder (eating living brains), though it's not clear whether it's possible for one to survive without doing so. Thus, it's pretty justified to assume an ordinary mind flayer is evil.
For Yuan-Ti, I assume that being a Yuan-Ti Malison or Yuan-Ti Abomination is not something that happens at birth, it's a transformation granted as a result of deeds. Which, the yuan-ti gods being what they are, generally means evil deeds. Thus, it's fair to assume the those types are evil. Purebreed, not so much.
Again you are helping to some what prove my point with this:
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Again we look at Drow, turned into their beings by their worship of Lolth, again an Evil being, yet Yuan-Ti are allowed to be evil in nature due to the Gods they worship transforming them.
A more modern example of created for evil would be the Star Wars clones. They were genetically engineered to murder the Jedi.
They could easily have been created to murder anybody else instead. Not exactly good overall, and yes there were those lucky enough to escape their predetermined fate.
Does that make the clones themselves evil or the one who created them? Not sure it matters as while they were killing the Jedi, they believed they were doing the right thing. In their minds, killing off a group of people for no reason was proper.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Nope. Adult mind flayers are evil because they eat brains, not because of how they were created. However, the decision to create more mind flayers is a separate evil. I'm also okay with saying that orcs who serve Gruumsh are (depending on the specific requirements of the cult) possibly evil; however, I'd also say non-orcs who decide to serve Gruumsh are evil, and as far as I know there's nothing inherent about orcs that would cause them to serve Gruumsh.
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
just some food for thought
Orcs and drow are the main problem. Arguments like this are normally slippery slope arguments meant to distract from the real discussion (though I don't think you were meaning to do so here).
Goblinoids should not be automatically evil, period.
Chromatic Dragons should not be automatically bad, and Metallic Dragons should not be automatically good, like in Eberron. I'm fine if individual settings make the majority of different dragon types certain alignments due to culture, but this should not be included in a future Monster Manual, IMHO.
Mind Flayers are literally created by a "brain worm" climbing through your ear or nostril, eating your brain, turning your body purple and slimy, and transforming you completely. I honestly have no problem with having Mind Flayers naturally "evil" because the species needs to kill humanoids in order to reproduce.
Yuan-Ti are tricky. Yes, they can be humanoids. But, they are mostly evil due to their evil "gods", IMHO. They should not be automatically evil. Eberron has yuan-ti that are similar to aasimar.
Hags are otherworldly. They reproduce by eating infants, and then giving birth to a hag. I'm fine with having them evil.
In general most monstrosities, humanoids, plants, and other natural creatures should not be confined to specific alignments. Fiends can naturally be evil, but can rise to do good. Celestials are naturally good, but can fall to evil. Aberrations are okay being naturally evil, but exceptions should exist (flumphs, nice beholders, etc).
Now, can we get back on topic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you may want to check with other cultures on that white = good, black = evil thing...
Yeah. Black was a good color in Ancient Egyptian culture. It symbolized fertility, new life, and resurrection. Their god of death was known as the "black one" because of how he was a resurrected god in their mythology. White was also the color of the sacred.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Nope. Adult mind flayers are evil because they eat brains, not because of how they were created. However, the decision to create more mind flayers is a separate evil. I'm also okay with saying that orcs who serve Gruumsh are (depending on the specific requirements of the cult) possibly evil; however, I'd also say non-orcs who decide to serve Gruumsh are evil, and as far as I know there's nothing inherent about orcs that would cause them to serve Gruumsh.
Orcs - Created by the blood of Gruumsh - literally can't figure out why orcs would serve him.......
Again all this dismissal of mind flayers and other evil beings is more detracting. You say that Mind flayers can't be a good society because of what they do. But people are sitting here and say "Why do all orcs have to be raiders." Yet you are defining Mind flayers by their actions and not questioning if they should all be like that.
Its very hard to listen to arguments being made for Orcs and Drow, when you dismiss if we should discuss whether these other creatures should be treated the same way.
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Nope. Adult mind flayers are evil because they eat brains, not because of how they were created. However, the decision to create more mind flayers is a separate evil. I'm also okay with saying that orcs who serve Gruumsh are (depending on the specific requirements of the cult) possibly evil; however, I'd also say non-orcs who decide to serve Gruumsh are evil, and as far as I know there's nothing inherent about orcs that would cause them to serve Gruumsh.
Orcs - Created by the blood of Gruumsh - literally can't figure out why orcs would serve him.......
Again all this dismissal of mind flayers and other evil beings is more detracting. You say that Mind flayers can't be a good society because of what they do. But people are sitting here and say "Why do all orcs have to be raiders." Yet you are defining Mind flayers by their actions and not questioning if they should all be like that.
Its very hard to listen to arguments being made for Orcs and Drow, when you dismiss if we should discuss whether these other creatures should be treated the same way.
As far as I'm aware, across all the D&D worlds, mind flayers either need to consume one brain a month to stay alive, or feed a phylactery like object if they choose to become an alhoon. Either way, they have to do evil/predatory acts in order to survive.
If any mind flayers ever find out a way to grow brains in a lab without having to kill anyone, and survive on those brains, they could be good. Otherwise, mind flayers are pretty much stuck being evil.
Orcs were created from the blood of gruumsh in some D&D worlds, right? That doesn't mean they have to be evil. Elves were created from the blood of corellon in some D&D worlds, and they don't have to be chaotic good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
just some food for thought
Orcs and drow are the main problem. Arguments like this are normally slippery slope arguments meant to distract from the real discussion (though I don't think you were meaning to do so here).
Now, can we get back on topic?
Again - why are we only focusing on two of the alleged evil races? It is not at all a slippery slope to question why we need to change these two races but ignore all the others. Again from the MM:
The black, blue, green, red, and white dragons represent the evil side of dragonkind. Aggressive, gluttonous, and vain, chromatic dragons are dark sages and powerful tyrants feared by all creatures — including each other.
Metallic dragons seek to preserve and protect, viewing themselves as one powerful race among the many races that have a place in the world.
So I don't understand why we dismiss this point. If we are going to talk about removing inherently evil beings from D&D we cannot focus on 2, we need to look at all of them. Just like how we cannot argue that 2 of those species should not have generally evil societies, but the others are fine.
We say mind flayers are evil becuase of their diet and reproduction. But a biologist would never call a parasite and evil being simply because of its nature. Yet here we call Mind flayers evil due to their nature, but question of Orcs and Drow should be evil due to their societal norms and creation. If we say that "Because of free will," do mind flayers not have free will? It is argued they are smarter than the smartest human so it is easy to say they have free will, yet we still dismiss this concept that they should be changed to be more neutral.
It was also dismissed by someone earlier because they have examples of "good" characters. Yet the argument that Drow and Orcs also have "good" characters is dismissed as "not enough." Yet we are not going to talk about mind flayers being changed because "They have an example of being good."
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Nope. Adult mind flayers are evil because they eat brains, not because of how they were created. However, the decision to create more mind flayers is a separate evil. I'm also okay with saying that orcs who serve Gruumsh are (depending on the specific requirements of the cult) possibly evil; however, I'd also say non-orcs who decide to serve Gruumsh are evil, and as far as I know there's nothing inherent about orcs that would cause them to serve Gruumsh.
Orcs - Created by the blood of Gruumsh - literally can't figure out why orcs would serve him.......
Again all this dismissal of mind flayers and other evil beings is more detracting. You say that Mind flayers can't be a good society because of what they do. But people are sitting here and say "Why do all orcs have to be raiders." Yet you are defining Mind flayers by their actions and not questioning if they should all be like that.
Its very hard to listen to arguments being made for Orcs and Drow, when you dismiss if we should discuss whether these other creatures should be treated the same way.
As far as I'm aware, across all the D&D worlds, mind flayers either need to consume one brain a month to stay alive, or feed a phylactery like object if they choose to become an alhoon. Either way, they have to do evil/predatory acts in order to survive.
If any mind flayers ever find out a way to grow brains in a lab without having to kill anyone, and survive on those brains, they could be good. Otherwise, mind flayers are pretty much stuck being evil.
Orcs were created from the blood of gruumsh in some D&D worlds, right? That doesn't mean they have to be evil. Elves were created from the blood of corellon in some D&D worlds, and they don't have to be chaotic good.
So a being is Evil because they need to consume something to live and cannot grow it itself? OR is that not the point you are making. Mind flayers eat brains therefore they need to prey on other beings to survive. Yet we do not call a wolf evil because it needs to eat a rabbit?
Again Orcs having evil in their nature due to creation is bad, But mind flayers can be evil due to the nature of their creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I went to college and I think it’s important to respect people’s feelings and avoid racist/sexist/queerphobic implications. That being said, I also think it’s possible to have a friendly discussion (which this has been) about this topic over a beer or two.
Also, just as a side note, remember that most of the military officer corps went to college.
Hardly complaining, merely reacting to people being so determined to avoid offending people and seeing racism/sexism everywhere they look that they seek to stamp it out and change things to such a degree that they see it where there is none and change things that don't need changing.
You can run your game how you please, make whatever changes you want. If you are the DM and I'm one of your players then you are god and I play according to your whims. If I'm not having fun with the story or whatever, we can discuss why and either make changes, you let me know that maybe you're leading up to something and I can be patient or have an attitude adjustment, or we mutually and respectfully agree to go our separate ways.
Or in an extreme case if I'm the player and being utterly unreasonable it is well within your rights to kick me from the table and not let me play again. A firm hand is needed so as many people can have fun at the table.
The reverse can be true as well for overbearing DM's and the players feel stifled and simply aren't having fun with a really bad DM.
Sometimes a story is made better because of mature themes dealing with good and evil with definitive evil being in the campaign and it's easy for the DM to have something already prepared if they need to do a rush job for an encounter because the players went so far off the beaten track. Sometimes all you need is a vanilla story of good vs evil monsters. In fact, I would recommend it for new DMs while they get their feet wet behind the screen before they jump in with more complex stories and settings with experienced players.
I am, in general, against changing things because you want to avoid offending someone if the lore had already been established for decades and there never was a problem before. Whether it's comics, D&D, video games or cinema. Or, rather, I'm against replacing established characters and lore to fit a modern social/political narrative because not everything needs to be seen through that lens. Sometimes something can be just there, an evil to defeat for the heroes to fight and take their treasure.
If someone did have an issue, the very Dungeon Masters Guidebook itself makes it clear that we, the players, can make whatever changes we deem fit to make the game fun for our table.
You can make whatever opinion you want and I won't stop you. I'll debate you, certainly on this particular issue and make the case why I feel the move is stupid. I'll provide a counter-argument with as much evidence as I can gather because I act on the premise that racism/sexism aren't inherently everywhere simply by virtue of existing. I'll raise a fuss if someone says that the only reason to be opposed to changes is because the person opposing it is racist, sexist, xenophobic or whatever because that is the furthest thing from the truth. But I'll respect someone else's opinion and their right to speak it, and I'll defend someone I disagree with should anyone make any efforts to have them banned or silenced for having that view and hope others would offer me the same courtesy.
Unfortunately, if you look at basically every format of social media out there censorship of opinion is a very real thing and it only goes one way.
I think and this may have changed since I was in back in the 80s, all officers except for Chief Warrant Officers need a degree. But this is USA only. Other countries I don't know.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Respect...maybe. Treat with civility, definitely. I only question respect because respect is earned, not freely given. Keeping things friendly is also a very good thing to do. I respect Kotath in this discussion because (s)he can make an argument, back it up and it is clear (s)he believes what they are saying, even though, on this particular topic, we have been on opposite sides of the debate.
I know your statement wasn’t pointed at anyone (or at least it doesn’t come across that way) and I agree with it for the most part. Although I’d say root beer instead of beer as I don’t drink. 😁
I want to give people here the ability to actually here from the Devs on why the races are so different from one another. They acutally brought this up at gamehole con in 2015. Its in podcast form and they discuss a lot about their design philosophy for 5e. One of the more interesting things I heard them mention is that the real reason the races (notice btw in the audio Jeremy is already calling them species in 2015) are so fleshed out was so DMs who didn't want to have to invest time in making up lore has something. But the biggest thing they kept saying was, use what you need and change what you don't like.
Here is the Podcast (`2 hrs long)
Most of the stuff is brought up in the early part of the seminar though.
Now can their opinions have changed in 5 years, yes but now at least we can see why Volos and other early books were written the way it was.
Something I've also been thinking while watching this thread:
Orcs and drow are being brought up, but I've seen no mention of other species that are extremely "Evil" like Mind flayers,Chromatic Dragons, Hags, Yuan-Ti, Goblinoids, etc.
Do we need to make these groups also completely neutral in nature too? Do Dragons division in to need to be changed and any color can be anything? Do Mind flayers need redeeming qualities? Even though in the lore we are given they are the reason for things such as the gith and the Duergar? I'm not saying no, but just if we are going to talk about there should be no "Evil" races then maybe we should start looking at all the groups of "evil" characters too and also make those groups change?
just some food for thought
And in this thread good Drow and Orcs have also been mentioned.
Yet many are still falling back to "Orcs and Drow should not be inherently evil" that's more or less the topic I wanted to bring up.
Dragon colors does in fact in D&D mean something - Chromatic dragons are generally evil because they are servants of Tiamat. Metallic dragons are generally good because they are servants of Bahamut.
I've been following this thread and have only seen dragons brought up once, but thrown to the side very quickly, never once saw Mind Flayers mentioned.
But again everyone keeps returning to only Orcs and Drow in this entire conversation and are only arguing their point of view in relation to these two groups.
Thanks for bringing this up.
It's easier to jump on the Drow/Orc thing because they were the ones mentioned in the inflammatory article. Drow are black skinned so obviously (sarcasm in case you missed that) they were a jab at black people. My mind still boggles at people believing that to be true. From time immemorial, white has represented good, and black has represented evil. In the 70s they were put into the game to be a representative of evil. There is no tie to racist attitudes towards black people.
Regarding everything else, most folks just want to avoid the issue in their game because real life current affairs adds too much bitterness to their game.
I suppose every race/origin/species/culture can be the same as every other if that's how you want to play. Kind of like a Star Wars cantina where every race is treated equally, and it's up to the individual to determine their actions. That could be really fun.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I wouldn't say supernatural creatures are never brought up, though it usually jumps directly to demons. The particular reason it tends to focus on orcs and drow is because orcs correspond to stereotypes used against a wide variety of oppressed real-world racial groups, and one of the primary distinguishing features of drow is black skin. In any case, my general take on it that evil is necessarily a choice (creatures without free will can be inherently malign, but are not evil per se -- for example, diseases). Looking at your examples:
Again you are helping to some what prove my point with this:
One side is saying Orcs in lore were created by and now for the most part serve Gruumsh who is in fact an evil god. But the other side says "Well they should not be inherently evil just because they were created by an evil god," Yet you are okay with excepting evil by birth in mind flayer because of how they are created.
Again we look at Drow, turned into their beings by their worship of Lolth, again an Evil being, yet Yuan-Ti are allowed to be evil in nature due to the Gods they worship transforming them.
A more modern example of created for evil would be the Star Wars clones. They were genetically engineered to murder the Jedi.
They could easily have been created to murder anybody else instead. Not exactly good overall, and yes there were those lucky enough to escape their predetermined fate.
Does that make the clones themselves evil or the one who created them? Not sure it matters as while they were killing the Jedi, they believed they were doing the right thing. In their minds, killing off a group of people for no reason was proper.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Nope. Adult mind flayers are evil because they eat brains, not because of how they were created. However, the decision to create more mind flayers is a separate evil. I'm also okay with saying that orcs who serve Gruumsh are (depending on the specific requirements of the cult) possibly evil; however, I'd also say non-orcs who decide to serve Gruumsh are evil, and as far as I know there's nothing inherent about orcs that would cause them to serve Gruumsh.
Orcs and drow are the main problem. Arguments like this are normally slippery slope arguments meant to distract from the real discussion (though I don't think you were meaning to do so here).
Goblinoids should not be automatically evil, period.
Chromatic Dragons should not be automatically bad, and Metallic Dragons should not be automatically good, like in Eberron. I'm fine if individual settings make the majority of different dragon types certain alignments due to culture, but this should not be included in a future Monster Manual, IMHO.
Mind Flayers are literally created by a "brain worm" climbing through your ear or nostril, eating your brain, turning your body purple and slimy, and transforming you completely. I honestly have no problem with having Mind Flayers naturally "evil" because the species needs to kill humanoids in order to reproduce.
Yuan-Ti are tricky. Yes, they can be humanoids. But, they are mostly evil due to their evil "gods", IMHO. They should not be automatically evil. Eberron has yuan-ti that are similar to aasimar.
Hags are otherworldly. They reproduce by eating infants, and then giving birth to a hag. I'm fine with having them evil.
In general most monstrosities, humanoids, plants, and other natural creatures should not be confined to specific alignments. Fiends can naturally be evil, but can rise to do good. Celestials are naturally good, but can fall to evil. Aberrations are okay being naturally evil, but exceptions should exist (flumphs, nice beholders, etc).
Now, can we get back on topic?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah. Black was a good color in Ancient Egyptian culture. It symbolized fertility, new life, and resurrection. Their god of death was known as the "black one" because of how he was a resurrected god in their mythology. White was also the color of the sacred.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Orcs - Created by the blood of Gruumsh - literally can't figure out why orcs would serve him.......
Again all this dismissal of mind flayers and other evil beings is more detracting. You say that Mind flayers can't be a good society because of what they do. But people are sitting here and say "Why do all orcs have to be raiders." Yet you are defining Mind flayers by their actions and not questioning if they should all be like that.
Its very hard to listen to arguments being made for Orcs and Drow, when you dismiss if we should discuss whether these other creatures should be treated the same way.
As far as I'm aware, across all the D&D worlds, mind flayers either need to consume one brain a month to stay alive, or feed a phylactery like object if they choose to become an alhoon. Either way, they have to do evil/predatory acts in order to survive.
If any mind flayers ever find out a way to grow brains in a lab without having to kill anyone, and survive on those brains, they could be good. Otherwise, mind flayers are pretty much stuck being evil.
Orcs were created from the blood of gruumsh in some D&D worlds, right? That doesn't mean they have to be evil. Elves were created from the blood of corellon in some D&D worlds, and they don't have to be chaotic good.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Again - why are we only focusing on two of the alleged evil races? It is not at all a slippery slope to question why we need to change these two races but ignore all the others. Again from the MM:
So I don't understand why we dismiss this point. If we are going to talk about removing inherently evil beings from D&D we cannot focus on 2, we need to look at all of them. Just like how we cannot argue that 2 of those species should not have generally evil societies, but the others are fine.
We say mind flayers are evil becuase of their diet and reproduction. But a biologist would never call a parasite and evil being simply because of its nature. Yet here we call Mind flayers evil due to their nature, but question of Orcs and Drow should be evil due to their societal norms and creation. If we say that "Because of free will," do mind flayers not have free will? It is argued they are smarter than the smartest human so it is easy to say they have free will, yet we still dismiss this concept that they should be changed to be more neutral.
It was also dismissed by someone earlier because they have examples of "good" characters. Yet the argument that Drow and Orcs also have "good" characters is dismissed as "not enough." Yet we are not going to talk about mind flayers being changed because "They have an example of being good."
So a being is Evil because they need to consume something to live and cannot grow it itself? OR is that not the point you are making. Mind flayers eat brains therefore they need to prey on other beings to survive. Yet we do not call a wolf evil because it needs to eat a rabbit?
Again Orcs having evil in their nature due to creation is bad, But mind flayers can be evil due to the nature of their creation.