Lawful Good characters are usually all about sacrifice for the greater the good, but what if serving the greater good involved abandoning the tenants they held so dear, and becoming Evil?
Would a Lawful Good character serve the greater good by being Evil, and could they still be considered Lawful Good, if they were only Evil because the greater good demanded that they be so?
Or is that a step too far?
I am thinking specifically about a d&d character inspired by Lord Genome, in the anime Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann.
For those who don't know, Lord Genome is the secondary antagonist in the anime. He has enslaved the human race, and forces them to live underground. He also has created "beast men" whose purpose it is to kill any humans on the surface and to generally keep the human population below a certain number.
It turns out through the course of the anime,.that Lord Genome, is actually a good guy. He wants to save humanity from extinction at the hands of the true antagonist - the anti spiral.
So he is essentially a the quintessential Lawful Good Paladin, who becomes evil because it's the only way he can serve the greater good and save humanity from extinction.
Obviously any character that I create isn't going to be "saving humanity" right odd the bat, but if I was to creat a character inspired by this anime antagonist, could I still make him as Lawful Good, but have him do evil things, to serve the greater good, or would I just have to make him pure evil from the outset.
So what do you guys think, can you be Lawful Good, and still do evil, if doing that evil is for the greater good?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
The concept of Alignment is deeply flawed and unecessary, in my opinion.
That being said, if I were to recreate Lordgenome from TTGL, I would probably make him an Oath of Conquest Paladin, and if I had to put an alignment on it, it would most probably be Lawful Neutral, coming from Lawful Good from his time battling the Anti-spirals, but having to change his ways in order to keep everyone safe, so implementing draconian rules in order to save everyone (or at least his vision of safe).
Lawful Evil does not apply for the simple fact that Lawful Evil is selfish, and only pursues personal power, Lawful Neutral, on the other hand, applies the law regardless of any other influence, because that's what is needed for society to function. Lordgenome applies his rules not for personal gain, but because it's the only way (in his mind) to keep everyone safe, therefore he cannot be considered Evil by D&D alignment standards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Alignment, as it stands now, is certainly flawed. The mechanic forces everyone to put their character into 1 of 9 discreet boxes. And that's it. It pigeon holes people into super rigid stereotypes that ultimately just cause friction.
Both the Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic axis are spectrums, not the stair-steps that they are portrayed as.
I see a disconnect between what Lawful Good is perceived as, and what it actually is. LG characters act in accordance with what others expect from them, not necessarily what they actually believe to be the "right" thing.
Lord Genome is Chaotic Good. His personal conviction on what the "greater good" is forms the basis of his actions. He does this despite the expectation of others not matching his own view, and is thus chaotic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Would a Lawful Good character serve the greater good by being Evil, and could they still be considered Lawful Good, if they were only Evil because the greater good demanded that they be so?
In my opinion, no.
Good and Evil is partly about what lines you will not cross. No matter the situation, there are things that good people Just Will Not Do.
Someone who crosses the line, no matter the justification, cannot call themselves good any more. They may think they are still on the side of goodness, but they are deluding themselves.
Lord Genome is Lawful Evil, as is Darth Vader and Harry Callaghan. They might be anti-villains, rather than villains, but their methods mark them as evil rather than good.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Lord Genome is Lawful Evil, as is Darth Vader and Harry Callaghan. They might be anti-villains, rather than villains, but their methods mark them as evil rather than good.
I beg to differ.
Darth Vader was indeed Lawful Evil, because his aim was towards personal power and little else, he had no illusion of being part of something that would make the Galaxy better, not with the Emperor at its head at least. He was selfishly looking for power while being a high ranking individual in what was the most powerful organization in the galaxy, implementing any means necessary to reach his goal of being powerful enough to overthrow the Emperor and possibly resurrect/reunite with Padme. Selfishness was his driving emotion.
Lordgenome, on the other hand, had no desire of amassing personal power, quite the contrary, as more Spiral power means more attention from the Anti-spiral, therefore, as he was powerful enough to at least do that, he had to take the difficult decision to condemn the whole world to a life or seclusion and ignorance in order to perpetuate the spices, while at the same time keep an eye out for the possible return of the Anti-spirals. His methods are reprehensible, and he can indeed be seen as a villain (and he is obviously seen as such for the first half of the series), but his motives are not those of an evil character by D&D standards (this is the important bit, D&D standards, not philosophical ones) as he lacks the selfishness and personal gain desire.
I've always viewed good and evil as a matter of perspective; yes you have some villains who see themselves as evil and those are somewhat cut and dry (like Xykon in OotS) but there are others who see themselves as good, doing the right thing, for their people. Lord Genome is a good example of this as he is working towards the greater good of saving all life; it's just that other than the beastmen, his people have no idea that he's a good guy. He's kind of like the Lord Ruler from the Mistborn books in that regard, he is Lawful good and doing everything he can to better and save his people; it's just that they can't see the 4d chess game he's playing and as such see him as a tyrant instead of a hero.
A better example of what I mean about perspective though would be Dr Doom; most people would say "of course he's lawful evil" but what would someone from Latveria think about him? He's only ever had their best interests in mind, he is a fair monarch to them and he is their protector. Why would they see him as anything other than Lawful Good? He's effectively a paladin, ready to smite the evil of the outside world to protect them.
The alignment system is problematic as people view law and good as universal concepts, what is lawful in one country may be illegal in another. Good and evil are even more abstract as (with the exception of bandits and those who intentionally choose a life of selfishness) wouldn't most beings see what they do as good? Are those goblins evil or just a society defending themselves from the evil intruders coming into their home?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Plays Leo weekly on Chaotic Fabulous. Watch us weekly on twitch chaoticfabulous.com
Alignment is for the most part, not necessary. Most DM's I've played with or watched don't give it a second thought. As far as character creation, it can serve as a guide for players on how to act differently than they themselves would.
As far as me as a DM, I would only consider alignment for certain classes. Any class that has a connection to a deity for their powers and magic would have to behave within the tenets of that deity. Likewise, a warlock with an evil patron that makes demands has to meet those demands or lose the patronage.
But that is as far as I personally would push alignment.
Regarding Lawful vs. Neutral vs. Chaotic... this following example is what solidified it for me in my mind, in the context of "good" alignments:
A young child approaches you on the street of a city and begs for coin or food, stating they are orphaned.
A Lawful Good character will take that child to an orphanage, because the society he lives in says that is the best place for orphans. It doesn't matter that there are rumors of neglect, exploitation or abuse in those places, because in principle orphanages should be better than living on the street begging and society will police the orphanages.
A Neutral Good character will look at what the child wants and do their best to provide. Clothing, food, contacts for work or a willing family to take them in. Whatever the child wants that is possible to achieve.
A Chaotic Good character will take that child and bring them to a place the character believes will give that child the best chance at a future. It doesn't matter if that child is unwilling, as long as the long term result is an adult capable of surviving and contributing to society.
I like to go by the saying "let your actions determine your alignment, not your alignment determine your actions."
So like, is not who you are, but what you do that defines you?
That's exactly correct.
You should never think "My character is (alignment), so he (does action)." More like "My character continually does (actions), so his alignment is (alignment)."
Have your character do what your character would do, and let alignment take care of itself. If it shifts, it shifts ... as near as I can tell, in 5e, alignment has exactly zero mechanical function, so it really doesn't matter.
I like to go by the saying "let your actions determine your alignment, not your alignment determine your actions."
So like, is not who you are, but what you do that defines you?
That's exactly correct.
You should never think "My character is (alignment), so he (does action)." More like "My character continually does (actions), so his alignment is (alignment)."
Have your character do what your character would do, and let alignment take care of itself. If it shifts, it shifts ... as near as I can tell, in 5e, alignment has exactly zero mechanical function, so it really doesn't matter.
Well, there are a few items that can only be used by specific alignments, but that's about it as far as mechanics goes. But yeah. You should never think "My character wouldn't do this thing because he's [insert alignment]." The alignment you strive for can certainly guide your actions, but let your character do what they would do.
Rather than large picture, simply put chaotic good is the alignment for commiting evil for greater good. Possibly even a lawful evil, so long as they acknowledge their actions are definitely evil. Chaotic good is easy to compare with the actions of religious terrorism, they will do anything to get their kind of good across to others.
Rather than large picture, simply put chaotic good is the alignment for commiting evil for greater good. Possibly even a lawful evil, so long as they acknowledge their actions are definitely evil. Chaotic good is easy to compare with the actions of religious terrorism, they will do anything to get their kind of good across to others.
How exactly do you see anything "good" about any form of religious terrorism (or terrorism in general)?
If anything, it would be Lawful Evil (methodically taking/doing what you want following law, personal belief or a code), since any terrorism organisation is that, an organisation, with its codes and beliefs that must be shared by all.
Chaotic good couldn't be farther from that, as it stands for personal morality regardless of external sources (individualism).
I would also suggest to refrain from bringing RL religious matters into the hobby, especially those regardig something as awful as terrorism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Well I don't see anything wrong with bringing it up. It's something that happens.
Other's believe that indulgence is wrong, and it would be self gain. Chaotic good people don't like people that do good for themselves, and punish them for their self gain. Politics is the most convenient example that makes sense when you look at it from a 3rd party view. It's just a good way to explain the definition.
So like, is not who you are, but what you do that defines you?
Well, Who is doing the defining? Is it you? Is it society? Is it only the humans, but not the orcs or goblins? Is it only creatures that have legs? Depending who you designate as the authority on the matter, who is a "good" or "evil" person will change.
Well I don't see anything wrong with bringing it up. It's something that happens.
Other's believe that indulgence is wrong, and it would be self gain. Chaotic good people don't like people that do good for themselves, and punish them for their self gain. Politics is the most convenient example that makes sense when you look at it from a 3rd party view. It's just a good way to explain the definition.
I am not going to engage you in an endless discussion on this, I just think it is unnecessary to use such topics to explain something that can be (and has been) exemplified in a thousand other ways, even more when implying with the same breath that there is anything even remotely positive or redeeming in terrorism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Well, Who is doing the defining? Is it you? Is it society? Is it only the humans, but not the orcs or goblins? Is it only creatures that have legs? Depending who you designate as the authority on the matter, who is a "good" or "evil" person will change.
That depends on the campaign metasetting.
If you decide there is some objective definition of good and evil then magic items like the talisman of ultimate evil use this objective definition to determine who can use them, as do good and evil deities.
You might design your campaing setting so that good and evil are relative - there is no single definition. In this world, a talisman of ultimate evil created by someone in a society might use a different definition of "evil person" than an item made by another crafter. Which would, I think, make for an interesting campaign world.
Alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket. It is behavior you would expect under normal ordinary circumstances if your character didn't think about it. Its a frame of reference. And it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. A CE person might donate to an orphanage, but it doesn't stop him from being a powermongering king where might makes right.
When the game is running and hard choices are made, it is a guideline on how you prefer to act. So could you do commit a lesser evil to do a greater good? If the world was at stake, you might choose to do this, and your character story would reflect the conflict, sorrow, atonement needed to purge the crime. Would that answer change if you are a Paladin or a Cleric? It may; how strong is the belief in right or wrong is the focal point, the alignment is again the guide.
This can vary by setting as well Eberron's setting is very very much shades of grey vs say a more black and white setting of Dragonlance.
Taking your specific case; I don't know this anime. BUT let's assume for a moment that the sacrifice of a few are needed to allow humanity to survive. The alignment might drive the approach. A true LG, would try to find a better solution (like defeat the real bad guy) or fight for survival, and would turn to euthanasia as the absolute last resort. But Lord Geome doesn't sound LG. He's likely LN at best. However, enslaving people and creating viscous killers to solve the problem is LE.
But being LE doesn't mean he can't be a good guy. It just means that the ends justify the means, at any cost. It doesn't mean he's good personally in his world view, even though he might do a something that is good in the big picture.
At the end; how much impact do you want to have it have and how far did you want to take it?
Right. There is a lot of subjectivity in the concept of good and evil.
That isn't to say there are not truly horrendous things that people/beings do that would be unambigously evil from the point of view of a neutral observer. The problem is that a lot of us take labels like Evil and Good at face value. This is after all, a game that is combat-centric and killing DM-controlled "Evil" characters is one of the surest ways to get XP and treasure, both of which are mainstays of this type of storytelling. Therefore, PCs are not neutral observers. We very much have a stake in these labels.
It's also worth noting that this very topic is also being discussed at length in a D&D Beyond sponsored thread on Mixed-race characters right now. Well worth checking out.
Lawful Good characters are usually all about sacrifice for the greater the good, but what if serving the greater good involved abandoning the tenants they held so dear, and becoming Evil?
Would a Lawful Good character serve the greater good by being Evil, and could they still be considered Lawful Good, if they were only Evil because the greater good demanded that they be so?
Or is that a step too far?
I am thinking specifically about a d&d character inspired by Lord Genome, in the anime Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann.
For those who don't know, Lord Genome is the secondary antagonist in the anime. He has enslaved the human race, and forces them to live underground. He also has created "beast men" whose purpose it is to kill any humans on the surface and to generally keep the human population below a certain number.
It turns out through the course of the anime,.that Lord Genome, is actually a good guy. He wants to save humanity from extinction at the hands of the true antagonist - the anti spiral.
So he is essentially a the quintessential Lawful Good Paladin, who becomes evil because it's the only way he can serve the greater good and save humanity from extinction.
Obviously any character that I create isn't going to be "saving humanity" right odd the bat, but if I was to creat a character inspired by this anime antagonist, could I still make him as Lawful Good, but have him do evil things, to serve the greater good, or would I just have to make him pure evil from the outset.
So what do you guys think, can you be Lawful Good, and still do evil, if doing that evil is for the greater good?
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
The concept of Alignment is deeply flawed and unecessary, in my opinion.
That being said, if I were to recreate Lordgenome from TTGL, I would probably make him an Oath of Conquest Paladin, and if I had to put an alignment on it, it would most probably be Lawful Neutral, coming from Lawful Good from his time battling the Anti-spirals, but having to change his ways in order to keep everyone safe, so implementing draconian rules in order to save everyone (or at least his vision of safe).
Lawful Evil does not apply for the simple fact that Lawful Evil is selfish, and only pursues personal power, Lawful Neutral, on the other hand, applies the law regardless of any other influence, because that's what is needed for society to function. Lordgenome applies his rules not for personal gain, but because it's the only way (in his mind) to keep everyone safe, therefore he cannot be considered Evil by D&D alignment standards.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Alignment, as it stands now, is certainly flawed. The mechanic forces everyone to put their character into 1 of 9 discreet boxes. And that's it. It pigeon holes people into super rigid stereotypes that ultimately just cause friction.
Both the Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic axis are spectrums, not the stair-steps that they are portrayed as.
I see a disconnect between what Lawful Good is perceived as, and what it actually is. LG characters act in accordance with what others expect from them, not necessarily what they actually believe to be the "right" thing.
Lord Genome is Chaotic Good. His personal conviction on what the "greater good" is forms the basis of his actions. He does this despite the expectation of others not matching his own view, and is thus chaotic.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In my opinion, no.
Good and Evil is partly about what lines you will not cross. No matter the situation, there are things that good people Just Will Not Do.
Someone who crosses the line, no matter the justification, cannot call themselves good any more. They may think they are still on the side of goodness, but they are deluding themselves.
Lord Genome is Lawful Evil, as is Darth Vader and Harry Callaghan. They might be anti-villains, rather than villains, but their methods mark them as evil rather than good.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
I beg to differ.
Darth Vader was indeed Lawful Evil, because his aim was towards personal power and little else, he had no illusion of being part of something that would make the Galaxy better, not with the Emperor at its head at least. He was selfishly looking for power while being a high ranking individual in what was the most powerful organization in the galaxy, implementing any means necessary to reach his goal of being powerful enough to overthrow the Emperor and possibly resurrect/reunite with Padme. Selfishness was his driving emotion.
Lordgenome, on the other hand, had no desire of amassing personal power, quite the contrary, as more Spiral power means more attention from the Anti-spiral, therefore, as he was powerful enough to at least do that, he had to take the difficult decision to condemn the whole world to a life or seclusion and ignorance in order to perpetuate the spices, while at the same time keep an eye out for the possible return of the Anti-spirals.
His methods are reprehensible, and he can indeed be seen as a villain (and he is obviously seen as such for the first half of the series), but his motives are not those of an evil character by D&D standards (this is the important bit, D&D standards, not philosophical ones) as he lacks the selfishness and personal gain desire.
(obviously all IMHO)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I've always viewed good and evil as a matter of perspective; yes you have some villains who see themselves as evil and those are somewhat cut and dry (like Xykon in OotS) but there are others who see themselves as good, doing the right thing, for their people. Lord Genome is a good example of this as he is working towards the greater good of saving all life; it's just that other than the beastmen, his people have no idea that he's a good guy. He's kind of like the Lord Ruler from the Mistborn books in that regard, he is Lawful good and doing everything he can to better and save his people; it's just that they can't see the 4d chess game he's playing and as such see him as a tyrant instead of a hero.
A better example of what I mean about perspective though would be Dr Doom; most people would say "of course he's lawful evil" but what would someone from Latveria think about him? He's only ever had their best interests in mind, he is a fair monarch to them and he is their protector. Why would they see him as anything other than Lawful Good? He's effectively a paladin, ready to smite the evil of the outside world to protect them.
The alignment system is problematic as people view law and good as universal concepts, what is lawful in one country may be illegal in another. Good and evil are even more abstract as (with the exception of bandits and those who intentionally choose a life of selfishness) wouldn't most beings see what they do as good? Are those goblins evil or just a society defending themselves from the evil intruders coming into their home?
Plays Leo weekly on Chaotic Fabulous. Watch us weekly on twitch chaoticfabulous.com
Alignment is for the most part, not necessary. Most DM's I've played with or watched don't give it a second thought. As far as character creation, it can serve as a guide for players on how to act differently than they themselves would.
As far as me as a DM, I would only consider alignment for certain classes. Any class that has a connection to a deity for their powers and magic would have to behave within the tenets of that deity. Likewise, a warlock with an evil patron that makes demands has to meet those demands or lose the patronage.
But that is as far as I personally would push alignment.
Regarding Lawful vs. Neutral vs. Chaotic... this following example is what solidified it for me in my mind, in the context of "good" alignments:
A young child approaches you on the street of a city and begs for coin or food, stating they are orphaned.
I like to go by the saying "let your actions determine your alignment, not your alignment determine your actions."
So like, is not who you are, but what you do that defines you?
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
That's exactly correct.
You should never think "My character is (alignment), so he (does action)." More like "My character continually does (actions), so his alignment is (alignment)."
Have your character do what your character would do, and let alignment take care of itself. If it shifts, it shifts ... as near as I can tell, in 5e, alignment has exactly zero mechanical function, so it really doesn't matter.
Well, there are a few items that can only be used by specific alignments, but that's about it as far as mechanics goes.
But yeah. You should never think "My character wouldn't do this thing because he's [insert alignment]." The alignment you strive for can certainly guide your actions, but let your character do what they would do.
Rather than large picture, simply put chaotic good is the alignment for commiting evil for greater good. Possibly even a lawful evil, so long as they acknowledge their actions are definitely evil. Chaotic good is easy to compare with the actions of religious terrorism, they will do anything to get their kind of good across to others.
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.
How exactly do you see anything "good" about any form of religious terrorism (or terrorism in general)?
If anything, it would be Lawful Evil (methodically taking/doing what you want following law, personal belief or a code), since any terrorism organisation is that, an organisation, with its codes and beliefs that must be shared by all.
Chaotic good couldn't be farther from that, as it stands for personal morality regardless of external sources (individualism).
I would also suggest to refrain from bringing RL religious matters into the hobby, especially those regardig something as awful as terrorism.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Well I don't see anything wrong with bringing it up. It's something that happens.
Other's believe that indulgence is wrong, and it would be self gain. Chaotic good people don't like people that do good for themselves, and punish them for their self gain. Politics is the most convenient example that makes sense when you look at it from a 3rd party view. It's just a good way to explain the definition.
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.
Well, Who is doing the defining? Is it you? Is it society? Is it only the humans, but not the orcs or goblins? Is it only creatures that have legs? Depending who you designate as the authority on the matter, who is a "good" or "evil" person will change.
I am not going to engage you in an endless discussion on this, I just think it is unnecessary to use such topics to explain something that can be (and has been) exemplified in a thousand other ways, even more when implying with the same breath that there is anything even remotely positive or redeeming in terrorism.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
That depends on the campaign metasetting.
If you decide there is some objective definition of good and evil then magic items like the talisman of ultimate evil use this objective definition to determine who can use them, as do good and evil deities.
You might design your campaing setting so that good and evil are relative - there is no single definition. In this world, a talisman of ultimate evil created by someone in a society might use a different definition of "evil person" than an item made by another crafter. Which would, I think, make for an interesting campaign world.
Everything below is IMHO.
Alignment is a guide, not a straightjacket. It is behavior you would expect under normal ordinary circumstances if your character didn't think about it. Its a frame of reference. And it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. A CE person might donate to an orphanage, but it doesn't stop him from being a powermongering king where might makes right.
When the game is running and hard choices are made, it is a guideline on how you prefer to act. So could you do commit a lesser evil to do a greater good? If the world was at stake, you might choose to do this, and your character story would reflect the conflict, sorrow, atonement needed to purge the crime. Would that answer change if you are a Paladin or a Cleric? It may; how strong is the belief in right or wrong is the focal point, the alignment is again the guide.
This can vary by setting as well Eberron's setting is very very much shades of grey vs say a more black and white setting of Dragonlance.
Taking your specific case; I don't know this anime. BUT let's assume for a moment that the sacrifice of a few are needed to allow humanity to survive. The alignment might drive the approach. A true LG, would try to find a better solution (like defeat the real bad guy) or fight for survival, and would turn to euthanasia as the absolute last resort. But Lord Geome doesn't sound LG. He's likely LN at best. However, enslaving people and creating viscous killers to solve the problem is LE.
But being LE doesn't mean he can't be a good guy. It just means that the ends justify the means, at any cost. It doesn't mean he's good personally in his world view, even though he might do a something that is good in the big picture.
At the end; how much impact do you want to have it have and how far did you want to take it?
Right. There is a lot of subjectivity in the concept of good and evil.
That isn't to say there are not truly horrendous things that people/beings do that would be unambigously evil from the point of view of a neutral observer. The problem is that a lot of us take labels like Evil and Good at face value. This is after all, a game that is combat-centric and killing DM-controlled "Evil" characters is one of the surest ways to get XP and treasure, both of which are mainstays of this type of storytelling. Therefore, PCs are not neutral observers. We very much have a stake in these labels.
It's also worth noting that this very topic is also being discussed at length in a D&D Beyond sponsored thread on Mixed-race characters right now. Well worth checking out.