Alignment in 5E still causes arguments

[Scrivener]

Once again, DND fails to understand how evil is subjective.

Except in D&D evil isn't subjective. It is a very real thing, with rules, and the ability to be detected, or warded against.

While there is lots of stupid BS in this, this isn't really part of that. Sure they could have pushed for a more nuanced discussion of alignment but they did an acceptable job and actually said flat out what would happen if an outsider changed alignment.

[Prak]

Once again, DND fails to understand how evil is subjective.

Except in D&D evil isn't subjective. It is a very real thing, with rules, and the ability to be detected, or warded against.

While there is lots of stupid BS in this, this isn't really part of that. Sure they could have pushed for a more nuanced discussion of alignment but they did an acceptable job and actually said flat out what would happen if an outsider changed alignment.

The inherent racism in saying that orcs "struggle against their inherent evil urges even if they're good" does make it bad though. In fact, with the possible exception of magical creatures like fiends and celestials, I really think that "usual" alignments should be scrapped.


Well... hell, I think alignment in general should be scrapped, but it's a sacred cow that never will be, so they can at least stop being racist and change "Orcs are almost always evil" to "orcs are humanoids which typically survive through raids and banditry perpetrated against other humanoids, especially humans and dwarves. Their chief god is a vicious war deity named Gruumsh who preaches the eradication of elves and dwarves. Individual orcs will differ, especially those raised outside of orc society, but most orcs have killed shortly after they've learned to walk, and the use of rape to exert dominance or satisfy desire is common amongst orcs, especially in raids."

Means a hell of a lot more than "orcs are usually evil," and avoids the fantasy racism and unfortunate implications of inherent evil urges which even good orcs struggle against. I'm fine with good orcs who occasionally say stuff like "orcs handle this sort of thing much more simply," like a fantasy version of Dinobot with less Shakespeare quotes, but not with good orcs who are basically sociopaths trying to act "normal."

[sarcasmoverdose]

It is a very real thing, with rules, and the ability to be detected, or warded against.

If you take the whole "evil is a force" argument, evil doesn't mean "evil" the way the rest of the world uses it, and thus calling it "evil" is pointless. See: aforementioned Hamas terrorists would be good aligned and heroic if they strapped on a golden suicide bomb and went to kill members of "inferior races", and evil aligned if they strapped on a black and red suicide bomb and went after "superior races".

While there is lots of stupid BS in this, this isn't really part of that. Sure they could have pushed for a more nuanced discussion of alignment but they did an acceptable job and actually said flat out what would happen if an outsider changed alignment.

Since there isn't a sensible definition of "evil" much less "lawful", saying that devils are the manifestation of "lawful evil" is kinda useless.

While there is lots of stupid BS in this, this isn't really part of that.

"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence."
"Satan, who created other races, though, made those races to serve him. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their father. Most blacks share the violent, savage nature of their father, Cain, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if a colored chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even mulattoes feel the lingering pull of the mark of Cain."
"Satan, who created other races, though, made those races to serve him. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their father. Most arabs share the violent, savage nature of their demonic creator, Allah, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an Arab chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-Arabs feel the lingering pull of the the devil’s influence."

[DSMatticus]

I don't see this ending well.

That said, in 3.5 evil is both an alignment and a force and the two aren't really the same thing. The orphan-rescuing succubus nun detects as evil because she is made out of evilons or whatever the fuck, and having a good alignment does not change that. Even when evil is a very real property that you can measure and interact with (as it is in D&D), it doesn't actually have any ethical implications beyond simple correlation - 'good' people can detect as evil.

"Evil is a metaphysical force of the D&D universe" only has importance if the force in question implies evil ethics. Which it doesn't. Because what the fuck. Really, alignments are fucking weird.

[Scrivener]

I think your missing the point.

D&D evil is not real world evil.

It's not even close.

Sure you can argue its racist towards orcs and try to draw parallels to real life groups, but I'm fairly sure that in the real world no followers of any religion can use the power of a deity to infuse a corpse with negative energy and make it an shambling animated force bound to their will. Heck a species of literal monsters having monstrous tendencies is not the same as saying an ethnic group is incapable of self control.

If you were to have demons allowed to change their alignment would you consider a similar quote pertaining to demons to be racist? It is important to remember we are talking about monsters, creatures made by evil, for the purpose of evil. This is not about members of one species justifying their hatred of other members of their species, this is about a god who is Evil (and easily seen as evil by large segments of the population) making a weapon that is used to systematically kill a species.

If you take the whole "evil is a force" argument, evil doesn't mean "evil" the way the rest of the world uses it, and thus calling it "evil" is pointless.

Please don't go down this road of "what do words really mean?" You can't give a rigorous definition of Good in real life, hence philosophy.

The D&D definition of evil isn't well defined, but it is hinted clearly and loudly it is "bad guys who do bad stuff, and undead, and primary color dragons". If you want to talk about the morality of suicide bombers using a roleplaying system to center yourself is a very poor idea.

[nockermensch]

Re: Alignment.

This is d&d, and given that their reaction to 4E colossal failure was to do an almost complete rollback of everything that edition introduced, it was a given that the alignment grid would come back. I mean, it is as stupid as it always was, but then again it's the least surprising stupid ever. Bonus points for them having spells like Holy Aura affecting "creatures of your choice" instead of being alignment based and for a conspicuous lack of "detect alignment" spells. I got the impression that alignment is still stealth-removed from game interactions, except that's still written on the top of character sheets to make grognards happy.

Incidentally, that "d100 weird items you won't believe you found in your pocket" table (imagine it as a buzzfeed list article) seems to fill the same marketing need: They must have focus group playtest reports showing that grognards feel happy nostalgic feelings about rolling silly random tables in D&D, so they made sure to include silly random tables in the books. See: Fucking wild magic results.

[Voss]

Eh. They could have made more effort than they did. Team Black Hat isn't allowed any sort of agency at all, and Team Paladin doesn't represent Good or Law in any way, but just social expectations of an undescribed society, and half the other alignments are 'Fuck you, I do what I want.'

The 'Do paladins kill orc babies?' question is apparently 'society might expect that.'

And either end of Neutral are solely defined by classes, and not any sort of creature or society (though once again I can't see the difference between 'personal code' and do what feels right regardless of other's expectations). Meanwhile Cloud Giants are either delivering giant sheep to feed starving nations (help according to the other's needs), or stealing the sheep for themselves, because they can.


@nocker- yeah, I got the same impression on alignment- it is barely a page and a half, and clearly zero effort went into it. And given the 6 pages of shitty backgrounds, personalities, bonds, flaws and what not that follows, it is pretty easy to see what it is being replaced with, including the bullshit mechanical advantage that is 'inspiration.'

God dog. You played you're character for 2 minutes. Have a reroll, boy.

[sarcasmoverdose]

I think your missing the point.

D&D evil is not real world evil.

It's not even close.

So don't call it evil then.

Sure you can argue its racist towards orcs and try to draw parallels to real life groups,

This isn't just "racism" that "parallels real life groups". If you wanna make a bunch of dwarves that act like the Black Panthers or elves that act like Nazis, fine. You can even go full blazing saddles with your campaign (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Jews) without actually being racist.

This isn't racism being discussed/displayed/deconstructed in the game elements. This is the designers of the game describing "lesser races" in a way all to similar to actual racism. Racism isn't an just element in the game; the core system itself is racist, with ubermenschen who are the players who are presumed to be both better and more capable than the untermenschen who are brutish, stupid, and inclined to evil, and who need to either be eliminated or civilized by the "civilized people".

Heck a species of literal monsters having monstrous tendencies is not the same as saying an ethnic group is incapable of self control.

It was handled here in a way that was very, very similar to actual racism.

If you were to have demons allowed to change their alignment would you consider a similar quote pertaining to demons to be racist? It is important to remember we are talking about monsters, creatures made by evil, for the purpose of evil.

Since you're defining evil as something other that its english meaning, the above statement is meaningless.

This is not about members of one species justifying their hatred of other members of their species, this is about a god who is Evil (and easily seen as evil by large segments of the population) making a weapon that is used to systematically kill a species.

So, a Paladin who goes around butchering every demon he sees without talking first is evil?

Please don't go down this road of "what do words really mean?" You can't give a rigorous definition of Good in real life, hence philosophy.

Which is a good reason NOT to chuck it around wildly (as the DND designers do) or use "good" as a mechanic.

The D&D definition of evil isn't well defined, but it is hinted clearly and loudly it is "bad guys who do bad stuff, and undead, and primary color dragons".

So, basically, evil is being born to "untermenchen" parents, or engaging in body alteration that society disapproves of (or even having said body alteration done to you), or just acting out in a socially inappropriate way.

If you want to talk about the morality of suicide bombers using a roleplaying system to center yourself is a very poor idea.

A robust RPG system should have the ability to handle both players who want an interesting, complex world with morality that is intelligently discussed and has shades of grey, and the guy who wants to kill some orcs over a brew. The fact that the 5E system is literally worse than "none at all" is a testament to how badly it is designed.

[DSMatticus]

Please don't go down this road of "what do words really mean?" You can't give a rigorous definition of Good in real life, hence philosophy.

The D&D definition of evil isn't well defined, but it is hinted clearly and loudly it is "bad guys who do bad stuff, and undead, and primary color dragons".

You're missing the point. Badly. In 3.5, evil is both a metaphysical property and an alignment but they aren't the same thing. You can have the evil subtype and be good-aligned - metaphysically evil yet ethically good. You can have the good subtype and be evil-aligned - metaphysically good yet ethically evil. The metaphysical properties have no ethical implications - even in the context of the poorly defined ethics of the alignment system. That's weird, but that's how it works. The metaphysical force and the ethics are separate.

In 5e, the metaphysical force and the ethics are no longer separate. A fiend that stops being evil stops being a fiend. Presumably they undergo a magical transformation montage and end up as an angel. That's boring and stupid, and it means fiendish anti-heroes are right out. Do good-aligned tieflings become aasimars? But whatever, fairly minor, I guess.

More importantly, orcs are among the group of creatures who are metaphysically evil. But D&D orcs are basically just humans in green body paint. Declaring them instrinsically evil is justifying a form of racism in the setting that is way too fucking similar to forms of racism that actually exist in the real world. And in addition to being offensive, it's also stupid: WoW happened. The Elder Scrolls happened. A bajillion fucking stories in which orcs are protagonists or moral equals happened. The concept of the genetically evil orc should just fucking die.

[tussock]

You can't give a rigorous definition of Good in real life

Gives of themselves to protect innocents from injustice. Same as 3e. You might argue there are even greater goods to be had, but that's a Good baseline. Just as Evil becomes wilfully applying injustices to the innocent, and mid-ground is neither of those.

Obviously you can tunnel from there through justice and relative costs and structural disadvantage and nuance the shit out of it 'till the cows come home, so genuine rigour would involve an enormous tome of work across many disciplines, but it's still a Good baseline.

[sarcasmoverdose]

More importantly, orcs are among the group of creatures who are metaphysically evil. But D&D orcs are basically just humans in green body paint. Declaring them instrinsically evil is justifying a form of racism in the setting that is way too fucking similar to forms of racism that actually exist in the real world. And in addition to being offensive, it's also stupid: WoW happened. The Elder Scrolls happened. A bajillion fucking stories in which orcs are protagonists or moral equals happened. The concept of the genetically evil orc should just fucking die.

And there's a million ways of making interesting orc antagonists. Maybe a story gets passed around the orc city of a human raping an orc, and they want revenge. Maybe an ambitious orc warlord set up a false flag operation between two enemies. Maybe a group of orcs is running out of resources, and they invade a village to get the food they need to survive. Maybe one of the players murdered the orc's mother.

[darkmaster]

The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel
the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

This is not going to fucking last. As has already been more or less pointed out but not enumerated on, D&D fucking LOOOOOOOOOVES its succubus paladins fuck, I made literally an entire setting based on the idea of a Solar and her Pit Fiend lover who both just got sick of all the bullshit and became more or less neutral creating their own dimiplane and starting a family, a really weird far flung family that has interbred with and adopted all manner of creatures over the course of thousands of years and that shit is cool, 5e wants to tell me "no, you can't do that and we won't tell you what you can do instead so fuck you for being creative. Well fuck you 5e everyone's going to ignore that fucking rule anyway.


Sarcasmoverdose, can you read? did you just skim DSM's post? because you are not actually responding to what he actually said. He isn't denying you can use orcs as effective antagonists, just that they shouldn't be forced to be evil because they're ugly they were made by an evil god.

[sarcasmoverdose]

Sarcasmoverdose, can you read? did you just skim DSM's post? because you are not actually responding to what he actually said. He isn't denying you can use orcs as effective antagonists, just that they shouldn't be forced to be evil because they're ugly they were made by an evil god.

I was agreeing with him about how 5e's treatment of orcs sucks. Can you read?

[darkmaster]

I can, if that was your intent, it was unclear do better next time.

[ishy]

and the use of rape to exert dominance or satisfy desire is common amongst orcs, especially in raids."

Personally, I do not want every scene involving orcs to include rape.

[Foxwarrior]

I made literally an entire setting based on the idea of a Solar and her Pit Fiend lover who both just got sick of all the bullshit and became more or less neutral creating their own dimiplane and starting a family

Diablo III?

[darkmaster]

No... is that what Diablo III is about? I never played it. Anyway, Fetol is actually a massive dimiplane that has been tailored to the various tastes and needs of a very old, very large, and very exotic family so there's burning oceans sailed by steal ships, there's vast forests where you could wander for years, there's sprawling necropolii, and huge planar cities, the family uses the plane as something of a training ground for their children so everyone has a gentleman's agreement going on to use merciful weapons to prevent meteors falling from the sky when you kill the wrong person (I mean, unless their undead and then they're the ones who burned that bridge or destroying them was actually helping the family to raise them so it's cool). It is, I think, I pretty good excuse to have all kinds of crazy environments and vistas to explore and it allows the game to dodge the revolving door afterlife or player permadeath issue quite nicely.

[Voss]

setting backstory only. The game is about killing shit. But the world basically came about because star crossed lovers (angel and sex demon) wanted to escape the blood war, made a world, called it sanctuary and eventually their half breed spawn became humans.

So you can see why he asked based on your one sentence summary.

[darkmaster]

Yes, I can see now. But no not quite Diablo III.

[TiaC]

and the use of rape to exert dominance or satisfy desire is common amongst orcs, especially in raids."

Personally, I do not want every scene involving orcs to include rape.

In my setting, all orcs are highly ethical BDSM practitioners.

[Rawbeard]

I hope their safeword is "banana"

[Lago PARANOIA]

Personally, I do not want every scene involving orcs to include rape.

"Beautiful maidens in the hands of hideous beasts - this is my kind of movie!" -- Joel Robinson, MST3K

... I meant that as snark, but, you'd be surprised at how many racial supremacists love interracial porn. Especially when it plays up the black brute factor.

[momothefiddler]

Regarding alignment, I find it amusing that devils are evil not because of their ethical choices (indeed, they don't really get any), but because they're just doing what devils do.

Meanwhile, sharks are unaligned (and cannot possibly be evil) not because of their ethical choices (indeed, they don't really get any), but because they're just doing what sharks do.

This probably isn't new, but neither is alignment as a whole being shit and we're talking about that, so hey.

[Scrivener]

You're missing the point. Badly. In 3.5, evil is both a metaphysical property and an alignment but they aren't the same thing. You can have the evil subtype and be good-aligned - metaphysically evil yet ethically good. You can have the good subtype and be evil-aligned - metaphysically good yet ethically evil. The metaphysical properties have no ethical implications - even in the context of the poorly defined ethics of the alignment system. That's weird, but that's how it works. The metaphysical force and the ethics are separate.

In 5e, the metaphysical force and the ethics are no longer separate. A fiend that stops being evil stops being a fiend. Presumably they undergo a magical transformation montage and end up as an angel. That's boring and stupid, and it means fiendish anti-heroes are right out. Do good-aligned tieflings become aasimars? But whatever, fairly minor, I guess.

I have a different interpretation, that is colored by how I have run D&D in the past. Metaphysical evil, the evil of alignment and the planes, is an inherent quality of the universe. This can be measured, and has its own corrupting influence, but doesn't do much. It's like fighting an idea. Ethical evil is what actions a person takes, you cannot cast detect ethos, or ward against abusive bank charges.

So devil will detect as lawful evil, because that is physically what it is, however the actions of said devil are entirely up to it.

Granted we are talking about a limited amount of space, but in the very least it has stopped DMs from throwing demon babies at paladins in an attempt to make them fall.

More importantly, orcs are among the group of creatures who are metaphysically evil. But D&D orcs are basically just humans in green body paint. Declaring them instrinsically evil is justifying a form of racism in the setting that is way too fucking similar to forms of racism that actually exist in the real world.

First I don't buy orcs count as green humans, but I understand I am in the minority. If you were to try to make orcs less like green humans and more like monsters how would you go about that? I would assume making if clear that they were made for murder and destruction and even the best of them feels that genetic pull would be a reasonable path. I'm sure there are other ways you could go about it, but this simultaneously pulls orcs farther from humans and paints them as monstrous.

If we want to accuse orcs of being a racial stand in (which in itself is offensive) where do we stop? Do we call gnomes a racist puppet? Do we call halflings an ableist plot to mock the short? I know that many people who play D&D use many of the species of the world as stand ins for different races in the real world (heck, I describe my dwarves as Prussian) but this short hand is not in the rules. It isn't implied in the rules, and in fact effort has gone into attempts to make them less human.

And in addition to being offensive, it's also stupid: WoW happened. The Elder Scrolls happened. A bajillion fucking stories in which orcs are protagonists or moral equals happened. The concept of the genetically evil orc should just fucking die.

WoW, where orcs turned into a demon fueled agents of war and destruction? Twice? And one of the most noble and good Orcs succumbed to the pull of evil? WoW did a great job of genetically evil orcs,.

Elder scrolls orcs are literally corrupted by a demon/god which makes them violent.

These are both examples of inherently evil orcs. I'm not sure what you are driving at.

I don't see a problem with genetically evil orcs, just as I don't see a problem with inherently evil demons. What I don't understand is why orcs are a racial stand in, but all other monstrous humanoids get a free pass.

[Voss]

WoW, where orcs turned into a demon fueled agents of war and destruction? Twice? And one of the most noble and good Orcs succumbed to the pull of evil? WoW did a great job of genetically evil orcs,.

That is... explicitly demonic corruption and mind control. Not genetics. Uncorrupted they're a terrible Noble Savage stereotype, with the occasional asshole in charge.

Elder scrolls orcs are literally corrupted by a demon/god which makes them violent.

Actually, it makes them live out in the wilderness away from other races so they won't be ethnically cleansed. Unless individually they live in towns and assimilate with everyone else. They had their homeland taken away, and mostly they work as mercenaries, hunters and smiths. Their 'corruption' is honestly irrelevant 99% of the time.

Neither of these is at all an example of inherently evil orcs.

I know that many people who play D&D use many of the species of the world as stand ins for different races in the real world (heck, I describe my dwarves as Prussian) but this short hand is not in the rules.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure I just re-read Generic Scottish Jew-Dwarves, a Short History on page 12 of this 5e document.

But honestly the orc thing gets uncomfortable, as the heavy brow, sloped posture, inherent violent tendencies and rapey attitude makes me wonder if I'm reading about orcs or 19th and early 20th c propaganda (complete with caricature drawings) about 'the Negro.' The overlap is pretty high enough to be uncomfortable, even if it isn't intentional.