I defend the right of monsters to be ... just monsters.
So if you leave a human infant in a room with an infant orc, close the door and return one hour later, you will find a room with one infant orc and a pile of bloody remains.
An orc can simply be born evil because its an orc. We don't need to reimagine it as a green-skinned human who began life as an innocent but had a bad upbringing and turned out bad.
If this is true of the setting, the question becomes: how does someone in the setting come to know this truth? You're a human paladin. How do you determine whether you live in a setting where orcs are irredeemably evil from birth? How do you differentiate such a world from one where orcs are mostly evil, but not irredeemably so from birth? Detecting evil on a group of orcs isn't enough, as those orcs could be evil for other reasons. (For that matter, if you're using this to argue all orcs should be killed, you'd also have to establish that a creature detecting as evil means they deserve to be killed.) You could have been taught this by your church or community, but that's just pushing responsibility away: how did they come by this knowledge?
On the other hand, there is evidence (available in-setting) that orcs aren't irredeemably evil. Orcs and humans can interbreed and half-orcs aren't always evil. Hence, having orc blood doesn't condemn one to being always chaotic evil.
If you are going to be going around slaughtering infants, you'd better have a damn good reason for it.
The orcs themselves are actually similar to number of human cultures that existed in real life.
And here I was thinking that orcs are imaginary. Silly me.
It's actually pretty funny. I expect none of you would call it evil if a party of PC's killed an man-eating tiger. If it turns out she's a tigress with cubs, I doubt many of you would think that killing the cubs, or leaving them to starve, would be an ethical issue. In real life we often put tiger cubs down due to lack of homes deemed "suitable" for them, even though most tigers that are kept by people who know what they're doing don't hurt people, and there are skilled people who would like to keep tigers but aren't allowed to. But anthropomorphize that tiger, make it stand on two legs and wield tools using its opposable thumbs and give it human-like vocal cords, and all of a sudden it's "killing babies ZMG!"
Skipping a lot of the debate because it's that time of the day where I will, in my games we've had racist gnomes (who hated all the biggers out there), dwarves who hated orcs to the point where he would threaten half-orcs, elves who went after anything even vaguely smelling of demonic/diabolic influences, and a kobold who just accepted every race on a person on person basis (one of my favorite player's character), and I've not seen their things as evil, but role playing choices.
In nearly all my games anytime something like this pops up, we roll with it, we play with it, heck, we even had an arch were the dwarf learned to respect the half-orc in the part.
My part on this, racism and specism isn't evil exactly, but you can see how it can be played that way. And your mileage may very.
Yes, it is. In fact, there's a common term for it: sociopathy. There's also unncountable stories of humans who grew up with normal, happy childhoods to become some of the greatest forces of evil to walk the land. The Nuremberg Trials were filled with them...Since monsters have a default alignment, you can simply say 99.99% of orcs are born-sociopaths. You might rescue the infants, attempt to raise them to be something better, but the effort is ultimately futile.
The one Orc in a thousand who has the potential to be something other than what he was born to be, certainly makes for an interesting character, but turning that into the norm kind of defeats the purpose of having generic evil monster races in the game.
Read the actual society write-up for orcs. Note that similar societies of humans, with the same result, have existed. Note that there is game material that suggests that those same exact societies still exist for some groups of humans in Pathfinder, and have that same inherent alignment. Then note what has been said about half-orcs and how, despite their heritage, they don't have an inherent alignment... but note that some of the write-up material says that evil comes easy to half-orcs because of how they're discriminated against (which is a societal issue).
I'm not saying that there are creatures that are not, by their very nature, evil. There's even a number of humanoid species that are inherently evil and have write-ups that make it clear this evil is because of what they are, not because of their society. Those are ones where the children have to be imprisoned; there is no redeeming them. And beings like demons are just purely evil.
I'm not saying that there are not races that purely evil, and neither is Vivianne. In fact, I could pull up my PDF copy of the beastiary and give you a list, and I think you would agree with every monster on it. But I am saying there are species that are not. And you cannot judge the young of that species as growing up evil just because the majority of their number tend towards it; after all, by that logic, even Pathfinder humanity is a species that does not deserve to live due to the periods where it's been mostly evil. Especially humans in Golarion.
Besides, if you're going to start killing babies just because their species is normally evil... then how long until you're killing them just because their parents are evil, even when the species itself is not normally evil?
You're right that alignment is a lot more black-and-white in how it was written up. But that doesn't mean the forces of good would tolerate exterminating children. After all, the forces of evil kill children all of the time, even in Pathfinder. How can you say you are better than them if you're acting the exact same way?
Things are much more simplistic in this type of fantasy setting. Evil is not just a concept but an actual substance. There are entire realities made up of inanimate, evil "stuff" (e.g. Hell, the Abyss, Abaddon).
You can't translate this idea to the real world, beyond the imaginations of particular religions.
You never answered how any of this is come to be known by characters within the setting. You just stated it as fact without explaining how it could be known by characters in the setting. How does our hypothetical human paladin learn that orcs are made up of this actual, substantive evil? Also, since you mentioned this, how does our paladin determine that alignment is connected to morality? How does he determine that it's justified to kill someone for being of evil alignment?
Since monsters have a default alignment, you can simply say 99.99% of orcs are born-sociopaths. You might rescue the infants, attempt to raise them to be something better, but the effort is ultimately futile.
Again, you haven't explained how this paladin would come to know that 99.99% of orcs are born sociopaths. You haven't explained how he would come to know that orcs have a default alignment. Further, if there do exist orcs who aren't evil, then that's more evidence (available in-universe) that orcs aren't irredeemably evil.
It's actually pretty funny. I expect none of you would call it evil if a party of PC's killed an man-eating tiger. If it turns out she's a tigress with cubs, I doubt many of you would think that killing the cubs, or leaving them to starve, would be an ethical issue. In real life we often put tiger cubs down due to lack of homes deemed "suitable" for them, even though most tigers that are kept by people who know what they're doing don't hurt people, and there are skilled people who would like to keep tigers but aren't allowed to. But anthropomorphize that tiger, make it stand on two legs and wield tools using its opposable thumbs and give it human-like vocal cords, and all of a sudden it's "killing babies ZMG!"
How appropriate that your avatar is a dwarf.
Your analogy doesn't work. Animals aren't the same as intelligent, sentient creatures we can communicate with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The orcs themselves are actually similar to number of human cultures that existed in real life.And here I was thinking that orcs are imaginary. Silly me.
It's actually pretty funny. I expect none of you would call it evil if a party of PC's killed an man-eating tiger. If it turns out she's a tigress with cubs, I doubt many of you would think that killing the cubs, or leaving them to starve, would be an ethical issue. In real life we often put tiger cubs down due to lack of homes deemed "suitable" for them, even though most tigers that are kept by people who know what they're doing don't hurt people, and there are skilled people who would like to keep tigers but aren't allowed to. But anthropomorphize that tiger, make it stand on two legs and wield tools using its opposable thumbs and give it human-like vocal cords, and all of a sudden it's "killing babies ZMG!"
Yeah, funny thing about most imaginary races... they're usually just humans with a fresh coat of paint. Every once in awhile, they mix it up by combining humans with two or more animal races before applying the paint. Lovecraft was particularly guilty of the mixing bit; his Elder Things were based on genetics scientists of the period, while his Mi-go are just human doctors taken to their most horrific potential.
Killing the tiger would only be good because of it killing people; that or protecting themselves is really it. As for the cubs: Exotic pets are more common in Pathfinder than real life. Take them back to town and they'll live happy lives. And since there is no need to kill them, killing them would be an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Alignment" is little more than speculation and idle philosophy to most citizens of Golarion. Only priests and wizards understand the alignments "system" and its relationship with beings from the Outer Planes. A CN halfling bandit is not aware he is Chaotic Neutral, and if he were told so by a cleric and a paladin who told him so, he would have nothing to say about it.
"Racism" is a modern world social construst, and a politically-correct minefield. Usually, it's a sign someone wants to post a thread that is "controversial" and get a lot of activity in said thread so that they can feel good about their "activism".
"Racism" is alive and well in Golarion, and it makes for a very fun game, knowing there is innate Evil waiting to be vanquished, and innate Good that must be upheld.
Want to play a half-orc berzerker? Get ready to have to sleep in the barn instead of the inn, because you're paying the price for those nice bonuses. Also, it's fun and creates tension and conflict within the story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea of the different races as biologically different.
This sort of biology-as-destiny idea is well-explored within fantasy and related genres. It is a major theme, for example, in Lovecraft's writing.
It does say something about fantasy racism though. What does racism mean when the differences are actually real?
The thing to remember is that in the real world, racists have thought their racist views were factually correct. It's not like people are cleaving to views they know are incorrect.
Want to play a half-orc berzerker? Get ready to have to sleep in the barn instead of the inn, because you're paying the price for those nice bonuses. Also, it's fun and creates tension and conflict within the story.
Why does that have to be part of the game? Why do (allegedly setting-neutral) rulebooks establish that half-orcs would have to sleep in the barn? Why can't the game be written so that this sort of fantasy racism isn't present?
For a lot of people, racism isn't fantasy. It's something they have to deal with in real life. Why should it be necessary to include that as default in what is supposed to be a leisure activity?
Yeah, funny thing about most imaginary races... they're usually just humans with a fresh coat of paint. Every once in awhile, they mix it up by combining humans with two or more animal races before applying the paint.In some ways they are. Often as I said above, they're meant to reflect a particular aspect of ourselves. Good or bad.
Of course, part of the reason they're often just humans with a fresh coat of paint is that people get upset and push back when anyone suggests that they aren't. Isn't it something of a circular argument?
It is. But at the same time, everything I've seen on them not being humans with just a fresh coat of paint runs into the same circular argument problem (as this very thread demonstrates at one point). And the argument of how to treat animals, which Thorri brought up as part of the circular argument about orcs and such being treated as not human to counter my circular argument about human culture and such that was brought up in response to a circular argument about them just being monsters, is just another set of circular arguments for either side.
So, the premise that a circular argument is not a valid one really cannot be accepted as part of any discussion on this topic because it would ultimately mean that no one would be able to discuss the topic.
Edit: I guess you could say this song is the theme of the conversation ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orcs are dumber.
This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.
If you include orcs as described this way in a biology-as-destiny setting, you cannot avoid the connections to real-world racism. I would even go further: if you run a biology-as-destiny setting, you should avoid having any races whose defining trait is "being worse than humans in some way". That's going to be difficult to do without accidentally picking up real-world analogues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.
Not just Colonial-era; replace "orcs" with "Africans" or "African Americans." Then you hit racism that's a lot more recent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orcs are dumber.This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.
NO NO NO NO NO. Orcs are not Africans! Orcs are monsters. Orcs are not portrayed as violent and lazy...they are violent and lazy becuase that is how they are designed by the game system. It is not a matter of humans misrepresenting or misunderstanding orcs. Orcs are murderous thugs who would happily kill all other sentient species on the planet in a gigantic genocidal bloodbath and then likely kill themselves as well when there was no one else left to kill.
One of the problems that cropped up in 3rd edition and was passed on to pathfinder was the idea of mostrous races as PC's. This humanized creatures that were originally designed solely as oppoents. Thus leading to the concept of the rare non-evil evil monster.
D&D is a game deisnged around killing evil monsters and taking their stuff which it is assumed they have stollen from its righful owners/creators.
Killing evil monster = good.
The game has evolved a lot since then but it still runs smoothest when this is the underlying logic accepted for the game.
That being said if you want to run a Pathfinder game where orc are misuderstood and hatred of orcs is racism then go for it! But it is not the game as designed or intended.
When you say "a fresh coat of paint" do you just mean the physical differences?Yeah, funny thing about most imaginary races... they're usually just humans with a fresh coat of paint. Every once in awhile, they mix it up by combining humans with two or more animal races before applying the paint.In some ways they are. Often as I said above, they're meant to reflect a particular aspect of ourselves. Good or bad.
Of course, part of the reason they're often just humans with a fresh coat of paint is that people get upset and push back when anyone suggests that they aren't. Isn't it something of a circular argument?
It is. But at the same time, everything I've seen on them not being humans with just a fresh coat of paint runs into the same circular argument problem (as this very thread demonstrates at one point). And the argument of how to treat animals, which Thorri brought up as part of the circular argument about orcs and such being treated as not human to counter my circular argument about human culture and such that was brought up in response to a circular argument about them just being monsters, is just another set of circular arguments for either side.
So, the premise that a circular argument is not a valid one really cannot be accepted as part of any discussion on this topic because it would ultimately mean that no one would be able to discuss the topic.
Pretty much. In some cases, they're more just a fresh coat of paint on a human stereotype... but because of the "Don't be a jerk" rule I'm erring on the side of caution and not going into that argument in depth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NO NO NO NO NO. Orcs are not Africans! Orcs are monsters.Orcs are dumber.This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.
I never stated the target of the real-world racism. But the fact that you were able to correctly identify who that racism has been directed towards nicely illustrates my point. Thank you!
That being said if you want to run a Pathfinder game where orc are misuderstood and hatred of orcs is racism then go for it! But it is not the game as designed or intended.
Oh, in the homebrew setting I play and DM in, orcs aren't misunderstood targets of hatred. But that's because they're one of the more influential races in the setting. It wouldn't make sense to think orcs are uncivilized brutes when an orcish nation is a major center of trade, culture, and technology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NO NO NO NO NO. Orcs are not Africans!...Orcs are dumber.This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.
Vivianne didn't say anything about Africans (which, interestingly enough, is an entire continent worth of peoples, not one racial group). But your post does elegantly demonstrate how race and racism within fantasy is articulated through real world race conceptualizations and racism. You can't evoke the idea that orcs are inherently lazy and violent without drawing on real world racism which maligns certain races as lazy or violent. You recognized this connection and wrote it into your protest against Vivianne.
Ultimately the underlying logic is racist logic, whatever way you look at it. Sometimes it's called racialism, other times scientific racism (i.e. your protest that Orcs are factually lazy and violent). But most people just call it racism, albeit, in this case fantastic racism.
i like to follow the idea that Orcs have a reason behind their raids, and that they aren't simply doing it "FOR THE LULZ!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orcs are dumber.This is the sticking point. As MagusJanus rightly pointed out earlier, when creating fantasy races, we draw inspiration from real-world groups of humans. Let's look at how orcs are described. Orcs are described as inherently violent and aggressive. They are the intellectual inferiors of humans. They've an ingrained laziness. They are uncivilized. They are savage. If this sounds like colonialist era racism, that's because it is. The difference is that instead of attributing these characteristics to a real-world group, orcs are the Other in this case.NO NO NO NO NO. Orcs are not Africans! Orcs are monsters. Orcs are not portrayed as violent and lazy...they are violent and lazy becuase that is how they are designed by the game system. It is not a matter of humans misrepresenting or misunderstanding orcs. Orcs are murderous thugs who would happily kill all other sentient species on the planet in a gigantic genocidal bloodbath and then likely kill themselves as well when there was no one else left to kill.
One of the problems that cropped up in 3rd edition and was passed on to pathfinder was the idea of mostrous races as PC's. This humanized creatures that were originally designed solely as oppoents. Thus leading to the concept of the rare non-evil evil monster.
D&D is a game deisnged around killing evil monsters and taking their stuff which it is assumed they have stollen from its righful owners/creators.
Killing evil monster = good.
The game has evolved a lot since then but it still runs smoothest when this is the underlying logic accepted for the game.
That being said if you want to run a Pathfinder game where orc are misuderstood and hatred of orcs is racism then go for it! But it is not the game as designed or intended.
Mike, I'm just going to save you the time and advise you against any further attempts at trying to convey any mechanical points about the game. Unfortunately, much like similar threads brought up in the Gamer Talk section, there are people who prefer to play this game as some sort of arm-chair real-world morality/Roddenberrian/U.N. Representative schtick. Any attempts at stating otherwise will be met with emotional counter-arguments and splitting-hairs to ensure that the cart comes before the horse.
Don't believe me, ask Adamantite Dragon, Cirtose, and Knightnday.
That being said if you want to run a Pathfinder game where orc are misuderstood and hatred of orcs is racism then go for it! But it is not the game as designed or intended.
I play them as mostly evil; I just give them a different cultural skin.
Remnants of an ancient empire that destroyed itself through debauchery and hedonism. Not exactly original, but it gets the job done and avoids any unfortunate implications.
That's the lovely thing about homebrew... you can still play a race as it's mechanically written without keeping the parts of the fluff that make you uneasy.
Unfortunately, I can't argue from a homebrew standpoint strongly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm gonna say is Blizzard Orcs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>> Tolkien Orcs
Not joking: just moments ago my boyfriend and I were discussing how after Blizzard decided to make orcs something more than just "monsters," it required them to retcon in demons and induced blood-lust to make orc history not one of inherent violence.
The same can be seen anytime people do something interesting with Orcs, the need for a narrative about inherent violence and laziness falls away. Orcs suddenly (and rightly, IMHO) just become a variation on the concept of a person, with all the dignity and moral agency allotted to any other sentient race. It ends up being that you just can't portray Orcs as bloodthirsty monsters and interesting people at the same time. The former is lazy narration (ironic!) and the latter requires giving up on the reliance of racist tropes within fantasy. You can't have biological/fantastic determinism and have interesting orcs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell if this is serious or if you are sarcastically mocking the people who go through outrageous contortions to defend killing infants.The orcs themselves are actually similar to number of human cultures that existed in real life...I defend the right of monsters to be ... just monsters.
So if you leave a human infant in a room with an infant orc, close the door and return one hour later, you will find a room with one infant orc and a pile of bloody remains.
An orc can simply be born evil because its an orc. We don't need to reimagine it as a green-skinned human who began life as an innocent but had a bad upbringing and turned out bad.
Need to? No.
Some of us prefer to, because we think it makes the game world and game play more interesting.Hell, I usually run Eberron, where quite a bit of thanks is owed to orcs for pushing back and continuing to fend off an extradimensional invasion from the Plane of Madness, and there's a country of elves that wants to plunge the entire continent into another civil war.
D&D is a game deisnged around killing evil monsters and taking their stuff which it is assumed they have stollen from its righful owners/creators.
If that is your way to run it, knock yourself out.
Killing evil monsters equals good? Probably. But only if the monsters are actually evil. Monster and Evil are not synonymous.
It may run smoother, but I, and most everybody I know, would find it incredibly trite and boring and, dare I say it, video-gamey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that there aren't any low-level adventure hooks if the setting lacks always chaotic evil savage humanoids? Lemme help:So anyway, what's the answer? We've gone far beyond "It's bad to kill orc babies". We're now in "It's bad to portray orcs or any other humanoid race as inferior or evil at all", whether it's cultural or inherent. We'd better chance the mechanics so orcs don't get the penalties to Int and Wis. Not sure about the other humanoids.
I guess we can still have conflict between countries and societies. Large scale conflicts like those aren't very good for low-level adventurers, which was the niche for most of the humanoids.
Elfy Elfson the elven druid has tasked you with stopping a group of local bandits. They have been raiding the few merchant wagons that travel to the remote village of Remoteville. These bandits are a group of elves led by the charismatic sorcerer Villain McElf. Elf Elfson had recently ordered a collection of druidic texts from the elven capitol of Elfburg. Villain McElf's bandits ambushed the merchants carrying the texts and now the books are in his fort. In addition to helping Elfy Elfson, the residents of Remoteville would be very grateful to be able to interact with the outside world again. Maybe future adventure hooks would result from the return of travel to the larger world!
It's just lazy design to fall back on "the adventure is to kill these orcs because orcs are evil". It doesn't take any great effort or depth of plot to do something else.
So anyway, what's the answer? We've gone far beyond "It's bad to kill orc babies". We're now in "It's bad to portray orcs or any other humanoid race as inferior or evil at all", whether it's cultural or inherent. We'd better chance the mechanics so orcs don't get the penalties to Int and Wis. Not sure about the other humanoids.
I've been thinking for a while that dropping specific racial bonuses for races is a good start on a solution. There is already plenty of secondary racial characteristics which can be used (many of which aren't necessarily race essential, such as things like orcish weapon prof).
I've been considering just letting players pick two stats for give bonuses and one stat to take a penalty to: outright removing the poorly balanced distribution of bonuses across the races altogether. This sounds more interesting, because then players can consider what their characters excel at outside the constraints of race based stereotypes (elves are dexterous and smart and orcs are dumb and violent vs. Olivia is buff because she worked diligently as a blacksmith apprentice and Grognoc is an self-taught arcanist because he cleverly swiped magic texts from the local mage school).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since monsters have a default alignment, you can simply say 99.99% of orcs are born-sociopaths. You might rescue the infants, attempt to raise them to be something better, but the effort is ultimately futile.
The one Orc in a thousand who has the potential to be something other than what he was born to be, certainly makes for an interesting character, but turning that into the norm kind of defeats the purpose of having generic evil monster races in the game.
There's a purpose to it?
Sorry, they aren't born evil. Nothing is. That makes no sense. It's culture. They LEARN it, and they can unlearn it, or learn differently. Heck, if you think about it, they can't even be considered evil your way because morality is a choice; if you're 'born evil', you can't make moral choice. You're just a puppet, an automaton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So anyway, what's the answer? We've gone far beyond "It's bad to kill orc babies". We're now in "It's bad to portray orcs or any other humanoid race as inferior or evil at all", whether it's cultural or inherent. We'd better chance the mechanics so orcs don't get the penalties to Int and Wis. Not sure about the other humanoids.
I've been thinking for a while that dropping specific racial bonuses for races is a good start on a solution. There is already plenty of secondary racial characteristics which can be used (many of which aren't necessarily race essential, such as things like orcish weapon prof).
I've been considering just letting players pick two stats for give bonuses and one stat to take a penalty too: outright removing the poorly balanced distribution of bonuses across the races altogether. This sounds more interesting, because then players can consider what their characters excel at outside the constraints of race based stereotypes (elves are dexterous and smart and orcs are dumb and violent vs. Olivia is buff because she worked diligently as a blacksmith apprentice and Grognoc is an self-taught arcanist because he cleverly swiped magic texts from the local mage school).
I like both of these.
I loathe, with a capital LOATHE, the conflation of race and culture in D&D. Racial packages should be precisely that, RACIAL. Only genetics, nothing learned.
So anyway, what's the answer? We've gone far beyond "It's bad to kill orc babies". We're now in "It's bad to portray orcs or any other humanoid race as inferior or evil at all", whether it's cultural or inherent. We'd better chance the mechanics so orcs don't get the penalties to Int and Wis. Not sure about the other humanoids.
I guess we can still have conflict between countries and societies. Large scale conflicts like those aren't very good for low-level adventurers, which was the niche for most of the humanoids.
Mechanics-wise, they are a race that tends towards chaotic evil (but note that, mechanics-wise, alignment is only "Always [Alignment]" when it comes to outsiders and the undead) and which makes a nice low-level enemy that can, with a little work, scale very well.
The problem is the fluff; the descriptions of their society and such. That can be changed with a quick re-write; make them tribals raiding for religious reasons, remnants of some ancient empire that debauched itself into self-destruction, or something like that. Most of the time, the players generally don't care enough to even read that much of the description about orcs, so you generally don't have to worry about going any farther in-depth. And even that little bit generally satisfies those who want to know there's more to orcs than them just being some encounter you had.
Shadowrun orcs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>
All I'm gonna say is Blizzard Orcs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tolkien Orcs
Don't all the PC races have the same 'CR' as orcs? You can pretty much sub 'dwarf' or 'elf' into 'orc' anywhere in your plot hook. "A gang of orc raiders has been hitting caravans along the main highway" easily becomes "A gang of elf raiders has been hitting caravans along the main highway." So claiming that losing 'generic monsters' costs you plot hooks is completely bogus.
So anyway, what's the answer? We've gone far beyond "It's bad to kill orc babies". We're now in "It's bad to portray orcs or any other humanoid race as inferior or evil at all", whether it's cultural or inherent. We'd better chance the mechanics so orcs don't get the penalties to Int and Wis. Not sure about the other humanoids.
I guess we can still have conflict between countries and societies. Large scale conflicts like those aren't very good for low-level adventurers, which was the niche for most of the humanoids.
The problems with orcs are, mostly, fluff. Mechanics-wise, they are a race that tends towards chaotic evil (but note that, mechanics-wise, alignment is only "Always [Alignment]" when it comes to outsiders and the undead) and which makes a nice low-level enemy that can, with a little work, scale very well.
The problem is the fluff; the descriptions of their society and such. That can be changed with a quick re-write; make them tribals raiding for religious reasons, remnants of some ancient empire that debauched itself into self-destruction, or something like that. Most of the time, the players generally don't care enough to even read that much of the description about orcs, so you generally don't have to worry about going any farther in-depth. And even that little bit generally satisfies those who want to know there's more to orcs than them just being some encounter you had.
And even to this point, you can't be completely black and white about it. I've had a game where a big plot point was that the party had been tasked by the church of phasmara in defeating a necromancer; this necromancer, however, was LN, and he used his summoned undead soldiers to protect the town which he all but governed. Without his interference, the town would have fallen long ago, so the party had to deal with a situation where Undead are evil and unnatural and everything, but they were being used for noble purposes, so they were put in a bit of a bind.
Alignment isn't even 'always' on outsiders and undead. Sure, outsiders may have the subtype to hose them mechanically, but they can still do whatever they want to.
The orcs themselves are actually similar to number of human cultures that existed in real life.And here I was thinking that orcs are imaginary. Silly me.
It's actually pretty funny. I expect none of you would call it evil if a party of PC's killed an man-eating tiger. If it turns out she's a tigress with cubs, I doubt many of you would think that killing the cubs, or leaving them to starve, would be an ethical issue. In real life we often put tiger cubs down due to lack of homes deemed "suitable" for them, even though most tigers that are kept by people who know what they're doing don't hurt people, and there are skilled people who would like to keep tigers but aren't allowed to. But anthropomorphize that tiger, make it stand on two legs and wield tools using its opposable thumbs and give it human-like vocal cords, and all of a sudden it's "killing babies ZMG!"
Yeah, heaven forbid that sentience should enter into the equation. *reverse epic double eye-roll with a half-twist*
Don't all the PC races have the same 'CR' as orcs? You can pretty much sub 'dwarf' or 'elf' into 'orc' anywhere in your plot hook. "A gang of orc raiders has been hitting caravans along the main highway" easily becomes "A gang of elf raiders has been hitting caravans along the main highway." So claiming that losing 'generic monsters' costs you plot hooks is completely bogus.
Heck, the most commonly encountered foe in the majority of adventures? The one that is usually the most mechanically rewarding for a ranger's choice of Favored Enemy (since 3.0, and even earlier)?
.
why must we have Generic "X race is always evil?" any of the PC races could be used as a stand in.
"a Gang of Rebellious Elven Bandits from the South has been Raiding the Northwestern Sylph Trade Caravans for slaves to tend to the needs of their sickly and dying young" easily works just as well as "Orcs are raiding the Elven Trade Caravans for the Lulz!" if not better
Mechanics-wise, that's what I tend to do. It seems there's quite a few in this thread who think that's still too far.
As for fluff, I'm not sure why either of your suggestions is any better than "The remains of a people driven from the Darklands by the Dwarves, who conquered much of the world during the Age of Darkness before being broken and scattered."
Eh. I'll also toss in a good-aligned orc tribe on occasion, just to make it interesting, but that's mostly in case I have to come back later and flesh the culture out a bit more. There's been a number of times where the players have been enterprising enough, at least under 3.5, to turn the good orc tribe into a major plot point.
After all, the BBEG doesn't exactly expect the tribe of orcs riding out to join the battle to be reinforcements for the good guys... and then realizing the orcs they were expecting to back them up are not coming.
I will admit I had not remembered the fluff you referred to. I need to check the wiki again on it. Still not a fan of the write-up orcs got in Advanced Races Guide, though; that's more general-purpose and the source of the unfortunate implications brought up earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, they aren't born evil. Nothing is. That makes no sense. It's culture. They LEARN it, and they can unlearn it, or learn differently. Heck, if you think about it, they can't even be considered evil your way because morality is a choice; if you're 'born evil', you can't make moral choice. You're just a puppet, an automaton.Everything's culture then? We, and all possible fictional sentients, are born as blank slates?
I'm no expert, but that's not at all my understanding of the current state of the nature vs nurture debate.
Actually, just a couple months ago, scientists at the Hausdorff Center at the University of Bonn discovered the chaotic evil gene. Turns out if you have this gene, you are irredeemably chaotic evil and you cannot change alignment.
if you want to raised an orphaned succubus or vampire child, Rhakshasa cub, or whatever to become good aligned over the course of repetitive reward and encouragement, i would allow it.
they may have the impulses of their species, and may be required to learn to combat them. and they might have exotic needs, but as long as they are nurtured correctly, they can develop a good alignment
a mindless Zombie is neutral in my games.