Community

Apr 1, 2011 -- 7:43AM, Hanzo187 wrote:

In D&D, I don't think anyone would think badly of heroes defending themselves from a monster attack, but one thing I've noticed is that, with few exceptions, certain humanoid races on the fringes (orcs and goblins, for one) are always considered savage and evil. Well, many don't think about what made them that way.

When it comes to dealing with savagely evil monsters, I view them as one might view diseases. The measles or the black plague simply are they way they are. I don't wonder what made them that way or feel bad when they're eradicated from a community.

D&D is ultimately a combat based adventure game, so having an enemy to kill without hesitation and little remorse is needed. Does the alignment system reflect the muddled realities of life? Not at all. But it works for D&D.

Apr 7, 2011 -- 5:55AM, thespaceinvader wrote:

One problem: measles and the black plague are not (as far as we know) sentient.

Viewing sentient beings (even ones which are frequently savage and warlike) as a plague to be wiped out is not a pleasant attitude.

With regard to real life, I am in complete agreement. In a combat based, fantasy adventure game? It is required.

There is no sentient group of anything in real life that is evil from birth. 99.99% of all orcs are evil from birth. The closest real life comparison I can find is that of a plague.  When trying to understand how to roleplay with an orc, the best real life comparison I can think of is that of dealing with a plague.

It might actually be fun to talk about to what degree the savagely evil races are sentient? To essentially be genetically evil, would a monster have to give up some of its ability to feel certain emotions and ability to empathize?