/5eg/ D&D Fifth Edition General: Still mad at latest UA Edition

The former, I think.

One user put forward that it would be unrealistic to have clerics that worship evil gods in real life, and then the debate began.

>While Ares would definitely be Chaotic Evil
Ares is the God of War. Just War, unjust War, Defensive War whatever.
His dominion is the clash of arms, honorable or dishonorable, whatever.

Why is he Chaotic Evil, because DC or Disney told you so?

The people who spent their real lives venerating Ares did not consider him Evil.

In fairness, Set was a straight-up god of evil, foreign lands, and magic in Egyptian mythology, and he was a central (if not especially worshiped) part of the pantheon.

He may not have attended social functions with the chopped up bits of Osiris and his sister-wife, but he was still a member of their social club.

Nuclear Druid.

Done.

Because the PHB told so

Are we at the point now that people can't recognize that war is bad?

I seriously cannot think of even a single reason why someone should be CE if people who like them don't consider them CE.

5e didn't change anything about the Evil/Good cosmology of Forgotten Realms, only the extent to which mechanics give a shit. Most people couldn't handle the extremely simple system without enormous, stupid misinterpretations, and it wasn't helped by a number of bone-headed alignment restrictions on classes that were inconsistent with setting law, so all of that stuff got junked. But torturing people to death being Evil didn't.

If you want to argue that alignment "doesn't work that way" in 5e Forgotten Realms because a full explanation of the system is missing from the rule books, you may as well forget any and all detail about all the deities of the setting because none of that has any representation in 5e except for a list of
>Godname, pronoun of onethingthegodisabout || alignment || Cleric archetypes || symbol
Helm is "god of protection" and you're supposed to take Light or Life here, but there is no greater explanation that he is a God of Guardsmen and Duty, prioritizes honor and fairness in his dealings, is a no-nonsense hardass, would never conscience any of his Clerics mucking about with undead, and is EXTREMELY responsive to prayers, requests for advice and guidance, and routinely pops in to help his faithful out when shit gets real.

5e has left the fluff back in old books but hasn't sought to challenge or retcon most anything that isn't 4e's Spellplague cosmology or geography.

>Why is he Chaotic Evil, because DC or Disney told you so?

The most recent DC Ares I read was more TN than anything else. Blood, combat, war, that's it. A personified fact of human nature.

I'm not sure Disney has touched Ares. Maybe in the Hercules TV show, but that's apocrypha.

I'm basing my CE depiction of him from the Iliad, which somehow seems like a legitimate source.

>The people who spent their real lives venerating Ares did not consider him Evil.

The people who spent their real lives venerating Hitler did not consider him Evil.

Doesn't change where he'd be on the alignment spectrum.

Nuclear Druid
Onion Druid
PAM Paladin
20 CHA Oathbreaker/1 Hexblade
Archfey Warlock/Sea Sorc [Frost Lance + Repelling Blast + Sea Curse = kiting]
Favored Soul Sorc [For being the twinned spell buff/heal bitch]

uh, it's called "the chaos of battle" for a reason
no one goes around saying "every plan survives contact with the enemy because you can know with mathematical certainy whether an action will succeed or not"
the real mystery here is why anyone is still fighting wars with human soldiers instead of exchanging lists of imaginary forces and equipment on paper and calculating who should win the war
also he'd be CE in a setting like FR because alignment doesn't give a shit what anyone THINKS about their actions, only what they're doing

>Why isn't Ares more like Tempus than Garagos?

WotC had a good article on nonevil followers of Nerull (acknowledging this is normally impossible and has to stretch the theology), Erythnul, and Hextor.

Note that I consider it 100% plausible to have "reasonable" evil characters and even Nilbogs, which are chaotic evil goblin death jesters possessed by a god of putting the "laughter" in "slaughter" that has been driven even more badly insane by being shattered into a million pieces, are generally prone to cooperating if appeased. My absolute favorite kind of evil priest/cleric is the kind that is quite satisfied (by default) for him and his god to be simply appeased.

Dude was being sarcastic, user.

I know it's hard on the internet, but you've got to put on your critical reading goggles.

Do we not have Tome of Beasts pdf yet? Couldn't find it in the Mega trove.

Tempus is a god-tier god

what part of that obviously sarcastic response made you think i wasn't in on the joke
do i need to put ", like, duh, idiot, gosh, everyone knows that" in there next time

Look harder

Third Party > Kobold Press > Tome of Beasts

Yes, actually, that would help. ;_;

I'm saying, when you draw your gaming map, and you mark the land over the mountains as "This is where the Slaygaronds live. They are a CE society who worship BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD.", you are creating a campaign in the most cartoonishly simplistic way possible.
Fite me.

I like 5e's rules, dungeons and dragons worldbuilding much less, and realize they only use the Alignment Wheel because they own the intellectual rights to it as an original idea of theirs.

I'm a full year into running a campaign with no Alignment system, full of fickle, self-interested Gods, and everyone is having a blast.

People like Sun Tzu would tell you that the battle is won or lost before the armies even clash.

Modern commanders subscribe to this "no plan survives" crap because they've techologically advanced war to industrial-scale slaughter involving machines they personally barely understand.

>5e didn't change anything about the Evil/Good cosmology of Forgotten Realms

Back in 3e, the edition of objective alignments that people seem to slavishly worship and insist on dragging into the wrong threads, it was also noted the gods don't necessarily hew to their alignments closely.

>But torturing people to death being Evil didn't.

user used Strawman! It wasn't very effective...

>If you want to argue that alignment "doesn't work that way" in 5e Forgotten Realms

1. Gods still don't decide what good and evil aren't in FR. So its not relevant. FR just uses the normal rules of whatever D&D edition is appropriate.
2. The only argument that slavery is "objectively evil" in 5e FR is "well, a previous edition of D&D, AFTER the FR book came out and made no reference to it, decreed that slavery, due to conflicting with the author's political opinions, is objectively evil."
3. By far the #1 source of aasimar in FR comes from a land where slavery is totally kosher, because its Fake Egypt Land.

...

>This is where the Slaygaronds live

So far, whether its this thread or the thread before, NOBODY has remotely argued in favor of that. The only time someone has brought that sort of thing up, they are attempting to strawman someone else's perspective into that.

>I'm saying, when you draw your gaming map, and you mark the land over the mountains as "This is where the Slaygaronds live. They are a CE society who worship BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD.", you are creating a campaign in the most cartoonishly simplistic way possible.
That's not how it was interpreted, and if your comment was about worldbuilding, you should have made it clearer.
>I like 5e's rules, dungeons and dragons worldbuilding much less, and realize they only use the Alignment Wheel because they own the intellectual rights to it as an original idea of theirs.
IMO it's because it's a sacred cow, but whatever
>I'm a full year into running a campaign with no Alignment system, full of fickle, self-interested Gods, and everyone is having a blast.
Cool, but your fun is not better than anyone else's. A setting with objectively evil orcs worshiping the god of genital multilation, genocide, and pineapple on pizza can still be engaging and fun. And really that's all any of us are here for.

Slavery, like regular employment, is only despicable when it's conditions are unnecessarily cruel and onerous.
Turn of the old century sweatshop and industrial workers were likely less happy than your average Greek house-slave.

You've got the classic television images of Egyptians building everything in the most stupid and labor abusing ways, which in America is amplified by the genuinely punitive and racially driven slavery that's not found throughout the ancient world.

>nothing is black or white
>when you do good you're actually acting on residual guilt from that time you stole a cookie in the third grade
>also it's really evil because you are selfishly attempting to increase your social standing undeservedly and win influence and rewards
>and the evil guy you're stopping isn't really evil, he's just misunderstood, and you can totally see where he's coming from
>i mean yeah he's already blow up five guard barracks and is going to detonate another one tomorrow night which is also adjacent to an orphanage but he's just a tortured soul and if the corrupt guardsmen didn't imprison and let his wife die in jail then none of this would have happened
>i mean can you really fault him
>are you really any better
>also can we really cast aspersions on the guardsmen responsible for the wife's death, i mean, they were just acting as the system demands, it's the real evil here
>also they were generally abused as children and are the products of a dysfunctional society so we can't really expect upstanding morality from anyone
>which brings us to the architects of this society, the nobility, who--
>actually nevermind they are as much a victim of their upbringing as anyone
>all humans are flawed
>nothing matters
>life is meaningless
>why even bother saving the orphans, they have nothing to look forward to but a short life of heartache and pain anyway
>why even bother playing this game or reading this story, we're all going to die
MUH SHADES OF GREY is shit and the refuge of uncritical buffoons who cannot perform moral calculus or analyze a story and character motivations completely. It's also far more overdone at this point than any mount of Sunday morning children's cartoons' villainry can stand to overcome so you're technically more unique for having a completely unhinged murderjester as your BBEG instead of some brooding and vulnerable dickshit whose puppy was kicked when he was young.

Thanks sempai

Fuck you sempai

There isn't a character art thread up right now so I'm /r/ing pics I can use for a SMUG General in my campaign. Evil looking-ness is optional

>I'm a full year into running a campaign with no Alignment system, full of fickle, self-interested Gods, and everyone is having a blast.
Must suck only being able to challenge your party's morals with the threat of godly revenge and comeuppance. I weep for you, being unable to know the patrician joys of objective morality.

I honestly can't tell the difference between real things and jokes anymore.

Yes, but traditional settings like FR absolutely do this. You have entire races/societies full of CE slavemongers like the Drow or tyrannical for the fuck of it LE Hobgoblins.

It's a cartoonishly simple setting. A few gish alignment-outliers like Drizz't doesn't change that

I'm saying you can have world-shaking wars, cultural conflicts and crossed interests without having Gods of Evil pulling strings to make it happen.

I wasn't there for either so I can't really compare.

Has anyone ran a Sunsoul monk yet, and if you did was it fun?

I missed this meme, and now it's been such a long time that I have no idea what it references. What is it?

Mystara didn't "pigenhole" Gods into Evil and Good camps but they still pulled strings to make everything happen because THEY'RE LITERALLY FUCKING GODS AND THAT'S WHAT GODS DO HOLY SHIT WHY EVEN HAVE GODS IN YOUR SETTING IF THEY'RE WORTHLESS SHITHEADS WHO DON'T MEDDLE IN MORTAL AFFAIRS 240/7

My party is currently challenged by having to find a new homeland for the barrens-dwelling society that the Cleric was born into. They've removed what was poisoning the natural flora of that region, but in turn destroyed the unnatural ecosystem that was sustaining the barrens nomads.
Now they've cleared a force from empire B. that was holding an ancient city on the edge of a rainforest that is the neighboring nation C., the traditional enemies of B.
Problem is C. took that city on the edge of their territory centuries ago and let the forest reclaim it, and Barrens Guys (A.) aren't likely to be welcome to have it back for nothing (if at all).
The Ranger is a respected hero of C. which further complicates matters.

But I guess I could just be running "EEBIL HORDES OF GRUMMSH FROM DA MOUNTAINS!"

They're a CE culture because their society heavily encourages doing X,
where X just happens to be acts that are CE, dork

I wasn't talking about Mystara; I certainly don't have problems with God-ridden worlds.
I just have issues with Gods (or mortals) with Alignments stamped on their heads.

That's not even an intelligible argument.

OH WOW, THE CHARACTERS TRIED TO DO A GOOD THING BUT IT HAD UNINTENDED BAD CONSEQUENCES
OH MAN I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS SHIT BEFORE
IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T GET OLD EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER DONE
I SURE AM GLAD WE'VE GOT A DM THAT DOESN'T DO CARTOONISHLY CLICHED SHIT ALL THE TIME

Not him, but I agree with you man. I intentionally designed my setting to have less ambiguous morality in my deities, but you're being kinda hostile.

I'm not sure what sort of cartoon features the modern drow but it would probably have to be edgy as fuck gore porn.

1. Drow, in their initial iteration, were not unreasonably evil, they're sexist religious fanatics in a very harsh environment. That's not even 0.000001% odd or unbelievable by human standards. They got made more chaotic stupid over time, but 1e drow are nothing unreasonable. 1e drow put a low value of life on other species (like many humans), are sexist religious fanatics (like many humans), and they will die to protect their children (like many humans). Because of people being triggered by Drizz't, however, tons of people want drow to be over the top gore cartoons at all times, including fetal combat, and yeah that's a lot of BS.

2. Hobgoblins? Is there anything remotely unreasonable about hobgoblin lore or behavior? They're just "kind of mean militaristic, similar to a nicer version of Spartans." There is nothing about them that is "tyrannical for the fuck of it." They conquer when it is necessary, use strength until conquered peoples submit, and allow harmless religions (like harvest deities) to remain standing and more defiant/militaristic rival religions are destroyed or forced to convert.

I can see why people have a problem with edgelord drow, but 1e drow, and hobgoblins, have nothing wrong with them. Evil factions are mostly just mirrors held up to humanity.

Finally, totally evil, unreasonable factions do serve at least one purpose: they aren't necessarily interesting but the way normal people cope with them can be.

>party of four beats up an army garrison
>solely responsible for saving an entire culture
Good, realistic setting.

Tell me you are pretending to be retarded.
Yes, it's a thing that doing X good deed doesn't necessarily lead to Happily Ever After with no consequences.
Removing the cause of the Barrens stopped the problems the nomads had with infant mortality, and it will allow the Barrens to recover over centuries.
But it leaves a further dilemma, that of the Barrens supporting NO native flora or fauna, which is something next to be resolved.

This is how you run an ongoing story that isn't random murderhobo-ing, you ridiculous dolt.

>But I guess I could just be running "EEBIL HORDES OF GRUMMSH FROM DA MOUNTAINS!"

Can you offer a non strawman critique of what is unbelievable about orcish society, without simply resorting to strawmen?

>Why can't I hold all this excluded middle?

>No alignment means no moral quandries
Literally the opposite. Once I got rid of good/evil alignments my players actually having to ask themselves what their characters would do instead of just referring to their catch-all moral directive.

In my setting, goblinoids are militaristic and protective, drow are callous about life, and orcs are savage and impulsive. None are "evil."
It limits opportunities to fight unambiguously evil armies that are okay to kill indiscriminately, but more than makes up in a wider variety of peoples to interact with and unique societies to explore.

>solely responsible for saving an entire culture
They haven't saved shit yet. Things get real when the Rainforest guys get a break in their ongoing war and realize the Barrensfolk have started clearing out their old lost city to live in.

That's going to be the complex issue. Also, the original force lurking in that city was cleared by the party, several strong NPC allies, and a large force of the Nomads the party convinced to aid them.
But thanks for your ass-umptions.

>None are "evil."

Good for you. Just don't pretend you're being "realistic" by so doing.

>what is unbelievable about orcish society, without simply resorting to strawmen?

They are almost a parody of the old Irish impression of the Bloodthirsty Demonic Viking Raider. And of course in Dungeons and Dragons that is literally the entire core of their society, which was completely untrue of the Vikings, who farmed and maintained pastures, fished and even traded.

Dungeons and Dragons orcs are the Jun Horde from Beastmaster, basically. Organic Kill-bots.

>Why can't I hold all this middle ground fallacy?
Sometimes the dichotomy is real, user.

>don't pretend you're being "realistic"
I'm not one of the original arguanons, but why is this less realistic than an "evil species"? Genuinely curious to know why you think an entire race that can't form non-murderous societies is realistic.

Is taking 3-4 levels of Kensai Monk on my Hunter Ranger a dumb idea?

And this is entirely supported by Volo's, in case anyone wants to make that argument.
They are "god-ridden" by EVIL gods, and live their entire life cycle as front-line infantry on endless pillages.
They are the cartoonishly antagonistic society.

>we thought the alignment on our character sheets was a straitjacket and not an alterable reflection of past actions
Why have I yet to meet anyone whose disdain for the alignment system isn't based on having no good idea how it works?

The thing is, I agree with you. But many players, especially relatively inexperienced ones, try to "adhere to their alignment" instead of letting it describe them, and this is reinforced by the role alignment plays in some game mechanics.
By ridding the game of good/evil, I helped the players free themselves from what you correctly identify as a false idea of how it works, and they started roleplaying better.
Really, this calls into question the value of a purely descriptive attribute that can change over time. If alignment is no more inherent to your "essence" than your credit score, why do we record it on our character sheets to begin with?

Exactly.
The Dark Elves aren't just " sexist religious fanatics in a very harsh environment", they are driven by the Evil Spider Queen to relentlessly journey to the surface to wantonly murder other Elven societies who would at this point be glad to forget they ever existed.

That's a rather crucial aspect of their "society" that Drow-apologist user left out.

Anons? I want to try and convert my Barbarian from 4e to 5e (yeah, I know). Back in 4e, it was a Whirling Slayer, which is basically the dual-wielding mincing machine subtype for that edition. I suppose in 5e it'd work out as a Berserker (or an Elk/Tiger/Pegasus Totem Warrior) with the Dual Wielding fighting style?

>a culture that isn't like something you find among human civilizations on Earth
Wow, how odd that this UNREALISTIC FANTASY game would have entities and groups that are UNLIKE REAL THINGS WE KNOW!

Yeah, but only if your play in FR. There are many ways to portray rebellious, selfish elves that don't rely purely on a monolithic theocracy.
Hell, even the FR drow, if rid of Lolth, instantly become much more nuanced people (Drizzt notwithstanding).

Why is Lolth such a cunt

I want to make an "Undead" (More like meat-Warforged) race.

As of now I plan to do so by taking the Revenant subrace and slapping it onto the UA Warforged.

What should I remove from UA Warforged to balance this?

The Revenant respawn is also tweaked- it operates as normal, however if their body is destroyed they only respawn in one set location usually (depending on where game takes place in setting) 10gorillion miles away where their deity created them.

>without simply resorting to strawmen?

>just posts a bunch of strawmen while, of course misusing the word "literally"

Okay, at least there's one part that, maybe, I could get you to use your brain instead of regurgitating strawmen...

>which was completely untrue of the Vikings, who farmed and maintained pastures, fished and even traded.

Okay. Now I am going to ask that you think critically for a moment, difficult as it may be. Envision a form of humanoid, a late comer, that has a brain that doesn't work quite as well, but that is much stronger, faster, more fecund, and quicker to develop than its more established kin, and can see in darkness with greater faculty than the more dominant races?

Add to this the fact that, historically speaking in our planet, hominids tend to not get along, and species competing for the same niche tend to not get along. Add to this the fact that, since 1e, the lore has been that by the time orcs arose, virtually every form of desirable real estate has already been claimed.

Its not even 0.0000001% implausible or unrealistic that orcs would be exactly how they are in 5e, deities aside, when they don't have the land for farming or much of anything to trade.

>UNLIKE REAL THINGS WE KNOW!
But they aren't. they are a caricature of existing stereotypes, just as they were for Tolkien.

The trouble with FR or other D&D Orcs is that by having such a ludicrously silly society, they invite every sentient being within 10,000 miles of them to join forces temporarily and exterminate them, before returning to all their other old grievances.

They are such one-dimensional EVIL shitlords that there's no justification for everyone else to Not put everything else on hold and just murder them all with superior magic and technology.

D&D Orcs are just Demons on the Prime Material Plane. They'd have either won or gone extinct long before current timeline.

It's senpai, you -1 investigation bitch.

>There are many ways to portray rebellious, selfish elves that don't rely purely on a monolithic theocracy.
So you are completely ok with gutting the core elements of what even brings the Drow into existence and makes them "work"...
But eliminating the label of Chaotic Evil triggers you into an argument?

Barbarians don't get a fighting style, and Berserker is crap. Go Totem. If you can, take the Dual Wielder feat. Barbarians actually work reasonable well with dual-wielding because Rage gives a flat damage bonus, so more attacks = more damage.
Glad you're getting to keep your character, though! We had to do a lot of converting when we updated to 5e, and it ended up being a lot of fun.

>Just as they were for Tolkien
user, Tolkien orcs had nuanced needs and desires and mostly acted as they did because of evil tyrannical rulers.
The biggest problem in fantasy isn't Tolkien. It's that people didn't understand Tolkien.

>but why is this less realistic than an "evil species"?

Who are you quoting?

>Genuinely curious to know why you think an entire race that can't form non-murderous societies is realistic.

Genuinely curious to know why you think I think that, and I'm not even sure how societies could be "murderous."

Wanna have a real conversation and not just strawman at each other?

I think you're conflating me with someone else - I joined the conversation late. I'm happy to remove alignment labels (I'm the poster who did away with good/evil alignment labels entirely).
I think at their core the drow just need to be a dark reflection of "normal" elves. You can accomplish that without any of the specifics that created them in FR.

I wasn't attempting to strawman. As I said before, I joined late and I think people assumed I was one of the earlier angeranons.

Not really, considering Volo's makes it quite clear why orcs would be that way, gods or no gods.

>course misusing the word "literally"
It is stated in Black and White, in the official guidebook to Orcs in 5e, which is Volo's, that that is the sum core of their society.
Go fucking read it before you erroneously accuse me of misusing "Literally", you stupid percentile inventing person.

>"Its not even 0.0000001% implausible"
Seriously.

>War is bad
literally childish outlook
Yes it is 'bad' but it is not 'evil'
Is a war to depose a murderous tyrant 'evil'? No.

>I think at their core the drow just need to be a dark reflection of "normal" elves.
Absolutely. A society of Elves twisted by bad fortune, bad choices and bad leadership into a dangerous, spiteful and unpredictable peoples.

That doesn't need a label of Chaotic Evil.

Maybe you should tell your players "alignment doesn't preclude what you can do, it informs what you would generally do based on all the things you've done in the past". It is a baseline for how a character thinks or--and this is key--the average of several competing ideals.

What can happen without that baseline is players begin making up their character's motivations and ideals as each situation arises because they haven't thought it through. This can still happen without that baseline, but your starting alignment is, if you chose it for reasons other than mechanics (which aren't even a think in 5E) an excellent barometer to how a character generally acts.

Getting rid of Good/Evil didn't help your players RP any better than they could have with a better understanding of this very simple concept. What you got rid of was a compulsion to adhere to principles beyond the understanding of lesser moral minds. People who uphold subjective morality like to talk about how doing bad shit can sometimes lead to "the greater good", but the real greatest good and all the soul-searching that results can only come about in objective morality.

>Not really, considering Volo's makes it quite clear why orcs would be that way, gods or no gods.
Quote it. Put up or shut up. Because I read the orc section again just the other day, and it makes a big point about how Orc society is completely god-driven, and has been since day 1.

What if
Instead of being evil
Everything just
Wasn't

How "reasonable" is it to suggest a hostile creature put on a suit of armor using Suggestion, telling him he needs to protect himself for the coming battle? Assuming we are murdering his allies once he starts doing it. Like "don't even bother" tier?

Not talking about RA Salvatore's drow, dude, and even specified I was neither talking about them nor defended them.

She became emotionally retarded after being in a polygamous marriage with Corellon Larethian. Corey was not, in fact, faithful to his two wives, either. She was stuck with the losers of the elven war.

Fun trivia: the most well known non drow servant of drow is "LARETH the Beautiful," who incidentally may very well be a fallen paladin (mechanically qualifies, iirc).

For example, what is the tougher choice:
>kill a lich before he completes the kingdom-undeadifying spell, knowing that your only means of stopping him necessitates the deaths of a hundred innocents, and explaining to the townsfolk that the needs of the hundred thousand outweigh the needs of the hundred
or
>don't kill a lich before he completes the kingdom-undeadifying spell, because any action of yours that knowingly slaughters innocents imperils your immortal soul and tips the cosmic balance of Good and Evil the wrong way, robs angels of their strength, empowers demons and devils, and has effects that reach across the entire world and over eons, then explaining to the townsfolk that the needs of the untold millions and all the gods of light outweight the needs of the hundred thousand and those tens of thousands in the neighboring countries who must now contend with the unholy skeletal army marching under the banner of the lich

What's the tougher sell to the people of the village:
>of course I rushed into that burning building, the blacksmith's only child was inside; yes, I was at grave risk of death and injury, but a hero will risk it all to save even one innocent, for that would be the greater good
or
>i am sorry, good smith, but the cause seems hopeless. for all my might i fear that i could not contend with the blaze and rescue your daughter. yea, there is a chance that i might succeed, but i gather the odds so poor that i cannot conscience the risk of my life and all the good i am yet to do for the world and my glorious god for the slim chance of saving your only child, for my continued survival upholds the greater good

>What can happen without that baseline is players begin making up their character's motivations and ideals as each situation arises because they haven't thought it through.

Yes, God forbid someone make decisions without carefully consulting with "their alignment". No characters in stories every make decisions they later regret that "don't generally represent their temperament".

Except that's a core element in myths, stories, legends. Just take Sir Lancelot.

Everyone behaving "according to their Alignment" is just childish hand-holding.

It isn't getting rid of Good and Evil as CONCEPTS, it's removing it as an absolute. You can do something Good for the village on the River and the village downstream might see it as being a Bad, Evil thing.

Unfortunately, you just keep going SILLY! CARTOONISH! STEREOTYPE! ONE DIMENSIONAL! EVIL! without ever trying to back any of it up.

It means nothing, except the wish to play a kobold dragon-hunting party.
I post it, every now and then someone else posts as well. No big memetic history behind it bruv.

I don't have to back it up, they published Volos and backed it up themselves.

Orcs and Gnolls are just YE FOUL FIENDS meant to erode at civilization, contributing nothing but some foes for murderhobos to vanquish with no second thoughts.

>You can do something Good for the village on the River and the village downstream might see it as being a Bad, Evil thing.
That happens even in an objective morality setting. Just because you're RIGHT about there being an objective Good and Evil doesn't mean any of the bumfuck peasants you try to explain this to have to listen to your shit.

There are far more moral quandaries under objective morality because you must contend not only with the subjective morals of various cultures or people, but the very cut-and-dried morals of the cosmos, especially when what the universe or your God considers to be "Good" conflicts with the peoples' understanding or desires (or when your God's conflicts with the universe's).

Christianity is replete with examples of "unknowable godly morality" and the angels of mythology past have been terrifying creatures whose motivations are far beyond what any mortal can know. They are given a pass only because they are considered infallible (which may or may not be correct), but that doesn't prevent soul-searching on the part of believers, nor does it stop others from questioning whether this belief system was good and righteous in the first place

Check out

In the end, Alignment isn't a training wheel for new Roleplayers; often their first character is based on some fictional character they are fond of, whether it be Conan or Katniss or Jon Snow.
Unless they are being randumb for lolz, they will adhere to that characters general mores modified by their own biases and interpretations.

No, what Alignment is is a clumsy tool for Dungeon Masters to try and pre-predict how the Party will respond to moral dilemmas. "I can throw quandry X at the Paladin, his LAWFUL GOOD Alignment will put him in a pickle, and I can fuck with him more if he "violates his Alignment".

It's cartoonish, shitty, non-immersive and worst of all generally completely innefectual. The only people who argue for Alignment systems are those DMs lacking the courage to try a game without Alignment.

The players in my campaign who run their own games (2 of them), dropped alignment from their games when they saw how it worked in mine.

Believe me or not, the game does not crumble into Chaos without Ye Olde Alignment Wheel.

>I wasn't attempting to strawman.

Okay. Lets assume you wanted a real conversation, and I will try to parse your post as such.

>an evil species

Species don't "play nice" with each other when they compete for the same niche in the same biomes. By rule of NAP, aka Musical Chairs, the person who owns the land is the winner and whoever comes next is, quite rightly, perceived as invaders and usurpers. The evil humanoid species in D&D people are arguing about have every reason to be evil.

>Genuinely curious to know why you think an entire race that can't form non-murderous societies is realistic.

Nobody said they can't form non murderous societies.

>the game does not crumble into Chaos without Ye Olde Alignment Wheel.
Has literally anyone ever said that it does? Why do you keep inventing these strawmen?

We're telling you that you're missing out on all the stories and dilemmas that only an objective morality provides, while gaining absolutely nothing, because anything you want to do with shades of grey or subjective morality shit is equally possible when playing with alignments and objective moralities.

>wahg paladins and lawful good and violating alignment
Not even a thing in 5E anymore, friendo, and DMs who did that were shit DMs to begin with.

Thinking of allowing Kor from Planeshift Zendikar into my setting as Mountain Elves. Might make them have some Dwarven blood but I can't think of any other cool ideas for them.