Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Killing Goblin Kids ok but not Tieflings

Was M'Khiin evil?
In the Forgotten Realms, goblins are evil due to the fact that they grew up in an imperialistic and militaristic society whose main goal is conquest in the name of Maglubiyet. And they are also in positions of cannon fodder and laborers, so yes, under such conditions they became the insidious opportunists that we know.

I and other folks of like mind couldn't give a toss whether featuring unambiguously evil monsters constitutes "good" fantasy, "bad" fantasy or something in-between; we don't strive for accolades and we aren't beholden to arbitrary metrics of quality.

I believe M'Khiin was true neutral. So not exactly good. It's kinda like, at best, she managed to resist her evil alignment enough to graduate from neutral evil to true neutral, but she certainly wasn't good.

And again, goblins are evil due to being attuned to evil alignment. By nature, they desire to do evil, just like chromatic dragons.

Out of curiosity, are drow also inherently evil?

Yes. They have been evil for most of D&D history, but because of Drizzt, suddenly they became popular as heroes. So, they decided to have Eilistraee betray her mother Lolth and become the good goddess of the Drow race, providing a way for Drow to now be good. Thus, you have Seldarine Drow who are good and Lolthsworn who are evil.

"Drow are cool; we want to play them, but they are evil." -> Drow are no longer universally evil.
"Demons and Devils are cool; we want to play them, but they are overpowered and evil." -> Tieflings are invented; they are far weaker and not universally evil.
"Dragons are cool; we want to play them, but they are overpowered." -> Dragonborn are invented; they are far weaker.

Noticing a trend here?

It actually started with the Orc thus the Half Orc.

In 5e arnt Kobolds now no longer innately evil?

Just to be completely clear here, Goblins and Drow are Not inherently evil in the same way that fiends and chromatic dragons are. They are not, at all. Do not conflate the two.

A goblin that abandons its society or finds it can no longer live within it due to a burgeoning conscience or desire for better life, and who thus ceases to be evil, does NOT suddenly stop being a goblin. Evil isn't baked into their very essence.

Drow are just drow - following Lolth or another deity is purely a matter of personal religion, and, as with goblins, a drow that finds they can no longer live in their strongly evil society and ceases too be evil, does NOT suddenly stop being a drow. They are not magically transformed into something else because of this shift. Evil is not inherently in their essence.

A devil that stops being evil is literally and physically transformed and is No Longer A fiend, because to be a fiend is to be evil.

Goblins do not stop being goblins, and they do not suddenly turn into a different creature or undergo a transformation if they stop being evil, because evil is not an inherent part of their being.

This is not new; it's been like this for a long time. Creautres like goblins are listed as evil in the monster manual because most are, and most organised goblin societies are, and so it is natural that most of the goblins that players come into conflict with will be, but it isn't a built in part of them any more than it is any other mortal humanoid.

Drow are the same - this whole red-eyed lolth-worshiper rubbish is not backed up by any official book source, anywhere - it's an invention that actually detracts very heavily from the entire point behind what it means to BE a surface drow trying to leave the evils of their society behind... and for the record, populations of non-lolth-follwoing drow have existed for a very long time. Drizt was not the first, just the one that made them the most famous and visible to other races and cultures. Eilistrae is also not new, and has been the patron of good-aligned drow for many, many years.

And to the comment above, the same is true of kobolds. A kobold that abandons the lawful evil society of most normal kobold clans, and who stops being evil is not transformed and does not stop being a kobold; evil was never baked into their very essence in the same way that it is for fiends and chromatics; they are the scions of dragons, but they are not dragons themselves, and it is only their culture and society that makes them evil overall, not anything in their literal essence.

*eye roll*

Thanks Niara! That’s a good way of putting it. I feel like 5e is watering down the alignment system to much, but I have always felt like innate evil in humanoids (pretty much anything that can be a PC) was to far the other way. I don’t have an issue with innate temptation, but outright no choice but to be good or evil…

Never really got into anything after 3.5e so some of these changes are big for me. I agree that D&D is built on knowing what is or is not the “bad guy”; however, with BG3 not even having an alignment system feels so un D&D to me…. I have never pen and papered anything past 3e so I am coming at this with quite abit of bias. The reality is that those past editions are gone and I need to readjusted my perspective it seems.

This is a modern way of interpreting religion and morality. It can be considered anachronistic to a fantasy setting, including D&D.

Without getting into the trap of free will, I think a good point has been raised. We know what a world without magic looks like, so it's easy for me to consider any aspect of the D&D world that isn't the same as ours to be in some way influenced by magic. Any creature that isn't an 'animal' likely wasn't naturally selected to exist, this includes elves and goblins, meaning that some part of their essential make up doesn't need to conform to our own preconception on what it means to be completely free of alignment restrictions.

Look. It all boils down to this:

"The move to redact entire lore sections (including paragraphs describing all Orcs as “tribal” creatures with a “culturally ingrained tendency to bow before superior strength”) are seemingly the firm’s latest steps to address tougher criticisms – namely, that its fantasy races (many of which date back to the game’s 1970s origins) evoke harmful real-world racial prejudices."

In other words, because people can't separate fantasy from reality, they have made many changes to D&D races. That and popularity. When Drow we're first invented, they were evil. Their backstory even says they were corrupted by Lloth and twisted into what they are. Over time, people fell in love with them and more and more they are good. As stated, the same happened with tieflings and such.

Now, real world politics and racism are stripping things away even more so that we can't call any fantasy race good or evil. Monsters are no longer monsters. Their just different races.

Tolkien basically sparked all this. Elves, humans, dwarves and hobbits good. Orc-kind and monsters bad. Dragons bad. Giant spiders bad. It all stems from LOTR. Even dark elves were invented by Tolkien in the Silmarillion. Dark elf was evil elf. End of story.

Now, even zombies and vampires are being turned into good guys or just misunderstood. The only thing that's left is devil's and demons. Why not make them good too?

Other way around: they are evil and the society that coalesces around them is evil as a result. Exceptions are exceptions...not an excuse to imply that "Well, if some of them can be good, surely they're just misunderstood and can all be good."

It's much of a muchness; a two way street, if you will, or a more or less self-perpetuating circle between individuals that make up a society and a society that is the upbringing and social pressure upon the individuals within it.

It doesn't change the fact that a goblin that stops being evil doesn't suddenly also stop being a goblin or undergo a transformation into something else because they shed their evil; That doesn't happen. It DOES happen in all-and-only creatures that are inherently and intrinsically evil in their very essence. It does not happen to goblins. Therefore, goblins do not fall into that category. Q.E.D.

I'm not saying that the majority of goblins aren't evil - they absolutely are!
I'm not saying that the majority of goblin societies aren't evil - they absolutely are!

I'm just saying don't conflate their simple mortal evil tendencies that are tied up in part with their circumstance and culture, with actual inherent evil, such as is found in fiends. They are two completely different things, and should not be confused.

To GM4Him.... about zombies... have you ever watched Warm Bodies? Good film!

https://5thsrd.org/character/alignment/

Alignment in the Multiverse
For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.

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 gods, 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.

Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments - they are unaligned. Such a creature is incapable of making a moral or ethical choice and acts according to its bestial nature. Sharks are savage predators, for example, but they are not evil; they have no alignment.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/44-alignment-and-your-place-in-the-d-d-multiverse


So, as you can see, they are starting to change how alignment works. Why? Because the past alignment system is becoming unpopular. Nevermind that "it's very useful just to say, "Orcs are Chaotic Evil. That means you can beat them up and not feel guilty." And I think in D&D's history, that worked." People are bringing their real life issues into the game, and making a stink over it, and so they're changing it to be "As a DM, you can decide, is alignment ... like, does it describe someone, or does it define someone? And you can say, "I'm Lawful Good, because I act lawful and good." Or you can say, "I've chosen to be lawful and good, so now I have to act lawful and good." And we actually don't try to answer that in the game, because I think that's something that's really up to the players and dungeon masters."

So, in other words, to try to make everyone happy now, they are not taking a firm stance on anything. Let the DM decide. That's their stance on pretty much everything.

It's because the devs of D&D 5e and beyond are Chaotic in alignment. Lol. They are changing their alignment from Lawful and firmly placing it in Chaotic because there are those who don't like solid rules to govern things and put things in order. Now, D&D for one person may be a WHOLE lot different than for another, almost like you aren't even playing the same game.

And BG3 and all it's homebrew rules is EXACTLY the result you get, as is this entire thread.

Understood your position.
Wait, what about ondonti?
They are full-blooded orcs, but also pacifist farmers who hate violence and shed blood only during the slaughter of cattle.
Even those ondochi that were captured and indoctrinated by the Zhentarim retain some of their peacefulness and are much less evil than other orcs.

To Niara. No. Never watched it. I think I'll pass. Not a big fan of that genre.

Geeze...I sure do want me more Game of Thrones in D&D . Murderers and rapists are my idea of heroic.

What's funny is that this kind of "nuance" isn't anything new; DMs, players and system developers are cutting themselves off from simple escapism and they think this is revolutionary or avant-garde.


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exception