Racial Morality

[Raelifin]

This is a continuation of a discussion that started in a different thread.

CYMRO: "When it comes to alignment, if it is a player race, then I default the alignment to TN."

Raelifin: "If you alow player to play orcs, would you change their society? If you played elves in middle-earth would you then make them flawed? The standard alignment of a race/culture does not dictate what a player must choose, but instead is a basic representation of the average citizen."

CYMRO: "Yes. Since orcs are a standard player race in Altvogge, their society there fits my concept of orc, not the Tolgax stereotype.
The "average" citizen, in a society is not represented by thoughts of alignment philosophy, but by just trying to make it day by day. Hence societies default to TN, in my opinion."

Kalos Mer: "You don't think it's possible for societies to have evil tendencies? Or Lawful, Chaotic, whatever?"

Natural 20: "indeed, in a society with a strct government, the entire race may have a predisposition towards lawful... Or, with a nomadic race, such as stereotypical halflings, a chaotic nature is possible..."

CYMRO: "I think societies are not bounded by the personal alignment system. Do not all societies view themselves as moral and lawful and good?
Societies rarely do things. Individuals and governments do things.

I Strict government does not make for lawful behavior in the D&D sense.
And nomadic societies tend toward the D&D definition of lawful, i.e. traditional."

[Raelifin]

I thought it would be good to quote the PHB on morality.

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

[Túrin]

It may not be completely on-topic, but in light of this discussion I was wondering about a random party of PCs that walks off into the wilderness and finds a civilization (or what passes for it) of orcs. When the orcs attack them, do they do so because of alignment differences with the PCs, because they have different skin colours, or because they think the PCs are here to destroy them and they want to get the first strike?

And what about the PCs? Why do they decide to attack the orcs (if they do so at all) generally speaking?

Túrin

[Polycarp]

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The MM doesn't say "Xs are evil" or "X society is evil," it says the alignment of an individual X is "usually," "often," or "always" evil, and "always" pretty much only in the case of outsiders and similar paragons.  It's treating the race like a collection of individuals, not as a monolithic culture, though the conclusion is drawn that when individuals tend towards evil the societies of those individuals will as well.

The D&D system of alignment assumes that good, law, chaos, evil, are objective qualities.  Good is defined as how you act and why you act that way, not how you think of yourself as acting.  Thus, it shouldn't really matter whether the society thinks of itself as good or lawful or anything else, because that is a subjective definition and the alignment system is not.  I'm not saying this is "true" in real life; I would tend to agree that good and evil are far more subjective in reality than D&D makes them out to be.  Within the D&D system, however, alignment is couched in strictly objective terms, and thus the argument that societies see themeselves as good doesn't affect their D&D alignment.