The role of Evil (AKA killible things)

[Glade Riven]

This is a post where Game Theory overlaps with World Building.

I've noticed that when working on my campaign setting that in my attempt to make certain races a little different from the cliche, I need to have their previous roles as Bad Guys filled by another race.

Take Orcs. Orcs in my setting are Warhammer Orcs, or Tolkien Orcs. Tribal Orcs have a heavy basis in Native American culture, with mixtures from pre-christian europe (details pending, I'm working that out). The whole "noble savage" angle. But Tribal Orcs are not the evil hoards. Other, more urbanised orcs may be criminals (having lost that tribal connect and being considered dregs of society leaves few opertunities), but not necessarally evil. They still make good bad-guys, but no more or less than any other "good" (like humans).

So a new race I'm working on (Jotun - AKA evil humanoid troll people, medium sized) take over the previous role that orcs have in other settings: Murderous, uncouthe, blood sacrefices, etc. Stats are different, flavor is different, but they are designed as a race to be killed off by PC heroes. Similar to the Ebon Dwarves replacing Duergar as dwarves, but evil. Goblinoids were going to get a similar treatment, but I've decided to leave them evil and killable (but they'll get some fun stuff).

So the point of the post is: What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think we need to have things that always must be killed, should the cultures of "evil" races have some legitimacy, or both?

I'm finding that I need both.

 

[Mort]

So the point of the post is: What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think we need to have things that always must be killed, should the cultures of "evil" races have some legitimacy, or both?

I'm finding that I need both.

I think "both" is certainly the better answer from a worldbuilding perspective. While evil for evil's sake is all well and good (and very easy from a morality perspective), backing it up can be even better. Something like:

Race of lizard people; they live in an area prone to horrible flooding. As a cure their Shaman's sacrifice a life (other than lizard folk unless nothing else is available) once a month(or year or whatever) - so wandering travelors, surrounding villages etc. are extremely vulnerable. This sacrifice works; when they do it, no severe flooding (when not the floods come and can whipe away several villages). The lizardfolk see it as them or outsiders, and really would rather have it be outsiders. Evil from outside their point of view? certainly - but explained and will give the PCs something to think about (and maybe even think outside the box etc.)

thoughts?

 

[TarionzCousin]

So the point of the post is: What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think we need to have things that always must be killed, should the cultures of "evil" races have some legitimacy, or both?

I think it depends upon what kind of campaign you're going to have. You could do away with evil races if the campaign were full of espionage and international intrigue. A friend of mine once ran a campaign where the two biggest "Lawful Good" nations were openly hostile and ultimately went to war against each other.

However, most people I've encountered don't pause (for too long) in the evil goblin's lair and say "Why are we killing these beings in their homes?" I think the default level of "necessary evil" includes "evil" races.

 

[Glade Riven]

Insightful posts. Wish there were a few more...maybe it needs more nerd rage

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I prefer the enemy within angle. To me, most races would seem evil to each-other, especially fantasy races where they are literately alien to one another. I think the evil role of orcs and goblins is a bit soft. If the point of having evil bad guys is to draw a pathos from the PC's or players then that pathos is intensified when the evil is brought about by one of your own and for reasons that are culturally detestable to yourself.

Dominance, Blood lust, even Boredom are usually enough to generate disgust with in my players.

One of the valuable lessons I learn't from Russian realists in their portrayal of Soviet life.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'd say there are degrees of evil. You can give the Orcs and Goblins a rich, detailed culture and worldview that predisposes them toward evil-- like the culture of Dwarves and Elves predisposes them toward good-- and then address the issue of whether or not their cultural predisposition justifies the behavior of the "goodly" races toward them.

Most fantasy settings have their "evil empires" of Humans, but no matter how Evil they are, the setting typically expects that the PCs will not kill them on sight. It's curious that Orcs and Goblins, who are frequently less Evil than the villain of the campaign, do not merit such moral consideration.

It's also funny to me that Drow renegades are so common as to be considered a cliched character type, but the possibility of good-aligned Orcs and Goblins is dimissed as "unrealistic".

 

[Hand of Evil]

I am a define "evil" in the game kind of DM, this is based on my mythos, planes and gods. In a D&D game I think this is important, as it builds cultures and the taboos related to them. There are many types of foes and not all are evil.

In my games I use Hobogoblins, orc are basicly tribal form of them.

So, what makes them evil?

• Murder in cold blood - no real reason to kill, they just do.
• They eat the other races.
• They enslave other races.
• They worpship dark powers.
• The only law is Draconian (you die) and the law of might.

Now you have your other foes, many are not evil because

• Rivals - theses are people out to get something you are after, they are re-occurring NPCs and even may be friends with you.
• Crime Elements - smugglers, rogues, fenches, etc. You don't trust them but not evil, unless they are doing items that are defined as evil.
• Vindette - some cultures, this is big. just because of some odd issue families are at war with each other but there are rules to this.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think it depends upon what kind of campaign you're going to have. You could do away with evil races if the campaign were full of espionage and international intrigue. A friend of mine once ran a campaign where the two biggest "Lawful Good" nations were openly hostile and ultimately went to war against each other.

However, most people I've encountered don't pause (for too long) in the evil goblin's lair and say "Why are we killing these beings in their homes?" I think the default level of "necessary evil" includes "evil" races.

The players themselves are the key consideration here. Is the group a fan of frequent hack n slash that enjoys having the bad guys wearing obvious black hats?

Injecting too much grey moral material along with mystery, intrigue and other more subtle concepts into a campaign for players who just enjoy cutting their way to the orc chieftain, killing him, and looting the treasury, is a wasted effort and can be frustrating for the DM.

The key to the best campaign elements is still to know thy players.

Most groups have a mix of player preferences which makes the process a bit more challenging. If you have a few kill/loot types and some intrigue lovers in the same group then the campaign must feature elements that will keep both groups engaged. The bad guy hats don't have to be fitted to an entire race. A widespread group such as a cult could have members of many races. These cultists could be corrupted beyond redemption and serve as excellent sword fodder for the hackers while figuring out who the leaders are and where they have infiltrated will give the problem solvers something to chew on.

As long as the campaign has easily identified "bad guys" they can be of a racial type or not depending on how you want to arrange things.

 

[Herobizkit]

Dropping alignment altogether is a great option. "Shades of Grey" adventures will always be more interesting than "they're evil, let's kill 'em" games... to me, at least.

To echo a few of the above points, you don't 'need' Evil races to kill. You can easily use humans/elves/normally Good races and have them at odds with one another. And nothing says hack 'n slash like the good old Monster, many of which are plain ol' Neutral and hungry or violent.

In my experience, it's far more realistic to leave the dead body of a Hydra behind then to leave a pile of semi-looted goblins without raising some questions from someone.

 

[Dice4Hire]

In my games, I prefer to have some races/groups that are more or less irredeemably evil. Undead, devils, demons, many monsters, so he party can beat on them without a whole lot of moral angst.

But then other races/groups that are ambiguous and force the players to think or to plan or find a better way than violence.

Makes for a good game IMHO