D&D 5E Duergar and "nonstandard" races

[Carlsen Chris]

Hello all,


Part of my problem with "evil" races is that unless there is a really unique circumstance, creatures with no knowledge of goodness would not be very prosocial or a team player. So, any ideas about how a duergar might come to be a trusted ally who occasionally trusts would also be fun to discuss!

Looking forward to hearing some ideas!

Do you feel like good races have no knowledge of evil? Do you think it's rare for a dwarf, high elf etc. to be evil?

 

[MechaPilot]

Non-Standard Races

How to treat non-standard races really depends heavily on the world you're running. In some worlds, non-standard races may be a curiosity, while in others they're seen as dangerous monsters (monstrosity). Regardless of the opinion, you should treat it that way. A character whose race is a curiosity can expect odd looks, stares and questions that may be stupid or accidentally offensive. A character viewed as a monster will be fled from or run out of town; in larger, better-defended towns, such a character can expect to be unable to enter, and maybe even to be attacked.

This really requires a bit of work by the DM to figure out how people view members of that race: curiosity, or monstrosity. And, it's worth noting that this view may change depending on the race who perceives the non-standard raced character; e.g. humans may see a monstrosity, while elves may not.


Evil

Evil comes in a variety of flavors, and I'm not just talking about lawful, neutral and chaotic. Evil can be the mindless slaughter and degradation of others, or the mustache-twirler who puts others' lives in danger for his own benefit, but these are pretty cliche.

Evil is also corruption of that which is good and innocent; speaking words to encourage violence against others (especially the weaker or helpless), or to foster hatred and cruelty, or even simple dishonesty. Being the little devil on the shoulders of others is a subtle and oft-overlooked kind of evil. "It's not right that your brother inherited the farm. Sure, he worked the land while your father was ill, but you cared for your father when he couldn't look after himself. You stayed at the farm day and night, so far from town, while your brother came to town and drank his labors away. You deserve better. You deserve more."

There's also petty evil consisting of base cruelty and theft on a small scale. Maybe when you take a prisoner you're prone to periodically slapping them around or shoving them to the ground and watching them try to stand again despite their bonds. This kind of evil is easy to mask when you fight other evil beings. "They deserved it for what they did." Or, "It's not revenge, it's justice." Or, "He'd do worse to you if he captured us."

 

[schnee]

One of the problems all of this is that a lot of people are coming into this thread and state their preference or their world as “the truth“. D&D originally was a very black and white world, evil creatures were EVIL and that was that. It was very cut and dried. The idea of cultural relativity, deconstruction, and re-evaluating old fantasy tropes came along quite later, and some people have integrated that thinking into their fantasy gaming, and some have not.

Unless the table has a session 0 where they discuss these sort of things, I think it’s likely you will have problems if those two types meet at the same table and the group hasn’t explicitly decided on what flavor the game is.

 

[Immoralkickass]

You are right in that a Duergar would need a very good reason to be adventuring. Being sensitive to sunlight, they would rather stay in the Underdark their whole lives if they can help it. Mechanically, that's the reason I have not seen anyone roll a Duergar/Drow either, its just too big of a disadvantage to deal with, and its not like you're any more powerful than other races during the night, or in dark places. A slightly stronger darkvision is not attractive enough when so many races have the standard Darkvision.

In terms of RP, you can RP a Duergar however you want. Its your character, and you shouldn't feel the need to conform to a dwarf or duergar stereotype.

 

[Warpiglet]

Do you feel like good races have no knowledge of evil? Do you think it's rare for a dwarf, high elf etc. to be evil?

I think true antisocial behavior is not the norm but surely exists. Psychopathy (murder without a care etc.) is rarer. If a society was actually evil my thought is that there would be more antisocial people.

However, a duergar raised elsewhere or one with a unique life circumstance could be neutral or even good. It would just be unusual. On reason I have avoided yuan to purebreeds is it seems more baked in---hard core coldness. I realize it's d and d and you can make an exception to anything of course

 

[Paul Farquhar]

With Yuan-Ti you can play a character who is evil, but pretending not to be. They can pass for human and there is no Know Alignment spell in 5e.

But lawfulness dominates duergar society as much or more than evil. And they don't often raid the surface like Drow, so they are not likely to be treated with suspicion by humans, beyond that any unusual race gets. Dwarves are another matter entirely though.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Evil races comprehend good. They are typically evil thanks to society, culture and tradition placing value on "evil deeds" and usually the worship of some evil deities. Maybe some innate taint but fundamentally, one cannot be "evil" if they cannot comprehend "good" and choose not to be good.

Lawful Evil is arguably my favorite alignment after Chaotic Good. Being evil doesn't necessarily make you a murderer, a psychopath or generally a bad person to be around. It just generally means you place a higher value on your life than your friends, your goals over their goals, your needs over their needs and see to it that your needs are always the primary obligation in any adventure. That doesn't mean you place no value on your friends, or that you have no friends. Your comrades are simply tools to your own success, if your success mandates that they succeed, then you will take reasonable measures to ensure they succeed, because a stronger ally means you are more likely to achieve your goals. If your tools get in your way, hinder your advancement, then they will be cast aside.

But Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are perfectly compatible with the average adventuring party.

None of the humanoid races in D&D are so alien as to be incompatible with a campaign. They're mostly just extremes of IRL human society and culture.

That sounds mostly like chaotic good to me. The evil portion is lacking, for example, it’s not always “cast aside” but destroyed. Evil creatures conduct too many “crimes” and their allies know too much.

An evil character by definition doesn’t view murder, torture, oppression, and similar evil acts as problematic or distasteful. It goes beyond “just what’s best for me” and adds “by any means necessary.” If that means I must kill my “best” friend, or his mother, so be it.

Chaotic good places a higher value on an individual than society, but not a higher value on a specific individual. In fact, lawful good will often place the value of the society - the greater good, over the value of an individual (even if the lawful good character doesn’t like choosing the “lesser of two evils.”

An evil character doesn’t hesitate to choose one, because to him there are no “lesser evils.” There’s just things that benefit me more. I might like you, or find you beneficial, but if we reach a point where it’s you die or something I don’t like will happen to me, then you’ll die. There will be some sort of threshold, and that’s not to say they don’t have love for any creatures or people, although I’m not sure there would be any that would willingly die for somebody else.

On the other hand, strangers are generally viewed as a potential benefit or expendable. There may not be outright hatred toward them, but there is little to no caring for them if something bad were to happen to them.

 

[Sunseeker]

That sounds mostly like chaotic good to me. The evil portion is lacking, for example, it’s not always “cast aside” but destroyed. Evil creatures conduct too many “crimes” and their allies know too much.

I disagree. The strongpoint of lawful evil and it's ability to remain party-friendly is in the fact that nothing they do is technically illegal. A lawful evil individual is much akin to a politician, they'll use the system to protect themselves, enrich themselves and generally screw everyone else over.

An evil character by definition doesn’t view murder, torture, oppression, and similar evil acts as problematic or distasteful. It goes beyond “just what’s best for me” and adds “by any means necessary.” If that means I must kill my “best” friend, or his mother, so be it.

To the first part, they may not, but neutral and lawful evil shouldn't view them as necessary either. Neutral evil tortures because it is efficient.
Like true neutral, their concern is a resolution, they just have a lower moral code. A lawful evil person with torture because it is legal (or the law is looking away) and because it is efficient. Chaotic evil tortures for pleasure and fun, regardless of if it is the best way to resolve a situation.

I don't disagree with the last part, but for neutral and lawful evil, the situation ought to warrant it. If the success of Mr Lawful Evil's plans requires the death of everyone they hold dear, yes they will kill them all. By the same token, it doesn't mean they revel in the bloodshed. They may slit their throats in the night or use fast-acting poisons. Again, the concern is selfish and expedient. They're not killing these people because killing is fun, they're killing them because greater goals (namely: their own) are at stake.

Chaotic good places a higher value on an individual than society, but not a higher value on a specific individual. In fact, lawful good will often place the value of the society - the greater good, over the value of an individual (even if the lawful good character doesn’t like choosing the “lesser of two evils.”

An evil character doesn’t hesitate to choose one, because to him there are no “lesser evils.” There’s just things that benefit me more. I might like you, or find you beneficial, but if we reach a point where it’s you die or something I don’t like will happen to me, then you’ll die. There will be some sort of threshold, and that’s not to say they don’t have love for any creatures or people, although I’m not sure there would be any that would willingly die for somebody else.

On the other hand, strangers are generally viewed as a potential benefit or expendable. There may not be outright hatred toward them, but there is little to no caring for them if something bad were to happen to them.

I think there's a general misconception that evil means murder. I don't think that's accurate or fair. That's really what my point is and why I see neutral evil and lawful evil as party-friendly.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I disagree. The strongpoint of lawful evil and it's ability to remain party-friendly is in the fact that nothing they do is technically illegal. A lawful evil individual is much akin to a politician, they'll use the system to protect themselves, enrich themselves and generally screw everyone else over.


To the first part, they may not, but neutral and lawful evil shouldn't view them as necessary either. Neutral evil tortures because it is efficient.
Like true neutral, their concern is a resolution, they just have a lower moral code. A lawful evil person with torture because it is legal (or the law is looking away) and because it is efficient. Chaotic evil tortures for pleasure and fun, regardless of if it is the best way to resolve a situation.

I don't disagree with the last part, but for neutral and lawful evil, the situation ought to warrant it. If the success of Mr Lawful Evil's plans requires the death of everyone they hold dear, yes they will kill them all. By the same token, it doesn't mean they revel in the bloodshed. They may slit their throats in the night or use fast-acting poisons. Again, the concern is selfish and expedient. They're not killing these people because killing is fun, they're killing them because greater goals (namely: their own) are at stake.


I think there's a general misconception that evil means murder. I don't think that's accurate or fair. That's really what my point is and why I see neutral evil and lawful evil as party-friendly.

It doesn’t equal murder but they have no qualms about it either. The mafia is the classic lawful evil organization. The boss may not commit the murders themselves, but they order it. Or to be more specific, there’s not a crime or a murder by one of theirs that they didn’t authorize, even if it’s indirectly.

 

[Coroc]

A duergar being LAWFUL evil(/neutral) is far more suited to join a Standard adventurer Group than a drow will ever be, unless it is a drizztified drow .