D&D 5E Duergar and "nonstandard" races

[Paul Farquhar]

Duergar are hard, ruthless, fascistic and mercenary. But they are not needlessly cruel or capricious.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Duergar are hard, ruthless, fascistic and mercenary. But they are not needlessly cruel or capricious.

Sounds like our paladin

 

[Warpiglet]

They aren't that alien, compared to a typical dwarf. Indeed I think the thing that makes standard dwarves uncomfortable is just how similar they are.

For all it's faults (such as being a sucky game) the Sword Coast Legends computer game depicts a Duergar city well. There are also Duergar characters (for speaking to rather than killing) in BGEE: the Black Pits.


The main drawback is they are really gloomy all the time, and their negative attitude can rub off in the real world.


Edit: Also in Baldur's Gate is a Lawful evil aligned dwarf companion (not actually a Duergar). He is simply portrayed as a grumpy money grubbing capitalist. You don't actually have to eat babies to portray and evil character.

I mean that is how I see duergar---they are certainly shocking to other dwarves but otherwise are strangely hued crabby dwarves to many others.

At the same time, I can envision some rural agrarian areas where anything but humans might be talked about.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sounds like our paladin

No reason not to have a Duergar paladin. Oath of Vengeance would be a good fit.

 

[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.

I just reread this part, and it's just not right.

In D&D, evil is evil. Being evil isn't about legality. And in any good society a lawful evil creature will do a great many illegal things. It's more than just screwing everyone else over. It's that they have no qualms about committing acts of evil. They also value order (that's the lawful part), but that doesn't mean they adhere to somebody else's order. Something like theft isn't in and of itself evil. It might seem like it leans that way, but stealing bread to feed your family, for example, doesn't. Theft can only occur along with the "civilized" concept of ownership. If theft can't exist where there is no ownership, then it can't necessarily be a universal measure of good and evil. Murder, torture, slavery, wanton destruction, etc. aren't dependent upon the laws of people. Yes, they can certainly make laws that define or even eliminate the legal ramifications of performing some of these acts. Even in a lawful good society, killing others is acceptable under many circumstances, including the killing of outlaws, who are quite literally out(side of the)laws. That is, the laws against murder don't protect them. However, a good individual will still have moral issues with killing an outlaw without some cause.

The fact that a lawful evil society legalizes evil acts doesn't make them no longer evil. Being able to technically murder others is not party-friendly. For example, a party of good people and a lawful evil character, get into a bar fight. The law of the land indicates that once steel is drawn against you, you have the right to kill. In the midst of the fight, a thief draws a dagger against you. You disarm him, drive him to his knees, and he begs for mercy with his hands outspread. So you kill him. It's not illegal, but it's certainly an act that I would consider incompatible with an otherwise good party. Even if the law provides you protection, I would expect a paladin in the party, if present, to call you out on your act, and expect restitution.

Even if it's not murder. For example, the law allows you to enslave the family of a man who commits murder. A man murders your brother, and you enslave the family as restitution. Again, I don't see this compatible with a good party at all. It doesn't work. The same way Anakin Skywalker was incompatible with the Jedi as he followed his path down the dark side.

A lawful evil character who hides their nature is able to function within a good party, but in the end they will ultimately be incompatible.

The obvious example is Hitler and the nazis. They adhered to a strict order, but by definition were evil. Sauron in LotR would probably be considered lawful evil too.

A politician that is using the system to enrich themselves may be unlikable, unethical, and potentially even criminal, but that doesn't make them evil. A politician that uses the system to destroy others' lives, have rivals and enemies killed to protect their political interests, and uses violence and torture to ensure he remains at the top would be.

Evil in D&D is a generally a cosmically defined good and evil, much like Star Wars and other stories that have a "good vs evil" approach. Murder, torture, slavery, maiming for fun and sport, etc. are all things that are evil, independent of the laws of the land and legal questions. While some "legality" enters into it (capital punishment, for example), it generally takes a black and white approach to good vs evil.

That's not to say you can't have a campaign where the focus is more on the gray areas - when good people do evil things, flawed heroes, etc. But make no mistake about it, lawful evil is evil.

I also think that neutral has good tendencies. While some like to consider neutral (especially true neutral) to strive for balance, I disagree. Even the most true neutral class, the druid, prefers birth and growth to destruction. Yes, something like a forest fire can help the environment, etc.. But there's a vast difference between acts of nature and willful evil acts of death and destruction by evil creatures. A druid might come into conflict with a good society that is growing too large. But with a good society they can negotiate, educate, and otherwise help maintain the desired balance between civilization and the wild. But they will often have to actively fight against evil, simply because evil won't make such agreements in good faith. At best, a lawful evil society will make such agreements only as long as its beneficial for them. Otherwise, evil societies will always ultimately be destructive to those outside their society, and usually they are destructive to all but a specific few within their society.

The law of the land can't be the measuring stick for good and evil, because a lawful good organization within an evil society is often criminal by definition. You may lack some compassion, and may be selfish, but that's all possible within lawful neutral (and even lawful good). Selfish does not equal evil. Nor does breaking the law. A paladin certainly isn't going to follow a law that says a person should be killed on the spot for stealing a potato. A paladin would fight against such oppressive and evil laws and attempt to overthrow such an evil government. To the point that they would risk their own execution to save another from an unfair and unjust death regardless of the law.

So I would say that by your description, you're more in lawful neutral territory, where your choice of law to follow isn't necessarily the current law of the land. You may lack some compassion, and may be selfish, but that's all possible within lawful neutral (and even lawful good). It's when you move into committing evil acts - murder, torture, and slavery being the big ones - that you're moving into lawful evil territory. And sending somebody else to do your murders for you is still murder on your part, and ultimately cannot work with a good party except through deception.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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 .

Or those who follow Eilistraee. In the ancient history of the Forgotten Realms, anyway, it's clear that all elves are capable of the atrocities that the drow perform, but the drow were the only ones punished for it. If all elves have the capacity for hubris and destruction on such a mass scale, then at least some drow (if not all) have the capacity for compassion and good.

 

[Sunseeker]

I just reread this part, and it's just not right.

In D&D, evil is evil. Being evil isn't about legality. And in any good society a lawful evil creature will do a great many illegal things. It's more than just screwing everyone else over. It's that they have no qualms about committing acts of evil. They also value order (that's the lawful part), but that doesn't mean they adhere to somebody else's order. Something like theft isn't in and of itself evil. It might seem like it leans that way, but stealing bread to feed your family, for example, doesn't. Theft can only occur along with the "civilized" concept of ownership. If theft can't exist where there is no ownership, then it can't necessarily be a universal measure of good and evil. Murder, torture, slavery, wanton destruction, etc. aren't dependent upon the laws of people. Yes, they can certainly make laws that define or even eliminate the legal ramifications of performing some of these acts. Even in a lawful good society, killing others is acceptable under many circumstances, including the killing of outlaws, who are quite literally out(side of the)laws. That is, the laws against murder don't protect them. However, a good individual will still have moral issues with killing an outlaw without some cause.

The fact that a lawful evil society legalizes evil acts doesn't make them no longer evil. Being able to technically murder others is not party-friendly. For example, a party of good people and a lawful evil character, get into a bar fight. The law of the land indicates that once steel is drawn against you, you have the right to kill. In the midst of the fight, a thief draws a dagger against you. You disarm him, drive him to his knees, and he begs for mercy with his hands outspread. So you kill him. It's not illegal, but it's certainly an act that I would consider incompatible with an otherwise good party. Even if the law provides you protection, I would expect a paladin in the party, if present, to call you out on your act, and expect restitution.

Even if it's not murder. For example, the law allows you to enslave the family of a man who commits murder. A man murders your brother, and you enslave the family as restitution. Again, I don't see this compatible with a good party at all. It doesn't work. The same way Anakin Skywalker was incompatible with the Jedi as he followed his path down the dark side.

A lawful evil character who hides their nature is able to function within a good party, but in the end they will ultimately be incompatible.

The obvious example is Hitler and the nazis. They adhered to a strict order, but by definition were evil. Sauron in LotR would probably be considered lawful evil too.

A politician that is using the system to enrich themselves may be unlikable, unethical, and potentially even criminal, but that doesn't make them evil. A politician that uses the system to destroy others' lives, have rivals and enemies killed to protect their political interests, and uses violence and torture to ensure he remains at the top would be.

Evil in D&D is a generally a cosmically defined good and evil, much like Star Wars and other stories that have a "good vs evil" approach. Murder, torture, slavery, maiming for fun and sport, etc. are all things that are evil, independent of the laws of the land and legal questions. While some "legality" enters into it (capital punishment, for example), it generally takes a black and white approach to good vs evil.

That's not to say you can't have a campaign where the focus is more on the gray areas - when good people do evil things, flawed heroes, etc. But make no mistake about it, lawful evil is evil.

I also think that neutral has good tendencies. While some like to consider neutral (especially true neutral) to strive for balance, I disagree. Even the most true neutral class, the druid, prefers birth and growth to destruction. Yes, something like a forest fire can help the environment, etc.. But there's a vast difference between acts of nature and willful evil acts of death and destruction by evil creatures. A druid might come into conflict with a good society that is growing too large. But with a good society they can negotiate, educate, and otherwise help maintain the desired balance between civilization and the wild. But they will often have to actively fight against evil, simply because evil won't make such agreements in good faith. At best, a lawful evil society will make such agreements only as long as its beneficial for them. Otherwise, evil societies will always ultimately be destructive to those outside their society, and usually they are destructive to all but a specific few within their society.

The law of the land can't be the measuring stick for good and evil, because a lawful good organization within an evil society is often criminal by definition. You may lack some compassion, and may be selfish, but that's all possible within lawful neutral (and even lawful good). Selfish does not equal evil. Nor does breaking the law. A paladin certainly isn't going to follow a law that says a person should be killed on the spot for stealing a potato. A paladin would fight against such oppressive and evil laws and attempt to overthrow such an evil government. To the point that they would risk their own execution to save another from an unfair and unjust death regardless of the law.

So I would say that by your description, you're more in lawful neutral territory, where your choice of law to follow isn't necessarily the current law of the land. You may lack some compassion, and may be selfish, but that's all possible within lawful neutral (and even lawful good). It's when you move into committing evil acts - murder, torture, and slavery being the big ones - that you're moving into lawful evil territory. And sending somebody else to do your murders for you is still murder on your part, and ultimately cannot work with a good party except through deception.

Look I'm not really interested in reading, or writing, a treatsie on good and evil. The fact that you brought Nazi's into the equation just makes me even less interested. I will finish this up with two comments:
Good and evil are only cosmic components of D&D if you want them to be.
I don't usually want them to be because that leads into: "We should kill baby orcs because Orcus made Orcs evil so it's a good thing to kill babies."

More explanation should not be necessary to put my posts in that context.