Evil Monster Ancestries - Yay or Nay?

[velkymx]

The world of CresthavenRPG brims with humanoids, elves, dwarves, and other familiar fantasy races. But something seems to be missing: monstrous options like goblins, orcs, or even demonkind! This begs the question: why aren’t evil monster ancestries a core part of CresthavenRPG?

From the very beginning, I decided to root Cresthaven RPG in the classic heroic fantasy tradition. For me, this meant creating a world where heroes were clearly good and monsters were inherently evil. This design choice helped establish a consistent atmosphere throughout the game. Players could effortlessly identify with their characters as champions of virtue.

I worried that introducing playable evil monstrous ancestries could disrupt the established narrative. I envisioned a scenario where a valiant party ventured forth on noble quests, accompanied by a goblin. Such a scenario might clash with the core theme of heroism and push the boundaries of believability. Ultimately, I decided to avoid this dissonance.

Would you allow monster ancestries in your game? How would you handle the social and mechanical challenges they present?

Source: Why Aren’t There Evil Monster Ancestries in CresthavenRPG? (And Why You Might Allow Them Anyway)

 

[John Dallman]

For me, it depends on the setting and its societies.

In the homebrew fantasy world I've run for decades, mundane creatures that usually have "evil cultures" such as orcs and goblins can be accepted in society if they are polite and well-behaved. They are regarded with suspicion, and have to keep up a high standard of politeness and honesty, but this is possible.

Supernaturally evil creatures, such as demons, are very unlikely to achieve any acceptance, and may well be killed off by the first adventurers who dare attack them. Half-demons who can pass for a mundane creature might manage to keep their ancestry a secret, but will be in trouble if they're ever found out.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with the 3e designers that classified creatures as "Usually X", "Often X", and "Always X" where "Always" means something like between 99.999999% and 100% chance and departure from the normal will usually be to a quite small degree.

In my game humans are "Usually Neutral" and say centaurs are "Often Chaotic Good" and gnolls are "Always Chaotic Evil".

I don't believe in having playable races that are of the "Always" sort. Elves are "Usually Chaotic Good". I do allow say Hobgoblins despite the fact they are "Often Lawful Evil". I find that enforcing heroism on players is just about impossible because real life players are somewhere between "Usually Neutral" and "Usually Chaotic Evil" and the majority of them are just incapable of playing a consistently heroic figure anyway. Since I don't really desire to tell them how to play, I leave them to their devices. I give them plenty of opportunities to be the hero and do good and show virtue, but usually they evade those opportunities adroitly - except for the 1 in 8 players that is incapable of being anything but heroic and would utterly fail at the skullduggery of something like Blades in the Dark.

I do believe however in diversity of thought and form. Nothing is as appalling to me as someone who paints everything with a monocolor brush and says, "Well they are all just humans with bumps on their forehead, and there are no real meaningful differences between anything, and everything is relative anyway, but despite that if we all just held hands and talked about our feelings we'd have universal peace and brotherhood." The sheer terrified denial of The Other not only makes me think they live in an echo chamber, but that when they encounter an opinion or culture quite different than their own they are going to be terribly ill prepared to be tolerant of it. I like having a whole paint palette, and I hate treating aliens or monsters as just different ethnicities of humans as I feel that is just disrespectful to both human ethnic groups and aliens. Nothing is worse to me than seeing an alien coopt some human culture or serve as a simplistic stand in for some real portion of humanity. Let humanity stand for itself, and let aliens be themselves for whatever they are. For the love of the Creator, please don't make Klingons (or Vulcans, or Orcs) Asians. I cringe any time a race has a tea ceremony as one of its defining aesthetics.

Thus, I also despise when demons are basically just another morally complex and conflicted being, or when monsters just have a heart of gold if you only got to know them. Let demons be what they are and let monsters be what they are, and don't think you are being clever when 100% of the time you subvert expectations as if that is creativity.

But not everything ugly is a monster. As I said, goblins don't stand in for anything as far as I'm concerned, but I'm perfectly fine with a morally complex goblin hero dealing with the misunderstanding of people about the nature of his kind - "Well, no, it is true that most of my brothers do relish the taste of human flesh, especially infants, but they don't eat them raw. And not all of us are like that. Some of us, not a lot of us I grant you, feel that's very shameful behavior unbecoming of a free people."

So no, I don't allow monster ancestries in my game, but whether or not you are pretty by conventional human standards isn't what makes you a monster. And of course, the thing about free people is that they can be both heroes and monsters - they get to choose. You can't tell by looking.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't do alignment; it's antithetical to the kinds of stories that I enjoy, in which character motivations are primarily internal (I also think it's logically incoherent, but that's another argument). In my games, everyone sees themselves as the hero. Just like IRL.

So choosing a "monstrous" ancestry is not a problem. If you're an orc devoted to protecting the weak, cool.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't do alignment; it's antithetical to the kinds of stories that I enjoy, in which character motivations are primarily internal. In my games, everyone sees themselves as the good guy.

I mean, mine too. I'm not sure where you are going with that. There are a few rare sorts that revel in being the villains, but the majority of say lawful evil hobgoblins would say they are morally correct in their actions and doing the right thing. Heck, The Joker in Batman who "just wants to watch the world burn" thinks he's doing the right thing and is the hero of the story, regardless of where you put him on the alignment wheel. I don't think that you said anything that is antithetical to alignment.

 

[Professor Murder]

So typically, what makes an ancestry not work is power level more than alignment expectations. A medusa doesn't work in my campaigns due to its abilities being far outside the curve for PCs, not due to it being typically evil.

When it comes to species in the game and alignment, looking at the macro scale, I tend to more paint cultures as having a broad alignment, based on what is generally acceptable and commonplace. Even then, not only will there be exceptions for individuals who resist or reject cultural norms, a society that has practices that I would class as "Evil" may also have ones which are "Good."

Beings that are fundamentally evil are possible, but honestly, magic is always somehow involved. Fiends. Undead. You could have say aberrations like Illithids also in this class, as by their method of reproduction requiring them to murder other sentients, one might say they are "biologically evil." But even then, it's highly commonplace to have the noble exception to the rule. And shouldn't PCs be exceptional?

So, to sum up, if I was running a LotR setting, and someone wished to play the "One Good Orc," I would consider it and at the very least discuss it with them. However, I would also say that imperative evil, innate evil, as a species trait, honestly I find it limiting for me more than it is for my players.

 

[Professor Murder]

I don't do alignment; it's antithetical to the kinds of stories that I enjoy, in which character motivations are primarily internal (I also think it's logically incoherent, but that's another argument). In my games, everyone sees themselves as the hero. Just like IRL.

So choosing a "monstrous" ancestry is not a problem. If you're an orc devoted to protecting the weak, cool.

I think the danger here is confusing "good" as in to be viewed or to view oneself as morally correct and upright with "Good" as a game term, like "Lawful Good." That is a purely game term. It should no more exist in the setting than hit points.

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, mine too. I'm not sure where you are going with that. There are a few rare sorts that revel in being the villains, but the majority of say lawful evil hobgoblins would say they are morally correct in their actions and doing the right thing. Heck, The Joker in Batman who "just wants to watch the world burn" thinks he's doing the right thing and is the hero of the story, regardless of where you put him on the alignment wheel. I don't think that you said anything that is antithetical to alignment.

I think alignment is an incoherent concept, and the alignment wheel in particular makes no sense. Good and evil are not objective things, they are subjective value statements. For example, Gary Gygax saw lawful good as compatible with actions that I personal consider abhorrent. Therefore, I wouldn't put Joker on an alignment wheel; I don't think doing so adds anything to understanding his character or motivations.

So since I don't do alignment, there's no such thing as "evil" monsters or species. There are just things with motivations, some of are in conflict with others. Beings are defined by their actions. Therefore, ancestry is irrelevant to how you choose to play your character.

That doesn't mean there aren't different outlooks, philosophies, motivations, etc. For example, fiends aren't evil in my world (evil doesn't exist) but they generally (not always) have motivations and desires that are very incompatible with most terrestrial creatures. But that's largely true of celestials as well, though in different ways. And then there are creatures whose existence is basically an automatic problem for others, such as vampires and so on. So there is plenty of conflict.

Edit: this is true for me across all games, not just fantasy ones. For instance, even when I'm preparing a Dread scenario, I'm still trying to think of why the antagonists do what they do - what is their objective? This helps me play them a lot better than if they are just "evil". But that's just how my mind works; there's no right or wrong here. The upshot is that I sidestep the problem the OP describes.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Would you allow monster ancestries in your game? How would you handle the social and mechanical challenges they present?

No. It makes zero sense to me. I cannot envision a scenario where trusting a relative of the people you are killing is a good idea.

When I was overseas, we never trusted the local interpreters, or allowed them to be armed. We never trusted the local troops or police, even when they had friendly advisors.

Its a common issue in most conflicts.

 

[Tonguez]

its already got ratlings, draco, catfolk and wolfin, so youre not adverse to monstrous ancestries so my question is what is it that pushes goblins over the edge from distrusted ancestries into too evil for players to handle? What makes goblins more evil than ratlings or catfolk (we all know cats are evil)

I would allow demon or anything demonstrably EVIL but whats wrong with gobbos?