Celebrim
Legend
You were doing pretty good there until you decided to opine on the real world.
I take it you've never served in the military?
Pathfinder 1E May there be non-evil societies of always evil races? What would they be like?
You were doing pretty good there until you decided to opine on the real world.
I take it you've never served in the military?
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Thanks!
And recently retired after 27 years of service...
Military service, and mercanary work, involve being a collection of people who follow a set of rules and structure and visit violence upon those who the organization deems the 'enemy'. There has been leaps and bounds forward regarding compassion for people in the theater of operations, but at the end of the day "kill em all and let god sort them out" is a way of defeating an armed enemy. While one may argue that the goal of the military is peace, the means by which that goal is pursued is through violence.
Killing only the 'bad guys', in game terms, is 'good'..but that is only because in game terms Good and Evil are absolute truths. Real world the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are simply different shades of grey unless someone defines a dividing line to say 'that color grey is Evil and this color is Good'..and then people will argue about where that line is drawn, etc, etc..
Stand on a battle field and look at an enemy soldier over the sights of your weapon. Odds are you are looking at someone who is pretty much just like you but happened to be born into a different world. Another time, another place and you might be freinds. This time and place you pull the trigger first because you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger second.
I actually do this: the Drow of the MM are just the most common form of society in their race. There are others, as varied as spiders differ from each other...
Celebrim
Legend
I think you are undermining your own argument better than I could. Empathy and compassion for the enemy is not something that evil teaches. You don't sound like you've been trained to be a good evangelist for the idea that the ideal is "a boot stamping on a human face — forever." or that you believe that the desired end state is, "In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy."
Rather you sound like a soldier trained to believe that war is a regrettable and tragic duty to be avoided. And it sounds like, if you could, that you'd be content to live and let live.
If that is the case, it can't be that under the alignment system modern militaries are universally to be described as LE, since under that same alignment system there are warriors and soldiers who are not evil and they I think are not so unlike what you have just said. Likewise, under the system of Lawful Evil, those soldiers have no need for such treacherous thoughts and questions and independent judgments at all.
You also echo some of the most famous lines in fantasy, Sam's musing over war: "It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men and he did not like it much. He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies and threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would no rather have stayed there in peace."
The American Civil War was literally a war of brother against brother. A man did not need to speculate that the enemy might be the same sort of person as you. It was true. Nor was there a need to speculate about a different world. Men who grew up in the same houses drew blades on one another. Brothers could see each other in the enemy lines. Fathers ordered bombardments of enemy fortifications and found their own sons in the ruins. Men of one town mobilized against their kindred in the neighboring town. There was a 1st Alabama Infantry (USA) and a 1st New York Infantry (CSA). It was a house divided. And yet for this reason alone we would not call the war more tragic than any other war, because the nearest of the kindred only highlighted what you have realized is always present. All wars are civil wars.
Yet not all causes are equally just, nor are all things to fight for of equal worth. War is evil. In a world of good without peril, it wouldn't exist. But the causes of war for or the institutions they defend need not be, and so then need not be the men who do the fighting. You don't have to say that the men you line up under your sights are evil, or that they deserve death, or that they are less deserving of life than you because they are different. You don't, so you undermine your own claim.
Celebrim
Legend
I go a bit further than that. The Drow of the MM is the myth that has been constructed in ignorance regarding the Drow by surface dwellers who literally have never even seen a Drow. The reality has almost no resemblance to that lore, and its likely that the entire fabulous story has been subtly inserted by Lloth and her allies in order to ensure any truth regarding the race is lost.
Ramaster
Adventurer
Thanks!
And recently retired after 27 years of service...
Military service, and mercanary work, involve being a collection of people who follow a set of rules and structure and visit violence upon those who the organization deems the 'enemy'. There has been leaps and bounds forward regarding compassion for people in the theater of operations, but at the end of the day "kill em all and let god sort them out" is a way of defeating an armed enemy. While one may argue that the goal of the military is peace, the means by which that goal is pursued is through violence.
Killing only the 'bad guys', in game terms, is 'good'..but that is only because in game terms Good and Evil are absolute truths. Real world the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are simply different shades of grey unless someone defines a dividing line to say 'that color grey is Evil and this color is Good'..and then people will argue about where that line is drawn, etc, etc..
Stand on a battle field and look at an enemy soldier over the sights of your weapon. Odds are you are looking at someone who is pretty much just like you but happened to be born into a different world. Another time, another place and you might be freinds. This time and place you pull the trigger first because you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger second.
If the discussion wasn't so irredeemably derailed, I would call this quote "/Thread".
Both the original question, which was only lightly discussed, and the derailed arguments are extremely thought provoking!
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION],
You are right that I am undermining my own claim. However that is exactly what lays at the crux of the issue is comparing a game world construct {alignment} to real world organizations and people.
In the real world, the overall organization could be labeled as LE, but the members of the organization are all individuals and can vary widely from the theoretical "LE" behaviors and thoughts. Except in the case of cults there isn't the strict brainwashing into a similar ethos or excising of those that don't fit perfectly. Monolithic categories and stereotypes break down very quickly. Walk up to a formation of Soldiers and you can meet people from all walks of life, differing political views, and varied religions. Each one is in uniform for a different and personal reason.
In a game, the military organization could be described as LE and it would be up to the DM whether they individuals within the organization hewed to the party line or were outliers. Because DMs are don't have unlimited imagination, you end up with a character concept that is applied to all members of the organization. A stereotype. PC interaction with a member can be distilled into a characterization instead of having to come up with a real individual NPC.
Unless you wanted to.
Similarly, the MM entry on Drow is shorthand for an entire race. Since it is a game world, the majority of individual Drow are not actual individuals, just background NPCs {and often just fleshy bags of hit points}
Love it! That would be hilarious.
You are right that I am undermining my own claim. However that is exactly what lays at the crux of the issue is comparing a game world construct {alignment} to real world organizations and people.
In the real world, the overall organization could be labeled as LE, but the members of the organization are all individuals and can vary widely from the theoretical "LE" behaviors and thoughts. Except in the case of cults there isn't the strict brainwashing into a similar ethos or excising of those that don't fit perfectly. Monolithic categories and stereotypes break down very quickly. Walk up to a formation of Soldiers and you can meet people from all walks of life, differing political views, and varied religions. Each one is in uniform for a different and personal reason.
In a game, the military organization could be described as LE and it would be up to the DM whether they individuals within the organization hewed to the party line or were outliers. Because DMs are don't have unlimited imagination, you end up with a character concept that is applied to all members of the organization. A stereotype. PC interaction with a member can be distilled into a characterization instead of having to come up with a real individual NPC.
Unless you wanted to.
Similarly, the MM entry on Drow is shorthand for an entire race. Since it is a game world, the majority of individual Drow are not actual individuals, just background NPCs {and often just fleshy bags of hit points}
Celebrim said:
Love it! That would be hilarious.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Ramaster said:
I wouldn't say irredeemably derailed... just side tracked!
My brain has been muddling this over, god only knows why.. here are some thoughts I have had on the OP.
Fantasy societys are generally based on clan structures, whether the clan be linked by genetics or ideaology, or simply proximity. Regardless, clan members tend to know everyone in the clan. 'Society' is defined as the attitudes and behaviors of clan members to each other and to other clans.
Fantasy society by race:
Chaotic Good:
Elf: Elves admire Wisdom and seek symbiotic relationships where both sides gain. They do not strictly adhere to family structure altho they respect their elders, individuals often migrate to the 'clan' of another when they beleive the other clan leader is wiser.
Social status is determined based on the question of 'Who is wiser?"
Genders are considered as equals and children are rare due to the need for both partners deciding that raising a child is considered a gain.
Other races are generally considered not as wise as elves, and the shorter the races life-span the less tolarance the elves have for that race.
Half-elves occur fairly often and are accepted as part of society without discrimination
The sub-races of Elf are the result of alignment with an aspect of nature, the chaotic aspect of society accepts these variances altho since wood elves are shorter lived many 'true' elves consider them to be less wise.
Chaotic Evil:
Orc: Orcs admire martial prowess and strength, conquering and subduing others. They do not strictly adhere to family structure and often do not even know who their parents are. Individuals migrate to clans when their leader is weakened, or are suborned into another clan on a regular basis.
Social status is determined based on the question of "Can I beat you up?"
Males outnumber females by a ratio of 3 to 1 or greater. Females are generally considered weak and are 'owned' by a male. If their male dies in battle or is defeated in a duel, they become owned by the new leader. Some rare females become warrors and hold a position as a male, however these females have to prove themselves many times over and would self-mutilate in order to not be weakened by pregnancy.
Other races are generally considered weaker and best used as slaves.
Half-orcs occur fairly often but due to their weakness are outcasts or slaves.
Lawful Evil:
Drow: Drow admire power, subjegating others through threats, manipulation, or outright slaughter. They live in matriarchial clans with loyalty to 'mother' and seek to increase the clans power. Migration between clans is rare and often politically motivated.
Social status is determined on the question of "can I manipulate you?"
Males outnumber females by a ratio of 3 to 1 or greater. Females consider males as tools to be used, and prize physical strength in their males. Males are often traded between clans as 'payment' and to decrease the likelyhood of inbreeding.
Since males are tools and coin, children are common.
The drow are xenophoic, primarily because its hard to manipulate something you don't know. Humans are the worst to deal with because they are so individualistic.
Half-drow are rare as females tend to stay in the cities where they can defend the clan from political attacks. When they do exist, they are outcasts and usually exiled.
Lawful Good:
Dwarves: Dwarves admire intelligence and skill. They live in patriarchial clans with fealty to 'father' and seek to increase the clans resources. Migration between clans is rare and motivated towards joining the clans resources.
Social status is determined by two questions "How closely related to 'father' are you?" and "how skilled are you?"
Other races fall to the lower rungs based on the first question but can be valued based on the second.
Males outnumber females by a ratio of 2 to 1 or greater. Females are considered to be the greatest clan resource and are celebrated. Dwarves are monogomous and widows are supported within the clan. While all dwarves are trained in martial ways, females role in society is in the halls training the young and maintaining/defending the home as the bedrock of the clan.
Half-dwarves are extremely rare as females tend to stay within the halls. When they do exist they are considered 'family' by their clan, but considered a bastard by other clans. Skilled half-dwarves can reach solid positions in society, but never become a part of clan leadership.
Under this setup, non-evil societies for Orc and Drow would be possible but would require either a strong leader within the normal societal structure who could take their clan out.. or a gathering of outcasts who reject the ways of the society that rejected them.
In the former case, the society would be cult-like in its adoration of the founder and follow whatever ideals that founder set. There would be a single leader and the society would be Lawful in nature.
In the latter case, the society would often be lead by a group of respected people who guide the clan to safety. They would avoid giving power to a singular person and distrust anyone who displays individual power. Generally this society would be GC in nature, but could also be Neutral.
Celebrim
Legend
Good societies for evil races, per my campaign:
Humans: As the better examples of human social institutions in history and literature, warts and all.
Goblins: The typical goblin counter-cultural society is loosely objectivist in nature and based on personal contract, rejecting the notion that if you are strong you have a right to the labor of others and that this ultimately benefits the race as a whole that undergirds normal goblin society. Typically these societies are created by breakaway members of goblin plebian and bourgeois castes - typically the merchant and tinkerer castes that have a relatively high degree of economic security and freedom and herdsman castes who have potential wealth but lack social standing in the society to capitalize on it. They reject tribe and family as a basis of social structure in preference to individual rights, reject the caste structure, reject slavery, and reject theft as a valid means of acquiring wealth. In general, these counter-cultural societies tend toward CN, although it wouldn't be impossible for a small group to veer toward CG particularly if it opens relations with an existing CG culture (perhaps a human nation) and adopts its norms.
They are highly unstable for a variety of reasons:
1) The goblin family of deities zealously guards the race as a personal possession. Breakaway groups of goblins represent an existential threat to their perceived interests, particularly if the breakaway group shows interest in shifting their worship to other deities. Thus, the most stable external communities tend to be impious or continue to propitiate normal goblin deities in at least a nominal manner - the former involves a significant loss of utility to the community and the later involves a bit of dangerous hypocrisy. A crusade is likely to be declared against any break away community that threatens the integrity of the species as a whole, and in general such breakaway communities can't survive a coordinated attack.
2) The community is at danger if it attempts to assimilate outsiders, and the wealthier and more successful it becomes the greater danger it is in. New members of the community will be increasingly unlikely to actually hold the communities interests at heart. Afterall, the community is to a large extent based on self-interest, and its far too easy to cross a threshold where the number of truly self-centered persons reaches a dangerous percentage of the number of persons acting out of mutual self-interest. The community then tends to descend into strife and anarchy, ultimately collapsing.
3) The community is at danger if it does not attempt to assimilate outsiders. Although nurture can skew the propensities of the race somewhat, it remains true that goblins in their very nature were made to have certain tendencies. Even if there is a critical mass of like-minded goblins in the founding generation, future generations of goblins will tend to have less adherence to the foundational beliefs of the community than the prior generation. This deterioration can be subtle, because the succeeding generations will generally adhere to the community and its ideals out of natural tendencies to loyalty to the community and subservience to its existing leaders. But as these generations move into positions of leadership themselves, they tend gradually erode the freedoms that the community was founded on until they exist only in the form of highly regulated legal fictions. Eventually, as the community becomes more and more tradition, community, and legal minded, it becomes dissatisfied with the founding ideals of the community and rapidly shifts to a set of beliefs that closely resemble that of the larger goblin culture. Often this occurs contemporaneously with 'invasion' by goblin clerical evangelists whose messages then resonate with the society in its present form.
4) The community is in danger if it doesn't try to embed itself in a larger protectorate such as a human nation. If the community begins to prosper, it becomes an increasingly desirable target for neighboring communities and thus subject to banditry and ultimately invasion and genocide. Wealth breeds jealousy and greed. These threats often come from neighboring goblin tribes, but equally they can come from neighbors of any racial group. Humans, elves, and dwarves will typically perceive a growing, wealthy, goblin neighbor as a threat and will move against it out of a misplaced sense of self-preservation, misplaced ideas of justice, racism, or self-justified greed (depending on tendencies of that society). It is very difficult for a goblin community to gain the sort of trust with non-goblin communities (particularly with the big three alliance of humans, dwarves, and elves) that allow for normal relationships between nations. Goblin diplomats don't normally enjoy immunity or freedom of travel. Goblins can't normally expect to be entitled to legal protection in foreign courts, or to be able to extradite foreign criminals for prosecution in their own courts. To the extent that they can, neighbors are generally loathe to give recognition to goblin breakaway groups for fear of upsetting relations with the larger, more established, more dangerous goblin clans. Without protection from a larger established community however, it's difficult for breakaway communities to resist invasion.
5) The community is in danger if it does try to embed itself in a larger community seeking protection. Many more tolerant human cultures accept goblin citizens to some degree or the other, at least as individuals. A few less savory dwarves are also willing to deal with goblins. Idreth tend to be highly tolerant of everyone, though loathe to violate their perceived neutrality. However, goblin communities embedded in larger communities have to accept the laws and customs of the community they find themselves in much of the time (there are very very few exceptions where goblins are treated as a semi-autonomous nation within a larger framework, and sadly for good reasons, see #3). This makes it very hard to maintain the traditions the community was founded on. Worse, it's a simple fact that goblins are not the most tactful, beautiful, and pleasant of races to have as neighbors, and that even in tolerant communities there will be widespread discrimination against them of various sorts. This tends to accelerate the degeneration of the ideas that the community was founded on and increase rebellion against the founding generation by succeeding generations, which in turn leads to greater rejection by the larger community in an accelerating cycle. The ultimate result tends to be genocide or ejection of the community by the larger community.
The longest lived goblin counter-cultures tend to involve highly isolated communities with powerful spell-casters in the founding generation.
It's also possible, though highly rare, to see shifts up toward LN or LG when a strong ruler among the Great Goblins or bugbears adopts a more benevolent policy toward the plebian and bourgeois castes, and begins to suppress the injustices that the aristocratic classes assume to be their normal rights. These societies are even more unstable than the counter cultural ones, first because all of the leaders subordinates will tend to see acts of mercy or benevolence as proof of weakness and senility, leading to coups and other crisis. Secondly, because its very difficult for the Great Goblin to ensure continuity of succession, as it generally requires having an heir of a similar disposition. Thirdly, because the Great Goblin will if he moves too far in this direction will lose the support of the clergy, without which he's likely doomed. And any Great Goblin that attempted to move religious norms away from the traditional gods would almost instantly find himself facing a crusade from the entire rest of the goblin race. Even a whole clan would have a difficulty surviving such an onslaught, particularly given that the clan itself would probably not be as cohesive and undivided as the attacking clans.
I've never deeply explored either structure, though I do have a goblin campaign that I've started a few times but never had time to play through where one possible end state I'd like to see would be establishment of a community of the first type by the PCs. A campaign where the PC's are as low level characters manipulated into attacking a goblin break away community of the first or second type would also be interesting. If I ever did a political focused campaign, a scenario where the PC's have the opportunity to back a goblin 'King Arthur' type figure that has arisen and fight off a goblin crusade might also be interesting.
Other than the goblins, I don't have any unusually evil race that regularly shows up in my games. I feel the need for only one trope 'ugly' race, and so long ago dropped orcs from my games. Drow are so stereotyped that I'm loathe to use them, to the extent that common lore in the game world is that the Drow are extinct and have been for 5000 years, and I've never had a good idea for an Underdark campaign. All other races, mongrelmen, kobolds, gnolls, dark creepers, merfolk, lizardfolk, and so forth are rare, tend to be highly isolated, and unvaryingly have monocultures because they are each the special creation of some deity that they have as sole patron. Whether good or evil, they are more akin to a deities fingernails than true independent beings, similar to the relationship between Morgoth/Sauron and orcs and trolls in late (post LotR) Tolkien canon. I've never devoted any mental space to trying to make those lesser races diverse culturally. The more races you have in your world, the harder of a problem of imagination that presents.
Humans: As the better examples of human social institutions in history and literature, warts and all.
Goblins: The typical goblin counter-cultural society is loosely objectivist in nature and based on personal contract, rejecting the notion that if you are strong you have a right to the labor of others and that this ultimately benefits the race as a whole that undergirds normal goblin society. Typically these societies are created by breakaway members of goblin plebian and bourgeois castes - typically the merchant and tinkerer castes that have a relatively high degree of economic security and freedom and herdsman castes who have potential wealth but lack social standing in the society to capitalize on it. They reject tribe and family as a basis of social structure in preference to individual rights, reject the caste structure, reject slavery, and reject theft as a valid means of acquiring wealth. In general, these counter-cultural societies tend toward CN, although it wouldn't be impossible for a small group to veer toward CG particularly if it opens relations with an existing CG culture (perhaps a human nation) and adopts its norms.
They are highly unstable for a variety of reasons:
1) The goblin family of deities zealously guards the race as a personal possession. Breakaway groups of goblins represent an existential threat to their perceived interests, particularly if the breakaway group shows interest in shifting their worship to other deities. Thus, the most stable external communities tend to be impious or continue to propitiate normal goblin deities in at least a nominal manner - the former involves a significant loss of utility to the community and the later involves a bit of dangerous hypocrisy. A crusade is likely to be declared against any break away community that threatens the integrity of the species as a whole, and in general such breakaway communities can't survive a coordinated attack.
2) The community is at danger if it attempts to assimilate outsiders, and the wealthier and more successful it becomes the greater danger it is in. New members of the community will be increasingly unlikely to actually hold the communities interests at heart. Afterall, the community is to a large extent based on self-interest, and its far too easy to cross a threshold where the number of truly self-centered persons reaches a dangerous percentage of the number of persons acting out of mutual self-interest. The community then tends to descend into strife and anarchy, ultimately collapsing.
3) The community is at danger if it does not attempt to assimilate outsiders. Although nurture can skew the propensities of the race somewhat, it remains true that goblins in their very nature were made to have certain tendencies. Even if there is a critical mass of like-minded goblins in the founding generation, future generations of goblins will tend to have less adherence to the foundational beliefs of the community than the prior generation. This deterioration can be subtle, because the succeeding generations will generally adhere to the community and its ideals out of natural tendencies to loyalty to the community and subservience to its existing leaders. But as these generations move into positions of leadership themselves, they tend gradually erode the freedoms that the community was founded on until they exist only in the form of highly regulated legal fictions. Eventually, as the community becomes more and more tradition, community, and legal minded, it becomes dissatisfied with the founding ideals of the community and rapidly shifts to a set of beliefs that closely resemble that of the larger goblin culture. Often this occurs contemporaneously with 'invasion' by goblin clerical evangelists whose messages then resonate with the society in its present form.
4) The community is in danger if it doesn't try to embed itself in a larger protectorate such as a human nation. If the community begins to prosper, it becomes an increasingly desirable target for neighboring communities and thus subject to banditry and ultimately invasion and genocide. Wealth breeds jealousy and greed. These threats often come from neighboring goblin tribes, but equally they can come from neighbors of any racial group. Humans, elves, and dwarves will typically perceive a growing, wealthy, goblin neighbor as a threat and will move against it out of a misplaced sense of self-preservation, misplaced ideas of justice, racism, or self-justified greed (depending on tendencies of that society). It is very difficult for a goblin community to gain the sort of trust with non-goblin communities (particularly with the big three alliance of humans, dwarves, and elves) that allow for normal relationships between nations. Goblin diplomats don't normally enjoy immunity or freedom of travel. Goblins can't normally expect to be entitled to legal protection in foreign courts, or to be able to extradite foreign criminals for prosecution in their own courts. To the extent that they can, neighbors are generally loathe to give recognition to goblin breakaway groups for fear of upsetting relations with the larger, more established, more dangerous goblin clans. Without protection from a larger established community however, it's difficult for breakaway communities to resist invasion.
5) The community is in danger if it does try to embed itself in a larger community seeking protection. Many more tolerant human cultures accept goblin citizens to some degree or the other, at least as individuals. A few less savory dwarves are also willing to deal with goblins. Idreth tend to be highly tolerant of everyone, though loathe to violate their perceived neutrality. However, goblin communities embedded in larger communities have to accept the laws and customs of the community they find themselves in much of the time (there are very very few exceptions where goblins are treated as a semi-autonomous nation within a larger framework, and sadly for good reasons, see #3). This makes it very hard to maintain the traditions the community was founded on. Worse, it's a simple fact that goblins are not the most tactful, beautiful, and pleasant of races to have as neighbors, and that even in tolerant communities there will be widespread discrimination against them of various sorts. This tends to accelerate the degeneration of the ideas that the community was founded on and increase rebellion against the founding generation by succeeding generations, which in turn leads to greater rejection by the larger community in an accelerating cycle. The ultimate result tends to be genocide or ejection of the community by the larger community.
The longest lived goblin counter-cultures tend to involve highly isolated communities with powerful spell-casters in the founding generation.
It's also possible, though highly rare, to see shifts up toward LN or LG when a strong ruler among the Great Goblins or bugbears adopts a more benevolent policy toward the plebian and bourgeois castes, and begins to suppress the injustices that the aristocratic classes assume to be their normal rights. These societies are even more unstable than the counter cultural ones, first because all of the leaders subordinates will tend to see acts of mercy or benevolence as proof of weakness and senility, leading to coups and other crisis. Secondly, because its very difficult for the Great Goblin to ensure continuity of succession, as it generally requires having an heir of a similar disposition. Thirdly, because the Great Goblin will if he moves too far in this direction will lose the support of the clergy, without which he's likely doomed. And any Great Goblin that attempted to move religious norms away from the traditional gods would almost instantly find himself facing a crusade from the entire rest of the goblin race. Even a whole clan would have a difficulty surviving such an onslaught, particularly given that the clan itself would probably not be as cohesive and undivided as the attacking clans.
I've never deeply explored either structure, though I do have a goblin campaign that I've started a few times but never had time to play through where one possible end state I'd like to see would be establishment of a community of the first type by the PCs. A campaign where the PC's are as low level characters manipulated into attacking a goblin break away community of the first or second type would also be interesting. If I ever did a political focused campaign, a scenario where the PC's have the opportunity to back a goblin 'King Arthur' type figure that has arisen and fight off a goblin crusade might also be interesting.
Other than the goblins, I don't have any unusually evil race that regularly shows up in my games. I feel the need for only one trope 'ugly' race, and so long ago dropped orcs from my games. Drow are so stereotyped that I'm loathe to use them, to the extent that common lore in the game world is that the Drow are extinct and have been for 5000 years, and I've never had a good idea for an Underdark campaign. All other races, mongrelmen, kobolds, gnolls, dark creepers, merfolk, lizardfolk, and so forth are rare, tend to be highly isolated, and unvaryingly have monocultures because they are each the special creation of some deity that they have as sole patron. Whether good or evil, they are more akin to a deities fingernails than true independent beings, similar to the relationship between Morgoth/Sauron and orcs and trolls in late (post LotR) Tolkien canon. I've never devoted any mental space to trying to make those lesser races diverse culturally. The more races you have in your world, the harder of a problem of imagination that presents.
Last edited:
pickin_grinnin
Explorer
You don't have to explain it to the players ahead of time. You tell them what they know at the time the campaign starts. Through the course of the campaign you have them discover new "truths," or at least different interpretations of the world. Their characters may find themselves enlightened, or may have their base assumptions proven to be "true." As writers are often told, "show, don't tell."
That's the way the real world works, as well. We learn certain ways of viewing the world when we are young. As adults, we may continue to embrace what we are taught, or we may end up coming across new information or ideas that lead us to reevaluate it.
In my worlds, I strive for as much depth and nuance as I can. I like to keep things as realistic as possible, within the boundaries of the world that I have set. That's particularly true of the types of choices characters have to make. Rarely do I put in anything that is 100% good or 100% evil in all circumstances.
Similar Threads
