Pathfinder 1E May there be non-evil societies of always evil races? What would they be like?

[Dannyalcatraz]

To expand upon what Celebrim points out, unless the other races are just "humans with prosthetics" they really should/could be different. Alien. If you look at great Sci-Fi/fantasy fiction, you can find some great examples of truly alien species, like the Atevi, the Amnion, Slavers.

And the thing about that is that they may well behave in ways that a game like D&D would consider "evil", even if they don't a actually subscribe to the concept.

The Atevi? They are über Machiavellian. They'll poison someone as a test...someone they're actually beginning to like.

The Amnion? They captured humans to biologically re-engineer them into hybrids in order to facilitate communication.

The Slavers? They considered all other races below them, so treated all other species essentially the way we'd treat livestock- like an expendable resource.

These are not aberrations, but the way their societies work. And they're all arguably "evil" in D&D.

 

[VelvetViolet]

The basic premise of the game is that humanoids really are just funny-looking humans with token psychological issues to set them apart like in Star Trek (otherwise their value system would be so alien you couldn't relate to them), and good and evil are objectively defined and part of the fabric of reality itself. Moral ambiguity only exists insofar as people have a choice to be good, evil or neutral.

Regardless of whether a race is born and raised in evil (orcs, drow, etc) or even literally made of evil (fiends), they still have the chance to become non-evil and stay that way within D&D canon and vice versa.

My problem is that the Pathfinder books state categorically that drow and orcs and whatever are always evil and good individuals are generally killed young. There are no non-evil societies of these races anywhere in the material plane. I don't like that because it dehumanizes them and turns them into nothing more than MMO mobs to be killed for loot, whereas humans and halflings and whatever are free to be whatever alignment without being genocided. Moreover, I'd like to be able to play non-evil characters of those races without angsting about how everyone hates him and he has no place in the world.

EDIT: I'm just going to stop replying to this thread from now on. It's gone in the wrong direction because of some poor choice of words on my part. I may try again in a month or two.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My problem is that the Pathfinder books state categorically that drow and orcs and whatever are always evil and good individuals are generally killed young. There are no non-evil societies of these races anywhere in the material plane. I don't like that because it dehumanizes them and turns them into nothing more than MMO mobs to be killed for loot, whereas humans and halflings and whatever are free to be whatever alignment without being genocided. Moreover, I'd like to be able to play non-evil characters of those races without angsting about how everyone hates him and he has no place in the world.

(Emphasis mine.)

IOW, they are like the Spartans: those who vary from what society deems acceptable are ruthlessly culled.

That doesn't change them into "nothing more than MMO mobs to be killed for loot", that means that any individual who may vary from their societal norm has probably been killed off. Survivors have been inculcated into a culture of evil so thoroughly that their norm is to be "evil"...in the drows' case, possibly for decades before they experience another point of view. That kind of brainwashing is hard to shake off. It is deeply internalized.

Which translates into the simply not being a whole bunch of good ones around. Not enough to make a difference within their own society, at any rate.

EDIT: I'm just going to stop replying to this thread from now on. It's gone in the wrong direction because of some poor choice of words on my part. I may try again in a month or two.

OK. Better luck next time,

 

[Celebrim]

The basic premise of the game is that humanoids really are just funny-looking humans with token psychological issues to set them apart like in Star Trek

The basic premise of your game perhaps, but not of mine. And if you mean "the game" as if there was a single real way to approach D&D or Pathfinder, then you yourself are out of luck since it is you that wish to modify the basic assumptions. Since you have modified the premise and changed it, there is no reason to assert there exists some premise you or others have to adhere to. The basic premise of my game is that if you aren't playing a human, your basic outlook in particular areas is distinctly inhuman.

(otherwise their value system would be so alien you couldn't relate to them)

If you can imagine it, you can relate to it. It may not be emotionally provocative to you. It may not be attractive to you. It may even be distasteful, but you can relate to it.

Moral ambiguity only exists insofar as people have a choice to be good, evil or neutral.

Ambiguity certainly, but not morality itself. Only I think a Chaotic Neutral philosopher would assert that the act of choosing itself is the moral good, and not the choice made, and only a true Neutral one would assert that each alignment requires the contrast of its opposite to exist. But of course, this is an important sort of ambiguity in itself, as we have not answered the question, "Who is right?"

Regardless of whether a race is born and raised in evil (orcs, drow, etc) or even literally made of evil (fiends), they still have the chance to become non-evil and stay that way within D&D canon and vice versa.

Well, all I can say is that the D&D canon is ecumenical in its misuse of world religions. Fallen angels come to us by way of Catholic theology, under which construction all purely spiritual beings - whether angels fallen or unfallen - make eternal, irrevocable choices, based on their own fullest possible understanding and so stay as they are eternally. D&D has a tendency to at the same time claim both that outer planar beings are incarnated ideas made of the very stuff that 'good' or 'chaos' or 'evil' is made of, and that also they can choose to be other than what they are. But no one ever claimed that D&D's writers had ever thought particularly deeply about this alignment stuff. For my part, I like full palettes, so if I have something innately evil (say orcs or drow) that is capable of choosing good, then I feel I've already got my 'red' paint in several different shades, and feel the need for something that is innately evil and always will be (say a fiend of some sort). If everything is basically free willed funny looking humans with token psychological issues differing only by upbringing, then I feel like the only paint I have on my palette is gray and everything in my fantasy is going to look very drab and uninteresting.

My problem is that the Pathfinder books state categorically that drow and orcs and whatever are always evil and good individuals are generally killed young. There are no non-evil societies of these races anywhere in the material plane.

So?

I don't like that because it dehumanizes them...

Why is it necessary to humanize something alien? Is the fantasy world objectively better or the science fiction world objectively better if their are no truly alien things in it? Even if we assume that the real world has this feature, is it necessary and objectively better if the fantasy world is exactly congruent in every respect to the real one?

and turns them into nothing more than MMO mobs to be killed for loot

Well, to be perfectly frank and I think fair about the matter, most NPC's in D&D have historically only existed as things to kill and loot. The Monster Manual is just a big list of things and the loot that they have, and a dungeon is just a loot supermarket with potentially high prices but deep discounts if you do your shopping well.

whereas humans and halflings and whatever are free to be whatever alignment without being genocided.

Since when has that ever worked even for the real world? Being good or just doesn't make you immune to genocide, and arguably, if a truly good race were to ever encounter humanity, it probably would wonder whether or not such a vile scourge ought to be wiped out. In fact, a Lawful Evil philosopher would probably be quick to note that ultimately, the only possible good guys are the one that don't suffer genocide, and so ultimately the only test of whether or not you are good is whether you are doing the genocide or whether it is being done to you. It's better perhaps to assimilate, sure, but weighing the moral good of killing versus being killed, 'killing' comes out ahead in pretty much everyone estimation - and those that choose otherwise don't get their vote counted. From this, he reasons that the labels are just that, labels, and no one is better than anyone else, and his team is the strong, rational, clear headed team.

In a D&D world, this is a very hard argument to overcome, because what means do you have to overcome a boot to the face forever but might?
Anyway...

Moreover, I'd like to be able to play non-evil characters of those races without angsting about how everyone hates him and he has no place in the world.

Yeah, maybe I should stop replying as well.

Personally, I think that D&D errs in making races no more interesting than their stat adjustments, and most players do not play a race at all but a character sheet. Most players have no reason for playing races other than min-maxing, and evil races other than the superior stat blocks, powers, equipment and so forth that all date back to Gygaxian notions of D&D as challenging play (and the relatively limited tools he had available for that). That and a little 1990's still Grim Dark and "Silly Rabbit, Idealism Is for Kids!" thrown in.

I'm still waiting to hear what a non-evil human society would look like, so I tend to think maybe you have the problem backward.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

In Pathfinder, good and evil are actual cosmic forces which just so happen to coincide with the values of progressive Americans. Moral ambiguity doesn't really exist except with the neutral alignments."

That's the way they designed it, but it's not the way I run it when I'm GMing. I don't use any of the standard settings (ex. Golarion) - I make up my own, with it's own rules. Even if I did, though, I would ignore the cosmic "good vs. evil" stuff, because it just seems silly and overly simplistic to me.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think everyone knows my soapbox; define what evil is. In many cultures, you will find this to be things they find ugly or that have been presented to them by a group, be it state or church.

Things like:

• slavery (this includes mind control)
• freedom
• separation of state and church
• cold blooded murder
• torture
• cannibalism
• pornography
• women being equal
• followers of a certain god / leader / cult / political group (Nazis)
• a race (American Indian, Orcs, etc.)
• oath breakers
• kin slayers
• horse thieves
• sheep farmers

There are historical reasons for each of those being seen as evil and then they are made into villains by gossip and propaganda and even by truth. Then you have the other side of the coin, where those evil things are not evil to the culture that practices them.

 

[delericho]

I reject the notion that a fantasy race is intended to be a stand in for any human racial or ethnic group or even humanity at all. Further, I reject the notion that a concept like 'angel' or 'demon' even refers to a 'race' or 'species' as we commonly understand the term and to treat it as such is to suggest a lack of imagination. Further, I reject your statement regarding Tolkien as being overly simplified and lacking the nuance with which he approached the topic and based on a few isolated readings that don't take into account his whole body of work, or mischaracterize his particular (for Tolkien, largely theological) problems with his creations.

Agreed.

However, I find the title of this thread far more interesting...

Also agreed. Unfortunately, my answers to the questions aren't terribly useful for discussion:

May there be non-evil societies of always evil races?

Yes, of course.

What would they be like?

Unique.

That is, while there might well be sects of non-evil drow (for instance), there's little point in defining what that means in general terms - each individual sect of non-evil drow would be as different from the others as it is from the 'mainstream' evil drow. So, unless there is exactly one such sect, it's not terribly helpful.

(And, and FWIW, I also agree with Celebrim that thoughts about what a society of non-evil drow would look like should start from the position of looking at what makes them drow in the first place, and deviating from that. Otherwise, they're just humans in funny suits.)

 

[Celebrim]

I think everyone knows my soapbox; define what evil is.

Tell me honestly what you would not have me do to you. I'd be perfectly happy to start there.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

This ia a very interesting thread, and I appreciate the civil discussion present. Threads like this are why I really appreciate EnWorld!

On to the topic. In my opinion there are a number of things tied into this question that should be seperated and handled individually:

Good and Evil as game artifacts.
- In the game world, Good and Evil are real, tangible, and not up for discussion. A Paladins 'Sense Evil' is a true/false detector, not a 'eh, maybe?' detector. If a creature is Evil, they are infused with the game reality of Evil.
Good and Evil are abosulute truths, to the point where the very essense can be made into a weapon.
Note the capitol G and capitol E.

Game genetics
- There are two generation types: Full blood and Half-blood. The former is from the mating of two of the same race. The latter is from the mating of a Full Blood of one race and someone not Full blood of that race.
- Humans are genetically anomolies. When mating with other Full Blood race the result is a Half-Blood of the other race. When mating with a Half-Blood the result is a Full blooded human.
This means large numbers of like minded non-Humans are needed to establish new societies, wheres human societies are easier to create.

Racial and Societal norms, as listed in Pathfinder and other editions:
- Drow are an evil race. This means the majority, 99%, of encountered drow are less concerned about morality *as seen by others* and more concerned about the end result than the means. Slaves are the cheapest way to accomplish a lot of things.
- Drow society is evil. This means that the majority of Drow culture encounterd, 99%, is also more concerned about the end result. Turning warriors into Driders provide society with a more effective defender despite the torturous process that is involved.


Your game table assumptions.
Either:
A) Drow are Evil, capitol E and are inheringly evil. Individuals may act against their inner nature but never in such numbers to affect the Drow society as a whole or break off and create a new civilization. Nature wins over Nurture.
or:
B) Drow are evil, no capitol E. Nurture wins over Nature. Those Drow raised outide of the majority culture may become good, but in generaly these Drow are assimilated into their adopted culture and do not create new civilizations due to the game genetics.
or:
C) Drow are just like humans but they live underground and have cool magic.

Only in option C do you have the game world scenario where you can have a non-evil Drow society, however in this option you lose the simplicity of a black and white world. You also turn Drow {and other races} into 'humans with prosthetics' and make designing adventures harders.

In the other two options there are a myriad of moral dilemnas and situations, as well as depth to the world that doesn't have to be explained to the players in a huge campaign setting read-ahead.

To me the whole point of saying 'drow are evil' is to simplify campaign setting design and get the PCs into the adventure.
Yes, its stereotyping. No, it has nothing to do with real-world races.


Taking this a step outside of the Prime Material: talk about demons and angels.
In a real-world religion there are fallen angels.
In the game world, once a mortal spirit becomes morally aligned they move into the associated plane and become demons or angels depending on which plane it is. There are no fallen angels. Good and Evil are absolute truths.


Side note: Real-world military forces and mercenaries would be categorized as 'Lawful Evil' in the alignment system. This is definately the case of a lower-case E, and a pretty good framework to use for fictional Evil society structures.

 

[Celebrim]

What would they be like?

Unique.

That is, while there might well be sects of non-evil drow (for instance), there's little point in defining what that means in general terms - each individual sect of non-evil drow would be as different from the others as it is from the 'mainstream' evil drow. So, unless there is exactly one such sect, it's not terribly helpful.

A very good and interesting point.

One of the big problems typically seen in fantasy is that we end up knowing a fantasy race through a single individual or culture and so it's easy to imagine that fantasy races are perfectly homogenous with a single culture or even personality that defines them. But we'd really only suspect this to be reasonable if it was one of the tropes considered in imagining the race that they were more homogenous and prized individuality and creativity far less than humanity - simplistically a race based off our understanding of some sort of hive animal whether bees or naked mole rats might fit this trope.

The Drow are a terrible place to start, because they have consistently been described as highly CE while consistently being portrayed as LE. But, if the base culture really is CE, it's not just likely that each break away counter-cultural sect is unique, but the parent culture is itself radically diverse and splintered into large numbers of competing traditions and cultures. Each tribe would maintain its own rites, rituals, customs, and aesthetic standards. We'd expect a profusion of dialects and sub-ethnicities. We'd never expect to see conformity and uniformity held up as a standard. We'd never expect what we see in the canon.

With the Drow we might subvert this then, so that the evil cultures are highly diverse and the rebellious counter-culture is rebelling against this diversity and in favor of a universal objective standard of justice and compassion - and probably not quite succeeding, seeing as they have no prior basis for such a society and are continually having to try to assimilate new persons with their own unique ideas.

Or we might do what I've always found more logical, go ahead and accept that the Drow are the LE counter-culture of the core CG elven culture, and that there own counter-cultures would prize the diversity and individuality that they'd been denied by Lloth (here represented as a LE demigod, rather than a demon queen). They might become a culture of avant garde artists, cloistered 'monks' practicing strange forms of self-actualization, and existentialist and objectivist philosophers, each busily trying to define their own identity (something that the Drow culture as presented in the books refuses to let its members do) in complete isolation from the influences of everyone else. And of course, that might be just one meta culture. Another group might practice vigilante vengeance against their parent drow culture, hunting down and assassinating them. Another might seek to evangelize and redeem the drow. Another band might become pacifists that spend their lives in acts of penance and mourning, taking on the collective guilt and shame of their race. Another might lose themselves in sybarite pleasures. And so forth.