The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[aramis erak]

How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Hencnman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?

This is one of those highly setting dependent issues. In Tolkein's setting, they're very nature is metaphysically corrupt.

I think a lot of the problem is that most conversations about this sort of thing paint with too broad of a brush. Often, even attempting to parse things out or ask questions is met with assumptions of some sort ism-based motivation.

All issues have that potential to one degree or another.

I do agree the brush is often too broad, but the problem also runs to many seem to think evil is just the most extreme flavors...

while, in reality, evil beings are cooperative when they see benefit to doing so. They obey laws when the perceived risks outweigh the perceived rewards. They can function in society. They don't break their word just to break their word - even the chaotic evil keep their word when it is to their benefit.

I've known a couple significant evil beings. Heinous crimes. But generally, very prosocial. Just completely about self-interest. Being of amusement value and occasional utility justifies having and helping friends. A legacy generates care for children. Donations to charities for the deductions, and to hide ill gotten gains.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of this thread appears to be open to having an actual discussion (at least thus far).

Don't jinx it!

 

[Aging Bard]

This thread has evolved exactly as I hoped. I don't even need to be a part of it anymore, you all get it (though I may drop in occasionally). Fantastic! And I thank you all for what you are teaching me, sincerely.

 

[pemerton]

It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?

How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Henchman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?

Unless anyone wants to come back to it, I'm going to skip the treasure aspect of this, as I think that raises a whole lot of other questions around property rights, robbery, etc.

But I think that limiting permissible violence to imminent danger - which is a pretty standard contemporary approach to the morality of legitimate violence - will hinder a lot of FRPG play. That's why, upthread, I suggested two other bases: consensual violence, and retributive violence.

If Orc Henchman #3 is part of a gang of bandits, that may be sufficient to justify the use of violence against him. If it turns out that these bandits are actually not bad guys (eg they're Orcish Robin Hoods, or a legitimate Orcish national liberation movement) then even though retributive violence wasn't justified, it may be excusable in the sense that the PC wasn't culpable in thinking the Orcs were baddies prior to getting that additional, exonerating information.

If Orc Henchman #3 is part of a tower guard, like the Orcs of Cirith Ungol in LotR, then I think this is where consent becomes relevant. By fighting in defence of their tower, rather than surrendering, they are rendering themselves permissible targets of violence. In real life it takes more than the preceding sentence to explain why it's permissible to attack soldiers, and in any event many people doubt that someone can consent to being killed in this sort of way (once reason why consensual duelling is illegal in many, probably most, places). But I think in the context of FRPGing the fact that the Orc is a soldier who chooses to oppose other soldiers (ie the PCs) is enough to do the moral work.

Now if we are talking about a situation which looks like nothing more than a home invasion by the PCs - the Orcs aren't bandits and so aren't liable to retributive violence, and are fighting in defence of their homes and their fellows - the case for justifiable violence seems harder to make out. Maybe the Caves of Chaos gets close to this?

So I get the deal with orcs and such, but how do people feel about evil non-humanoid creatures?

Yes.

I'm not totally opposed to sentient creatures that act in mostly cruel ways. I just think it should be done with a critical look at the tropes and they should not be inherently cruel.

For me, I feel it's about the tropes and themes that are being drawn on and re-articulated. And it's of the nature of fiction that this can happen in all sorts of ways.

For instance, fighting alien eaters-of-the-brains-of-the-living, or alien slavers - using alien in the sci-fi sense - seems innocuous enough: those seem like cruel practices, and the violence used against the aliens seems like legitimate defensive and/or retributive violence (given the broader conceits of FRPGing).

But I think a game that focused on a military campaign to wipe out Mind Flayers or Neogi might be distasteful (at least) because of the way it implies the permissibility of genocidal violence, and of widespread ecological violence as well perhaps.

Again speaking just for myself, this is yet another reason why I prefer FRPGing to be focused on the situation - the call to action that confronts the protagonists - rather than on the world. Let me fight this demon without worrying so much about the moral meaning of wishing the end of all demons everywhere; or if I'm playing a non-heroic PC, let me focus on this moment of criminality without worrying about the moral meaning of criminality as such.

 

[Argyle King]

Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a project somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?

In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?

If no, I am curious to hear thoughts on why video games, movies, and other mediums are permitted to do so but it's out of bounds for TTRPGS.

If yes, what do you feel an author/creator should do to indicate a clear divide between the personal real-world beliefs of the author/creator and the in-game "realities" of how fictional societies and situations are portrayed?

 

[Malmuria]

Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a setting assuming the product somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?

In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?

If no, I am curious to hear thoughts on why video games, movies, and other mediums are permitted to do so but it's out of bounds for TTRPGS.

If yes, what do you feel an author/creator should do to indicate a clear divide between the personal real-world beliefs of the author/creator and the in-game "realities" of how fictional societies and situations are portrayed?

I posted this elsewhere (I think), but this post explores some of these topics: Productive Scab-picking: On Oppressive Themes in Gaming

It quotes this twitter thread among other things:


Does anyone know of an RPG that takes up themes of colonial violence in an interesting way, that they like?

 

[pemerton]

Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a setting assuming the product somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?

In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?

If no, I am curious to hear thoughts on why video games, movies, and other mediums are permitted to do so but it's out of bounds for TTRPGS.

If yes, what do you feel an author/creator should do to indicate a clear divide between the personal real-world beliefs of the author/creator and the in-game "realities" of how fictional societies and situations are portrayed?

I think the answer to your main question is yes.

I don't know BitD except by (its extensive) reputation, but I think it might be an example of what you ask about: ie it is concerned with tomse of the darker aspects of humans and morality.

Vincent Baker has multiple RPGs that can deal with harsh worlds and situations - Poison'd (almost inevitably), In A Wicked Age (not inevitably, but that's certainly one way it can trend) and of course Apocalypse World.

Even Burning Wheel picks up serious elements from JRRT and from pulp fantasy in a way that some other FRPGs don't. BW's elves run the risk of committing suicide out of Grief (see eg Maedhros at the end of the Silmarillion); BW's dwarves run the risk of being driven mad by their Greed; the Life Paths for human include slavery and servitude lifepaths as well as lifepaths for knights and wizards.

What none of those RPGs do - and I think it's not a trivial difference from D&D - is project a moral judgement (good/evil) onto the situations and possibilities that the games open up.

A couple of examples might illustrate the point:

(1) In AW, each character has a special consequence that flows from having sex with another character. For the Driver, this is

If you and another character have sex, roll+cool. On a 10+, it’s cool, no big deal. On a 7–9, give them +1 to their Hx with you on their sheet, but give yourself -1 to your Hx with them on yours. On a miss, you gotta go: take -1 ongoing, until you prove that it’s not like they own you or nothing.​

Cool and Hx are both stats - Cool largely self-explanatory, Hx the stat that measures how well one character knows another. -1 ongoing is a debuff. Now if/when I get to run AW with my group I'm probably inclined to turn "have sex" into "share an intimate moment", because I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to RPGing, but that's not what's relevant here. Notice what this character ability tells us: a cool Driver isn't someone who makes connections or gets hung up on other people. Notice what this ability doesn't tell us: whether its good or bad that a cool Driver lives their life like that.

The player of the Driver might be out to prove that it's not like they own me or nothing! Because the player probably wants to get rid of the debuff. But the player doesn't have to admire his/her character. Maybe s/he feels sorry for them! Or maybe we can look at the Driver like we do Shane - it's great when they come into town and help the little folk deal with the oppressors; it's a shame that they can never form bonds and settle down. Or maybe something else.

(2) In BW, Elves accrue Grief (which is a rated attribute the same as Speed, Will, Perception, Agility, etc) based on the experiences they have. There is a table of experiences: roughly, the more suffering the Elf witnesses or undergoes, and the more they depart from their own values and commitments, the more their Grief increases. Sometimes (it's a highly rationed ability) an Elf can call on their Grief to give a bonus to a check - but this in itself tends to increase their Grief.

Is an Elf who draws on their Grief admirable or regrettable? Is this "giving in", or is it "giving back as good as the Elves have got"? As an Elf player, do you want to keep your Grief low, or do you let it grow?

The game doesn't dictate an answer.​

What does Vincent Baker (designer of AW) think is the truth about human intimacy? I don't know, beyond what I can infer from the fact that he seems to have been in a long-term relationship/marriage (?). What does Luke Crane (designer of BW) think is the proper role of grief, and grief-induced rage, in human affairs? I don't know. But I know that he can design a game that gives voice to Tolkienesque ideas better than any other I know!

I'm not saying these games, or these designers, are perfect. (I know that Crane lost his position with Kickstarter due to his professional affiliation with Adam Koebel.) I think BW, in particular, has some gendered elements in its framing which run pretty close to the line if they don't cross over it - and it's interesting to see some changes in this respect in the most recent version. But I don't think anyone is going to read these games and think that Vincent Baker is advocating that we all should be cool Drivers, or that Luke Crane is cool with slavery or gender inequalities or unbridled grief-fuelled rage.

 

[Cadence]

But I think a game that focused on a military campaign to wipe out Mind Flayers or Neogi might be distasteful (at least) because of the way it implies the permissibility of genocidal violence, and of widespread ecological violence as well perhaps.

Again speaking just for myself, this is yet another reason why I prefer FRPGing to be focused on the situation - the call to action that confronts the protagonists - rather than on the world. Let me fight this demon without worrying so much about the moral meaning of wishing the end of all demons everywhere; or if I'm playing a non-heroic PC, let me focus on this moment of criminality without worrying about the moral meaning of criminality as such.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes - "The Survivors". For those who haven't seen it but want the spoiler quote, google: Kevin Uxbridge you don't understand

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is not with the orc as inherently evil servicer race. The problem is with the orc as a sapient, free willed being we then cast in the role of Savage (noble or otherwise) and slaughter wantonly. The orc as "demon" is just that, but the orc as "other" is highly problematic.

My inclination is to say that there is nothing wrong with creating a stock enemy species, servant of the dark lord for your game, but due to the cultural baggage associated with orcs, goblins and others, it is best to make that thing out of whole cloth, free of the associations noted in the OP.

Forgive me if this is rehashing: The way I see it is, there is "nothing new under the Sun" is the problem here. As an example, what color is the skin of your newly made up evil servitor race? I guess you could say "bright blue" and you're OK, but essentially whatever characteristics the thing has, they will probably evoke someone in the real world. That is someone's stereotype of someone else will share some element of it. @Cadence says 'make it a chest burster', and that is a strategy that I do think works. Yet it obviously can seem pretty limited!

Obviously the other answers amount to 'provide sufficient nuance to undermine any negative stereotype'. This seems to be the strategy being followed by most game companies in their products. It is helpful and a good idea, but it is always in danger of falling short in the eyes of someone. So there is always going to have to be a set of issues around who will tolerate what and where to draw lines. It won't ever go away.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, and this is my main point, can we agree that we should absolutely care if the concept of an elf was based on the Picts more than a thousand years ago? The concept and idea of an elf today is so far removed, both in time and subject, to what it was back then that it should absolutely not matter. The parallels that people draw between some species in fantasy sometimes are tied to groups that are still minorities today and suffer from it, or come from a somewhat recent reinvention (orcs, elves, etc), but talking about picts seems like borderline insanity to me.

I think we do have to care when people distort this history, or selectively interpret it, in order to support racist agendas and such, yes. I don't see your example here being something that D&D is doing in a NEGATIVE direction, but interestingly it seems to me that elves are a stereotyped examplar of racial PERFECTION as imagined by European whites. Certainly they come off that way. JRRT's elves are fair skinned, often golden-haired, tall, super intelligent, physically immortal, and otherwise possessed of various highly positive traits. They are also associated with the West, put in opposition to orcs, which he explicitly calls out as a proxy for 'mongolians', etc.

So, the origin of the idea of elves could well be something we want to explore, and something we want to understand and not allow to be co-opted. Lest anyone consider this kind of co-opting unlikely, you merely need to look at the myths about the Roman Empire which have been built up in Europe over the past 4 centuries which drastically distort its racial identity, attitudes, literature, etc. and have been used to buttress a lot of racial/cultural superiority ideology and justify a lot of colonialism. We should be careful to understand the cultural origins of our ideas.

 

[transmission89]

I think we do have to care when people distort this history, or selectively interpret it, in order to support racist agendas and such, yes. I don't see your example here being something that D&D is doing in a NEGATIVE direction, but interestingly it seems to me that elves are a stereotyped examplar of racial PERFECTION as imagined by European whites. Certainly they come off that way. JRRT's elves are fair skinned, often golden-haired, tall, super intelligent, physically immortal, and otherwise possessed of various highly positive traits. They are also associated with the West, put in opposition to orcs, which he explicitly calls out as a proxy for 'mongolians', etc.

So, the origin of the idea of elves could well be something we want to explore, and something we want to understand and not allow to be co-opted. Lest anyone consider this kind of co-opting unlikely, you merely need to look at the myths about the Roman Empire which have been built up in Europe over the past 4 centuries which drastically distort its racial identity, attitudes, literature, etc. and have been used to buttress a lot of racial/cultural superiority ideology and justify a lot of colonialism. We should be careful to understand the cultural origins of our ideas.

Again, he doesn't call them out as a proxy for mongolians at all. The reason for this "cultural baggage" is because people keep repeating this false assertion.

To be clear, there is a sense of imagery, an evoking “the other”. A then typical social bias, but this has already been mentioned when discussing external effects on work. But this is certainly not the same as saying this imaginary creature is a stand in or proxy for this specific group of peoples.

For those demanding of a more considered view: Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World

The Orcs as used in D&D fill that roll of a blank slate enemy where there is no implication of real human cultures. They are meant to be the solution to the problem being described.

EDIT: As a further aside to those that seek conclusions beyond connotations of the evils of the southern and eastern humans that were enslaved to Sauron’s will, I offer this quote of Samwise’ thoughts:

““It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that 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 or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.”

Hardly a passage written by someone who could only conclude that people of colour were irredeemably evil and that white is right etc. The only irredeemable are the orcs, for they are fully embraced to Sauron’s will, tied hopelessly and dependent to his evil machinations, for they are but instruments of his will:
“
[T]he creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.”

And further views of his opinions on ethnicities can also be found in his opinions on apartheid.