D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[Scott Christian]

For an entire race of humanoids or other mortal creatures? No, I can't get behind the idea of inherent evil. I have no problem with supernatural beings being inherently evil, though.

So, for the record, humanoids can't be inherently evil - but supernatural beings can?

Again, I have no problem with this. But there is an obvious bias here coming into play. It is as if supernatural beings can't have freewill, yet examples abound in D&D of just that. Therefore, can you see where one side of the debate might just decide to pull their rope a little in the mortal direction?

 

[Hussar]

So, for the record, humanoids can't be inherently evil - but supernatural beings can?

Again, I have no problem with this. But there is an obvious bias here coming into play. It is as if supernatural beings can't have freewill, yet examples abound in D&D of just that. Therefore, can you see where one side of the debate might just decide to pull their rope a little in the mortal direction?

That's a bit reductionist.

What do you mean by supernatural beings? After all, do Spectres and Wraiths have free will? Traditionally, no they don't. Ghosts are bound to a location and don't get to just carry on with normal life. And, typically no one has a problem with that.

But, AGAIN, it's not just "inherently evil" that's the problem. Why do people keep repeating this? That's not the issue and it should be really, really clear by now that that's not the issue. The issue HAS NEVER BEEN INHERENTLY EVIL BEINGS.

The issue is that we've described beings using language that clearly mirrors racist thinking. No one cares if a manticore is evil because manticores have never been a stand in for real world people. THERE IS ALWAYS TWO POINTS TOGETHER.

The two points that need to be kept together are:

1. Is this thing described as inherently evil/bad/nasty?

AND

2. Has that thing been described using language that mirrors language that has been applied to real world people?

 

[Cadence]

So, for the record, humanoids can't be inherently evil - but supernatural beings can?

Again, I have no problem with this. But there is an obvious bias here coming into play. It is as if supernatural beings can't have freewill, yet examples abound in D&D of just that. Therefore, can you see where one side of the debate might just decide to pull their rope a little in the mortal direction?

It feels like...

There are some that are fine with any particular creature/monster type being innately of a given alignment (and other creature types having each individual able to pick its alignment) depending on the campaign world.

There are some that would have all "humanoids", aka "people", treated the same as far as being able to choose their individual alignments.

There are others that say anything with free will should have freedom to choose it's own alignment.

And there are some that would get rid of intrinsic alignment altogether.

(And there are folks who would draw the lines in between those.)

 

[Faolyn]

If an entity made them evil, then that means they commit evil acts. Therefore, there is a motive to kill them. Evil = Evil, not Evil = Sometimes Good, Sometimes Evil. If a campaign is setup for a lot of grey area, great. No problem. But an entity making something evil means they are evil, no?

You misunderstand. There's no motive for the creature to be evil or do perform evil acts beyond "because I (the DM) say so." It's trite and boring, as well as being cartoonishly unrealistic, considering they are are otherwise just like any other people.

Give orcs a reason to perform evil acts.

 

[Faolyn]

So, for the record, humanoids can't be inherently evil - but supernatural beings can?

Again, I have no problem with this. But there is an obvious bias here coming into play. It is as if supernatural beings can't have freewill, yet examples abound in D&D of just that. Therefore, can you see where one side of the debate might just decide to pull their rope a little in the mortal direction?

It makes zero sense for a biological entity to be inherently evil. D&D humanoids are K-strategies, which means they have only one or a few young, which have a relatively longish maturation period and thus need to be cared for; they aren't r-strategists (unless you're using Space Fungus orcs instead of the typical D&D orcs). They need to eat and create tools and comfort objects like clothing, but they can't create it all themselves so they have to live in groups. They live in groups which means they need to be able to work in a group. They have societies, which means that they need to be able to work to keep the society stable or to improve it. If they were Always Evil, they would lack the ability to do any of the above for any period of time, and they would have died out ages ago, their evil having cause them to implode.

Supernatural creatures--fey, fiends, elementals, undead--are, in fact, supernatural. They are made of or animated by magic. They don't obey natural laws. Most of them don't have to reproduce; they are literally born out of their surroundings (lots of fey are created due to strong emotions and others seem to spring from nature itself, fiends are formed out of evil souls or directly created by more powerful fiends or gods, and most elementals seem to spring up from primal matter) and even those who do reproduce (like vampires, some fey, and some fiends) generally do so for either emotional reasons or to create minions, not because they are trying to keep their species in existence. Most of them either don't need to eat or have the type of diet where it doesn't pay to work with others to satisfy, because they need something like blood. Many of them are also immortal, or close to it, and as such they don't think like humanoids do. Heck, in many ways, there aren't even true "races" of supernatural beings. Statblocks aside, it's pretty fair to say that each demon is its own entity and is unrelated to any other demon, even if they have the same statblock--after all, they don't share a common ancestor since one could have come from a larva formed by an evil human on Toril and the other could have been created by a bored demon prince using a soul that he stole from a hapless good-aligned gnome from Oerth.

So yeah. I'm sure there are plenty of examples non-evil supernatural beings. But that's completely different than what I'm talking about.

 

[Irlo]

I would like to say something here about structure. When writing a race, D&D uses a format. It has for a very long time. Every other RPG does as well. Other types of writers use this also. It is also the same format that authors of dissertations use. It is the same format that science writers use. It is literally in every chapter of any non-fiction book out there.
The writer starts with a summary. This summary tries to encapsulate what they are about to explain. That is where the writer would use savage or primitive. Then they could explain those other things in organized descriptions, such as sacrificing would go under religion and property would be under communities.
If everything was just a list, and not in a more narrative form, then I doubt there would ever be a problem.

Sure, that makes sense. You're saying that we wouldn't use the terms in isolation and in writing up a monster, or presenting it to the players, we'd use more specific details to provide a more accurate picture of the creatures and cultures in question. I maintain that the much more important pieces are those details, not the label of primitive or savage, and that it's important to know what you want to convey with those words. I completely agree that the format of a monster manual entry gives room for all that information.

 

[Irlo]

Logically that could denote people using primitive tools, but it certainly instantly sounds way more questionable!

Hmm... "Our interstellar survey drones report that the primitive humanoids on Arctos IV have recently mastered metalworking." I guess there could be contexts in which it would not sound utterly terrible (still rather patronising), but most of the time it probably would.

Though "primitive humans" tends to refer to earlier evolutionary stages or offshoots of the humans, so I guess "primitive elves" would be some sort of distinct species of proto-elves, and not just elves that use primitive tools...

[Edit: I realize from a reply that I failed to clearly express my intended message here. I might try again tomorrow.]

Interesting! For me, primitive (applied to people or cultures) definitely brings up a lot of other images and information, a lot of it contradictory, and only a subset of that revolves around the tools and tech that they use. I expect that woud be true for others, too, but I'm willing to say I might be wrong in that. When an RPG presents creatures as primitive, I don't just think spears.

I think* about language, lifestyle, social structure and government, family units, religion and superstition, and knowledge of the world at large -- all stuff that relates to the people. Just as primitive tools are lesser than advanced ones, the same applies to all those other aspects of the people -- they are less than, not as developed, at a lower stage. Where other societies have deeply hold advanced religious beliefs, the primitive folk have superstition. I'd like to do away with that baggage and show how fantasy cultures, like real life human ones, have different development (not less development).

*Think isn't even accruate. It's all called to mind unbidden. It's all wrapped up in what I have learned though badly taught history and sociology and pop culture.

 

[Scribe]

I think* about language, lifestyle, social structure and government, family units, religion and superstition, and knowledge of the world at large -- all stuff that relates to the people. Just as primitive tools are lesser than advanced ones, the same applies to all those other aspects of the people -- they are less than, not as developed, at a lower stage. Where other societies have deeply hold advanced religious beliefs, the primitive folk have superstition. I'd like to do away with that baggage and show how fantasy cultures, like real life human ones, have different development (not less development).

I dont think about ANY of this.

I think low tech, low development, probably hunter/gatherer. You can certainly extrapolate stuff from there if you wanted to...but family? Government? Religion? No way.

And to imply that Religion will be lesser just because tech is? That family would be lesser? Why? Especially in a fantasy world, why? I mean heck, lets look at our oh so great and advanced present day society.

EDIT: Take literally ANY mythology you want, from our history, and contrast that with today. How did all those primitive people fare now?

Hows Religion and Family doing today in the west?

 

[Irlo]

I dont think about ANY of this.

I think low tech, low development, probably hunter/gatherer. You can certainly extrapolate stuff from there if you wanted to...but family? Government? Religion? No way.

And to imply that Religion will be lesser just because tech is? That family would be lesser? Why? Especially in a fantasy world, why? I mean heck, lets look at our oh so great and advanced present day society.

Hows Religion and Family doing today in the west?

I am now very sure I didn’t communicate my thoughts at all clearly. I’m not advocating those interpretations. I might try again tomorrow, but for now I’m retracting my comments.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok, having took a step back and a deep breath, let me see if I can make my point without getting up on a soapbox and making everyone feel defensive. I'm trying here. Whether I succeed or not remains to be seen and, since this is going to be a bit lengthy and personal, I beg your indulgence.

Thank you.

I totally get the response over things like "savage" or "primitive". It's a perfectly reasonable response. "I don't mean it in a racist way at all and I'm using the word properly, what's the problem here?" is a 100% understandable and reasonable position to take. I get that. And getting annoyed when someone accuses you, even obliquely, of being culturally insensitive or even outright racist, is, again, perfectly understandable. I really don't think anyone was being racist when they coined "Savage Sword of Conan" even in the slightest.

But, and here's the but, it really doesn't matter what the intent is. When you've been on the receiving end of poor treatment for years and years and years (or generations even), whether someone intends to be racist or not doesn't really look any different. If people continuously tread on your toes, after a while, whether it's an accident or not doesn't change the fact that it bloody well hurts.

I totally get this. But I also think it's important to rise above that. It's still not okay to let things that hurt us turn us into the a-hole. I'm sure you agree there.

Bear with me a moment and see if I can make this really clear with a personal annecdote. I've lived in Asia most of my adult life. Many years ago, I lived in South Korea for about five years. While I lived there, it was a very common occurrence that, upon seeing a foreigner (and, at over six feet tall and ... built for comfort shall we say... I do stand out in a crowd) people would begin screaming "Hello" at you at the top of their lungs. I'm not talking about children mind you. These were 20 and 30 something individuals who thought it was the height of humor to shout hello at me. Repeatedly. From across the street sometimes. Until you were out of sight.

Now, the first time it happened, it was kinda funny. I laughed, said hello back and moved on. The third time it happened it was less funny. The three hundredth time it happened it was about as funny as a kidney punch and I had to constantly (and unsuccessfully sometimes) rein myself in and not begin screaming back in their faces. It soured me so much on the country to the point that I started dreading leaving my apartment because I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I would have to run the gauntlet of screaming people EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Were these people racists? Nope. They weren't doing it to hurt me. They weren't malicious. They were completely oblivious to my feelings, frankly. When I asked my adult students about this, they were shocked that it bothered me. Why should it bother me? They were just being friendly. I should just sack up and not complain. I was the problem.

IMO, it sounds to me like they hadn't really stopped to consider that their version of being friendly really wasn't very friendly and some of that is because they didn't take the time to think about the interaction beyond 'this single time' and how it would be essentially always experiencing that kind of 'friendliness'.

But calling them bad names or going off on them... nothing like that helps the situation - it just makes you into the a-hole. (not saying you're doing that, just using this as an example).

THAT'S what othering is. That's why these sorts of things, like the language used in the game are so important. It's not about you. It's not about intentions. It's about the fact that for far, far too long, people were completely oblivious to the harm they were doing. Not maliciously. Not intentionally. But, again, when you're on the receiving end, over and over and over again, intent stops mattering very much. You just want it to stop.

IMO, the solution there is to rationally discuss whether some particular behavior is a problem. Sometimes the problem is us and how we take something and other times the problem is actually what was said or done. In your example it's blatantly obvious after any amount of thinking that what you were experiencing was actually problem due to the always occuring nature of the experience.

But, you can't just shout 'that's a problem, you must stop'. That makes you the a-hole. It's much harder to have the discussion in a kind and respectable manner and rationally explain why something is a problem for you (sometimes you may not even be able to articulate it well). But that's the only good way to handle it.

Now, I've waffled on far too long, but, hopefully folks can read this and maybe understand why this is important. It's not about punishment or calling out bad behavior. It really doesn't matter. It's about making it stop. It's about stopping hurting people. And that's what things like the orc descriptions and all the other largely until very recently, unexamined elements of the genre are all about. It's about wanting to be a part of the community while at the same time wanting that community to stop hurting me.

Can we have the discussion about whether such issues are actually a problem and if so point out why they are, while taking the time to seriously answer the counterpoints? Or am I stuck always hearing 'that is bad, you must stop' on repeat forever?