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

[FrogReaver]

Yes. I agree. I like your examples much better, and I think they give the DM much more to work with. But RPG books are written in a weird expository/narrative format, much like nonfiction books by the likes of Malcolm Gladwell, David Epstein, Bill Bryson, etc. It is difficult to not summarize using singular adjectives.

Perhaps the conclusion is to change how rpg books are written? There’s no reason that style needs to be used if removing it bridges this gap even a little IMO

 

[Scott Christian]

Perhaps the conclusion is to change how rpg books are written? There’s no reason that style needs to be used if removing it bridges this gap even a little IMO

It is a thought. But this is how the public likes to, for a lack of a better word, ingest the information. It is not as dry as a textbook, yet still manages to instruct and codify. And no offense to D&D, but there is no way they are going to lead. This type of writing works well for them, so there is no need to change it.
The only thing I can think of is designing the writing so it is in 95% table form. Make everything about races a table and suddenly it becomes okay.

 

[Scribe]

Make everything about races a table and suddenly it becomes okay.

No, please.

 

[Faolyn]

Thanks for clarifying your stance. It is appreciated.

I guess I need to clarify mine as well. When I said examples exist, I was talking about fallen angels. They are created to be guardians of good. Yet, there are stories where they chose differently. Or the story of the succubus, that actually fell in love, and then decided to turn against his creator and protect the human village. That was my reference. Sorry if it was unclear.

If you're talking about real world religion/mythology... well, those stories aren't generally edited for internal cohesiveness. But that's as much as we'll talk about that on this forum. If you're talking about events in a gaming book, look at the numbers here. A creature can be made of evil (or good) and still eventually turn to good (or evil). But in D&D, it's notoriously rare, and often the result of external influences rather than internal ones. And the only question is if the creature remains an angel/demon/whatever or transforms into something else (Zariel is a fiend and not a celestial, for instance).

 

[Faolyn]

I guess we have different definitions for evil -- which is fine, since I was convinced that "good" and "evil" in universe are aligned to the morality of the group of players, not the setting's moral tennets. Therefore, no two groups will agree on the definition. I don't see "tool creations" and "caring for young" as exclusive of evil. You can be extremely evil and able to function (a real life evil mafia member can be a very nice family person despite being a crime lord). On the other hand, a biological race with an instinctive urge to eat other young sentient beings (not their own young, but other species's young) would certainly qualify as inherently evil (if the tables' consensus is that eating children is evil, which isn't a far-fetched hypothesis).

Being extremely evil isn't the same as being inherently evil, and it's certainly not the same as being a member of an inherently evil race. "Mafia" is a group, not a biological entity unto itself. Certainly, there are many humans who engage in awful, awful behavior. But they don't do so because they are humans. If a fantasy race is (a) intelligent and (b) has an instinctive urge to eat the young of other intelligent beings, then that would very likely be a sign of being inherently evil--but in D&D, such a creature would also not likely be a humanoid; they'd probably be typed as monstrosities, aberrations, or possibly even fey.

 

[Fifth Element]

What you are doing is hurting me. Will you stop?

Only if it's plausible that you could actually be hurt in the sense being discussed here. Which, in this case, it is not. So 'no' is my answer.

Your response was very reductionist. You can claim that me saying "I like ice cream" hurts you. You could claim it about anything. We are not obliged to take every claim seriously. Saying that taking certain claims seriously is bad because then we'd have to take all claims seriously is a slippery slope argument, and therefore an invalid one. Equating you being singled out for your specific behaviour to groups of people who are demonstrably marginalized with language is a false equivalence, and therefore an invalid argument.

And if you don't know enough about the subject in question to know whether a claim of harm is plausible or not at the outset, that's not really anyone's problem but your own.

 

[Scribe]

You could claim it about anything. We are not obliged to take every claim seriously.

Indeed.

 

[Faolyn]

Could you give examples of inherently evil reasons? Or are all those reasons external, such as resource scarcity, xenophobia, etc.?

I literally can't think of inherently evil reasons that don't boil down to the DM/author making it so.

You could try to use some biology to justify unpleasant behaviors. For instance, you could say that orcs are "evolved from" a fierce predator species (inasmuch as any D&D humanoid evolved from anything else) and are obligate carnivores. That would justify fierce or even violent behaviors... but even real-life solitary carnivorous animals like tigers aren't evil, and a social creature (like an orc would have to be) will still have to get along with others, at least others of its own kind, and they likely won't view every other intelligent creature as potential food.

Best I can think of is some sort of disease, like a rage zombie virus, that causes the infected to become ravening murderers but also causes the infected to not want to attack each other. Diseases and parasites are weird like that, so it's plausible. But if you decide that this disease only affects orcs, then you're back to DM fiat and trite motivations for evil. If you did this as an actual pandemic and any, or nearly any, race can become infected... then you have an AEKOS group without being having an AEKOS race.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You could try to use some biology to justify unpleasant behaviors. For instance, you could say that orcs are "evolved from" a fierce predator species (inasmuch as any D&D humanoid evolved from anything else) and are obligate carnivores. That would justify fierce or even violent behaviors... but even real-life solitary carnivorous animals like tigers aren't evil, and a social creature (like an orc would have to be) will still have to get along with others, at least others of its own kind, and they likely won't view every other intelligent creature as potential food.

Right. And these are the sort of things I like to think when creating/detaining intelligent species, and it tends to lead to far more interesting places than just 'LOL evil!'

 

[Cadence]

I literally can't think of inherently evil reasons that don't boil down to the DM/author making it so.

You could try to use some biology to justify unpleasant behaviors. For instance, you could say that orcs are "evolved from" a fierce predator species (inasmuch as any D&D humanoid evolved from anything else) and are obligate carnivores. That would justify fierce or even violent behaviors... but even real-life solitary carnivorous animals like tigers aren't evil, and a social creature (like an orc would have to be) will still have to get along with others, at least others of its own kind, and they likely won't view every other intelligent creature as potential food.

Best I can think of is some sort of disease, like a rage zombie virus, that causes the infected to become ravening murderers but also causes the infected to not want to attack each other. Diseases and parasites are weird like that, so it's plausible. But if you decide that this disease only affects orcs, then you're back to DM fiat and trite motivations for evil. If you did this as an actual pandemic and any, or nearly any, race can become infected... then you have an AEKOS group without being having an AEKOS race.

Evil doesn't necessarily mean fierce predator though, does it? Aren't Kingpin and Lex Luthor in the comics; the bad guys in power rangers; and the crooks in the Home Alone movies evil in the sense they'll kill and destroy to get what they want -- and yet they still work with others when it suits them? Although I'm not sure why an entire species would evolve to be like that.