D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Scott Christian]

The problem with species being "inherently evil" is they can also be PCs. Inherently evil creatures are fine, see undead and fiends. Just don't let players choose them.

The problem is, many options presented as 'always evil' like orcs are player options. And as a rule I don't think players should be forced to be one alignment with their character.

Gnolls however are the alternate side to this. They have demon blood apparently making them 'always evil', and as a result are not a playable species. Though I do see people asking for playable gnolls on a regular basis.

I agree with these. But it should be made clear that players, on an increasing basis, do choose to be these. I mean, in second edition I had a player choose to be a githyanki. In 4e I had a player choose to be undead and another a gnoll. In all cases we made them the exception. The Drizzt style of play. In all cases, they had backstories that broke them from their "inherently evil" ways. Again, just an observation.

But what you two suggest is the issue: a player having the choice of that "inherently evil" species.

Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?" Dragons fly. Wizards stay alive forever. I mean grimlocks exist, right? They were once regular humans who took their cultism too far.

The problem is that one is wielding the magic as an excuse to advance a racist concept: that an entire people is deserving of violence. That's why we label groups 'inherently' evil after all, but in and out of game: in order to make it okay to hurt them, enslave them, take from them.

That is not at all, not even in the slightest, what anyone is trying to do in this discussion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

True evil is not just outwardly calm and rational-sounding to justify terrible, atrocious ideas. They are also crazy acting people brought up to hurt other people. They are dim-witted and quick to respond with violent outbursts. I think we can agree, in real life (that you brought up), "true evil" comes in many forms.

I disagree. (Shocker, right?)

The individuals who do crazy "evil" things, whether due to mental illness or to natural vulnerability of the human mind to manipulation...or some combination of both...are just the surface manifestations of evil. If evil is the disease, those people are just the pustules on the skin. The real evil resides in the people who knowingly planted the ideas that festered and rotted and grew and persuaded those individuals to go do evil things.

 

[Xamnam]

Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?"

It could. It's just not that fun, or enjoyable, or engaging, or interesting, for a lot of people. It's quite inherently one note. Anything you need something like this for can be done with a subset group instead of the entirety of a species. Not to mention when there is society or free will involved, how illogical or contradictory it can get.

You might want to read this thread instead. This is pretty far afield for the topic at hand.

 

[Yaarel]

There is no such thing as "inherently Evil".

Part of what makes Evil Evil, is the possibility of choosing to do Good. Evil requires freewill and free choice.

Without free will, it isnt really Evil. It is Unaligned.



Even devils arent actually "evil", they are nonhumans that lack freewill, and automatically mirror the evil that humans do. The more evil humans choose to do, the more dangerous the devils become. Oppositely, the more good humans do, the less evil the devils become. When humans do extreme and sustainable good, it is even possible for the devils to transform and start doing good.



There is a tradition about "hot hate" (raging, brutal) and "cold hate" (intellectually dehumanizing, callous), and the worst Evil is when these two kinds of hate coordinate together.

 

[Mistwell]

If I understand you:

Elf is the "Creature Type".

Humanoid happens to be its ... "Supertype" ... that comes along with it when one chooses Elf?

yes

 

[glass]

Yet, it does not address the claim: Why can't magic be the reason a species is "inherently evil?"

Because the problems with inherently evil species are doylist, and cannot be addressed with a watsonian answer. Magic does not exist in the real world, and therefore cannot be the answer to real-world issues.

 

[Scribe]

What's going to cut it is a careful and conscientious writing that avoids racist tropes and thinking. There's no easy fix or formulaic approach that will produce that result.

Which is why the write up for Orcs in MotM is what it is, in comparison to Volo's.

 

[Hriston]

Which is why the write up for Orcs in MotM is what it is, in comparison to Volo's.

I haven't read either of those so can't comment, but it's good to know an effort has been made in this direction.

 

[Scribe]

I haven't read either of those so can't comment, but it's good to know an effort has been made in this direction.

It's generic, safe, and paints Orcs only in a positive light.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's generic, safe, and paints Orcs only in a positive light.

If it is the case, calling them monsters (of the multiverse) quite insulting and Mordenkainen must be low-int to include orcs in the book. Or maybe he's just baselessly prejudiced against orcs?