D&D 5E Are some cultures ("races") predisposed to violence?

[GlassJaw]

I've been following along (as much as I can) the numerous discussions on WotC's recent statements. For the record, I'm in favor of anything that makes the game more inclusive and welcoming for everyone at the table.

The main question I have is whether a culture of sentient beings (or "race" for lack of a better term) - like orcs and goblins - can be inherently predisposed to violence or more warlike than another culture? I don't believe that humans are by nature predisposed to inflict pain and kill for "fun". Same goes for racism. Racism is taught. It's the age-old nature vs nurture argument.

But can a society as a whole inherently inherently believe and teach certain beliefs generation after generation? Absolutely yes. Again, why does racism exist? Why do traditions vary from country to country? Why are some people devoutly religious and some atheist? It's all nurture.

If that's the case, why can't a culture like orcs be taught from a very young age that only the strong survive, use violence to get what you want, and that humans mean to do us harm? The orcs in a particular region may have been tormented and attacked by humans for generations because of their appearance, way of life, or simply because of ignorance and fear. But because of that, orcs are now taught to fear and hate humans on sight. They may even engage in or plot open war against humans. Same with drow. Drow society is matriarchal and they have no qualms about enslaving other sentient races. They believe they are superior. They also believe it's ok to use force and violence to take what you want, even from other drow.

Now while that may be the norm for most of a species, I fully support that it doesn't have to be universal. The question then becomes how are those differences communicated? Is it in the flavor text or stat block in the Monster Manual? Or is is setting-specific? Do we completely detach species from culture? Since the beginning, D&D has mostly NOT done that.

However, as far as fantasy creatures go, I do believe there is a place for the concept of "evil" - demons, devils, dragons, mind flayers, beholders, etc. Creatures that have intent and desire to inflict pain, suffering, and enslavement other sentient creatures. Their thinking and belief systems of these creatures is completely alien to our way of thinking so it's easy to use the concept of "evil" to comprehend their actions.

 

[Phion]

To be honest your post highlights why alignments for races should be removed. By your logic this is behaviour which is taught over generations and a belief system and therefore a race can not be inherently evil, just led astray.

Whereas my argument would be can a race of humanoid not be twisted by nature (when the cause itself is to do with an evil entity)?

In regards to your post however another interesting question is raised that correlates with the "did the chicken come before the egg" scenario. Did the evil races become evil through nature (by design) or nurture (Gods led the race to believe they were evil by design and it was reinforced by fear and reward)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The orcs in a particular region may have been tormented and attacked by humans for generations because of their appearance, way of life, or simply because of ignorance and fear. But because of that, orcs are now taught to fear and hate humans on sight. They may even engage in or plot open war against humans.

In that case, who is evil? The orcs? The humans? Both? Neither?

I find it hard to ascribe evil to culture; arguably, saying a humanoid "race" (in D&D terms) is innately evil due to "magic" or "creation of Deity" is better, IMO, than saying they are evil because they grew up all evil-like.

 

[Oofta]

I suspect this thread will be shut down in short order, but I think saying any humanoid race has violent tendencies is just as bad, if not worse than saying that they're always evil.

Let me try to explain. I view gnolls (so as not to pick on orcs) as a different species altogether. They act different, think different, they are not a "naturally evolved" creature. They were created by a hateful god and all they want to do is destroy. I'm okay with that, they serve a purpose in the game.

But the more I humanize them, the more they become a stand-in for some human ethnicity. If the differences between a gnoll and a human is large enough, it's obvious they aren't meant to represent any living human. Close that gap? Suddenly that exceptional good gnoll is the exception that proves the rule. "Gnolls are vicious animals, criminals and rapists. Some, I assume, are good."

If you say that some MM races are prone to violence, to me that sounds even closer to racist tropes than "always evil". Might as well start to call them super predators.

If we turn around and ascribe evil or violence to a particular region or religion, it's just as much a mine field.

I like having the option of simplified conflict of good vs evil, just like we have simplified AC, HP, ability scores and so on.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

This certainly reads as a re-prosecution of a question asked in two threads we just closed. When we close threads, the discussion should be dropped for a while.

So, thread closed.