Do you use "evil" races?

[Arnwyn]

For us, it's archtypes and stereotypes all the way. IMO, what some describe as "breaking the mould" is in fact lazy roleplaying, resulting in humans with pointy ears/short humans/bearded stout humans.

I agree with #2 - I see it as a misguided effort to generate variety.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Raising your own young is an act of neutrality. They are an extention of your own flesh. Your own desires are what cause you to nuture your children. To raise them in a way that would benifit others would be "good" [helpfull, generous]. To raise them in a way that would cost others would be evil [bullying, thieving, sceaming]

To raise the very young, yours or not, requires empathy. Empathy can be missing in individuals, who go through the motions of raising their children anyway out of fear of the rest of societies empathy, but there must be a hardwired instinct in a majority of a species not to hurt soft big eyed things in order for a race with babies to reproduce.

I say a race with babies because I would consider an inherently evil race which reproduced without significant investment and no need to interact with the offspring. Insectoid, parasitic, genetic memory, whatever. There was a weird race in Minions by Bastion Press that reproduced by 'seeding' men with their own reproductive matter, which produced new members of their race in any woman the man then impregnated. Inherently evil? Sure, knock yourself out. but no mammals.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

For us, it's archtypes and stereotypes all the way. IMO, what some describe as "breaking the mould" is in fact lazy roleplaying, resulting in humans with pointy ears/short humans/bearded stout humans.

I agree with #2 - I see it as a misguided effort to generate variety.

Having to play a person instead of a race or being forced to interact with others as people rather than races is lazy? If it works for you, I have nothing to say good or bad about you perfering it. But this thread has survived fairly far without insults to other's perfered game play, I'm disapointed that you want to start that.

Kahuna burger

 

[Centaur]

Stereotypes

It all comes down to Stereotypes. The standard archtypes and templates in the book present a good baseline.

As a general rule, I assume that Orcs are Chaotic Evil through a combination of genetic influences and Cultural influences. Elves are Good for the very same reason.

There will always be exceptions to the rule however. I like to change it up a bit. In the campaign I am running, there is a continent spanning empire that covers all the known "Civilised lands" including those of the Orcs.

In the lands of Aberon, are doesnes of Barronies that are run much like small kingdomes, however there are 10 major baronies. 7 Ruled by humans, One By Dwarves, One by Elves and One By Orcs. Orcs play a prominent role in the Armies of the Empire as shock troops because of their inherint Agression and Bad temperment. But they are never used as an occupational force or for surgical strikes.

I use the concept that good and evil are a point of view of cultural reference. Unfortunatly, much of the time, even here on earth, that cultural reference is created and reinforced by religious doctorine.

Of couse that doesn't work as the Standard D&D rules are layed out, as it would seem that evil is a universal standard and somehow linked to a cosmicly detectable medium.

 

[Desdichado]

But we digress.

Yes, we do. And you still haven't addressed what I consider to be the main point of my argument.

 

[Camarath]

My purpose is to discuss the second. The various fantasy race archetypes have ALL been based on exaggerated human traits. Tolkien's work is the easiest to use as example.
The elves are nature loving and aware of the spiritual aspects of creation.
Dwarves are motivated by honor, duty, and personal development through craftsmanship (although this archetype has changed from ancient folklore where dwarves were evil).
Orcs represent hate of all that is good. They despise the beauty in creation and seek to corrupt it, representing rebellion.

My problem with fantasy literature changing these archetypes is that it diminishes the genre. Once you have good orcs and evil elves, you have lost the uniqueness of these character races. Essentially you get humans with ugly faces or pointy ears instead of orcs and elves.

Hmm.. so since orcs and goblins are elves (their decendants at least) in Tolkens world, you think that their nature is pristinely evil wile elves are the incarnation of goodness. So thats why the Noldor slaughtered their brethren, stole their ships, and left Valinor. If archetypes never changed in fantasy literature, elves would still be small trickster fey huanting the unknown. Let's not even start about the fantasy archetypes that have been disregarded or changed beyond recognition by D&D (kobolds...reptilian???). Change can be good or bad but it is nessecary.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Do you use "evil" races?

Hmm.. so since orcs and goblins are elves (their decendants at least) in Tolkens world

OK, that's a pet peeve of mine. The elves absolutely are not the descendents of elves in Tolkien's world. That misunderstanding only came about from an offhand comment in the Silmarillion, a book which is a mismatched pastiche created not by JRR Tolkien but by his son Christopher before he had really read many of his father's notes and understood where he was going with the M-e mythology.

You want the real origin of orcs in Tolkien's world, you need to read the essay "Myths Transformed" in War of the Jewels in which Tolkien gives us the real skinny on their origins.

 

[Camarath]

Re: Re: Re: Do you use "evil" races?

The elves absolutely are not the descendents of elves in Tolkien's world.

 

[Camarath]

"Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utummo was broken, were put in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrutped and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the betterest foes."

Off hand or direct, what is the differance. You should know that there is no absolut consistency in Tolkien's mythology. I feel completly justifed in my assertion that Orks are decendants of elves as you should in your assertion that they are not. Tolkien may have changed his mind on the orign of orcs, form elves to men, but that does not resolve all the inconsistencies that go along with the change. This is not the only area Tolkien changed his mind or developed conflicting myths. We are dealing with a back story which Tolkien developed and changed over a long period of time and did not publish or correlate himself. I think the transitive nature of Tolkien's mythology is as good an argument for changing archetypes as any other.

 

[DreamChaser]

How is a mosquito any different to a yuan-ti?

On a basic level, because a yuan-ti could survive without enslaving other races and expanding their empire but a mosquito cannot live without drinking blood from other creatures.

Mind you, I think of yuan-ti as carnivores and so for them to kill meat to survive is not evil...for them to kill a sentient creature for food would be...they don't need sentient meat but they choose it out preference.

A mosquito is a parasite, and thus does not intend to kill. Ever. Only in swarms (and unintentionally) would a mosquito ever kill and in those situations they would not conscously choose a target. The victim would be incidental.

DC