Evil Socities in DnD

[Elf Witch]

In the heated sexism thread the drow were brought up as an example of misandry.


What I am wondering is it bad to have an evil society where misandry, misogyny, torture, sacrifice and racism exist? Is having societies like this in game settings basically saying any of the above are okay?

My opinion is that it is does not do that because the good characters and societies view these acts with horror and something to be stopped.

Do they belong at all in official settings? Are they to controversial or off putting and should be kept out of anything official and left to individual DMs and their gaming groups?

If you think it should be kept out then how do you suggest official setting handle the idea of evil and evil societies?

I am truly interested in this so lets keep this civil and remember that there is no right answer just opinions.

 

[Alzrius]

No. Discussing/portraying something does not mean that you are promoting/honoring it. There's nothing wrong with having evil in your game.

I'll go one step further and say that there's nothing wrong with playing evil in your game, either. My belief is that there's a strong dividing line between fantasy and reality, and a character's actions do not necessarily reflect the mindset/beliefs of the player in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Yora]

Can you put it into a setting? Sure, it happens in movies, novels, tv shows, and theatre plays all the time and it makes for some good stories. And playing evil is basically the same as writing evil. You can be stupid about both.

But would that be a smart move for WotC? I don't think so, since they are a company mostly producing kids games and are owned by a kids toy company.
I think it can be handled well enough to mention evil things and remind new DMs that those are options they could consider for their campaign if they want to. But that's how far I would go in their position.

As a small self-publishing indy company that gets their starting capital from kickstarter it's a completely different thing though.

 

[Dausuul]

I certainly don't regard the inclusion of drow in D&D as any kind of endorsement of misandry, slavery, the murder of sapient beings, or all the other nasty stuff drow do. They are explicitly presented as Bad Guys. Bad Guys do Bad Stuff, that's what makes them Bad.

I do think it's a little bit disturbing that the iconic "evil version of a PC race" society is matriarchal and dark-skinned.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In the heated sexism thread the drow were brought up as an example of misandry.


What I am wondering is it bad to have an evil society where misandry, misogyny, torture, sacrifice and racism exist? Is having societies like this in game settings basically saying any of the above are okay?

My opinion is that it is does not do that because the good characters and societies view these acts with horror and something to be stopped.

Do they belong at all in official settings? Are they to controversial or off putting and should be kept out of anything official and left to individual DMs and their gaming groups?

If you think it should be kept out then how do you suggest official setting handle the idea of evil and evil societies?

I am truly interested in this so lets keep this civil and remember that there is no right answer just opinions.

Much of that is realistic. Sexism exists, and was worse way back when. Racism was so strong (it was called something else) people might hate people from the next door province, even though they have the same religion and (almost) the same language. Classism existed, as did slavery. A realistic setting might have all of those things.

There was an episode of Deep Space 9 way back when, where the crew visited a 1960s America in the holodeck. Captain Sisko was late to the party, and he was actually upset that there was no racism in the reenactment, saying it wasn't realistic.

HAVING SAID THAT, this kind of thing should never restrict PCs. In a setting like Game of Thrones, female warriors were extremely rare in most of the old kingdoms, but characters like Arya and Brienne (which came from such old kingdoms) exist. Sure, they're the exception, but they're important characters. If you have a setting where only men can be priests, a female PC can still be a cleric - she's a nun, or some similar title. Any PC is an important character and can "bypass" those rules.

NPCs (especially villains, like the above-mentioned drow) can behave badly, but players shouldn't be discouraged from playing character concepts (not for that reason, at least) and shouldn't be allowed to act like jerks, just because they decided their PC is "sexist" or what have you. Obviously one can take immersion too far; it might be realistic for a sexist NPC to refer to a female PC by a rude name, but it's probably not a good idea for the DM to RP the NPC in that much detail beyond "he's rude" or "it's obvious he's disdainful of women".

 

[Elf Witch]

Much of that is realistic. Sexism exists, and was worse way back when. Racism was so strong (it was called something else) people might hate people from the next door province, even though they have the same religion and (almost) the same language. Classism existed, as did slavery. A realistic setting might have all of those things.

There was an episode of Deep Space 9 way back when, where the crew visited a 1960s America in the holodeck. Captain Sisko was late to the party, and he was actually upset that there was no racism in the reenactment, saying it wasn't realistic.

HAVING SAID THAT, this kind of thing should never restrict PCs. In a setting like Game of Thrones, female warriors were extremely rare in most of the old kingdoms, but characters like Arya and Brienne (which came from such old kingdoms) exist. Sure, they're the exception, but they're important characters. If you have a setting where only men can be priests, a female PC can still be a cleric - she's a nun, or some similar title. Any PC is an important character and can "bypass" those rules.

NPCs (especially villains, like the above-mentioned drow) can behave badly, but players shouldn't be discouraged from playing character concepts (not for that reason, at least) and shouldn't be allowed to act like jerks, just because they decided their PC is "sexist" or what have you. Obviously one can take immersion too far; it might be realistic for a sexist NPC to refer to a female PC by a rude name, but it's probably not a good idea for the DM to RP the NPC in that much detail beyond "he's rude" or "it's obvious he's disdainful of women".

I happen to agree that you need these kind of things to add some realism to the game.

Personally I would only find an issue with any of this if there was no way for the PCs to over come it or work around it. Take a misogynist society where woman are not allowed to leave their home or be educated. I would only have an issue if the DM said no you can't have been secretly educated and you can't pretend to be a male and a warrior. Or if I was forced to play a male PC because there was no way to play a female PC.

Take the drow society men have it rough but they are playable as character race. I know Drizzit is often unpopular but he is an example of this.

The setting of Kingdom of Kalamar has some adult themes. Racism is common in Brandobia the human population for the most part hate elves and the elves hate them. They are on and off at war. And while you can certainly play a more opened minded person from there if done right it can be fun to play out that racism when exposed to other cultures. We had that in our game and it as interesting watching the human learn to work with the elf. Of course this requires mature gamers and everyone to be on the same page.

 

[Elf Witch]

I do think it's a little bit disturbing that the iconic "evil version of a PC race" society is matriarchal and dark-skinned.

How do you think would be the best way to do an evil race or society?

I know over the years there have been complaints about it being a dark skinned race and a matriarchal society. I wonder if they had been a pale skinned patriarchal society if that would have upset people as well? I think it might have.

I am not quite sure how to do it so it does not offend people. I have often thought about it but like I said have not come up with an answer.

 

[Elf Witch]

Can you put it into a setting? Sure, it happens in movies, novels, tv shows, and theatre plays all the time and it makes for some good stories. And playing evil is basically the same as writing evil. You can be stupid about both.

But would that be a smart move for WotC? I don't think so, since they are a company mostly producing kids games and are owned by a kids toy company.
I think it can be handled well enough to mention evil things and remind new DMs that those are options they could consider for their campaign if they want to. But that's how far I would go in their position.

As a small self-publishing indy company that gets their starting capital from kickstarter it's a completely different thing though.

So you don't think WOTC should use the drow society or do a new book like the book of ultimate evil?

I am not sure I agree that they should only be marketing towards children. Do you think maybe they should but ratings on their different books?

Take the Forgotten Realms with all the Underdark and drow society should that stuff be cut completely or should that setting book come with a rating and warning for parents?

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Evil sociates are fine what comes to rpg and other works of imagination.

That said, drow were never my favourite. It relates to fact it's more elf-love, and I have kinda been anti-elf since I read Forgotten Realm elves. For some reason elf-like sub-races/aliens seems to be common choice when doing "evil beautiful" race.

I kinda liked Gazetter's shadow elves.

There is also too much spider love and the fact that their powerful magic weapons that dissintigrate when you take them to sunlight (blatant balancing it against players), Also their "goddess" was weakling with only 66 hp.

Also I never got why they weren't pale skinned but have to have dark skin. I know there was story to that, but I don't think it was good enough. I would have flavored it differently.

Have used drow in some undermountain games years back. Work fine as enemies but players were really annoyed how loot from them worked.

I prefer to use mindflayers instead, or aboleths.
There is no such thing as good mindflyer either. For drow they made whole good god too. That was kinda final thing that ruined them.

And I used to have this dm/player who had thing for "lesbian, sadistic, evil, megalomaniac, perverted elfs" or goddesess or spell-casters. there were lot of drow in those games, and it kinda sucked. He was really creative and good dm as long as you kept him off his poisons.

So drow are kinda "blah". I am hoping to see "pretty" bad guy race that is not somehow elven-like.

 

[howandwhy99]

What I am wondering is it bad to have an evil society where misandry, misogyny, torture, sacrifice and racism exist? Is having societies like this in game settings basically saying any of the above are okay?

In relation to games, my answer to the first question is: no, it's not bad. But it does require care for how it's going to be presented. If you're going to include certain topics, then they need to be included during house rules. My preference is they are always treated as NPCs and the players are never put in the position of acting out hatred for fun.

Do they belong at all in official settings? Are they to controversial or off putting and should be kept out of anything official and left to individual DMs and their gaming groups?

These are risk decisions made by the publishers. Settings and adventures with different rating should be listed as such.