Evil Socities in DnD

[Elf Witch]

First off, I have no problem with them in the game and I do not think it promotes such things.

That said, the quoted statement may not be entirely true. What is "good" for society may not be "good" for the individual, which may result in some questionable outcomes. For example, a LG society may imprison and try to reform a clan of Orcs that has been marauding the region. Part of that process may be training them to live in a "proper" society. Forcing an imprisoned race to work (to learn the value of it) is not all that different than slavery, even if the cruelty is not there. Our own (Western) history is fraught with horrors brought on when we acting to bring civilization to the "savages".

(if it were simple, there would not be the 9 alignments of old)

Civilizing the savages is not what I had in mind when I said stopped.

I was thinking more along the lines of the dragon terrorizing villages and the PCs either slaying the dragon or driving him far away. Or going into the Underdark to rescue innocent captives who were taken to be sacrificed to Lloth.

Though stopping Orcs from raiding homesteads by teaching them to farm I don't see as taking their freedom away or making them no more than slaves.

 

[amerigoV]

Though stopping Orcs from raiding homesteads by teaching them to farm I don't see as taking their freedom away or making them no more than slaves.

The question becomes the methods used when the Orcs, evil to the core, do not take to "traditional" teaching methods. I just saying that there is not just one type of "good", therefore the methods of one extreme quadrant will not play well with the others.

 

[Elf Witch]

The question becomes the methods used when the Orcs, evil to the core, do not take to "traditional" teaching methods. I just saying that there is not just one type of "good", therefore the methods of one extreme quadrant will not play well with the others.

If they are evil to the core ,then since in DnD evil is a real thing, then stopping them by any means is the the right thing to do. It is like the old argument you come across a bunch of baby monsters who are always evil is it wrong to kill them before they have a chance to grow up and kill a bunch of innocents? I would say no that not taking care of the situation is making you partly responsible for all the evil they do.

Now I don't play DnD that way, with any sentient creature they can choose not to be the alignment that most of their race is.

Comparing Orcs who are evil with say the conflict with Native Americans and the homesteaders is not the same. There was no clear cut one side is good and one is evil in that conflict as a matter of fact you can say that about a lot of real world human conflicts.

But a lot of DnD conflicts are not this way. You can choose to run a game that good and evil are not tangible forces but that makes everything game specific.

 

[delericho]

I havn't read the 4th Edition version, but I think the 3rd Edition Book of Vile Darkness was an almost complete failure.

It's an odd one - it's one of my most-referred 3e books, but only because of the monsters - it serves as another Monster Manual. In terms of the actual material, it's a huge let-down.

They might even genuinely had the plan to get more mature and ambigous, but all they really did was release a book with a higher degree of gore and even more over the top stereotypical evil with extra disgusting details. Because evil is disgusting, that's basically the concept behind the whole book. And in the end, it ended up being even more immature than most 3rd Edition books.

Yep, exactly. I would have dearly loved to see a book that talked in-depth about how to build moral ambiguity into the campaign, how to run a really satisfying Evil campaign, and about topics like slavery and drugs in the game.

What we got was vile damage, and a new set of power-ups, and prestige classes that won't ever be used for PCs (and which are too much damn hassle for most NPCs)... and a "mature audiences" sticker that meant it would pretty much never again be referenced in another D&D product.

As with so much from WotC, the worst thing about it is not that it's bad, it's that it could have been so much better.

 

[Leatherhead]

No. But there is cartoonish and "pathetic" evil, and there's psychological horror.

Cartoonish evil is perfectly acceptable in a game. Sometimes, it's rather fun.

 

[Scott DeWar]

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.

The best evil society is the one right under the nose of every one else. That is to say, they are of the same demographics of the indigenous peoples of an area - undetectable except by membership. they might meet in some lost catacombs or a specially dug room reachable by dimension door or teleport only, deep beneath the manor house of the leader.

 

[GhostBear]

[MENTION=6678305]RobertSullivan[/MENTION] - Your post reminded me of the book "Good Omens", in how evil doesn't have to be overt. It can be quite subtle. One of the demons/devils/something in the opening passages is referring to one of his greatest works: A complicated, congested highway system, which causes an extreme amount of anger and frustration every day among a large amount of people.

And for some people, it is enough to push them over the edge - road rage, for example.

That kind of thing is my favorite style of Evil.

 

[Umbran]

One of the demons/devils/something in the opening passages is referring to one of his greatest works: A complicated, congested highway system, which causes an extreme amount of anger and frustration every day among a large amount of people.

That was Crowely, the devil that is said to have not so much "fallen" as "sauntered vaguely downwards". He's one of the ones that works to stop the Apocalypse. Not exactly the epitome of darkest evil, him.

 

[the Jester]

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.

If the bad guys never do bad things, what makes them bad?

It's absolutely fine to have evil act evil in an RPG, book, movie, etc. Look at one of our most memorable fictional villains- Darth Vader. Why is he a villain? Not because he wears an evil-looking costume, because he does terrible things. He doesn't care a dingo's kidneys about the dead bodies scattered around the rebel blockade runner when we first see him. He chokes a prisoner to death. He uses torture without a second thought. He is more than willing to kill an entire planet just to make a point.

Imagine Darth Vader without any evil acts and you have... what?

Not much of a villain.

 

[Zireael]

Well, there's something fascinating about writing or watching movies with evil. The same, I imagine, is true for roleplaying, whether the players play evil PCs or not.

However, any discussion of specific "evils" tends to go the 'bashing people's opinions' and 'forgetting about the fact it is fantasy and not RL' route.