The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Argyle King]

My own view is that the easiest way to deal with this problem is to frame most violence by heroic-type PCs as either defensive or consensual. (Often it might be both.)

That tends to be consistent with the romantic world view that is typical of fantasy.

It tends to paint assassins, pre-emptive strikers, poisoners, and sorcerers who strike secretly from afar as morally dubious - but that is also consistent with that romantic world view!

I can see that.

Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant.

For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?)

One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be.

On a more personal level, my own view is admittedly "skewed" by influences from sword-&-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be.

It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?

•edited to touch up some grammar and spelling

 

[Lanefan]

It's always striking to me how many fantasy worlds copy the geography of the real world - forgotten realms and game of thrones come to mind.

Side trek perhaps, but other than that there's a mix of land and ocean (i.e. it's an earth-like setting), a breathable atmosphere, and that it's cold to the north (and south) and warm toward the equator, I fail to see how the geography of either of those examples lines up with the real world.

The human/humanoid cultures tend to line up in fairly close analogs to reality, sure - but that's not geography; or at best vaguely touches some edges of it.

Geography is maps and what is on them. It's right there in the word: geo (earth) graph (chart or drawing or map) y.

Geology is a sub-branch, climatology another, oceanography another, and so on. So-called "cultural geography" is really a wrongly-named sub-branch of sociology - says he, who had no choice but to study some of it in order to get his degree...

 

[Lanefan]

"The problem with evil races is not what you think"

I beg to differ with the interpretation in the OP.

The problem with evil races (i.e. inherently-evil creatures) is that for some inane reason the designers have, over time, slowly allowed them to become playable as PCs; taking them from pure "monsters" that only the DM ever had to worry about to something players become - or can become - invested in. Further, making them PC-playable means that to satisfy a large number of tables the inherent underlying evil-ness has to be stripped away; yet the inherent underlying good-ness of creatures like Dwarves and Elves and Halflings (Hobbits) is allowed to remain.

Dragonborn as core-game PC? Tiefling as core-game PC? Orcs and a bunch of other "humanoid" creatures as PC? Sheer idiocy - unless the game allows and supports evil PCs, in which case go to town on 'em!

@Dannyalcatraz - re your post upthread about designing a new evil creature/culture from scratch and then using terminology to describe it and its attitudes that doesn't match terminology used to describe and-or belittle at least one real-life culture: great idea, except that given how many different ways various cultures have been described and-or belittled over time, is there any useful terminology left that hasn't been thusly tainted?

 

[shawnhcorey]

It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?

If they only attacked evil races, they would be good. Good and evil are black and white. Simple.

 

[transmission89]

You seem to be confusing (at least) allegory, symbolism, trope and theme. JRRT didn't - when he denied that LotR was allegory, he meant it was not allegory in the strict sense. (He did write some allegories - there is a good discussion of this in Shippey's book.)

LotR is clearly not an allegory of the fall of the Roman Empire (Eastern or Western) nor of British colonialism in North Africa and Asia nor of either World War.

But it is not devoid of meaning. Some of that is linguistic - the book reflects JRRT's own professional views as a philologist. Some of that is theological - it is a very Christian work. Some of that is literary - Lothlorien, for instance, renders the world of the fairy story in the form of the naturalistic novel, which I (at least) think is a major literary achievement. And some of that is racial. No doubt there are many other sorts of meaning also to be found in it.


The above is utter non sequitur.


This is both false - a denial of difference across different works and authors, and a feeble attempt to flatten them all into sameness - and also a strange assertion from someone who seems to think that the identification of Orcs with a fall is not a mere subjective act of onanism.

I’m confusing nothing. Allegory: a story […] that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

It’s not a non sequitur, it’s a tying back a diversion into discussion of Tolkein back to the premise of the thread.

Im also not making denials of differences or flattening anything. In fact that’s stating literally the opposite, that you’ll get as many different different readings of work as people who are reading them.

As to Tolkien’s orcs, I never said otherwise and made clear im as happy to engage in it as any other.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I can see that.

Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant.

For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?)

One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be.

On a more personal level, my own view is admittedly "skewed" by influences from sword-&-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be.

It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?

•edited to touch up some grammar and spelling

I'm don't think there is a general consensus about right/wrong in the game. Read any alignment thread. Or this thread. (I'm sure you've read this thread. Just being rhetorical.)

For me, I prefer to play characters who talk first and hit second. Usually. I will sometimes play characters who are, how shall I put this? A-Holes. But I prefer for my characters to have reasons for any fighting they do. The reasons can and do change from genre to genre and campaign to campaign. There are some lines I will not cross for my own reasons. There are other lines I will not cross out of respect for the other players' needs.

Of course that's when I'm not GM. When I'm GM I do, naturally, play some right A-Holes. But even then I avoid crossing lines that will offend my players.

 

[Malmuria]

Side trek perhaps, but other than that there's a mix of land and ocean (i.e. it's an earth-like setting), a breathable atmosphere, and that it's cold to the north (and south) and warm toward the equator, I fail to see how the geography of either of those examples lines up with the real world.

The human/humanoid cultures tend to line up in fairly close analogs to reality, sure - but that's not geography; or at best vaguely touches some edges of it.

Geography is maps and what is on them. It's right there in the word: geo (earth) graph (chart or drawing or map) y.

Geology is a sub-branch, climatology another, oceanography another, and so on. So-called "cultural geography" is really a wrongly-named sub-branch of sociology - says he, who had no choice but to study some of it in order to get his degree...

It's ok I'm pedantic too sometimes.

But c'mon, the Toril map has clear geographic analogues with earth:

The maztica area looks like the Americas, Osse is a large island to the east of everything, the main action happens among the temperate forests and plains of the sword coast, the tropical analogue is to the south of this and filled with jungles, there's an area with a range of mountains called "Tabot."

The Got known world is a bit more subtle, but still broadly analogous: area with most of the action is temperate forest and moors/grasslands, to east are drier plains, to the south and east hot, sandy areas. Each of those are populated with fantasy analogues of real earth cultures.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Not to mention all those European looking people and European like cultures in Not-Europe. African looking people and African like cultures in Not-Africa. Etc.

Geography is more than just maps.

 

[transmission89]

It's ok I'm pedantic too sometimes.

But c'mon, the Toril map has clear geographic analogues with earth:

The maztica area looks like the Americas, Osse is a large island to the east of everything, the main action happens among the temperate forests and plains of the sword coast, the tropical analogue is to the south of this and filled with jungles, there's an area with a range of mountains called "Tabot."

The Got known world is a bit more subtle, but still broadly analogous: area with most of the action is temperate forest and moors/grasslands, to east are drier plains, to the south and east hot, sandy areas. Each of those are populated with fantasy analogues of real earth cultures.

GOT is hardly subtle, Westeros is literally an upside down British Isles .

I think to some extent, it’s just easier from a world building pov. There are reasons why different biomes are like they are, if you’re not confident in all the geographical reasons for their conditions, you can’t go far wrong placing analogous places in the same location. The same for providing a quick stereotype (not in a negative way, more as a short cut to clue the reader in) of your fantasy culture. These guys are the “not Celts” of this world etc…

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"The problem with evil races is not what you think"

I beg to differ with the interpretation in the OP.

The problem with evil races (i.e. inherently-evil creatures) is that for some inane reason the designers have, over time, slowly allowed them to become playable as PCs; taking them from pure "monsters" that only the DM ever had to worry about to something players become - or can become - invested in. Further, making them PC-playable means that to satisfy a large number of tables the inherent underlying evil-ness has to be stripped away; yet the inherent underlying good-ness of creatures like Dwarves and Elves and Halflings (Hobbits) is allowed to remain.

Dragonborn as core-game PC? Tiefling as core-game PC? Orcs and a bunch of other "humanoid" creatures as PC? Sheer idiocy - unless the game allows and supports evil PCs, in which case go to town on 'em!

@Dannyalcatraz - re your post upthread about designing a new evil creature/culture from scratch and then using terminology to describe it and its attitudes that doesn't match terminology used to describe and-or belittle at least one real-life culture: great idea, except that given how many different ways various cultures have been described and-or belittled over time, is there any useful terminology left that hasn't been thusly tainted?

Sure- I’ve done it before in another thread on ENWorld when this came up before. I don’t remember the thread or details from back then, though.

However, decades ago, a priest gave a sermon at my church that opened with, “Satan…is beautiful! If he looked like a monster, we would all run from him. But we don’t. We go TOWARDS him. We find him attractive.”

Etc.

An always evil race could just as easily be incredibly gorgeous. See Michael Moorcock’s Melniboneans. Even the Pan Tangians looked like normal humans, despite their association with the darkest lords of Chaos.

D&D halflings could be the Uber-evil race without any visual changes. Borrow a page from Dark Sun and make them into carnivores with a taste for sentients. Maybe even domesicatirs of burrowing creatures, like bulettes… explaining their preference for elves.

Ignoting that because you WANT to telegraph their inner nature? You can still use words like “brutish” and “savage” if they’re not ALSO used with other terminology associated with bigotry, like “dark-skinned” or what have you.

Making them non-mammalian would be a great way to avoid unfortunate RW parallels.

The same all goes for cultures. Your baddies don’t have to be the barbarians at the gate. If the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that advanced societies can commit great evil within the world. See also the colonial era. Or think about how the subjugated people in the New Workd viewed their Incan, Mayan, etc. overlords.

Look at one of the species in the sci-fi show, Defiance. The Omecs are feared by everyone- super advanced, physically powerful, attractive, looked like purple Drow/vampires, considered other sentient species livestock- fit for servitude or sauces. Not a stereotype.

I could keep pointing at sci-fi, too. Stephen Donaldson’s Amnion are scary as hell, but tick no RW stereotypes.

What were the main enemies in Stargate: Atlantis? An advanced race of corpse-white creatures.

The Borg. Replicators.

The Kromags from Sliders invert the brutish stereotypes, again by being a technologically advanced race.

The Dominion. The Ori.

Etc.