The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Dire Bare]

Its a deconstruction, no doubt about it.

Though "bloodthirsty; worship evil gods or demons; widespread pulp-style cannibalism* and human** sacrifice; sexual threat; fecund; dominant 'genetic' traits; bestial; physically superior*** ; low intelligence*** ; uncivilised; primitive; superstitious; always tribal; incapable of forming state societies." Describes ancient barbarians, views of dark age and medieval Europeans (both from present day and by their neighbours), and kinda describes D&D world more generally or at least its more interesting parts. (and is also ironic in present political discourse, but I can't go there).

But let's accept the basic premise. Or least the basic coincidence.

Does it mean there is a problem for D&D? Does it mean people should change how they play?

Should these races be removed from the game?

There has been a huge change on how many people not only view their fellow humans, but also their fellow animals. There has also been a big change in presentation of "monsters" in media.

Should that change how people play?

Yes.

 

[pemerton]

@Doug McCrae has provided an analysis, based on a reading of texts with an eye to the historical connections between them. It's not a deconstruction.

What anyone does in response to that analysis seems like a matter for them. For a lot of people, engaging with art and literature is a fairly personal thing.

But there are some response that seem obviously inapt: eg telling people that they are projecting when they see racist tropes in D&D and the literary heritage that it draws on.

 

[Tonguez]

I think this reinforces that "men" or humanity, in JRRT, are normatively associated with Europeans, and especially north-western Europeans.

In another recent thread I've posted that the contrast between humans and Hobbits really starts to break down once we are dealing with "everyday" rather than heroic-type humans (contrast Ioreth, or Butterbur, with Eomer or Faramir). Somewhat similarly, the contrast between Orcs and humans starts to break down once we turn away from Rohan and Gondor and Dale and environs, to the peoples who live East and South of those places.

As a brown person from a former nation colonised by the English, I’m in an unusual position when it comes LOTR. I always tended to identify with the swarthy Haradrim and Southrons rather than the Gondorians and Riders of Rohan, nonetheless I was able to accept that Orcs were not human - they were the monstrous ’Other’.

However as DnD has evolved things like Tieflings and Dragonborn have been added which increasingly makes the Othering of Orcs diffcult. Tieflings are actual demonspawn, embodiments of actual cosmic evil, yet they are welcomed in your party and interact happily in DnD towns

In a world where Bob at the pub is the spawn of Asmodeus and Charlie at work breaths fire, its a bit hard to justify a dislike of the Orcs because they happen to be brown

 

[pemerton]

@Tonguez, thanks for the post.

I read you as saying that changes in the "demography" of the "friendly"/player-facing options makes the traditional framing of Orcs harder to accept at face value. Have I understood properly?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

When the words used to describe a fictional race are almost word-for-word what real world racists and eugenicists used to describe real world human groups, it seems odd to blame the player who sees that and can't unsee it (especially when they belong to one of those groups). I'm missing why that's a player problem.

Why does the DM need something that fits the slot the racists and eugenicists of old needed - for a near-humans to be lesser and evil? Why can't the DM just use undead, far-realms aberrations, and demons.

Orcs were at some point described as being the extension of the will of Gruumsh to defile the land, very close to demons. It didn't solve the problem, which is the wording used to describe orcs being reminisent of 19th century racist propaganda.

You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed. Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ? And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them anymore than you can justify killing humans.

 

[Cadence]

You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed. Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ? And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them.

For the vampire it feels like it depends on the nature of vampirism in the world. Is it like in Dresden where they can fight against the beast? Or is it a case where they've been replaced by the beast? Are there undead like Wraiths or Spectres that have an intelligence but can only live by killing the living and turning them to their cause?

Are demons, devils, and the ilithid sentient? The xenomorphs from Aliens and borg from ST?

 

[aramis erak]

To the OP:
There is, fundamentally, no real problem with supposed inherently evil beings in RPGs, except when:

• They are portrayed as having free will
• They are clearly humans disguised
• They are PCs
• They are redeemable.
• Their evilness is merely cultural.

If one can be redeemed, all can be.
If they have free will, it's not truly free unless they can choose other than evil
If they are merely cultural evil, conversions are possible, and again, it's not inherent evil.

If available as a PC, then they pretty much need either free will or magical intervention. Failing those, they're substandard options.

 

[Imaculata]

The problem comes in all other situations. I simply cannot trust when a player I do not know well wants to act out rape, racism, misogyny, or the like as anything but wish fulfillment. They may really be just role playing, but that requires trust, and trust takes time. To be frank, I do not think RPGs are the appropriate arena to act out wish fulfillment. That's what therapy is for, and I am very pro-therapy.

What are RPGs if not wish fulfillment? We want to be heroes. It has nothing to do with therapy.

The issue is not wish fulfillment. The issue is that with some players a side of them is revealed that is very dark, and not compatible with the tone and goal of a tabletop game. Their expectations do not line up with the rest of the group.

 

[Tonguez]

@Tonguez, thanks for the post.

I read you as saying that changes in the "demography" of the "friendly"/player-facing options makes the traditional framing of Orcs harder to accept at face value. Have I understood properly?

Yes essentially this , especially as Orcs have increasingly lost their monstrous traits and are depcted increasingly as “human-with-tusks” so they start to blend in on the elf-human-dwarf-orc continuum.

I’m reminded of Pratchetts ruminating on the issue in the form of Reg Shoe the Dead Rights activist who constantly protests the unfair treatment of Discworlds Zombie population. Then in Feet of Clay Pratchett then tags the escalation of prejudice against Golems with the line “The living hated the undead, and the undead loathed the unalive”

 

[Imaculata]

You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed.

Keep in mind that most of us are probably thinking of undead as presented in D&D, not The Walking Dead. Undead in D&D, specifically zombies, are not created by a desease, but most often by evil magic. They are a defilement of the natural order, created only to do harm. They are like a bunch of animated skeletons, but with rotting meat.

Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ?

This will depend on how vampires are depicted in your game. The standard vampire from classic horror movies, is an evil monster that feeds on human blood. But there are plenty of vampires in modern fiction that are good.

And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them anymore than you can justify killing humans.

Liches are created through evil magic and evil rituals. They may be sentient, but they are evil monsters, and a sin against the natural order. The acts they commited to become a Lich make them really really bad. Of course you can choose to frame them in a more positive light. But even then, the act of making yourself a Lich is despicable, according to D&D lore.