Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Glade Riven" data-source="post: 5507520" data-attributes="member: 86468">This is a post where Game Theory overlaps with World Building. I've noticed that when working on my campaign setting that in my attempt to make certain races a little different from the cliche, I need to have their previous roles as Bad Guys filled by another race. Take Orcs. Orcs in my setting are Warhammer Orcs, or Tolkien Orcs. Tribal Orcs have a heavy basis in Native American culture, with mixtures from pre-christian europe (details pending, I'm working that out). The whole "noble savage" angle. But Tribal Orcs are not the evil hoards. Other, more urbanised orcs may be criminals (having lost that tribal connect and being considered dregs of society leaves few opertunities), but not necessarally evil. They still make good bad-guys, but no more or less than any other "good" (like humans). So a new race I'm working on (Jotun - AKA evil humanoid troll people, medium sized) take over the previous role that orcs have in other settings: Murderous, uncouthe, blood sacrefices, etc. Stats are different, flavor is different, but they are designed as a race to be killed off by PC heroes. Similar to the <a href="http://secondpulsar.net/index.php/ironbound/31-races-of-phaetos-races-of-phaetos/26-ebon-dwarves" target="_blank">Ebon Dwarves</a> replacing Duergar as dwarves, but evil. Goblinoids were going to get a similar treatment, but I've decided to leave them evil and killable (but they'll get some fun stuff). So the point of the post is: What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think we need to have things that always must be killed, should the cultures of "evil" races have some legitimacy, or both? I'm finding that I need both.</blockquote>

Verification