PDA

View Full Version : Antagonist Races



Crasical
2013-08-12, 12:07 PM
How do you handle them?
If one extreme is Always Chaotic Evil (Pathfinder, for example, seems to have taken steps to ensure that their monstrous humanoids and drow are at their core evil monsters who do not work and play well with other races) and Drizzt Syndrome is the other (Salvatore reportedly feared "for the integrity of the evil drow race as antagonist" after hearing of the trend of chaotic good drow rebels), where do your games lie?

CRtwenty
2013-08-12, 12:11 PM
I lean more towards the first one in my DMing style. My PCs prefer the more traditional fantasy tropes, so they like it when Orc villages are filled with brutal and evil monsters to kill, rather than peaceful hunter gatherers with an undeserved bad reputation.

Granted there's always exceptions (for instance PCs who want to play an Evil race) but they're exceptions that prove the rule. A Good aligned Drow doesn't work unless he's got his Evil brethren to contrast against.

IW Judicator
2013-08-12, 12:52 PM
If I must accept a race as, biologically, evil, then I prefer to think of it as "Usually Evil" as opposed to "Always", to accommodate for outliers because, unless they are Outsiders literally made of X + Evil (or even just the Evil) there's room for change.

That being said, I would also interpret evil as Willful and Intentional, so describing anyone or anything as "Always willfully and intentionally malicious" would be outside the realm of reasonable possibility given what we know of sentient behavior.

Similarly, there is the context of "Evil". If each and every race is blatantly racist against all other, or even just some, of the other races, then does that make them Evil or does that make them par for the course? In my mind, I would say par for the course if it is an accepted standard (and racism, in all fairness, should be frequent in most settings, given that the single, HUMAN, race still manages to be monstrously racist against certain segments of itself).

Hyena
2013-08-12, 01:04 PM
In my games, almost every monster race has it's culture, it's own country or even a kigdom, and fighting against them is not the matter of "those guys are evil, it's okay to kill them", but at the very least "they serve the hostile country, it's okay to kill them". Antagonists are usually some kind of mercenary company, unholy order or a conspiracy, which are generally equal-opportunity and have kobolds fighting side by side with elves.

erikun
2013-08-12, 01:10 PM
It depends on the kind of game I'm running.

Some groups prefer not to deal with complex moral choices or decisions, and just want to run around and hit stuff with sticks. As such, in those games I don't put much depth into antagonists or evil in general. They're the bad guys, they're Evil, the go and do evil things. You're job is to stop the evil.

In other groups, ones that like a more realistic world, I prefer to make races more believable. There may be "evil races", but in the sense that their culture is evil or circumstance pushes them towards evil, or something is influencing them. As it, good and evil deities but they get attacked by everyone anyways, so why not be evil?

VariSami
2013-08-12, 02:56 PM
I prefer having them on equal standing with the rest of the races. Of course, a majority of them are pariahs to civilization so the reactions are probably going to be demeaning but hey - nothing says that their way is right either.

Actually, coming to think about it, I have used Goblins as antagonists at minor levels but never Orcs, other than as individual bruisers in cities.

In my opinion, settings like Eberron (and Planescape, I suppose, to some degree) handle the issue in a way that suits me. They have their own empires which are militant and ruthless but relatively out of grace. The inhabitants are not evil by rule (and most definitely not genetically) but they will probably be humiliated and even persecuted outside their own territories, and this probably leads to violent retribution when their, probably genetically short, fuses reach their end and a temper tantrum begins.

Vitruviansquid
2013-08-12, 06:20 PM
I make the "antagonist races" whatever is appropriate for the tone of the campaign. If I want a more simplistic, epic hero feel, I make them undeniable villains that have to be stopped at every turn. If I want a more thoughtful campaign, I make them simply different kinds of people, perhaps with cultures that bring them into conflict with the PCs.

Just about the one thing I never do is to try and give the old bait-and-switch where I show the PC's that orcs are peaceful hunter-gatherers after having them massacre an orc village. I guess I just see this as a particularly mean-spirited trick to pull because I think players need to sort of like their characters in order to keep roleplaying as them.

Herabec
2013-08-12, 06:49 PM
I give my antagonistic races blue and orange morality. To the 'protagonist' races, they're evil and should be destroyed. Meanwhile, the 'antagonist' races are either just doing what they do naturally, or view the other races as evil for some reason or another and must be destroyed.

Because, sure, in D&D good and evil are objective, but as DM I reserve the right to say 'screw that'. And other works aren't quite as black and white.

Asmodai
2013-08-12, 07:48 PM
Just because you're evil doesn't mean you cannot cooperate with others as long as it suits you :)

VariSami
2013-08-13, 02:38 AM
Oh, by the way: has anyone ever turned some but not all of the de facto protagonist races into the primary low level "evil races"? Not merely antagonists but into what the orcs and goblins are supposed to represent - willingly and determinedly (this might be a paradox) immoral/amoral humanoids?

I think Dark Sun did something like that with Halflings. I have not played it but I hear that the cannibal-'lings are supposed to be quite terrifying. Or think about normal high elves that act like the drow but on the surface instead of the depths of Underdark.

In one of my games, the playable races were goblins, halflings and gnomes (minor adjustments to fit the idea I had for the setting). Since the only gnome-player retired early, and my story involved an uprising among the gnomes, orchestrated by a Hitler-proxy (the party had a chance to stop him but they never reached him). This basically meant that gnomes became nothing but an antagonist race of fun-sized Nazis on airships.

Lorsa
2013-08-13, 07:07 AM
The single most common race that I choose my antagonists from is human. Otherwise whichever is an "antagonist" race depends solely on what you play. If you're a group of orcs in D&D for example, then humans and elves are antagonistic races. It all depends on your perspective.

Mnemophage
2013-08-13, 07:15 AM
The issue I'm sensing here is not trying to justify the philosophy of an evil-aligned race, but rather how in the world they survive if they're so incredibly antagonistic. While I can imagine orcs, goblins and gnolls breeding in litters and having a very short juvenile period, and things like "viable breeding populations" not really mattering to harpies and ogres, drow present a more difficult situation. Being elves, they're long-lived and, as such, have long childhoods and tend to bear single children. They're openly antagonistic, divided along both social class and gender lines, live in a resource-poor environment and are incapable of surviving for lengths of time in richer areas. None of these things seem particularly congruent with a thriving, dangerous community. I've always imagined their aggression to function something like the Klingons, where if the drow have a war to fight, a people to oppress, something to DO, then they can band together enough to overcome that particular difficulty. If left to their own devices, in peace, they will inevitably teach each other apart. This doesn't really address the other problems, though, and I can't really reconcile them. In all honesty, I don't use them very much.

Deathkeeper
2013-08-13, 07:21 AM
I do my best to make the players feel that they don't regret taking lethal action against sentient creatures but also understand that they shouldn't always do it. Goblins are the only race that gets the Token Evil stick often, but that's because for them I often just make them the normal Golarion type of all acting like they have 7 Int and lighting things on fire for no reason.
It's also a problem that my love of kobolds has made me usually portray them as just xenophobic as heck and so it's pretty easy to coexist as long as you give them space and you have good enough weapons to scare them off once a decade. I prefer them that way over "always evil and suck at almost everything but traps" they usually get.

Mastikator
2013-08-13, 07:48 AM
If I'd DM a game with absolute good and evil races, I'd houserule out morality. Saying that goblins and hobgoblins are both lawful evil doesn't tell you that they're actually very different. I'd still do them as they are though.

I'd also not do an entire race as antagonist. I'd do them as having very tall cultural and racial barriers, which if climbed over, lets you find out that hey maybe goblins aren't bad if you get to know them.

Yora
2013-08-13, 07:52 AM
Interesting. I was thinking about making such a thread just two days ago. :smallbiggrin:

For my setting, I decided to not have orcs and make goblins and dark elves neutral inhabitants of caves and the jungle. The somewhat orc-ish race has most in common with Warcraft 3 orcs than anything else.

However, that does cause a bit of a problem when trying to convert adventures to that setting. Simply replacing all orcs and hobgoblins with human bandits just isn't the same. And ogres are a bit too tough for low-level characters to face in groups.

GungHo
2013-08-13, 08:04 AM
I'm not big on the noble savages trope, and I don't play orcs and goblins as misunderstood... but they're not necessarily evil. They're necessarily aggressive and they have different mores than the other races. If that means that they go viking to take your better technology or more abundant resources rather than develop their own because that's easier to do, then that's what they do.

supermonkeyjoe
2013-08-13, 08:06 AM
I usually read the racial alignments as pertaining to the societies of those creatures; Goblin Societies are always evil, gnoll tribes as a whole are evil, Orcs hordes are evil, individuals can be pretty much any alignment but are usually similar to the society.

creatures with the [Alignment] subtype are always that alignment, changing alignment literally changes what they are so no succubus paladins.

Thinker
2013-08-13, 08:59 AM
I used to dislike the idea of always evil races. I thought that it was unrealistic and asinine. Then again, it is just as silly to have multiple species that are just like humans except they get bonus stats. At the end of the day, intelligent beings in a campaign should fulfill one of the following:

The divine - in this regard they should be tied to some magical power like the natural world, deities, dragons, or something else that is not within the normal bounds for humans. Their interests and morality should be in line with whatever magical being that they are tied to, which might always be at odds with Good.
The plot - intelligent creatures can also be created for purposes of plot to explain some point or as a metaphor for something else. If that is the case, it is also acceptable to use them as something that is always evil, depending on this purpose.
The alien - beings that are beyond mortal understanding should not have a normal moral system and thus it should be OK to have them as always evil.

Essentially, the evilness of a race should be based on the perspective of the protagonist people. Races by themselves don't really add much to a game that having different cultures couldn't.

Seharvepernfan
2013-08-13, 04:08 PM
they will inevitably teach each other apart.

"NO, NO PLEASE!! My brain can't hold any more!"

"THEN LOLTH SHALL TAKE YOU!!!"

Craft (Cheese)
2013-08-13, 04:22 PM
The idea of an "antagonist race" puts a bad taste in my mouth, so I avoid the trope whenever possible. When the trope seems unavoidable or appropriate, I carefully make sure to subvert it somehow. Like in a new setting I'm working on there are Wraiths who can only live by killing (and then possessing) living humans, which sorta makes them evil by nature. But then pretty much the only unambiguously Good organization in the entire setting is exclusively comprised of them.

Ravens_cry
2013-08-13, 04:27 PM
I've never liked the idea. It just seemed like a neat little excuse, with far too many parallels for me to be really OK with it.
Plus, it smacks of lazy world building.
"Oh those guys?" They are evil. Yeah, all evil, one big evil family." The fact the evil races tend to be rather ugly by conventional standards just adds to the discomfort level.

Seharvepernfan
2013-08-13, 04:33 PM
Seriously though, I handle them pretty much how the book says they should be handled. Most of the time, most of them are openly antagonistic, but there are exceptions.

For all non-outsider races except humans, I say that 60% are the given alignment, another 10% are the next closest alignments (total of 80%), the next three are 5% each (95%), the next two are 2% each, and the last is 1%.

So, elves:

LG 5%
NG 10%
CG 60%
LN 2%
N 5%
CN 10%
LE 1%
NE 2%
CE 5%

Evil elves are therefore common enough to be encountered without it being a big surprise, but most elves are going to be what you expect. Same goes for orcs and whatnot, but with the alignments changed.

Yukitsu
2013-08-13, 04:44 PM
I prefer the former, as I tend to find the latter just changes everything to "orcs are just people but with pointy teeth." or "Drow are just elves with different skin colour." which I generally view as making it all "humanized" and less fantasy. I mean, when every single race is basically just a reskin of human, it loses some of the impact a setting could otherwise have.

awa
2013-08-13, 10:17 PM
I personally also prefer the idea that non humans are well non human. If people get unfortunate implications linking my always evil race to some real world group then i have failed to make them sufficiently inhuman.

Take for example a intelligent cat race it likes to kill stuff becuase killing stuff is fun and not only kill they want to play with it torturing it to death becuase you don't want the game to end to quick. From the perspective of anything smaller and weaker then this species these guy are completely evil. Any one who looks at this race and sees a real world group is clearly looking to be offended.

on the other hand the more human like you make a race the less always evil appeals to me. (note i mean mentally not physically) and the thing is most default humanoids in d&d are basically just humans with pointy ears or beards.

Souju
2013-08-14, 01:04 AM
i like to deal with the idea of different moralities. In pathfinder and D&D campaigns, I'm usually the one that goes straight for the drow or tieflings.
However, I never play renegades.
I like the evil races to just be culturally different, not evil. After all, we slaughter them without a second thought, who's to say WE'RE not evil to them?
There's also, where pathfinder kobolds and goblins especially are concerned, the old maxim "don't infer malice when stupidity works just as well"

awa
2013-08-14, 07:56 AM
in regards to how plausible it is for an entire race to be evil and survive we need to decide how are they evil.

now drow might not be logical but

A race of raiders/ slavers who loot and pillage across the world but who are with each other loyal and honorable could function quite well. particularly If they are smart enough to leave nations / races more powerful then them alone.

Yora
2013-08-14, 08:47 AM
Drow demographics are really not that problematic once you take into consideration that pretty much all the stories are about the nobles, who make up maybe 5% or less of any given drow population. Their extremely high mortality rate can be easily compensated with illegitimate children from commoners. Noble houses are commonly getting annihilated, while at the same time rich and powerful commoners are probably ennobled to fill the empty spots as new low-ranking houses.

The great thing about raiding is, that you can attack anyone! The key is not to stay and linger around in a place where retaliation expeditions can find and reach you. The vikings could raid wherever they wanted, as long as they didn't assault places that were well protected and went back on their journey home within a couple of hours. You can protect a city against raiders, but it's impossibly to protect an entire country.

Jay R
2013-08-14, 08:59 AM
The orcs in Lord of the Rings were shown to be disinterested in being part of a large army of conquest. They were conscripts, who would rather just be in a small group of raiders.

I like the original D&D rule that large groups of orcs are often accompanied by, and dominated by, a powerful evil leader - 7th-9th level fighter, 11th-level wizard, Balrog, dragon, ogres, or trolls. If they were left to themselves, maybe they'd have stayed away, but the battle is being forced on them almost as much as it is on us.

This army attacking our lands is doing something evil, but the evilness comes from the leaders, not (as much) from the soldiers who don't want to be there, and would flee if they could.

Nonetheless, to save our people and our lands, we must fight the entire army.