Dwarves aren't cool anymore [Archive] - Page 3 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-16, 08:33 PM

I've never really understood the attachment to "always evil races". I've never looked at a fantasy race and thought "damn, they'd be more compelling if they were all innately evil and cool to murder".
Are you honestly asserting that this is what is happening? People are looking at a fantasy race that isn't currently "mostly evil" and thinking it would be better if it were evil?

Isn't that a bit of projection, given that people are looking at races that are mostly evil and thinking "wouldn't it be better if they weren't"?

I think it's more interesting to work out how a bunch of old school orcs or drow or [evil dudes] function as a society. How they get treated by their deities and fit into the same cosmology. And, of course, it's really more 99% evil -- you always get the moments where you find some orcs you need to work with or are otherwise cool in contrast to the rest. Which only works if the rest are actually a menace.
Agreed.

I've never found that very persuasive.
The reasons not to have them are not persuasive either. That you align with them doesn't make them persuasive.

It's solving a problem that any competent writer can manage easily, justifying why you need to fight some guys isn't exactly a herculean task
So you acknowledge it's a problem that needs to be solved. That's a good first step.

Not everyone is interested in working out a creatures' motivations and figuring out what set them on the bad path they are on and identifying with them that despite all of their horror we are all one and it could be any of us, etc. It is nice to have clearly identifiable villains in the game, with their own distinct cultures and pantheons and customs and aesthetics, etc.

It's nice for there to be Mordors on the map, where the evil people dwell, where danger lurks and bad things happen, and the heroes have to defend against, infiltrate, and defeat/liberate. I am not interested in games where all the antagonists are some shade of gray and require some faux intellectual reasoning because didn't you know all along that they had good reasons to do what they did and what if you were in their shoes etc etc etc eye roll.

Jophiel

2024-02-16, 09:22 PM

"A race you can just kill" always felt like a strawman. I don't know anyone who ever said "Gee, there aren't enough things to kill in D&D since...". Besides all the usual undead/golems/demons/etc one could happily end, it's trivial to just have each group of humanoids attack players on site or be kicking a puppy or whatever to establish that, yes, you can roll initiative guilt free. That was never a problem.

People are interested in "evil" races for the story/world building implications, not because no one could figure out how to get that last 25xp if it wasn't from stabbing a kobold.

Errorname

2024-02-16, 09:55 PM

Are you honestly asserting that this is what is happening? People are looking at a fantasy race that isn't currently "mostly evil" and thinking it would be better if it were evil?

No, I'm not asserting that people regularly look at well developed fantasy cultures and say "what if this sucked instead". That this generally doesn't happen (and when it does people don't tend to like it) was the intended point

The reasons not to have them are not persuasive either. That you align with them doesn't make them persuasive.

I align with them because I do find them persuasive. I can't speak for you, but I've never claimed to

So you acknowledge it's a problem that needs to be solved. That's a good first step.

The "problem" is creating antagonists for an adventure story. There's a lot of existing solves for that, and "ontologically evil race" is one of the weakest ones.

I am not interested in games where all the antagonists are some shade of gray and require some faux intellectual reasoning because didn't you know all along that they had good reasons to do what they did and what if you were in their shoes etc etc etc eye roll.

I think writing a race of people as uniformly inherently evil and okay to massacre is bad writing, it's a sloppy bodge to get out of actually having to characterize villains

What I do not think and have never said is that all villains need to be sympathetic or morally grey

Psyren

2024-02-16, 10:39 PM

Gnomes and dwarves both get twice their proficiency bonus on History, in some circumstances. Kenku get free advantage when duplicating items. And, of course, Variant Humans can pick it up with the Skill Expert Feat.

Exactly, Variant Human is overtuned :smalltongue:

The others are either situational expertise (which, even if that wasn't going away anyway, is less egregious) or advantage, which is not at all the same as expertise; advantage and regular proficiency have the same ceiling.

The "problem" is creating antagonists for an adventure story. There's a lot of existing solves for that, and "ontologically evil race" is one of the weakest ones.

Precisely this.

Me neither. Though I have looked at innately evil fantasy races and thought "Those guys are pretty compelling".

I think it's more interesting to work out how a bunch of old school orcs or drow or [evil dudes] function as a society. How they get treated by their deities and fit into the same cosmology. And, of course, it's really more 99% evil -- you always get the moments where you find some orcs you need to work with or are otherwise cool in contrast to the rest. Which only works if the rest are actually a menace.

Honestly, I can't think of anything interesting about modern orcs. What's the hook? They're green humans who... can carry more stuff? At this point, it feels like they're in the game out of inertia, not because "orc" brings anything unique to the table.

You can still have a society of evil orcs. You can also have a society of evil humans. "Evil" is not biological.

What you should do is focus on traits that can be good in moderation, and bad if taken to extremes. A good dwarven society uses their love of industry and tradition to have unparalleled craftsmanship and efficiency. An evil one is a greed-powered caste system with no internal mobility, that has no regard for the byproducts of their industry on the happiness of the individual or their nation's natural surroundings. A good orc society is one that prides itself on the virtues of strength and battle, where even farmers and milkmaids can rise up and defend themselves from monsters and raiders. A bad one overvalues strength to the point that they become ableist and warmongering themselves.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-16, 11:00 PM

I totally disagree that a race of creatures that follow evil deities and have an evil culture can't be written intelligently and in a compelling way simply by virtue of being an evil culture. I think we all can see that assertion doesn't pass the sniff test.

All that said, it may be important to remember that DMs aren't trying to get on the NY Time's Best Seller's list. They are running a game. The needs of one are not necessarily the needs of the other.

Errorname

2024-02-17, 12:27 AM

I do think there are ways to make compelling fictional monsters that could be described as an "always evil race", but the core element they all share is that they're a lot more inhuman than an Orc. Like I can fully accept a Mind Flayer is functionally inherently evil. A hivemind of psionic cephalopod people who need to eat sapient brains to survive and who gestate their larva within human hosts, that is a creature whose inherent nature is basically irreconcilable with what people generally consider 'good'.

I find it much harder to accept "these monsters are inherently evil" when the monsters are just people with forehead bumps and where nothing about their behaviour is fundamental inhuman.

Witty Username

2024-02-17, 02:06 AM

I think there is value in species being differenciated from human.
If our goal is to draw life lessons from similarity, differences in other area can help emphasize that. And also, if we are less about exploring our own minds and more what our behavior leads us to when we encounter things different than us, we need some amount of the alien.
And novelty, what sounds more interesting, ridged forhead or every 16 hours they turn into a liquid?

As for 'Evil', evil isn't one monolithic thing, it is a combination of various mindsets, traits and actions. All a species needs to be more "Evil" is have a few traits associated emphasized. Yuan-ti, Orcs, Goblins and Drow all feel different from eachother because the focus on different things. Lizardfolk are in this too and they aren't even described as evil, just weird in an unpleasant to other creatures kinda way.

For Dwarves,
Play up inhumanly strong and tough, unbreakable as stone shouldn't be out of the question.
This can then lead naturally into bravery, recklessness and the need for moderation. Which is a harder (and more Blatant) lesson to learn when fear is legitimately less waranted.

Alignment, we haven't covered much because we don't need to, but things associated with Lawful, desire for stability, inflexible thinking, etc. can work well. This is unflinching as stone, but applied to the mind instead of the body. For better and for worse.

Jophiel

2024-02-17, 03:51 AM

I find it much harder to accept "these monsters are inherently evil" when the monsters are just people with forehead bumps and where nothing about their behaviour is fundamental inhuman.
But much of the reason why most humanoid species are "just people with forehead bumps" these days is the insistence that "Orcs: They're Just Like Us (But With Tusks)!"

You don't need to be an alien squid-face monster to be inhuman.

"Evil" is not biological
That's okay; almost nothing in the typical fantasy milieu happened because of simple biology. Orcs aren't orcs because of eons of proto-orc simian evolution and slow genetic change.

Lemmy

2024-02-17, 08:52 AM

As for 'Evil', evil isn't one monolithic thing, it is a combination of various mindsets, traits and actions. All a species needs to be more "Evil" is have a few traits associated emphasized. Yuan-ti, Orcs, Goblins and Drow all feel different from each other because the focus on different things. Lizardfolk are in this too and they aren't even described as evil, just weird in an unpleasant to other creatures kinda way.
I think this is the key part. A race (or society) of sapient beings doesn't have to be naturally devoted to the concept of Evil for them to be naturally Evil. Perhaps they are just naturally extremely brutal, prone to violence or simply lacking in empathy...

They can learn to go against their instincts, but maybe it's really hard to "go against type" and takes a lot more effort than, say, a human learning to avoid the same behavior... This would characterize them as "always" evil.

IIRC, while he kinda flip-flopped with the concept, in his letters, Tolkien eventually mentioned that orcs were innately evil, but not irredeemably so. A determined orc could at least in theory become good.

Perhaps that's what "Always Evil" means... An species that without **strong** discipline, grows brutal or selfish enough to be considered Evil by most humans.

Errorname

2024-02-17, 09:40 AM

But much of the reason why most humanoid species are "just people with forehead bumps" these days is the insistence that "Orcs: They're Just Like Us (But With Tusks)!"

See, I would say that the reason the sympathetic Orc has become a thing is because they were ultimately just people with forehead bumps, and when something is that close to human it gets really uncomfortable say they're all monsters to be slaughtered, and not for the right reasons.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-17, 12:02 PM

The folks who say "Orcs are all evil, it says so in the monster manual" seldom accept "Elves must all be good, it says so in the same Monster Manual.

However, my take on evil races.

The more supernatural you are, the more likely it is that you're a given alignment. Demons and Devils are almost always evil; Celestials are almost always good. There are exceptions, but they are singular, beyond even one in a billion. Dragons are heavily tied to their alignment, but not immutably; you'll find a few on every sphere that are a step away, and a couple that are more than one step away.

Then you get to the more mortal races, like elves, dwarves, orcs, and goblins, as well as tieflings and asimaar. They are connected to their common alignment, but not bound to it. They're connected by a few different things. In standard cosmology, they have been created by deities, who are strongly associated with alignment; that's going to be an influence, though it might be weakened when the influence of other deities is incorporated (such as through reincarnation, or half-orcs introducing human deity influence among Gruumsh's orcish souls). Their cultures are often shaped by their relationship with those deities, which creates a cultural pressure to put most within a step or two of that alignment... most hobgoblins are LE, but LN and NE hobgoblins can get along pretty well in their society, which is largely LE.

However, an additional selection pressure for alignment is the size of their communities and polities. A Good person in a largely Evil community might be able to find a niche for themselves, but smaller communities have less space for "alignment deviants", and an evil community is a lot more likely to kill their alignment deviants... they're evil, after all. If you have a huge city, that LG goblin might be able to make a living taking care of orphans or the sick, and can maybe find those other one-in-a-thousand other alignment deviants for support. In a group of 300, it's a lot less likely that you'll have those alignment deviants, unless you have a community of them.

Somewhat ironically, my schema makes it far more likely that elves and dwarves would be strongly tied to alignment than orcs and hobgoblins. Elves and dwarves are very long-lived, so they are fewer generations from those deific progenitors. Both tend to have very little out-race mating... dwarves just don't seem to, and elves are frequently racists who regard everyone else as lesser, and any half-elves as being impure. The Eldreth Veluuthra isn't every elf, but they've got a lot of that in their societies. So they have less exterior meddling in their pot of souls. Orcs, on the other hand, happily create all sorts of half-orcs, and they live only a fraction of an elven lifespan, so they're further removed from Gruumsh. Orcish society will still influence most to be evil, but it's not as supernaturally enforced.

awa

2024-02-17, 12:45 PM

As a general statement being evil is easier than being good. People trying to be good can easily fall into evil while the reverse is rarely true. Being good takes work while evil is easy. You can become evil by hating evil to much and becoming too extreme in fighting it.

All this together means that people see a fall as something far more common than a redemption. Thus an evil/ neutral dwarf or elf seems likely even for an alignment purist.

Psyren

2024-02-17, 01:45 PM

That's okay; almost nothing in the typical fantasy milieu happened because of simple biology.

It isn't destiny period, whether that destiny comes from biology/genetics or from a metaphysical fantasy source. If you want a species that is predestined to be evil, that's what fiends are for.

I totally disagree that a race of creatures that follow evil deities and have an evil culture can't be written intelligently and in a compelling way simply by virtue of being an evil culture. I think we all can see that assertion doesn't pass the sniff test.

Nobody said otherwise, myself included. Evil cultures can exist and be written intelligently and compellingly. But they're evil because they do evil things, such as the bolded parts above - not because they're biologically, metaphysically, or otherwise predestined to be evil.

Menzoberranzan is an evil culture full of evil Drow. They follow Lolth, practice rampant murder and slavery, and consort with fiends routinely. But not all Drow live there, even if we're only looking at FR. There is nothing genetic or inherent to Drow as a species that forces them do those things, and that's why free-willed non-evil PC Drow are possible, even if they're relatively rare at the end of the day.

I think there is value in species being differenciated from human.
If our goal is to draw life lessons from similarity, differences in other area can help emphasize that. And also, if we are less about exploring our own minds and more what our behavior leads us to when we encounter things different than us, we need some amount of the alien.
And novelty, what sounds more interesting, ridged forhead or every 16 hours they turn into a liquid?

For a game world, novelty in concept needs to be balanced against utility in play too. If you ruled that, say, Plasmoids couldn't wear armor because it sinks into their semi-solid forms, or Dwarves are incapable of using or being affected by magic, that would certainly be novel - but it would make designing them as playable races in a game like D&D much more difficult, which is probably why they didn't do it.

As for 'Evil', evil isn't one monolithic thing, it is a combination of various mindsets, traits and actions. All a species needs to be more "Evil" is have a few traits associated emphasized. Yuan-ti, Orcs, Goblins and Drow all feel different from eachother because the focus on different things. Lizardfolk are in this too and they aren't even described as evil, just weird in an unpleasant to other creatures kinda way.

You can emphasize negative traits in Elves, Humans, Dwarves and Gnomes too. And increasingly, authors are learning that they can explore or emphasize positive traits in Drow, Orcs, and Goblinoids.

For Dwarves,
Play up inhumanly strong and tough, unbreakable as stone shouldn't be out of the question.
This can then lead naturally into bravery, recklessness and the need for moderation. Which is a harder (and more Blatant) lesson to learn when fear is legitimately less waranted.

Alignment, we haven't covered much because we don't need to, but things associated with Lawful, desire for stability, inflexible thinking, etc. can work well. This is unflinching as stone, but applied to the mind instead of the body. For better and for worse.

Inhumanly tough definitely, but inhumanly strong is a harder sell (see the game utility point above.) In most popular fiction I can think of, humans and dwarves have similar if not identical strength ceilings, even if the average dwarf is generally stronger than the average human. Having a higher strength ceiling would have game balance implications in a D&D context.

I agree with the rest.

OldTrees1

2024-02-17, 05:06 PM

However, my take on evil races.

The more supernatural you are, the more likely it is that you're a given alignment. Demons and Devils are almost always evil; Celestials are almost always good. There are exceptions, but they are singular, beyond even one in a billion. Dragons are heavily tied to their alignment, but not immutably; you'll find a few on every sphere that are a step away, and a couple that are more than one step away.

Then you get to the more mortal races, like elves, dwarves, orcs, and goblins, as well as tieflings and asimaar. They are connected to their common alignment, but not bound to it. They're connected by a few different things. In standard cosmology, they have been created by deities, who are strongly associated with alignment; that's going to be an influence, though it might be weakened when the influence of other deities is incorporated (such as through reincarnation, or half-orcs introducing human deity influence among Gruumsh's orcish souls). Their cultures are often shaped by their relationship with those deities, which creates a cultural pressure to put most within a step or two of that alignment... most hobgoblins are LE, but LN and NE hobgoblins can get along pretty well in their society, which is largely LE.

However, an additional selection pressure for alignment is the size of their communities and polities. A Good person in a largely Evil community might be able to find a niche for themselves, but smaller communities have less space for "alignment deviants", and an evil community is a lot more likely to kill their alignment deviants... they're evil, after all. If you have a huge city, that LG goblin might be able to make a living taking care of orphans or the sick, and can maybe find those other one-in-a-thousand other alignment deviants for support. In a group of 300, it's a lot less likely that you'll have those alignment deviants, unless you have a community of them.

I feel it is useful to differentiate between those that use the literal "always" and the figurative "always". Compare Psyren's view on fiends vs LibraryOgre's take on demons/devils.

This is very similar to my take. First, I too use the figurative always instead of the literal always because moral agents can only make a morally relevant choice when there is a choice in the first place. Second, there are many theoretical selection pressures that can influence how likely it is for the moral agents to choose one option over the other and/or stay around in the population sample. Third, like you, I see more, and more severe, selection pressures become possible the further from human we get.

I do differ from you in that I don't base it on them being supernatural/mortal, although examples like outsiders might have a correlation. Also, while there are more potential selection pressures the further from human we get, that is not to say there are not dramatically non-human moral agents with less selection pressures than humans do.

As a specific example I run dragons (and fey?) with less alignment tendencies than you do. I also run celestials/demons/devils with less alignment tendencies that a couple aberrations*. That second part is because I run aberrations all across the spectrum because they are just so flexible.

* For example I run illithids with greater LE tendencies than I run devils with. I just see more selective pressures and stronger ones surrounding illithids specifically than around devils. On the other hand I run elder brains with less LE tendencies than I run devils.

Sidenote: Since illithids were mentioned recently, which is one reason I used them as an example, I want to mention it was really fun playing a mind flayer in a recent spelljammer campaign. I had a blast exploring the alien mind and watching how the party acted as another selection pressure and influenced the isolated mind flayer's perspective. It went from predatory, obedient, slaver, LE to scavanger, independent, dictatorial-steward, NE. ... Then BG3 came out and I got to play with that mind again.

Oh a quick contextual note based on Elves in Monster Manuals:

The folks who say "Orcs are all evil, it says so in the monster manual" seldom accept "Elves must all be good, it says so in the same Monster Manual.

In 3.5 Monster Manual, elves were "usually CG, usually N, or usually NE" depending on norms and influences of their subspecies cultures. Orcs were "often CE" in the same book. IMPORTANT NOTE: This means elves were more likely to be the listed alignment than orcs were. A majority of high elves were CG but only a plurality of orcs were CE.
In 4E Monster Manual eladrian and (wood)elf are listed as "any", drow is listed as "evil", and orc is listed as "chaotic evil" but it does not differentiate between often, usually, or the figurative "always".
In 5E Monster Manual they only list drow and orc but don't differentiate between often, usually, or the figurative "always". So both were listed as evil.

So if someone cites a monster manual to back up a claim of literal "always", then they might not using a monster manual that has elves labeled as good in that monster manual.

Jophiel

2024-02-17, 05:08 PM

The folks who say "Orcs are all evil, it says so in the monster manual" seldom accept "Elves must all be good, it says so in the same Monster Manual.
I don't know about people committed to it because "It says so in the Monster Manual" but I think it's pretty logical that the Deity of Peace, Love & Understanding is going to imbue their people with free will (including the potential to do evil) whereas the Deity of Blood, Slavery & Pain is going to keep their thumb on the scales to oppress their mortal creations. Enough free will to be self-sufficient and have a spark of creativity but not so much (except for the rare individual) that they decide en masse that blood, slavery & pain ain't the yoke they want to be under. Why on earth would an evil deity decide that their creations need a fair shake and display an respectful philosophy regarding self-determination?

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."

LibraryOgre

2024-02-17, 05:41 PM

As a specific example I run dragons (and fey?) with less alignment tendencies than you do. I also run celestials/demons/devils with less alignment tendencies that a couple aberrations*. That second part is because I run aberrations all across the spectrum because they are just so flexible.

* For example I run illithids with greater LE tendencies than I run devils with. I just see more selective pressures and stronger ones surrounding illithids specifically than around devils. On the other hand I run elder brains with less LE tendencies than I run devils.

Part of why I tend towards fiends and celestials being close to always their listed alignment is metaphysical; they are embodiments of their respective planes, often derived from souls sent to those planes as part of their afterlife. In a lot of ways, they are the distillation of a given alignment, and deviating from that is deviating from their very nature. Mind Flayers, for all that they are alien, and somewhat of a hive mind, are still mortal.

Oh a quick contextual note based on Elves in Monster Manuals:
...
So if someone cites a monster manual to back up a claim of literal "always", then they might not using a monster manual that has elves labeled as good in that monster manual.

Bear in mind that I usually have this argument with people who spent years referring to 3rd edition as "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named", to the point where it was frequently abbreviated to TETSNBN. When I say "they quote the Monster Manual", I mean the one printed in 1977.

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."

For me, this comes back to the nature of mortals, and relates somewhat to what OldTrees said above (that I didn't quote here); moral agents must have choices. Celestials and fiends mostly don't, but mortals do. Mortals have belief, and can provide power to deities because of that.

Basically, a mortal is fundamentally different than a fiend or celestial; the mortal is the muscle, the outsider is the weapon. And what is a sword compared to the hand that wields it?

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-17, 05:56 PM

I don't know about people committed to it because "It says so in the Monster Manual" but I think it's pretty logical that the Deity of Peace, Love & Understanding is going to imbue their people with free will (including the potential to do evil) whereas the Deity of Blood, Slavery & Pain is going to keep their thumb on the scales to oppress their mortal creations.
Yeah, my thinking is not "do it because it's in the MM", but rather it's in the MM because it serves a purpose.

I don't particularly see the benefit of having a cosmopolitan multicultural evil empire vs a homogenous monocultural one. In the end, the heroes have to go in there and defeat it. This is all way too much thought for really no benefit. If you don't like an empire of evil orcs, then make an empire of evil humans, elves, dwarves, warforged, grung, dhampirs, and aasimar. That's fine. Call it an evil autonomous collective. Or the evil confederation of like minded individuals.

It's just unfortunate all the flak that's been thrown at the traditional evil cultures in D&D.

Enough free will to be self-sufficient and have a spark of creativity but not so much (except for the rare individual) that they decide en masse that blood, slavery & pain ain't the yoke they want to be under. Why on earth would an evil deity decide that their creations need a fair shake and display an respectful philosophy regarding self-determination?

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."
Yeah my thinking is that gods are powerful forces and of course evil gods will have a tremendous influence on their followers. Especially if they're creator deities. And that of course leads to a race of creatures following their creator deity, and if the one is evil, it makes sense the other would be too. Gruumsh doesn't look down on his orcs and go "Well, it's not how I would have handled that situation but they're free to do as they wish...".

Free will works differently in D&D when gods can blight your lands, curse your offspring, and show up in avatar form to demonstrate their displeasure up close and personal.

OldTrees1

2024-02-17, 06:52 PM

Part of why I tend towards fiends and celestials being close to always their listed alignment is metaphysical; they are embodiments of their respective planes, often derived from souls sent to those planes as part of their afterlife. In a lot of ways, they are the distillation of a given alignment, and deviating from that is deviating from their very nature. Mind Flayers, for all that they are alien, and somewhat of a hive mind, are still mortal.

I see similar initial selection pressures as you see, which is why I run elder brains with less alignment tendencies than devils. However illithids have ongoing selection pressures that I see as more severe than the ongoing selection pressures fiends/celestials face. I don't run an ongoing metaphysical selection pressure (maybe you do?). The outsiders are moral agents and get a surprising amount of apparent and actual autonomy given the context of this comparison to illithids.

Of course both world building choices have merit and interesting consequences. It makes a good example.

Bear in mind that I usually have this argument with people who spent years referring to 3rd edition as "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named", to the point where it was frequently abbreviated to TETSNBN. When I say "they quote the Monster Manual", I mean the one printed in 1977.
That explains it.

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."

For me, this comes back to the nature of mortals, and relates somewhat to what OldTrees said above (that I didn't quote here); moral agents must have choices. Celestials and fiends mostly don't, but mortals do. Mortals have belief, and can provide power to deities because of that.

Basically, a mortal is fundamentally different than a fiend or celestial; the mortal is the muscle, the outsider is the weapon. And what is a sword compared to the hand that wields it?
Replying to LibraryOgre and Jophiel

Personally I classify this as the nature of moral agents rather than of mortals. This has changed how I view outsiders.

On the other hand, the ongoing selection pressures for the illithid communities I run, or the outsiders LibraryOgre runs, could be distantly compared to the ongoing pressure of 5E Gruumsh (I forget which book, but you know the take in question) or 5E Yeenoghu & gnolls. In each case the moral agent is given few moral choices and another entity is trying to bias those choices in their favor. However the 5E Gruumsh is extremely heavy handed compared to other evil deities, even compared to Lolth, and especially compared to older versions of Gruumsh. It is not how I want to run orcs or gnolls, however I can see the comparisons to other cases of tactically minimized agency of moral agents combined with manipulative selection pressures biasing the moral choices they do get, or filtering for the ones that made the desired choice.

icefractal

2024-02-18, 03:49 AM

I don't know about people committed to it because "It says so in the Monster Manual" but I think it's pretty logical that the Deity of Peace, Love & Understanding is going to imbue their people with free will (including the potential to do evil) whereas the Deity of Blood, Slavery & Pain is going to keep their thumb on the scales to oppress their mortal creations. Enough free will to be self-sufficient and have a spark of creativity but not so much (except for the rare individual) that they decide en masse that blood, slavery & pain ain't the yoke they want to be under. Why on earth would an evil deity decide that their creations need a fair shake and display an respectful philosophy regarding self-determination?

"Hey, I'm really into tyranny, slavery, murder and torture but I think it's super important that you find your own way there..."
IDK that I'd agree. You can definitely have an evil god who values free will - for example, consider this version on Gruumsh:
"The foremost thing is to fulfill your ambitions and desires. If you see a pie on a table, and you want it, take it.
The laws says you don't own the pie? Another orc says it's his pie? Leader of the town says he'll kill you if you take the pie? Gruumsh himself says don't take the pie?
None of those matter. Take the pie. You might end up beaten or dead, but you'll have died with honor.
Sometimes, a little delay is acceptable. Lie to the town leader you won't take it, sneak in later that night. Fighting's not the only way to win.
But if you give up, accept others telling you what's allowed to do? That's weak, that's not the Gruumsh way."

Still evil, because stabbing someone to take their hat (or even you just didn't like them) is not only ok but encouraged, as is really any type of evil deed if the one doing it (not the victim) honestly wants to. Also, it's what most people would consider very unfair because it doesn't take circumstances into account - enslaving others isn't wrong by Gruumsh standards, but allowing yourself to stay enslaved is. But it's also very in favor of free will in belief - if someone wants to say that harming others is bad, tell everyone to be peaceful, be peaceful themselves - that's fine, that's them pursuing their own desires and Gruumsh approves. But would probably disapprove of others who were too easily convinced by them.

The converse depends on whether you consider respecting free will to be an essential component of Good, which many (most?) people do. If so, then no, not possible. If not, or if its absence can be compensated for by sufficient good in other areas, then consider a view like:
"The desire to harm others is a sickness of the mind. When people have this sickness, we try to cure them. If we can't, we confine them as humanely as possible, but never release them unless they're later cured - letting them run around with the desire to harm wouldn't be acceptable. Even if they've not committed harm yet, the desire to is reason enough."

Amnestic

2024-02-18, 05:13 AM

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 09:28 AM

"The foremost thing is to fulfill your ambitions and desires.
That sounds like a CN version of Gruumsh: "You wanna kill orphans for their pie? Cool. You want to bake pies for orphans? Whatever you want, the important thing is that you do you and follow the personal freedom of your own vibe".

Closer to OOTS Loki & Hilgya (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1171.html) than complaints about Always Evil Orcs.

The people who want an always evil race should just make dwarves that instead of orcs or whatever.
No one would complain if you had a bunch of Always Evil Elves, right?

Errorname

2024-02-18, 10:03 AM

Closer to OOTS Loki & Hilgya (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1171.html) than complaints about Always Evil Orcs.

I mean, I am pretty sure that OOTS Loki is written as Evil.

No one would complain if you had a bunch of Always Evil Elves, right?

I think it depends. I definitely think if you tried it in a D&D setting people absolutely would complain about it, but Elves as something dangerous and malevolent certainly has folkloric precedent. You could do it, but I do think that Elf portrayals that truly are "always evil" tend towards the Demon or Spirit end of the scale.

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 10:06 AM

I mean, I am pretty sure that OOTS Loki is written as Evil.
I looked at the Wiki (https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/Loki) before posting and it has him as CN. Regardless, the Gruumsh depicted who says "if someone wants to say that harming others is bad, tell everyone to be peaceful, be peaceful themselves - that's fine" isn't what I would consider an evil deity but a CN one.

You could certainly come up with some rationale for your Evil deity giving its creations free will. Either a motivation by the deity itself or some larger principle like "SuperGod says any gods making mortals has to give them free will...". But it's equally easy to assume that Always Evil races have less free will than their other mortal counterparts because they were created by an Evil deity who had no interest in giving its minions a fair shake and views them as tools more than 'children'. And they don't have to swing all the way to the Fiend side of the spectrum just to be lacking in equal will to your halflings.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-18, 12:54 PM

...but Elves as something dangerous and malevolent certainly has folkloric precedent. You could do it, but I do think that Elf portrayals that truly are "always evil" tend towards the Demon or Spirit end of the scale. Yes. Some years ago I had the xenophobic elves in place as the enemy/foe of the local human settlements. (And some years later, when I read the Witcher books, I saw someone taking that idea and treating far more completely than I did...).

EGG had the "Valley of the Mage" and included "valley elves" in one of the monster books (MM II?) in AD&D. They were, as written, a bit nastier in their dislike of outsiders than the the Galadrim of Lothlorien.

Psyren

2024-02-18, 02:08 PM

OldTrees1

2024-02-18, 03:03 PM

The people who want an always evil race should just make dwarves that instead of orcs or whatever.

Solves the problem of no one playing them (you can't! They're evil!) and gets you your villain bat all at once. Job done. If "a god's influence" was good enough for doing it to orcs/gnolls, it's good enough for dwarves.

No one would complain if you had a bunch of Always Evil Elves, right?

There would be someone somewhere that complains about a figuratively* "always" evil population regardless of if they are devils/undead/orcs/gnolls/dwarves/elves/angels. However you can make interesting stories in each of those cases.

I liked Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies fey elves. It has been a long time, so I need to reread it, however they were the kind of cruel fey that folklore warns you about. Using that as a jumping off point, I could imaging a very powerful dwarven stronghold with a figuratively "always" evil dwarves that is inspired from the cruel fey folklore. They hew close to tradition and their laws, so the party has safe passage if they are careful. However a previous visitor was not so careful. The party is tasked with rescuing the previous visitor.

* And if it was literally "always" instead of figuratively "always", there would be many more with criticisms.

Right, because children always turn out how their parents intend them to.

"Enough free will" is an oxymoron - either you have free will or you don't, there is no in-between. If you do, it means that you are not predestined to be any particular alignment, because you can choose, even if choosing is hard. It's that simple.

Gruumsh may have made the Orcs, and Lolth may have absconded with the Drow, but they don't control their destiny. It might seem that way if you're stuck inside Menzoberranzan and matrons are monitoring your every deed, but you still have a choice. Similarly, Moradin made the dwarves, but he can't keep evil dwarves from existing, because... they have free will.

1) A kobold is lost in a desert. They are dying of thirst and are starving. A naga stumbles across them and offers food and water. The kobold has free will, however it would be hard for them to choose to starve/dehydrate rather than accept the food/water. They could choose to die, but let's acknowledge that the context is biasing their decision. If the sample size is increased we would expect a tendency for starving dehydrated kobolds to accept food and water from nagas. Each individually still has a choice.

2) A human wants to fly. They choose to jump off a cliff, flap their arms, with the intent of soaring off into the sky. They fall down the cliff instead. Even with free will their are limits on what options are available to a given choice. The human had the option to flap & fall, but did not have the option to flap & fly.

3) Here is an example using an Elder Brain's selection pressures on an illithid's agency.
The Elder Brain in an illithid community has unprecedented access to and control over the minds of their illithid slaves. They use subtle manipulation and allow some autonomy as long as it suits their purpose. However they can exert more severe control when they wish to, and have enough access to disguise the evidence of that harsher control. When allowed autonomy, the illithids have free will within the scope of the permitted autonomy. What they know has been sculpted. What choices they are given has been sculpted. Their past has been sculpted. Their hunger for brains and diet dependency on brains is being leveraged. However despite all those biasing factors, when granted free will over a choice, the illithids have free will over that choice. You are right there is no in-between. However after they make their choice the elder brain can exert their unprecedented control if they find the choice to be sufficiently unsatisfactory.

As such illithids do have free will, but it is best to describe it as tactically limited agency and being figuratively "always" evil. If the Elder Brain chooses, you will never run into any of the illithids that were "unsatifactory".

Of course here is where the example breaks down a bit. The Elder Brain can make mistakes, and does not necessarily care if a non-evil illithid exists. They may even allow some illithid slaves to leave.

One of the 5E books rewrote Gruumsh to be more heavy handed than I portray an elder brain in my example. It is not how I would run Gruumsh, but if they were that heavy handed, it would be an epic quest vs Gruumsh to find a living orc that failed Gruumsh's specifications. I believe this was someone from WotC trying to create an explanation for figuratively "always" evil orcs. It works, but is not my preference so I don't use that take on Gruumsh. However it is consistent in a way that literal "always" evil (devils/__/___) never is.

So the first question is, are they talking about the figurative or literal "always". By default I assume it is the figurative "always".

Psyren

2024-02-18, 04:18 PM

1) A kobold is lost in a desert. They are dying of thirst and are starving. A naga stumbles across them and offers food and water. The kobold has free will, however it would be hard for them to choose to starve/dehydrate rather than accept the food/water. They could choose to die, but let's acknowledge that the context is biasing their decision. If the sample size is increased we would expect a tendency for starving dehydrated kobolds to accept food and water from nagas. Each individually still has a choice.

2) A human wants to fly. They choose to jump off a cliff, flap their arms, with the intent of soaring off into the sky. They fall down the cliff instead. Even with free will their are limits on what options are available to a given choice. The human had the option to flap & fall, but did not have the option to flap & fly.

3) Here is an example using an Elder Brain's selection pressures on an illithid's agency.
The Elder Brain in an illithid community has unprecedented access to and control over the minds of their illithid slaves. They use subtle manipulation and allow some autonomy as long as it suits their purpose. However they can exert more severe control when they wish to, and have enough access to disguise the evidence of that harsher control. When allowed autonomy, the illithids have free will within the scope of the permitted autonomy. What they know has been sculpted. What choices they are given has been sculpted. Their past has been sculpted. Their hunger for brains and diet dependency on brains is being leveraged. However despite all those biasing factors, when granted free will over a choice, the illithids have free will over that choice. You are right there is no in-between. However after they make their choice the elder brain can exert their unprecedented control if they find the choice to be sufficiently unsatisfactory.

As such illithids do have free will, but it is best to describe it as tactically limited agency and being figuratively "always" evil. If the Elder Brain chooses, you will never run into any of the illithids that were "unsatifactory".

Of course here is where the example breaks down a bit. The Elder Brain can make mistakes, and does not necessarily care if a non-evil illithid exists. They may even allow some illithid slaves to leave.

For #1 and #2, I'm not seeing how these are in any way relevant to what I'm talking about, they have nothing to do with morality.

For #3, Aberrations do not have minds (or souls, we now know) that work the way ours do, even without an Elder Brain actively directing them. The vanishing few that are able to attain or cling to their free will, like Omeluum or the Emperor, do so because they are not fully mindflayers; whatever they were before is able to express itself through in some way. Jergal himself says he is not sure exactly what such a being is, though he can recognize its soul underneath, and finds it fascinating - and he would know.

One of the 5E books rewrote Gruumsh to be more heavy handed than I portray an elder brain in my example. It is not how I would run Gruumsh, but if they were that heavy handed, it would be an epic quest vs Gruumsh to find a living orc that failed Gruumsh's specifications. I believe this was someone from WotC trying to create an explanation for figuratively "always" evil orcs. It works, but is not my preference so I don't use that take on Gruumsh. However it is consistent in a way that literal "always" evil (devils/__/___) never is.

So the first question is, are they talking about the figurative or literal "always". By default I assume it is the figurative "always".

I assume you're referring to Volo's Guide to Monsters, which has since been walked back via errata to just be Volo's own "idiosyncratic" perspective that does not actually align with reality, even just within the Realms where he resides, never mind in other D&D worlds that contain these species. MPMM retained Gruumsh as the Orcs' progenitor but none of the destiny-shaping aspects of their relationship, and with full-blooded Orcs slated for core now I'm curious to see what the new PHB will have to say about them.

Errorname

2024-02-18, 04:50 PM

OldTrees1

2024-02-18, 05:02 PM

For #1 and #2, I'm not seeing how these are in any way relevant to what I'm talking about, they have nothing to do with morality.

For #3, Aberrations do not have minds (or souls, we now know) that work the way ours do, even without an Elder Brain actively directing them. The vanishing few that are able to attain or cling to their free will, like Omeluum or the Emperor, do so because they are not fully mindflayers; whatever they were before is able to express itself through in some way. Jergal himself says he is not sure exactly what such a being is, though he can recognize its soul underneath, and finds it fascinating - and he would know.

I assume you're referring to Volo's Guide to Monsters, which has since been walked back via errata to just be Volo's own "idiosyncratic" perspective that does not actually align with reality, even just within the Realms where he resides, never mind in other D&D worlds that contain these species. MPMM retained Gruumsh as the Orcs' progenitor but none of the destiny-shaping aspects of their relationship, and with full-blooded Orcs slated for core now I'm curious to see what the new PHB will have to say about them.

You were talking about free will and assuming Jophiel was using the literal "always" evil despite it being likely they were using the figurative "always" evil.

I illustrated how free will, despite being absolute, can be curtailed. The first 2 examples avoided morality to just talk about the limitations of free will despite it being absolute. My 3rd example was using the elder brain to lay out a milder example to Volo's 5E orc headcanon. Your "I will ignore them since they are aberrations" dodge is not useful to you understanding the mental control example. Also your reference to an unreliable narrator from BG3's Jergal's personal head canon is not helpful consider my head canon is the one relevant for the illithid example (GMs need not hew to Psyren's canon). I do hope that when you reexamine example 3, you see how I am describing how a being with unprecedented mental control could limit when a moral agents gets to use their free will, make the choices harder for the moral agent, and take action after the fact for any undesired choices the moral agents made. I expect if you get to that point you can see why that selection pressure might limit which of those moral agents are possible for the party to encounter. In the case where you took the time to get that far, then you probably understand Volo's take but, like me, will continue to choose to use your own take on Orcs instead.

I will say I prefer how Mordenkainen would run orcs compared to how Volo would run orcs, however if the question is about how a evil god could curtail the free will of moral agents without them ceasing to be moral agents, Volo's take on orcs is plausible despite not being my preference.

Psyren

2024-02-18, 05:09 PM

You were talking about free will and assuming Jophiel was using the literal "always" evil despite it being likely they were using the figurative "always" evil.

I illustrated how free will, despite being absolute, can be curtailed. The first 2 examples avoided morality to just talk about the limitations of free will despite it being absolute. My 3rd example was using the elder brain to lay out a milder example to Volo's 5E orc headcanon. Your "I will ignore them since they are aberrations" dodge is not useful to you understanding the mental control example. Also your reference to an unreliable narrator from BG3's Jergal's personal head canon is not helpful consider my head canon is the one relevant for the illithid example (GMs need not hew to Psyren's canon). I do hope that when you reexamine example 3, you see how I am describing how a being with unprecedented mental control could limit when a moral agents gets to use their free will, make the choices harder for the moral agent, and take action after the fact for any undesired choices the moral agents made. I expect if you get to that point you can see why that selection pressure might limit which of those moral agents are possible for the party to encounter. In the case where you took the time to get that far, then you probably understand Volo's take but, like me, will continue to choose to use your own take on Orcs instead.

I will say I prefer how Mordenkainen would run orcs compared to how Volo would run orcs, however if the question is about how a evil god could curtail the free will of moral agents without them ceasing to be moral agents, Volo's take on orcs is plausible despite not being my preference.

1) I'm fine with an evil god curtailing its' creations free will, but then they shouldn't be a PC race, they should be monsters. Yeenoghu turning Gnolls into fiends-in-all-but-name is a fine example of that. Gruumsh doing the same to Orcs is not.

2) Aberrations not being representative or analogous to regular mortal minds is not a "dodge," it's literally how they work. If you don't like that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less true.

OldTrees1

2024-02-18, 05:12 PM

I have seen stories that pull off the "this entire race is hostile to you because of [X] external factor", it's not unworkable. I do think it tends to be quite tragic, it's easy to pity enemies who are evil not of their own will but because they had no other choice (which does undermine the clear cut morality this trope is often said to create), but tragedy isn't a bad thing. I guess I don't really think including a sapient taxon whose main narrative function is to be hostile enemies is always bad, it can work, as mentioned I'm a big fan of Mind Flayers. In truth my big issues with "always chaotic evil orcs" aren't even necessarily tied to the "mainly evil" bit. It doesn't help to be sure, but monolithic fantasy cultures are boring regardless of morality and 'biological morality' still bothers me if it's biologically good.

Quite tragic indeed. Sometimes that tragedy is interesting/fun. I had an Illithid PC and the party succeeded in breaking them free of the tragedy. That was a minor part of the full spelljammer campaign, but it was so great! On the other hand carelessly using this kind of tragic element could cause the party to get distracted and reroute the entire campaign. If I used Volo's take on orcs, I would expect my playgroup to go to war with Gruumsh.

Edit:
I also understand your disinterest in monolithic XYZ. This is one reason why I too am drawn to the internal diversity.

1) I'm fine with an evil god curtailing its' creations free will, but then they shouldn't be a PC race, they should be monsters. Yeenoghu turning Gnolls into fiends-in-all-but-name is a fine example of that. Gruumsh doing the same to Orcs is not.

2) Aberrations not being representative or analogous to regular mortal minds is not a "dodge," it's literally how they work. If you don't like that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less true.

1) Personally I am not going to use your artificial PC race vs "monster" split. You can use that as an arbitrary dividing line of what you are and are not comfortable with. However I see them all as people. There is nothing in my world building stopping a player from playing a "monster" and I don't distinguish between Dwarf "monsters" and Naga "monsters". The lack of convenient PC race examples from WotC is not part of my world building. My current campaign has a Green Dragon in it and I was playing a Mind Flayer last campaign.

2) The difference you see was not relevant to the example. Therefore it was a dodge. Yes illithids differ from humans in that they are psionic tadpoles from the future that undergo ceremorphosis, however that is not relevant to the example. What was relevant was the elder brain having an unprecedented mental control over them. A severity of control that is similar to the severity Volo's head canon attributed to Gruumsh's control over orcs. I can understand the unprecedented mental control, therefore I expect you can. The dodge was called out when you chose to dodge instead of engage. Maybe it would help you if it was a mind flayer and a bunch of dwarf thralls instead of the elder brain and a bunch of mind flayers?

Errorname

2024-02-18, 05:57 PM

On the other hand carelessly using this kind of tragic element could cause the party to get distracted and reroute the entire campaign. If I used Volo's take on orcs, I would expect my playgroup to go to war with Gruumsh.

Yeah. This is honestly part of why I prefer free willed bad guys, I find it much easier to hate characters who are evil by choice.

Personally I am not going to use your artificial PC race vs "monster" split. You can use that as an arbitrary dividing line of what you are and are not comfortable with. However I see them all as people. There is nothing in my world building stopping a player from playing a "monster" and I don't distinguish between Dwarf "monsters" and Naga "monsters". The lack of convenient PC race examples from WotC is not part of my world building. My current campaign has a Green Dragon in it and I was playing a Mind Flayer last campaign.

I do agree that sapients who aren't meant as player characters should still be treated as people by the setting, but many games do have sapient taxa who clearly were never meant to be player characters. Very rare that games let you be proper Dragon.

Psyren

2024-02-18, 05:58 PM

1) Personally I am not going to use your artificial PC race vs "monster" split. You can use that as an arbitrary dividing line of what you are and are not comfortable with. However I see them all as people. There is nothing in my world building stopping a player from playing a "monster" and I don't distinguish between Dwarf "monsters" and Naga "monsters". The lack of convenient PC race examples from WotC is not part of my world building. My current campaign has a Green Dragon in it and I was playing a Mind Flayer last campaign.

2) The difference you see was not relevant to the example. Therefore it was a dodge. Yes illithids differ from humans in that they are psionic tadpoles from the future that undergo ceremorphosis, however that is not relevant to the example. What was relevant was the elder brain having an unprecedented mental control over them. A severity of control that is similar to the severity Volo's head canon attributed to Gruumsh's control over orcs. I can understand the unprecedented mental control, therefore I expect you can. The dodge was called out when you chose to dodge instead of engage. Maybe it would help you if it was a mind flayer and a bunch of dwarf thralls instead of the elder brain and a bunch of mind flayers?

1) Sure, nothing is stopping DMs from doing that, and they will be the ones who need to figure out any resultant lore or morality implications for allowing those options. You can let a PC play as a good-aligned devil in your setting too, that doesn't mean anything in WotC's lore about devil alignment will change.

2) You're welcome to see it as a dodge if you want to, I don't need (or care) to convince you otherwise. An Elder Brain enthralling a creature has nothing to do with that creature's unmodified or default morality, but mindflayers are evil whether they are in the radius of one or not, unless they are the vanishing few whose host creature is able to overcome their aberrant conditioning.

Grim Portent

2024-02-18, 06:38 PM

I don't particularly see the need for orcs to be inherently evil in any sense, their society and religion make them evil enough for most purposes, and there's no real reason for Gruumsh not to let some orcs deviate from his own alignment. Hell, there's not even a reason for the orcs to punish deviants more severely than humiliation and ostracision anymore than we punish people for being *******s to a non-criminal level in real life.

The thing about gods like Gruumsh being real is that the reward/punishment for his worshippers is baked into his religion. Orcs who are strong, ruthless, cunning and so on will be rewarded in the afterlife with higher station, those that are cowardly, weak, merciful and so on will be given lower station to the point of being slaves. This stratification can also happen in the living world, with the orcish version of moral society consisting of the strongest and cruellest of their kind, and their outcasts and dregs being the weak and kind, who are bullied and exploited because they can be.

There's no need to control the minds of your worshippers when you already control their souls, and all it does is close off narrative stuff like orcs who betray their superiors because they caught a case of morality, or a kind orc who's used as a slave labourer by their tribe, or a missionary trying to convert the orcs away from Gruumsh to a more forgiving deity.

Of course I don't particularly see the need for gnolls to be pseudo-demons either, they easily work as an antagonistic cannibal race just because they happen to find sapient flesh tastier than that of other animals, leading to them naturally being inclined towards actions that cause conflict with others, like eating grannies. If gnoll's have a natural instinct to eat dead people then most other races are going to be rather hostile to them as a default, similar to lizardfolk. Throw in a natural predilection to confrontation and you have a race that's comfortably able to be mostly CE, but also to be enemies while being Neutral, simply because they are frequently engaged in conflict with people who don't like gnolls digging up corpses and eating them, and especially dislike them eating the bodies of soldiers they kill in battle or peasants they kill in raids and so on.

137beth

2024-02-18, 06:45 PM

Yeah. This is honestly part of why I prefer free willed bad guys, I find it much easier to hate characters who are evil by choice.

I do agree that sapients who aren't meant as player characters should still be treated as people by the setting, but many games do have sapient taxa who clearly were never meant to be player characters. Very rare that games let you be proper Dragon.

Yeah, if you tell me that members of Species X are all being mind-controlled by an evil god, my expectation is going to be that the campaign will be about freeing them from their mind-control. I'm certainly not going to think "Great! It's okay to kill these mind-control-victims without any moral implications!"

The people who want an always evil race should just make dwarves that instead of orcs or whatever.

Solves the problem of no one playing them (you can't! They're evil!) and gets you your villain bat all at once. Job done. If "a god's influence" was good enough for doing it to orcs/gnolls, it's good enough for dwarves.
May I put this in my extended sig, please?

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 07:24 PM

Right, because children always turn out how their parents intend them to.
That was entirely the point made earlier: Good Deities who treat their creations as children shouldn't be surprised when some percentage of them decide to be jerkwads instead of happily communing with songbirds and making diamond warhammers. Evil Deities would be less interested in giving their creations that option. Thus, more evil halflings than cheerful and friendly ogres.

"Enough free will" is an oxymoron - either you have free will or you don't, there is no in-between.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. There's a wealth of fiction about created beings working through their capacity for free will. If you have an android who is left to its own devices except it is compelled at the root level of its programming to stand on one foot for continuous five minutes once a week, does it have free will? It seems you would answer "No"; since its free will is not absolute, it has no free will at all. I wouldn't agree with that assertion.

More importantly: Can this android be played as an interesting and fun RPG character? Well, the "one foot" thing is kind of lame but the mere fact that it lacks absolute (or any, depending on definitions) free will wouldn't prevent me from giving it a spin and having an enjoyable time creating stories. Likewise, it wouldn't be a barrier to making it an interesting NPC encounter. Or part of a hostile group of androids, etc.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-18, 07:38 PM

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

Aquillion

2024-02-18, 08:00 PM

Reminds me of this gem from the Ur-Quan Masters:

The Captain: Do you really consider yourselves Evil?
Ilwrath: Ha! Evil! Of Course We're Evil!
Ilwrath: Dogar And Kazon Would Never Reward A Less-Than-Hideously Evil Species With Their Baleful Grace.
Ilwrath: Why We Are The Very Definition Of Evil!
Ilwrath: Everything About Us, Within And Without, Reeks Of Heinous Deeds, Deceit And Treachery!
Ilwrath: Even Our House Pets Are Rather Evil.
The Captain: But 'evil' is that which is morally bad or wrong. And if your actions are judged by your society as correct, aren't you, in fact, good?
Ilwrath: Hmmm... We ARE All Evil.
Ilwrath: We All Behave In A Mutually Agreed-Upon Fashion Of Murder, Torture, Deceit And So Forth.
Ilwrath: Our Uniform Acceptance Of This Heinous Credo Creates An Orderly And Cooperative Society
Ilwrath: Which Hardly Seems Evil.
Ilwrath: Evil Is Doing Things That Make Others Hurt Or Fear.
Ilwrath: We ALL Do That, Of Course.
Ilwrath: But Since We ALL Do Such Things, As Sanctioned By Our Culture,
Ilwrath: It Would Be 'Bad' To Do Otherwise.
Ilwrath: Which Means...
Ilwrath: Er...
Ilwrath: Puny Hu-Man, Do Not Play With Words! You Anger Both Dogar And Kazon! Now You Must Die!

Errorname

2024-02-18, 08:19 PM

Of course I don't particularly see the need for gnolls to be pseudo-demons either.

Sort of the ultimate example of how Hyenas get demonized by their portrayals in popular culture, really. I don't necessarily mind it, the concept of animals scavenging tainted flesh and getting mutated into demons is a strong hook for a fantasy monster, but it's kind of funny.

If gnoll's have a natural instinct to eat dead people then most other races are going to be rather hostile to them as a default, similar to lizardfolk.

Something that I've always been kind of curious about is how different sapient taxa might interact if they filled radically different ecological niches. D&D's not really interested in that and most of it's playable races are too "human with bumpy forehead" for it to work, but how humans might interact with an obligate predator smart enough to negotiate with is something I think you could do interesting things with.

That was entirely the point made earlier: Good Deities who treat their creations as children shouldn't be surprised when some percentage of them decide to be jerkwads instead of happily communing with songbirds and making diamond warhammers.

Right, but by the same token if you treat your creations as disposable pawns, unless they literally do not have the capacity for independent thought (which is not how it tends to work in these settings), it's pretty likely that some of them are going to think "hey, this is a bad deal". Doesn't even have to be "I want to be a paragon of good", just "I don't want to take orders from you anymore"

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

It's a nature vs nurture thing. If a writer describes Orcs as "evil", does they mean that they are taught to be evil or is it instinctual. The latter's a lot less common than it used to be, for good reason.

awa

2024-02-18, 08:29 PM

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

when I think of a biological evil species I tend to think of something like a lion something that enjoys causing pain to other creatures and has a tendency towards infanticide. If you took lions but smart you would have a species that would seem pretty evil to an outside observer. While these lion folk are naturally inclined towards behaviors commonly seen as evil they are not forced to do so, but the inclination is there and they have to work that much harder to overcome those desires something their society may or may not encourage.

The lion folk might embrace these behaviors or they might see them as evil and strict to limit, regulate, or redirect them. These might be small group mimicking real lion prides or maybe if they were large enough scale to build cities each family could have a private compound where the children are locked up until they are large enough to be safe, the wealthy might high non-lion folk guards to protect those compounds.It can be interesting from a world building perspective to try and see how a species that isn't interchangeable with a human fits into the world.

As for evil dwarves that would be very easy, normally dwarves in fiction get to cheat on their metal working they live in mountains where the iron is but the thing is the limiting factor on metal production is not iron but fuel you need a lot of wood to fuel large scale iron work like massive amounts. Thus if the dwarves are constantly needing to expand to get more wood that's going to cause problems if say anyone happens to be living in that forest. The dwarves could be a conventional empire just conquering stuff or You could take some lessons from European colonialism they had lots of cheap goods they wanted to sell in exchange for the raw materials they needed and by selling weapons to the people willing to give them what they want they can destabilize other less advanced kingdoms.

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 08:39 PM

Right, but by the same token if you treat your creations as disposable pawns, unless they literally do not have the capacity for independent thought (which is not how it tends to work in these settings), it's pretty likely that some of them are going to think "hey, this is a bad deal". Doesn't even have to be "I want to be a paragon of good", just "I don't want to take orders from you anymore"
Sure, but that's all the rest of being an Evil Deity. Putting your divine thumb on the scale during creation doesn't mean you can't do all the other usual stuff: Lie about your relationship ("Are you not my children and have I not given you lands and many strong children?"), lie about the enemy ("The elves wish to destroy you for who you are but as long as you are faithful, I will defend you"), gaslighting ("You failed to conquer the elven army because YOU lacked faith"), carrot & stick ("Those who are faithful to me will have my blessing in conflict, those who oppose me with be put to the lash"), yadda yadda. Powerful individuals who are faithful get rewarded and incentivized to root out the "I don't wanna" malcontents. Malcontents growing in power get lightning bolts to the face (or more subtle intervention).

Some small percentage will "get free" regardless. They'll make for fine PC concepts or interesting NPC encounters.

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

I assume they mean an innate drive/instinct to do things we typically consider as bad or undesirable. But, since these are beings with language and advanced culture, we judge them more harshly than a pack of beasts engaging in the same behavior. So a group of beings with a drive to eat humanoid brains would likely develop a culture around harvesting brains and be considered evil for doing it. A swarm of brain beetles that jump on people's heads and eat their brains would be neutral.

This is really what I meant when I talked about an Evil Deities making their Always Evil Race. Not so much direct brainwashing or mind control but you "play with the sliders" as it were and give 'em brains and natures innately compelled to expand territory, see other humanoids as competition, etc. Why would an Evil Deity rely on making a compelling intellectual case for tyranny and ascension through violent conflict when they can just ingrain it into the metaphorical DNA of their creations from the start to make their divine lives easier?

OldTrees1

2024-02-18, 08:46 PM

Something that I've always been kind of curious about is how different sapient taxa might interact if they filled radically different ecological niches. D&D's not really interested in that and most of it's playable races are too "human with bumpy forehead" for it to work, but how humans might interact with an obligate predator smart enough to negotiate with is something I think you could do interesting things with.
The common answer has been, the obligate predator can feed off of livestock just like the human omnivores do. For some reason my mind is telling me it was usually catfolk as the obligate predators in the media.

In an adventuring party that might even be upgraded to the obligate predator rationing themselves on fallen foes in addition to mutton.

So to keep it interesting often you need to restrict the obligate predator's diet to keep the tension. I have seen "it must be part of a hunt" used to permit livestock but not allow preservation / rations. I have also seen diets that coincidentally or consequentially require sapients as the food source. In those cases logistics become an issue if there isa population of the obligate predator. Individuals could use the dying, the undesired, the "executed", or the fallen foes.

Errorname

2024-02-18, 09:07 PM

when I think of a biological evil species I tend to think of something like a lion something that enjoys causing pain to other creatures and has a tendency towards infanticide.

Lions don't hunt other animals because they enjoy causing pain, they do it because otherwise they'll starve. Likewise, to my understanding infanticide in Lions tends to be observed after one male Lion takes control of a pride from another male Lion, it's not just done for the sake of it, the cubs of the old alpha represent a threat to the cubs of the new one.

Notably, all of these are pretty well precedented in human cultures. We kill things for sustainence, sometimes we kill for the fun of it, and if you overthrow a King and take his crown, his heirs are a threat to your rule that needs to be dealt with.

The common answer has been, the obligate predator can feed off of livestock just like the human omnivores do.

I was more thinking about social interactions. Even in the world we live in it's not unheard of for humans to make unspoken pacts with social predators, that's probably how dogs happened and there's a really famous story from Australia about a pod of Orcas that hunted alongside the whaling ships for a time. There's already a sort of politics to our relationship with wild animals, if you swapped out wolves or hyenas or lions with something that is smart enough to talk back I think you could create some pretty interesting political scenarios.

OldTrees1

2024-02-18, 09:10 PM

This is really what I meant when I talked about an Evil Deities making their Always Evil Race. Not so much direct brainwashing or mind control but you "play with the sliders" as it were and give 'em brains and natures innately compelled to expand territory, see other humanoids as competition, etc. Why would an Evil Deity rely on making a compelling intellectual case for tyranny and ascension through violent conflict when they can just ingrain it into the metaphorical DNA of their creations from the start to make their divine lives easier?

The "playing with the sliders" mind control* might not be enough for figuratively "always" evil species. Using your example silder changes, I suspect it would be a usually evil (majority is evil), an often evil (only a plurality is evil), or even an often good (a plurality is good)**. It is much easier to believe an evil deity would leverage sliders (lower drawbacks than direct mind control) but it also has a higher variance.

* (not necessarily mind control but I am talking about its control on the mind so ...)
** Knowing they are biased towards seeing others as competition might cause them to choose to fight that urge and be more friendly than humans are. The evil deity would use their other tools to try to reduce and remove these outcomes, but I expect them to be settlement sized populations the evil deity is dealing with.

I was more thinking about social interactions. Even in the world we live in it's not unheard of for humans to make unspoken pacts with social predators, that's probably how dogs happened and there's a really famous story from Australia about a pod of Orcas that hunted alongside the whaling ships for a time. There's already a sort of politics to our relationship with wild animals, if you swapped out wolves or hyenas or lions with something that is smart enough to talk back I think you could create some pretty interesting political scenarios.

Ah, gotcha! Yes. I wish one was coming to mind, but I have seen examples in media/literature and they were interesting. You could do a lot with that in an RPG.

awa

2024-02-18, 09:23 PM

Lions don't hunt other animals because they enjoy causing pain, they do it because otherwise they'll starve. Likewise, to my understanding infanticide in Lions tends to be observed after one male Lion takes control of a pride from another male Lion, it's not just done for the sake of it, the cubs of the old alpha represent a threat to the cubs of the new one.

Notably, all of these are pretty well precedented in human cultures. We kill things for sustainence, sometimes we kill for the fun of it, and if you overthrow a King and take his crown, his heirs are a threat to your rule that needs to be dealt with.

I was more thinking about social interactions. Even in the world we live in it's not unheard of for humans to make unspoken pacts with social predators, that's probably how dogs happened and there's a really famous story from Australia about a pod of Orcas that hunted alongside the whaling ships for a time. There's already a sort of politics to our relationship with wild animals, if you swapped out wolves or hyenas or lions with something that is smart enough to talk back I think you could create some pretty interesting political scenarios.

Most predators enjoy killing and do it even when there not particularly hungry.

Its not that the old lion cubs are a threat its that the female wont go into heat so long as she has cubs so the male kills off the old cubs so the female goes into heat faster. My instinct is to kill my neighbors children is not wildly better than my instinct is to kill all children.

Humans might do those things to in some circumstances to but that why humans can be any alignment. Some humans are sadists, if every member of a species was a sadist as part of their biological makeup they would be biologically more inclined to behaviors we typically describe as evil.

Errorname

2024-02-18, 09:49 PM

Most predators enjoy killing and do it even when there not particularly hungry.

Predators hunting more food than they need does happen, but surplus killing isn't just a matter of sadism (it can be quite beneficial to stockpile things) and is still motivated by the simple biological fact that predators need meat to survive.

Its not that the old lion cubs are a threat its that the female wont go into heat so long as she has cubs so the male kills off the old cubs so the female goes into heat faster. My instinct is to kill my neighbors children is not wildly better than my instinct is to kill all children.

More accurately, the old cubs represent a threat to the new dominant male's ability to have his own children and will divide attention away from his own. Killing the heirs of the guy you overthrew to gain social power makes brutal pragmatic sense, whether you're a human or a lion. I don't disagree that it's ruthless and brutal, but it's not unmotivated.

Humans might do those things to in some circumstances to but that why humans can be any alignment.

There's no "might" about it, we do do these things. We kill other animals to harvest their meat and overhunting is a major problem for us. Killing for sport is less common but by no means is it rare, and while human societies generally do not create the same incentives that lions have to kill the offspring of their defeated rivals, in situations where those incentives exist it is not uncommon for it to happen. There is a reason that Hamlet's story mapped extremely cleanly onto a Lion Pride

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 09:59 PM

The "playing with the sliders" mind control* might not be enough for figuratively "always" evil species. Using your example silder changes, I suspect it would be a usually evil (majority is evil), an often evil (only a plurality is evil), or even an often good (a plurality is good)**. It is much easier to believe an evil deity would leverage sliders (lower drawbacks than direct mind control) but it also has a higher variance.
Possibly. It's a fictional scenario so you can take it in whatever direction you want. An Evil Deity who attempts to exert that control over their creations and it goes very wrong for them could also be an interesting story. But the original point was "Free-willed beings can't be Always Evil" to which the obvious response is "Why would you assume that an Evil Deity would give their creations that level of choice?"

To which one may say "But that just means they're fiends", to which I firmly disagree and feel there's plenty of space to be explored between "Programmed golem" and "Independent Tabula Rasa" and that space can allow for interesting cultures and even good PC concepts.

Errorname

2024-02-18, 10:15 PM

"Why would you assume that an Evil Deity would give their creations that level of choice?"

Because deities in these settings tend to not have that level of direct intervention to begin with and these creatures tend to be portrayed as acting and reproducing independently of their dark god.

Jophiel

2024-02-18, 10:25 PM

Because deities in these settings tend to not have that level of direct intervention to begin with and these creatures tend to be portrayed as acting and reproducing independently of their dark god.

Sure, depends on your setting. Most settings don't spend much time on the metaphysics of race creation beyond "So and So made the elves and this other deity made gnomes". I said before that maybe you have a SuperGod who says "No one can make mortals above an INT 4 who aren't free-willed". So I guess my earlier question is better phrased as "Why would you assume that my setting with Always Evil Orcs includes a creator who was handcuffed and unable to influence them from creation?"

Like I said, I find there's a lot of interesting space to be explored. I always find it funny when people try to insist that evil orcs are "lazy". Anything is lazy if you put no effort into it. Saying "Goblins have to be evil because this book says Alignment: Evil" is lazy. Following an RPG book and saying "Everyone is just humans with rubber foreheads" is lazy (and boring, IMO). Having a strong in-setting justification for why this is so can be a lot more interesting -- though I'd still probably find it more limiting and less interesting than a setting where things run the full spectrum.

Errorname

2024-02-18, 10:46 PM

So I guess my earlier question is better phrased as "Why would you assume that my setting with Always Evil Orcs includes a creator who was handcuffed and unable to influence them from creation?"

I'm more assuming that your evil deity does not have the patience or temperment to manually control the every action of tens of thousands of disposable schmucks, and would thus want them to have enough independence that they don't need to be micromanaged.

Anything is lazy if you put no effort into it.

The thing about "always evil race" is that if you start putting effort into it, it'll probably stop being "always evil", because "always anything" tends to be pretty boring.

Psyren

2024-02-18, 11:59 PM

That was entirely the point made earlier: Good Deities who treat their creations as children shouldn't be surprised when some percentage of them decide to be jerkwads instead of happily communing with songbirds and making diamond warhammers. Evil Deities would be less interested in giving their creations that option. Thus, more evil halflings than cheerful and friendly ogres.

Whether they "treat their creations as children" isn't actually the point. Being a playable species means enough of them can self-determinate that the deity's plan/wishes just don't matter. Lolth would probably love it if every single Drow in creation worshiped her exclusively, but that's not what she got. Tiamat probably wants the same for chromatic dragonborn, Laduguer for Duergar, Maglubiyet for Goblins, Gruumsh for orcs, Kurtulmak for kobolds etc etc. But no matter how many these deities succeed at keeping under their thumb, enough wriggle free that they are capable of being heroic adventurers in statistically significant numbers.

Sure, depends on your setting.

I'm talking about their setting; nobody is saying that your version of Gruumsh can't have more direct influence/control over the desires/mindsets of every orc he's ever created. You can give him that power if you want. But WotC chose not to do so for their own default game, and thus he ends up with a substantial number of orcs that are capable of rebellion and rejection of his beliefs.

Because deities in these settings tend to not have that level of direct intervention to begin with and these creatures tend to be portrayed as acting and reproducing independently of their dark god.

Indeed.

You can have orcs that are universally far more subservient to Gruumsh's whims than what WotC decided to go with, that's fine. At that point you're playing in your own custom or customized setting, but those settings can be a lot of fun to play in, and to explore themes that the official printed game might find too thorny to touch. Again, that's okay.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-19, 01:09 AM

Sure, but that's all the rest of being an Evil Deity. Putting your divine thumb on the scale during creation doesn't mean you can't do all the other usual stuff: Lie about your relationship ("Are you not my children and have I not given you lands and many strong children?"), lie about the enemy ("The elves wish to destroy you for who you are but as long as you are faithful, I will defend you"), gaslighting ("You failed to conquer the elven army because YOU lacked faith"), carrot & stick ("Those who are faithful to me will have my blessing in conflict, those who oppose me with be put to the lash"), yadda yadda. Powerful individuals who are faithful get rewarded and incentivized to root out the "I don't wanna" malcontents. Malcontents growing in power get lightning bolts to the face (or more subtle intervention).

Some small percentage will "get free" regardless. They'll make for fine PC concepts or interesting NPC encounters.

I assume they mean an innate drive/instinct to do things we typically consider as bad or undesirable. But, since these are beings with language and advanced culture, we judge them more harshly than a pack of beasts engaging in the same behavior. So a group of beings with a drive to eat humanoid brains would likely develop a culture around harvesting brains and be considered evil for doing it. A swarm of brain beetles that jump on people's heads and eat their brains would be neutral.

This is really what I meant when I talked about an Evil Deities making their Always Evil Race. Not so much direct brainwashing or mind control but you "play with the sliders" as it were and give 'em brains and natures innately compelled to expand territory, see other humanoids as competition, etc. Why would an Evil Deity rely on making a compelling intellectual case for tyranny and ascension through violent conflict when they can just ingrain it into the metaphorical DNA of their creations from the start to make their divine lives easier?
I think we have similar thoughts, if not perfectly aligned, but I'm just using your posts as a jumping off point, not as a point of disagreement.

Before we had weird jungle illusion drow, we had Lolth drow. And the society there has been delved into in many novels, and to call it boring is, in my opinion, BS; something that is very easy to do, pretending that the accuser has some hidden knowledge of truly interesting stuff. You may not like it, but a culture built around deceit and back-stabbing ambition, and demon-calling and raiding, etc. was made to be interesting, whether people want to admit it or not. At the time, drow were basically always evil (in the figurative sense, of course), and of that was born Drizz't, now a cliche and easy to dunk on, but I have no qualms saying I enjoyed the Salvatore novels delving into Menzo and the Underdark and Drizz't's journey to escape it.

Lolth doesn't force her drow to be evil, but she encourages that culture, and punishes those that turn away from it or fail to succeed in it. They then embrace the culture and enforce it on their own, and so on and so on.

There is really NO REASON to delve into this and over explain it. Unless again you're confusing all of this for "biological evil".

Similarly, orcs believe in certain values, as taught to them by their gods. And their culture reflects that, and they conserve that culture and enforce that culture on each other.

To have a problem with this is to basically have a problem with evil creator deities. And also to make special non-humans creatures, since humans are allowed to have whatever type of culture/gods the story calls for, but it appears to be a problem for non-humans.

And to make another point clear; "it's boring" is purely subjective, unsubstantiated, and a cop-out reason for not including something. In fact, it's almost projection to call it lazy, since one can turn around and call it lazy that someone can't make a concept interesting. Probably best to leave "it's boring" out of the conversation.

OldTrees1

2024-02-19, 01:42 AM

Before we had weird jungle illusion drow, we had Lolth drow. And the society there has been delved into in many novels
-snip-
At the time, drow were basically always evil (in the figurative sense, of course), and of that was born Drizz't, now a cliche and easy to dunk on, but I have no qualms saying I enjoyed the Salvatore novels delving into Menzo and the Underdark and Drizz't's journey to escape it.

Edit: Finished rewriting the post after I realized I had the original release dates confused. I thought Icewind Dale trilogy predated 3e but Dark Elf trilogy was released during it. I was off by a decade.

I thoroughly enjoyed the novels.

Slight tangent (does not disrupt the point of your post)
I think the drow in Menzo were closer to "usually neutral evil" (a majority were neutral evil but many were not) in the novels. The Dark Elf trilogy predates 3rd edition, so you are more familiar with the AD&D rules. However R.A.Salvatore did influence 3rd edition's version of the drow and 3rd edition labeled them as "usually neutral evil". If I am correct, then I would expect some thriving neutral drow (Jarlaxle was thriving and we should expect many others spread among the background commoner drow), and a handful of sad good drow nobodies (if Zaknafein had not been attached to a house ...). I struggle to place Vierna DoUrden since she changes over the novels. On the other hand, the named drow nobles were in places of power in the society and thus were mostly some variety of evil (LE Banare, CE Oblodra, or NE DoUrden).

Jophiel

2024-02-19, 08:07 AM

I'm more assuming that your evil deity does not have the patience or temperment to manually control the every action of tens of thousands of disposable schmucks, and would thus want them to have enough independence that they don't need to be micromanaged.
Not sure why you think "Play with the slider to give them evil temperament" means micromanaging (even after I clarified that we're not talking "mind control") but if that's the only way you can imagine it then I agree it's not a good choice for anything you're playing.

"always anything" tends to be pretty boring.
Every humanoid style race always being "Humans with Rubber Foreheads" (or handwaved away with "Uh, fiend?") is indeed super boring in a game with infinite possibilities.

awa

2024-02-19, 08:23 AM

Predators hunting more food than they need does happen, but surplus killing isn't just a matter of sadism (it can be quite beneficial to stockpile things) and is still motivated by the simple biological fact that predators need meat to survive.

More accurately, the old cubs represent a threat to the new dominant male's ability to have his own children and will divide attention away from his own. Killing the heirs of the guy you overthrew to gain social power makes brutal pragmatic sense, whether you're a human or a lion. I don't disagree that it's ruthless and brutal, but it's not unmotivated.

There's no "might" about it, we do do these things. We kill other animals to harvest their meat and overhunting is a major problem for us. Killing for sport is less common but by no means is it rare, and while human societies generally do not create the same incentives that lions have to kill the offspring of their defeated rivals, in situations where those incentives exist it is not uncommon for it to happen. There is a reason that Hamlet's story mapped extremely cleanly onto a Lion Pride

you seem to be willfully missing the point to the point I dont think further discussion is profitable

Psyren

2024-02-19, 11:38 AM

I think we have similar thoughts, if not perfectly aligned, but I'm just using your posts as a jumping off point, not as a point of disagreement.

Before we had weird jungle illusion drow, we had Lolth drow. And the society there has been delved into in many novels, and to call it boring is, in my opinion, BS; something that is very easy to do, pretending that the accuser has some hidden knowledge of truly interesting stuff. You may not like it, but a culture built around deceit and back-stabbing ambition, and demon-calling and raiding, etc. was made to be interesting, whether people want to admit it or not. At the time, drow were basically always evil (in the figurative sense, of course), and of that was born Drizz't, now a cliche and easy to dunk on, but I have no qualms saying I enjoyed the Salvatore novels delving into Menzo and the Underdark and Drizz't's journey to escape it.

Lolth doesn't force her drow to be evil, but she encourages that culture, and punishes those that turn away from it or fail to succeed in it. They then embrace the culture and enforce it on their own, and so on and so on.

There is really NO REASON to delve into this and over explain it. Unless again you're confusing all of this for "biological evil".

Similarly, orcs believe in certain values, as taught to them by their gods. And their culture reflects that, and they conserve that culture and enforce that culture on each other.

To have a problem with this is to basically have a problem with evil creator deities. And also to make special non-humans creatures, since humans are allowed to have whatever type of culture/gods the story calls for, but it appears to be a problem for non-humans.

And to make another point clear; "it's boring" is purely subjective, unsubstantiated, and a cop-out reason for not including something. In fact, it's almost projection to call it lazy, since one can turn around and call it lazy that someone can't make a concept interesting. Probably best to leave "it's boring" out of the conversation.

Not "orcs believe"; some orcs believe. Not "drow embrace"; some drow embrace.

Why is that qualifier so easy to add with dwarves (e.g. some dwarves are evil) but so seemingly hard to add to orcs and drow?

Evil creator deities are neither infallible nor omnipotent. Sure, they want their creations to be mindless footsoldiers universally following and perpetuating their designs, but they failed at that objective - especially where the ones with PC-levels of drive and potential are concerned.

Errorname

2024-02-19, 11:43 AM

And the society there has been delved into in many novels, and to call it boring is, in my opinion, BS; something that is very easy to do, pretending that the accuser has some hidden knowledge of truly interesting stuff. You may not like it, but a culture built around deceit and back-stabbing ambition, and demon-calling and raiding, etc. was made to be interesting, whether people want to admit it or not.

Saying something isn't interesting is a statement of opinion, hard to falsify. I'd agree that cutthroat politics and evil rituals and raids can all be quite interesting, but it's not impossible to botch. If you write a one-note culture full of boring characters who are all basically the same person, it's kind of hard to care no matter how interesting the surface level pitch was.

I'm not saying the Drow are that, I could easily see someone finding them one-note and tedious I personally don't agree, I think they've got more going on than a lot of other D&D races

Every humanoid style race always being "Humans with Rubber Foreheads" is indeed super boring in a game with infinite possibilities.

You don't fix humans with rubber foreheads being boring by giving them a single uniform personality for the entire race, that's honestly just making the problem worse.

you seem to be willfully missing the point to the point I dont think further discussion is profitable

Sorry, but calling carnivorous animals 'biologically evil' really bothers me. That's a real mindset that people have and it's caused a lot of ecological damage, macropredatory animals like wolves and lions are just trying to survive like any other animal, and their existence is extremely beneficial to the broader health of wild ecosystems.

That is actually a useful point to bring up with this discussion of 'evil races', none of this exists in a vacuum. Everything we write is inspired by real world sources, and if you aren't careful with what you associate with 'evil races' you're liable to get somebody cross. Now, I doubt most people are too sensitive to portraying lions badly, getting annoyed at pop cultural misrepresentations of animals isn't a common bugbear, but when you start pulling from human cultures it's best to tread carefully.

Mordar

2024-02-19, 11:55 AM

Edit: Finished rewriting the post after I realized I had the original release dates confused. I thought Icewind Dale trilogy predated 3e but Dark Elf trilogy was released during it. I was off by a decade.

I thoroughly enjoyed the novels.

Slight tangent (does not disrupt the point of your post)
I think the drow in Menzo were closer to "usually neutral evil" (a majority were neutral evil but many were not) in the novels. The Dark Elf trilogy predates 3rd edition, so you are more familiar with the AD&D rules. However R.A.Salvatore did influence 3rd edition's version of the drow and 3rd edition labeled them as "usually neutral evil". If I am correct, then I would expect some thriving neutral drow (Jarlaxle was thriving and we should expect many others spread among the background commoner drow), and a handful of sad good drow nobodies (if Zaknafein had not been attached to a house ...). I struggle to place Vierna DoUrden since she changes over the novels. On the other hand, the named drow nobles were in places of power in the society and thus were mostly some variety of evil (LE Banare, CE Oblodra, or NE DoUrden).

Icewind Dale *was* decades before 3e. 1988, to be precise, so 1.25ish decades. Homeland, the "DE" trilogy I assume you mean was 1990. Still in the heyday of 2e.

Hunters Blades and War of the Spider Queen were his first D&D releases after the 3e transition.

- M

Jophiel

2024-02-19, 11:58 AM

You don't fix humans with rubber foreheads being boring by giving them a single uniform personality for the entire race, that's honestly just making the problem worse.
You fix them by not making them pseudo-humans. I disagree that making them "Always Evil" means a single uniform personality (plenty of works with bad guys who express being bad in dramatically different ways) but if that's all you can make of it then you're probably better off sticking to rubber forehead humans.

And, honestly, a humanoid Borg race all with one mindset would still be better than everyone being just masked humans. When they get tired, you stop using them for some other adversary or bit of world building. Not as though orcs are the only possible thing to populate the world with.

Errorname

2024-02-19, 12:27 PM

You fix them by not making them pseudo-humans.

All the classic fantasy races are pseudo-humans. We aren't talking about original settings, I agree it's cooler to go more out there and do things that are more creative than pseudo-humans, but that means creating things that are not elves or dwarves or orcs and that's not really what people want from D&D.

Witty Username

2024-02-19, 02:52 PM

Not "orcs believe"; some orcs believe. Not "drow embrace"; some drow embrace.

Why is that qualifier so easy to add with dwarves (e.g. some dwarves are evil) but so seemingly hard to add to orcs and drow?

I am not sure what is being complained about, these qualifiers have existed since AD&D for all of them.

I mean it was a joke in 3rd that evil drow aren't even a thing anymore they are all chaotic good rebels against there evil kin. This isn't a new idea.

OldTrees1

2024-02-19, 03:39 PM

Not "orcs believe"; some orcs believe. Not "drow embrace"; some drow embrace.

Why is that qualifier so easy to add with dwarves (e.g. some dwarves are evil) but so seemingly hard to add to orcs and drow?

The qualifier is already there. Is this just a language policing thing where you want people to always use explicit qualifiers instead of implicit or contextual qualifiers?

Jophiel

2024-02-19, 05:13 PM

Some elves are evil. Like Drow :smallbiggrin:

1st Ed Unearthed Arcana gave us the first real rules for Drow and Duergar and said that most were evil and PCs could be of any alignment (it actually went so far as to say the Duergar were LE with Neutral tendencies and that Drow PCs were likely outcasts). Years before Drizzt was a name in publication, we were already playing rebel Drow who were breaking the evil mold. That said, being a rebel only has impact if there's something to rebel against.

Psyren

2024-02-19, 11:49 PM

The qualifier is already there. Is this just a language policing thing where you want people to always use explicit qualifiers instead of implicit or contextual qualifiers?

It's not about what I want. I'm explaining why WotC wrote explanatory language like this (https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/book-updates), or the errata in Volo's clarifying that his perspective on the races in that book is idiosyncratic, narrow, and limited to a few members of one setting at best.

OldTrees1

2024-02-20, 12:38 AM

It's not about what I want. I'm explaining why WotC wrote explanatory language like this (https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/book-updates), or the errata in Volo's clarifying that his perspective on the races in that book is idiosyncratic, narrow, and limited to a few members of one setting at best.

You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing. The only difference was explicitly or implicitly including the qualifier. This citation link says nothing relevant.

However, maybe it is best if we just forget and ignore that post of yours. The "missing" qualifier was not missing, so your post's point was moot.

Psyren

2024-02-20, 01:38 AM

You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing. The only difference was explicitly or implicitly including the qualifier. This citation link says nothing relevant.

I brought up the errata because merely assuming the qualifier isn't sufficient for a company in WotC's position. They recognized that; whether you also do or not doesn't actually matter to me, unless of course you start authoring first-party rulebooks at some point in the future.

That said, being a rebel only has impact if there's something to rebel against.

There is something for them to rebel against - Lolth is running a multiversal cult that is especially entrenched in a subterranean city in FR. Your Drow PC can be from there. But someone else's might not be, and thus be no more prone to a particular alignment than a dwarf is.

OldTrees1

2024-02-20, 02:30 AM

I brought up the errata because merely assuming the qualifier isn't sufficient for a company in WotC's position. They recognized that; whether you also do or not doesn't actually matter to me, unless of course you start authoring first-party rulebooks at some point in the future.
You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing. The only difference was explicitly or implicitly including the qualifier. Clearly the use of explicit vs implicit qualifiers in forum posts does matter to you. You do realize this is a forum and not WotC? Oh, and the appeal to WotC's style guide is still irrelevant.

Vahnavoi

2024-02-20, 04:40 AM

Seems like we keep confusing evil culture for "biologically evil". I don't even know what the latter even means, honestly.

It becomes easier to understand once you remember culture is not independent of biology - culture is byproduct of biology and environment. Humans paint with certain subset of colors because those are what our eyes can see; we make music using certain frequencies of sound because those are what our ears can hear; we communicate by sound because the structure of our lungs and throat allow for it; we can form language of those sounds because our nervous system is set up in a specific way, with flaw in one gene (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2) enough to significantly reduce that ability. This extends to anything you could consider moral behaviour - evolution and genetics of altruism (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871336/), for example, are existing topics of study.

So it isn't particularly big leap to posit that someone's morally wrong behaviour is due to something being biologically wrong with them. Again, we can already show this to be true to some extent within humans - for example, anti-social disorder (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048197/), associated with impulsive, manipulative, dishonest and violent behaviour, correlates with reduced grey matter in the frontal cortex and is estimated to be 50% genetic.

It's worth noting that the "beauty is good, ugliness is bad" trope is a primitive expression of the same idea. It's been theorized to stem from natural fear of infectious diseases. As in, people naturally think of moral evil in terms of sickness, and hence visible signs of natural evil (sickness) become perceived as signs of moral evil also. They can be further linked by belief that the visible physical illness is divine punishment for the invisible moral illness - relevant to fantasy games because in fantasy, it can be literally true.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 09:07 AM

Not "orcs believe"; some orcs believe. Not "drow embrace"; some drow embrace.

Why is that qualifier so easy to add with dwarves (e.g. some dwarves are evil) but so seemingly hard to add to orcs and drow?
I think everyone else saw the qualifier.

Evil creator deities are neither infallible nor omnipotent.
They're also not impotent and have actual power and influence in the world.

Sure, they want their creations to be mindless footsoldiers universally following and perpetuating their designs, but they failed at that objective...
No one said mindless. And they haven't failed. Hence why orcs and elves are sworn enemies, and drow are evil as well, and dwarves do battle with goblins and giants, and gnomes with kobolds, etc.

Modern players appear to want to strip the lore of the creatures in D&D, and strip the power of their deities to influence them. Let's remove any sort of external pressure on them so we can just throw our hands up and say "they're basically just humans".

All the classic fantasy races are pseudo-humans.
Here we come full circle.

I am not sure what is being complained about, these qualifiers have existed since AD&D for all of them.

I mean it was a joke in 3rd that evil drow aren't even a thing anymore they are all chaotic good rebels against there evil kin. This isn't a new idea.
Indeed. Here (https://www.greyhawkgrognard.com/2022/05/17/the-first-non-evil-drow/) is an article from Greyhawk Grognard explaining the first non-evil drow. Notice Gygax's language indicating that most (meaning drow) in the place are "evil to the core". Paints quite a different picture than the insistence to say "some" as opposed to "basically all" and "figuratively all".

There was also an AD&D adventure called Things That Go Bump in the Night, where firbolgs are causing a ruckus in the woods because they've been displaced by a witch. And who is that witch? A misunderstood elf named Lady Alshria Ulgeranod, a renegade drow that "left her wealthy lifestyle and her people after she became disgusted with the wickedness and depravity of drow culture".

These exceptions have always existed, but they've always been exceptions.

The popularity of Drizz't alone should indicate that there is something compelling about this. Drow are iconic because of how evil and depraved they are, not because they're just like any other elf variant.

Some elves are evil. Like Drow :smallbiggrin:
:smallamused:

1st Ed Unearthed Arcana gave us the first real rules for Drow and Duergar and said that most were evil and PCs could be of any alignment (it actually went so far as to say the Duergar were LE with Neutral tendencies and that Drow PCs were likely outcasts). Years before Drizzt was a name in publication, we were already playing rebel Drow who were breaking the evil mold. That said, being a rebel only has impact if there's something to rebel against.
Indeed.

It becomes easier to understand once you remember culture is not independent of biology - culture is byproduct of biology and environment. Humans paint with certain subset of colors because those are what our eyes can see; we make music using certain frequencies of sound because those are what our ears can hear; we communicate by sound because the structure of our lungs and throat allow for it; we can form language of those sounds because our nervous system is set up in a specific way, with flaw in one gene (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2) enough to significantly reduce that ability. This extends to anything you could consider moral behaviour - evolution and genetics of altruism (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871336/), for example, are existing topics of study.

So it isn't particularly big leap to posit that someone's morally wrong behaviour is due to something being biologically wrong with them. Again, we can already show this to be true to some extent within humans - for example, anti-social disorder (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048197/), associated with impulsive, manipulative, dishonest and violent behaviour, correlates with reduced grey matter in the frontal cortex and is estimated to be 50% genetic.

It's worth noting that the "beauty is good, ugliness is bad" trope is a primitive expression of the same idea. It's been theorized to stem from natural fear of infectious diseases. As in, people naturally think of moral evil in terms of sickness, and hence visible signs of natural evil (sickness) become perceived as signs of moral evil also. They can be further linked by belief that the visible physical illness is divine punishment for the invisible moral illness - relevant to fantasy games because in fantasy, it can be literally true.
I am thankful that my tables have no interest in getting this granular over this and we are able to enjoy the game without having to explain it so that it simulates real life to this degree.

Witty Username

2024-02-20, 09:43 AM

There is something for them to rebel against - Lolth is running a multiversal cult that is especially entrenched in a subterranean city in FR. Your Drow PC can be from there. But someone else's might not be, and thus be no more prone to a particular alignment than a dwarf is.

There is a slight caviot here, for FR at least.
Dwarves, Elves, human, etc are part of a regional community.

Drow tend to to be more insular, partially due to being subterranean, particularly due to their culture discouraging interaction with other groups.

Usual alignment plays into this a bit, Dwarves have a reputation of loyalty, which means they are more positively recieved by other communities and more likely to absorb cultural elements. Drow have a rep of treachery and raiding, so getting a foot in is harder, and so culture is less diverse.
There is also the effect of the response of the root culture:
-A Winged Elf worshiping a Gnomish god is an oddity
-A Drow worshipping Shar is on a hit list.

This is a jumping off point for more interest though:
Do you want your Dwarves to be like Krynn Mountain dwarves, isolated and insular? Emphasis on the reduced number of outliers can highlight this

Satinavian

2024-02-20, 09:45 AM

Modern players appear to want to strip the lore of the creatures in D&D, and strip the power of their deities to influence them. Let's remove any sort of external pressure on them so we can just throw our hands up and say "they're basically just humans".A huge part of this is because while people tend to use the Monster Manual, quite a lot of DM use their own setting with its own history and its own lore and its own cosmology with completely different gods.

And that is not new, that is basically how D&D was intended.

And even with groups that do use official settings, well, sure FR exists, but so does Eberron, Ravnica and others with very different gods, factions, lore and history.

Psyren

2024-02-20, 09:47 AM

You quoted a forum post and complained about the forum post missing a qualifier, but the post contained the qualifier you claimed was missing.

I think we have similar thoughts, if not perfectly aligned, but I'm just using your posts as a jumping off point, not as a point of disagreement.

Before we had weird jungle illusion drow, we had Lolth drow. And the society there has been delved into in many novels, and to call it boring is, in my opinion, BS; something that is very easy to do, pretending that the accuser has some hidden knowledge of truly interesting stuff. You may not like it, but a culture built around deceit and back-stabbing ambition, and demon-calling and raiding, etc. was made to be interesting, whether people want to admit it or not. At the time, drow were basically always evil (in the figurative sense, of course), and of that was born Drizz't, now a cliche and easy to dunk on, but I have no qualms saying I enjoyed the Salvatore novels delving into Menzo and the Underdark and Drizz't's journey to escape it.

Lolth doesn't force her drow to be evil, but she encourages that culture, and punishes those that turn away from it or fail to succeed in it. They then embrace the culture and enforce it on their own, and so on and so on.

There is really NO REASON to delve into this and over explain it. Unless again you're confusing all of this for "biological evil".

Similarly, orcs believe in certain values, as taught to them by their gods. And their culture reflects that, and they conserve that culture and enforce that culture on each other.

To have a problem with this is to basically have a problem with evil creator deities. And also to make special non-humans creatures, since humans are allowed to have whatever type of culture/gods the story calls for, but it appears to be a problem for non-humans.

And to make another point clear; "it's boring" is purely subjective, unsubstantiated, and a cop-out reason for not including something. In fact, it's almost projection to call it lazy, since one can turn around and call it lazy that someone can't make a concept interesting. Probably best to leave "it's boring" out of the conversation.

Where?

They're also not impotent and have actual power and influence in the world.

I agree, which is why they've succeeded at creating certain loci of influence, like insular cities and tribes. But neither of those are absolute, even just within the confines of a single setting like FR, never mind outside it.

No one said mindless. And they haven't failed. Hence why orcs and elves are sworn enemies, and drow are evil as well, and dwarves do battle with goblins and giants, and gnomes with kobolds, etc.

The qualifier is missing here too. Some orcs and elves are sworn enemies, some drow are evil, some dwarves do battle with goblins and giants...

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.

OldTrees1

2024-02-20, 10:36 AM

Where?

You do know the difference between explicit and implicit don't you? Your demand for me to quote an explicit qualifier as evidence for the implicit qualifier is falling on deaf ears. Dr Samurai has only been talking about "some" in the entire post and the previous posts too. They even repeat an explicit qualifier once in that post.

Psyren you are trying to police forum post usage of explicit vs implicit qualifiers.

Edit:
Sidenote, when converting an implicit into an explicit, you put the explicit where the implicit was.
Example: "(I am) Hungry." becomes "I am hungry."
So if you want to know "where" an implicit is, it is where you would replace it with the explicit when converting from implicit to explicit.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 10:43 AM

A huge part of this is because while people tend to use the Monster Manual, quite a lot of DM use their own setting with its own history and its own lore and its own cosmology with completely different gods.

And that is not new, that is basically how D&D was intended.
And yet, D&D has always had lore behind its mechanics, despite that intent. The gmae is meant to be used as is, or as part of someone's homebrew. Stripping the lore away means you have to make your homebrew.

And even with groups that do use official settings, well, sure FR exists, but so does Eberron, Ravnica and others with very different gods, factions, lore and history.
What differentiates them if not the lore?

Where?
Lmao, Psyren... make an argument lol. Add something to the discussion. This word policing is silly.

I agree, which is why they've succeeded at creating certain loci of influence, like insular cities and tribes. But neither of those are absolute, even just within the confines of a single setting like FR, never mind outside it.
Yeah, like that guy in Vault of the Drow, or Lady Ulgeranod in AD&D, or Drizz't. A relative minority compared to all the rest. The drow that dance in the moonlight to the goodly drow deity... they are a minority. There are some, but they are the exception, as I said previously.

The qualifier is missing here too. Some orcs and elves are sworn enemies, some drow are evil, some dwarves do battle with goblins and giants...
Yes, enough to shape the lore of the setting. It's weird indeed that you would elevate a handful as meaningful and ignore the literal hordes that prove the point.

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.
Thank you for proving my point by pointing to a setting specifically designed to buck the tropes and be different, including in how alignment is handled.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 10:59 AM

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 11:07 AM

Is that surprising? People use D&D as an engine to tell their own stories, often rewriting the lore to suit their purposes. That's been a thing for as long as D&D's existed
Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 11:13 AM

Mordar

2024-02-20, 11:24 AM

Is that surprising? People use D&D as an engine to tell their own stories, often rewriting the lore to suit their purposes. That's been a thing for as long as D&D's existed

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins). And it certainly wasn't about the game-aspects of the game. Minmaxing? Optimization? Not things then, for any of the groups I played in until literally the next decade. It was the lore, the feel and the exploration. Not a mechanical advantage (at least not much), and certainly not a way to better explore the human condition.

Or is that not what you meant?

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Agree - we needed the shoulders to stand on, if you will. It also provided the commonality to let us bridge different games/groups and have a shared base language.

- M

Satinavian

2024-02-20, 11:33 AM

What differentiates them if not the lore?That argument was that even a huge chunk of groups that don't make their own setting with their own lore and own gods and instead play official settings still don't use that particular lore that you find oh so important. Eberron orcs don't hate elves or the other way around. Eberron orcs were also not made by Gruumsh who doesn't even exist there. Same for the Corellon or whatshisname.

And the same is true for nealy all the custom settings.

It's not that modern players now strip the lore and the deities from certain races. A huge chunk of players didn't actually have those dieties at their table even many decades ago and the lore was also different. The stuff you take for granted here was never more than how some people played.

MonochromeTiger

2024-02-20, 11:33 AM

Yes, it's surprising. People don't need for there to be no lore in order to make their own lore. People have been making their own lore since as long as D&D existed, as you say, despite there already being lore. Seems weird to require there be no lore first, which is at odds with the people that don't want to make their own worlds.

Does there need to be absolutely no lore for people to make their own? No. Do the companies making these games want to appeal to as many people as possible, and in the process have disproportionately high fears of saying too much and alienating some of their potential buyers? Absolutely. Out of the choices between the company trying to sell something and the people who don't want to make their own worlds who do you think is dictating the "official" lore?

And honestly as much as I dislike moving toward generic copy-paste lore for all settings I have just as much issue with how much people crusade over "this is what the monsters should really be." Most of those arguments are rooted purely in some obsession with older editions of D&D as an indisputable source while covering their ears and pretending not to see or hear how much of their precious D&D's content is based in hilariously bad understandings of the things it's based on. You've got Orcs and Goblins as separate and people will fight to defend that separation. You've got "Fey" that have absolutely nothing to do with that label and come from entirely different mythological roots only to find that there's plenty of other things from the same mythologies that are completely different creature types. You've got monsters and heroic creatures from so many different cultures crammed together in a great big mess with little to no regard for how they're portrayed until someone hires a sensitivity writer and scrubs half the words from their description and starts a different version of this same fight. Oddly all of that is perfectly fine with people but "well they made my easy bad guys less blatantly evil" is what pushes it too far and counts as an attack against our sensibilities.

"Well you can just make your own because I have/had it the way I like it" works both ways, in fact it works in all directions at all times, it's not an argument it's just a squabble over who gets to be smug about having the official version in their favor and who has to do some legwork fleshing out what they want. There are no winners here aside from WotC because they know that whether they strip everything to just stats or load everything down with the most strangely specific lore possible so it all has to be stripped out if you want variety people are still going to buy their books anyway and just complain about how the other audience killed their version.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 11:43 AM

That argument was that even a huge chunk of groups that don't make their own setting with their own lore and own gods and instead play official settings still don't use that particular lore that you find oh so important.
I love the implication that I am making a big deal about something, when my position is simply "leave it as is" and "make all the pacifist races you want, just leave the evil ones as well". Meanwhile, others are actively wanting to remove things from the game.

Eberron orcs don't hate elves or the other way around. Eberron orcs were also not made by Gruumsh who doesn't even exist there. Same for the Corellon or whatshisname.
Yep. And hopefully it remains this way and doesn't get retconned because some people take offense at tribal orcs worshiping a primal force, or "dark" elves worshiping animal spirits, etc.

It's not that modern players now strip the lore and the deities from certain races. A huge chunk of players didn't actually have those dieties at their table even many decades ago and the lore was also different. The stuff you take for granted here was never more than how some people played.
This conversation is definitely confused, and I'd argue it's because one side has very little ground to stand on. But be that as it may... I'm protesting not against orcs being handled differently across settings, but rather the lore of races being changed within a setting. So I don't care how orcs are in Eberron. Eberron happens to be my favorite setting. But I DO care when drow and orcs and others are changed in their own setting, and made less interesting, for bad reasons. And I also care when people act like this decision was a foregone conclusion, or like it doesn't change anything.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 11:45 AM

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins). And it certainly wasn't about the game-aspects of the game. Minmaxing? Optimization? Not things then, for any of the groups I played in until literally the next decade. It was the lore, the feel and the exploration. Not a mechanical advantage (at least not much), and certainly not a way to better explore the human condition.

Or is that not what you meant?

Oh no, I think the lore and narrative elements of the game are very important to most players, but homebrewing your own settings and stories has basically always been a thing in D&D.

Jophiel

2024-02-20, 11:55 AM

Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins).
I remember a lot of people picking humans simply because humans didn't have class level caps and everyone else did. Even if you knew nothing about minmaxing or munchkins, etc it just looked "bad" to see Dwarf Fighter capping at 9 and Humans with that "U". The chance of actually getting to 9 was minimal but still! Of course, what happened in my neck of the woods doesn't reflect yours.

I'm kind of detached from the "But WOTC says!" part of the debate because I always made my own settings anyway and because I viewed the thread as more system agnostic. How can dwarfs be more interesting (not just in D&D 5e)? How/Can "Always Evil" (for certain definitions of always) races be justified in a game setting? WOTC is in the business of selling as many books as they can to make stockholders happy; I'm not about to view them as an absolute authority on anything, though some people are far more attached to them. And as for "Well, no one will stop you from making your own..." I mean, duh?

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 12:29 PM

Does there need to be absolutely no lore for people to make their own? No. Do the companies making these games want to appeal to as many people as possible, and in the process have disproportionately high fears of saying too much and alienating some of their potential buyers? Absolutely. Out of the choices between the company trying to sell something and the people who don't want to make their own worlds who do you think is dictating the "official" lore?
Some vocal minority that probably is not buying as many books as anyone thinks.

And honestly as much as I dislike moving toward generic copy-paste lore for all settings I have just as much issue with how much people crusade over "this is what the monsters should really be." Most of those arguments are rooted purely in some obsession with older editions of D&D as an indisputable source while covering their ears and pretending not to see or hear how much of their precious D&D's content is based in hilariously bad understandings of the things it's based on. You've got Orcs and Goblins as separate and people will fight to defend that separation. You've got "Fey" that have absolutely nothing to do with that label and come from entirely different mythological roots only to find that there's plenty of other things from the same mythologies that are completely different creature types. You've got monsters and heroic creatures from so many different cultures crammed together in a great big mess with little to no regard for how they're portrayed until someone hires a sensitivity writer and scrubs half the words from their description and starts a different version of this same fight. Oddly all of that is perfectly fine with people but "well they made my easy bad guys less blatantly evil" is what pushes it too far and counts as an attack against our sensibilities.
I started in 3.0 so it's not attachment to early D&D.

It's the fact that there is nothing wrong with the game, and it doesn't need this kind of adjustment. That's an opinion, of course, but it's a valid opinion that doesn't require you to caricature it as something else. I enjoy the game very much, and I'd prefer that it not be changed because of bad ideas, and especially so if the changes are not good changes. I don't want to see this influence on the game, nor watch the game morph into something boring and bland. It's clear as day, to me at least, that the justification for these changes is incredibly thin. And since they change something that people have been playing with for decades, it's not unreasonable to object and want better justification or no change at all.

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures. I've objected to the other side by noting that there have always been exceptions to these cultures, which leaves room for the "not all orcs" consideration, that this type of thinking can lead to ANY lore changing at any time (including Eberron, where orcs are still "primal" and dark elves worship animal spirits, and goblins are basically second class citizens across the Five Nations, etc.). There are other objections of course, to the actual ideology informing these decisions, but we can't discuss those here.

"Well you can just make your own because I have/had it the way I like it" works both ways, in fact it works in all directions at all times, it's not an argument it's just a squabble over who gets to be smug about having the official version in their favor and who has to do some legwork fleshing out what they want.
I don't agree with this at all actually. It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes.

I'm kind of detached from the "But WOTC says!" part of the debate because I always made my own settings anyway and because I viewed the thread as more system agnostic. How can dwarfs be more interesting (not just in D&D 5e)? How/Can "Always Evil" (for certain definitions of always) races be justified in a game setting? WOTC is in the business of selling as many books as they can to make stockholders happy; I'm not about to view them as an absolute authority on anything, though some people are far more attached to them. And as for "Well, no one will stop you from making your own..." I mean, duh?
Makes sense.

One way to "justify" it for those that need it could be something like a deity like Gruumsh gathering followers of all kinds. Gruumsh happens to be an orc, or presents as an orc, but many creatures gather to his banner of conquest and might makes right. So you can have a "coalition" of all types of creatures following an evil deity. I mean... I think this is easy enough to do with the previous lore but just thinking aloud here.

Vahnavoi

2024-02-20, 02:01 PM

I am thankful that my tables have no interest in getting this granular over this and we are able to enjoy the game without having to explain it so that it simulates real life to this degree.

You don't have to explain all I just noted for a game, I'm explaining it to you just for your benefit.

That said, I wouldn't be thankful for a table that would have no interest in having this discussion - since I like discussing these things. I've genuinely played through multiple in-character conversations about the nature of evil, including in-born evil. Sometimes from the point of view of someone proving humans are inherently evil and deserving of destruction. :smallamused:

Errorname

2024-02-20, 02:03 PM

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures.

Ultimately I don't find these reasons persuasive because having a one-note evil species is not required to actually explore any of these ideas, and their inclusion generally makes these ideas less compelling, not more.

Making non-human races diverse in culture and character makes them feel a lot more real. If your world has an evil army of Orcs menacing the nations of good, having Orcish tribes not aligned with the army or Orcs citizens in the nations of good doesn't undermine the army's villainous threat, and actually give you opportunities to develop that army by providing potential points of contrast.

It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes

D&D's been played for decades, but it has not been played in the same form for decades. It's constantly evolving and changing and unless you're an OD&D purist I'm guessing you've been in favour of at least some of those changes. "This is how things are" is not an argument about how things should be.

MonochromeTiger

2024-02-20, 02:13 PM

Some vocal minority that probably is not buying as many books as anyone thinks.

I was unaware WotC's name was "some vocal minority." The people you feel are being catered to don't have the power to dictate what WotC puts in their books and doesn't. The people you feel aren't catered to don't have that power. Wotc, or technically Hasbro, are the final arbiters for what they feel is appropriate for their books' content. We're obviously able to form our own opinions on it but at the end of the day all official content lives or dies based off what they think is marketable and what writers they choose to hire, we're just stuck with the results and a choice to engage with them or not.

I started in 3.0 so it's not attachment to early D&D.

It's the fact that there is nothing wrong with the game, and it doesn't need this kind of adjustment. That's an opinion, of course, but it's a valid opinion that doesn't require you to caricature it as something else. I enjoy the game very much, and I'd prefer that it not be changed because of bad ideas, and especially so if the changes are not good changes. I don't want to see this influence on the game, nor watch the game morph into something boring and bland. It's clear as day, to me at least, that the justification for these changes is incredibly thin. And since they change something that people have been playing with for decades, it's not unreasonable to object and want better justification or no change at all.

I've given reasons, including the utility of a "Mordor" and evil cultures, the influence of evil deities, the fact that these dark traits are also traits of humanity that can be explored in these creatures. I've objected to the other side by noting that there have always been exceptions to these cultures, which leaves room for the "not all orcs" consideration, that this type of thinking can lead to ANY lore changing at any time (including Eberron, where orcs are still "primal" and dark elves worship animal spirits, and goblins are basically second class citizens across the Five Nations, etc.). There are other objections of course, to the actual ideology informing these decisions, but we can't discuss those here.

I don't like the changes either honestly, I didn't post that with the intention of saying "get over it." I posted it because no matter what someone is going to be griping, the changes were made and it is far easier to defend a current status quo than it is to demand change even if that's just a reversion to what was there before. No matter the case someone is still the one defending the thing they know from the "vocal minority" that wants to and/or has already come in and changed what they liked. I mentioned it earlier in the thread and it hasn't stopped being true here.

I don't agree with this at all actually. It smacks of entitlement to think that you can take a game that has been played for decades, and start making these types of changes to it and expect that no one will complain or if that they complain you're just as justified in your actions as they are. That's very convenient thinking for the person making the changes.

They can take a game that has been played for decades and start making these types of changes to it because they own the IP. Considering it's Hasbro and WotC I don't think they weren't expecting complaints, I just think they don't really care because they know it will still sell. And yes, it's very convenient for the people making the change, mostly because they make the change in order to make more money and if it works out they get that money. If it doesn't work they've still got such a dedicated enough fanbase people will buy it just to try salvaging what they do like for their own stuff, that then gives them time to make further changes and just sell it all over again until they either get cut for underperforming or strike on something that explodes in popularity.

People who come in after those changes and still enjoy them or who came in before but like the changes aren't an enemy to look down on as entitled. They're just other people with different tastes, right now they have things in their favor. Down the road another target audience will get the spotlight instead and they'll be feeling just as burned by it. Through all of that the people who make the decisions won't care the slightest bit because it's not about whether you like the game and the lore or not, it's about how many people will potentially buy it.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-20, 02:28 PM

The Mod Ogre: I am seeing some people arguing about how the post is phrased. Please remember to be at least somewhat gracious in interpreting posts. This isn't the Forum Romanum, and it isn't English class, and I really don't want to get out the red ink again.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-20, 02:28 PM

Unrelated fun fact: Gary Gygax's own Gord the Rogue books included a non-evil drow.

Vahnavoi

2024-02-20, 02:34 PM

Ultimately I don't find these reasons persuasive because having a one-note evil species is not required to actually explore any of these ideas, and their inclusion generally makes these ideas less compelling, not more.

Making non-human races diverse in culture and character makes them feel a lot more real. If your world has an evil army of Orcs menacing the nations of good, having Orcish tribes not aligned with the army or Orcs citizens in the nations of good doesn't undermine the army's villainous threat, and actually give you opportunities to develop that army by providing potential points of contrast.

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?

An example of a game that acknowledges this, there's Lamentations of the Flame Princess - which more or less says in the referee's book that if your orcs (or what have you) are practically just thinly veiled caricatures of humans, own up to it and just use humans in those roles.

Of course, history of LotFP also teaches us one reason why not to do it: because media illiterate people will get outraged and eat you alive for it. Same reason why a romance novel might used vampires or werewolves as stand-ins for queer people.

But is that the only reason, or are there more?

Satinavian

2024-02-20, 03:02 PM

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?The problem is that "being evil" does not actually make your orcs or whatever different from humans. There are more than enough evil humans. And if you just use versions of evil behavior like e.g. "brutal invaders inspired by how the mongols were perceived by their enemies" it still does not help to make them anything other than humans with a hat.

If you actually want notably different races than give them notably different traits that are not found in any humans. And yes, the easiest ones for thoe are physical traits, not behavioral ones.

But even if you don't do that and just make a whole species out of some rather specific kind of human, "evil" is still a horrible trait to choose. Because that particular trait mostly only leads to them being enemies and them not getting properly explored because interactions are very limited in scope. Nearly every other trait would be a better choice when making them different from humans.

I am not saying you can't have evil orcs. Splittermond has evil orcs. They also are agressive sexless hivemind fey things that treat most other creatures as food. That they are evil is not even part of the rules, it just follows from their habit to pick fights with everyone and eating them. And there are no outliers because of the hivemind quality. They are basically a mix of Dragon Ages darkspawn and the zerg. But when asked what makes them different from humans, "being evil" would not be in the first dozen things coming to mind. They are different from humans because of all the differences. And they are coincidently considered evil because of some of them.

TL,DR : Evil races are not more creative or not more inhuman than not evil races.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 03:10 PM

See, that's all fine and dandy, but it dances around a point: if at the end of day, your orcs (or other non-humans) end up just humans, why didn't you just use humans to explore the same concepts?

I think this question ends up running into the "why do we have non-human humanoids at all?" question. Because most of the classic 'evil race' stuff doesn't need to be a separate species to function. Plenty of settings have only human characters and work perfectly fine, you don't need to literally dehumanize the evil empire for them to be unsympathetic. What is the actual point of Elves and Dwarves and Orcs in fantasy fiction. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, I don't think anyone would be happy if WOTC said "no more elves in D&D, everyone's human now", I certainly wouldn't be, but it's interesting to ask what we're actually trying to do with them.

My thinking is that the classic humanoid fantasy races function as a sort of exaggerated human diversity, it creates clear ethnic differences that are familiar and easily comprehensible but which avoid direct one-to-one correlation with real world ethnic groups. It also lets you do characters who have cool features like pointy ears or tusks or horns that humans don't, which people find aesthetically appealing. The point isn't to make truly inhuman characters, that's what things like Mind Flayers are for.

But even if you don't do that and just make a whole species out of some rather specific kind of human, "evil" is still a horrible trait to choose. Because that particular trait mostly only leads to them being enemies and them not getting properly explored because interactions are very limited in scope. Nearly every other trait would be a better choice when making them different from humans.

EDIT: Strong agree to this. Evil isn't a versatile trait, and if that's how you characterize a species you're not going to get much use out of them as anything other than a target to shoot and if you have any more interesting traits for them in mind you're not going to be able to use them for neutral or allied characters.

Vahnavoi

2024-02-20, 03:36 PM

Witty Username

2024-02-20, 03:49 PM

In Eberron for example, orcs and elves don't have any kind of relationship to one another; if anything, the Gatekeepers might actually be more inclined to ally with elves than be in opposition or neutral, since they all have Daelkyr aberrations to worry about.

The qualifier is missing here...

In the hopes that the conversation is bridged.
The good Dr. here did provide is notes on always being figurative and the existence of Drizzt. I personally read that as applying to the post as a whole, as it was part of the introduction as a frame of reference.

But, we have gotten off track by semantics, and are at risk of arguing points made by no one.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 04:11 PM

Satinavian

2024-02-20, 04:21 PM

@Satinavian: you answered the wrong question, mostly just reiterating what Errorname already said. You were already granted that being "always evil" and equivalent caricatures aren't particularly interesting use of non-humans. In context of your reply: yeah, you can base your non-humans around physical rather than behavioral traits, but why would you? Because implicit in that idea is that you can use human with a jetpack to explore the same space as a winged humanoid (so on and so forth).
Why physical instead of behavioral ? Because physical traits are more clear cut, more obviously nonhuman, easier to adjucate and harder to forget. With behavioral traits you always have to consider whether really such humans do/don't exist. Additionally they rely on quality of portrayal, you basically have to sell them with your skill as actor, which might or might not convince the others sitting around the table.
As a whole, physical differences are way easier to use for making species distinct. Of course physical traits can and often do result in linked behavioral changes anyway.

And why would a human with a jetpack play similarly as a winged humanoid ? Has the human with jetpack had the jetpack since birth and is used to use it all the time ? Can the winged humanoid just take the wings off when inconvenient ? Those are very much not the same.
But even if they were more similar, why would i even want to use a human with a jetpack instead ? Interacting with people who are fundamentally different is interesting, which is why it is so extremely common in fiction. A regular human is just another random guy in addition to the billions of others in the world no one wants to learn more about. And a jetpack does not make them interesting.

OldTrees1

2024-02-20, 04:32 PM

I think this question ends up running into the "why do we have non-human humanoids at all?" question. -snip- it's interesting to ask what we're actually trying to do with them.

My thinking is that the classic humanoid fantasy races function as a sort of exaggerated human diversity, it creates clear ethnic differences that are familiar and easily comprehensible but which avoid direct one-to-one correlation with real world ethnic groups. It also lets you do characters who have cool features like pointy ears or tusks or horns that humans don't, which people find aesthetically appealing. The point isn't to make truly inhuman characters, that's what things like Mind Flayers are for.

My thinking is that the classic humanoid fantasy species function as a sort of extension of sapient diversity. It creates clear species differences that are familiar, and some example cultures. These provide easily comprehensible populations without implying the populations are a monolith (the individuals that make up the population are more diverse than the overgeneralization of the population summary). This extension of sapient diversity comes prepackaged with cool features like pointy ears or tusks or horns that humans don't, which people find aesthetically appealing. The point isn't to be limited by human diversity (or even exaggerated diversity) but for these familiar species the point also isn't to make truly alien characters either, that's what things like Mind Flayers are for.

These classic humanoid fantasy species (which includes several animal folk in my opinion) might work best if we allow them to differ from humans in ways beyond exaggerated human diversity while still not deviating too far. This creates a ring of familiarity that can be used as an easy foundation, but also a jumping off point to understanding stranger people (Myconoids and Trolls for example). However your question then repeats for this larger ring. What are we trying to do with Myconoids and Trolls?

What are we trying to do with Myconoids and Trolls?
Here we are still using people, but with significant differences with long reaching and diverse implications. They can be threats or blessings in addition to being people.

Vahnavoi

2024-02-20, 04:54 PM

@Satinavian: your reply's a mixed bag. Most of it is straightforwardly agreeable but there's a few points where you lose the plot:

Additionally [behavioral traits] rely on quality of portrayal, you basically have to sell them with your skill as actor, which might or might not convince the others sitting around the table.

The same is true of any physical traits, just add skill as engineer, biologist etc. to the list of requirements for credible portayal. Part of it is due to the point you make in the very next sentence:

Of course physical traits can and often do result in linked behavioral changes anyway.

It isn't generally any easier to portray physical traits. A lot of the time, a game master can only succeed because the bar is set on the floor (as in, the players don't have any more insight to the issue and so don't think to question the game master's portrayal).

But even if they were more similar, why would i even want to use a human with a jetpack instead ? Interacting with people who are fundamentally different is interesting, which is why it is so extremely common in fiction. A regular human is just another random guy in addition to the billions of others in the world no one wants to learn more about. And a jetpack does not make them interesting.

This gets back to the crux of the issue and I don't find it very convincing. In a lot of cases, it can be shown the literal or proverbial jetpack IS the interesting thing and you CAN basically grant it to any random guy, as far as behaviour and personality goes. Indeed, to go along with your own idea that inventing and remembering physical traits is easier than behavioral ones, it can be shown people regularly staple superficial physical traits on characters to differentiate them because coming up with fundamental differences would be too hard and make interactions too complicated.

Satinavian

2024-02-20, 05:02 PM

The same is true of any physical traits, just add skill as engineer, biologist etc. to the list of requirements for credible portayal. Part of it is due to the point you make in the very next sentence:I don't exactly need to be an engeneer to know that my snake person might have a problem with ladders or that my winged person can only use significantly different clothing or whatever. But if i were to play e.g. someone who e.g.. can't feel empathy or can't properly plan ahead (there is such a playable race) or whatever, it is significantly harder to portray it in game.

As for how physical differences often promt corresponding changes in behavior, that is what "exploring the concept" is all about. Thinking and discussion what consequences the physical difference would have.

In a lot of cases, it can be shown the literal or proverbial jetpack IS the interesting thing and you CAN basically grant it to any random guy, as far as behaviour and personality goes.A jetpack itself might be interesting. But the pilot is not.

Jophiel

2024-02-20, 05:39 PM

Evil isn't a versatile trait, and if that's how you characterize a species you're not going to get much use out of them as anything other than a target to shoot and if you have any more interesting traits for them in mind you're not going to be able to use them for neutral or allied characters.
"Evil" isn't really a trait at all. Evil is an assessment of the humanoids' other traits. Even if you put tape over the alignment spot in every monster manual, orcs will still be traditionally characterized by savagery, aggression towards other races, desire to expand their territory at the expense of others, etc while lacking in traits like intellectual curiosity, empathy and altruism. Other evil races have other traits (Drow are more intellectually curious and better conversationalists with less physical strength, goblins displaying traits of cunning and ingenuity while still being selfish and greedy, etc)

Saying "Evil is a boring trait" just sounds weird, like someone thinks that you just say "Evil" and stop developing the "Always Evil" races. Why would anyone do that? Of course that's boring, just like saying "Elves are goody-goods!" would be boring. Once you add divine creators and cosmology and spells that literally point at something and say "Yup, this is evil" then you have a definite label to put on your orcs but they'd still be "Evil" with or without an alignment type to most normal people. Likewise, giving a particular trait to the Drow doesn't prevent you from giving a similar trait to your gnomes despite Drow traditionally being "Shoot on Sight" (before you get shot) adversaries.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 05:47 PM

You don't have to explain all I just noted for a game, I'm explaining it to you just for your benefit.
Ok, understood.

That said, I wouldn't be thankful for a table that would have no interest in having this discussion - since I like discussing these things. I've genuinely played through multiple in-character conversations about the nature of evil, including in-born evil. Sometimes from the point of view of someone proving humans are inherently evil and deserving of destruction. :smallamused:
We explore these things as well. But because we find it interesting, not because we feel compelled to explain something we see as wrong or requiring justification.

Ultimately I don't find these reasons persuasive because having a one-note evil species is not required to actually explore any of these ideas, and their inclusion generally makes these ideas less compelling, not more.
For me they aren't one note. Just because it's evil, doesn't mean it's all the same, which I think is one of the conflations being made in this discussion. Volo's provides for orc strategists, brutes, spellcasters, outcasts of orc society that handle the dead and lurk in the shadows. And all of these have their own perspectives and ways of thinking and attitudes toward even each other. There is depth there to be fleshed out, even though they are generally an evil society. Then there's half-orcs and their roles, and half-orcs that pass as humans, and tanaruks, and then there is Obould Many Arrows who forged an orc empire to be treated with an negotiated with like any other nation.

It's as interesting as anyone wants to make it.

Making non-human races diverse in culture and character makes them feel a lot more real.
A dubious distinction in my opinion. This is like when fans of Eberron are overly concerned with explaining how everything works in the setting, and forget that it is also a PULP setting that should have all the things associated with that without much need for a super analysis and "making sense". I enjoy the exercise as much as anyone else, but the game doesn't need everything to "feel real" and "make sense". The real world is not D&D and vice versa, and it's why I mention the evil deities so much because it's a very real influence in D&D that makes a difference.

If your world has an evil army of Orcs menacing the nations of good, having Orcish tribes not aligned with the army or Orcs citizens in the nations of good doesn't undermine the army's villainous threat, and actually give you opportunities to develop that army by providing potential points of contrast.
I'm not against this at all. But I am against the idea that you MUST include these tribes and make them relevant to your campaign as some sort of balancing trick because there's an evil orcish empire, or because it's intrinsically better or more interesting.

D&D's been played for decades, but it has not been played in the same form for decades. It's constantly evolving and changing and unless you're an OD&D purist I'm guessing you've been in favour of at least some of those changes. "This is how things are" is not an argument about how things should be.
That's not what I was arguing though in what you quoted.

I was pushing back that people clamoring for changes to something that's been a certain way for almost 50 years should not delude themselves into thinking they are on the same footing as those that have been enjoying that thing without issue until now.

I was unaware WotC's name was "some vocal minority." The people you feel are being catered to don't have the power to dictate what WotC puts in their books and doesn't. The people you feel aren't catered to don't have that power. Wotc, or technically Hasbro, are the final arbiters for what they feel is appropriate for their books' content. We're obviously able to form our own opinions on it but at the end of the day all official content lives or dies based off what they think is marketable and what writers they choose to hire, we're just stuck with the results and a choice to engage with them or not.
I can't really go much further into this because of forum rules but "what is marketable" certainly has something to do with who are "being catered to" as you put it. And companies can make errors. And indeed, the current company is making an error by giving in to these notions. As I said, no lore is protected from this. Eberron is currently (incorrectly) being used to support an argument, and may indeed be the next edition to receive some lore revisions because, well, we know why.

I don't like the changes either honestly, I didn't post that with the intention of saying "get over it."
Ah ok, I mistook your meaning then.

They can take a game that has been played for decades and start making these types of changes to it because they own the IP. Considering it's Hasbro and WotC I don't think they weren't expecting complaints, I just think they don't really care because they know it will still sell. And yes, it's very convenient for the people making the change, mostly because they make the change in order to make more money and if it works out they get that money. If it doesn't work they've still got such a dedicated enough fanbase people will buy it just to try salvaging what they do like for their own stuff, that then gives them time to make further changes and just sell it all over again until they either get cut for underperforming or strike on something that explodes in popularity.

People who come in after those changes and still enjoy them or who came in before but like the changes aren't an enemy to look down on as entitled. They're just other people with different tastes, right now they have things in their favor. Down the road another target audience will get the spotlight instead and they'll be feeling just as burned by it. Through all of that the people who make the decisions won't care the slightest bit because it's not about whether you like the game and the lore or not, it's about how many people will potentially buy it.
My comment wasn't referring to WotC because I thought we were talking about the participants in this ongoing feud (those that don't like the changes and those that support the changes). So, with that in mind, I still disagree.

Psyren

2024-02-20, 06:08 PM

Lmao, Psyren... make an argument lol. Add something to the discussion. This word policing is silly.

My argument is that racial deities (of ALL alignments) are neither omnipotent nor impotent when it comes to establishing the attitudes and cultures of their creations. Moradin is just as unable to make all dwarves LG as Lolth and Gruumsh are at making all Drow and Orcs CE - but within specific spheres of influence, such as cities they've founded, they've had somewhat more success. But not enough success that sweeping statements about any of their creations are useful, especially in the modern game.

Thank you for proving my point by pointing to a setting specifically designed to buck the tropes and be different, including in how alignment is handled.

I can point to FR too. There are a not-insignificant number of Drow living outside of the Underdark, and Orcs definitely don't have one specific culture either. The books making that clearer is a Good Thing. But that's exactly what makes Dwarven sameiness across multiple cities and continents stick out even more.

Oh, I see what you're trying to say. While there are players who dislike specific lore details and would like those to be changed or altered, either because they think they're needlessly restrictive or find them in poor taste, I don't think anyone thinks there shouldn't be lore.

This. Lore is fine, even stereotypical lore. The author should just be clear about which locality that lore applies to, rather than implying and assuming that people will somehow psionically divine they don't mean the entire species.

Errorname

2024-02-20, 06:15 PM

I'm not against this at all. But I am against the idea that you MUST include these tribes and make them relevant to your campaign as some sort of balancing trick because there's an evil orcish empire, or because it's intrinsically better or more interesting.

I don't think you have to make them plot-relevant, especially if the species is a relatively minor aspect of the setting. But if you're a professional writer giving a species any serious focus in your setting and story, they should be more than a uniform monoculture.

I was pushing back that people clamoring for changes to something that's been a certain way for almost 50 years should not delude themselves into thinking they are on the same footing as those that have been enjoying that thing without issue until now.

Yeah, if you say that people only started talking about it this year it does make it seem like they're intruding on something, but that requires that people did only start talking about it this year. Which they didn't. For example, the comic this forum is built to discuss used this concept to inform the motivations of a villain that it clearly thinks has a justified grievance with the world, and Start of Darkness was published like 17 years ago, and it's not like Order of the Stick originated it.

This discourse isn't new.

icefractal

2024-02-20, 07:41 PM

It's the fact that there is nothing wrong with the game, and it doesn't need this kind of adjustment. Adjustment from what though? 5E is not the only version of D&D, and it makes plenty of "adjustments" to how the lore was in 4E, or 3E, or earlier.

Take Gnolls, for example. I came in with 3E, where Gnolls are "hyena people" - more likely to be antagonists than allies probably, but not "part demon" or anything. Yeah, their most popular god is a demon lord, but so what? It's not like followers of Orcus are all part-demon, for example.

So to me, the 5E "demon Gnolls" are the adjustment. And I don't see how 5.5E saying "Gnolls aren't inherently evil" is an unacceptable change when the 5.0E redefinition wasn't.

TL;DR - if it's fine for 5E lore to be different than earlier edition lore, it's also fine for there to be new "5.5E lore" that's different in another way.

Witty Username

2024-02-20, 09:52 PM

So to me, the 5E "demon Gnolls" are the adjustment. And I don't see how 5.5E saying "Gnolls aren't inherently evil" is an unacceptable change when the 5.0E redefinition wasn't.

TL;DR - if it's fine for 5E lore to be different than earlier edition lore, it's also fine for there to be new "5.5E lore" that's different in another way.

I think technically the Demon Gnolls was a 4e concept, which was an exaggerated version of 3rd (3rd had this as a philosophical conflict rather than a biological one, by the time of Races of the Wild anyway), being a mix of demon blood and Nature's fury. With an inherent tension between force of nature and demonic savagery.
5e cut the natural force half leaving only demon.

For my personal opinion, I would constrast gnolls with other Evil creatures. Drow and Orcs have range, not just outside of evil like alot of half-orc PC concepts or heroic characters like Viconia (if you squint), Zhai (shout out to Demonstone for the maybe a dozen people that played that game), or Drizzt, but within they have different degrees and context even within that framework.

Gnolls as written and 5e, are one specific kind of Evil, and a particularly straightforward kind of evil as well. It makes Gnolls difficult to use as a DM, as well as boring and repetitive when they can be used at all.

So changes to Gnoll lore in 5.5 or whatever would be welcome and 5e's weren't, but this is mostly about table utility

This argument doesn't work as well for me past this specific example though.
To circle back so we stay talking about dwarves, which have a rep of feeling samey, even within the culture of warriors, engineers, and craftmen. Even if we stay whithin the expected bounds of 'Dwarf' we have a range of tropes, competing expectations and archetypes to draw from. Even taken at monoculture we have a bunch more material to work with as a DM, and diversity that a player can use to make a specific character.

Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble, In short, Gnolls have somewhat seperate problems to in comparison to say drow having a standard position.

--

This. Lore is fine, even stereotypical lore. The author should just be clear about which locality that lore applies to, rather than implying and assuming that people will somehow psionically divine they don't mean the entire species.

I had a thought on this, is this a problem with D&D or a specific problem of 5e? For example, 3.5 was pretty clear in its setting expectations and scope, even going as far as defining its terms Usually, Often and Always for consistency.

I think what makes people nervous is that they see the rejection being cited as a rejection of how D&D has done things previously, where it does and has these caveats and clarifications. But given this doesn't seem to be the case, I makes me wonder if something has been lost in translation in 5e. I will admit I don't reference 5e for lore much, as I find it kinda spare and have multiple campaign setting books and other fictional reference materials, I use Tome of Foes some since it is nice to have gith lore in one easy to reference place.

It would help explain why I don't think this is as groundbreaking as people seem to think it is.

oudeis

2024-02-20, 11:26 PM

Since this thread was nominally about the declining popularity of Dwarf characters, I am in complete agreement with the aesthetic and mechanical disadvantage arguments, with the addendum that modern sourcebooks and turn-based computer games have really served to demonstrate these shortcomings graphically. It's one thing to know that your character is short and thick, it's another to see these sometimes ludicrously-exaggerated proportions in full-page artwork. And I think there's a stark difference between calculating character movement in your head or with tabletop minis and seeing your shortened attack path laid out in bright lines next to longer-legged characters.

That said, on to the more important topic.

I think there are a whole lot of assumptions being thrown around about what function enemy populations should fill, with the emphasis on 'should'. I don't play RPGs to have my assumptions challenged or my horizons expanded or my perspective corrected. I play to have fun. I sit at the table to explore the world the GM has created, not to have an admonishing finger waved in my face. 'Always Chaotic Evil' is a useful fiction in combat-oriented games. I just don't see any need to deconstruct or overanalyze it.

I've cut out a lot of details from my initial draft of this post because I'm tired and Lae'zel Baldur's Gate is calling to me, but I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to add to my argument when I revisit this thread tomorrow.

Satinavian

2024-02-21, 02:56 AM

That said, on to the more important topic.

I think there are a whole lot of assumptions being thrown around about what function enemy populations should fill, with the emphasis on 'should'. I don't play RPGs to have my assumptions challenged or my horizons expanded or my perspective corrected. I play to have fun. I sit at the table to explore the world the GM has created, not to have an admonishing finger waved in my face. 'Always Chaotic Evil' is a useful fiction in combat-oriented games. I just don't see any need to deconstruct or overanalyze it.

I don't see how those correlate.

I also play to explore the world and find that believable, explorable fantasy races are better for that than always-evil-carricatures. That is the reason to have them, not admonishing or finger waving, expanding horizons or corrected perspectives. There is nothing to deconstruct at tables that prefer them.
And as combat heavy games with only humans easily show, there is no particular need for 'always chaoric evil' for good fun combat without moralizing.

The various attempts to use TPRPGs as a medium to educate or correct the players or rather preach and soapbox at them are bad, yes. And usually quite insulting towards those players.

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 08:55 AM

I also play to explore the world and find that believable, explorable fantasy races are better for that than always-evil-carricatures.
Time and place for everything and one doesn't prevent using the other. You can use goblins as an obvious and consistent low-level threat, filling the gap between mindless no-tactics adversaries (skeletons, giant rats, etc) and stuff like demons and fiends. A "normal" enemy with planning, lootable gear and pretty basic motivation for your beer & pretzels dice rolling game audience looking for an evening of storytale fantasy adventure rather than Intro to Sociology lessons. Knowing that some goblins are actually lovely little people according to WOTC doesn't really add anything to that experience for a lot of people if it's not really a game/setting about goblins.

But this also doesn't prevent a game from including more nuanced fantasy races of other kinds. You can even have one-note orcs AND rich and compelling Drow culture if you want for your Bad Guys (or mustache-twirling evil Drow and "explorable" orcs). Just like having evil wraiths in your game doesn't stop you from using an emotionally layered vampire or lich. It doesn't even stop you from having an exceptional goblin NPC if you want. Using goblins as a "stock asset" low level threat to let the players roll some dice and which don't play a larger role in the world doesn't prevent me from using other more developed races later on. If the players decide they want to know more about goblin culture, it should be trivially easy to make up with minimal on the spot creativity required: They're Just Like Us! If they're happy with oh-so-trite-and-boring rolling initiative instead then nothing was lost.

Kurald Galain

2024-02-21, 09:01 AM

I don't agree with that. Precisely because they have so much more culture and tradition, makes it more interesting to play a dwarf than to play Generic Humanlike With Some Animal Features #17.

Seriously now, we have birdman, bearman, horseman, rabbitman, another birdman (both distinct from angelman), lizardman (distinct from dragonborn, somehow), bullman, goatman, catman, turtleman, and snakeman. Other settings add hippoman, insectman, yet another birdman, lionman (distinct from catman for some reason), elephantman, generic animalman, fishman, and frogman.

Good lord. I've just heard a new splatbook has dropped that gives us stagman, raccoonman, four additional kinds of birdman, mouseman, hedgehogman, and for some reason we didn't have foxman already.

...did I mention that D&D has too many races?

Amnestic

2024-02-21, 09:27 AM

Good lord. I've just heard a new splatbook has dropped that gives us stagman, raccoonman, four additional kinds of birdman, mouseman, hedgehogman, and for some reason we didn't have foxman already.

...did I mention that D&D has too many races?

If it has I don't think it's an official one?

The last major racial option book was Monsters of the Multiverse (May 2022) which was just an update or reprint for already printed races from other sources/settings. Spelljammer (August 2022) added some, as specifically it was a setting/adventure book.

Glory of the Giants didn't add any playable races so far as I know. The next two books are two adventure books - Vecna: Eve of Ruin and Quests from the Infinite Staircase, neither of which look to be adding new playable races from what I can tell? I'd appreciate a source if there's something I've missed otherwise.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 10:15 AM

My argument is that racial deities (of ALL alignments) are neither omnipotent nor impotent when it comes to establishing the attitudes and cultures of their creations. Moradin is just as unable to make all dwarves LG as Lolth and Gruumsh are at making all Drow and Orcs CE - but within specific spheres of influence, such as cities they've founded, they've had somewhat more success. But not enough success that sweeping statements about any of their creations are useful, especially in the modern game.
I don't think the argument is that compelling though. Especially since the goodly folks and the evil folks map to goodly gods and evil gods. Moradin's followers are mostly neutral and good, and probably lawful. It's not a coincidence that the duergar follow an evil god, and were excluded from Moradin's Thunder Blessing (there's even a story about a duergar adventuring to udnerstand why the duergar were excluded). Meanwhile, the elves follow goodly or neutral chaotic deities, but the drow follow an evil deity. And a surprise to no one, the drow are mostly evil, whereas the other elves are neutral or good.

I can point to FR too. There are a not-insignificant number of Drow living outside of the Underdark, and Orcs definitely don't have one specific culture either. The books making that clearer is a Good Thing. But that's exactly what makes Dwarven sameiness across multiple cities and continents stick out even more.
I don't think the "sameness" is a problem to be honest. Or rather, it is but in the opposite direction. If you change the races so that they aren't the same as they have always been, then all the races become the same because we're trying to make them different. See Eberron again; you can play races that identify with one of the five nations rather than with some ethnic cultural identity. There's nothing wrong with that, but then everyone is just basically like everyone else.

This. Lore is fine, even stereotypical lore. The author should just be clear about which locality that lore applies to, rather than implying and assuming that people will somehow psionically divine they don't mean the entire species.
I don't agree that an author has to do this.

I don't think you have to make them plot-relevant, especially if the species is a relatively minor aspect of the setting. But if you're a professional writer giving a species any serious focus in your setting and story, they should be more than a uniform monoculture.
What do you mean by "monoculture"? Seems to me that "alignment" is being conflated with "monoculture".

Yeah, if you say that people only started talking about it this year it does make it seem like they're intruding on something, but that requires that people did only start talking about it this year. Which they didn't. For example, the comic this forum is built to discuss used this concept to inform the motivations of a villain that it clearly thinks has a justified grievance with the world, and Start of Darkness was published like 17 years ago, and it's not like Order of the Stick originated it.
I'm not familiar with this but I'm skeptical that it actually speaks to what we're talking about here. A villain having a justified grievance is fine, if somewhat tired and worn out at this point. Note though that previously I made reference to "sympathetic bad guys" and you insisted that you weren't referring to those, and I'm curious if that isn't part of the point of Start of Darkness?

Adjustment from what though? 5E is not the only version of D&D, and it makes plenty of "adjustments" to how the lore was in 4E, or 3E, or earlier.

Take Gnolls, for example. I came in with 3E, where Gnolls are "hyena people" - more likely to be antagonists than allies probably, but not "part demon" or anything. Yeah, their most popular god is a demon lord, but so what? It's not like followers of Orcus are all part-demon, for example.

So to me, the 5E "demon Gnolls" are the adjustment. And I don't see how 5.5E saying "Gnolls aren't inherently evil" is an unacceptable change when the 5.0E redefinition wasn't.

TL;DR - if it's fine for 5E lore to be different than earlier edition lore, it's also fine for there to be new "5.5E lore" that's different in another way.
Lore changes as a reaction to certain external pressures are not good in my opinion. As an example, you couldn't make that lore change to make gnolls into demons during the Satanic Panic, which also saw lore changes in renaming demons and devils into something else. We're now completely over that, and can speak more freely, thankfully.

We may as well learn from the past and not make the same mistakes twice.

I just don't see any need to deconstruct or overanalyze it.
QFT

Time and place for everything and one doesn't prevent using the other. You can use goblins as an obvious and consistent low-level threat, filling the gap between mindless no-tactics adversaries (skeletons, giant rats, etc) and stuff like demons and fiends. A "normal" enemy with planning, lootable gear and pretty basic motivation for your beer & pretzels dice rolling game audience looking for an evening of storytale fantasy adventure rather than Intro to Sociology lessons. Knowing that some goblins are actually lovely little people according to WOTC doesn't really add anything to that experience for a lot of people if it's not really a game/setting about goblins.

But this also doesn't prevent a game from including more nuanced fantasy races of other kinds. You can even have one-note orcs AND rich and compelling Drow culture if you want for your Bad Guys (or mustache-twirling evil Drow and "explorable" orcs). Just like having evil wraiths in your game doesn't stop you from using an emotionally layered vampire or lich. It doesn't even stop you from having an exceptional goblin NPC if you want. Using goblins as a "stock asset" low level threat to let the players roll some dice and which don't play a larger role in the world doesn't prevent me from using other more developed races later on. If the players decide they want to know more about goblin culture, it should be trivially easy to make up with minimal on the spot creativity required: They're Just Like Us! If they're happy with oh-so-trite-and-boring rolling initiative instead then nothing was lost.
Indeed. At some point, subverting expectations will also just become samey (assuming it already hasn't).

Good lord. I've just heard a new splatbook has dropped that gives us stagman, raccoonman, four additional kinds of birdman, mouseman, hedgehogman, and for some reason we didn't have foxman already.

...did I mention that D&D has too many races?
Is this Humblewood?

Mordar

2024-02-21, 11:20 AM

That said, on to the more important topic.

Disagree. Nothing is more important in this thread than Dwarves!

I think there are a whole lot of assumptions being thrown around about what function enemy populations should fill, with the emphasis on 'should'. I don't play RPGs to have my assumptions challenged or my horizons expanded or my perspective corrected. I play to have fun. I sit at the table to explore the world the GM has created, not to have an admonishing finger waved in my face. 'Always Chaotic Evil' is a useful fiction in combat-oriented games. I just don't see any need to always, or even often deconstruct or overanalyze it.

Agree (with an edit in bold), and...

I don't see how those correlate.

I also play to explore the world and find that believable, explorable fantasy races are better for that than always-evil-carricatures. That is the reason to have them, not admonishing or finger waving, expanding horizons or corrected perspectives. There is nothing to deconstruct at tables that prefer them.
And as combat heavy games with only humans easily show, there is no particular need for 'always chaoric evil' for good fun combat without moralizing.

The various attempts to use TPRPGs as a medium to educate or correct the players or rather preach and soapbox at them are bad, yes. And usually quite insulting towards those players.

I do think there has developed, in some circles, a degree of virtue signaling around this issue. I think we've seen it in this forum, though not necessarily in this thread. That's why I think they can certainly correlate.

ASIDE: I think perspective remains a highly valid counterpoint. The game is presented from a player perspective, not necessarily a holistic perspective. The assumption of what Evil looks like to the players drives the assigned alignments. However, that obfuscates a potentially interesting avenue..."Evil" that is supportable (or at least understandable) from a different, "alien" perspective. Take the Fremen, for instance. Polygamy, ritual murder, a form of cannibalism...all considered Evil kinds of things, particularly from a modern perspective. From their perspective (and the author perspective), it is much more "alien" (and supportable by environment) than "evil". Very easy to have a similarly always-Evil race in D&D that is potentially more interesting to explore than another full-alignment-spectrum race that has an Evil faction ascendant, or similar.

Indeed. At some point, subverting expectations will also just become samey (assuming it already hasn't).

Exactly - when the iconoclast has become the icon it has come full circle.

- M

Psyren

2024-02-21, 11:54 AM

I had a thought on this, is this a problem with D&D or a specific problem of 5e? For example, 3.5 was pretty clear in its setting expectations and scope, even going as far as defining its terms Usually, Often and Always for consistency.

Consistent with what though? Yes, I'm aware these labels existed in 3.5 monster manuals, but both Paizo and WotC jettisoned them since - and imo for good reason.

Take Drow; per the 3.5 MM, they were "Usually NE" and "depraved" Lolth-worshipers. If you're looking at Menzoberranzan specifically, that was probably accurate, most of them worshiped her and were probably somewhere between NE and CE, and the ones that didn't were unlikely to live very long. If you pulled back to look at FR as a whole, that might have still been true at least in the in-universe year when FRCS was written (Shieldmeet 1372 DR). But if you're looking at FR today, 1492 DR post-Spellplague etc., that's a lot less certain. And if you pull back even further to look at the D&D Multiverse, it's definitely not true, the Drow who are depraved Lolth-worshiping cultists are actually a minority of the overall population, so the "Usually" tag ceases to be meaningful or useful for WotC's purposes - hence them rightfully dropping it.

I think what makes people nervous is that they see the rejection being cited as a rejection of how D&D has done things previously, where it does and has these caveats and clarifications. But given this doesn't seem to be the case, I makes me wonder if something has been lost in translation in 5e. I will admit I don't reference 5e for lore much, as I find it kinda spare and have multiple campaign setting books and other fictional reference materials, I use Tome of Foes some since it is nice to have gith lore in one easy to reference place.

It would help explain why I don't think this is as groundbreaking as people seem to think it is.

Even if it was a "rejection of how D&D has done things previously" - so what? No author, not Salvatore nor Greenwood nor Gygax himself, is infallible - we should judge their creative choices on their own merits and the effects those choices have on the hobby at large, not hold them sacrosanct because of tradition. If a given fictional choice is causing more harm to the game or its adoption than good, especially being harmful or offputting to current or would-be real-world players, I'll be on the side of burning it down in a heartbeat, tradition be damned.

Errorname

2024-02-21, 11:54 AM

I think there are a whole lot of assumptions being thrown around about what function enemy populations should fill, with the emphasis on 'should'. I don't play RPGs to have my assumptions challenged or my horizons expanded or my perspective corrected. I play to have fun. I sit at the table to explore the world the GM has created, not to have an admonishing finger waved in my face. 'Always Chaotic Evil' is a useful fiction in combat-oriented games. I just don't see any need to deconstruct or overanalyze it.

I don't think it's that useful. Like a band of bandits menacing the town are by default unsympathetic, you don't need to say "these guys are bad because they're from the bad race", the fact that they're doing bad things is generally enough.

What do you mean by "monoculture"? Seems to me that "alignment" is being conflated with "monoculture".

An entire race that has a uniform alignment sure sounds like a monoculture to me.

I'm not familiar with this but I'm skeptical that it actually speaks to what we're talking about here. A villain having a justified grievance is fine, if somewhat tired and worn out at this point. Note though that previously I made reference to "sympathetic bad guys" and you insisted that you weren't referring to those, and I'm curious if that isn't part of the point of Start of Darkness?

I think there's a pretty clear throughline in Order of the Stick that "it is kind of messed up to treat an entire race of sapient people as uniformly evil". Redcloak's entire grievance comes from how his people are treated as PC fodder to be massacred and from a desire to be on an equal footing to the PC races, and the whole Black Dragon plotline also deals with this.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 01:26 PM

An entire race that has a uniform alignment sure sounds like a monoculture to me.
Yeah, I don't this it's that simple and this seems to me more like using a buzzword to do the heavy lifting. Again I don't really know what you mean by this, as I suspect that some nations or city states in D&D can probably be considered monocultures. Seems like you're arguing against not just evil races but probably a lot of other representations in D&D.

Also, I already made the point that in Volo's there are parts of Orcish society that venerate different deities and these deities have very different outlooks, purviews, etc. Like I expect you can treat differently with a Blade of Ilneval or a Claw of Luthic than a rampaging berserker devoted to Bagtru or an Eye of Gruumsh. There are such things as subcultures, and sharing a few strong values doesn't mean there isn't differentiation in other places.

I think there's a pretty clear throughline in Order of the Stick that "it is kind of messed up to treat an entire race of sapient people as uniformly evil". Redcloak's entire grievance comes from how his people are treated as PC fodder to be massacred and from a desire to be on an equal footing to the PC races, and the whole Black Dragon plotline also deals with this.
No clue as I'm not at all familiar with OotS. I think the one and only panel I looked at waaaay back in the day was about a half-ogre wielding a spiked chain. It was funny lol.

That said, I think you've hit on the crux of this issue here. Because the comment you quoted is not necessarily true, and I think people are treating it as true by baking in some assumptions that they are maybe not acknowledging. So I don't agree it's messed up to treat a race of people as uniformly evil if they are uniformly evil. D&D largely treats certain races this way. It is messed up if they aren't evil but you treat them that way because they're different. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But orcs and gnolls and goblins and drow have largely been evil over the editions, with exceptions, so this stance doesn't make much sense to take. It sounds like one person's interpretation, which maybe began as an interesting and entertaining thought, but has now morphed into D&D is treating these poor creatures in a bad way, and forgetting or ignoring that D&D has portrayed these creatures as evil, hence there is no dissonance between how they are and how they are treated.

EDIT:
ASIDE: I think perspective remains a highly valid counterpoint. The game is presented from a player perspective, not necessarily a holistic perspective. The assumption of what Evil looks like to the players drives the assigned alignments. However, that obfuscates a potentially interesting avenue..."Evil" that is supportable (or at least understandable) from a different, "alien" perspective. Take the Fremen, for instance. Polygamy, ritual murder, a form of cannibalism...all considered Evil kinds of things, particularly from a modern perspective. From their perspective (and the author perspective), it is much more "alien" (and supportable by environment) than "evil". Very easy to have a similarly always-Evil race in D&D that is potentially more interesting to explore than another full-alignment-spectrum race that has an Evil faction ascendant, or similar.
I meant to say I think this is also a good point and sort of calls back to that quote from Gary Gygax in the article I linked to earlier, where he puts a neutral or good drow in a vulnerable position to see if the players are still paying attention and are able to discern and act accordingly, or if they've gone full murder-hobo.

Morgaln

2024-02-21, 01:52 PM

That said, I think you've hit on the crux of this issue here. Because the comment you quoted is not necessarily true, and I think people are treating it as true by baking in some assumptions that they are maybe not acknowledging. So I don't agree it's messed up to treat a race of people as uniformly evil if they are uniformly evil. D&D largely treats certain races this way. It is messed up if they aren't evil but you treat them that way because they're different. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But orcs and gnolls and goblins and drow have largely been evil over the editions, with exceptions, so this stance doesn't make much sense to take. It sounds like one person's interpretation, which maybe began as an interesting and entertaining thought, but has now morphed into D&D is treating these poor creatures in a bad way, and forgetting or ignoring that D&D has portrayed these creatures as evil, hence there is no dissonance between how they are and how they are treated.

I think it is very messed up to think that any species can be uniformly evil in the first place. What that invariably leads to is the thought that said species is born evil, for otherwise you couldn't be 100% sure every single member of that species is evil. Which in turn means actions don't matter. You're either evil or you're not and there's nothing you can do about it. No redemption possible, no mitigating circumstances, nothing. That opens a huge can of worms leading to very dark places.

Amnestic

2024-02-21, 02:10 PM

In a game/setting where literal fiends can ascend to redeem themselves and literal angels can fall to evil, it seems pretty silly to have a mortal race - even one 'corrupted by an evil god' - be uniformly evil.

And once exceptions exist (and they will) then...I mean, that's that, ain't it? Exceptions exist, so they're not uniformly evil. The vast majority might be due to societal pressures placed on them, but people buck against societal trends all the time.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 02:23 PM

Psyren

2024-02-21, 02:30 PM

The only species that should be 'uniformly evil' (I guess that's more palatable than "biologically evil," somehow?) should be ones that are mystically composited or enforced to be so, like fiends and undead, and/or ones with wholly alien mindsets like aberrations and maybe chromatic dragons. But Humanoids, especially playable ones like Orcs, Drow and Duergar, should not be.

But a city or even nation of humanoids largely conforming to one doctrine (I say "largely" because even then there should be exceptions) is more reasonable. To use a non-D&D example, Dragon Age has cities like Orzammar (Dwarves) and Par Vollen (Qunari) whose peoples are extremely rigidly controlled, but the species themselves are not.

Amnestic

2024-02-21, 02:41 PM

I guess it's not obvious to me what we're discussing. Because, if in your game there are no evil races, I wouldn't expect people to treat them like they're evil. But if in your game they are evil, then I would expect people to treat them that way.
So it feels like there's a sort of gotcha in here somewhere, where the game does not have evil races, but PCs treat them like they are. That seems like an issue with the players.

Alternatively, it seems like this may just be a judgement on games that have evil races. Since this entire conversation is assuming the races aren't evil.

The gotcha is people saying "I want evil races [as standard]" when other people are saying "no that's kinda silly", and has been for years. Drizzt can't exist if drow are uniformly evil.

Evil cultures are fine - the Underdark drow are all about that! But evil races not so much. At least, not mortals, and even planars start getting weird when they've got ascension/falling stories you're tripping over every edition.

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 02:57 PM

Errorname

2024-02-21, 03:06 PM

Seems like you're arguing against not just evil races but probably a lot of other representations in D&D.

Yeah. I think the evil races get it the worst, but a lot of D&D races can end up feeling like underdeveloped monocultures. It's not as catastrophic for D&D as it would be for a novel or a CRPG, because much of this writing exists as a jumping off point for groups to write their own stories, but I still think it's a problem, it's one of the reasons the Forgotten Realms is a setting I begrudgingly tolerate rather than actually like.

That said, I think you've hit on the crux of this issue here. Because the comment you quoted is not necessarily true, and I think people are treating it as true by baking in some assumptions that they are maybe not acknowledging. So I don't agree it's messed up to treat a race of people as uniformly evil if they are uniformly evil. D&D largely treats certain races this way. It is messed up if they aren't evil but you treat them that way because they're different. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But orcs and gnolls and goblins and drow have largely been evil over the editions, with exceptions, so this stance doesn't make much sense to take.

The actual argument is that it's messed up for the writer to treat a race of people as uniformly evil.

That is, in fact, one of the arguments for these evil races: characters like Drizzt are fairly meaningless and uninteresting if he comes to the surface and everyone says "Hey, it's another one of those cool friendly Drow guys like the thirty in town already! Drow: They're Just Like Us!"

I certainly am not arguing that you can't have tension between the various species in your setting, in fact I think you very much should. But there is a middle ground between completely frictionless and "these guys are complete bastards with maybe one exception"

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 03:44 PM

There is, in fact, an entire spectrum you can use successfully.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 03:47 PM

Witty Username

2024-02-21, 04:05 PM

Even if it was a "rejection of how D&D has done things previously" - so what? No author, not Salvatore nor Greenwood nor Gygax himself, is infallible - we should judge their creative choices on their own merits and the effects those choices have on the hobby at large, not hold them sacrosanct because of tradition. If a given fictional choice is causing more harm to the game or its adoption than good, especially being harmful or offputting to current or would-be real-world players, I'll be on the side of burning it down in a heartbeat, tradition be damned.

I have more on this when I have more capacity to draw reference, but my interest isn't tradition, its example.

You said earlier that Lore is fine, provided its lack of ubiquity is made clear. In my mind that recalls 3.5 with its attention to negitive space and AD&Ds support of alternative settings.

Is that state of affairs bad? And what is the alternative proposed? Since this reads to me like evil shouldn't exist at the cultural level, but that is almost certainly not what you mean. I will admit to having lost the plot some.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 04:53 PM

Dr. Samurai's statement aside, I don't think many people, even those who are in favor of "Always Evil" Races, actually intend or expect them to be 100% No Exceptions Guaranteed Evil. That is, in fact, one of the arguments for these evil races: characters like Drizzt are fairly meaningless and uninteresting if he comes to the surface and everyone says "Hey, it's another one of those cool friendly Drow guys like the thirty in town already! Drow: They're Just Like Us!"

Except Drizz't IS still rare. He's a Drow noble who abandoned his House and escaped Menzoberranzan. Do you know how hard that is to do when a bunch of Matrons have reason to keep tabs on you? Other non-evil Drow living on the surface don't diminish his accomplishment; especially since he did it pre-Spellplague, when there were even fewer escapees. It's been at least a century since then in-setting, so more Drow having gotten out like he did or showing up from elsewhere in the world (or hell, other worlds) is entirely reasonable.

If the existence of other non-evil surface Drow somehow makes Drizz't uninteresting to you, that's your prerogative, but it just seems like a needlessly edgy take to me.

I have more on this when I have more capacity to draw reference, but my interest isn't tradition, its example.

You said earlier that Lore is fine, provided its lack of ubiquity is made clear. In my mind that recalls 3.5 with its attention to negitive space and AD&Ds support of alternative settings.

Is that state of affairs bad? And what is the alternative proposed? Since this reads to me like evil shouldn't exist at the cultural level, but that is almost certainly not what you mean. I will admit to having lost the plot some.

Cultural evil can exist but it should be limited to specific locations. Does that make sense?

Menzoberranzan is an evil culture, no question. But the game shouldn't imply or state that anywhere you get enough Drow living together you risk Menzoberranzan 2 popping up. Because they don't have a biological, metaphysical, or otherwise engrained imperative to form that kind of culture on their own.

Lastly - for me, the lore serves the purpose of getting more people into the hobby, not the other way around. If enough people want to make Drow characters, or Orc characters, or Kobold characters etc, the lore needs to change to accommodate that. (And it wouldn't even need to change that much, because people have been wanting these to be playable for multiple editions now.) People seem to have no problem accepting this for Dwarves, so it remains questionable to me why that's an issue now. If it's just inertia, fine, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 04:57 PM

Except Drizz't IS still rare. He's a Drow noble who abandoned his House and escaped Menzoberranzan.
Reading the books, his internal conflict isn't "Gee, immigrating out of Menzoberranzan sure is tough", it's about the actual Drow as a people and can he really be different if he has Drow blood, yadda yadda. All the Menzoberranzan stuff is there to reflect how evil the Drow are. Trying to turn that into "But he's still special because of other stuff" ignores the first half of the series. If his story was just being a regular guy in a city full of regular guys trying to get out of an occupied city like escaping post-WWII East Berlin, it'd be a completely different story. It can still be an interesting story, but it's not Drizzt's story as we know it.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 05:38 PM

Reading the books, his internal conflict isn't "Gee, immigrating out of Menzoberranzan sure is tough", it's about the actual Drow as a people and can he really be different if he has Drow blood, yadda yadda. All the Menzoberranzan stuff is there to reflect how evil the Drow are. Trying to turn that into "But he's still special because of other stuff" ignores the first half of the series. If his story was just being a regular guy in a city full of regular guys trying to get out of an occupied city like escaping post-WWII East Berlin, it'd be a completely different story. It can still be an interesting story, but it's not Drizzt's story as we know it.

His internal conflict isn't at odds with modern Drow either. If the only Drow Drizzt has ever known are Lolth-worshiping bastards (which... they are, because again, he spent a big chunk of his formative years in Menzoberranzan), then of course he's going to be angsty about whether Drow evil is nature or nurture and what that means for his own future. Other non-evil Drow on the surface aren't going to change that, especially over a century later.

So if your argument is that we should preserve Drow being inherently evil because it gives Drizzt more reason to keep being D&D's emo posterchild, that's not very compelling. We can all stand to put the My Chemical Romance CDs away now.

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 05:44 PM

Yeah, "If we change what the story is about and the primary conflict by making the main character (and apparently everyone else in the Realms) just ignorant, we still have the same story" isn't a great argument no matter how many ham-handed "lol emo!" quips you add to it.

(Also, Drizzt is from the late 80s. "My Chemical Romance"? Seriously? Kids these days... :smallbiggrin: )

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 05:53 PM

The gotcha is people saying "I want evil races [as standard]" when other people are saying "no that's kinda silly", and has been for years. Drizzt can't exist if drow are uniformly evil.
I think we keep getting stuck on words. Drizz't can absolutely exist, in fact he did, when there were no illusion jungle drow.

Evil cultures are fine - the Underdark drow are all about that! But evil races not so much. At least, not mortals, and even planars start getting weird when they've got ascension/falling stories you're tripping over every edition.
We're tripping over those stories because we find them compelling. It's far more compelling than "every type of creature lives the same lives as all others, they can be equal parts good and bad and curious and disinterested and loyal or capricious and etc etc."

And, again, if all we ever know and read about is Menzo, as an example, then "evil culture" is, effectively, synonymous with "evil race". And I think this is the tripping point in the communications here. We didn't have jungle illusion drow added because they've always been there in the background. We got them added for reasons external to the game, and now we turn around and say the depiction of drow is so unfair because look, there's non-evil drow. It's like... they were always evil. Lolth was evil, and took some elves with her, that became the drow. And they worship her and extol her values, etc. That's been the origin forever now. It makes sense that they are evil, there is no need to question it like this and start coming up with other stuff to counter it.

Yeah. I think the evil races get it the worst, but a lot of D&D races can end up feeling like underdeveloped monocultures. It's not as catastrophic for D&D as it would be for a novel or a CRPG, because much of this writing exists as a jumping off point for groups to write their own stories, but I still think it's a problem, it's one of the reasons the Forgotten Realms is a setting I begrudgingly tolerate rather than actually like.
Ok fair enough.

The actual argument is that it's messed up for the writer to treat a race of people as uniformly evil.
I totally disagree. Seems weird for someone to determine what a writer can or can't write about.

I certainly am not arguing that you can't have tension between the various species in your setting, in fact I think you very much should. But there is a middle ground between completely frictionless and "these guys are complete bastards with maybe one exception"
Yeah, I don't mind having it all, as opposed to drawing a line at one end of the spectrum.

With regards to edgy takes, I'll take my chemical romance (which appears to be a band) over this post-modernist stuff any day of the week :smallcool:.

Errorname

2024-02-21, 06:48 PM

It's far more compelling than "every type of creature lives the same lives as all others"

That's not actually what people are asking for. I agree that part of the point of having distinct sapient races is diversity, people who are meaningfully different.

I just think that if "These humanoid ones are good and these humanoid ones are bad" is the best you can do, you shouldn't bother.

I totally disagree. Seems weird for someone to determine what a writer can or can't write about.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure there's a lot of stuff out there that you think is bad and should have been written differently. It's pretty normal to have opinions about how things are written and how they ought to be written.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 07:32 PM

That's not actually what people are asking for. I agree that part of the point of having distinct sapient races is diversity, people who are meaningfully different.

I just think that if "These humanoid ones are good and these humanoid ones are bad" is the best you can do, you shouldn't bother.

Bingo.

I totally disagree. Seems weird for someone to determine what a writer can or can't write about.

I can't speak for Errorname, but I'm certainly not stopping any D&D writer from leaning on whatever longstanding stereotypes they want to write about; I'm just voicing my opinion of that approach, i.e that I see it as a crutch whose time has passed. And maybe somewhere in there lies the key to making Dwarves less forgettable too.

Yeah, "If we change what the story is about and the primary conflict by making the main character (and apparently everyone else in the Realms) just ignorant, we still have the same story" isn't a great argument no matter how many ham-handed "lol emo!" quips you add to it.

I mean - "ignorant" isn't like, a terminal illness or anything; it's a quality or flaw a character can overcome, usually by going through a period of learning and growth commonly called an arc. Drizz't grew up in an extremely insular society, so not being all that aware of non-Lolthite surface Drow in any material quantity would be pretty reasonable for the character - especially since there would have been far fewer of those back when he first escaped MB himself, than there are in modern Faerun.

(In fact, from a metatextual perspective, Drizz't himself predated Eilistraee IIRC in terms of the novels and sourcebooks and such; so back when he was first conceived there would have been no real deity or faith for such drow to coalesce around. Small wonder then that Salvatore wrote him as wrestling with such difficult thoughts all alone, even if doing so did give him and his many, many copycats a bit of a "lol emo" reputation in the playerbase.)

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 08:11 PM

Psyren

2024-02-21, 08:48 PM

Yep, nothing wrong with opinions. Of course, once you start rewriting lore, you've moved beyond simply having an opinion right?

Yes, WotC has moved beyond having an opinion by rewriting the lore they own.

Errorname

2024-02-21, 08:54 PM

Mordar

2024-02-21, 08:59 PM

That's not actually what people are asking for. I agree that part of the point of having distinct sapient races is diversity, people who are meaningfully different.

I just think that if "These humanoid ones are good and these humanoid ones are bad" is the best you can do, you shouldn't bother.

I don't think that "always Evil" (especially where we know "always" means 99.9%, because Drizzt) also means "...and that is all there is to know about them."

If that's the case, sure, the Suessian creatures are only good for the simplest of purposes. But the Drow brought a lot more to the table. That is why they were cool when D1-2-3 came out. That is why people jumped all over it when Unearthed Arcana hit. That is why Drizzt is the best known name in D&D, surpassing Gygax and all of the other fictional characters. So something there must have worked, and well.

So generally Evil isn't sufficient on its own, but it also wasn't a kiss of death for interest.

To jump genres, take Aliens. They have sapience as demonstrated using the movies alone. And not the terrible ones that didn't have "Alien" in the title. They would 100% qualify as Evil based on our morality system. Generally they are presented as "things to kill", but they offer much more than just targets for Marine pulse rifles.

So I guess I'm fine with that definition of "always Evil" as long as it brings something interesting to the table. See also the perspectives thing about alien groups (Fremen), Alien groups, etc.

- M

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 09:10 PM

I don't think that "always Evil" (especially where we know "always" means 99.9%, because Drizzt) also means "...and that is all there is to know about them."
Pretty much. You should be able to say that orcs are "Always Evil" (except for Orczzit, that guy's awesome) with the usual orc stuff: Strong, violent, territorial, treat other races as food/slaves, usually pretty dumb, etc and still make orcs from Point A differ from Orcs in Point B with different cultures and stories to tell based on their environment, neighbors, resources, etc. If you can't and you hit a wall with "Orcs are Evil", that feels more like a failure of creativity on the world designer's part than any inherent flaw stemming from orcs being evil.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 09:11 PM

The thing about Drizz't needing to be "the only good drow" to be special is that it's so easy to have that character be significant not because he's the only one, but because they were a trailblazer. Yeah, it does make Drizz't's angst less special if there's an entire neighbourhood of Drow expats when his story is happening, but if that neighbourhood is only able to exist because of what Drizz't accomplished and all his heroism, that's a real tangible impact on the world of the setting for the character and it's a cool moment.
But if I understand everyone correctly, this isn't really what you want to see. We've heard that evil cultures are boring, one-note, poor writing, problematic (in as many words), etc. Therefore, we can't just have evil races, rather, there has to be diversity, with good examples to counter the evil examples.

In this sense, I think you get exactly what just occurred between Psyren and Jophiel, where Drizzt's accomplishment is simply geographical. There are already drow that exist without Lolth, there are already drow that did not succumb to her orders/compulsion/coercion/etc. and live on the surface in harmony.

All throughout this conversation the aim has been to either not include or to severely diminish the concept of an evil race in a D&D setting, so obviously if that occurs you are also diminishing these stories alongside them.

Obould Many Arrows would not be as compelling a villain if the orcs weren't constantly at war with the dwarves and elves and humans and generally a chaotic messy horde that he is able to organize and control into various military victories to become an unprecedented geographical power in the region. You diminish that if orcs are simply "hey mountain neighbor, how's the weather today?"

Yeah, but you haven't exactly crossed a line into "determining what writers can and cannot write about", the only writer whose is having that determination made by your opinion is you
I'm happy to pretend that the choices WotC made weren't because of other people determining what writers can and can't write about, especially if everyone else will keep pretending.

And with regards mockery about being edgy, as a reminder, there is nothing particularly clever or compelling, especially now, about sympathetic villains and grey morality. Been there, done that. I can certainly refer to it in as equal a mocking and deconstructive tone as the rest of you. You're not on a literary highground here. We get it, boo-hoo the villain bleeds just like you, they did these things because they were wronged, etc etc. It's hilarious to think people that prefer this are mocking traditional straightforward evil villains. All of it is great and all of it sucks in equal measures depending on execution. It doesn't have to go further than that.

Also, agree with Mordar.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 09:29 PM

In this sense, I think you get exactly what just occurred between Psyren and Jophiel, where Drizzt's accomplishment is simply geographical. There are already drow that exist without Lolth, there are already drow that did not succumb to her orders/compulsion/coercion/etc. and live on the surface in harmony.

1) That ship sailed when they retconned Eilistraee into the setting after Drizzt's introduction. Unless you're trying to claim that a whole goddess dedicated to harmonious Drow accomplished literally nothing before Drizz't came along, which makes no sense.

2) Both you and he are still ignoring the point I made about chronology. Even if I agreed with you that Drizzt and the drow's story should be preserved in unretconned form, at best that would mean back when he first escaped there likely weren't many Drow on the surface... 150 years ago or more. But FR is not a static setting, and WotC isn't writing for 1276 DR anymore, nor even 1372 DR.

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 09:47 PM

And with regards mockery about being edgy, as a reminder, there is nothing particularly clever or compelling, especially now, about sympathetic villains and grey morality. Been there, done that.
Yeah, basically. People were writing "But from the goblin's perspective..." letters/articles to Dragon some forty years ago. Nothing new under the sun.

2) Both you and he are still ignoring the point I made about chronology.
Because it's not relevant unless your point is "Always Evil Races are actually fine so long as one day, decades later, you say it's a hundred years later and now they're not all evil anymore"

Psyren

2024-02-21, 10:33 PM

Because it's not relevant unless your point is "Always Evil Races are actually fine so long as one day, decades later, you say it's a hundred years later and now they're not all evil anymore"

That's exactly the point - the evil is cultural, not biological. More people can escape a culture a century later.

Errorname

2024-02-21, 10:39 PM

But if I understand everyone correctly, this isn't really what you want to see. We've heard that evil cultures are boring, one-note, poor writing, problematic (in as many words), etc. Therefore, we can't just have evil races, rather, there has to be diversity, with good examples to counter the evil examples.

I don't actually dislike having cultures that primarily function as antagonists, I just want them to have more depth than simply beasts to be slain, and I don't want the correct answer to "what do you with an orc baby?" to be "kill it". I can absolutely think of fictional races that I really like which start out appearing to be uniformly evil, but the consistent theme with them is that there is always more depth to them than that initial first impression.

Obould Many Arrows would not be as compelling a villain if the orcs weren't constantly at war with the dwarves and elves and humans and generally a chaotic messy horde that he is able to organize and control into various military victories to become an unprecedented geographical power in the region. You diminish that if orcs are simply "hey mountain neighbor, how's the weather today?"

Yes in a setting where everyone gets along with no friction it would be hard to sell that, but I am not arguing for a setting where the relationship between different races is as simple as "hey neighbor", I think bad blood and bitter history is a very important thing to have.

137beth

2024-02-21, 10:47 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-21, 10:59 PM

1) That ship sailed when they retconned Eilistraee into the setting after Drizzt's introduction. Unless you're trying to claim that a whole goddess dedicated to harmonious Drow accomplished literally nothing before Drizz't came along, which makes no sense.
I believe you were the one that took umbrage with gods influencing the alignment and behaviors and cultures of their followers, not me. If I recall correctly, you said they are not "omnipotent", implying they would need to be in order to shape the culture and norms of their worshipers/creations.

2) Both you and he are still ignoring the point I made about chronology. Even if I agreed with you that Drizzt and the drow's story should be preserved in unretconned form, at best that would mean back when he first escaped there likely weren't many Drow on the surface... 150 years ago or more. But FR is not a static setting, and WotC isn't writing for 1276 DR anymore, nor even 1372 DR.
There is no reason to assume that things would progress as they make sense to you, over time. Especially in a ridiculously dramatic and over the top setting as Faerun. Eilistraee could have been killed, or corrupted by Lolth, or sequestered, or any number of things, and Lolth's sway could have taken hold of the surface drow, etc.

I honestly feel like a lot of these arguments strip the magic and fantasy from the settings.

That's exactly the point - the evil is cultural, not biological. More people can escape a culture a century later.
Or more people can succumb to it.

I don't actually dislike having cultures that primarily function as antagonists, I just want them to have more depth than simply beasts to be slain, and I don't want the correct answer to "what do you with an orc baby?" to be "kill it". I can absolutely think of fictional races that I really like which start out appearing to be uniformly evil, but the consistent theme with them is that there is always more depth to them than that initial first impression.
As before, I just don't equate these races with lacking depth.

Yes in a setting where everyone gets along with no friction it would be hard to sell that, but I am not arguing for a setting where the relationship between different races is as simple as "hey neighbor", I think bad blood and bitter history is a very important thing to have.
Yeah but it just seems very curated because it appears it has to be a specific kind of bitterness and bad blood, that makes sense to you and others, doesn't offend your sensibilities, and leaves room for interpretation etc. It's a bit too constructed for my tastes.

I'm perfectly fine with starting out at Evil Gruumsh/Pantheon --> orcs are evil (generally) --> stories born out of this foundation that include exceptions/redemption/good guys failing/adopting orc babies/whatever else. I don't see a problem with this framework.

And when I say "generally", I don't mean "some". I mean almost all. I mean like... everyone knows to be weary/avoid an orc or possibly kill it on sight because of their reputation.

When Drizz't makes it to the surface world, he is freezing, having never been exposed to "weather" before except on nightly surface raids. Two elves come upon him. One wants to kill him on sight in cold blood because he is a drow. The other takes pity on Drizz't and lights a fire for him to survive the night.

Again, this is a call back to what Gary was trying to do by including a good drow imprisoned, to see how the players would treat him. Just like the elf in the story, they don't know that the drow they are looking at is "good". She could tell that Drizz't was alone, a fish out of water, and unable to survive the night. Similarly, the players see that this drow is alone, in a cage, among his own people. What do you do?

The answer is not kill it in cold blood/kill the orc baby. At least, not for characters that are meant to be "good".

Jophiel

2024-02-21, 11:52 PM

The reason to not kill an orc baby isn't because the orc baby will or won't grow into an evil orc, it's because the person holding a helpless orc baby is presumably good. It's a well worn story beat that the hero comes across a member of The Enemy in a helpless state and risks themselves to aid and comfort The Enemy. Why? Because they're the Good Guy. Sometimes it works out, sometimes the The Enemy comes back later to bite 'em (literally or figuratively).

If the party is going around murdering orc babies "because they're evil", the problem isn't orcs regardless of their alignment.

(And "It works out" doesn't necessarily mean The Enemy is now good either. Again, plenty of stories where The Enemy shows a moment's mercy to the protagonist out of deference to that previous time but still goes on to murder-kill everyone else on the field)

Errorname

2024-02-22, 12:03 AM

Yeah but it just seems very curated because it appears it has to be a specific kind of bitterness and bad blood, that makes sense to you and others, doesn't offend your sensibilities, and leaves room for interpretation etc. It's a bit too constructed for my tastes.

See, having a uniform enemy who are all mean and ugly and dress in black iron with spikes feels insanely constructed to me, it's the sort of thing that exists so that stories can try (and usually fail) to dodge dealing with any of the messy or uncomfortable parts of war and politics.

If the party is going around murdering orc babies "because they're evil", the problem isn't orcs, regardless of their alignment.

I regret to say that "kill the orc baby" is a sadly common stance that I've seen, and that does heavily inform my opinion on this matter.

icefractal

2024-02-22, 12:25 AM

Psyren

2024-02-22, 12:44 AM

I believe you were the one that took umbrage with gods influencing the alignment and behaviors and cultures of their followers, not me. If I recall correctly, you said they are not "omnipotent", implying they would need to be in order to shape the culture and norms of their worshipers/creations.

For the norms of the entire species uniformly, yes, they would need to be. Thankfully that's not the case.

There is no reason to assume that things would progress as they make sense to you, over time. Especially in a ridiculously dramatic and over the top setting as Faerun. Eilistraee could have been killed, or corrupted by Lolth, or sequestered, or any number of things, and Lolth's sway could have taken hold of the surface drow, etc.

I honestly feel like a lot of these arguments strip the magic and fantasy from the settings.
...
Or more people can succumb to it.

I think it'd be a pretty weird sort of "magic and fantasy" that entails killing off or corrupting the sources of hope and idealism in a setting. People get more than enough of that from non-fiction, you know?

(I mean, if it's grimdark you're after, why bother with FR when Warhammer is right there?)

MonochromeTiger

2024-02-22, 03:02 AM

(I mean, if it's grimdark you're after, why bother with FR when Warhammer is right there?)

I wouldn't even say that. "Grimdark", especially in regard to Warhammer 40k which coined the term and Warhammer Fantasy Battles, really doesn't work at all if it's as bleak as it's stereotyped to be. A setting completely bereft of hope isn't a setting anyone is really invested in, both franchises knew that.

Warhammer Fantasy actually kept a fair amount of heroism and hope at its core right up until Games Workshop decided it wasn't performing well enough and blew it up. You had heroic factions still finding petty reasons to fight each other and internal strife all over the place but it was still very firmly a story of good versus evil and in almost every case evil ended up on the losing end. Up until the end most of the storylines that looked like Chaos or other evil factions would actually accomplish something ended in pyrrhic victories at best for the evil factions, and in some cases humiliating losses at the hands of other antagonistic factions.

Even Warhammer 40,000 with its running standard of "there are no good guys" still allows for individual heroism and empathy. You won't see any of it extend to the scale of factions, even the ones people try to hold up as the closest thing to a "good guy" do some truly monstrous things in the name of survival, but individual characters or even some specific armies routinely end up filling the role of classic hero out to save everyone they can. It's just all covered in a heavy layer of willful apathy toward the other factions most of the time.

Even the poster child franchises for grimdark realize you need some hope to get invested. They'll kick most of it out from under you but the only time they'll remove all of it is when they've truly given up on trying to keep things running.

RPG storytelling however does sometimes run into the opposite issue, especially in systems and settings where the adventures and modules are canon to the setting. Pathfinder as an example, between pulling back from some themes that people might find objectionable and continually defeating or defanging most of the big evil threats in the setting they've basically hit a point where most of what they have left has already been beaten senseless so often it's not really threatening and people are calling for it to just be finished off or are vague enough that they don't seem like actual threats. They had maybe one actual "win" for Evil, and that just set a slightly different status quo. All the other Evils either got stomped out, are aimless monsters, switched to being neutral as a "redemption" because they saw Evil was losing and abandoned ship, or are stuck playing nice because their power base is shattered while all their neighbors are suddenly much more powerful and united.

Evil can't be unassailable, there always has to be some hint of a weakness or hope of an eventual victory against it, but it still needs to actually accomplish things and have some wins under its belt to justify why it hasn't been wiped out yet. Lolth worshipping Drow and similar backstabbing heavy evil factions are probably the worst for that because they way they're structured the only thing keeping them afloat is literal divine intervention; Lolth worshipers left alone would eventually wipe themselves out just off their internal politics meanwhile the "rebel Drow" and Elistraee worshipers who were supposed to be rare exceptions have multiplied repeatedly to the point they have their own major population centers that the Lolth worshipers who supposedly hate them with a burning passion can't do a thing about despite the fact they should logically be massive targets.

Good gets most of the change of heart stories just like it gets most if not all of the big victories that aren't immediately revealed to be purely temporary. You get hordes of people spontaneously realizing the error of their ways and leaving behind a lifetime of cultural indoctrination for the sake of selflessness but falling to Evil without it being some forced thing like becoming some kinds of undead is much rarer. When it does happen it's usually just so they can be redeemed or immediately stopped. Corruption more often than not is isolated and incomplete whereas redemption is plentiful and usually permanent with none of the backsliding you'd expect to occasionally happen when someone is actually learning to put their past behavior behind them. Even on the level of a setting's Gods the scales are heavily weighted toward Good with Evil being treated as the punching bag alignment and even Neutral Gods like Mystra only really justifying that neutrality by occasionally acting apathetic or avoiding killing an isolated evil character that does something to their benefit.

Never "kill or corrupt the sources of hope and idealism" and you get a boring foregone conclusion. It's no longer a true conflict of Good versus Evil but instead the same situation as the incorrect "Grimdark" stereotype where one side is just being held up so the setting doesn't end. That said it shouldn't advance to the point that you've got all Drow being evil or all Orcs going out to kill because otherwise Gruumsh will personally stomp them flat for disobeying. A monopoly in either direction is harmful to a setting and it gets laughable that Good is constantly given the role of the outnumbered underdog when Evil is always getting its teeth kicked in and only achieving enough to cause an inciting incident for its next inevitable defeat.

There needs to be give and take and funny enough the closest D&D usually gets to that is when the focus is Law vs Chaos rather than Good vs Evil but that's only because it's usually not as sought after as the heroic fantasy of going out to right wrongs, save princesses, and fight the appropriately labeled types of Dragon.

Witty Username

2024-02-22, 03:30 AM

I think it'd be a pretty weird sort of "magic and fantasy" that entails killing off or corrupting the sources of hope and idealism in a setting. People get more than enough of that from non-fiction, you know?

I think 4e did that actually, at least on the drow side, I recall some plot point on the Good drow lady and the Men dressed for success drow guy trying to kill Lolth and being killed/imprisoned for it. Mostly retconned because dumb at this point.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 09:54 AM

I remember watching Star Wars (1977) and being overwhelmed by all the moral ambiguity. Sure, this Grand Moff Tarkin guy blows up a planet, but he's also the same species as the protagonist, so how do I know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? If only one of them was a drow, then I could have a nice relaxing time watching the hero fight the villain. Instead we're bombarded by George Lucas trying to "challenge our perspective" with morally complex characters. Yes this is sarcastic.
I'm glad you brought this up because boy... nothing was as cringey as Anakin practically looking at the camera and shouting "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!!!"

Practically blew all the tension and drama right off of Mustafar with that line.

It's funny how times change. Back in the early 3E days, the feeling of many people - especially older-school players, IIRC - was that Drizzt was overhyped and the resulting knockoff characters were usually overly edge-lord / melodramatic. I think a lore change that basically said: "Ok Drizzt, get off your high-horse, it's not like you're the only good-aligned Drow around" would have been pretty welcome.

I don't really have anything against Drizzt, but I don't really have anything for him either - he's just not a significant part of my D&D experience. So "Drow need to be 99.9% evil to support Drizzt being cool" is a non-starter for me.
I get this, and I'll note that the argument is not specifically about Drizz't.

I just don't see the value in replacing stories like Drizz't with... "Hey guys, it's your boi Gormax the Slayer, just your regular ol' neighborhood gnoll. Nothing really differentiates me from any of the rest of you except I have fur, and this little tail".

The push is that all of these races should be treated as civilized human-but-not-human analogues, and so the stories that come out of them will be stories we already have in the millions. Again, Drizz't story is also old and played out as well, but at least it can exist.

For the norms of the entire species uniformly, yes, they would need to be. Thankfully that's not the case.
No, they wouldn't. It's a bold claim with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I think it'd be a pretty weird sort of "magic and fantasy" that entails killing off or corrupting the sources of hope and idealism in a setting.
Sorry, but I was pushing back on the notion of time solving for "evil race", and pointing out that nothing, especially in a magical fantasy setting with EVIL DEITIES and forces of evil, guarantees that that is how things will play out.

I am not insisting that a setting has to kill off hope or idealism.

People get more than enough of that from non-fiction, you know?
No, I am not sure what you mean. Part of the fun is bringing that hope and idealism into the world, as opposed to just playing in an idyllic setting straight from the jump.

I'm probably stating the obvious but it seems to me that this is a case of just not accepting the premise of the game in the first place. This strikes me as people complaining that Batman doesn't solve the crime in Gotham, as if the author set out to write a story that'd be wrapped up by issue 3 with a happy ending that reads "Billionaire Philanthropist Solves Poverty and Crime by Investing Millions in Education and Rehabilitation". That's not what the comics are about or looking to provide. I feel like that is what is happening here, where the purpose of the game and its lore is being misconstrued and then held at fault for not providing some other service (like reflecting a player's vision of an idealized world).

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 10:42 AM

Yeah, the point of mentioning Drizzt isn't that the Icewind Dale books are the pinnacle of fantasy literature, it's just an easy example that most RPG people are at least passingly familiar with. He's just shorthand for that style of tale. It doesn't hurt that the books were super popular, largely on the strength of his story/conflict (no one was saying "Heck yeah, Regis is awesome").

I regret to say that "kill the orc baby" is a sadly common stance that I've seen, and that does heavily inform my opinion on this matter.
That's a shame but that's a player issue, not a world building issue. Though I'm wondering about the confluence where you have players willing to RP murdering infants, a DM willing to give them infants to murder and now the only thing stopping them is that... some orcs might be nice when they grow up? By the time your game has gotten to the point where infanticide is on the table, the alignment line in the stat block is the least of your problems.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-22, 11:17 AM

I regret to say that "kill the orc baby" is a sadly common stance that I've seen, and that does heavily inform my opinion on this matter.

That's a shame but that's a player issue, not a world building issue. Though I'm wondering about the confluence where you have players willing to RP murdering infants, a DM willing to give them infants to murder and now the only thing stopping them is that... some orcs might be nice when they grow up? By the time your game has gotten to the point where infanticide is on the table, the alignment line in the stat block is the least of your problems.

I do think it goes back to being a world-building issue, though, because it comes back to whether orcs are innately evil.

If orcs are innately, irredeemably, evil, then preserving the orc baby is an act of supporting evil; the baby is not innocent, because it is evil by its very nature. If orcs are evil due to their cultural upbringing, then killing an orc baby is the same as killing a human baby... that child will have the choice to embrace or reject good.

And that's a central world-building question: Can orcs be non-evil without the intervention of major magic?

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 11:20 AM

I do think it goes back to being a world-building issue, though, because it comes back to whether orcs are innately evil.
Regardless of whether or not baby orcs are innately evil, good (or even nominally neutral) PCs shouldn't be murdering them. Slaughtering helpless noncombatants shouldn't be on their list of acceptable stuff.

That said, "But what if there's baby orcs in my game and no one knows how they got there and now we're infested with evil orc babies and what do we do? Can we kill them?" is probably the weakest possible reason to say that orcs aren't innately evil. The number of orc babies in your world is exactly as many as you put in your world for the players to find.

Errorname

2024-02-22, 11:35 AM

That said, "But what if there's baby orcs in my game and no one knows how they got there and now we're infested with evil orc babies and what do we do? Can we kill them?" is probably the weakest possible reason to say that orcs aren't innately evil. The number of orc babies in your world is exactly as many as you put in your world for the players to find.

It's kind of a reasonable assumption that the species in a setting reproduce somehow, unless you want there to be a finite and ever shrinking amount of Orcs in the world.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 11:41 AM

Regardless of whether or not baby orcs are innately evil, good (or even nominally neutral) PCs shouldn't be murdering them. Slaughtering helpless noncombatants shouldn't be on their list of acceptable stuff.

That said, "But what if there's baby orcs in my game and no one knows how they got there and now we're infested with evil orc babies and what do we do? Can we kill them?" is probably the weakest possible reason to say that orcs aren't innately evil. The number of orc babies in your world is exactly as many as you put in your world for the players to find.
Yeah, again, this is a problem that the DM is bringing up, presumably so the PCs can tackle it. I have yet to come across orc babies, because, I imagine, my DM is not interested in asking those questions.

But if we are saying that orcs are the way they are because of the heavy influence of their evil deities on their culture, than a baby raised outside of that culture should not feel that same pressure, no?

In which case, the PCs can leave the baby off at the nearest holy place willing to care for the baby.

But to Jophiel's point, these hypotheticals exist only if the DM makes them exist.

EDIT: I should add that in our current campaign, our infiltration mission was nearly ruined by a group of giant children. My party was ready to fight them. My character used deception and convinced them to go back to sleep from the other side of the door. So they did. I made that choice because my character is not evil. He's not even good, but killing children isn't in the list of things he's willing to do. Despite the fact that the giants we were fighting are being led by some evil power and raiding the surrounding countryside and killing people. After we took down the steading, the DM made a note to us that we could see the children escaping from our vantage point in the watchtower. We just have to live with those circumstances, whatever they may be.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 11:43 AM

It's kind of a reasonable assumption that the species in a setting reproduce somehow, unless you want there to be a finite and ever shrinking amount of Orcs in the world.

It's also a reasonable assumption that player characters poop but that doesn't mean you need to describe it in game.

Put it this way: If your game has come to a discussion about whether infantcide is justified, it's not a game I want to be involved in anyway so you do you. If the only thing between your game and infantcide is the orc stat block, I'm REALLY glad I'm not part of that game.

Though I am amused that the conversation has somehow gone from "Wanting a story like Drizzt is so emo and edgy lol" to "My players might want to murder helpless orc babies and how can I stop this if not Alignment: Evil (But Maybe Not)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 11:49 AM

Again, I go back to my comments about removing the magic and fantasy from the game, and what the purpose of the game is, and the (IMO) dubious reasoning of "making sense" or "being more real".

We haven't come across orc babies because the DM is not running Sim City: D&D edition. We don't go to the bathroom either in game. It's fine if people want to play their game in this way, but don't chastise the game for not being that by default.

Grim Portent

2024-02-22, 11:52 AM

Regardless of whether or not baby orcs are innately evil, good (or even nominally neutral) PCs shouldn't be murdering them.

That said "But what if there's baby orcs in my game and no one knows how they got there and now we're infested with evil orc babies and what do we do?" is probably the weakest possible reason to say that orcs aren't innately evil. The number of orc babies in your world is exactly as many as you put in your world for the players to find.

What else can you do with an innately evil baby? Put it in prison pre-emptively? Leave it to die of exposure after you killed its innately evil parents?

Broadly speaking children should appear in any place that has a long standing community of beings of reproductive age. Every orc tribe should have quite a few kids of various ages wandering around, much like you'd expect in a human village. Really the only times there should be no children is when it's a raiding band that has explicitly left all the civilians behind to go raiding in foreign territory in the manner of vikings or pirates. Maybe an actual army situation as well, but given the sort of tag alongs that medieval human armies had I would honestly not be surprised at orcs bringing their kids along too.

People make kids, animals in general make kids, the idea that there wouldn't be kids in a place creatures live is weird to me, and I am going to be inclined as a PC to ask about children, either to kill them if they are innately predatory like Mind Flayer tadpoles, to try and rear them if they are animals/magical beasts, or to sort out some sort of care if they are roughly analogous to human kids. I'm going to ask about giant spider eggs, the camp followers of bandits, the wards of the Claw of Luthic we just decapitated, so on and so forth.

OldTrees1

2024-02-22, 11:52 AM

Yeah, the point of mentioning Drizzt isn't that the Icewind Dale books are the pinnacle of fantasy literature, it's just an easy example that most RPG people are at least passingly familiar with. He's just shorthand for that style of tale. It doesn't hurt that the books were super popular, largely on the strength of his story/conflict (no one was saying "Heck yeah, Regis is awesome").

Wait a moment. Heck yeah, Regis is awesome. They were enjoyable in Icewind Dale, and got even better later on.

Bruenor, Catti-brie, Drizz't, Regis, and Wulfgar are all awesome. Not to mention Jarlaxle and Artemis Entreri.

As for drow, Bregan D'aerthe were a neutrally aligned mercenary company in Menzoberranzan. The story of Drizz't does not require figuratively all drow to be evil. It was based on the assumption that merely a majority of the drow that survived were evil.

What else can you do with an innately evil baby? Put it in prison pre-emptively? Leave it to die of exposure after you killed its innately evil parents?

The same thing you do with the other babies.

Notice you tadpole example was not due to neothelids tendency towards evil. It was due to them being predatory. Like an owlbear cub but ~9 Int instead of ~3 Int.

Mordar

2024-02-22, 12:07 PM

It's funny how times change. Back in the early 3E days, the feeling of many people - especially older-school players, IIRC - was that Drizzt was overhyped and the resulting knockoff characters were usually overly edge-lord / melodramatic. I think a lore change that basically said: "Ok Drizzt, get off your high-horse, it's not like you're the only good-aligned Drow around" would have been pretty welcome.

I don't really have anything against Drizzt, but I don't really have anything for him either - he's just not a significant part of my D&D experience. So "Drow need to be 99.9% evil to support Drizzt being cool" is a non-starter for me.

I think it was Vanilla Ice Syndrome. A very large number of people (including non-AD&D players) read and enjoyed the books...evidenced by the continued high demand and sales...and then just like Conan or Gandalf or Fafhrd or [on and on], readers wanted to emulate that character in a game. And then there were 84 bijillion Drazzts, Drozzts and Brizzts running around out there. And then everyone put on tweed coats with elbow patches and bit their imported hornwood pipes and said "This Salvatore hack and his Drizzt vomit is childish pablum and so beneath me." Then they went off and played some other "high brow" RPG and looked down their long noses at kids that came after them and "discovered" Icewind Dale and repeated the whole process.

Yeah, the point of mentioning Drizzt isn't that the Icewind Dale books are the pinnacle of fantasy literature, it's just an easy example that most RPG people are at least passingly familiar with. He's just shorthand for that style of tale. It doesn't hurt that the books were super popular, largely on the strength of his story/conflict (no one was saying "Heck yeah, Regis is awesome").

That's a shame but that's a player issue, not a world building issue. Though I'm wondering about the confluence where you have players willing to RP murdering infants, a DM willing to give them infants to murder and now the only thing stopping them is that... some orcs might be nice when they grow up? By the time your game has gotten to the point where infanticide is on the table, the alignment line in the stat block is the least of your problems.

I think it does present an interesting test use for the "always Evil" race. Let's pretend the Dracks are an "always Evil" race of humanoids that subsist on scavenging, raiding, pillaging and all that sort of thing. They do not sow, fish, or live on manna. Let's further assume they breed like standard humanoids, maybe a higher birth rate or shorter gestation, but still on the curve. Finally, let's assume that they do rear young in some sort of typical fashion. Killing the raid-capable Dracks does what to the non-raid-capable Dracks? Without the murderous pillaging, what happens to the rest of them? Does anyone care about that step down the line? Do the heroic dwarves (are there any other kind? :tongue:) who killed the fully gender balanced raiding party also carry responsibility for the nigh-inevitable deaths of those that the raiding party sustained?

And does the calculus change if instead of humanoid Dracks we have scaley alien-minded quadrupeds with base for blood?

- M

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 12:21 PM

Killing the raid-capable Dracks does what to the non-raid-capable Dracks?
Give them incentive to hone their hunter/gatherer skills? Isn't that the answer to any group of anyone who decide to send all their resource-gathering people off to get slaughtered without a Plan B? You either go find more people to support you, figure out how to support yourself or perish and think "Maybe sending everyone off on that raid was a bad idea" as your final thoughts.

As for posts about "realism", I've managed to go multiple campaigns without running into infants of any humanoid race. I'm skeptical that this is a real issue until the DM makes it one intentionally.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-22, 12:25 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 12:26 PM

I think it was Vanilla Ice Syndrome. A very large number of people (including non-AD&D players) read and enjoyed the books...evidenced by the continued high demand and sales...and then just like Conan or Gandalf or Fafhrd or [on and on], readers wanted to emulate that character in a game. And then there were 84 bijillion Drazzts, Drozzts and Brizzts running around out there. And then everyone put on tweed coats with elbow patches and bit their imported hornwood pipes and said "This Salvatore hack and his Drizzt vomit is childish pablum and so beneath me." Then they went off and played some other "high brow" RPG and looked down their long noses at kids that came after them and "discovered" Icewind Dale and repeated the whole process.
This made me laugh :smallbiggrin:

With regards to the hypotheticals, again, it's not really for us to decide. That's for the players and their DMs to determine, because it's not a given that it will come up in every game. In my games, if I ask about camp followers, my DM is going to look at me like "dude, don't give me more work to do" and say "there are no camp followers". Hypothetical avoided.

Presumably, the game/DM and the players will mesh, and the types of challenges posed will be ones that either side is interested in exploring, as opposed to popping up in a forum post to prove a point on either side of a discussion.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 12:27 PM

Then what do you do with creatures that WILL grow up to be evil? Not might, not probably, but WILL?
Again, it doesn't come up because I don't play in games where we're asked to either murder babies or provide daycare services.

Grim Portent

2024-02-22, 12:34 PM

The same thing you do with the other babies.

Notice you tadpole example was not due to neothelids tendency towards evil. It was due to them being predatory. Like an owlbear cub but ~9 Int instead of ~3 Int.

So I should put a child that will grow up to hurt people because of it's innate evil in a situation where it can hurt people? What sense is there to that? If a gnoll pup is going to start killing and eating people the moment it's physically capable because of divine or demonic influence I'm not going to leave it in the care of some nuns who might not be able to cope when it turns violent, I'm going to either leave it to die or put it down myself so it doesn't suffer unneccesarily. [EDIT: If my character is Evil, I might keep it to raise as an underling.]

As for predatory, that was more to indicate that I would also kill the young of non-sapient species that are inherently inimical to sapient life, as well as the infants of sapient life that is inherently going to be murderous. If a giant jewel wasp was laying eggs in the bodies of paralysed sapients to be eaten from the inside out I'd kill any and all larvae, eggs or juvenile wasps as well as the adults. Any form of intrinsically evil being whose intrinsic evil is sufficient to warrant death,* any being whose life cycle is dependant on preying on sapient life in a non-consensual manner,** any being whose existence is inherently inimical to sapient life and refuses to avoid sapients to avoid harming them, all things that have to be killed for the protection of others, to do otherwise is simply negligent.

*Murder, torture, that sort of level of innate evil.

**If a vampire survives off of donated blood or animal blood then co-existence is laudable and worthwhile, if a vampire has to kill its victims and feed on people then co-existence is murder by proxy.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 12:44 PM

If a gnoll pup is going to start killing and eating people the moment it's physically capable because of divine or demonic influence I'm not going to leave it in the care of some nuns who might not be able to cope when it turns violent, I'm going to either leave it to die or put it down myself
Well, that that's your answer for anything else in the same circumstances. So what does it matter (to you) if it's a gnoll pup or an orc cub or a goblin... uhhh... -ling? assuming they're all going to start biting nuns?

Grim Portent

2024-02-22, 01:01 PM

Well, that that's your answer for anything else in the same circumstances. So what does it matter (to you) if it's a gnoll pup or an orc cub or a goblin... uhhh... -ling? assuming they're all going to start biting nuns?

Because the other option available long before the issue of them in the actual game comes up is 'gnolls/orcs/goblins are not innately evil and not significantly more dangerous when raised outside their primary culture than a human or gnome,' in which case it's just a baby, a weird baby that might act outside the human norm, but a baby and needs to be protected even at great inconvenience or peril to myself. In this case the babies of an enemy orc tribe are no different than finding a surviving human baby in a hamlet that was burned by dragonfire, getting the baby/babies to a safe place is the new immediate priority.

If I'm playing in a Warhammer Fantasy game, killing a beastman calf or a fresh-from-the-ground greenskin is just common sense and should be done at any opportunity outside an evil campaign, the creatures are inherently hostile to all other forms of life.

If I'm playing D&D then I'm generally going to assume most sapient children are not inherently evil, are somewhere within a standard deviation of human morality, and want to protect them, but I'm also going to try and negotiate with their adult counterparts because the same mercy I would give their children extends to them as well. If it's made clear to me that they are not, and are instead evil that cannot be changed, then extermination becomes not just acceptable, but morally necessary if it's within my character's power.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 01:07 PM

Your character's morality is completely up to you. You are free to do what you want with whatever creatures you come across in your adventures.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 01:14 PM

Because the other option available long before the issue of them in the actual game comes up is 'gnolls/orcs/goblins are not innately evil
Sure. Alternately, the answer long before it comes up in the actual game is "I'm not going to throw infants at the party and make them decide what to do with them". It's really a non-issue until you decide to make it one.

Honestly, if I'm playing a game and we come across ANY baby and I need to figure out what to do with it, I'm going to get mentally detached because I don't want to role play caring for a human baby as we trek across the wilderness in search of its family just like I don't want to role play throwing gnoll pups into the river. But if your table has babies making a presence then, yeah sure, work that into your world planning I guess.

Morgaln

2024-02-22, 02:01 PM

I get this, and I'll note that the argument is not specifically about Drizz't.

I just don't see the value in replacing stories like Drizz't with... "Hey guys, it's your boi Gormax the Slayer, just your regular ol' neighborhood gnoll. Nothing really differentiates me from any of the rest of you except I have fur, and this little tail".

The push is that all of these races should be treated as civilized human-but-not-human analogues, and so the stories that come out of them will be stories we already have in the millions. Again, Drizz't story is also old and played out as well, but at least it can exist.

The difference here really is culture versus race. In a story, it is perfectly alright to say "these drow, who inhabit Menzoberranzan are all evil". Since it is the only group of drow we meet in the Drizz't books, that gives a predominantly evil culture for someone like Drizz't to play off of. The problem arises when you create a setting and say "drow in this setting are evil." Now you're not making a statement about a specific group of drow. You're making a blanket statement about everyone who is a drow, regardless of who they are, where they come from and what they did. And once you do that, once you decide that everyone is inherently evil, killing their babies arguably becomes the moral right choice. That is what people are opposing; they don't want race to be a deciding factor when morally judging a person. That doesn't mean races are interchangeable, it means that every member of every race is allowed to be morally complex.

Grim Portent

2024-02-22, 02:12 PM

Sure. Alternately, the answer long before it comes up in the actual game is "I'm not going to throw infants at the party and make them decide what to do with them". It's really a non-issue until you decide to make it one.

Honestly, if I'm playing a game and we come across ANY baby and I need to figure out what to do with it, I'm going to get mentally detached because I don't want to role play caring for a human baby as we trek across the wilderness in search of its family just like I don't want to role play throwing gnoll pups into the river. But if your table has babies making a presence then, yeah sure, work that into your world planning I guess.

It's not just babies, it's children in general. You never have a trip to a farming village and have children so much as mentioned in background narration? No NPCs or PCs with families that include children? Squires or pages? The inclusion of human, dwarven, elven or whatever children isn't really any different from those of 'monster' races unless you somehow never come into conflict with anyone from a classic PC race. I've had more than a few games where we antagonise friendly or neutral groups, often nobles or merchants, with stupid shenanigans or schemes, sometimes to the point of violence, and several games that included children as NPCs of varying importance. Generally the children are placed in such a manner as to not be in our firing line, usually we're protecting them from other people when they aren't just pure background elements, but their presence drastically changes how we approach a given situation, generally for the better.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 02:25 PM

It's not just babies, it's children in general. You never have a trip to a farming village and have children so much as mentioned in background narration?
Sure. They're not present on the battlefield. If a party was to ask about some random kids who were in a town that we were, for some reason, attacking the DM would say "they ran off and scattered during the conflict" and no one would reply with "Let's go hunt some toddlers!" because we don't play that way. If a story had a child as a McGuffin ("Go rescue the young prince") then said child probably has a solid layer of plot armor.

I've had more than a few games where we antagonise friendly or neutral groups, often nobles or merchants, with stupid shenanigans or schemes, sometimes to the point of violence
We don't get violent with friendly groups for fun and have to debate whether or not to murder the merchant's schoolchildren. It's just... not a thing with us?

Again, if this comes up it's only because the DM decided to make it a thing. And my usual impression of DMs adding "What about these babies?" and the like is that it's a lame gotcha (traditionally to jerk around the paladin). So no matter how many ways you try to phrase "But what about orc babies?" my answer is likely to remain "That's not an aspect of the games I play in so it doesn't really matter".

It's like kids in a game like Skyrim: Some people get weirdly mad that you can't murder children but the vast majority of people probably don't even notice because that's not an aspect of game play they're going to engage with unless the developers intentionally add a "Do you murder babies??" mission. Then they'll engage by turning the game off.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-22, 02:34 PM

Again, it doesn't come up because I don't play in games where we're asked to either murder babies or provide daycare services.

"I don't ever ask the question" doesn't answer the question, though. It is a world-building issue, because there's the question of "Where do all these orcs come from?"

Psyren

2024-02-22, 02:40 PM

I am not insisting that a setting has to kill off hope or idealism.

No, I am not sure what you mean. Part of the fun is bringing that hope and idealism into the world, as opposed to just playing in an idyllic setting straight from the jump.

I'm probably stating the obvious but it seems to me that this is a case of just not accepting the premise of the game in the first place. This strikes me as people complaining that Batman doesn't solve the crime in Gotham, as if the author set out to write a story that'd be wrapped up by issue 3 with a happy ending that reads "Billionaire Philanthropist Solves Poverty and Crime by Investing Millions in Education and Rehabilitation". That's not what the comics are about or looking to provide. I feel like that is what is happening here, where the purpose of the game and its lore is being misconstrued and then held at fault for not providing some other service (like reflecting a player's vision of an idealized world).

I'm not saying Eilistraee needs to save all the Drow, just like you're not saying Batman needs to solve all crime in Gotham. But both Batman and Eilistraee should show at least some signs of success that justify their existence. The setting being written such that Eilistraee failed at stopping Lolth from turning all the Drow into irredeemably evil bastards would be just as dull as a Gotham where Batman was incapable of saving anyone from the Joker. I would take one look at such a comic, shrug, and toss it in the trash where it belongs, because it would be nothing but edgelord nonsense.

No, they wouldn't. It's a bold claim with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

Whether the evil deities would need to be omnipotent or not is besides the point. They need to fail at that specific thing, otherwise their creations lack free will and shouldn't be PCs to begin with, which appears to be a nonstarter among the majority of the playerbase.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 02:49 PM

The difference here really is culture versus race. In a story, it is perfectly alright to say "these drow, who inhabit Menzoberranzan are all evil". Since it is the only group of drow we meet in the Drizz't books, that gives a predominantly evil culture for someone like Drizz't to play off of. The problem arises when you create a setting and say "drow in this setting are evil." Now you're not making a statement about a specific group of drow. You're making a blanket statement about everyone who is a drow, regardless of who they are, where they come from and what they did. And once you do that, once you decide that everyone is inherently evil, killing their babies arguably becomes the moral right choice. That is what people are opposing; they don't want race to be a deciding factor when morally judging a person. That doesn't mean races are interchangeable, it means that every member of every race is allowed to be morally complex.
But we know it isn't just Menzo. Drow are all throughout the Underdark and they are evil. The drow that are not evil don't really make up for the in-world reality, experiences, and perspective that characters have when they come face to face with drow. Someone said earlier that it's from the in-world perspective and it's completely true. Drow are raiders, slavers, and killers, and you're looking at someone from the Sword Coast and telling them "Hey... don't be so hasty to judge. You know, not all drow are like that. Somewhere, in a little hidden pocket of the world, are drow illusionists, and drow that dance in the moonlight. Do you think it's fair that you lump them in with the ones that murdered your entire family and took the ones they didn't into the Underdark as slaves?"

Inevitably, you guys will argue that it would be wrong for someone in the game to react viscerally at a drow and attack, because not all drow are evil, when the reality is that almost all drow are evil, and impact the surface world with their depravity.

There is a HUGE difference between "not all of them" and "almost all of them".

It's not just babies, it's children in general. You never have a trip to a farming village and have children so much as mentioned in background narration? No NPCs or PCs with families that include children? Squires or pages? The inclusion of human, dwarven, elven or whatever children isn't really any different from those of 'monster' races unless you somehow never come into conflict with anyone from a classic PC race. I've had more than a few games where we antagonise friendly or neutral groups, often nobles or merchants, with stupid shenanigans or schemes, sometimes to the point of violence, and several games that included children as NPCs of varying importance. Generally the children are placed in such a manner as to not be in our firing line, usually we're protecting them from other people when they aren't just pure background elements, but their presence drastically changes how we approach a given situation, generally for the better.
Yeah, this is just a table playstyle. This does not sound like most of the games I play in. Doesn't make it wrong, but it's just not something we have to contend with.

Mordar

2024-02-22, 02:56 PM

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 03:16 PM

"I don't ever ask the question" doesn't answer the question, though.
It doesn't need to be. I have enough to worry about with things that actually matter in the game.

Yes, it's assumed orcs make baby orcs. The players don't come across any baby orcs just like they don't come across numerous things that "exist" but don't play any role in the game and thus don't get called out. No one is invested enough with messing with baby orcs for this to ever come up or anyone to care about.

icefractal

2024-02-22, 03:44 PM

I just don't see the value in replacing stories like Drizz't with... "Hey guys, it's your boi Gormax the Slayer, just your regular ol' neighborhood gnoll. Nothing really differentiates me from any of the rest of you except I have fur, and this little tail".Maybe I'm not getting your point, but ... "evil" is not a rare trait, nor one that generates much depth by itself.

Like, humans can already be evil. In fact I'd say that while in-world it may only be 1/3rd, 1/4th, 1/10th or whatever fraction, in terms of screen-time it's probably a majority (compare two hours of real-time spent fighting through the Orcus cult's (human) enforcers with maybe 20 minutes spent talking to people in the (mostly not evil) surrounding villages).

So IMO, the evil gnoll version doesn't really seem like an improvement:
"Nothing really differentiates me from any half of the rest of you except I have fur, and this little tail"

Like, red hair is more rare than being evil, so if making gnolls always-evil counts as "more depth", then making gnolls always-redheads would create some kind of literary masterpiece, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

gbaji

2024-02-22, 04:17 PM

Yeah, again, this is a problem that the DM is bringing up, presumably so the PCs can tackle it. I have yet to come across orc babies, because, I imagine, my DM is not interested in asking those questions.

But if we are saying that orcs are the way they are because of the heavy influence of their evil deities on their culture, than a baby raised outside of that culture should not feel that same pressure, no?

In which case, the PCs can leave the baby off at the nearest holy place willing to care for the baby.

But to Jophiel's point, these hypotheticals exist only if the DM makes them exist.

And this is the point. If the DM puts orc babies into the game, and presents the players with the conundrum of dealing with said orc babies, then the DM needs to have previously thought through what the actual nature of orc babies are. And for that matter, also thought out what orcs are. In the film Aliens, we (the audience) have no similar moral quandry when we see Ripley using a flame thrower to kill a bunch of alien babies, right? Why not? Because the setting has firmly established that these things are more or less mindless animal level (but clever animal) creatures, with absolutely no other motivations than to kill and breed. They're literally living organic bioweapons, and are treated as such.

Now. If that's what orcs are in your game settting, then that's what you (the DM) make them into. They kill for the sake of killing. Always. The cannot do anything else. You cannot show orcs engaged in trading, or bargaining, or any form of diplomacy, or having any reaction to meeting any other living thing other than "how do we kill/eat/whatever these things?". You make them into the freaking Zerg and walk away.

But the moment you give to orcs the capacity to work with others if needed, or goals other than to kill and breed, and you allow them to ever be player characters, then you have established that any orc, could choose to be good or evil, and can choose to help or to harm, and choose which god(s) to worship, which professions to pursue, choose who they like or dislike, and all of those other "sentient self aware species stuff". And at that moment, killing the orc baby becomes a grossly evil act. Always.

And that decision is always up to the DM to make.

"I don't ever ask the question" doesn't answer the question, though. It is a world-building issue, because there's the question of "Where do all these orcs come from?"

It's really not about where they come from, anymore than the question is "where do those Aliens come from?" Or "Where do the Zerg come from?". The question is to what degree orcs have the capacity to choose their own nature and path. If they possess that abilty at all, then it is evil to kill their babies. If you want it to be ok for the PCs to kill their babies, then you must make orcs completely inhuman monsters who do nothing but act as a weapon for whatever god or powerful demon thing is directing them, and nothing else.

Most orcs in most D&D settings can have different alignments than evil, and can often be played as characters. Ergo, in those settings, orcs have the capacity to be good. Ergo, killing their babies is just as wrong as killing human babies because they just happen to have been born to a family who are subjects of the enemy (evil) king instead of your own. That's an alignment choice on the part of the PCs, and not an actual moral question. And yeah, even if orcs are "mostly evil", and as they grow up they naturally feel a desire to kill people and eat their flesh or something, if the setting ever shows any orcs ever holding back that part of them and working with other species for any purpose other than killing them and eating their flesh, then one has to assume it's still a choice and thus it's wrong to kill someone/thing before it's even had a chance to face that choice in the first place.

And heck, in such a setting, roleplaying out the orc who has these innate tendencies can be quite interesting and fun. So there's that too. And sure, maybe you spare that orc baby's life, and maybe it grows up and becomes this horrible killing machine. So what? That creates yet more drama and interest in the game. The players response to that should not be "we just have to make sure to kill all orc babies" unless the DM has established that this is always the 100% outcome. Anything less than that should result in a "maybe this time it'll work out" approach (and perhaps looking into what went wrong with the first one). There's always going to be the question of the "psychopath child", who is just destined to be evil and cause great harm and suffering when they grow up. But we don't kill human babies just because this can happen. The DM has complete control over whether this is just a possiblity or a guaranteed outcome.

Jophiel

2024-02-22, 04:23 PM

If you want it to be ok for the PCs to kill their babies, then you must make orcs completely inhuman monsters who do nothing but act as a weapon for whatever god or powerful demon thing is directing them, and nothing else.
More to the point, you need to (a) have players who'll say "Wooo! We're killing evil orc infants! Yay for great justice!" and (b) provide them with orc babies to murder.

I'll skip that game, thanks.

gbaji

2024-02-22, 04:49 PM

More to the point, you need to (a) have players who'll say "Wooo! We're killing evil orc infants! Yay for great justice!" and (b) provide them with orc babies to murder.

I'll skip that game, thanks.

Hey. Your immune system probably killed a few million baby bacteria just today, so...

But yeah, if the DM is specifically choosing to say "There's a nursery room with a dozen orc infants in it. What do you do?", that's a choice the DM is making. It's just as easy to let the PCs fight and kill the adult orcs and just not have any baby ones happen to be in the area at the time. And if the DM does put orc babies into the mix and the expected player response is anything other than "we treat them just like we would human babies in the same situation", then that's a problem with the whole group playing the game.

And I guess as a broader obseration on "the things DMs choose to turn into morality plays", if the DM is doing stuff like this, but the PCs only ever stumble upon dragon eggs, or orc infants, or baby trolls, but not once is there ever a group of small children in that human bandit encampment, or a nursery in the evil overlords tower, or any other similar scenarios involving human infants, then that's also 100% on the DM actually artificially creating this in the first place. One kinda has to question the objective and motive at that point.

And I guess it also goes to "what kind of game do you really want to play?". I tend towards fun, adventurous, high fantasy style game settings and adventures. That's what my players enjoy playing, and that's what I enjoy running. So yeah... we're in it for the whole "we're going to find and kill unambiguously evil things, and take their stuff". And if I'm running something with a bit more grey in it, the grey folks are all going to be adult people, who made adult choices, and are doing whatever they are doing, and interacting with the PCs in whatever way they are, as a result of those choices they made. The minions of the evil overlord are people who choose to work for said evil overlord (the pay is good, and the benefits are great!), and thus can be dispatched for their choices. If there is a scenario where people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, you can bet that said plot point will be made abundantly clear to the players so that they can't possibly miss it. I will never put a situation in the game where the enemy forces the PCs just killed in order to save the village, or stop the bbeg's plan, will turn out after the fact to have all been dominated pacifists or something, or their children were being held hostage unless they particpated, or something else.

Some people may enjoy playing that stuff. My players don't. And I suspect that most players don't either. Putting such things into a game, doesn't really create moral questions to be answered, but just makes the players feel bad. And that's not fun.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 05:38 PM

Agree with Jophiel and with what Gbaji just said.

I also want to point out that people are objecting to things that wind up being true as the conversation continues.

I originally made reference to sympathetic villains and was told it’s not about that. Then one of my points was replied to with a story about a sympathetic villain.

We are being mocked about how easy it is to tell villains apart and fight evil and we require race indicators to play, but now we’re being posed with these grey moral quandaries about camp followers and children and babies and who can you kill and who can’t you kill.

So I dare say we know exactly what people are looking for and object to it as the only proper way that D&D should be played. And insofar as it allows the rest of us to easily play with our style, the lore should not be changed to accommodate the “realistic” moral quandaries that others are looking for. You can do that with humans easy enough without turning all other D&D races into humans.

Amnestic

2024-02-22, 05:49 PM

So I dare say we know exactly what people are looking for and object to it as the only proper way that D&D should be played.

What
Either you're saying "We're the only people playing D&D right, and people who disagree are playing it wrong" or you've written something that definitely looks like you're saying that, and that's an absolutely buck wild thing to say.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-22, 05:57 PM

It's really not about where they come from, anymore than the question is "where do those Aliens come from?" Or "Where do the Zerg come from?". The question is to what degree orcs have the capacity to choose their own nature and path. If they possess that abilty at all, then it is evil to kill their babies. If you want it to be ok for the PCs to kill their babies, then you must make orcs completely inhuman monsters who do nothing but act as a weapon for whatever god or powerful demon thing is directing them, and nothing else.

Which is what I've been saying. And that is a world-building choice, whether they are people, or necessarily-evil instruments of evil.

I'd also say that the choice goes beyond infants, as popular as they are as examples. What do you do with orc prisoners? With orcs who surrender? Are they capable of surrender? Are they capable of alignment change? If an orc is irrevocably evil, is merciful execution the only option, or do you let them go? If they're not irrevocably evil, they're people, they can change. But whether they are irrevocably evil is a world-building choice that impacts the game, even if you never meet a baby orc.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 06:04 PM

What
Either you're saying "We're the only people playing D&D right, and people who disagree are playing it wrong" or you've written something that definitely looks like you're saying that, and that's an absolutely buck wild thing to say.
The opposite.

Given all the objections to evil race cultures, I feel we’re being told we’re playing wrong. And I’m saying I object to that.

icefractal

2024-02-22, 06:10 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-22, 06:13 PM

Lots of sweet lore. The orc lore in Volo’s is great in my opinion.

icefractal

2024-02-22, 06:21 PM

So if you compare setting-specific lore to the abstract concept of "evil empire" the latter comes up short? I'm not surprised. Perhaps try comparing it to setting-specific evil empires, like Thay or Cheliax.

Not that a given person can't prefer one to the other, but it's a matter of taste rather than "lore vs no lore".

Errorname

2024-02-22, 06:26 PM

We are being mocked about how easy it is to tell villains apart and fight evil and we require race indicators to play, but now we’re being posed with these grey moral quandaries about camp followers and children and babies and who can you kill and who can’t you kill.

To be clear, I do not think you have to be presenting your players with these sorts of moral quandaries. I do think "what's it like to be an orc child" is a question that a worldbuilder should probably have an answer for, in the same way I think it's generally good to consider stuff like what people eat or what resources they have easy access to, it's an important culture shaping thing.

I do not have a problem with simple heroic adventures. I do not have a problem with games that do not raise uncomfortable moral questions. But when an entire race is written in such a way where a policy of on-sight extermination is just and necessary, that is not a story that feels like a simple heroic adventure and that is a story that is raising uncomfortable moral questions whether it realizes it or not

Mordar

2024-02-22, 07:03 PM

To be clear, I do not think you have to be presenting your players with these sorts of moral quandaries. I do think "what's it like to be an orc child" is a question that a worldbuilder should probably have an answer for, in the same way I think it's generally good to consider stuff like what people eat or what resources they have easy access to, it's an important culture shaping thing.

I do not have a problem with simple heroic adventures. I do not have a problem with games that do not raise uncomfortable moral questions. But when an entire race is written in such a way where a policy of on-sight extermination is just and necessary, that is not a story that feels like a simple heroic adventure and that is a story that is raising uncomfortable moral questions whether it realizes it or not

But does killing aliens raise uncomfortable moral questions, intentionally or otherwise? Ghouls? Beholders?

I think it is only the desire/compulsion/inclination to compare Dracks or gnolls or whatever to something in real life that drives this issue.

- M

gbaji

2024-02-22, 07:45 PM

But does killing aliens raise uncomfortable moral questions, intentionally or otherwise? Ghouls? Beholders?

I think it is only the desire/compulsion/inclination to compare Dracks or gnolls or whatever to something in real life that drives this issue.

And this is the issue (and maybe loops us back to the beginning a bit). The degree to which the game setting "humanizes" (for lack of a better term) various races/creatures in the game, we have to treat them (at least to some degree) the same way we'd treat human characters. If they have the ability to make choices, and know right from wrong, and have different alignments, and all the other stuff that we associate with "sentient and possibly even playable race" in a game, we have to treat them that way.

If the creature exists solely as "this is a horrible animal/creature that exists solely to kill things and/or be killed", then we tend not to have the same moral issues. So no one has an issue with blasting an Alien Facehugger, crawling along the floor, but an infant gnoll, or orc, or goblin, crawling across the same floor (in the same direction even) would (should!) be a completely different matter.

And to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a game where this was seriously a problem. Most people somewhat innately get the difference. And, barring a GM who is intentionally creating a conundrum for the players, it just doesn't come up. And if the GM is intentionally creating races in his game where it's unclear which category they fall into, and then putting the PCs into situations where they must choose whether to kill or not kill something in that "unknown" category, then that's basically the GM contriving that conflict and problem in the game. My answer is: Don't do that. Either your players just don't have the moral compass (or, I suppose, immersion in the game) to care, in which case any effort to make this into a quandary is going to be lost on them anyway, or they do, and they're never going to be happy with the situation.

There's just no good reason to do this, so don't.

icefractal

2024-02-22, 07:49 PM

But does killing aliens raise uncomfortable moral questions, intentionally or otherwise? Ghouls? Beholders?
Depends on what aliens, dunnit? I imagine you're thinking of something like Xenomorphs, but what about, say, Vulcans?

"Vulcans have been seen in the woods, we should go wipe them out!" - sounds rather ****ed up, IMO.

OldTrees1

2024-02-22, 07:51 PM

Then what do you do with creatures that WILL grow up to be evil? Not might, not probably, but WILL?

So I should put a child that will grow up to hurt people because of it's innate evil in a situation where it can hurt people? What sense is there to that? If a gnoll pup is going to start killing and eating people the moment it's physically capable because of divine or demonic influence I'm not going to leave it in the care of some nuns who might not be able to cope when it turns violent, I'm going to either leave it to die or put it down myself so it doesn't suffer unneccesarily. [EDIT: If my character is Evil, I might keep it to raise as an underling.]

Different GMs make different world building choices about alignments, so YMMV.

I do not consider evil alignment to be inherently worthy of a death penalty. A common world building choice is to have ~1/3rd of fantasy humans be evil. Additionally I believe your characterization of a gnoll pup is covered by your other check.

As for predatory, that was more to indicate that I would also kill the young of non-sapient species that are inherently inimical to sapient life, as well as the infants of sapient life that is inherently going to be murderous. If a giant jewel wasp was laying eggs in the bodies of paralysed sapients to be eaten from the inside out I'd kill any and all larvae, eggs or juvenile wasps as well as the adults. Any form of intrinsically evil being whose intrinsic evil is sufficient to warrant death,* any being whose life cycle is dependant on preying on sapient life in a non-consensual manner,** any being whose existence is inherently inimical to sapient life and refuses to avoid sapients to avoid harming them, all things that have to be killed for the protection of others, to do otherwise is simply negligent.

IIRC, you mentioned predatory in regards to illithid tadpoles (which grow up to be sapient neothelids). This predatory check is less about intrinsic evil and more about extremely dangerous / hazardous. I think your characterization of gnoll pups would apply here just as much as those jewel wasps or the illithid tadpoles.

So I stand by what I said. You would treat evil babies the same as other babies. You would check to see if their existence is hazardous enough, and then respond accordingly. Is this a Volo's Orc? They would probably be fine. Is it a 5E Gnoll? Probably too hazardous.

Mordar

2024-02-22, 08:00 PM

If the creature exists solely as "this is a horrible animal/creature that exists solely to kill things and/or be killed", then we tend not to have the same moral issues. So no one has an issue with blasting an Alien Facehugger, crawling along the floor, but an infant gnoll, or orc, or goblin, crawling across the same floor (in the same direction even) would (should!) be a completely different matter.

And to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a game where this was seriously a problem. Most people somewhat innately get the difference. And, barring a GM who is intentionally creating a conundrum for the players, it just doesn't come up. And if the GM is intentionally creating races in his game where it's unclear which category they fall into, and then putting the PCs into situations where they must choose whether to kill or not kill something in that "unknown" category, then that's basically the GM contriving that conflict and problem in the game. My answer is: Don't do that. Either your players just don't have the moral compass (or, I suppose, immersion in the game) to care, in which case any effort to make this into a quandary is going to be lost on them anyway, or they do, and they're never going to be happy with the situation.

There's just no good reason to do this, so don't.

There's a great Call of C'thulhu scenario that hinges on this answer vis a vis ghouls. Totally different game, I get it...but really good simple story. In a game where often you're incentivized to shoot first.

While I did (and still will) use Aliens, any type of person-eating extra-terrestrial will do. Kang and Kodos, or others. They might see humanoids as cattle...and want to strip mine our world...how do we treat them?

Beholder...well, that was just to be another kind of "completely alien mindset and approach".

I do want to explore the idea of "Evil from one perspective might really be totally justifiable from another".

Depends on what aliens, dunnit? I imagine you're thinking of something like Xenomorphs, but what about, say, Vulcans?

"Vulcans have been seen in the woods, we should go wipe them out!" - sounds rather ****ed up, IMO.

Are you kidding? Probably better to whack those pointy-eared sunsaguns even before the Aliens. After all, they might be Romulans in disguise. Aside: Balance of Terror = best ST ToS episode ever. Fight!

- M

OldTrees1

2024-02-22, 08:28 PM

I mean, nothing wrong with a D&D campaign that's simple good vs evil where the sides are obvious at a glance. But you don't need evil races for that - Star Wars (IV) did it just fine with human storm-troopers (the clone thing doesn't matter, since that wasn't known initially and the story still worked).

I'm just not seeing what "Oh no, it's Orcs, better get ready to fight!" brings to the table that "Oh no, it's soldiers from the evil empire, better get ready to fight!" doesn't.
Ascending additions

Assuming the Orcs are mechanically different from humans:
Oh we should expect they will be generally stronger and tougher than the Thayian soliders they are allied with. Quickly charging through their ranks and dogpiling on the mage might not be as effective. The Orc frontline is more likely to hold the line and the mage might break free of the grapple. On the other hand we are less likely to have to deal with the minor magic the thayian front line could wield.

Assuming these Orcs are figuratively always evil but only "because" rather than having lore:
It means there are fewer neutral soldiers being forced into the front lines. (common evil empire tactic)

Assuming 5E Volo's take on Orcs:
In addition to "its soldiers from the evil empire" it brings the tragedy of orcs under Gruumsh. Across the way you see Gruumsh's curse. The orcs are in an enforced endless rage that robs them of their focus just as the ability to feel the self preserving fear has been robbed from them. Gruumsh will drive their disposable corpses towards you life a force of nature.

I don't want to use Volo's take on Gruumsh, but having lore beyond/before "they do be evil" usually means the "they do be evil" is a symptom of something different that was brought to the table. The 5E Volo's take on Gruumsh would have orcs sweep through like a yearly monsoon season created by a malicious wizard. A Thayian army would feel much different from Gruumsh's flood. Of course the alternative would also bring something different. In 3E Oblund's war might be considered an evil empire (Reminder only a plurality of 3E orcs were CE, many were non evil). Oblund champion of Gruumsh assembled a mighty army of ten thousand orcs. With it they swept into the fertile lands they has been ostracized from and founded an orc kingdom stable enough and powerful enough to demand respect and peace from even the elves and dwarven settlements that had ostracized them. So while the Thayians are more likely to retreat than compromise, Oblund's war was defeated through peace.

Witty Username

2024-02-22, 10:00 PM

I do not consider evil alignment to be inherently worthy of a death penalty. A common world building choice is to have ~1/3rd of fantasy humans be evil.

A brief note here, "Evil" is a player option. And at least in the games I have played it hasn't been unusual for Good, Neutral and Evil characters to work together and cooperate.

One of my favorite characters from the Baldur's Gate series, and fascinatingly on the core topic, is a rather unassuming Dwarven mercenary named Kaigen. He is proper Lawful Evil by description, and his thing is he is a greedy mercenary with as long as he gets paid he's happy. He has few to no conflicts with most characters, apart from grumbling if he thinks the party hasn't been paid enough.

What I take from characters like this is 'Evil' is alot more tolerable than people think, and can manifest in a bunch of ways. There is an argument that 'Evil' doesn't even warrant a course of action.

With that in mind, feeling justified killing children comes off as a self inflicted problem.

A quick reminder is that None of the species discussed here fit the category being complained about (Always Evil):
-Gnolls vary by setting
-Drow entire arguement is if the Evil/Non-Evil split is 51/49 or 49/51 - in FR, which Drow tend to be unusually prominent
-Orcs and gobilns are fairly well played with in my experience, only lacking some in specific examples which posibly has to due with half-orc some.

Lord Raziere

2024-02-23, 05:30 AM

But does killing aliens raise uncomfortable moral questions, intentionally or otherwise?

Yes. :smallconfused:

Why the hell would there be any other answer.

They are beings from a different environment. Its not their fault if they think or act differently from us. If they are capable of being negotiated with, its bad if we get into a war with them, just as bad getting into a war with any human nation....because war is bad.

If the aliens are super-genocidal P-Zombies that we need to genocide back, that IS STILL BAD. INCREDIBLY. HORRIBLY. BAD. It still causes all the suffering of war, all the problems of war even if you win, with no possibility of a better solution. You have to deal with the social problems of people thinking genocide is a good solution afterwards and having to convince them that its NOT because you NEVER EVER have full control over humanity, what its cultures learn and react to and what they apply their lessons to. Experiences like that shape generations, and cause problems decades or more down the line no matter what, there will be idiots who will take the wrong lesson, there will be idiots powerful enough to ENFORCE the wrong lesson for generations to come, so that their children and their children's children learn the wrong lesson, you might never see that wrong lesson be unlearned in your lifetime, on things this large of a scale with politics, cultures and so on involved, you cannot say "oh this was an exception, we'll just go back to normal afterwards" because it doesn't work like that, because when something like that is DONE? its a precedent. Its a validation of all the worst impulses of humanity. People would look back at the precedent set, and see not that reasons why it was allowed, but that it was allowed at all, and figure out ways to make sure its allowed again for worse reasons at people who do not deserve to be targeted. and people will have to fight for that precedent to not be used, for that influence to be curtailed, lessened, unlearned, dismantled, for that to NOT become normality.
it doesn't matter what moral high ground you have when you victoriously kill the genocidal hive mind aliens or whatever, your civilization will still be traumatized and hurt from that conflict, and twist that trauma to see enemies wherever they want, not to mention the kind of leaders that could easily come into power whose only experience is making everyone kill the nasty bug monsters and exploiting peoples fear and hatred of the nasty bug monsters. methods they can easily turn to do other things that are less good, and thus sooner or later will, because those are the methods that got them results and thus think maybe they can apply it to get results elsewhere. whatever outcast group of the generation (it doesn't matter which one) will sooner or later be compared to those aliens out of sheer stupidity (it doesn't matter how this stupid conclusion is reached) and they will face problems because of it, and they will have to fight tooth and nail to be accepted, maybe even just get to back to where they were before the aliens ever attacked, and more to actually get accepted.

and all that.....are the complex problems you face without having a sympathetic villain or good people on the other side of the conflict involved when you do that. because humanity is still the complex, flawed and often full of people doing bad decisions and believing stupid things no matter how simple and evil you make the opposition, and in some ways facing such a foe would only make humans worse.

Satinavian

2024-02-23, 07:36 AM

Ascending additions
Assuming these Orcs are figuratively always evil but only "because" rather than having lore:
It means there are fewer neutral soldiers being forced into the front lines. (common evil empire tactic)
If you are fighting the soldiers of the evil empire, it should not matter, whether the soldiers you kill are evil, neutral or good. You are killing them because they fight for the evil empire. Killing good enemy soldiers is as moral as killing evil enemy soldiers.

LibraryOgre

2024-02-23, 10:48 AM

OldTrees1

2024-02-23, 11:52 AM

If you are fighting the soldiers of the evil empire, it should not matter, whether the soldiers you kill are evil, neutral or good. You are killing them because they fight for the evil empire. Killing good enemy soldiers is as moral as killing evil enemy soldiers.

Please consider that paragraph in the context of the rest of the post. Those were ascending additions and we are mostly in agreement about that layer of the onion.

Adding "and they were figuratively always evil" by itself does not add much. It removes a few tactical options and adjusts a couple moral questions, but it does not change much by itself.

However if you add interesting and impactful lore that happens to also add "and they were figuratively always evil", then there is a lot added in contrast to a bland evil empire.

"Orcs are figuratively always evil" does not add much. 5E Volo's take on Gruumsh does at a lot and the resulting orcs being figuratively always evil is a side effect. Volo's take means the enemy is forced into an endless rage and robbed of the ability to feel fear. At the same time it recontextualizes the conflict as being you vs Gruumsh rather than vs the evil empire.

So in answer to icefractal's question about "what do orcs bring to the table that an evil empire doesn't", well it depends on which orcs. At a baseline the orcs will bring whatever differentiates orcs from cosmopolitian soldiers (I used higher Str as an example). Beyond that the mere change of "orcs are almost all evil" does not add much. However changing Gruumsh from the 3E version to the 5E Volo version does have cascading changes that do bring things to the table that a bland generic evil empire doesn't.

Now personally if I had to pick between Oblund's orcs, Orcs but "always" evil with no elaboration, and 5E Volo's Orcs, I would pick Oblund's orcs, followed distantly by Volo's orcs, and I would completely ignore the middle option since it adds so little.

But does killing aliens raise uncomfortable moral questions, intentionally or otherwise? Ghouls? Beholders?

I think it is only the desire/compulsion/inclination to compare Dracks or gnolls or whatever to something in real life that drives this issue.

- M

It raises moral questions. Whether they are uncomfortable is a bit subjective. One can become comfortable pondering and answering challenging moral questions.

XYZ can raise moral questions. If we assign XYZ as a symbol for something in real life, then we change what questions are going to be raised. Usually this means the questions will tend to be more charged, and more prone to a regurgitated answer rather than a considered answer.

On the other hand we can answer the questions XYZ raises itself, and then apply the lessons. Those questions will tend to have generalizable answers.

There is room for both sets of questions regardless of XYZ. I have used Mind Flayers to prompt both types of questions for me to answer.

Satinavian

2024-02-23, 12:40 PM

Please consider that paragraph in the context of the rest of the post.It was just the only part of the post i had anything to say about. I don't play 5E (and really not actually any D&D nowadays) and know of Volo's orcs only what is in this thread. And i really don't like "But they are evil so they can be killed" because that really hardcodes that one life is worth than another. It stops being about defending someone or even delivering justice and becomes "they are [insert expletive], so it's fine to kill them."

Now personally if I had to pick between Oblund's orcs, Orcs but "always" evil with no elaboration, and 5E Volo's Orcs, I would pick Oblund's orcs, followed distantly by Volo's orcs, and I would completely ignore the middle option since it adds so little.Well, i would agree.

OldTrees1

2024-02-23, 12:50 PM

It was just the only part of the post i had anything to say about. I don't play 5E (and really not actually any D&D nowadays) and know of Volo's orcs only what is in this thread. And i really don't like "But they are evil so they can be killed" because that really hardcodes that one life is worth than another. It stops being about defending someone or even delivering justice and becomes "they are [insert expletive], so it's fine to kill them."
Well, i would agree.

That context helps explain the reply.
I do not consider evil alignment to be inherently worthy of a death penalty. So I usually don't even see "But they are evil so they can be killed".

Psyren

2024-02-23, 01:54 PM

Lots of sweet lore. The orc lore in Volo’s is great in my opinion.

I find it one-dimensional and reductive. 99% of it relates to fighting, and not just fighting, but "hatred of civilized races" and "destroying elves, dwarves, and humans" specifically. About the only thing they hate as much as those other races is each other; there's are paragraphs literally titled "All Are Fighters" and "Search, Destroy, Repeat." Woopty-do; the whole thing brings to mind a pre-teen incessantly banging their action figures together.

Mordar

2024-02-23, 03:23 PM

Topic One
I'm moved to wonder...what is the average number of different types of adversaries encountered in an average campaign? What is the distribution of "repeat" encounters? What is the frequency of campaigns that promote/allow cultural investigation, or are even designed for the same?

Obviously no way to really answer those questions, even if we try to standardize the conditions (D&D, 26 sessions per year, moderately experienced players, consistent group of 5 + 1, etc). The discussion, though, has made me wonder about the frequency with which some of this conversation has a true table impact.

As mentioned by more than one of us, we wouldn't generally force the question of "What do you do with the infant and juvenile Dracks?", but even more...how often is a "non-standard-PC" humanoid race the featured adversary in a campaign? How often, in general, are the conditions behind the motivations of the adversaries that important, or sufficiently developed to be an engaging use of the leisure time.

Sure, a game set against the backdrop of the Eternal War between the Dwarves and the [insert other race here], examining the geopolitics, cultural mores and historical events that precipitated and perpetuate the conflict...but how often is that the case versus a more episodic campaign of dungeons, tombs, ruins and cave networks with an occasional splash of town time?

In some other game systems I think it could be much more often...but D&D seems both less (all the great monsters, the exploration of the namesake dungeons, heavy combat focus) and at times more (because orcs!) apt to run into this sort of storyline.

Topic Two
Despite the argument for grand arbitrators and the "do the races view themselves as evil" lines of commentary, I think that there are some compelling reasons why a given culture, and if a small enough campaign world, a given race can be "always Evil". One where theft by violence, accepted murder, general disregard for life etc. can make developmental sense. Confluence of things presented in OotS regarding goblins, but polished up even more, and in a setting less directly crafted and monitored by divinities.

Short lifespan, high reproduction cycle, scant resources, evolutionary drive toward physicality, dominant religion (or Religion, depending), obstructed migration, etc could lead to a sustained culture that would be viewed by modern (and even modern fantasy role playing in-world) standards as overtly evil, and even Evil. And it could even have radically different views of what is acceptable intraculturally vs. interculturally (if you will...inside the group vs outside the group?).

Can be applied to a lot of different subtypes, even.

Does this reconcile anyone's qualms about the potential for an "always Evil" race in a game?

- M

gbaji

2024-02-23, 04:59 PM

I think it's also of note to point out that sometimes good/evil are used as relative terms within a single society, and other times it may be used as a label comparing different societies (which may have very different standards of morality).

Which might be extremely relevant in the context of a "member of species X raised by species Y" type scenario. Or even just "member of species X, spends time with species Y folks, and learns to broaden their views on things".

This, and many other things, tend to be problems with most alignment systems.

Witty Username

2024-02-24, 01:37 AM

This, and many other things, tend to be problems with most alignment systems.

I think that this is possibly a misuse of alignment,
Alignment as personality, I have found never works well. Gnoll, Chaotic Evil, behavior, see alignment and we get a really dumb and unusable thing
Alignment as vibe of what the other traits suggest or as a component in addition to other traits tends to produce better results. Drow, Proud, Insoular, intermixed in a multilayered cult of personality filled with corruption. Tracks with Chaotic Evil.

Or on the character side rather than species/faction side
Dwarven Fighter, behavior see Lawful
Vs, Dwarven Fighter, Blacksmith and toymaker, friendly to children as it helps attract customers, stickler for contracts and promises, Disinterested in politics vibe check Lawful, Good/Neutral depending on how the character fleshes out but both work

The second one does cast doubt on the utility of alignment, which is fair, some people find it is helpful as a play aid or a learning tool to create a first character, others don't.
--
A lot of my personal opinions on species lore, and faction lore since the tropes in play have similarity, is how much table utility can I get from it. Gnoll is useless, because they don't have use cases, just use demons instead they are more flexible. Underdark Drow is useful, infighting, threat, multiple conflicting goals, outsiders and ingroups that both allow for complexity.

I personally push against no lore, as no lore helps no one. Drow, Dwarves, Humans, etc. need traits, concepts, and themes to mine. Even if I don't use them directly things to draw inspiration from is better than no things.
There is also the matter of force, no one is forcing anyone to use things they don't like. Don't like Drow society or Lolth, just don't use it. Options like Dragonlance exist that have neither.

As for evil factions like Thay, all I will say is I find that as a solution dubious as using humans as your bad guys doesn't prevent stereotyping, and can make it more prominent due to the lack of a fiction layer and unfortunately doesn't actually solve the "moral quandary" problems based on my admittedly small sample size. Not to say Thay, or Zenthil Keep, or Karnath aren't fun, they just aren't a solution to the specific problem being discussed.

Edit: Oh, and no notes on Lord Raziere, that is pretty close to my thoughts on that topic.

Errorname

2024-02-24, 02:15 PM

I personally push against no lore, as no lore helps no one. Drow, Dwarves, Humans, etc. need traits, concepts, and themes to mine. Even if I don't use them directly things to draw inspiration from is better than no things.

For what it's worth I don't think anyone's advocating for no lore, I think the function of having a foundation to build on is a pretty universally recognized good thing.

137beth

2024-02-24, 05:45 PM

Yes. :smallconfused:

Why the hell would there be any other answer.

They are beings from a different environment. Its not their fault if they think or act differently from us. If they are capable of being negotiated with, its bad if we get into a war with them, just as bad getting into a war with any human nation....because war is bad.

If the aliens are super-genocidal P-Zombies that we need to genocide back, that IS STILL BAD. INCREDIBLY. HORRIBLY. BAD. It still causes all the suffering of war, all the problems of war even if you win, with no possibility of a better solution. You have to deal with the social problems of people thinking genocide is a good solution afterwards and having to convince them that its NOT because you NEVER EVER have full control over humanity, what its cultures learn and react to and what they apply their lessons to. Experiences like that shape generations, and cause problems decades or more down the line no matter what, there will be idiots who will take the wrong lesson, there will be idiots powerful enough to ENFORCE the wrong lesson for generations to come, so that their children and their children's children learn the wrong lesson, you might never see that wrong lesson be unlearned in your lifetime, on things this large of a scale with politics, cultures and so on involved, you cannot say "oh this was an exception, we'll just go back to normal afterwards" because it doesn't work like that, because when something like that is DONE? its a precedent. Its a validation of all the worst impulses of humanity. People would look back at the precedent set, and see not that reasons why it was allowed, but that it was allowed at all, and figure out ways to make sure its allowed again for worse reasons at people who do not deserve to be targeted. and people will have to fight for that precedent to not be used, for that influence to be curtailed, lessened, unlearned, dismantled, for that to NOT become normality.
it doesn't matter what moral high ground you have when you victoriously kill the genocidal hive mind aliens or whatever, your civilization will still be traumatized and hurt from that conflict, and twist that trauma to see enemies wherever they want, not to mention the kind of leaders that could easily come into power whose only experience is making everyone kill the nasty bug monsters and exploiting peoples fear and hatred of the nasty bug monsters. methods they can easily turn to do other things that are less good, and thus sooner or later will, because those are the methods that got them results and thus think maybe they can apply it to get results elsewhere. whatever outcast group of the generation (it doesn't matter which one) will sooner or later be compared to those aliens out of sheer stupidity (it doesn't matter how this stupid conclusion is reached) and they will face problems because of it, and they will have to fight tooth and nail to be accepted, maybe even just get to back to where they were before the aliens ever attacked, and more to actually get accepted.

and all that.....are the complex problems you face without having a sympathetic villain or good people on the other side of the conflict involved when you do that. because humanity is still the complex, flawed and often full of people doing bad decisions and believing stupid things no matter how simple and evil you make the opposition, and in some ways facing such a foe would only make humans worse.

Permission to put this whole thing in my extended sig, please?

Lord Raziere

2024-02-24, 07:14 PM

Permission to put this whole thing in my extended sig, please?

sure, permission granted.

earthseawizard

2024-02-25, 09:42 PM

Man, there's a lot of pages here. But this month we started a new campaign and 4 of my 5 players are dwarves.

Errorname

2024-02-26, 01:28 AM

Man, there's a lot of pages here. But this month we started a new campaign and 4 of my 5 players are dwarves.

Oh yeah, remember when this thread was about Dwarves?

Grim Portent

2024-02-26, 09:36 AM

I suppose back on the original topic, a big part of it might be how D&D handles racial stats, which has been touched on already, and D&D represents an oversized chunk of fantasy RPG gamers.

D&D dwarves are basically just humans, not just in terms of their culture being a hodge-podge of bits of our past, that's somewhat unavoidable really, but in their stats and racial abilities. D&D dwarves aren't tough, their differences from the human baseline are pretty inconsequential. Mechanically race in D&D usually boils down to +5% to some rolls, a gimmick ability that most races will never use, and some proficiencies you probably don't care about anyway.

5e Hill dwarf boils down to +1 to consitution saves and +2hp/lvl. It's not exactly exciting, nor does it scream 'tough as nails.'

Obviously what feels tough is subjective, but I've played an Ork in Rogue Trader, the average human had a really high chance to do 0 damage to me even if they hit, because Orkz are tough and shrug off blows that would leave a human at death's door. Being able to get shot in the chest with a full burst of machine gun fire and take no damage while wearing basically no armour feels awesome, especially when the humans in the party are running around in heavy armour equivalents for the same result. And it's not like it stops there, you keep getting tougher, you get better armour, become increasingly indifferent to all but the most extreme threats. You can take a shotgun blast to the bare face and grin through it because you're made of boiled leather and enthusiasm and driven by fungus beer and bloodlust. You feel, as the Orkz would put it, 'Ded 'ard.'

D&D dwarves just don't really do that. Obviously nothing in D&D does, it's not the kind of thing the system does well anyway, but if being 'tough' is basically a rounding error on your sheet compared to the supposedly delicate elves sheet, then it doesn't feel good.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-26, 02:07 PM

Man, there's a lot of pages here. But this month we started a new campaign and 4 of my 5 players are dwarves. Should be a cool campaign. :smallsmile:

Oh yeah, remember when this thread was about Dwarves? Back in the good old days...:smallcool:

Dwarves are tough: Poison resistance and adv on poison saves
Boosts to CON are a good thing.
+2 STR +2 CON makes for a tougher fighter.

gbaji

2024-02-26, 03:10 PM

I think that this is possibly a misuse of alignment,
Alignment as personality, I have found never works well. Gnoll, Chaotic Evil, behavior, see alignment and we get a really dumb and unusable thing
Alignment as vibe of what the other traits suggest or as a component in addition to other traits tends to produce better results. Drow, Proud, Insoular, intermixed in a multilayered cult of personality filled with corruption. Tracks with Chaotic Evil.

I was going in a slightly different direction though. Much of what we might consider when thinking about "mostly evil" races in a game is purely cultural and not, er... genetic, so to speak.

Orcs in a game setting may be brutal folks, who believe that personal strength shows their fitness and position in society, and thus constantly fight and kill to show this. Perhaps they enjoy eating their enemies in battle to "consume their strength" maybe. Orc children may not at all be taught not to fight in school, but "strike first and take them down fast" is the rule.

A human, looking at the resulting orcs they encounter in the world might absolutely conclude that they are "mostly evil" as a result. But within that culture, the orcs themselves would not consider any of these actions to actually be "evil" at all. They might consider very different things to be good or evil as a result. But I'm not even trying to argue whether that makes different things *actually* good or evil here (but it does create problems when the same alignment system tries to measure both things), but merely pointing out that, if this is the case, then an Orc child raised by humans would hold very different views on good and evil as an Orc child raised by Orcs.

Which seemed relevant to the whole "you find the orc nursery, what do you do?" situation.

Oh yeah, remember when this thread was about Dwarves?

Well... if we must. Honestly? I think most games go kinda off the rails when they feel the need to introduce a multitude of sub/side races. Do we really need hill dwarves, and ice dwarves, and whatnot? It just seems strange (and oddly human focused) that we never (or at least very very rarely) hear about game systems/settings where humans, simply becuse they are encountered in some other environment, now have different stats and are a different sub-race or something, yet this is done all the time with other races in games.

And I suppose this ties into my point above. I tend to prefer to make the differences between different groups of sentient people in my game worlds, different primarilly becuase of culture, and not race. Dwarves in the far north, and dwarves deep under ground, and dwarves living in forests, are all just dwarves. They may have different cultural rules, have developed different skills and whatnot, and speak different languages (maybe), but.... just like I may have many different human civilizations spread around my a games world with radically different cultures, religions, etc, I do the same thing for other races as well.

I have no problem having the dwarves living in this area be friendly and willing to trade their goods fairly with their neighbors, while the ones over there are highly suspicious of outsiders and will kill them pretty much on sight. They're all still racially dwarves though. I've just never got the whole "theses guys live in a different environment, so we'll make them both racially/physiologically different and then also have them have a different cullture". To me, that just never made sense.

Well. Other than to sell more splatbooks that is.

Grim Portent

2024-02-26, 04:43 PM

Dwarves are tough: Poison resistance and adv on poison saves
Boosts to CON are a good thing.
+2 STR +2 CON makes for a tougher fighter.

Kind of, maybe? Even within the math of 5e it's barely noticable compared to the swing of a d20. In practice a dwarf fighter and an elf fighter are going to wind up with their stats being basically identical unless one goes for a dex build. The poison resistance is... there I guess. It'll come in handy against a few monsters, but most of the time it's just going to be stopping a few points of damage from spiders or weirdly placed dart traps.

D&D isn't really built for the kind of stuff to make something feel tough like mountain rock, like the alpen pine that grows against bitter winds, like the leathery backside of a wombat blocking a tunnel.

Leon

2024-02-26, 07:23 PM

Oh yeah, remember when this thread was about Dwarves?

The fate of any thread on this forum that last a while is to be circular arguments that drift a long way from the topic

Witty Username

2024-02-26, 07:59 PM

The fault is not in our Dwarves but in ourselves.

RedWarlock

2024-02-27, 12:56 AM

Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm reminded of the way 3e was diversifying their giants a little bit. For one thing, they seemed to be making the fire giants look more stocky, almost dwarven, and that was an interesting parallel, that the different giant races might resemble the spread of humanoid variety. (I know we definitely had forest giants described as looking elven..)

Then there's been some occasional usage that connects dwarves to giants in various ways, sometimes as their slaves (with azer, galeb duhr, and others as elemental-influenced derivations). At least one world I read described the dwarves as the smallest of giant-kind, which was something I have played with in my own homebrew worlds.

A page or so ago, someone said we don't subrace humans out, and, well, we do, if you count tieflings, aasimar, and genasi as human subraces (or the human subraces in 3.5's Races of Destiny..), but also, when you try to mechanically describe traits which can be heated debate topics, like ethnicity, gender, other forms of bio-essentialism, etc, it doesn't go well. (See: FATAL. Wait, don't.) Humans might be the exception that otherwise proves the rule, because social politics prevent it.

Originally, as I recall, that was the origin of the human bonus feat in 3e, it was representing the specifics of a region, the feat as flexible chunk of mechanics. Like most of the folks from this place had Toughness, while those folks in that region usually took Endurance.

Errorname

2024-02-27, 01:56 AM

Well... if we must. Honestly? I think most games go kinda off the rails when they feel the need to introduce a multitude of sub/side races. Do we really need hill dwarves, and ice dwarves, and whatnot? It just seems strange (and oddly human focused) that we never (or at least very very rarely) hear about game systems/settings where humans, simply becuse they are encountered in some other environment, now have different stats and are a different sub-race or something, yet this is done all the time with other races in games.

I think this ultimately comes down to what people expect the diversity of an individual taxon to be.

We have a really good sense for what human diversity looks like, because well, we're humans. So we have an strong model for what human diversity looks like, if you need a human culture for any region of your map there are a lot of obvious real world influences to pull from that your audience is going to be familiar with (and also have very strong feelings about, so tread lightly). This largely does not exist with most fantasy races, because Elves aren't real. If you're pulling from folklore sometimes you get a 'light elf / dark elf' split, but you don't have that same real diversity to model off of and applying a biome or element as an adjective and saying "ice dwarf" is the path of least resistance.

Note that the path of least resistance is different for other racial options. With options like Aarakocra or Lizardfolk you can end up with creators putting all the diversity of an entire clade into a single 'race', because if you want to make a slightly different lizard person you just base them on a different sort of lizard

Then there's been some occasional usage that connects dwarves to giants in various ways, sometimes as their slaves (with azer, galeb duhr, and others as elemental-influenced derivations). At least one world I read described the dwarves as the smallest of giant-kind, which was something I have played with in my own homebrew worlds.

I think writers look at "big human" and "little human" and are inclined to draw a connection between them, it's not an uncommon idea to place Dwarves and Giants close together on the tree.

A page or so ago, someone said we don't subrace humans out, and, well, we do, if you count tieflings, aasimar, and genasi as human subraces

If you count the planetouched and the hybrids you actually get a decent amount of human variation. It's just not the same sort of thing you get with Elves.

Witty Username

2024-02-27, 09:58 AM

I think this ultimately comes down to what people expect the diversity of an individual taxon to be.

A quick thing, since I think it is part of the rub, diversity will be a bit different in D&D. Since D&D basic worldbuilding assumptions tend closer to created kinds than the real world we have as a frame of reference.

Dwarves are created by Reorx, Moradin, etc. Sometimes for a specific purpose, so the range does not necessarily need to be the same as human. It doesn't need to be that way, but I find this smooth over some of the weirdness.

Hm, that could be a fun play of Dwarves having similar appearances accross gender. Moradin built a model and modified it to make the species work.

Environment dwarves being literally reforged by Moradin to survive conditions better does tickle me for some reason.

Mordar

2024-02-27, 11:17 AM

A quick thing, since I think it is part of the rub, diversity will be a bit different in D&D. Since D&D basic worldbuilding assumptions tend closer to created kinds than the real world we have as a frame of reference.

Dwarves are created by Reorx, Moradin, etc. Sometimes for a specific purpose, so the range does not necessarily need to be the same as human. It doesn't need to be that way, but I find this smooth over some of the weirdness.

Hm, that could be a fun play of Dwarves having similar appearances accross gender. Moradin built a model and modified it to make the species work.

Environment dwarves being literally reforged by Moradin to survive conditions better does tickle me for some reason.

I think there is value in the contemplation that the dwarves created Reorx, Moradin etc.

I think that several posts have hit on a primary issue, beyond even the "bumpy foreheads" thing. The mechanical advantage of selecting a dwarf for a PC, especially under the newer rulesets, is minimal especially beyond the earlies levels1, and the mechanical disadvantage of move rate is significant, particularly for the class types the racial advantage would ostensibly help the most.

So all there is to lean into is lore/stereotype/aesthetics?

- M

1 - especially if the prevailing opinion is that it is always better to be "5%+ harder to hit" than "able to absorb slightly more damage"

Witty Username

2024-02-27, 12:41 PM

Mordar

2024-02-27, 01:29 PM

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 01:29 PM

Would people be alright with Dwarves getting physical damage resistance, either generally or perhaps a specific one like slashing?

Yes I would like Dwarf to have some damage resistance. How much and how it is implemented depends on how strong the species benefits are allowed to be (this was part of the issue with 5E).

For 5.5E, I suggest the following.
Thick Skin: Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage you take is reduced by your proficiency modifier.

Having full 5E style Resistance (50% damage) to the common BPS damage could be excessive. Having it be scoped to only one of those types would probably mean Slashing resistance. However that is a very common damage type and I think we could see Dwarves as being hardier vs bludgeoning and piercing too. So let's use a flat reduction instead and have is scale with level (like resistance would) by using proficiency modifier.

That could be interesting. I'd like to entertain something like a 1-per-x opportunity to "soak" all damage from a single attack...1/day or whatever. That feels "tough", especially if declared after the hit/damage are rolled.

- M

Sounds familiar to Goliath (one of the 2 other "tough" species).

Psyren

2024-02-27, 01:30 PM

I think One D&D is moving away from the movement rate. So turn off will hopefully be reduced.

I don't actually remember what they did with Dwarves otherwise, I am not a big fan of playtest material in general so I only pay scant attention to it.
--
Would people be alright with Dwarves getting physical damage resistance, either generally or perhaps a specific one like slashing?

OneD&D Dwarves appear to be getting the following (mechanical buffs in green, mechanical nerfs in red):

Darkvision 60'
Poison damage resistance + advantage on poison saves (both prevention + ongoing)
Toughness (as Hill Dwarf, but baseline)
Tool Proficiency with two tools from the following list: mason's tools, smith's tools, jeweler's tools, tinker's tools. (brewer's supplies have been removed, but you can grab those via your background.)
Starting feat (can be used to pick up Medium Armor as Mountain Dwarf + shields, or alternative things like Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate etc.)
Stonecunning now grants tremorsense 60' for 10 minutes, however no longer grants expertise in history to determine the origins of stonework.
No movement penalty
Floating ASIs
Weapon proficiencies removed

Duergar were already updated in MPMM; the only difference for them this year will be the starting feat and background changes.

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 01:39 PM

OneD&D Dwarves appear to be getting the following (mechanical buffs in green, mechanical nerfs in red):

Stonecunning now grants tremorsense 60' for 10 minutes, however no longer grants expertise in history to determine the origins of stonework.

Duergar were already updated in MPMM; the only difference for them this year will be the starting feat and background changes.

Which sources do we have for the Tremorsense? I do not see it in MPMM Duergar and I have not seen the 2024 PHB yet.

I don't want to get my hopes up too quickly.

Psyren

2024-02-27, 02:15 PM

Which sources do we have for the Tremorsense? I do not see it in MPMM Duergar and I have not seen the 2024 PHB yet.

I don't want to get my hopes up too quickly.

Character Origins UA (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf)

While they haven't 100% confirmed what will make it to the final PHB, apparently every species in this UA scored high except Dragonborn (which was revised) and Ardling (which was scrapped), so chances are pretty good that the UA Dwarf will make it into the final PHB without too many, or any, changes.

EDIT: Duergar won't be getting the tremorsense AFAICT, that'll just be standard dwarves, but Duergar will maintain their super-darkvision, size-changing/invisibility stuff, and psionic fortitude.

Grim Portent

2024-02-27, 02:23 PM

I think One D&D is moving away from the movement rate. So turn off will hopefully be reduced.

I don't actually remember what they did with Dwarves otherwise, I am not a big fan of playtest material in general so I only pay scant attention to it.
--
Would people be alright with Dwarves getting physical damage resistance, either generally or perhaps a specific one like slashing?

That could be interesting. I'd like to entertain something like a 1-per-x opportunity to "soak" all damage from a single attack...1/day or whatever. That feels "tough", especially if declared after the hit/damage are rolled.

- M

Half-Orc and Goliath both have abilities that fill that general concept, so the basic idea is already proven to work fine in 5e. Staying up when you would otherwise be downed feels tough, and reducing damage taken from an attack also feels tough in the sense of shrugging off blows. Which ties the points from earlier about Goliaths and so on taking the 'tough guy' role from Dwarves, in that they literally fill the tough guy role in 5e. Other than Powerful Build the Goliath makes me think Dwarf more than the actual Dwarves tbh. Part of it is active vs passive mechanics, having more HP is passive and you only really think about it when comparing characters, negating damage or ignoring a down is a regular reminder of being tough.

The Dwarven Fortitude feat to me is the most dwarven feeling mechanic in 5e, other than maybe Heavy Armour Master, which is of course not race related.

Witty Username

2024-02-27, 03:44 PM

Hopefully tremorsense actually does something this time around.
--
I think with that, mechanically, there is a lack of 'pop', something to draw attention to it as a player.

Psyren

2024-02-27, 04:38 PM

Hopefully tremorsense actually does something this time around.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but here's the UA definition:

"A creature with Tremorsense can pinpoint the location of creatures and moving objects within a specific range, provided that the creature with Tremorsense and anything it’s detecting are both in contact with the same surface (such as the ground, a wall, or a ceiling) or the same liquid.

Tremorsense can’t detect creatures or objects in the air, and Tremorsense doesn’t count as a form of sight."

The surface in question for the 2024 dwarf is stone (both natural and worked) which means it will function in a lot of dungeons and structures. This will let them do a variety of useful things, such as counting the enemies patrolling behind a wall or locked door, tracking what square invisible enemies touching the floor are in, detecting a spy hiding in the corner, noticing a trap door swinging shut in the next room etc.

gbaji

2024-02-27, 05:21 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by this but here's the UA definition:

"A creature with Tremorsense can pinpoint the location of creatures and moving objects within a specific range, provided that the creature with Tremorsense and anything it’s detecting are both in contact with the same surface (such as the ground, a wall, or a ceiling) or the same liquid.

Tremorsense can’t detect creatures or objects in the air, and Tremorsense doesn’t count as a form of sight."

The surface in question for the 2024 dwarf is stone (both natural and worked) which means it will function in a lot of dungeons and structures. This will let them do a variety of useful things, such as counting the enemies patrolling behind a wall or locked door, tracking what square invisible enemies touching the floor are in, detecting a spy hiding in the corner, noticing a trap door swinging shut in the next room etc.

Yeah. It's actually a really really powerful ability. But, if you're playing in a game where all encounters are "you enter the room, and see X, now fight/whatever with it", it might not be seen as such. The reality though is that this gives the ability for dwarves to basically detect anyone entering their underground/stone strongholds without themselves having to be anywhere near the location themselves. Dwarven defenders can literally feel invaders walking along the stone floor "down on level 3, corridor 8, stone marker 5", and then mount a massive defense. This is the kind of ability that doesn't mean a lot once a direct encounter fight has started, but should *massively* affect the makeup of those encounters/fights in the first place, overwhelmingly in favor of the dwarf(ves).

For adventuring dwarves, it means that they can basically stand in a tunnel and feel if there's anything down at the other end of it, or in the cavern beyond, etc. Basically, as long as it's connected via solid stone/earth, they can feel it. Obviously, this is subject to GM interpretation as far as how much seams or breaks in "solid stone" may damper this over a given distance. But for caverns more or less carved out of solid rock in a mountain? Should allow dwarves to get a good sense for things moving around within that mountain at a pretty decent distance. Certainly, well out of sight or hearing range, and absolutely far enough away that it should be almost impossible to actually sneak up on a dwarf when they are underground (basically have to fly inside the tunnels or something).

I suppose if you have a GM that limits this to "the stone surface in the room you are in" then, yeah, that's not going to seem like such a great skill.

We actually grant dwarves in our RQ game a similar skill called "earthsense". Same deal in that they can basically feel even minor vibrations though the earth, allowing for sensing enemies moving about even a good distance down tunnels, in adjacent caverns, etc. It also allows them to basically "feel the earth", essentially getting a sense of the shape and substance of earth/stone they are in contact with. That part of the ability is primarily about being able to easily detect things like hidden passages and whatnot. They can feel the difference between "the stone here is solid and deep" and "there's a gap in the stone 1 foot beyond this wall". And yeah, that also gives them the classic ability to "know how far under the earth you are" as well.

Witty Username

2024-02-27, 05:46 PM

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 06:15 PM

It is more or less a bug, for lack of a better word, with how tremorsense and blindsight work. Essentially, characters can already determine location via sound. And it isn’t sight, so advantage for enemies and disadvantage for the character still apply.
So tremorsense doesn't work properly as written.

I don't think anyone plays that way, but it irks me that it is there.

I would expect tremorsense / blindsense to pinpoint a location and temorsight (Toph) / blindsight to be alternative sight (thus no advantage for enemies). This means only blindsight doesn't work properly as written.

I am disappointed it is limited use. "Action: Tremorsense 5ft-10ft for 1 round" at-will would be more interesting to me than "Bonus Action: Tremorsense 60ft for 10 minutes" 2-4 times per day. I mostly see it as a way to sense into or through walls.

gbaji

2024-02-27, 06:18 PM

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 06:33 PM

Again. Only if you are thinking of it purely as a "does this help me in a fight with people in the room I'm in".

To be fair, the limited uses, bonus action activation, and long range imply to me, that the author was primarily letting "you were ambushed, now find the enemy" scenario shape the feature.

Mordar

2024-02-27, 06:40 PM

icefractal

2024-02-27, 07:05 PM

From OldTree1's post, it looks like [proficiency bonus] times per day, lasting 10 minutes each time.

So, if you're exploring a relatively dense dungeon, that's pretty good, 10 minutes will cover a large chunk of searching it. But in a more spread-out cavern where notable things are like 15 minutes apart, it's not great, really just a "check on this particular room that we're already suspicious of" tool.

As for defensively - not really. Like, if you already know invaders are coming soon then you can use this to spot them a round or two in advance, but it's not something you can just have up in general.

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 07:12 PM

How often can you use it? No sense of 5e rules at all. 60' isn't great...but it can be very handy in a dungeon invasion!

- M

You can use it, as a bonus/swift/free action, prof bonus (2-4) times per day. Each use is 10 minutes. 60' is rather long distance for tremorsense (especially combined with movement and dashes).

For dungeons or mining I think 10ft (or even 5ft) would be very handy. However I would want something that lasts longer than my lunch (or something that can be called on demand all day long). Having it cost an action or even a minute would still make it useful in the normal cases (mining, defending home, delving a dungeon) and should be more than enough to pay the cost for it being at-will.

This is why I think the costs imply the author was primarily thinking about an ambush after the first arrow flew. It is still more useful outside of combat, but it would have been priced differently if that was the primary intent.

Edit:
Also I don't like the long range for dense dungeons. While the limited usage (2-4 uses at 10min) can cover a day's worth of dense dungeon, it does so by doing all of it at once. Imagine a dwarf rogue dungeoneer using this ability on various puzzles or searching for traps. They want to focus on just what is near them, but the limited uses has them writing notes like they are running out of time. They need to focus on the previous rooms' puzzles while also searching for traps, and scout the next couple of rooms. OR it could have been shorter range and at-will. Then they have the time to focus.

Mordar

2024-02-27, 07:37 PM

From OldTree1's post, it looks like [proficiency bonus] times per day, lasting 10 minutes each time.

You can use it, as a bonus/swift/free action, prof bonus (2-4) times per day. Each use is 10 minutes. 60' is rather long distance for tremorsense (especially combined with movement and dashes).

For dungeons or mining I think 10ft (or even 5ft) would be very handy. However I would want something that lasts longer than my lunch (or something that can be called on demand all day long). Having it cost an action or even a minute would still make it useful in the normal cases (mining, defending home, delving a dungeon) and should be more than enough to pay the cost for it being at-will.

Thanks - wasn't sure what "normal" proficiency bonus would be. So at least a couple times an adventuring day I get to see beyond a closed door, or zero in on a funny sound, or monitor a space I can't otherwise see...frankly I think that has much better "gamist" value than the older form of stonecunning, even if it is limited by time and "recharge".

- M

Psyren

2024-02-27, 07:53 PM

Essentially, characters can already determine location via sound.

Sure, but if the enemy is trying to be sneaky - which, since invisible = heavily obscured, they can attempt even in combat - you would need an opposed check if you're trying to use sound to perceive them. And combat is loud, good luck locating someone being sneaky through the clang of steel next to your ear or the wizard's thunderwave. Tremorsense meanwhile is automatic success to the Dwarf, and it doesn't care about ambient noise conditions; it just works. And that's just one of the scenarios I listed.

As for the advantage part - if you have blindsight (say, you're a Dwarf Fighter - I know, weird combination :smalltongue:) then you can activate this to know what square they're lurking in and then walk up and whack them with no penalties at all. Or you'll know which squares your ally should aim their Faerie Fire at.

Thanks - wasn't sure what "normal" proficiency bonus would be. So at least a couple times an adventuring day I get to see beyond a closed door, or zero in on a funny sound, or monitor a space I can't otherwise see...frankly I think that has much better "gamist" value than the older form of stonecunning, even if it is limited by time and "recharge".

- M

You can also save this for when it counts. At the beginning of the day when getting into a fight isn't so bad, you can listen at doors and peek around corners like a normal adventurer would. But when the day is running long and you're trying to avoid wandering into a tough fight with lower resources, you can use this instead to peek behind those doors or avoid patrols with more certainty.

Imagine a dwarf rogue dungeoneer using this ability on various puzzles or searching for traps. They want to focus on just what is near them, but the limited uses has them writing notes like they are running out of time.

brb, making Alexandwarf Hamilton

gbaji

2024-02-27, 08:11 PM

To be fair, the limited uses, bonus action activation, and long range imply to me, that the author was primarily letting "you were ambushed, now find the enemy" scenario shape the feature.

To be fair (to me, someone who doesn't play D&D regularly), those restrictions were not in the description, so...

To parrot what other folks said, this ability either needs to be longer lasting or usable more often per day. I'd honestly make it an at will thing, but maybe requiring some kind of perception roll (not sure of specifics here). The idea being that, when used outside of combat, you are extending your senses and feeling for vibrations in the stone, with perhaps penalities depending on how far away something is (and maybe some negatives if one of your hobbit companions like drops something in a well right next to you or something). Makes it useful for dungeon delving, but not something that effectively allows you to map out the entire complex in one shot (but pretty reliable for "there are folks moving around in the very next chamber"). And when used inside of combat, it might possibly warn you of that invisible assailant sneaking up on you, or it may not (there's a lot of folks in the room, stomping their heavy boots around, juming, banging things on the ground, etc).

Honestly don't even understand the whole "uses per day" on something like this. It's a perception sense that you have. You don't only let humans see things X times a day, do you?

It's a perception sense. Make it modest in use, make it usable normally, with some modest restrictions, tie it to a perception skill/roll, and then move on. Does anyone only get infravision X times a day? Or ultravision? Silly me, I just assumed this was something dwarves would just have available all the time. The restriction should be on the usefulness in any given situation, not some arbitrary number of uses per day IMO. It's already going to be of less use outdoors, and useless in a lot of situations (we're in the second floor of an Inn made of wood). Let the sense shine when in the environment it's designed for.

Psyren

2024-02-27, 08:36 PM

Constant Tremorsense... eh. That suggests all dwarves are part-spider or part-bulette or something. I don't think they're supposed to be that overtly monstrous or mystical, they're still just humanoids.

I would be okay if it lasted an hour per activation though, that could be an okay compromise. But I'm fine with 10 minutes too.

OldTrees1

2024-02-27, 08:48 PM

Constant Tremorsense... eh. That suggests all dwarves are part-spider or part-bulette or something. I don't think they're supposed to be that overtly monstrous or mystical, they're still just humanoids.

I would be okay if it lasted an hour per activation though, that could be an okay compromise. But I'm fine with 10 minutes too.

Not Constant. It would be At-Will with an activation. There is a thematic difference.

The Dwarf takes a moment (costs an action, or even a minute) to put their ear to the stone or pause to listen to the earth. The Dwarves being able to read and listen to the stones is part of their folklore background.

The longer effective usage, even allows the per activation duration and range to be shortened. Tremorsense of 60ft 2/day sounds like Wildshape to me but knowing how to pause to listen for Tremorsense 5ft-10ft sounds like Species of Stone* to me.

Edit
* Context: Dwarf, Gnome, and Goliath are thematically associated with rock and stone. There was a book called Races of Stone and I was alluding to it.

gbaji

2024-02-27, 09:02 PM

Constant Tremorsense... eh. That suggests all dwarves are part-spider or part-bulette or something. I don't think they're supposed to be that overtly monstrous or mystical, they're still just humanoids.

So... we accept infravision and ultravision but not this? Why?

I'm not seeing at all why a species either evolving or being created by their gods, to exist and live in underground environs, and in many settings are viewed as being magically "tied to the earth" (in the same way that elves are often tied to trees/plantlife), would not have senses that match that fact. Why do Bulettes have it? What makes this some kind of ability restricted to monstrous creatures? Aren't dwarves supposed to be a little bit mystical (lots of settings have then as an ancient race similar to elves, just in a different environment).

I guess this really depends on whether you view dwarves as just "short stocky humans who live underground", or if they are an actual unique species in a fantasy setting. I tend to lean in the latter direction. And given that the topic is "dwarves aren't cool anymore", maybe thinking of them as something more than just short humans who like to make things and maybe dabble in explosives might move things in the right direction. Because those latter descriptions make them great NPCs to have in a game setting, but don't give players a whole lot of reason to play them. They should be at least as powerful/userful in underground environments as Elves are in forests IMO (maybe a bit moreso, since most special elven abilities work everywhere, not just when they're surrounded by trees).

Again. I don't play a lot of D&D these days, so there could be game balance issues with this. But those balance issues should be the only concern here IMO.