Always Chaotic Evil Humanoids?

[ThinkMinty]

I think I asked this question in some form a while ago, but I'll ask it again:

Anyone have any favorite Always/Usually Chaotic Evil humanoids?

[Geddy2112]

Drow, way better than orcs or goblins.

[awa]

personally not a fan of drow for various reasons but to each his own.

My favorite is gnolls and bugbears although I admit I haven't done much with them

of course technically their usually evil not always evil at least in 3rd edition

[RazorChain]

personally not a fan of drow for various reasons but to each his own.

My favorite is gnolls and bugbears although I admit I haven't done much with them

of course technically their usually evil not always evil at least in 3rd edition

Evil is a standard set by the norms of society or culture you live in, I don't doubt in the mind of the "evil" races it is the humans/elves/dwarves who are evil.

So I nominate humans

[neonagash]

I think I asked this question in some form a while ago, but I'll ask it again:

Anyone have any favorite Always/Usually Chaotic Evil humanoids?

I like orcs and trolls as always evil. I use trolls a lot though.

[Slipperychicken]

I like orcs. There are a lot of ways to do them while maintaining their core traits.


I don't like it when the game manual declares an entire group of people "evil" or "good" based on their ethnicity. I feel like the book should be telling the reader about their culture, history, and what their priorities and values are, and then let the reader form his own opinions based on that. It's one thing to have an opinionated narrator say nasty things about the subject matter (say, if the book on orcs was written from the perspective of racist elven scribes who would be aggregating knowledge about them in-setting), but it shuts down a lot of interesting conversations when the impartial word of god hands down a moral judgement that should be subjective.

[neonagash]

I like orcs. There are a lot of ways to do them while maintaining their core traits.


I don't like it when the game manual declares an entire group of people "evil" or "good" based on their ethnicity. I feel like the book should be telling the reader about their culture, history, and what their priorities and values are, and then let the reader form his own opinions based on that. It's one thing to have an opinionated narrator say nasty things about the subject matter (say, if the book on orcs was written from the perspective of racist elven scribes who would be aggregating knowledge about them in-setting), but it shuts down a lot of interesting conversations when the impartial word of god hands down a moral judgement that should be subjective.

See I don't view the different races as ethnicities like say Asians and Europeans. I view them as different species, ie frogs, cows and dogs.

So it seems totally reasonable to have overarching types the same way dogs are pack hunting predators that naturally hunt and chase anything that runs while fighting for the pack, cows are herd based vegans who will fight to defend young, but will also abandon what looks like a hard fight to preserve their own life and the overall herd and frogs are solitary predators.

I find fantasy races more interesting when they are really alien and different, rather than humans from another country.

[Slipperychicken]

See I don't view the different races as ethnicities like say Asians and Europeans. I view them as different species, ie frogs, cows and dogs.

I used to think that way, before I heard a mainstream definition of species, wherein most of the fantasy races' ability to procreate with one another (and produce live, viable, fertile offspring) would lead to them being classified as the same species. There's also the matter that they can easily communicate using a common language, have regular contact with one another, share a number of cultural ideas like their beliefs about afterlives, and seem to have little trouble working side-by-side when needed. The traditional fantasy races, despite superficial differences, are in many ways closer to one another than real life human cultures.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Related question; are there -any- always evil humanoids? I'm not aware of any.

[Regitnui]

I used to think that way, before I heard a mainstream definition of species, wherein most of the fantasy races' ability to procreate with one another (and produce live, viable, fertile offspring) would lead to them being classified as the same species. There's also the matter that they can easily communicate using a common language, have regular contact with one another, share a number of cultural ideas like their beliefs about afterlives, and seem to have little trouble working side-by-side when needed. The traditional fantasy races, despite superficial differences, are in many ways closer to one another than real life human cultures.

This would put elves, humans and orcs in the same species (subspecies of each other) with dwarves being the next closest relatives. I'm actually a fan of this theory, mostly due to a snippet from 3.5's Races of Destiny. One of the potential human creation myths told of a hunter who killed a god's sacred beast/avatar, and brought a curse back to his village that caused those who ate the meat to become grotesque, grey-skinned monsters. The descendants of that original village survive today as Sharakim, which were written up in the book as 'cultured orcs' with a bad case of human envy. Taking the Unfortunate Implications and putting them in a bin, it's an interesting concept;

In the beginning, humans, elves and orcs were one people. Some of them sought harnony with the woods and wild spaces of the world, while others gathered into villages and beat the wild spaces back. Those who wandered too deeply into the forests found the Fae, and learned magic, bringing themselves closer to the nature of their mentors. Thus were the elves born.

The village humans looked inwards, building civilization. Villages became towns, and their population grew. However, their activities brought destruction on the elves' claimed homes, and conflict began to brew. Unable to meet their kin in numbers, the elves concocted a plan that would scatter the human towns; a magical plague. The fae magic worked incredibly well; those struck by the disease became hideous, with grey skin, fangs and heavy brows. The few unafflicted humans fled, and those left behind named themselves sharakim. However, the name that those who survived gave them became more wildy known; orc.

Thus, the orcs, cursed by elves, abandoned by humans, became the enemies of their former kin, forever marked by the long-ago plague. When elves and humans found reconciliation, the orcs found hatred and disgust. Driven from their homes as humanity reclaimed what was once theirs, they were forced to become marauders to survive, being named amongst the monstrous races because they swept down from barren mountains to raid; 'orcing'. They remain there still, but their half-human descendants provide a brutal reminder to the long memories of the elves of their shared ancestry.

[Inevitability]

Drow, way better than orcs or goblins.

Drow are, and have as far as I know always been, Neutral Evil.

[awa]

never been a fan of the idea that orcs ect are just a different ethnicity once you do that you start asking to be called a raciest not to mention its less interesting.
I like it when separate species are actually different not just Europeans/ Americans with pointy ears because let’s face it a typically depiction of an elf or a dwarf has more in common with a modern American then that American has with say an Aztec or a Australian aborigine when it comes to values and world view.

So the example of dogs, cows, and frogs is a good one and part of why I like gnolls it’s easy to make them act non-human by basing them off hyena

also at least in the srd non of the humanoid are always evil

[Regitnui]

view.So the example of dogs, cows, and frogs is a good one and part of why I like gnolls it’s easy to make them act non-human by basing them off hyena

So it's easiermore interesting to dehumanize sentients of any race? At the risk of stepping on the rules, I'd say that we've had too much dehumanizing in our collective real life history for it to be in our entertainment too.

One thing you said that I do agree with it taking traits from animals and applying them to a sentient race's development. Take gnolls. The average hyena female is larger than the male by a fair amount. How would a society develop where the men are the weak and exploited gender? And before you bring up the drow, that's divinely enforced, not evolutionary, and therefore has no place when we're killing catgirls.

Medusas and harpies bring up the question of how a single-gender species thrives in a changing world. I'll tell you that there have been studies done IRL about the advantages of having two genders. Since it's a bit risqué and kinda complex, if anyone wants to know the specifics, you can drop me a pm.

But going back to my original point; it's all good and well if you want to bust down dungeon doors and slaughter everything within for shinies, but you can get that from computer and console games (and you'll get it more and more often, but I digress). Tabletop offers an opportunity to add depth and variance. The elf isn't always the CG forest child, and the hobgoblin doesn't have to be a LE killer. Prescribed alignments for anything over 5 INT is ridiculous. Humans being the only race allowed choice of alignment is an antiquated notion that should be passed on to other, less interactive, forms of media. Nonhuman isn't inhuman.

Think of the gnoll pups before you murder their parents.

[awa]

I'm not dehumanizing anything im merely not making them human. Im sick of this knee jerk insult, ive seen it a million times. It never stops being stupid and lazy and half the times shows off the racism of the accuser more then the original post. This species is vicious and stupid therefore you must be describing this real world race despite having no other traits is common.

fine you don't want any sapient that's not an American with funny ears and only superficial differences less then real world human divides in culture and time. but don't accuse others of dehumanizing just because we want to have alien aliens that are more then a human with one different trait.

[Winter_Wolf]

I used to think that way, before I heard a mainstream definition of species, wherein most of the fantasy races' ability to procreate with one another (and produce live, viable, fertile offspring) would lead to them being classified as the same species. There's also the matter that they can easily communicate using a common language, have regular contact with one another, share a number of cultural ideas like their beliefs about afterlives, and seem to have little trouble working side-by-side when needed. The traditional fantasy races, despite superficial differences, are in many ways closer to one another than real life human cultures.

It's fantasy. If you're sticking to D&D that definition of species includes most things in the MM, including dragons. Dragons are an ethnicity now? I know it's the popular thing to be all inclusive and understanding and what have you, but it says a lot more about the people saying "orc human relationships are just like what we've seen happen between human group A and human group B!" Because we know the creators of D&D were a bunch of bigots who modeled monsters on other cultures?

Also for the person mentioning drow always NE, I think Greyhawk had them as CN way back in "Queen of the Demonweb Pits." I think, based on hearsay and not having an actual copy of that module.

[goto124]

The advantage of an 'Always Chaotic Evil humanoid' species/race is that the players can mow them down without any question of morality (black and white morality is occasionally useful), while still providing the challenges that only sufficiently smart human-shaped creatures can provide. For example, if gnolls are 'Always Chaotic Evil', they have a human-like body structure the players can easily understand in combat, they can build fortresses to provide dungeons for the players to fight through, etc.

Also, demons and undead have nasty immunities that come with their kind, which may not be good for the situation at hand. Say, a level 2 party.

[awa]

While I agree that always evil is good for the whole easy mook thing it’s not always necessary.

If for example all the orc noncombatants are deep in orc land and the only orcs in human land are raiders or slavers it kind of sidesteps the morality question.

Besides even if a race is always evil does not mean wiping them out is the correct choice. Maybe because they are content with low scale back and forth raids but you going after one of their big cities will have them retaliate in force and maybe it’s the humans that get wiped out. Maybe their isolationist and their evil only comes out when you bug them.

It’s not that I think there must always be always evil races that need to be slaughtered without thought I just hate the knee jerk you’re a raciest for even considering using evil only race

On top of nasty immunities weak undead and demons tend to have limited motivations and limited methods of interaction that don't overlap that well with say a bugbear.

[The Glyphstone]

If I remember right, Jerren (Vile Halflings) and Vasharan (Vile Humans) are both Always Evil playable races, from BoVD.

[awa]

but does anyone actually like them much less consider them their favorite evil race?

[AMFV]

but does anyone actually like them much less consider them their favorite evil race?

I'm fond of them, although I've never used them in campaigns or as characters. The concept for at least the Evil humans (deicidal maniacs) is definitely an intriguing one. Especially to use as an ancient and powerful society or the ruins of a society that tried to rise up against the Gods. Possibly now left as undead, to avoid having to bend the knee even in death.

[Kyberwulf]

That is a very NARROW list.

Bugbear
Gnoll
Orc
Troglodyte
Werewolf

Of that list.. I would have to say Orcs.

[awa]

okay I could see that as some kind of Conan style lost decadent kingdom of ancient power, huddling in the shattered remains of former greatness that could work.

Actually that could work really well have the party here about this great and mighty nation and how they fell trying to destroy an evil god and how they have an artifact of power that could be used to stop a new evil god.

Then as they slowly explore the ruin have them slowly see hints of how everything is not what it appears and let it sink in bit by bit that these guys were unspeakable monsters and that the god of evil they were fighting was less monstrous then them and then have the survivors come for them and it turns out they are just a mockery of all that is good.

Try and fill it with things that look good or neutral at first glance like killing fighting an evil god and then twist it so additional information cast the original information in new light as a monstrous act.

[Slipperychicken]

It's fantasy. If you're sticking to D&D that definition of species includes most things in the MM, including dragons. Dragons are an ethnicity now? I know it's the popular thing to be all inclusive and understanding and what have you, but it says a lot more about the people saying "orc human relationships are just like what we've seen happen between human group A and human group B!" Because we know the creators of D&D were a bunch of bigots who modeled monsters on other cultures?

I'd much rather have natural interbreeding and frequent cultural exchange with monsters not possible so that it doesn't make everything so awkward.

If an author wants me to universally condemn the monsters and not even consider thoughts of mercy or sympathy for them, I feel like there are a lot of better ways to go about it than making them almost exactly the same as humans, and arguably the same species as humans, but simply calling them all bad. Outlining whatever they've done to deserve that kind of sweeping reductionist condemnation would be a first step toward that. It's fine to want a human-shaped, consequence-free target in a game about fantasy violence, but I feel like they need some more demonization to achieve that lack of sympathy.

[Blackhawk748]

The great thing here is you're both right. Gnolls are not human and i've never really seen them act like humans. Orcs, while not human, have always been quite relatable and should be as its kinda nice to have some antagonists that are relatable instead of "Strange and unknowable"

Personally for my Gnolls i have them get nabbed by Demigorgon when they where in their early stages of evolution and then Demigorgon speeds it up a b it and then holds them there. Now occasionally some Gnolls go "Screw this Demigorgon guy" and leave the tribe. After a generation or two the decendants of these exiles dont look like normal Gnolls anymore as their true evolution takes over. Now they look like a canine scavenger appropriate for the area they are in, so you get Jackal, Fox and Coyote Gnolls as well as the normal Hyena ones.

They still arent nice, but they tend to keep more to themselves. If you invade their turf however, you're in for a world of hurt.

I'd much rather have natural interbreeding and frequent cultural exchange with monsters not possible so that it doesn't make everything so awkward.

If an author wants me to universally condemn the monsters and not even consider thoughts of mercy or sympathy for them, I feel like there are a lot of better ways to go about it than making them almost exactly the same as humans, and arguably the same species as humans, but simply calling them all bad. Outlining whatever they've done to deserve that kind of sweeping reductionist condemnation would be a first step toward that. It's fine to want a human-shaped, consequence-free target in a game about fantasy violence, but I feel like they need some more demonization to achieve that lack of sympathy.

And i've never really felt they did it well with Orcs. Orcs just feel like Angry Tribal People Who Constantly Get Screwed, so i almost want to help them and tell the Kingdom to go screw itself. Gnolls on the other hand have been done better, as being the spawn of a Demon and murdering people for the lulz is a pretty good step in making me want to kill them.

[hamishspence]

That is a very NARROW list.

Bugbear
Gnoll
Orc
Troglodyte
Werewolf

Derro are another MM "Usually CE humanoid" race:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/derro.htm

although their type is Monstrous Humanoid for some reason.

[wumpus]

Give catfolk actual cat preferences and actions. Done. For even greater squick, give drow even more-spidery natures (weaned from devouring a living paralyzed surface folk...).

Generally speaking, it *always* is a bad idea. It might work for outsiders and undead (and sufficiently complex games should allow the possibility of redemption, even if the undead work like OOTS). Typically the beer and pretzels games don't need the "always" (you need not bother with the exceptions) and the games that care shouldn't be "always". The one good reason for *always* is to prevent the obvious Drizzit PC from being the exception.

[Regitnui]

Yeah, Black and white morality is useful, but if you really want to wade in and kill things, the alignments really just become so much tissue paper. The Nine Alignments are roleplaying tools. All you need for the Kick-in-the-Door game is "You: Hero. Them: Enemy" and stop wondering whether the paladin is doing the right thing. "Smite Evil" then becomes "Smite Opponent".

[NovenFromTheSun]

If I'm allowed non D&D examples, I'm rather fond of the headless from Ultima.

[LibraryOgre]

Evil is a standard set by the norms of society or culture you live in, I don't doubt in the mind of the "evil" races it is the humans/elves/dwarves who are evil.

So I nominate humans

In D&D, this is emphatically not true. Good and Evil aren't merely constructs; they're metaphysical truths, even going into the organization of the multiverse. In the outer planes, making a place too L/C/G/E for a plane can result in that place plane shifting to another plane.

[Regitnui]

In D&D, this is emphatically not true. Good and Evil aren't merely constructs; they're metaphysical truths, even going into the organization of the multiverse. In the outer planes, making a place too L/C/G/E for a plane can result in that place plane shifting to another plane.

Is your favourite setting Planescape?

In reality, aka the Material plane, people are more complex than the grand metaphysical concepts; are they water, earth, fire or air elementals? Similar thing with alignments. A creature can act in a Lawful way but still be Chaotic Good.