Innately evil or just misunderstood- Evil Races in D&D

[Charles Phipps]

Yes, once more the Old Orc and Goblin argument is trotted out for people's perusal and discussion. There's merits to both sides with some preferring Orcs to be pretty much like the creatures from Aliens. They're less people than a living magical plague on the land and an army of monstrously programmed horrors twisted and evil.

Then, somewhat down the scale is the treatment that there are evil races only in the sense they come from evil cultures. Kobols worshiping evil gods, enslaving others, and genuinely acting like Mankind for the vast majority of its existence.

And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

What's your preferred way to handle it?

[Morty]

As for question in title- however you like it. I personally prefer making orcs and goblinoids real people, with culture, civilization and motivation, equal to elves or humans. Of course, I scratch the "Alignment" part in their description in Monster Manual, but it applies even if I didn't- in such case they're unpleasant, but they still aren't some horrible, black mass of destruction.

[Miles Invictus]

I think the only races that should be inherently evil are the ones that have a reason to be -- demons and devils have pure physical evil running through their veins (that whole "evil outsider" thing), so they're innately evil.

Grummsh may be a jerk, on the other hand, but that only influences his worshipers -- it doesn't define the race as a whole.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Even Always Chaotic Evil races have the one in 10 million CN or NE member. Usually Evil just means if you're looking for evil ones you'll find them.

[The Neoclassic]

I detest the portrayal of orcs and goblinoids as usually evil, barbaric, rampaging sub-humans. In my campaign, I don't argue that they are "just different" (some races have more evil tendencies than others, if only because of their patron deity), but all cultures have some merits and some downfalls. Many goblins and kobolds (I don't use orcs in my current setting) are neutral or good; they may be met with distrust or even blatant racism if they attempt to mingle with other races, but they are common enough.

[Yuki Akuma]

In my games:

Orcs generally have much more testosterone than other humanoids. This makes them aggressive, impulsive and mildly hyperactive. As most orcs tend to live in small tribes where "Might Makes Right", they also tend to be violent. But, unlike vanilla orcs, they're "Often Chaotic Neutral". Hobgoblins are similar, except they're "Often Lawful Neutral", and live in highly structured city-fortress societies much of the time. They're also incredibly anal and pedantic when it comes to legal matters.

Goblins are generally slaves to hobgoblins. Not all goblins are mistreated (after all, some hobgoblins are Lawful Good!), but most tend to resent it. Free goblins tend to live in small tribal societies, like orcs do. Slaves tend towards neutrality and even Law, with free goblins tending towards Chaos.

Kobolds can be anything, depending on the type of dragon they live closest to. In my games, kobolds aren't hated for no reason (although gnomes tend not to trust them, due to the fact that most Evil kobolds hate gnomes with a genocidal ferocity). When the rare Dragonwrought kobold is born/hatched, this often prompts at least some of the warren to go out in search of a dragon who matches their new 'godlike' cheiftan.


Then again, in my games, the traditionally Good races are more often neutral, too.

Except Outsiders. They're made up of about 95% of their listed alignment, with about 4% one step away and less than 1% the direct opposite.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Depends on the setting, naturally.

My personal preference falls toward the "orcs are people too" mindset, though. "Monster" races simply tends toward societies that are inherently violent, oppressive, or otherwise harmful to the more friendly "player" races, much like historical Mongolians under Genghis Khan or Imperial Romans, when I choose to have a say in the matter.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, according to the descriptions of alignment in the Monster Manual, goblins and kobolds "Usually" have the listed alignment, which means that at least 51% of them mostly probably hold to that alignment. Orcs are actually a little more mainstream, since they are only "Often" CE (meaning that only 40 to 50% of them have that alignment).

Now, granted, that when you consider that there are 8 other alignments that a particular individual of one of these races could be, the listed alignment (even at 40% of the populace) is clearly dominant. However, it's certainly taking it a bit too far to generalize the entire race in that manner. That's called a stereotype, but it's a fact that exceptions to such over-generalized stereotypes are fairly common.

Of course, it's also a matter of perspective combined with the geo-political distribution of the alignment within a particular race. So while the majority of orcs are not actually chaotic evil, it's entirely possible that the majority of orcs who perform raids into human settlements are.

[Kurald Galain]

And then there's the argument that Humanoids are no different from humans and there's just a lot of aggression between the races. When an Orc tribe raids humans, its doing it for the same reason a human tribe would. Food, pillage, and females.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd say. Orcs have a different culture which, by human standards, is overly aggressive. But I have a few cities in my campaign where every race is (more or less) welcome as long as they behave (which does not preclude some back-alley throatslitting at night). Then again, I don't use alignment period, but aside from that I find the "one race = one culture" thing rather silly (viz. Star Trek, where every planet has a single monolithic culture... )

[Silkenfist]

Of course you need antagonists in your game and pillaging evil orcs look shallow. But it's really not far fetched, if you create them right.

- Physis: Orcs' dominant trait is their brutish strength, while their mental capabilities are sub-par. When dealing with other races, it is plausible for them to use the abilities in which they are superior. Why should they negotiate trade contracts when they have been duped more than once by the local Gnomes.

- Stereotypes: People think of you as selfish, cruel and evil. Why not act appropriately? If the other races refuse to treat Orcs as anything but mindless fighting machines, it just is not worth the effort to prove them wrong. Orcs will face racial biases because of the way their ancestors behaved. However, they will find it easier to adapt to these stereotypes than try to change them. After all it still is easier to pillage a farm than try to get employed as a farmhand. Nobody trusts an Orc, right?

- Culture: Orcs are encountered usually in small groups. Packs, Clans or Tribes. These kinds of groups always have one dominant male (Yes, Male. You can't deny Testoterone's qualities for these matters), be it the pack leader, alpha male, patriarch or whatever. This Leader will have first pick among bounty and females and - most likely - father most of the children. This will lead to internal struggle and fights between juvenile Orcs. As a whole, it will make the Orcs stronger and more aggressive, since the Orcs with more Testosterone will survive longer and create more offspring. It also means that moral codices are less likely to develop, since they just are not rewarded.

- Landscape: Orcs are usually encountered in Hills, Mountains or other barren, infertile landscape. Also, they are usually strong and musclebound which means that they have a high energy consumption. It's likely most of the tribes won't be able to feed themselves by means of farming and hunting alone. Plundering and/or conquering the planes is the easiest alternative.


Almost forgot the most important part: Lifespan. Orcs have the shortest lifespan of all common races of D&D. Of course this will lead to a different culture and philosophy. Orcs will value life (including their own) pretty low and instead aim for short-lived prosperity which equals the aim to quickly produce offspring. They just won't be able to develop a need for long-term plans if they aren't neigh-immortal as the Elves are.

[Alex12]

The way I see it, if they're sentient, they have a choice. If they're not, then by definition they can't be evil or good. I'd like to see, for instance, a Chaotic Evil unicorn. Just because it's funny.

Extraplanar beings from planes of good or evil (like devils and such) are different, because the good or evil is literally in their blood, but even then, I could see the (very) rare one who rebels. Those, though, would probably get killed or imprisoned as soon as they were found out, though.

[Yuki Akuma]

The way I see it, if they're sentient, they have a choice. If they're not, then by definition they can't be evil or good. I'd like to see, for instance, a Chaotic Evil unicorn. Just because it's funny.

Extraplanar beings from planes of good or evil (like devils and such) are different, because the good or evil is literally in their blood, but even then, I could see the (very) rare one who rebels. Those, though, would probably get killed or imprisoned as soon as they were found out, though.

This line of thinking is actually supported by the original Lawful outsider exemplars (and their reappearance in a Manual of the Planes web enhancement), Modrons, as Modrons who become Chaotic is an actual problem for them.

Also, I seriously doubt an Archon who became Chaotic Good, or an Eladrin who became Lawful Good, would be imprisoned or executed. Booted to a different Upper Plane, possibly.

[Charles Phipps]

In my games, I tend to go with the idea that:

* Orcs are naturally a vicious and violent race due to thousands of years of selective breeding.

* Orc culture is forced to survive in pretty inhospitable territory.

* The religion of Gruumsh is a compilation of Sparta with Vikings.

* Humans don't usually give Orcs much of a chance to explain themselves.

Then again, I've always liked portraying Elves as Genuinely Good and something that humans should emanate and Orcs as everything worst about mankind. One particularly crazy Forgotten Realms game had the players trapped in Zhentil Keep country. I went a little crazy in describing Bane worshipping Orcs.

* They wore Nazi uniforms and were fascists. I also had them routinely put on Black Robes with hoods and go "Elf Bashing" Their interpretation of Bane's religion was to slowly breed out humans and wipe out the elf and dwarf members with their superior stock.

There was just something fun about throwing Orcs and White Supremacy together.

I also had a Cthulhu-esque bit of fun with Masque of the Red Death. The Laumer Family of Deliverance style Rednecks. They secretly bred with the True Orcs below them while letting the Half-Orcs up on the surface. Conducting dread rites to Gruumsh inbetween playing Banjo.

Of course, oddly, in Eberron. Goblins and Orcs are just people too but in other campaign settings, I tend to make them the most vicious degenerates imaginable. I guess if I had more evil elves, I'd probably have more Good Orcs.

[Green Bean]

In my old group, the DM sticks to the 'usually Evil' part of the Monster Manual. That being said, he never handeds us the motivation-free, 'go out and kill that tribe of orcs before they raid anyone' quest. When we went after an orc tribe, it was because they burned a village to the ground and killed everyone. When we delve into a dungeon, we're attacked by monsters who were permanently turned evil/driven berserk by the tomb's former owner. Of course, that means that if we don't know why we're killing them, our group immediately goes into negotiation/investigation mode, so the whole thing seems to work out pretty well.

[Ralfarius]

I generally keeps orcs well within their stereotypes. For most games, they're encountered at low-ish levels, where the PCs know good is right and evil must be purged. It's not until they start getting a little higher in level that I'll begin throwing wrenches into their collective works.

[psychoticbarber]

In my games, I tend to go with the idea that:

* Orcs are naturally a vicious and violent race due to thousands of years of selective breeding.

* Orc culture is forced to survive in pretty inhospitable territory.

* The religion of Gruumsh is a compilation of Sparta with Vikings.

* Humans don't usually give Orcs much of a chance to explain themselves.

Most of this is pretty funky, except I have a friend who is a Norse Pagan who might take issue with his religion being portrayed in that manner. I think points two and four are the most important and clever. I personally don't like to think of any sentient being as "naturally vicious and violent"...their culture might drive them viciousness and violence, but I'm not sure about genetics.

Then again, I've always liked portraying Elves as Genuinely Good and something that humans should emanate and Orcs as everything worst about mankind. <*snip*>

There was just something fun about throwing Orcs and White Supremacy together.

While this is cool, I have a tendency to make some beloved, like the elves, the evil fascists. That's just personal preference, though , so don't be intimidated by it.

I usually use a race considered beloved by many to sort of illustrate that not everything is at might seem, or perhaps to make the vileness hit hard. If you think elves rock, and in my game they're calculating, long-game villains, it's going to hit you that much harder.

[Saph]

We play it by the book - Orcs are listed as 'often Chaotic Evil', so they're often Chaotic Evil.

Note that 'often' is not the same as 'always'. There are neutral orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins (lots of them in fact) and some good ones as well. So you can't make too many assumptions.

That said, I prefer games where different races have different tendencies towards good or evil. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a campaign setting can have hundreds of intelligent races, yet somehow every race has exactly the same balance of good, neutral, and evil individuals.

- Saph

[Roderick_BR]

While the book says that they are innately evil, you can make non-evil groups as you will.
This one game I played had a whole subculture of goblins that lived in a city, working as low rent workers, doing all the dirty stuff.
At the same time, the goblins from another country, that were party of an invading army where as evil as your typical goblin.
That manga based on WoW also suggests that on it's history line, that the "horde vs alliance" thing doesn't work much anymore, so you have groups with dwarfs, elfs, orcs and trolls working together (in fact, one of the main groups has a dwarf leading a group of orcs and trolls)

[gaymer_seattle]

I think it is important to remember that the D&D definitions of orcs, troll and goblins have a foot about thigh deep in Tolkein mythology. His orcs were elves that had been twisted by pure evil. Goblins were race of millions in the dark competing for limited resources.

One of the great things about D&D is that you can selective choose what you want to apply and how you want to apply it. I think that the growing philosophy is that the alignment system is somewhat meaningless under most circumstances. If your orc worships an evil entity and is known to make baby-kebobs then it is fair to say it is some variant of evil. If your orc is a rogue merchant selling you snake oil, you can say that he is opportunistic, not entirely truthful, but deceit for personal gain and deceit for the sake of deceit are two different categories. I'd say he is neutral greedy

[CrazedGoblin]

i know it isent goblin or rocs related but when i play a Tiefling i play them as an outsider not as pure evil walking the earth

[SoD]

I must admit that I like to go in for the 'orcs are people too' attitude, and I put that onto the other sentient races as well. Most of them. Demons and Devils are, essentially, purely, evil. Orcs can be essentially, purely evil as well. But they can be not essentially, purely evil. I create a lot of characters using those rules. They all have their reasons for differing from their alignments though.

Angels and archons, etc. are always good. Elves are not always good.

And so on and so forth. But I think, they're sentient beings, they have the choice. Of course, there are the beings that just ooze goodness or evilness without fail, however.

And that's my 2 cp worth.

[Yeril]

I like having Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds as Neutral

A orc is Chaotic neutral, sure he pillages, rapes and kills, not because hes evil, but because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive, He in CN in the same way as a dire bear who will maul and eat anyone within 100ft is TN.

As for creatures who are "Always" I tend to deviate from that too.

Ive had Lich's who were Lawful Neutral, sure they were made for power but theres no reason to be barbaric about it.

Ive even had a LG Marilith demon paladin who was a "Minor deity of repention"
Because she was LG she wasn't all red and demony she was beautiful and angelic.. with six arms and a snake taaail

I'd love to play a Aaimmar rogue, who uses his "Angelic ancestry" to gain trust and such, I mean who expects the guy with angel blood to be the one who slit the mayors throat.

[Yuki Akuma]

I like having Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds as Neutral

A orc is Chaotic neutral, sure he pillages, rapes and kills, not because hes evil, but because thats how his culture is, its their life, its how they survive, He in CN in the same way as a dire bear who will maul and eat anyone within 100ft is TN.

Dire bears have an average Intelligence score of 2, and therefpre cannot make moral or ethical decisions, and are True Neutral for the same reason creatures from the Far Realm are True Neutral. The alignment system can't quantify them.

Orcs have an average Intelligence score of 8. They can make moral and ethical decisions. If an orc is Chaotic Neutral, he doesn't go around killing and pillaging 'just because that's what his culture is'. Doing it just because of peer pressure makes you Chaotic Evil.

Now, if he does it because his tribe has no resources and no other way to get them... sure, make him Chaotic Neutral. If he does it just because, he's Eeeebil.

[Fhaolan]

For mortal creatures, I set cultures and individuals having alignments, but not races.

For example: The culture of orcs in my campaign world (in the area the current party is wandering around in) is Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic, as the culture prizes individuality. While they do have chieftans (it's a tribal culture), the chieftains rule because that individual has the strength and wit to take control of the tribe, not because some arcane ritual or tradition dictates who gets to wear the iron crown. The orcs don't do well in war situations, as they are great believers in having two heroes fight to determine the outcome of the battle, the rest of the battle is just there for something to do while waiting. The other races don't understand this, and have put no effort into figuring out why things go sideways so quickly.

Evil, as the culture is needlessly violent and cruel. There is no charity in this culture, and pity is a discouraged trait. Every moment is an exercise in dominance, and if you submit too often you die.

Individuals also have alignments. They may or may not agree with the culture.

Non-mortal creatures, however, have a different issue. Demons are Chaotic Evil because they are incarnations of Chaotic Evil. They can't be any other alignment in the same way a Water Elemental can't be dry, and a Fire Elemental can't be cold. They not biological flesh and blood. They are not mortal, they are not 'born', grow up, and die of old age. They are created fully formed from the material of their plane by powerful members of their 'race' or gods or something. [Note, they can 'breed' with mortal creatures but it's more like the elemental-whatever is adding a piece of elemental essence to the mortal 'child'. It's not 'breeding' in the normal sense.]

[Silkenfist]

Now, if he does it because his tribe has no resources and no other way to get them... sure, make him Chaotic Neutral. If he does it just because, he's Eeeebil.

The problem is...there is always a better way than pillaging and killing. You could try to work as a farmhand. Or hired muscle. Or try to mine ore and bargain it for food. Unfortunately, pillaging is the easiest option for the Orcs and it rarely has immediate conseuqences. Hey, most of the time, adventurers are sent, they are just going to slay a similar looking tribe anyway.

Humans, Elves and Dwarves are not Evil by nature, because it doesn't pay, not because they are genuinely more "good". OK, maybe they are genuinely more "good" but only because it evolved that way. They live in fertile regions, they have longer lifespans and they live in large communities, where one doesn't have to defend his life by teeth and claw at all times. Also they are monogamous, which I can't imagine for the tribal Orcs. All these factors will lead to less aggression and better grounds for developing moral codices.

[Yuki Akuma]

...What does monogamy have to do with being Good?

[Morty]

That said, I prefer games where different races have different tendencies towards good or evil. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a campaign setting can have hundreds of intelligent races, yet somehow every race has exactly the same balance of good, neutral, and evil individuals.
- Saph

Why? I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.

Of course, oddly, in Eberron. Goblins and Orcs are just people

And all campaign settigns should follow that example. Of course, there's no correlation between "should" and "will"...

[Silkenfist]

Easy. In a polygamous society, it is easier for the patriarch/alpha-male/chief or however you want to call the dude-in-charge to assemble a massive harem and father most - if not all of the tribes offspring. If the tribe consists of monogamous pairs, most males will father an equal amount of children. In a polygamous tribe, usually the most aggressive testosterone-packed male can reproduce effectively. Let a few generations pass and the polygamous society as a whole will have become more vicious and aggressive.

Think of the Lions as an example. Lion tribes always have an Alpha-Male who fathers all children of the tribe. As soon as a new male becomes Alpha, he starts killing all cubs of the former Alpha male, just to have the females of the tribe available sooner. (And for a good reason, too. After all the next Alpha male will do the same to his children) I know that morales don't apply to animals, but it should suffice as an example how polygamy encourages vicious behaviour.

[Charles Phipps]

Most of this is pretty funky, except I have a friend who is a Norse Pagan who might take issue with his religion being portrayed in that manner. I think points two and four are the most important and clever. I personally don't like to think of any sentient being as "naturally vicious and violent"...their culture might drive them viciousness and violence, but I'm not sure about genetics.

Note, I'm using Viking as shorthand for "Raiding" rather than "Farmers" and "Traders" who do Rain rites to Thor and burning boats of their chieftains.

While this is cool, I have a tendency to make some beloved, like the elves, the evil fascists. That's just personal preference, though , so don't be intimidated by it.

Yeah, I guess a part of me got sick of Elves being pretty and snooty beings being transformed into the bad guys in so many fantasy setting. I just liked the idea that the racists were degenerates.

One thing I'm considering doing for my favorite mini-adventure "The Swarthy Hog Inn" (named after the King's Quest sidequest), is basing it a bit on House of a 1000 Corpses this time around. There's something wrong with these set of Orcs.

But biologically, I'm considering Orcs may have just crapped out evolutionarily. They are a carnivorously sentient race and other races smell like food. They can season their meat but they need like 10 pounds of it every day.

When you have a tribe or more of it, well....those damn elves look awfully tasty.

Why? I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.

That depends how you define their role in the setting. In Tolkien, Orcs are literally magically-genetically engineered weapons for fighting Morgoth's wars. They're elves warped bent and twisted so they're creatures of pure killing machine.

Likewise, take the Daleks from Doctor Who. They're the best argument for "races should all have the same potential for good or evil" The Daleks wouldn't be nearly so fun (or the Borg or Cybermen) if they could be reasoned with or bargained with.

[Silkenfist]

Why? I don't see anything wrong with every race having the same potential for good and evil. Cultures may have alignment tendencies, but not races.

Sorry, but no. There are countless ways in which genetic disposition can have an influence on the development of morale. Hormone production, natural lifespan, time of reaching physical maturity, food selection, food availability, natural weapons, length of pregnancy, reproduction style, natural habitat, litter size, size difference between males and females, size variance between members of the species, length of reproductive period in the lifespan....

All of these can (and will) influence how easily morals can formed in a given group of the race. It is naive to assume that large genetic discrepancies wouldn't have any influence whatsoever.