Which villainous race(s) are next on the chopping block?

[RifleAvenger]

Very much so.

1) the people against racial alignments keep using stronger language than the books. They keep saying "always evil". I can't recall a single PC option that says always or strictly ___. WotC already left stock canon open for exceptions.

The wording is a carry-over from 3e, but it sums up 5e's broad strokes for races cast as primary antagonists quite well.

Goblins are small, black hearted, selfish humanoids that lair in caves... and other dismal settings... They crave power and regularly abuse any authority they obtain.

...Goblins are lazy and undisciplined, making them poor servants, laborers, and guards.

Motivated by greed and malice... goblins delight in the torment of other creatures and embrace all manner of wickedness.

Nothing in the rest of the entry counters these descriptions, offers nuance, or indicates this behavior stems from anything except the nature of the goblins themselves. Then Volo's Guide goes further in banging on about how depraved and unproductive their society is.

In this regard, 5e is WORSE than 3e, which used the "Always Evil" terminology. In 3e's MM1 goblins were listed as "Usually Evil," implying a significant minority of nonevil goblins. The 3e entry isn't great for goblins, but it also describes them in somewhat more neutral terms and certainly less actively malevolent than 5e's entry.

In summary, when I say "always evil" I'm abridging and paraphrasing what is in the published materials, only elaborated on in far more detail. Non-evil goblins are given a handwave in Volos. They are far from the only race written on in this manner in 5e.

Eberron and the Magic the Gathering settings break with this, but they aren't presented as the default setting (or setting template) like Forgotten Realms.

[loki_ragnarock]

Yea probably. But I'm not going to hyper-detail what my picture of it is or anything. Since my entire idea rests on making one character that I want, thus the background cannot yet be made until I have a specific game open to the concept. I could try to make the background and concept first, try to pre-design it, but I'd have to modify it for a specific game, which may not gel with what I want so I might have to change things which might make it lose things in translation. Furthermore since people are against the idea of orcs being playable or good in general its highly improbable that I will find one remotely like what I want in the first place, so I'm not going to make the effort to detail the character out unless I know I have a good opportunity to do so.

the alternative is of course GMing, but I already GM two freeform anime games about Dragonball and Naruto and the players for those don't seem to be interested in normal fantasy settings.

... so you want to play an orc in principle, but don't really have anything beyond that.

Fair enough. I want to play an otyugh in principle.

[Liquor Box]

Wizards doesn't pay big bucks to marketing research for nothing. If they're pivoting this hard into their current stance, it's because they stood something to gain by doing so, or lose by not doing so. Money, most likely, but support from the public and their staff (who levied complaints to management on related issues awhile back) is also a factor.

That's pretty good indication to me which way the wind is blowing. Especially since Wizards has tried to have its cake and eat it too on this matter for years, as pointed out by others in this thread ("Always" not meaning all, etc.). That ambivalent stance evidently isn't holding the bottom line.

Very true. So then the current status of some humanoid races being "usually evil" not "always evil" reflects most of WotC market's perspective? I think that's probably about right

[Sigreid]

That's fair, but WotC has more responsibility on that front... and any GM that is receiving requests from their players to change something should consider that, rather than trying to force them out of the hobby, that the person making the request is trying to push for the hobby to stop pushing them out.

I would argue that the road of accommodation, over done on a macro scale leads to bland mush. A clear statement that alien species are not reflections on any real world culture past or present, and the default presentation may have some characteristics that seem similar to some that do or have existed is simply a function of the limits of our human imaginations and anything can be changed to suit a table's preferences would be fine.

[Damon_Tor]

I would argue that the road of accommodation, over done on a macro scale leads to bland mush. A clear statement that alien species are not reflections on any real world culture past or present, and the default presentation may have some characteristics that seem similar to some that do or have existed is simply a function of the limits of our human imaginations and anything can be changed to suit a table's preferences would be fine.

{scrubbed}

[OldTrees1]

Very much so.

1) the people against racial alignments keep using stronger language than the books. They keep saying "always evil". I can't recall a single PC option that says always or strictly ___. WotC already left stock canon open for exceptions.

2) "with everyone super, no one will be" -Syndrome.
By eliminating any element of pressure/skewing toward a certain alignment, the significance of going against the pressure is also eliminated.

I seem to recall Page 1 of this thread was people telling you (the opening poster) that WotC has always had some moral nuance.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Reminder:

Metamagic Mod: Everyone, we've been down this road a number of times now. These conversations are topical and important, but they only work if everyone involved makes a real effort to do so calmly and courteously, to reign in the rhetoric and dial the intensity way down. The scope and nature of structural oppression is a very difficult topic to discuss without getting heated. But if you can't discuss it without getting heated (whichever 'side' you're on), do everyone a favour and stay out of it.

[TyGuy]

I seem to recall Page 1 of this thread was people telling you (the opening poster) that WotC has always had some moral nuance.

And yet the words "always evil" continued to get thrown around for 10 pages.

Also, were they telling me? Because I rather enjoyed content like volo's in which there was oodles of flavors of villainous. I also said on page 4 that the PC options have loose language on alignment like tend to, often, and most.

I'm all for fleshing out the archetypal villainous races and giving them depth. I'm not for the stance that it's never ok to have stock canon adversary races (species).

[Anymage]

I would argue that the road of accommodation, over done on a macro scale leads to bland mush. A clear statement that alien species are not reflections on any real world culture past or present, and the default presentation may have some characteristics that seem similar to some that do or have existed is simply a function of the limits of our human imaginations and anything can be changed to suit a table's preferences would be fine.

Movies have been doing that "this has been a work of fiction, any resemblance to real people living or dead is entirely coincidental" thing for a long time now. Does not save them from criticism when they use tropes that reflect unfortunate attitudes towards real world groups. In the case of orcs and drow in particular, they've been called out for long enough that a disclaimer and nothing more will feel like a brush off.

Doubly so because "they're dumb, savage brutes" isn't properly alien. If you want this tribe of people with grey-green skin to be basic savages, they're just bad guys you can't do anything more with. Savages as a trope are overdone. Give me a hive mind that considers us individualists alien. Or a group who needs extreme sensation, revels in the sensation of taking wounds and mortification of their own flesh, and who don't understand that the townspeople they visit to exchange violence with don't feel the same way. Hell, even demonic corruption meaning that they're overtaken by rage at the slightest provocation, with outsiders not knowing the many layers of protocol they use to avoid collapsing into pointless infighting. Give me something at least a little different if you absolutely must have a race of designated antagonists thrown in there.

[Tanarii]

Doubly so because "they're dumb, savage brutes" isn't properly alien. If you want this tribe of people with grey-green skin to be basic savages, they're just bad guys you can't do anything more with. Savages as a trope are overdone.

5e Orcs are a lot more alien than dumb savage brutes. They're zealots that hear the whisper of their god, and they're on a religious mission. All that they are follows from that, and it's next level savagery: Tribes like Plagues. Crazed Bloodlust.

Also: Equal opportunity employers, as long as you're mighty!

[Liquor Box]

Also, were they telling me? Because I rather enjoyed content like volo's in which there was oodles of flavors of villainous. I also said on page 4 that the PC options have loose language on alignment like tend to, often, and most.

I'm all for fleshing out the archetypal villainous races and giving them depth. I'm not for the stance that it's never ok to have stock canon adversary races (species).

I agree with this.

I quite like races like orcs and goblins being 'usually evil'. It means they are generally cast as villains, allows moral conundrums regarding how the party should treat a group that is usually evil, or indeed how they should react when they see others mistreating such a group. It also allows Razier's longstanding point that she wants to play a non-evil orc.

Then you can have other races, like demons or devils always evil, so you do know where you stand with them. Or at least almost always evil (if you object to the absolute on the grounds of free will).

Then you have a whole host of races (like dwarfs) who not usually or always evil - for those who don't really like dealing with races who are cast as evil by nature.

It just allows so much more.

Movies have been doing that "this has been a work of fiction, any resemblance to real people living or dead is entirely coincidental" thing for a long time now. Does not save them from criticism when they use tropes that reflect unfortunate attitudes towards real world groups. In the case of orcs and drow in particular, they've been called out for long enough that a disclaimer and nothing more will feel like a brush off.

Doubly so because "they're dumb, savage brutes" isn't properly alien. If you want this tribe of people with grey-green skin to be basic savages, they're just bad guys you can't do anything more with. Savages as a trope are overdone. Give me a hive mind that considers us individualists alien. Or a group who needs extreme sensation, revels in the sensation of taking wounds and mortification of their own flesh, and who don't understand that the townspeople they visit to exchange violence with don't feel the same way. Hell, even demonic corruption meaning that they're overtaken by rage at the slightest provocation, with outsiders not knowing the many layers of protocol they use to avoid collapsing into pointless infighting. Give me something at least a little different if you absolutely must have a race of designated antagonists thrown in there.

You are right, people do criticise movies that are not based on real people as being based on real people. To be honest though, there's no avoiding criticism, and that's not a realistic aspiration. DnD will be criticised no matter what it does, the question we have been talking about is whether the criticism is warranted.

In my opinion being clear that orcs are not a different race of humans, but a completely different species (or a monster as they've been designated in some editions) goes some way toward being clear that the criticism is not warranted. Doubly so when orcs are clearly far more distinct from humans than any race is from another. If a person sees orcs as representing a real world race (and noone in this thread has said that I don't think, they are just concerned that others might) then that probably says more about their own perspective than that of DnD.

The rest of the post just explains your preference for a different type of monster. That is you preference, but irrelevant to whether people who prefer orcs as antagonists should get 'usually evil' ones.

[Witty Username]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this is a 10 page conversation of "I want to play in a campaign setting I enjoy" vs "I want to play in a campaign setting I enjoy." And I think the solution there is, having more than one campaign setting, not rewriting/refusing to rewrite the one campaign setting to accommodate one group or the other. I recognize we have five in 5e (Wildmount, Eberron, Ravnica, Theros, and the Forgotten Realms), but the point is additional settings is probably the fairer way and most of the content is Forgotten Realms instead of other settings.

There is a concern that people have, that a setting they like will disappear, which I doubt is going to happen, but I get the fear. One of my favorite cultures in the Forgotten Realms is in that usually evil camp, the Drow. But, I don't think we should be concerned about people getting a new setting they like, especially if it has fun stuff we can steal for our games that still fits with what we like. Also, I don't think the idea of cultural complexity, is that different then what we have been getting in d&d. And the older settings have the advantage that the lore content can be grabbed from the earlier edition material while hypothetical new settings don't exist yet and therefore don't have material to draw from.

[Lord Raziere]

......Well if Eberron keeps being a thing I'll stick to that setting over any other and be okay. thats my favorite setting out of all the DnD ones. just don't expect me to ever like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance.

[TyGuy]

Doubly so because "they're dumb, savage brutes" isn't properly alien. If you want this tribe of people with grey-green skin to be basic savages, they're just bad guys you can't do anything more with.

If you want orcs to be more exotic there's neat published stuff that goes with their stock canon. Hand & nurtured ones of Yurtrus, or tanarukk come to mind. If you want even more alien orcs, you're limited only by your imagination. In these conversations I learned that WH40k orks are an evolved fungus and spawn from spores. That's pretty alien and can actually dove tail in with the Yurtrus stuff nicely if one wanted to rip elements of those orks.

[Sigreid]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this is a 10 page conversation of "I want to play in a campaign setting I enjoy" vs "I want to play in a campaign setting I enjoy." And I think the solution there is, having more than one campaign setting, not rewriting/refusing to rewrite the one campaign setting to accommodate one group or the other. I recognize we have five in 5e (Wildmount, Eberron, Ravnica, Theros, and the Forgotten Realms), but the point is additional settings is probably the fairer way and most of the content is Forgotten Realms instead of other settings.

There is a concern that people have, that a setting they like will disappear, which I doubt is going to happen, but I get the fear. One of my favorite cultures in the Forgotten Realms is in that usually evil camp, the Drow. But, I don't think we should be concerned about people getting a new setting they like, especially if it has fun stuff we can steal for our games that still fits with what we like. Also, I don't think the idea of cultural complexity, is that different then what we have been getting in d&d. And the older settings have the advantage that the lore content can be grabbed from the earlier edition material while hypothetical new settings don't exist yet and therefore don't have material to draw from.

Could even be accomplished in a MM errata in the flavor text with things like "Orcs in X campaign are allways evil. Orcs in y setting aren't evil but have a greater tendency for violence. Orcs in Z setting are lovely, civilized chaps defending their people from those savage elves. Orcs in your setting can be any of these or something else entirely. We share our ideas that work as a default in complete settings but it is YOUR game and world."

[Naanomi]

In Darksun, every race is 'almost always evil'

[micahaphone]

I prefer my villains to be villains because they do villainous actions, ludic savant hit the nail on the head back on the first page.

I don't like the idea of anyone/thing that's sentient being automatically "shoot on sight", let them earn that distinction . "We kill drow on sight because they're evil" is boring, "we kill drow on sight because slavers have raiding our town" makes sense, gives adventure reasons, and doesn't necessitate that all drow everywhere are kill-on-sight.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't like the idea of anyone/thing that's sentient being automatically "shoot on sight", let them earn that distinction . "We kill drow on sight because they're evil" is boring, "we kill drow on sight because slavers have raiding our town" makes sense, gives adventure reasons, and doesn't necessitate that all drow everywhere are kill-on-sight.

Neither does the first, really. Just because they're evil doesn't mean they can't be valuable trading partners to you, or that they bother you specifically.

[TyGuy]

I don't like the idea of anyone/thing that's sentient being automatically "shoot on sight", let them earn that distinction . "We kill drow on sight because they're evil" is boring

Does this actually happen at an appreciable frequency though, or is this a charicature phantom in people's head? I ask because in the past 7 years I've watched, listened to, read, and played a few thousand hours of D&D content and have not once seen the party encouraged or self motivated to go out of their way to kill humanoids that pose no threat and keep to themselves, simply because of "evil race lol".

[Sigreid]

Does this actually happen at an appreciable frequency though, or is this a charicature phantom in people's head? I ask because in the past 7 years I've watched, listened to, read, and played a few thousand hours of D&D content and have not once seen the party encouraged or self motivated to go out of their way to kill humanoids that pose no threat and keep to themselves, simply because of "evil race lol".

I once tried to convince the party that the clue we needed was on a known pirate ship in port because I wanted to fight pirates. I failed my deception check.

[Tanarii]

Neither does the first, really. Just because they're evil doesn't mean they can't be valuable trading partners to you, or that they bother you specifically.

Does this actually happen at an appreciable frequency though, or is this a charicature phantom in people's head? I ask because in the past 7 years I've watched, listened to, read, and played a few thousand hours of D&D content and have not once seen the party encouraged or self motivated to go out of their way to kill humanoids that pose no threat and keep to themselves, simply because of "evil race lol".

Right. As I said earlier, races being evil doesn't stop some players from interacting with them.

They'll just trust them less.

[Morty]

Nothing in the rest of the entry counters these descriptions, offers nuance, or indicates this behavior stems from anything except the nature of the goblins themselves. Then Volo's Guide goes further in banging on about how depraved and unproductive their society is.

In this regard, 5e is WORSE than 3e, which used the "Always Evil" terminology. In 3e's MM1 goblins were listed as "Usually Evil," implying a significant minority of nonevil goblins. The 3e entry isn't great for goblins, but it also describes them in somewhat more neutral terms and certainly less actively malevolent than 5e's entry.

In summary, when I say "always evil" I'm abridging and paraphrasing what is in the published materials, only elaborated on in far more detail. Non-evil goblins are given a handwave in Volos. They are far from the only race written on in this manner in 5e.

Eberron and the Magic the Gathering settings break with this, but they aren't presented as the default setting (or setting template) like Forgotten Realms.

It's not as if 3E (Eberron being a notable exception) frequently paid more than lip service to the "often" and "usually" part, either. It was technically there, but most descriptions focused on how awful those races were. 4E and 5E certainly both double down at "look how deserving of death they all are", but the spirit is largely the same.

[awa]

It's not as if 3E (Eberron being a notable exception) frequently paid more than lip service to the "often" and "usually" part, either. It was technically there, but most descriptions focused on how awful those races were. 4E and 5E certainly both double down at "look how deserving of death they all are", but the spirit is largely the same.

Personally I think people look to much into the Usually part. Like take a goblin, usually neutral evil. That does not mean all the other alignments would have an even spread. I imagine that the vast bulk of the remaining goblins would be either chaotic evil or lawful evil. (I tend to think of goblins as more strongly evil than strongly neutral). Next biggest group would probably be true neutral followed by lawful and chaotic neutral. So that means that likely the number of good goblins would be exceptionally rare.

Now you might assume that being neutral means they wouldn't be your enemy but if they live in a goblin community than its not an evil act to defend your friends and family even if they themselves are evil and provoked the adventurers in the first place. So them being neutral does not remove them as a combatant.

Finally we should not assume an even distribution of alignments geographically, using humans for an example the peaceful farming village is likely to have a smaller proportion of evil people than a hub of the slave trade. As Pcs most commonly interact with goblins when they are causing problems they rarely go on adventures in the goblin equivalent of a farming town so it would make the non evil goblins even less visible.

[Wildstag]

I know it's the opposite of the thread, but I'd rather like to see a heroic race get the same treatment. We have the goatee-evil version of dwarves and elves get "they're not so evil" treatments in the edition, but I want to see the "good" subraces get a "they're no so different" focus as well.

If things aren't inherently born evil, than other races shouldn't just be so predominantly good. It's not nuance that WotC is writing, it's just utopic almost.

Now you might assume that being neutral means they wouldn't be your enemy but if they live in a goblin community than its not an evil act to defend your friends and family even if they themselves are evil and provoked the adventurers in the first place. So them being neutral does not remove them as a combatant.

This is something 5e doesn't really cover in the way that 3.5 did, and I think it's the biggest weakness of 5e. In keeping the alignment system but not really explaining it, they foster a community that just doesn't like this underexplained subsystem. It's an intentionally dumbed down style of game design and it's one that makes it feel condescending, or like the dev team dislikes the older audience.

Neutral in 3.5 (in regards to good and evil) had "compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him."

In 5E, Neutral is "the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time."

I think the most damning part of alignment in 5e is that it seems to have intentionally been thought less of and had less thought put into it.

[Naanomi]

It's not as if 3E (Eberron being a notable exception) frequently paid more than lip service to the "often" and "usually" part, either. It was technically there, but most descriptions focused on how awful those races were. 4E and 5E certainly both double down at "look how deserving of death they all are", but the spirit is largely the same.

I mean... some of that is statistics, right? Say 1/20 Orcs on the Sword Coast are not evil/antagonistic... do we even have 20 orcs in modules? I don't feel the need for 'representation' of orcish minorities the way I may push for statistically uncommon real-world identities in media

[OldTrees1]

I know it's the opposite of the thread, but I'd rather like to see a heroic race get the same treatment. We have the goatee-evil version of dwarves and elves get "they're not so evil" treatments in the edition, but I want to see the "good" subraces get a "they're no so different" focus as well.

Which ones?

Halflings for example get some nuance with their association with rogues. Some moral and some not.
I have not seen a Gnome Dr Frankenstein, but I bet one exists.
Governments tend to be corrupt in RPGs.
The "goodly" subraces of Elves and Dwarves are stereotypically bigoted after millennium of warfare.
Celestials have examples of being non good due to either excessive zeal or through accepting evil.

I appreciate what examples exist and would value seeing more.

[Xervous]

Which ones?

Halflings for example get some nuance with their association with rogues. Some moral and some not.
I have not seen a Gnome Dr Frankenstein, but I bet one exists.
Governments tend to be corrupt in RPGs.
The "goodly" subraces of Elves and Dwarves are stereotypically bigoted after millennium of warfare.
Celestials have examples of being non good due to either excessive zeal or through accepting evil.

I appreciate what examples exist and would value seeing more.

I recall a trope of the majority of named gnomes that turn up in modules being secretly evil. Most vivid recollection of that being a (okay maybe it covers halflings too?) butcher who sells meat pies and brushes off accusations of cannibalism with “I’ve never eaten (own race)”

[Morty]

I can't say I remember the "good" leanings of elves, dwarves or halflings taken very seriously to begin with. Halflings might qualify, because of the jolly peaceful image they've got. Dwarves and elves have been human-like in morality for a while. Back in 3.5, you were technically more likely to meet a non-evil orc than you were to meet a non-good elf - yet corollary to my last post, their presentation doesn't bear it out at all.

[Luccan]

I know it's the opposite of the thread, but I'd rather like to see a heroic race get the same treatment. We have the goatee-evil version of dwarves and elves get "they're not so evil" treatments in the edition, but I want to see the "good" subraces get a "they're no so different" focus as well.

If things aren't inherently born evil, than other races shouldn't just be so predominantly good. It's not nuance that WotC is writing, it's just utopic almost.

What's weird is in a lot of D&D books elves, for instance, have long been described as mostly good... And also that they'll kill or main you if you step into their forest, no questions asked.

Also, IIRC, Volo's makes Gnomes look like the bad guys of the Gnome-Kobold conflict.

[KorvinStarmast]

I recognize we have five in 5e (Wildmount, Eberron, Ravnica, Theros, and the Forgotten Realms), .

The fact that we 'have' Ravnica and we don't 'have' Darksun makes me gag. {remainder or rant excised}

In Darksun, every race is 'almost always evil'

Yes, and that's part of the awesome in that setting.

Right. As I said earlier, races being evil doesn't stop some players from interacting with them.

They'll just trust them less.

Bingo.

What's weird is in a lot of D&D books elves, for instance, have long been described as mostly good... And also that they'll kill or main you if you step into their forest, no questions asked.

Kind of like in Lothlorien, now that you mention it. Gary Gygax, IIRC, also did up the Wild Elves (Grugach?) in Greyhawk (1e) who IIRC mostly lived in the Valley of the Mage and who were xenophobic to an extreme.