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

[Ettina]

Do you have a lot of players trying to play mind flayers and cambions? Wolves?

The line will always exist somewhere, at least in a system like DnD is built on

My first character in an actually reasonably successful campaign was a mind flayer, actually.

I'm pretty sure that most human players want to play human (as in, possessing mostly human-like motivations and psychology) characters. The only reasons I can foresee for someone wanting to play as the Alien and Scary race (if they've been convincingly presented as such):

• Aesthetics (I think the bug people look cool and can do cool things, I want to play one.)
• Sheer Contrarianism
• A disagreement with the DM/Setting Author about placing that race in the Alien and Scary camp in the first place.

In the first case, I don't think a player's aesthetic preferences should trump the rules of the world and the basic ideas of the narrative as the DM has proposed them. I would, to use your language, leave that player high and dry, and if that's a deal-breaker for that player, so be it.

I obviously don't respect the second motive.

For the third, it's all well and good if you don't like the conditions of the world as the DM has set them up, but trying to rebel against that with a character who simply contradicts it seems counter-productive.

None of those reasons really capture why I decided to play Szthrar'kek, my illithid psion, in my first major campaign. And my character didn't break the narrative the DM had planned. We did a premade module, and the only change we had to make was how we got the starting quest, because the folks in the starting town would've run away in terror at the sight of us. (The other player was a two-headed troll, equally monstrous.)

Now, if we were doing Waterdeep Dragon Heist, I wouldn't bring Szthrar'kek. But that's not a comment on the general viability of playing an eldritch monster who eats people as your PC, but on the importance of building a PC who is suitable to the campaign. It would be similarly game-breaking if I brought a lvl 15 character to a level 1-5 campaign, after all.

[Democratus]

What industry was backing the {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}? I don’t think 8bn$ (Random google number, corrections invited) yearly is at all on the same scale or scope.

No. The industry backing the {scrubbed} had much more money and influence than that.

[TyGuy]

Doesn't have anything to do with shape, it has to do with intelligence (although if you make the shape humanoid and say that they have the intelligence of an animal, there is probably a problem). The major thing that unaligned creatures have in common, besides being unaligned, is their low intelligence (except for awakened trees, which are smarter than a lot of fighters). They are not killing people because they are trying to advance a nefarious plan - they are killing to eat or to protect what they see as their territory.

If you have a species of unaligned humanoids that have enough intelligence to understand the morality of the world, but they act that way, then you haven't made an unaligned species, you've just made another evil species and are trying to call it something else. Exact same answer if you homebrew orcs to be unaligned.

So what happens when the table wants an adversary with more cunning, strategy, fantastical weapons, etc? When a bullette won't do but a tribe of nefarious greater demon spawn would?

[Naanomi]

I don't feel like there isn't some space between 'be aware of past racial tropes of DnD monster races, and take steps to minimize them both in play and setting design' and 'settings can have elements, including ones representing sentient beings, that are intended to be primarily antagonistic within the framework of high-fantasy and similar fiction traditions'; unless I am misunderstanding the core framings this seems like a false dichotomy

[Tvtyrant]

I think given Mindless Undead and Fiends are both part of the D&D umbrella, we don't really need other strictly evil groups.

[JoeJ]

Do you have a lot of players trying to play mind flayers and cambions? Wolves?

The line will always exist somewhere, at least in a system like DnD is built on

I had one player back in 2e who wanted to play a mind flayer. He also wanted to duel one of the gods in my world, in that deity's own stronghold. (In hindsight, maybe I should have let him do it, just to see his reaction to having his character effortlessly killed in the first round.)

[Morty]

I don't feel like there isn't some space between 'be aware of past racial tropes of DnD monster races, and take steps to minimize them both in play and setting design' and 'settings can have elements, including ones representing sentient beings, that are intended to be primarily antagonistic within the framework of high-fantasy and similar fiction traditions'; unless I am misunderstanding the core framings this seems like a false dichotomy

There is definitely quite a lot of false dichotomy floating around these threads. As I've said a few times by now, we can have all kinds of conflict, morally clear-cut or anything but, without passing moral judgement on entire sapient species.

[JoeJ]

There is definitely quite a lot of false dichotomy floating around these threads. As I've said a few times by now, we can have all kinds of conflict, morally clear-cut or anything but, without passing moral judgement on entire sapient species.

We can indeed do many kinds of conflicts. But we can't confront the horror of an evil capable of permanently corrupting an entire race of free-willed creatures without showing a corrupted race of formerly free-willed creatures.

[Amechra]

@ Korvin: how I know despite not playing Warhammer is that I've played Wh40k the more popular of the two and can extrapolate what the non-40k version is like from what little I know of it.

Warhammer Fantasy is a very different setting than Warhammer 40k. For one thing, it never went down the "xenophobia and war are the only answers" route that 40k did.

Basically, assuming that the two are similar in tone or whatever is like assuming that Warcraft and Warhammer are similar because they both have "war" in the name.

[Sigreid]

There is definitely quite a lot of false dichotomy floating around these threads. As I've said a few times by now, we can have all kinds of conflict, morally clear-cut or anything but, without passing moral judgement on entire sapient species.

*Without passing judgment on a figment of our imagination we agree to pretend exists for the purpose of the game.

[Lord Raziere]

We can indeed do many kinds of conflicts. But we can't confront the horror of an evil capable of permanently corrupting an entire race of free-willed creatures without showing a corrupted race of formerly free-willed creatures.

Hot take: lets just not do that plot anymore.

I mean everyone is going around not caring about my preference for a character choice, so I think it only fair that push back by saying we don't need this plot in return.

I ask again: why should I stop pushing orcs to be playable and nonevil, when you are unwilling to care or provide viable alternatives to pushing for that?

Warhammer Fantasy is a very different setting than Warhammer 40k. For one thing, it never went down the "xenophobia and war are the only answers" route that 40k did.

Basically, assuming that the two are similar in tone or whatever is like assuming that Warcraft and Warhammer are similar because they both have "war" in the name.

I mean your probably right, but lets look at the Orks specifically which is what I'm talking about:
Greenskin physiology

Not conducive to what I want in playing an orc. at all.

[RifleAvenger]

We can indeed do many kinds of conflicts. But we can't confront the horror of an evil capable of permanently corrupting an entire race of free-willed creatures without showing a corrupted race of formerly free-willed creatures.

How is that terror supposed to be fully conveyed without showcasing free-willed survivors for players to empathize with? Why does this evil corrupt along racial lines, and what is added or conveyed by it doing so? Wouldn't it be more horrifying if its effects were indiscriminate?

This idea of a broad, evil, and corrupting influence can and has been easily executed without creating a race of evil hats. Besides, the impact of injustice is better conveyed when it occurs to those we can empathize and interact with. A corrupted race of evil hats allows for neither of those, since the past-versions the players could empathize with are already gone.

[Darth Credence]

So what happens when the table wants an adversary with more cunning, strategy, fantastical weapons, etc? When a bullette won't do but a tribe of nefarious greater demon spawn would?

You have a reason for them to be evil. The unaligned was purely for people who want hack and slash without worrying about any kind of implications. If you want to be able to kill whatever you run across and not worry about whether you are murdering people, go with things that are dangerous but not intelligent enough that some of them could be redeemed.

Now, I'm not entirely clear here as to what you mean by demon spawn. If you mean residents of Hell/the Abyss/'whatever the evil plane of the world is' that work with/for the ruler of said plane, then great, have them be evil. I'm fine with things that are part of the ruling structure of the plane of evil being evil. If you mean a tribe of humanoids whose origin was the spawn of such but live on the prime material plane, like say tieflings or cambion, then I think it is better to have them all able to have their own life motivations. If you want them to be the bad guys, have them do bad things and have the players go after them for bad things.

I don't feel like there isn't some space between 'be aware of past racial tropes of DnD monster races, and take steps to minimize them both in play and setting design' and 'settings can have elements, including ones representing sentient beings, that are intended to be primarily antagonistic within the framework of high-fantasy and similar fiction traditions'; unless I am misunderstanding the core framings this seems like a false dichotomy

I think you are misunderstanding the core framings, mostly because of the word "primarily" there. I don't know that anyone is saying that elves or what have you cannot be mostly antagonistic to the players or the groups they are working for. That doesn't make a species always evil - there can certainly be multiple motivations for given groups to be at odds, which in a D&D world will usually mean in physical conflict. It could be that there is a cult made up of that species that is evil, and they are the ones most likely to be seen by the party; it could be that they are conflicting kingdoms that have fought over a strip of land for centuries and are still fighting over it now; it could be really any reason that the DM comes up with. But my thought is that if you can only get there by saying that a sapient species is always evil (or, for that matter, always good, because that shouldn't happen either), then I think the world is not going to be as good as it could be.

I think given Mindless Undead and Fiends are both part of the D&D umbrella, we don't really need other strictly evil groups.

100% with you on this.

[loki_ragnarock]

So if even DnD is not an acceptable place to play an humanlike orc, what is?

Because you can have preferences all you want, but if I lose out because of it, I'm not going to care how much you trot out "your preference is not guaranteed to be supported" justification, I want to play what I want to play, so if none of you care about what I want, why should I care about your preference? You don't care about mine so I don't see why I should stop pushing for orcs to be playable.

... aren't they? Didn't they appear as player material in two published books this edition? Maybe three? Volos, a different interpretation via Eberron, a reprint in Wildemonte if I recall correctly.

It appears you've succeeded in your aim thrice over. Good work.

But I'll ask this since I haven't noticed anyone doing so in my casual perusal; what's so appealing about playing an orc to you? What is it about them that gets your motor working?

EDIT
Well, hot damn this thread is moving fast. My geriatric self can't keep up.

[OldTrees1]

Respectfully, based on this argument, it seems that only the shape of the creature has any bearing on whether something qualifies as a "dangerous beast that cannot be reasoned with".
Suppose I introduce a species of unaligned humanoids that behave in the same fashion that bulettes or mosquitos do, as threats for the party to hack and slash at.
Suppose also that, inherently lazy creature that I am, I instead homebrew to make orcs unaligned, have them satisfy the position of "things that have no alignment but are fundamentally dangerous to civilization," and carry on.
Would either of those suppositions raise a moral quandary?

Ooh hypotheticals. I just caught up on the previous pages and this looks like a good place to jump in.


There is a concept of a moral agent (an entity capable of making choices with moral character) and the concept of moral status (an entity whose existence and status have moral weight). Generally people significantly overlap these two concepts. Although there are examples where people can name entities they believe have moral status but not moral agency.

If you introduced a species of unaligned (they are not moral agents) humanoids that behave in the same fashion that bulettes or mosquitos do, then they would have or lack moral status in the same way bulettes or mosquitos do.

If you, hypothetically mimicking a lazy creature, instead homebrew orcs to be unaligned (they are not moral agents), and have them satisfy the "things that have no alignment but are fundamentally dangerous to civilization", they would have or lack the same moral status as other entities that are not moral agents but act like those orcs do.

Would either of those suppositions raise a moral quandary? They could, and the second is more likely to raise a moral quandary because, since you do not explain why they are unaligned, it is closer to a 3rd situation that the humanoid bulette is to this 3rd situation.

Warning: This third situation takes the question asked by the previous 2 to an extreme. The equivalent but opposite extreme might be an unaligned rock. You have been warned.
Suppose I take a human and say they are unaligned. I say they are not a moral agent. I suspect people might ask "what changed to justify not being a moral agent*?" or "well, maybe they still have moral status despite not being a moral agent?".

So yes, those suppositions could raise a moral quandary, but I think having them not be moral agents (aka be unaligned) is going to raise fewer moral quandaries than having always evil.


*This is where you can get into trouble if you have an entity that is a person, and has free will, but is not a moral agent. People have preconceptions about what are some sufficient conditions of being a moral agent.

[Naanomi]

I mean everyone is going around not caring about my preference for a character choice, so I think it only fair that push back by saying we don't need this plot in return.

I feel like the 'anything that impinges on my player agency or options is bad' is a largely separate argument. Consider something like 'Hero System' with a core assumption of complete customization, few setting assumptions, and 'reasoning from effect' core design philosophies can really open the door to explore whatever concepts you want rather than being confined to setting limitations common in most fantasy RPGs

[Morty]

How is that terror supposed to be fully conveyed without showcasing free-willed survivors for players to empathize with? Why does this evil corrupt along racial lines, and what is added or conveyed it doing so? Wouldn't it be more horrifying if its effects were indiscriminate?

This idea can and has been easily done without creating a race of evil hats. The impact of injustice is better conveyed when it occurs to those we can empathize and interact with. A corrupted race of evil hats allows for neither of those, since the past-versions the players could empathize with are already gone.

And if you want an example of it done badly, you can just look at the Tolkien Legendarium. Orcs may or may not be corrupted elves - it's raised as a possibility but not confirmed. If they are, however, they still act like sadistic brutes all the time and serve as arrow-fodder for the good guys, so any tragedy or pathos is rendered moot.

[Liquor Box]

There is definitely quite a lot of false dichotomy floating around these threads. As I've said a few times by now, we can have all kinds of conflict, morally clear-cut or anything but, without passing moral judgement on entire sapient species.

Of course you can create those conflicts without evil species. But just because something remains possible without a feature doesn't mean you should remove that feature. After all you could create moral conflict without non-humans at all. That doesn't mean you should remove one of the tools for doing that.

The question seems to me whether having evil species does sufficient harm to justify their removal. You use the phrase "passing moral judgment on entire sapient species" in a way that implies that is bad. I don't think it is.

• Remembering first that DnD is a game all about moral judgment, there are definitions of good and evil, there are spells that detect it, there are spells that can only be cast if you are one or the other, there are classes dedicated to eradicating evil.
• So moral judgment is inherent in the game, so the question becomes whether it is reasonable to apply this judgement to a species, and not an individual or an action, and I think it is for one reason - the species is fictional. Passing judgment on a fictional species does not carry any implications into real life. Not only do the particular species (orcs, demons, sentient undead etc) not exist in the real world, but no other sentient species exist in the real world.

[Lord Raziere]

... aren't they? Didn't they appear as player material in two published books this edition? Maybe three? Volos, a different interpretation via Eberron, a reprint in Wildemonte if I recall correctly.

It appears you've succeeded in your aim thrice over. Good work.

But I'll ask, this since I haven't noticed anyone doing so in my casual perusal; what's so appealing about playing an orc to you? What is it about them that gets your motor working?

And if people like Democratus are right and it all goes away next edition, never to be done again? what then?

I dunno, I played a WoW Orc in World of Warcraft and I want to do that without paying $15 a month to get killed in pvp and grind instances while listening to chatspeak.

[OldTrees1]

We can indeed do many kinds of conflicts. But we can't confront the horror of an evil capable of permanently corrupting an entire race of free-willed creatures without showing a corrupted race of formerly free-willed creatures.

Permanently corrupting implies they don't continue to have free will? Would that make them unaligned minions? The moral agent responsible for the plague is clearly horrifically evil. Necromancer causing zombie contagion.

Or if it is not a moral agent responsible for this, then is it any less horrific? Zombie contagion outbreak.


Random inspiration that is not an accurate depiction of the topic:
Imagine an evil that is able to permanently mentally scar its victims. It does not override free will, but it puts constant pressure against that will power. The victim can still choose what they will do, but it becomes more mentally taxing that it was before. Such victims would still be moral agents because they still have their free will, but the constant struggle would likely result in many succumbing to the pressure for chunks of time. Maybe a Ghoul contagion outbreak?

[Avonar]

I mean frankly, racial alignments should be limited to creatures from the Outer Planes. Demons are chaotic evil, Devils are lawful evil, angels are lawful good etc. They are products of the very embodiments of those, it makes sense. Outside of that, they can be whatever really.

[loki_ragnarock]

And if people like Democratus are right and it all goes away next edition, never to be done again? what then?

I dunno, I played a WoW Orc in World of Warcraft and I want to do that without paying $15 a month to get killed in pvp and grind instances while listening to chatspeak.

So you have a very specific idea of orc culture and values as fostered by WoW? Is that then your preferred fantasy setting?

[Tanarii]

I feel ya. I'm fortunate enough to have a regular group that's not hung up on the latest woke crusades. I bet it's a fun sucking drain feeling like you have to walk on egg shells for your public games.
If you want to continue with public games my advice is to stay the course and run the type of settings you enjoy running. If people get morally indignant when there's no hatred or animosity coming from you that's an indictment of them, not you.
If nobody wants to play your "old problematic" style games then you just won't run games, but I'm willing to bet there's a silent majority of people still wanting to play classic D&D.

Aside from my anecdote earlier about a one shot, I've never heard any issues about humanoid race portrayal in my games or anyone else's, until WotC decided to make a big deal of it in the run up to Tasha's. Then it became an internet hot button topic. Given that my game experience spanned 3 game stores in a city famous for pushing the envelope on social issues, and many college age students, I find it hard to view this as anything more than a online tempest in a teapot, {Scrubbed}. Or I would, if WotC wasn't continuing to back it at the moment.

But I suppose I'll find out for sure in a few months when game stores reopen for regular play, and I try to restart my campaign with an explicitly "no Tasha's" rule.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what aspects you are talking about, I believe this is incorrect. WoW Orcs have been portrayed as not-evil for a very long time and were subjugated by WoW humans in the past. The ways in which the two cultures interact portrays racism, but the design of the universe doesn't uphold it, which is the issue with always-evil humanoids in D&D and the like.

Wow Orcs aren't necessarily evil unless they're fiend dominated. But WoW Orcs have far more cultural traits that have been called out in the past as caricatures of oppressed minorities, if one were inclined to view a fantasy race that way and if that's the standard certain people are going to use to just "problematic". Certainly it's one of the more common ones I've seen thrown around. And that's totally unsurprising. Because WoW Orcs have been humanized by applying specific stereotypes to them.

[Liquor Box]

Permanently corrupting implies they don't continue to have free will? Would that make them unaligned minions? The moral agent responsible for the plague is clearly horrifically evil. Necromancer causing zombie contagion.

Or if it is not a moral agent responsible for this, then is it any less horrific? Zombie contagion outbreak.

Surely you could have a range. You could have those who might just tend toward evil (say kobolds) and those who are permenantly corrupted (say devils).

I don't think members of a species always acting evilly is contrary to free will. The main way one would act evilly is to simply put one own's interests first untempered by concern for others. People avoid evil by tempering their own impulses by instincts such as compassion. An 'always evil' monster could be always evil because as a species it has not instinctive feeling of compassion (and other such instincts that restrain us from doing exactly what we want), but that doesn't detract from free will, it changes the monster's settings so that it instincts are to exercise its free will in particular ways. I guess it depends how you think of evil.

[Naanomi]

I don't know that anyone is saying that elves or what have you cannot be mostly antagonistic to the players or the groups they are working for. That doesn't make a species always evil - there can certainly be multiple motivations for given groups to be at odds, which in a D&D world will usually mean in physical conflict.

I think the middle ground of 'members of 'species X' have significant cognitive limitations compared to humans, and are innately very aggressive; and while examples do exist of 'species X' existing alongside other species peacefully, those are clear exceptions in unusual circumstances compared to setting expectations; and most civilized peoples are right to be at least wary of their presence if not actively defensive' can have a place in a successful fantasy game setting; without being explicitly racist (in the sense of real-world implications) in implementation

[JoeJ]

Hot take: lets just not do that plot anymore.

You certainly have the right not to use that plot in your game.

How is that terror supposed to be fully conveyed without showcasing free-willed survivors for players to empathize with? Why does this evil corrupt along racial lines, and what is added or conveyed by it doing so? Wouldn't it be more horrifying if its effects were indiscriminate?

This idea of a broad, evil, and corrupting influence can and has been easily executed without creating a race of evil hats. Besides, the impact of injustice is better conveyed when it occurs to those we can empathize and interact with. A corrupted race of evil hats allows for neither of those, since the past-versions the players could empathize with are already gone.

If I'm running a game in the horror genre I don't want players to empathize with the evil, I want them to be horrified by it. There should a feeling of inherent wrongness, an immediate gut reaction of this should not be.

[Zanos]

Some Warhammer stuff actually does a good job of exploring alien mindsets of sentient beings leading to conflict. Orcs reproduce by dying in distant places; there is enormous evolutionary pressure on a violent raiding lifestyle from birth. Dwarves categorically are incapable of forgiving, they cannot let go of a grudge or overlook a slight (this isn’t cultural, it is as innate as human curiosity or the like). Ogres have an overriding supernatural hunger that makes everyone else (and everything else) a potential meal even if they are very civil when well fed. The ‘fantastic racism’ is part of the setting and explored, generally not in anything remotely resembling a positive light, from multiple sides of conflicts.

See, I actually like this. Having all the various sentient species(because that's what they are) just be clones of humans but like...slightly inspired by some ancient or 'foreign' culture is lame as hell. Is an orc just a green human with a strength bonus and mongolian armor or are they actually different? The different warhammer factions have wildly different moral standards due to the circumstances of their creation. If you want to allow PCs of that species that's fine, just have them be a little bit more 'compatible' with others.

I don't think 'mindflayers, as a species, are Evil because their lifecycle and diet requires the death and suffering of innocent creatures' is necessarily in conflict with 'you can play a mindflayer PC'. You just have to have a mindflayer PC who is either among party members who don't care, who abstains, or who is rational enough to not engage in that behavior in a manner that greatly disturbs others(devours the brains of whatever passes for acceptable targets in your settings, or just hides it). You can have your cake and eat it too, a very good reason for anyone in the setting to generally loathe mindflayers, and a character who isn't necessarily awful but might still struggle with basic components of their nature. Hell, you could even just have a mindflayer who likes eating brains and just agrees to only do it to criminals because when he has enough of a sense of self-preservation to realize that eating the brains of innocent people gets you hunted.

Warhammer has (rare) individuals of species who manage to work together. Hell, even 40k has Rogue Traders and sanctioned Xenos. Unless you're a chaos worshiper, but I don't think anyone has any reason to ever feel bad about glassing any area containing those.

Debatable whether Warhammer Orcs are worse than D&D ones, because while they're undoubtedly more simplistically evil (see above comment from Korvin Starmast about the impact of Wargames on Roleplaying Games), they're also very much more of a setting-wide joke. Most of Warhammer (Fantasy and 40k both) are incredibly silly, and people tend to forget that too often.

It's hard to feel bad about slaughtering Warhammer Orcs, not because they're evil, but because they're so patently ridiculous; playing as one might be easier for the same reason.

I quite like Warhammer orcs. They are very clearly the happiest species in the setting. 40k orcs are relatively close, and I had a pretty damn good time playing a 40k orc in a rogue trader campaign. And sure he was partially comic relief but he also had his own philosophy that led to him being a legbreaker for a Rogue Trader captain. Plus, the stuff he made was the shootiest.

The reason it's hard to feel bad about killing Warhammer orcs is because even if they're losing, they're probably having a good time.

I think given Mindless Undead and Fiends are both part of the D&D umbrella, we don't really need other strictly evil groups.

Fiends, sure. Mindless undead I'm not so sure about. You can have them just want to mindlessly slaughter anything living they come across but then you're more fighting a natural disorder than something actually Evil. It's like a rapid animal. And in many settings mindless undead only do what they're ordered to do, so they're just tools.

I think you can expand this to cover any creature whose existence requires the suffering of others. So that would include intelligent undead like wights or vampires that have the consumption of life force or blood or whatever as a necessary part of their diet. And a good number of abberations. Then, as above, you have deviants that try to resist those needs as much as they can, to varying degrees of success.

[Lord Raziere]

So you have a very specific idea of orc culture and values as fostered by WoW? Is that then your preferred fantasy setting?

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.

[Segev]

Okay so I'm not going to play with any of you, whats your point?

That that is your choice, but that an expectation that most games will permit you to play whatever you want, no matter how outside the normal bounds, is not realistic. There will always be limits.

Further, I would contend that a lot of the efforts to supposedly "open up" character options by making everything more interchangeable also makes them less differentiable, to the point that sure, you can play a storm giant wizard. He'll be 6 feet tall and have stats between 8 and 20, with a distribution that looks just like an elf wizard's or a halfling wizard's. But he's a storm giant, honest!

[OldTrees1]

Surely you could have a range. You could have those who might just tend toward evil (say kobolds) and those who are permenantly corrupted (say devils).

I don't think members of a species always acting evilly is contrary to free will. The main way one would act evilly is to simply put one own's interests first untempered by concern for others. People avoid evil by tempering their own impulses by instincts such as compassion. An 'always evil' monster could be always evil because as a species it has not instinctive feeling of compassion (and other such instincts that restrain us from doing exactly what we want), but that doesn't detract from free will, it changes the monster's settings so that it instincts are to exercise its free will in particular ways. I guess it depends how you think of evil.

What you describe is similar to a different example (see below). You have a species that has strong tendencies to be evil but you have not removed their free will. So they can be non evil. They just are not expected to be non evil, can't be non evil without effort, and have not been non-evil in known history. Honestly this is very similar to the model I use for Beholders and similar monsters that are not always evil, but the party should expect each Beholder is likely to be evil their entire life.

Random inspiration that is not an accurate depiction of the topic:
Imagine an evil that is able to permanently mentally scar its victims. It does not override free will, but it puts constant pressure against that will power. The victim can still choose what they will do, but it becomes more mentally taxing that it was before. Such victims would still be moral agents because they still have their free will, but the constant struggle would likely result in many succumbing to the pressure for chunks of time. Maybe a Ghoul contagion outbreak?