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

[Liquor Box]

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.

If Orcs are usually evil how does that prevent you from playing one? You could either play an evil character (who kills anything he has a problem with), or play an orc who is an exception to the norm for orcs and is good.

[Warder]

What you describe is similar. 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.

Also this is closer to the random unrelated thought I had edited in (repeating below)

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?

Isn't that orcs in 5e? We've certainly seen examples of orcs who aren't evil, but the blood curse of Gruumsh constantly pushes against their own will. Some manage to overcome it, but the majority never do (and are encouraged by Gruumsh's war priests to not even try). I think it makes the orcs who fight against it successfully even more interesting.

[OldTrees1]

If Orcs are usually evil how does that prevent you from playing one? You could either play an evil character (who kills anything he has a problem with), or play an orc who is an exception to the norm for orcs and is good.

I think they are talking about DM that don't want a good orc PC.

Isn't that orcs in 5e? We've certainly seen examples of orcs who aren't evil, but the blood curse of Gruumsh constantly pushes against their own will. Some manage to overcome it, but the majority never do (and are encouraged by Gruumsh's war priests to not even try). I think it makes the orcs who fight against it successfully even more interesting.

I think you are right.

[Lord Raziere]

If Orcs are usually evil how does that prevent you from playing one? You could either play an evil character (who kills anything he has a problem with), or play an orc who is an exception to the norm for orcs and is good.

The first option is No, because I don't play evil characters

the second option I just plain doubt anyone will allow me to, because people don't like exceptions. Especially the ones who want evil orcs.

[Liquor Box]

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?

But to choose to resist those urges it would need some sort of compulsion toward resisting them. If it has no compassion or care for others why would it resist those urges.

I think the difference between us is that you see the driver to be good (or resist evil) as coming (at least partly) from reason and I see the driver as coming from instinct/emotion. I think that deciding what a good action is can be decided based on reason, but our core motivation for wanting to act good is not based on reason.

The first option is No, because I don't play evil characters

the second option I just plain doubt anyone will allow me to, because people don't like exceptions. Especially the ones who want evil orcs.

Then those aren't restraints arising from orcs being labelled usually evil.

The first (that you don't want to play evil) is a choice by you. The second (your group wont allow it) is about what your group wants. Neither arises from the orc being usually evil, and both are within the control of you or your group.

[Morty]

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

I don't think you can do that without wading knee-deep in unfortunate implications. And even if you managed to avoid them, I don't see a particular point in trying. What value is there in a species that's just dumb and aggressive most of the time, really? We can have a species or culture that often finds itself in conflict with others without trying to justify it by some innate trait.

[Naanomi]

The first option is No, because I don't play evil characters

the second option I just plain doubt anyone will allow me to, because people don't like exceptions. Especially the ones who want evil orcs.

*shrug* that hasn't been my experience, as a GM or a player... people playing 'exceptional' good examples of normally antagonistic races is pretty common; with some setting variability of how much fantastic racism may effect the roleplay of that character in terms of NPC responses to them

[OldTrees1]

The first option is No, because I don't play evil characters

the second option I just plain doubt anyone will allow me to, because people don't like exceptions. Especially the ones who want evil orcs.

To help address that doubt: There are DMs that are more than willing to see a good orc PC (as an exception or as an non unique outlier)

[RifleAvenger]

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, t{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} 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.

Well, then I'll counter with having been steeped in the issue since I started play in the waning days of 2e (so, going on three decades, just by my lived experience). With every group I've played with since university trending towards finding "Always Evil" races to be a distasteful hangnail.

The discourse surrounding this issue has been around for a long time, look no further than the webcomic this very site hosts for proof. Or any of the super early arguments over alignment and how to treat "Evil" aligned creatures, where Gygax took a brutal "kill 'em all and let the gods sort them out" stance that epitomized how awful the traditional D&D idea of "Good" was (is?).

Progressive TTRPG players didn't just spawn out of thin air in the last few months. We've always been here.

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.

Then you've just circled back around to wanting to use race as a signifier for an "Other" with which there can be no compromise, coexistence, or understanding. With all the problems that entails. The corrupted race is made into the "Evil" meant to horrify, rather than focusing on the mutilation, degradation, and enslavement foisted upon these sapient persons in order to suborn them to a malevolent force (system?).

I know which of those is scarier to me, and it isn't the one that primarily wants to recast the victims of atrocity as monsters themselves.

[Liquor Box]

I don't think you can do that without wading knee-deep in unfortunate implications. And even if you managed to avoid them, I don't see a particular point in trying. What value is there in a species that's just dumb and aggressive most of the time, really? We can have a species or culture that often finds itself in conflict with others without trying to justify it by some innate trait.

See my reply to you when you made this point on the last page.

In summary, just becuase something remains possible despite removing a feature doesn't mean the feature should be removed. The value in such a species is that sometimes DMs may want to use such a species, despite the fact that there are many occasions where they might not. That's why there are species which are usually evil, and species which are not, so you can choose which fits what you want to do. There are no such implications because there are no sentient non-human species on earth that might be being implied to also be evil.

[JackPhoenix]

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

More important question is "What's the point of having orcs if they aren't different to humans in any meaningful way?" Why not just have another human culture? What difference does that make for the game and for the setting?

And no, skin color or appearance is not a meaningful difference.

[Naanomi]

I don't think you can do that without wading knee-deep in unfortunate implications. And even if you managed to avoid them, I don't see a particular point in trying. What value is there in a species that's just dumb and aggressive most of the time, really? We can have a species or culture that often finds itself in conflict with others without trying to justify it by some innate trait.

What unfortunate implications, per se? I mean... if we had different hominid species on our planet (as we did at one time) they would almost certainly have distinct cognitive traits, psychological idiosyncrasies, etc that while perhaps not insurmountable under cultural influences and not without exception would be notable. Heck, for those who want to consider whales or cephalopods nominally sentient (by some operationalization) we already recognize this. Just because our current experience is a very homogenous sense of sentient species doesn't mean that such variation wouldn't be expected; expecting everything else to be fundamentally humanlike is anthrocentric in a way a robust fantasy setting doesn't need to be (and, as someone mentioned above, a bit boring)

[Warder]

Progressive TTRPG players didn't just spawn out of thin air in the last few months. We've always been here.

This is just a small sidenote, but I want to point out that you can certainly be progressive and still disagree with the reasons for the changes to these D&D monsters (or other D&D changes lately, like the Wall of the Faithless scrubbing etc). I don't want to suggest that it was your meaning to say otherwise, I just thought it was important to clarify.

[OldTrees1]

But to choose to resist those urges it would need some sort of compulsion toward resisting them. If it has no compassion or care for others why would it resist those urges.

I think the difference between us is that you see the driver to be good (or resist evil) as coming (at least partly) from reason and I see the driver as coming from instinct/emotion. I think that deciding what a good action is can be decided based on reason, but our core motivation for wanting to act good is not based on reason.

I don't think there is as much of a difference. People with free will do what they want to do. Those wants can be from a variety of factors including instinct/emotion. If you have free will you can theoretically choose to ignore all those urges but it takes willpower and you won't spend willpower unless you want to. If you have compassion you will find it easier to be compassionate, but you can still choose to be cruel. Your example is having a species that has lots of instincts/urges that push them towards evil. They can choose to resist those emotions, but why would they? What want do they have or reason do they think of you resist those urges? Perhaps none yet. So you can have a population that is likely to be evil their entire lives, without them lacking free will (like the "always evil").

So I don't think those would be "always evil" even if they are likely to be evil their entire lives.

[Lord Raziere]

More important question is "What's the point of having orcs if they aren't different to humans in any meaningful way?" Why not just have another human culture? What difference does that make for the game and for the setting?

And no, skin color or appearance is not a meaningful difference.

Too bad, don't care if you think thats more important. Its not important to me. Thats your concern, not mine. What makes you think I should care about your issues if its not going to lead to anything I care about? You keep failing to connect.

To help address that doubt: There are DMs that are more than willing to see a good orc PC (as an exception or as an non unique outlier)

*shrug* that hasn't been my experience, as a GM or a player... people playing 'exceptional' good examples of normally antagonistic races is pretty common; with some setting variability of how much fantastic racism may effect the roleplay of that character in terms of NPC responses to them

Okay.

I'll take your word for it, even if I don't much more than that.

[Zanos]

This is just a small sidenote, but I want to point out that you can certainly be progressive and still disagree with the reasons for the changes to these D&D monsters (or other D&D changes lately, like the Wall of the Faithless scrubbing etc). I don't want to suggest that it was your meaning to say otherwise, I just thought it was important to clarify.

Yeah, as someone who has been around for awhile and an IRL atheist, the Wall of the Faithless never bothered me as a setting element. It's pretty clear to me at least that the nature of religious worship in a setting with physical deities who grant magic and go to war and establish inter-dimensional domains for the souls of their faithful is not a commentary on real world religion. Being an atheist under such circumstances is pretty irrational, or based on something else than a lack of faith, since the existence of gods isn't a matter of faith, its one of fact.

To bring this back around to the current discussion, not everything in a fantasy setting is a commentary on real world morality or society.

[Liquor Box]

What unfortunate implications, per se? I mean... if we had different hominid species on our planet (as we did at one time) they would almost certainly have distinct cognitive traits, psychological idiosyncrasies, etc that while perhaps not insurmountable under cultural influences and not without exception would be notable. Heck, for those who want to consider whales or cephalopods nominally sentient (by some operationalization) we already recognize this. Just because our current experience is a very homogenous sense of sentient species doesn't mean that such variation wouldn't be expected; expecting everything else to be fundamentally humanlike is anthrocentric in a way a robust fantasy setting doesn't need to be (and, as someone mentioned above, a bit boring)

I think some people draw an inference that if different DnD species can tend toward evil because of their species then some human races can tend toward evil because of their race. Some might take it further and think of some DnD monsters as being representative of some human races.

I don't agree that the above is a natural implication that flows from DnD because the evil creatures are very clearly different species (wholly different creatures) and not different races within a species. I think the implications of likening another species (like an orc) to a human races is what is actually concerning. For all the other reasons you so clearly articulate, I don't think there is any problem with assigning negative characteristics to other types of creatures (other species). Further I think positive implications arise from a game system whereby different species can be evil, but all human races have the same alignment outlook because it implies that race doesn't matter, only wholly different species do.

[Tvtyrant]

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.

I think this is one of the biggest problems with D&D's undead. There was a ginormous thread in the 3.5 forum about "Why are Undead Evil" and it basically amounts to "Undead in D&D aren't really Undead, they are organic golems."

In most of the inspiration for D&D undead, they aren't just animated living but an inversion of the living. Cannibalistic and evil, feeding on those they love. In most of the D&D campaigns I have played in they are used that way as well, the base game don't do that for some reason. Imagine if Clerics had Turn Trowel as a power, or Destroy Robot.

[Luccan]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with D&D's undead. There was a ginormous thread in the 3.5 forum about "Why are Undead Evil" and it basically amounts to "Undead in D&D aren't really Undead, they are organic golems."

In most of the inspiration for D&D undead, they aren't just animated living but an inversion of the living. Cannibalistic and evil, feeding on those they love. In most of the D&D campaigns I have played in they are used that way as well, the base game don't do that for some reason. Imagine if Clerics had Turn Trowel as a power, or Destroy Robot.

I'm genuinely curious where the idea of reanimated skeletons came from for D&D, because I can't think of any fiction I've read/seen or heard of where they'd be intelligent. Unless they were the equivalent of liches, but then most of those I've seen were clearly based on RPG liches. Meanwhile all the undead that can think (everything that isn't some form of fancy skeleton or zombie) is almost universally evil

[MaxWilson]

The first option is No, because I don't play evil characters

the second option I just plain doubt anyone will allow me to, because people don't like exceptions. Especially the ones who want evil orcs.

Even if I'm running a campaign with an Always Horrific race like, say, neogis, if you really, truly want to play a neogi and it's not going to cause a balance issue, why wouldn't I let you play a mutant neogi and run him any way you want to? But don't come crying to me when people who don't know you personally treat you like one of the Always Horrific cannibalistic murderous slaving neogis you chose to make yourself indistinguishable from.

[Liquor Box]

I don't think there is as much of a difference. People with free will do what they want to do. Those wants can be from a variety of factors including instinct/emotion. If you have free will you can theoretically choose to ignore all those urges but it takes willpower and you won't spend willpower unless you want to. If you have compassion you will find it easier to be compassionate, but you can still choose to be cruel. Your example is having a species that has lots of instincts/urges that push them towards evil. They can choose to resist those emotions, but why would they? What want do they have or reason do they think of you resist those urges? Perhaps none yet. So you can have a population that is likely to be evil their entire lives, without them lacking free will (like the "always evil").

So I don't think those would be "always evil" even if they are likely to be evil their entire lives.

If you think of a devil who instincts heavily compel him toward evil, and have no instincts compelling him toward good, would he be always evil? And if so would you then classify him as lacking free will?

Perhaps he would just be almost always evil, and thereby not lacking in free will? I mean we are talking about concepts that are nebulous in the real world (the nature of free will and evil) and trying to apply them to a game.

[Naanomi]

I think some people draw an inference that if different DnD species can tend toward evil because of their species then some human races can tend toward evil because of their race. Some might take it further and think of some DnD as being representative of some human races.

I agree that we should stop using the term 'race' to describe different fantasy species, to reduce this kind of conflation

[JackPhoenix]

Too bad, don't care if you think thats more important. Its not important to me. Thats your concern, not mine. What makes you think I should care about your issues if its not going to lead to anything I care about? You keep failing to connect.

So I should take it you don't have an answer? Because you're starting to sound more and more like you're unwilling to compromise in any way, and it's everyone else who must bend over backwards to accomodate your preferences.

[JoeJ]

Then you've just circled back around to wanting to use race as a signifier for an "Other" with which there can be no compromise, coexistence, or understanding. With all the problems that entails. The corrupted race is made into the "Evil" meant to horrify, rather than focusing on the mutilation, degradation, and enslavement foisted upon these sapient persons in order to suborn them to a malevolent force (system?).

I haven't circled back around to that; I never left it. The point of having non-humans is that they are other. Now, being "other" doesn't necessarily mean you can't compromise or coexist with them (although with some others it does mean exactly that), but it does mean that they are not like us. They are not us with bumpy foreheads. They are not us with pointy ears. They are not us with green skin. Whatever it means to be human, they are explicitly not that. If that isn't the case, then there's no narrative reason for them to exist at all; they should be removed and replaced with an appropriate human culture. In some genre's however, including (but certainly not exclusively) horror, "they are not us, but there was a time when they were" is a very powerful idea, that I see no good reason to remove from the toolbox.

[Morty]

What unfortunate implications, per se? I mean... if we had different hominid species on our planet (as we did at one time) they would almost certainly have distinct cognitive traits, psychological idiosyncrasies, etc that while perhaps not insurmountable under cultural influences and not without exception would be notable. Heck, for those who want to consider whales or cephalopods nominally sentient (by some operationalization) we already recognize this. Just because our current experience is a very homogenous sense of sentient species doesn't mean that such variation wouldn't be expected; expecting everything else to be fundamentally humanlike is anthrocentric in a way a robust fantasy setting doesn't need to be (and, as someone mentioned above, a bit boring)

I'm generally very sceptical of creating fantasy races that aren't humanlike - I certainly don't expect D&D to ever accomplish that. Suspending our disbelief and pretending they're not just humans in funny hats is part of the convention. Orcs, goblins and whatnot have also always been humans in costumes - they just happened to be universally terrible humans.

Thus creating a fantasy race that's innately less intelligent and/or more violent is going to resemble creating humans with such traits more than anything else. It's probably a step up from labelling them as evil, but I don't think it's enough of an improvement to warrant inclusion.

[Lord Raziere]

Even if I'm running a campaign with an Always Horrific race like, say, neogis, if you really, truly want to play a neogi and it's not going to cause a balance issue, why wouldn't I let you play a mutant neogi and run him any way you want to? But don't come crying to me when people who don't know you personally treat you like one of the Always Horrific cannibalistic murderous slaving neogis you chose to make yourself indistinguishable from.

I don't know what a Neogi is, and I don't care. They are not a form of Orc, so your bringing them up is irrelevant to me.

So I should take it you don't have an answer? Because you're starting to sound more and more like you're unwilling to compromise in any way, and it's everyone else who must bend over backwards to accomodate your preferences.

My logic is
1. your goals and concerns leads to "alien evil orcs that can't be played"
2. I want playable good orcs
3. Therefore I have no reason to care about your goals and concerns
4. Therefore I should oppose what you want to make sure I keep/get what I want

get me? our goals are not aligned, therefore why do you think I would join your campaign in the first place or even help you figure out what to do about this, if its actively detrimental to my interests? You keep thinking that I care about orcs are not alien, that I care that orcs are hats like you keep complaining about, or how other races should be monstrous or horrific or whatever. and I keep telling that I don't....because none of is relevant to my interests and you fail to make it relevant to me by telling how those interests can coexist int he same game, which means you think they can't, so I must assume they can't coexist in the same game either. therefore why join your game?

[Liquor Box]

I'm generally very sceptical of creating fantasy races that aren't humanlike - I certainly don't expect D&D to ever accomplish that. Suspending our disbelief and pretending they're not just humans in funny hats is part of the convention. Orcs, goblins and whatnot have also always been humans in costumes - they just happened to be universally terrible humans.

Thus creating a fantasy race that's innately less intelligent and/or more violent is going to resemble creating humans with such traits more than anything else. It's probably a step up from labelling them as evil, but I don't think it's enough of an improvement to warrant inclusion.

Surely the more different you make orcs and the likes from humans, both in terms of physiology and morality, the less they will seem to you to be humans in costumes (which they are explicitly not by the rules)?

My logic is
1. your goals and concerns leads to "alien evil orcs that can't be played"
2. I want playable good orcs
3. Therefore I have no reason to care about your goals and concerns
4. Therefore I should oppose what you want to make sure I keep/get what I want

Nope.

People have already explained to you that usually evil orcs can be played and many groups would allow it. if you group doesn't you argument is with them, not with the monster manual

[Zanos]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with D&D's undead. There was a ginormous thread in the 3.5 forum about "Why are Undead Evil" and it basically amounts to "Undead in D&D aren't really Undead, they are organic golems."

In most of the inspiration for D&D undead, they aren't just animated living but an inversion of the living. Cannibalistic and evil, feeding on those they love. In most of the D&D campaigns I have played in they are used that way as well, the base game don't do that for some reason. Imagine if Clerics had Turn Trowel as a power, or Destroy Robot.

D&D has both. Mindless undead specifically seem to be 'organic golems', which is especially strange since flesh golems exists, and the more intelligent undead fill the role you describe. Ghouls and wights are relatively weaker intelligent undead that pursue and devour the living, representing warped mockeries of their former selves.

I'm familiar with the thread and as I recall my opinion of it more or less was that 'the books provide a bunch of decent explanations that a DM can use as suggestions for his setting.' And a bunch of people were very unhappy with that, for some reason.

If you think of a devil who instincts heavily compel him toward evil, and have no instincts compelling him toward good, would he be always evil? And if so would you then classify him as lacking free will?

Perhaps he would just be almost always evil, and thereby not lacking in free will? I mean we are talking about concepts that are nebulous in the real world (the nature of free will and evil) and trying to apply them to a game.

Being constrained or influenced by your circumstances is not the same as lacking free will. Humans have instincts that inhibit certain choices under certain circumstances, making them very unlikely, but could still in theory choose to do those unlikely things. A fiend not being able to choose to do good is not the same thing as fiends never choosing to do good.

So I should take it you don't have an answer? Because you're starting to sound more and more like you're unwilling to compromise in any way, and it's everyone else who must bend over backwards to accomodate your preferences.

Some people are not worth the effort it takes to appease. I find that very little is lost by not accommodating them.

[Sigreid]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with D&D's undead. There was a ginormous thread in the 3.5 forum about "Why are Undead Evil" and it basically amounts to "Undead in D&D aren't really Undead, they are organic golems."

In most of the inspiration for D&D undead, they aren't just animated living but an inversion of the living. Cannibalistic and evil, feeding on those they love. In most of the D&D campaigns I have played in they are used that way as well, the base game don't do that for some reason. Imagine if Clerics had Turn Trowel as a power, or Destroy Robot.

Undead once upon a time were animated with by tapping into the negative material plain. The negative material plane channel basically made them have a never ending hunger for life energy. The way the plane was always portrayed I have always pictured it as a massive unending hunger.

[OldTrees1]

If you think of a devil who instincts heavily compel him toward evil, and have no instincts compelling him toward good, would he be always evil? And if so would you then classify him as lacking free will?

Perhaps he would just be almost always evil, and thereby not lacking in free will? I mean we are talking about concepts that are nebulous in the real world (the nature of free will and evil) and trying to apply them to a game.

I can guess that devil will always be evil, but they have free will and could change. So I would not say they would necessarily always be evil. I would still suspect they will go their entire existence as evil. Even at the end of their existence, if they were evil their entire "life", since they had free will they had the opportunity to be non evil.

The difference is between "someone that had, but never utilized, the ability to be non evil" and "someone that can't be non evil".