"Usually Evil" - Something of a rant

[Dan_Hemmens]

Over on the "kill teh orcs" thread, people have been making the distinction between an "always evil" race and a "usually evil" race.

The more I think about this, the more ludicrous this gets. The more I think about it, the more "usually evil" sounds like an awful annoying cop-out.

As far as I'm concerned you can play a fantasy race in one of two ways. Either you can treat them as a metaphor: Elves are fading glory, Orcs are rapacious destruction, or you can treat them as real sentient beings.

If you treat them as a metaphor, the "usually" label is meaningless. An Orc is like a disease: it kills because it is in its nature to kill, and you can't feel bad about killing an Orc any more than you feel bad about taking antibiotics.

If you treat them as real people, though, the "usually" lable becomes even worse. Somehow we are expected to believe that this sentiet, free-willed race universally and knowingly chooses an "evil" lifestyle. This is completely mad.

A lot of people cling to the "usually" label because they fear that the idea of an "evil race" is equivalent to real world racism. In a sense I suppose it is, but only *if* you treat that race as a real group of people, rather than a metaphor. If, however, you treat them as real people, then saying "Orcs, as a race, are evil, but rarely one will rise above his roots" is really no better. In fact it's a good deal worse, because suddenly your Orcs go from being rapacious embodiments of slaughter to being a literally evil race, a race of beings which is somehow morally bankrupt by virtue of its genetics.

Am I missing something? Is there some serious value in the "usually evil" label beyond a pure cop out?

[Fiery Diamond]

No, in fact, there is not some serious value beyond that of a cop-out. However, there is quite a big (if wrong-I'm not disagreeing with you) reason for this cop-out's existence. That is the desire of the game creators to create a situation that will allow you to have races other than humans that you can fight because they are other races, without feeling like you're being a racist, yet still give DMs the freedom to have members of said races be good people if they want to. In other words, it's an attempt to "have your cake and eat it too." Which, of course, never works out.

Basically, I agree with you - it's a cop-out. I know WHY they did it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a cop-out.

-Fiery Diamond

[Zincorium]

This is, in a large part, due to the fact that evil is a very broad and vague term in D&D (look at all the alignment threads and you'll see some good examples).

The core concept of orcish society in D&D is that they are a brutal species with very, very many enemies. They kill the weak in their own society because it makes the tribe strong, something they desperately need, and they also raid and enslave other races because it's the only way for them to get ahead.

Orcish religion takes this even another step. Remember, this is D&D, the gods have their fingers in everything.

Gruumsh is perennially angry because, hey, he freaking got his eye put out and his people are being slaughtered everyday for the change in their pockets. So he uses the orcs to lash out at all the races around them even if there's not much reason to. They've changed the character of orcs a lot in recent editions, but without a pantheon change it's not going to mean much.

The end result of all this is that orcs are taught from day one that cruelty to those around them is good, that the elves, dwarves, and humans have stolen the land and goods that rightfully belong to the orcs, and that they shouldn't feel bad for doing anything we'd consider evil.

Am I making sense with this, Dan?

[Sir Iguejo]

Being "Usually Evil" doesnt mean that the race is compound of merciless murderers and need to be exterminated like some kind of disease. It means that more than 50% of the race members is evil.

Being Evil does not implies senseless killing. I look at it more as selfishness. Take a look at it: probably most orc commoners have never killed anyone. Being Evil mean that they would not hesitate to kill if they need someone dead.

[Rigon]

that "usually evil" is a statistical data which points out probability.
it means that the most common value of alignment among the units of a group is evil. but there are other alignments around which in total might return a greater number than the number of evil.

statistics and nothing more. it's function is a help as a default value for alignment and also pointing out how often this might differ from the default value.

racism is not something which can be even related to this data. it's a typical example of text misinterpretation. we need monsters to slay as that is one of the most common ways to gain experience and loot. and this is justified by a convenient alignment system (which is also very often overridden by plots and player decisions).

[Serpentine]

I'd have to go look through all the monster manuals to be sure, but I believe "Always Evil" is reserved for those creatures that are completely, irrecovibly (wow, I butchered that word. Go me) Evil, the ones by whose very existance they increase the amount of pure Evil in the world, the ones who embody that very alignment - fiends, for example. "Usually Evil" creatures, on the other hand, may be innately inclined to be Evil, resulting in Evil societies, which then reinforce Evil in their offspring, raising Evil adults, which enforce their Evil societies, and so on. There may be some Good groups, but such groups would be likely to be rare and unstable due to their innate tendencies to violence, sadism, greed or whatever. Individuals may be Good through positive influence teaching them to restrain their natural tendency. Eh, it works okay for me.

Would this be an okay place for me to bring up my own issues with "Always Evil"? Goff, don't read this.

Spoiler

Show

I'm going to throw a vampire NPC in my game. The party has been entrusted with delivering something to him to keep it safe, and he's going to be rather powerful, so I'm not exactly wanting them to attack him. Anyway, he's going to be noble, in several senses of the word, considering the people in his village to be his charges and his responsibility. He will suck their blood, but it will be more of a job that the young are expected to do for him (like serfs tilling the field, sort of thing). He treats his people well, protects them from danger, is kind to them - I'm thinking that if anyone is really freaked out by the idea of having him suck their throats, he'll make other arrangements or simply give them other duties. On the other hand, he's a vampire. His very existence is Evil. It could easily be argued that if he were to be anything but Evil, he should end his existence (of course, it could then be counter-argued that if he did that then his people would be left to the other vampires and werewolves that infest that country, but that's beside the point). So. Vampires are undead and undead are Always Evil. Aside from (or in addition to, or something) him being a unique creature - a possibility allowed for in the rules - can an undead creature be non-Evil (this particular fellow is likely to be Lawful Neutral) through acts alone?
Continuing from this line of thought, I've been pondering its significance to the Alignment spells. I've heard people say that they hate them and get rid of them or whatever. I don't want to ban them, but we're relatively free with our alignments - or at least the definitions of them. I was thinking, could they, perhaps, just detect those creatures that totally embody that alignment or have it though their mere existence, and/or those creatures who are completely and utterly immersed in it? That is, an unusually selfish person who likes tying tin cans to cats' tails and imagines their neighbours dying in gruesome ways wouldn't be effected by them, but a fiend or a devoted cleric of an evil god would. Does that sound reasonable?

Sorry if that stuff doesn't fit so well here...

[Saph]

As far as I'm concerned you can play a fantasy race in one of two ways. Either you can treat them as a metaphor: Elves are fading glory, Orcs are rapacious destruction, or you can treat them as real sentient beings.

What? No. Where are you getting this?

First, you haven't even got the label right. Orcs aren't "Usually Evil", they're "Often Chaotic Evil". There's a difference.

Second, haven't you ever heard of probability? There's a middle ground in between "Every member of this race is evil" and "No member of this race has any inclination towards evil at all". You seem to be saying that every race must either be 100% one alignment, or their alignment must be a complete blank, with nothing said about it at all. This is just silly.

D&D already has races that are paragons of their alignment and always the same - they're called outsiders. Humanoids and monstrous humanoids are something quite different.

- Saph

[Bavarian itP]

The more I think about this, the more ludicrous this gets.

Well, I have shocking news for you: Everything about the D&D alignment system is about as ludicrous, stupid and superfluous as a game rule can possibly be.

you can treat them as real sentient beings

I have more shocking news for you: In D&D, the so-called "monster races" aren't designed to be portrayed as sentient beings. They are designed to be sword food.

[MorkaisChosen]

The way I see it, it's not about genetics but culture. An orc's genetics make him big, tough and maybe a bit stupid. The orc's culture (Kultur?) makes him evil except in the instances where either one rebels against it (Drizzorct Do'Orcden) or they're brought up by another race.

That's unless you go Tolkien and say they're made from the tortured and warped descendants of elves and are tainted by the vil of their creation by the Dark Lord.

[kamikasei]

If you treat them as real people, though, the "usually" lable becomes even worse. Somehow we are expected to believe that this sentiet, free-willed race universally and knowingly chooses an "evil" lifestyle. This is completely mad.

No we're not, and where are you getting this from?

They're "Often Chaotic Evil" because the alignment most common among a group of orcs is Chaotic Evil. It's similar to how (though I can't swear the same magnitude qualifier is used) Elves tend more towards Chaotic Good than other alignments. Humans are specifically stated not to have any single most common alignment; this is not true for every other "non-monstrous" race.

So yeah, orcs are more often Chaotic Evil than any other alignment, but not necessarily more often CE than not, if you see the distinction. They are racially biased towards brute strength over intelligence or wisdom and culturally biased towards brutality, rapaciousness and, in general, evil. The same (regarding culture, not race) could probably be said of quite a few human cultures.

[MorkaisChosen]

Just look at some of Britain's past for an example- Witch Trials and bruning (Insert denomination of Christianity here) at the stake for not being (insert other denomination) like (insert ruler) could easily be argued to be evil.

So as not to offend anyone I've picked my own country here, but the same can probably be done for most.

[Swordguy]

Of course, the "often evil" descriptor ignores the fact that in such a race, combined with the orcish cultural acceptance of violence, would mean that those who aren't CE would be killed as weak or "unwilling to do what needs done". Everyone needs to be CE to keep up.

[MorkaisChosen]

Killed as weak or escape into the wilds, learn ranger skills and start dual-wielding scimitars.

[Demented]

If you treat them as real people, though, the "usually" lable becomes even worse. Somehow we are expected to believe that this sentiet, free-willed race universally and knowingly chooses an "evil" lifestyle. This is completely mad.

Why?
It seems pretty convenient to me. Guy steals from you, chop his head off. Guy spits on your sidewalk, chop his head off. Guy hits on your daughter, chop his head off. Someone chops your daughter's head off, you chop his head off, then you instate rules whereby chopping someone's head off must be done in a Ritual of Honor to tone down the chopping a little. Someone inevitably gets mad at you, so to demonstrate, you chop his legs and arms off, declare a Ritual of Honor, then chop his head off. Of course, everyone gets with the program, because you're the guy who's really good at chopping people's heads off, and no "sentient free-willed" being is going to argue with that.
Thus begins Evil society.

Afterwards, you find that your tribe is a bit short of labor. So, you go plundering the nearby hippy elf village because... Well, actually the elves have that annoying proficiency with elven longbows and they seem to be the mopey foresty types rather than hippies, so you decide to raid some human villages instead. This doesn't require a whole lot of thought to decide that you're going to be evil today. The situation is just what it is: You need loot, humans have loot, they're close by, easy prey, and you're naturally good at chopping people's heads off. What's to argue? So you go off and terrorize some human villages.

Then you get home, with all your loot and fresh female slaves, and some guy's been causing a mess in your kitchen with your apparently unfaithful wife. Which is no big loss, since she has the face of a pig. Literally. So, you chop off a couple more heads in a ritual of honor. At this point you're tired and don't want to bother with chopping people's heads off (there are better things to be done tonight), so you decide to split the tribe up a little and send the more hotheaded youngsters off in a warband with some ambiguous goal to cause mayhem and destruction. They're strapping young orc lads with lots of super-goblinoid-testosterone, and also happen to inspired by your supply of loot and female slaves, so they're totally cool with that. Odds are that they'll be slain by a group of PCs by your understanding, but they aren't thinking far enough ahead to realize it. You, however, don't mind, because they're a nuisance anyway, and you'll be free to exploit their families when they're gone. That's before you even get to the slaves. Life is good. No, I'm sorry, life is evil. But it's good. In an evil sort of way.

Unfortunately for you, the youngsters somehow survive their adventures and return with their own phat lewts. One of the particularly strong ones has even taken a few PC levels from the experience gained, and decides he doesn't like you. In a stroke of uncharacteristic brilliance, he approaches you with his latest idea: The Ritual of Succession, and chops your head off. While you aren't alive to savor the moment, he adds a few more rituals to the list, whips up the rest of the males into a glorifying battle frenzy, and goes off to conquer that hippy elf village that you had long since forgotten.

What's so bad about that?

[Swordguy]

Killed as weak or escape into the wilds, learn ranger skills and start dual-wielding scimitars.

Yeah.

...

Better they be Tolkein-style orcs to be killed on sight than that.

[Learnedguy]

This is why I avoid killing stuff that's able to say "ouch".

[Curmudgeon]

Well, I have shocking news for you: Everything about the D&D alignment system is about as ludicrous, stupid and superfluous as a game rule can possibly be.

The standard operating procedure for most D&D adventuring parties is:

1. See it.
2. Kill it.
3. Feel good about doing so.

In any system where there's a rational relationship between actions and consequences, pretty much all PCs must be treated as "evil". The D&D alignment system is merely a tool to provide an excuse for killing, because killing is what generates positive feedback in D&D.

Yes, this is ludicrous and stupid. Alas, it's not superfluous; it's a purposeful part of the game design to get the action going, saving immature players the burden of any moral decisions that would get in the way of combat.

[Mr. Friendly]

As everyone has pointed out, its just a guideline.

Honestly, its a guideline of a guideline.

All it means is that most of the Orcs you meet will be evil.

However, the vaguery is there for important reasons.

Has this situation ever come up (I know it often comes up in our games and I love busting my fellow players):

Your party heroically battles its way into the Orcish Stronghold (or Bugbear or Ogre or Goblin or whatever) and kills the warriors, the chiefs, the lieutenants, the sergeants, the second and third string warriors, the chef, the tailor, butcher, the baker and the candlestickmaker. Now, all that is left is a huddling mass of screaming and crying Orcish women and children.

What do you do?

Most players I play with, the answer: KILL THEM THEY ARE EVIL!!!!!!

I never let that go and have in fact rolled initiative against my own parties to stop them. (Only when I play good characters obviously or neutral who has a motive)

The typical reasoning is that Orcs are evil and if we let the women and children live they will just grow up to do the same evil stuff. However, that is of course judging children and non-combatants guilty of the crimes of their society and sentancing them to death for the sins of their fathers.

A good character who kills an unarmed (or even a feebly armed honestly) Orcish woman or child has commited murder without question.

I think part of the point is moral ambiguity. It teaches players a fundamentally important lesson that every human being needs to have ingrained in their souls: Not all sentient beings are alike and you cannot punish someone for a crime that another committed. Collective punishment is a warcrime.

Yes, of course, this is D&D and it is a game. People commit genocide all the time and its no big deal. Of course most people are neutral. Generally though player characters are Often Good being good is a special responsibility. You can't just run around willy-nilly exterminating races you don't like.

This is a really rambling post isn't it?

[Mr. Friendly]

Demented:

I see what you did there.

+1 would read again.

[kpenguin]

You know, quite a few people might classify humans as "usually evil"...

[Swordguy]

You can't just run around willy-nilly exterminating races you don't like.

Why not?

I mean, you're Good, right? That means you have respect for life, right? At what point does the suffering of innocents you'll stop by butchering the orc families outweigh the suffering you allow to happen by letting them live?

Some of them might grow up to not be evil. But the statistical majority of them will almost certainly be, unless you butcher the women and steal the children to be raised differently (which is still Evil), and Orcs definitely have a fiercely shamanistic culture that's centered around a divine mandate (by a God who really exists, no less!) of enslaving or wiping everyone else out.

If you say future actions never justify something like that, then you're committing an evil act via dooming others to be killed directly through your own inaction. You could have stopped them and didn't - which makes you just as bad as them.

The end point should be "what society would you rather see inherit the planet?" Hint: it's not the one centered around enslavement of everybody else.

People are looking at this through a 21st century lens of being taught that all viewpoints are valid and everyone deserves to get a chance. Instead, look at it through the lens of an 8th-century Saxon, or even better, an Iron Age warrior. The Race Wars in D&D are a zero-sum clash. In the long run, who will do more good if they come out on top?

[Spiryt]

Honestly, I don't know why people bother so much about alingment in D&D.

Yes, many of Orc are evil. What;s the matter?

If I need whole tribe of neutral Orcs - there. If I need a tribe/band/whatever of wandering bastards - no problem.

"Usually evil" is a guideline - orcs have tendency to be nasty guys - and thats all.

[Telonius]

As everyone has pointed out, its just a guideline.

Honestly, its a guideline of a guideline.

All it means is that most of the Orcs you meet will be evil.

However, the vaguery is there for important reasons.

Has this situation ever come up (I know it often comes up in our games and I love busting my fellow players):

Your party heroically battles its way into the Orcish Stronghold (or Bugbear or Ogre or Goblin or whatever) and kills the warriors, the chiefs, the lieutenants, the sergeants, the second and third string warriors, the chef, the tailor, butcher, the baker and the candlestickmaker. Now, all that is left is a huddling mass of screaming and crying Orcish women and children.

What do you do?

Most players I play with, the answer: KILL THEM THEY ARE EVIL!!!!!!

I never let that go and have in fact rolled initiative against my own parties to stop them. (Only when I play good characters obviously or neutral who has a motive)

The typical reasoning is that Orcs are evil and if we let the women and children live they will just grow up to do the same evil stuff. However, that is of course judging children and non-combatants guilty of the crimes of their society and sentancing them to death for the sins of their fathers.

A good character who kills an unarmed (or even a feebly armed honestly) Orcish woman or child has commited murder without question.

I think part of the point is moral ambiguity. It teaches players a fundamentally important lesson that every human being needs to have ingrained in their souls: Not all sentient beings are alike and you cannot punish someone for a crime that another committed. Collective punishment is a warcrime.

Yes, of course, this is D&D and it is a game. People commit genocide all the time and its no big deal. Of course most people are neutral. Generally though player characters are Often Good being good is a special responsibility. You can't just run around willy-nilly exterminating races you don't like.

This is a really rambling post isn't it?

Killing the women would be neutral, if they're armed. (Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity impaler). Killing the children would be evil.

[Person_Man]

In my games:

Often Evil: Most members of the species are Evil, but there is known faction or community that is not. For example, most orcs are Evil barbarians who roam the countryside in clans. But some orcs have made their way to the city and/or have been converted by non-Evil missionaries, so you can't just kill them on site.

Usually Evil: 99% of the species is Evil, but its not inhearent in their nature. For example, the huge majority of Drow are Evil. But its because their society is very Evil and isolated. So its possible for a Drow "lone wolf" PC or NPC to be Good or Neutral. In fact, this particular alignment trope has been used so many times that its a cliche.

Always Evil: Every member of this species is Evil. You can kill them on sight and be cheered on by the local authorities for doing so. This category is reserved almost exclusively for demons, devils, and undead. Monsters without the possibility of redemption.

[kamikasei]

Killing the women would be neutral, if they're armed. (Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity impaler). Killing the children would be evil.

Hmmm... while I agree that killing a woman is exactly as evil or not as killing a man, I think there's a distinction to be made here. "Killing the women and children" isn't just a matter of killing the defenceless but also the defenders, and crossing the line from killing the aggressors. It's defeating an army on the field and then putting their cooks and stableboys and camp followers to the sword.

[hewhosaysfish]

Their innate tendencies give orcs a higher probability of growing up evil than humans: therefore humans should exterminate the orcs to minimise the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

Their innate tendencies give humans a higher probability of growing up evil than elves: therefore elves should exterminate the humans to minimise the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

Discuss.

[MorkaisChosen]

Why not?

I mean, you're Good, right? That means you have respect for life, right? At what point does the suffering of innocents you'll stop by butchering the orc families outweigh the suffering you allow to happen by letting them live?

Some of them might grow up to not be evil. But the statistical majority of them will almost certainly be, unless you butcher the women and steal the children to be raised differently (which is still Evil), and Orcs definitely have a fiercely shamanistic culture that's centered around a divine mandate (by a God who really exists, no less!) of enslaving or wiping everyone else out.

But you're not giving them the chance to prove you wrong. Good isn't always about doing what does the least harm; it should be the most good. You could always use the five years you've gained in which there are no adult Orc warriors to prepare the locals for an orc attack, so that if the orcs attack they will be ready. However, there's always a chance that you've done enough damage to the evil Orcish culture that they decide to become peaceful hippy farmers.

[Moral Wiz]

Their innate tendencies give orcs a higher probability of growing up evil than humans: therefore humans should exterminate the orcs to minimise the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

Their innate tendencies give humans a higher probability of growing up evil than elves: therefore elves should exterminate the humans to minimise the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

Discuss.

Their innate tendencies give elves a higher probability of growing up evil than humans: (The pride, the desire for power, the belief in their own cultural supremacy) therefore humans should exterminate the elves to minimize the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

[Prophaniti]

*awsomeness*

That's great! Life through the eyes of an orc cheif! Well done, sir!

Anyway, I don't see a conflict with running any of the "Usually Evil" races as sentient. It's really quite simple to understand. Just look at human history, full of wars, killing, betrayal and other actions that are undeniably evil. Actions perpetrated by (ostensibly) sentient and free-willed people, done knowingly and conciously. Chosen, in fact. Now simply imagine a society where such things are considered acceptable, perhaps even glorified. Read your history, it has happened before IRL. Thus you have a group of fully sentient, completely free-willed beings operating in a society which offends the sensibilities of the other beings around them. Really, all D&D does with the monstrous races is take the same emnities and reasons for fighting that humans have already and remove the similarities in appearance. That way one can enjoy the events and conflicts of the game (was that too subtle?) without being bogged down in philisophical debates.

[kamikasei]

Their innate tendencies give elves a higher probability of growing up evil than humans: (The pride, the desire for power, the belief in their own cultural supremacy) therefore humans should exterminate the elves to minimize the destruction and suffering they will inevitably cause.

Elves are "usually Chaotic Good". Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil". Humans "tend towards no one alignment, not even neutrality". The result is that Elves are stated, by the rules, to be more strongly biased towards Good relative to humans than Orcs are biased towards Evil (again, relative to humans). Which pretty much means that anything humans can say about orcs, elves can say more of about humans.

...If we're being relative. Of course, objectively, more orcs are more evil than humans.