| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this a couple times, but I'm going to repeat it here: The concept as a whole offends me. The idea that a group of adventurers is entirely justified in killing something and looting its body because it's a goblin or orc or whatever strikes me as very video-gamey. The same applies for enemy creatures, such as conveniently color-coded dragons.
Armies I don't mind - soldiers tend to follow orders even if they may personally object to them. Same things for mobs and such. After all, "the IQ of an angry mob is equal to that of it's lowest member divided by it's number of members". Peer pressure is a powerful thing and can cause groups of people to do things they wouldn't do otherwise.
However, the racial thing gets me. The idea of a race, as a whole, being culturally similar to the point that you're justified in cutting down civilians smacks of genocide. Deities ordering the deaths of people don't earn my respect either, though at least you have a somewhat better excuse for genocide.
Also, the fact there are not cosmopolitan or melting pots where races might be able to get along better than usual is disturbing. Sure, there may be orcs or goblins in a city, but they act pretty much the same as orcs or goblins everywhere. Other cultures and ideas do not affect them in the least.
So, how do you justify a race being completely and utterly evil all the time everywhere it goes regardless of anything else? If you don't how do you handle the diversity?
|
It depends on the tone of campaign I want to run. Sometimes I want a shades of grey campaign, or a melting pot campaign with all kiinds of critters rubbing shoulders. That's fun.
But I can also enjoy the black and white campaign where orcs are just evil, degenerate and need to DIE.
So basically, for me the story purpose of the race is all the justification I need to go one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then play an eberron like campaign setting where thats not the case? Always evil races are a staple of fantasy fiction from tolkien all the way up to whatever someone is writing right now.
Its not video gamey, its part of a huge chunk of fantasy stories for as long as they have existed. The concept of the 'other' that is unredeemably evil is also a staple of fiction in general. Does it represent modern morality well? Probably not. It is part of history, and the history of fiction. Its not 'video gamey'.
The same way you justify "always good" races. It just depends on the setting and 'brew. What works for some doesn't work for others.
Kolokotroni has a great suggestion.
So, how do you justify a race being completely and utterly evil all the time everywhere it goes regardless of anything else?
A wizard did it. Magic! Magic can do and explain anything! MAGIC!
That said, I don't use it in my own settings. I think its a common tool to say that an overwhelming majority of a faction is down right puppy kicking because its convenient or because its the legacy of a sort of fiction. Some do it better than others, but that's pretty subjective. On the rare chance I will use it, that race has an alien psychology or is constructed and incapable of making the decision themselves.
It depends on the tone of campaign I want to run. Sometimes I want a shades of grey campaign, or a melting pot campaign with all kiinds of critters rubbing shoulders. That's fun.
But I can also enjoy the black and white campaign where orcs are just evil, degenerate and need to DIE.
So basically, for me the story purpose of the race is all the justification I need to go one way or the other.
It's not that I don't enjoy a clear black and white setting, but I get queasy about doing it with living beings. Undead I don't mind, or otherworldly things or similar, but it really bothers me when something ought to have a choice but never does.
So then play an eberron like campaign setting where thats not the case? Always evil races are a staple of fantasy fiction from tolkien all the way up to whatever someone is writing right now.
Its not video gamey, its part of a huge chunk of fantasy stories for as long as they have existed. The concept of the 'other' that is unredeemably evil is also a staple of fiction in general. Does it represent modern morality well? Probably not. It is part of history, and the history of fiction. Its not 'video gamey'.
I'm not saying there aren't campaign worlds out there that don't do this, I'm asking how people justify doing this. I'm probably over-thinking the issue, but it never bodes well for a certain class that's .
I'm well aware of the literary history of using irredeemably evil races. However, I feel it's video-gamey even in such fiction. What I mean by that is that in a video game you go around killing your enemies and grabbing their loot. There is no question about whether or not the thing you killed deserved killing, nor whether the body should be looted, and so on. So what I am trying to ask is how folks here justify it. How even a baby of said race always ends up evil no matter how it's raised. There may not be a lot of justification. As Ascalaphus mentioned, sometimes it's fun to just be able to kill things without moralizing it. However, where it is thought up, I'd like to know what folks do to justify it.
Magic is usually the explanation.
Like the Orcs in the works of Tolkien, who were created by the hand of Morgoth. They are irredeemably twisted and evil creatures.
You can also have certain races be part of the creation myth of your world. For example, all members of the Trox race are inhabited by the souls of those who chose to stand with the Dark Lord before the time of creation. And now they walk among mortals to sow their darkness in the world.
The possibilities are vast, and often you don't even need to reveal the true reasons to your players. Better yet, make it one of the mysteries of the world that will be uncovered (and maybe remedied?) by the characters.
Good luck out there!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why "Always evil", because it's the races culture/society which is lived by almost everyone of them.
It's like saying people from Great Britain "always speaking english", it's their culture.
Also you can have tainted races, races which are influenced and guided by dark and evil gods.
Think of the Orcs from Warcraft I & II, they were evil! why? because their souls were tainted by the blood of an evil demon.
Or the Orcs of Middelearth, their culture and beliefs are build around Sauron and the destruction of mankind, so they were forced by their culture to be evil.
Can an individual from an "always evil" race become non-evil? Yes. That are the stories we're playing/telling. The Orc Leader who sees his whole race suffer from the demon he swear alliance to, who sees his friend be slain by this demoen and then he took his axe, break the evil-bond and slay this demon (mighty Hellscream!), that are OUR stories. :)
And of cause this should be the exception, why? otherwise it wouldn't be something epic for the bards to tell. :)
P.S.: And it's also a fantasy game, fantasy means the good vs. evil, the white knight who will bring down the black knight so save the princess etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying there aren't campaign worlds out there that don't do this, I'm asking how people justify doing this. I'm probably over-thinking the issue, but it never bodes well for a certain class that's NOT GETTING MENTIONED HERE.
I'm well aware of the literary history of using irredeemably evil races. However, I feel it's video-gamey even in such fiction. What I mean by that is that in a video game you go around killing your enemies and grabbing their loot. There is no question about whether or not the thing you killed deserved killing, nor whether the body should be looted, and so on. So what I am trying to ask is how folks here justify it. How even a baby of said race always ends up evil no matter how it's raised. There may not be a lot of justification. As Ascalaphus mentioned, sometimes it's fun to just be able to kill things without moralizing it. However, where it is thought up, I'd like to know what folks do to justify it.
How on earth is the lord of the rings video gamey...there werent... ok lets just try to proceed with your actual question.
So how do you justify just killing orcs or other 'evil' races on sight in game is that what you mean? The fact that they are irredeemably evil justifies it. It is a world constant, the same as gravity, or that divine spells come from the gods. Evil races are evil, root and stem. Its not nurture its nature. Evil gods created evil creatures to be a plague upon the races of descent folk. The fact that they are irredeemably evil justifies killing them in game.
If you are playing in a less black and white campaign, where some are evil and some are indoctrinated, then it becomes a moral issue. Maybe you kill the soldiers who are raiding your village, but not the women and children back at the orc camp. But again that is ONLY if the race is not irredeemably evil as a universal constant.
As for killing things and taking their stuff...thats just how dnd works. It is ALWAYS how it works. And honestly, its how it works in real life on occassion too. Unless you are in regular armies where weapons are strictly regulated with particular rules of war, soldiers took weapons and equipment from fallen enemies, you keep what you kill isnt a concept that exists only within games and fiction.
We really need a popcorn thread section, or at least stickied threads. Something for wizard versus fighter, noncasters versus casters, rogues smell, full BAB, alignment, and so on. I'm not saying your thread is a negative, Inda. It's more that these are traditional topics that deserve their own "gather around the fire" salute.
They're part of the genre, now. Sort of a natural point of playing the game as much as passing the Doritos is.
We really need a popcorn thread section, or at least stickied threads. Something for wizard versus fighter, noncasters versus casters, rogues smell, full BAB, alignment, and so on. I'm not saying your thread is a negative, Inda. It's more that these are traditional topics that deserve their own "gather around the fire" salute.
They're part of the genre, now. Sort of a natural point of playing the game as much as passing the Doritos is.
Oh, I know. I's like how the "P-class", or some variation of the artificer, crops up every few months with folks trying to rearrange it. That doesn't make it any less fun to talk about or try to get input on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that D&D's cosmology revolves around philosophy taking physical form, which is why the Planescape setting is so interesting and often considered the "thinking man's setting." This a multiverse where you can point at a creature from Hell and say "that's evil." You could be completely right because the creature is literally evil on a physical, spiritual, and mental evil. This isn't a bad thing. This makes the multiverse interesting and thought provoking while conveying the classic "good versus evil" archetypal story structure that this game was meant to enable.
So how do you justify just killing orcs or other 'evil' races on sight in game is that what you mean? The fact that they are irredeemably evil justifies it.
If it means anything, I always consider faction and race to be two separate things. The local fleshweavers cult is quiet a bit different than the race of Brashkin' and Drovin. There are plenty of Drovin in the fleshweavers cult, not a lot of Brash, but 9 times out of 10 the fleshweavers cult is bad news for anyone. (also about 50/50 chance the brash is going to be a jerk anyway, but that's another story)
It's like saying people from Great Britain "always speaking english", it's their culture.
Erm, not sure if all people in great Britain speak English. I'm not sure if that's always either. Then again, I wouldn't be happy if you said all british gentleman wear pants because I'm sure there's an outlier somewhere, so maybe I'm just picky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How on earth is the lord of the rings video gamey...there werent... ok lets just try to proceed with your actual question.
Not getting into the guts of the discussion here (I think Tryn does a pretty good job of representing my views), but I thought I'd address this.
Something doesn't need to predate all other examples to exemplify it. I could describe something done by Greeks of antiquity as "Machiavellian" even though they predate him by over a millennium. The same could apply to LotR and video games. As long as we don't claim that Tolkien totally stole the idea of a delivery quest from WoW, drawing the comparison is reasonable.
In this case, I think the OP is just saying that the simplified morality is reminiscent of video games. The fact that it's a prevalent theme in fantasy fiction doesn't make that assertion false.
Why "Always evil", because it's the races culture/society which is lived by almost everyone of them.
It's like saying people from Great Britain "always speaking english", it's their culture.
Also you can have tainted races, races which are influenced and guided by dark and evil gods.
Think of the Orcs from Warcraft I & II, they were evil! why? because their souls were tainted by the blood of an evil demon.
Or the Orcs of Middelearth, their culture and beliefs are build around Sauron and the destruction of mankind, so they were forced by their culture to be evil.
Can an individual from an "always evil" race become non-evil? Yes. That are the stories we're playing/telling. The Orc Leader who sees his whole race suffer from the demon he swear alliance to, who sees his friend be slain by this demoen and then he took his axe, break the evil-bond and slay this demon (mighty Hellscream!), that are OUR stories. :)
And of cause this should be the exception, why? otherwise it wouldn't be something epic for the bards to tell. :)
P.S.: And it's also a fantasy game, fantasy means the good vs. evil, the white knight who will bring down the black knight so save the princess etc.
This is why this type of question is so much fun to ask! People come and give their rationals for stuff that tends to be taken for granted. I am not arguing against the fact that you need heroes and it feels good to know you're doing the Right Thing nor that someone trying to break the stranglehold/curse/whatever that keeps other members of her/his race Always Evil is not an epic tale, but it's a lot of fun to debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this a couple times, but I'm going to repeat it here: I really dislike "enemy races". The concept as a whole offends me. The idea that a group of adventurers is entirely justified in killing something and looting its body because it's a goblin or orc or whatever strikes me as very video-gamey.
Or, you know, "historically accurate."
Hell, it wasn't two centuries ago that people in the United States of America were totally justified in buying, selling, owning, whipping, and killing if they so chose, an entire race of people.
Shoot, the Hutus were doing that to the Tutsis a decade ago. And I can't even tell the Hutus and Tutsis apart!
Racial genocide and looting of dead corpses is sorta the way humans have always worked. And we may think we're better than that now, but we're still turning a blind eye to it whenever it suits us to do so. (Rwanda) Doesn't seem video gamey at all to me. Seems almost too real.
|
Pathfinder (and D&D) have a lot of legacy creatures which fall under the heading "Monstrous Humanoid" which are related at least in part to the original game's early history as an outgrowth of wargames. The "heroes" need "monsters" to battle, and the rules focus a lot on individuals using weapons, armor, and military tactics. Therefore we end up with "mosnters" that use weapons, but are just as much monsters as, say, ankhegs or shoggoths.
The narrative purpose of these creatures is, more often than not, to die on the swords of the heroes to make them look good. It is a little meta-gamey, but there it is. The heroism in these kinds of games is of a kind with ancient myth and legend, and tribal violence makes up a part of that mythology. These games allows us to indulge in that aspect of our culture without hurting anyone in the real world.
I've also got one homebrew world that eliminated the implicit racism entirely, but you'd be surprised how many things that changes about game play. :)
Like what?
You justify them as a holdover from the 1970s and the influence of Tolkien on the creation of D&D. Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits could do no evil. Orcs, Goblins, and Wargs could do no good. Humans, like in EVERY fantasy, are the only ones who could do either/both, because they can in real life.
Dwarves are typically shown as being Lawful Good. "But there's evil dwarves!" Yeah, but they don't look like the PC dwarves. Evil dwarves have gray skin and black hair. Elves are typically shown as Chaotic Good. "Again, there's evil elves!" True, and like the dwarves, they don't look like the PC elves. Evil elves have black skin and white hair. Same with the evil gnomes (svirfneblin). But, there is no good version of any of the "enemy races" like orcs, goblins, giants, gnolls, etc.
I don't have enemy races in my campaign. There are no "always evil" or "always good", unless they are Undead or Outsiders. Even then, there are some exceptions with Undead. James Jacobs has said why they have them in Golarion over and over, and you can find them in many threads about this topic. I even have good red dragons and horribly evil silver dragons. You can't just look at a creature and say "That's the enemy so let's kill it!" just because of its creature type.
That's one reason I enjoyed the Eberron setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Physiology and chemistry of the brain.
If the regions of the brain associated with empathy, compassion, etc. are underdeveloped or entirely lacking in the creature's brain, whilst those regions associated with hostility are overactive or enlarged--what do you think's going to happen?
From studying the brains of psychopaths we know that there are some physiological differences between "normal" brains and those of, say, serial killers. Not always, mind you--sometimes it's mostly environment--but even then, environment can shape the brain, as experiences (especially in infancy) seem to "switch" certain genes on/off.
So, imagine an entire race (or species, really, insofar as we're discussing fantasy races) that has evolved a particular set of genes which produces a particular kind of brain: the brain of a psychopath.
This is my natural explanation for the predisposition towards evil which is so prevalent among goblins, orcs, etc.
Now, for them, an abnormal brain would be one that's less orcish or goblinoid in nature, and more human-like (regions associated with empathy are more dominant, as opposed to aggression); a sort of reverse-psychopath. So, you could have a good-aligned member of these species, but they'd be incredibly rare. Most would likely end up dead, as they wouldn't mesh well with the cultures of their birth, however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love always evil "races" (really species)and creatures. I mostly like games where you get to be the hero and you know who the bad guys are. It is cathartic and fast paced fun with everyone knowing what is expected. I think that is nice to have available in a "traditional" fantasy game.
There is nothing wrong with a morally ambiguous game where everything can be any alignment and you never know how you are supposed to react to any given encounter. For me while I enjoy an occasional game along those lines, those games can get really bogged down by the constant uncertainties.
For example: You come upon a group of ogres attacking a farm.
Game 1: You know the ogres are evil and set about saving the farmers. Instant heroics!
Game 2: You need a 5 min (for some groups much longer) out of character conversation to discuss whether these might be good ogres attacking an evil farmer. I just lost immersion right there. Then you need to investigate to discern what is up. If you take too long or make the wrong decision instant fail. Good farmer is dead or you kill good ogre wrongly.
Certainly it is possible that any given sentient race is exactly identical to humanity on a mental and spiritual level, with identical proclivities and propensities. But how likely is it? We are speaking of nonhumans who in most fantasy worlds were separately created, or were warped from the form of their original creation. Orcs, for instance, are NOT typically portrayed as nothing more than large green people--they are usually portrayed as large green extremely violent people. Perhaps their aggressive behavior is hardwired. Maybe their brain structure and chemistry is different. Or perhaps it's a matter of an interaction of culture and maturation rates. Orcs might mature emotionally at the same rate as humans or even more slowly even though they physically mature much faster. The stereotypical horde of orcish barbarians might be the emotional equivalent of humans in their terrible twos. Maybe as they approach the end of their short lives they finally grow up. Differences could be explained many different ways.
Of course, the perception that some sentient races are always evil could be ascribed mostly to cultural differences. That is similar (as I recall) to the approach WoW took with the Horde and the Alliance, although the Horde does or did include some races like the Undead in which the differences were clearly greater.
The point is, although there are no real and permanent heritable differences in moral worth between subgroups of humanity because we are all working off almost exactly the same basic platform, there is strong reason to doubt that humans, dragons, elves, illithids, et al are all on such a level playing field.
Well, if you see a full-blooded orc living the farmer's life with his lovely wife, you'd have no justification to kill him, even if he is an Orc. There is no race where you really justify killing every member on sight.
However, these races are, as a whole, violent and cruel. The orcs are nihilistic destroyers and if you see a warband coming for you, they are going to kill you. Hobgoblins are slavers and conquerors. Goblins are insane.
It isn't in their blood that they are "evil" but rather in their culture. They have violent, cruel cultures, and that is why they are evil. You don't kill them because they are labeled evil, you kill them because they do evil things.
And even still, pathfinder has exceptions. There are Orcs in the Mwangi Expanse that do battle with the ape king Usaro and often team up with (and wed) humans. I think it's important to look at things in the reverse. The evil label doesn't inform the race, but rather the race informs the label.
Once there are no 'automatically guilty' races, you kinda have to prove your enemies did something wrong before you start smashing down their doors and killing them. Otherwise your group tends to end up on the run, trying to escape justice. And taking all their stuff can get complicated if the law recognizes concepts like "next of kin". Wartime justifies things to a certain extent, and out in the lawless regions you can do what you want, but in general it tends to eliminate any veneer of nobility or morality from classic murderhobo behavior.
I'm sure there would be plenty of chances to kill and loot. There's a pretty big difference between breaking and entering in a metropolis with good police control and breaking and entering at the bandit encampment outside of town that's been terrorizing the locals and the police want removed.
So, imagine an entire race (or species, really, insofar as we're discussing fantasy races) that has evolved a particular set of genes which produces a particular kind of brain: the brain of a psychopath.
I imagined them.
They wiped eachother out without creating civilization. Sort of like rust really. Poor guys never stood a chance.
Reminds me of Robotomy. Probably why that show was cancelled...
How on earth is the lord of the rings video gamey...there werent... ok lets just try to proceed with your actual question.
Not getting into the guts of the discussion here (I think Tryn does a pretty good job of representing my views), but I thought I'd address this.
Something doesn't need to predate all other examples to exemplify it. I could describe something done by Greeks of antiquity as "Machiavellian" even though they predate him by over a millennium. The same could apply to LotR and video games. As long as we don't claim that Tolkien totally stole the idea of a delivery quest from WoW, drawing the comparison is reasonable.
In this case, I think the OP is just saying that the simplified morality is reminiscent of video games. The fact that it's a prevalent theme in fantasy fiction doesn't make that assertion false.
Its not just that the simplified morality predates video games. Its that the entire concept is so prevalent in so many areas of literature (and history) that calling it video gamey is nonsensical. The simple morality in video games is based off of a big chunk of the entire genre (not to mention other fiction and history for that matter). Its like saying lots of fantasy characters in video games fight with swords, therefore sword fighting in pathfinder is video gamey. Its a non-sensical statement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think there's probably a biological component, as well as a cultural component, keeping in mind that we're not talking about race, but rather species. With as much racism as we've had (have) in our world, I can understand people being wary of depicting (or condoning) it in a fantasy setting, but remember: an orc is not a human.
Race =/= Species.
|
I think part of it is what Nations do when at war with each other.
During war, even war between members of the same race, it is common place to demonize the opposing nation's people. They are evil, we are justified in what we are doing, all of them should die or made slaves of(or in the relative recent history of the world, they should be conquered).Same thing happens in literature.
In Pathfinder, I merely leave it "All your life you have known orcs to be evil". Therefore, it is not against anyone's conscience to kill an orc, they are evil! Stories are exaggerated to put orcs in an evil light. What started as a war between nations became a war between races. Orcs are savage fighters, and are assumed by many war heroes to be evil because of it.
This leaves room, however, for that one good orc. Literature has examples of this, consider the Urgals from the Eragon series.
So, a non-magical explanation: A nation of orcs and a nation of humans go to war against each other. They demonize each other. Soliders from either side feel justified in doing evil acts, which gives the other side evidence of said race's evil. Orcs may be defeated, and end up adopting tribalism, where the only notable observation from the outside is war and a violent change of chieftain. The winner of the war writes history, and people begin to accept as fact what was only observed in bad light. Orcs become very defensive against other races, who try to slay them on sight. They may even take up the role of being evil, saying something like "If they think we are evil, then we will show them what evil really is!".
Well, if you see a full-blooded orc living the farmer's life with his lovely wife, you'd have no justification to kill him, even if he is an Orc. There is no race where you really justify killing every member on sight.
True but in a setting where this is possible, orcs are not irredemably evil, there for the concept doesnt apply. In a setting where orcs are irredemably evil then this situation simply would not happen.
However, these races are, as a whole, violent and cruel. The orcs are nihilistic destroyers and if you see a warband coming for you, they are going to kill you. Hobgoblins are slavers and conquerors. Goblins are insane.
It isn't in their blood that they are "evil" but rather in their culture. They have violent, cruel cultures, and that is why they are evil. You don't kill them because they are labeled evil, you kill them because they do evil things.
Says you. You are applying real world constructs of culture and history to a fantasy setting. In a fantasy world, orcs could literally have been created by evil gods to fight and murder the kingdoms of men. They very well could literally have evil in their blood, in the very forces that brought them into being. That isnt nurture, its nature.
Obviously this is setting specific. But you cant assert a fact such as 'its just in their culture' without such specifics. It is not some kind of universal fantasy truth that orcs are just raised bad, and thus are bad.
I know what you mean; I see the appeal. That's why I still run some worlds where the divide is pretty clear.
Its certainly a matter of taste, and obviously there ARE settings (ebberon for instance) where the grey is present in game, and black dragons can be lawful good or whatever. Its just a matter of what kind of game you want to play. Its perfectly normal (and a classic) to have the faceless horde of rampaging (insert monstrous race here). Its also fine to have the mirky, grey, world where the Red dragon is actually the good guy but has been framed by the evil elf pretending to be a paladin. Its all about what you want to accomplish with your world.
|
So, how do you justify a race being completely and utterly evil all the time everywhere it goes regardless of anything else? If you don't how do you handle the diversity?
For me it depends entirely on the campaign setting, with different fantasy races being depicted in different ways depending on the specific setting and/or the needs for the story.
Take orcs, for example. Just off the top of my head I can think of three settings where I'm totally cool with orcs being good.
1. Elder Scrolls, where orcs are quite literally just humans who look different because a Daedric Prince ate their god and altered their bodies.
2. Warcraft, where orcs had their native culture dominated by evil beings from another world.
3. Eberron, where orcs are nature loving native people who live in swamps and were the original druids.
I can also think of a few campaign settings where it doesn't make much, if any internal sense for orcs to be good:
1. Middle Earth, where orcs were (depending on how Tolkein was feeling that day) artificially created by Melkor, who corrupted and twisted elves into evil mockeries ... or possibly souless beasts given sentience by Melkor. The running theme being that evil cannot create, it can only corrupt but whatever it corrupts will never quite be "right".
2. Forgotten Realms, where orcs were extraplanar invaders whose entire purpose is to conquer.
So I'll justify a race being "always evil" or "not always evil" depending on the setting of the world in question.
For my own part, I actually do prefer having "always evil" races when I create homebrew campaign settings because I find it is the best way to avoiding unfortunate implications.
I find that when you start treating the various non-fantasy race as "people and cultures that are just different" it becomes very, very easy to drift into real world analogies. For example, trolls speaking with Jamaican accents. Or Semitic dwarves. Or South American lizard people.
I'm not saying that using non-human fantasy races to tell stories inspired by real world conflicts between people, or using real world cultures as inspiration for a fantasy world, are necessarily bad in and of themselves. It's certainly possible to tell good stories of the "not so different after all" variety. Fantastic Racism is a pretty common trope for good reason.
But personally, I would rather have my humans be diverse and my non-humans be aliens with different concepts of morality. If I want to tell a culture clash story, I'll use different human cultures/nations.
Plus, it's a game and sometimes you just gotta have a good monster to slay.
|
|
I assume you meant Warcraft? Warhammer orcs are WAAAAGGGHHHH!
Quite right. I was typing on my phone and I put down the wrong word.
Speaking of which, Warhammer orcs are another good example of how you can have diversity between campaign settings in how various things are depicted.
Warhammer 40K orcs are living fungus that reproduce by spores when they die and exist solely to WAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!
That's a cool, different thing in that campaign setting and I like it. I like seeing different twists on common elements of fantasy.
|
|
It seems that there are secretly two questions being asked here; OOC why you should want categorically evil races, and IC why is that race categorically evil?
---
OOC I don't have any problems with fantasy racism. I am (I hope) a nice, nonracist, nonsexist, (slightly classist) well-adjusted member of society in daily life.
But sometimes it's fun to let your hair down in a place where it can't actually hurt people, set aside political correctness and indulge the urge to slaughter the heathen/alien/monster/BBEG without any moral queasiness.
It's a game. I'm not hurting real people. It's the perfect place to do stuff that you're against doing in real life.
Is it a "holdover from the 70s" or earlier? Who cares? It's fun. The purpose of RPGs isn't to be mature or sophisticated. It's like an uncomplicated action movie. Sometimes you just want the bad guys to be bad and get shot down en masse.
That justifies why OOC I might want to have categorically evil races in my game.
---
IC... yeah, a game world can be more immersive if you provide an answer why a sentient race is categorically evil, rather than saying "they just are".
I rather like the Tolkienesque "orcs were made to be evil" variant. Or the "they have sold their souls and there's no hope for them now" cultists that should be shot before they summon something awful.
An interesting implication of irredeemable evil though, is that the forces of good and particularly redemption, are not all-powerful. Christianity teaches western culture that anyone can be redeemed. Fantasy evil is more pessimistic; there's just no hope for some people. That's a subtly darker world, in which the victory of the forces of light isn't predestined.
|
|
There are fantasy novels with shades of grey, too. They may not be as old as mythology, but they've been around quite a while. Many of them approach grey from the dark side, where everyone has a price, and outer holiness hides inner corruption. There's also a history, though, of ne'er-do-well characters with unexpected hearts of gold.
Come to think of it, many mythologies feature gods and powerful mortals who aren't paragons of virtue or unmitigated villains. (The Greeks come immediately to mind.)
Tolkien may represent one side of the source material of D&D, but it's not the only side.
|
I don't.
I have no room for genocide or child-killing justifications in my escapist fantasy. I've detested those tropes ever since I first got into the game.
When I want to play a good guy, I want to play GOOD. I don't want to be sickened by what gets passed off as A-OK when matters of good and evil are boiled down to racial hats.
I don't. I CAN'T, and I really don't think anybody else really can either, in a remotely plausible way.
I have read a lot of this thread and i have to say: my games don't have pure evil races. Warring nations maybe, but even then, they are nations. As such they have many races present, likely many in common with it's opposition.
Lately I have come to realize more and more about how my favorite pastime needs a bit of an update with the times (setting-wise).
|
I don't.
I have no room for genocide or child-killing justifications in my escapist fantasy. I've detested those tropes ever since I first got into the game.
When I want to play a good guy, I want to play GOOD. I don't want to be sickened by what gets passed off as A-OK when matters of good and evil are boiled down to racial hats.
Depends on the race/species you are commiting genocide against I suppose.
I don't have a problem with it if it makes sense (genetic or racial disposition towards violence or violence is needed for reproduction/gestation of species). I wouldn't ban it on the grounds that "it makes me feel bad" or there would be quite a few things missing from my games.