Do you have an "Evil" race in your world?

[Trask]

Often times I find myself glad that the D&D Orc has been rehabilitated somewhat and become more of a noble savage than a mindless monster. But D&D and most fantasy rpgs and settings I've seen rely on monsters that are traditionally "evil". Theyre intelligent humanoids but basically are universally thought of as mindless monsters and pests. This is very convenient for the me sometimes to just have a generic "warband" coming out that attacks the party during travel but I'm starting to think more and more that this can be done better. Orcs, beastmen, bugbears, why should they be different from humans in their motivations? You get attacked by human bandits on the road, does that mean you pass a human village and slaughter all of them because humans are savages? Orcs and other monsters should be treated similarly by the setting I claim. That band of orcs that attacked you on the road doesnt necessarily have to have a correlation with the Orc village you pass. These peasant orcs/tribesman may even be accommodating to a degree. I think that this gets PC's to start thinking about monsters more as real intelligent people rather than obstacles.

However there are flaws to this and I dont claim that this way is the best. This can be somewhat off tone for a gritty, dark campaign with vicious disgusting beasts, and sometimes things just cant be humanized after they have committed atrocities to the PCs. But for a GM that (like me) that doesnt like too many races and monsters, and doesnt like combat to be the answer to everything I like this approach.

So what do you guys think about the concept of thoroughly evil monsters? Do you use them in your game?

[mythmonster2]

Personally, I only ever have supernatural creatures be Always Evil (or Always Good, for that matter). This can include demons and devils, but it can also account for orcs/whatever else, if an Evil god made them so that they are literally incapable of being good. But most of the time, almost all humanoid races have the potential to fall anywhere on the spectrum.

[Trask]

I like that concept, supernatural creatures falling in the absolutes is a good idea. With everything else being so much more gray and varied it makes their absolute natures all the more alien and terrifying, or inspiring and worthy of worship (as it should be!)

[Vitruviansquid]

Most times in my games, there is only one playable race.

Other races are not necessarily evil, but can be difficult to work with and understand due to different ways of life and plain ol' hatred of people being different from them.

Still, I see the appeal of just having an evil race to beat up on. It's good for campaigns that are simpler, bashier in tone.

[TheYell]

I guess I prefer inhuman monsters perverted by the supernatural for solidly evil characters. Ive got orcs in my setting but they really want to be left alone in what they consider their turf.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes, sorta. There might be undead that aren't entirely evil (such as ghosts), but...Well, there's usually lots you can smack around without guilt. Aberrations also tend to fall on the evil side of things, or at least not be evil to get rid of given their goals.

[nomotag]

I never do any race as totally evil. It just doesn't feel right. If you can think, you can pick your morality. I am a big fan of evil elves though.

[Christopher K.]

I largely stand by the "only supernatural beings" rule for restrictive alignments, though I let certain races tend to be considered villainous due to cultural differences(halflings in my normal campaign setting, for instance, have different concepts of ownership and territory, and consider themselves free to trap, kill, and loot foreigners in their lands).

[Satinavian]

Yes, i do it also only for some supernatural beings. Demons mostly. Some things that are more concept than creature.


But then there are creatures where violence is the only feasable option availible but who are not actually evil per se.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes. They're called humans. Or player characters.

Less facetiously, I can do "objectively evil, can't be negotiated with" with human extremists of some sort. I do not need inhuman species for that role. In fact, I typically subvert expectations my players have of species such as orcs or goblins. Yes, the kobolds in the mines will kill and eat your guts without mercy, but that's because the last player character group killed and ate their guts. (Murder-hoboism from the part of players is pretty normal.)

This said, I am a fan of evil spirits and ghosts and the like. Some ghosts and the like really do exist for nothing but blood and murder. But in these cases, the monster is typically symptom of the problem rather than the root of it. Killing it in the face while feeling righteous about yourself is not a solution. These kinds of creatures exist to reflect on the wickedness of the world, they are, in short, in there for the horror of it.

[hymer]

I noticed evil outsiders mentioned above. Do undead count? I much prefer them to be all evil, with the occasional innocent ghost exception. And even with them, the goal is to make them die.

The orcs in my 3.5 campaign are pretty nasty. Warlike, brutish, selfish, and even sadistic. But they're not inherently evil, more like culturally problematic and pushed in a certain direction by sinister forces who want to use them. So I don't suppose they count. But they come close enough that the PCs attack and kill them without a shred of remorse or any holding back. That's a good thing, narrative-wise. Faceless mooks you can mow down to show how badass you are; they are a trope for good reason.
When I want something more ambiguous, I go to hobgoblins. They're smarter, more disciplined, and more mysterious.

[IShouldntBehere]

Yes & No. I certainly cast a couple monsters like Orcs in this role, albeit very different ones than the standard version. They take the appearance (humanoid, muscular, tall, tusks, green/grey skin) and the name but that's about it.

Unlike the standard version you couldn't really fairly call them persons, and they way the experience the world only bears a vague resemblance to human consciousnesses. I once described them as sort of "Rage Elementals" to the players but that isn't wholly accurate. "Rage" implies an emotional completeness they simply do not have sense of self to posses. It'd be more accurate to say that their existence is wholly hostility, and the urge for destruction. They might be compared to something like a primitive AI: Not self aware, but capable of learning and communicating with one another for a purpose and even capable of engaging in or being directed towards other purposes, so long is it ultimately serves to give the right feedback.

To the average observer in the setting the Orcs do appear as a mere evil savage race, like the other races save that whole "always evil" thing. They talk, they walk on two legs, use tools an organize themselves but these similarities don't go beyond that surface level. If a human were to hop into the mind of an Orc for a time and then return, they wouldn't be capable of comprehending or absorbing the experience. When one reflects on the experience one would feel like reflecting on a dream they can't remember only that vaguely in that dream they wanted to destroy.

Orcs also don't reproduce in the traditional sense. They blood can transform certain other creatures into Orcs, transforming them wholly. There are no baby orcs*


Does this count as an "Evil Race"? I dunno.


*(though I suppose the right kind of baby exposed to Orc blood would get turned into a particularly small, if no s substantively "juvenile" Orc.)

[LudicSavant]

The thing is, pretty much every time that I've seen orcs being used as an "all-evil" race, they act basically like humans who happen to have green skin, and humans act towards them kinda like imperialist Europeans treated natives they encountered. The people who write orcs this way will often vehemently try to rationalize this away if confronted with it, but it's true all the same.

The rationalizations are often shockingly flimsy. For example, we'll be told that orcs lack agency and have to be evil because they're brainwashed by God or something... but does this really hold up to scrutiny? First of all, the idea of considering something without agency to be evil is, in and of itself, rather strange. Do you call hurricanes evil? How about a factory machine that mangles a worker? Of course not, because they don't have agency.

Moreover, when we're told that orcs are brainwashed and forced to be evil, we either aren't told what specific Gruumsh-mandated behaviors are supposedly evil, or when we're shown examples of the behavior of these orcs... they act pretty much just like humans with mostly cosmetic differences, rather than evil-generating machines. Sure they might do bad things, but they don't do inhumanly bad things, and they are shown as having aspects to their lives besides making things worse for everyone everywhere (even if the author may not acknowledge them as such). For example, we'll see these orcs pillaging a human village... and as a result bringing back resources for their orc kin and weakening the enemy who totally attacks them too. They're not just burning things because "hey, @#$% things."

This is a problem. It's not a problem because depicting atrocities and racism and the like in fiction is wrong (it isn't), or because there's a problem with having fictional characters who think they're doing the right thing when they slaughter the orcs for being orcs (also fine). It's a problem because we, the real people playing, are supposed to endorse this behavior as morally correct. It's a problem because the author is nodding and saying things like "yeah, outgroup homogeneity bias seems reasonable enough," and you're expected to do the same.

[Cozzer]

As most of the others said, the only beings that are inherently Evil in my settings are supernatural creatures that are literally made of Evilness. Basic undead, such as zombies and skeletons, are half-creatures half-tools, so they're Evil if they are being used for Evil reasons or if they were created with Evil intentions (it would be simpler to say they're Neutral because they lack agency, but I need a reason for them to be Evil because I don't want my Paladins to be unable to smite them :P).

There are a few Evil tribes or societies, which means characters can fight them without worrying too much about "is this morally justified?!?!", but they're not related to race. Of course this doesn't mean every single creature in this tribe or society is Evil, it means "they're bad enough that killing a few non-Evil ones to stop the others is still the lesser evil".

[OldTrees1]

No.

I use alignment as merely a detectable part of morality. Since I believe free will is a necessary condition of being a moral agent, there is no race where an individual can be described as evil and exceptions are impossible.

That said, while devils are not necessarily evil in my world, if you meet a devil in Hell it is probably evil just like finding an Orc in the ocean means it probably can swim.

[nedz]

No - other than outsiders etc.

I prefer my world to be more interesting than that. This is not to say that individuals don't try to sell this notion - but that's just propaganda.

[Satinavian]

The thing is, pretty much every time that I've seen orcs being used as an "all-evil" race, they act basically like humans who happen to have green skin, and humans act towards them kinda like imperialist Europeans treated natives they encountered. The people who write orcs this way will often vehemently try to rationalize this away if confronted with it, but it's true all the same.

I've seen a couple of games where this was the case but the players and DM were completely aware of it and those flimsy rationalizations were only ingame and what the PCs told each other about why they are on the right side. Of course this works better in systems where alignments are not objective and magically detectable rule stuff.

[LudicSavant]

I've seen a couple of games where this was the case but the players and DM were completely aware of it and those flimsy rationalizations were only ingame and what the PCs told each other about why they are on the right side. Of course this works better in systems where alignments are not objective and magically detectable rule stuff.

If the players and DM are completely aware that the orcs aren't really all evil, then it's not a case of them implementing an all evil race, now is it?

[Yora]

I don't. Not even the demons and ghouls are objectively evil.

Everyone are just doing their things, and a lot of those can be seen as highly objectionable, but it's not like there are any people who are really just after spreading pain and suffering fo its own sake.

[Grim Portent]

Generally yes, there are usually several races that are more or less evil on average.

I tend to favour very dark settings, so I tend to have races that are cannibalistic, worship dark and malevolent forces, hate civilization for various reasons and so on and so forth. There are always exceptions to the rule though and some members of any race may reject the societal norms that dictate most of them, and not everyone would consider the races evil.

Some beings such as dragons are mortal incarnations of avarice, gluttony and the desire to dominate others, Fey are cruel and unpredictable beings largely because they care only for their own amusement and have no empathy, so on and so forth.

[Kitten Champion]

The only legitimately Evil race in my games has been an army of Outsiders who consumed magic and viewed other sapient life as something to harvest or liquidated - they are by their very nature incapable of benign interaction with other intelligent life.

Other than that, the only peoples which could be described as uniformly antagonistic is a race of albino Elves led by an insane immortal archdruid who's something between Santa Claus and Bacchus, but they aren't really intrinsically evil. They're more inscrutable from millennia of isolation in a region of near-perpetual night. They believe people from other races who invade their realm aren't, in fact, real. These Elves see these people (the region they live in is rich with precious metals, attracting countless with the prospect of wealth) as the twisted ghosts/spirits of their damned, those over the course of their history who were exiled to the burning lands to die an ignoble and painful death, returned from their death realm. They're ready to "exorcise" these spirits, mostly by stabbing them to death with sanctified weapons and/or burning them alive, feeling duty-bound that these unfortunate beings find peace. A fact that my players still aren't aware of, actually.

[RickAllison]

Nope, though I do have enemies that fill in that role of "OK to kill!" Instead of being Evil in the more traditional sense, they are formed by the base desires in other lifeforms, their most primal urges without any higher thinking to balance out the caprices of life. Add onto that a hunger for the same desires and primal emotions that created them and you have a set of creatures that aren't evil, but are just... wrong, constantly hunting to turn others into more of these creatures so they have the slightest relief from their constant, gnawing hunger.

[NRSASD]

In my campaigns, outsiders are always pure incarnations of their alignment since they are literally made out of belief and emotion. Outside of that, technically no, I don't have any races of pure Evil. That being said, I do use goblinoids as a race of Evil, but mostly because of their historical background in the campaign setting.

1250 years before the present day, the goblinoids established a loose confederacy of kingdoms and enslaved anyone non-goblin because they were considered inferior species. 750 years go by, and many goblinoid civil wars, and the ancestors of the modern human kingdom drive the goblinoids from their homes. 500 years later, the humans have forgotten about the goblinoid kingdom but the goblinoids never did. Thus, the goblin tribes wage a war of genocide against humanity to avenge their fallen kingdom, but humanity doesn't really know why goblinoids are so aggressive.

[Slipperychicken]

Short answer: I really don't care. It doesn't matter for my game's purposes.


Long answer:
I include subhuman monsters like orcs and kobolds and such. I don't really care for alignment or anything of the sort, so the question "is it evil?" is a subjective judgement, much like it is in real life. Ask a merchant who's business is ruined by beastman raids, and he'll tell you they're evil and must be destroyed. If you talk to a mad wizard who worships old cthonic gods and commands a legion of orcs and trolls, he might have a different opinion.

The origins, true moral nature, and potential intellect of such monsters are subjects of debate among the wise. As far as everyone else is concerned, monsters are locked in a seemingly-eternal struggle against civilized people, and slaughtering them is considered a great service to mankind. Orcs aren't exactly lining up to fill out personality questionnaires. Practically speaking, that means I don't have to busy myself with these questions, and I can make monsters as wicked or sympathetic as I desire.

[Mastikator]

I prefer not to have "good" and "evil" to be objective forces that anyone can be aligned to.

But there can definitely be demons that want to murder all living things and destroy everything beautiful. Whether that is evil is up to the players.

[Der_DWSage]

Short answer:No.

Long answer:I don't like the mental shortcut of 'Always evil -> Safe to murder' that 'Always Evil' races encourage. Even demons and devils are a maybe to me, as (In my setting) they're less 'Made out of the literal energy of evil' and more 'Their life depends on them doing what others see as evil, such as torture, molest, and murder. This normalization of these activities makes them inclined towards evil, but it's more a case of Blue and Orange morality.'

Not to mention that Good Vs. Evil is boring. Evil is always the bad guy that you want kicked out. Good is always the scrappy underdog with the Power of Heart. How about Law vs. Chaos, which really does deserve more of the limelight? Or Stability vs. Progress? Maybe Life vs. Death? Something besides 'Welp, these are clearly the bad guys, time to kill 'em all.'

The closest I come to 'Always Evil' (Aside from Demons/Devils) is 'Aggressive.' It's hard to reason with zealots who feel that your very presence in their area is an affront to their deity, or that immediately go for the spear-to-your-face method.

[VoxRationis]

My current campaign settings...

"Roman" setting: No, everyone's got their own ups and downs. Most of the factions are pretty evil in some regards and noble in others. There's some not-well-elaborated upon demons that are pretty hostile, but they're represented by only a few individuals, so who knows what's going on with them?

Canrelanth: The orcs are intentionally meant to be a retreat from the trope of "orcs as noble savages," and they tend to attack and brutally destroy all in their path. They're more of a force of nature than beings with moral agency, though. Tieflings are also inclined to certain psychological traits not thought well of (such as sadism and spitefulness), but that doesn't make them evil, or deserving of the persecution they've received, necessarily. Outsiders can be evil by most standards. Drow aren't evil per se, but their economic climate tends to promote selfishness, and they're the primary driving force behind the slave trade. High elves (I feel like including them because these days, settings are more likely to have them be evil than drow) are reasonably varied in personality, but they have a society that amply provides for all of their needs, so it's rare to see them do anything like raiding, thievery, or conquest. The setting doesn't really go for objective "good" and "evil," but there are definitely forces at work that would generally be agreed upon as not against the interests of the common good.

Four Rivers: Nope. Not in the slightest. Most of the setting focuses on a human population, anyway.

[Thrudd]

I present goblinoids and beastmen races as being essentially incompatible with human civilization. They may have their own society and hierarchies and traditions, but those traditions usually involve opportunistically killing and eating humans and other sentient beings and raiding settlements for plunder. Lizardmen are likewise alien to human civilization. They see all mammals as potential meals. Is it objectively evil? No, but they are dangerous beings that would eat your family. So how should they be treated?

[Malimar]

I use demons and devils and undead for evil races, mostly, with a bit of sahuagin and kuo-toa thrown in. Orcs and goblinoids and gnolls and so on are mostly extinct, and rarely much of a threat. Most conflicts between land-dwellers are political or religious, not some fundamental incompatibility of civilization versus barbarism.

[Darth Ultron]

To me an ''evil'' race is a race of beings that at least 50% of them choose to be evil, though it's often more like 75%. So they are not ''all evil'', but ''most are''.


Though it's really impossible to have a game like D&D without foes to fight. It's one of the core points of the game: fighting foes that oppose the characters. Now good and evil make this straight forward, simple and easy. Now you could ''just say'' whatever and whoever you want is a ''foe'' and just ''do whatever you want''. But, of course, if you do that, you might as well just keep good and evil. When your just going to say ''they are foes we can kill over there'', that is exactly the same as saying ''we can kill the evil people over there''.

And if your not ''just going to say something or someone is a foe'', then you fall in to the impossible lawyer problem. How will you define a foe? Well, the only way to do it would be to spend countless real hours working out the details in a very real legal sense....and chances are you might not even then get a definite answer. And if you do that, your not playing the game anymore.