Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[gbaji]

Mostly don't want to touch this with a 10' pole, but this one bit stuck out for me:

Group X fights us Good People. Therefore, we can feel good about fighting them." And all of the pieces support each other, so it looks like it makes sense. Except that the response to having a bunch of strange-to-you people show up and attack you tends to be to cling to your perfectly reasonable and not at all terrible cultural icons and fight back.

I think there's a huge amount of projective labeling and motivation assuming going on here. At the end of the day, when we strip that stuff out, we're left with this:

"The response to a bunch of people show(ing) up and attack(ing) you tends to be to fight back".

I think that most reasonable people would find that statement to be a reasonable one, and the response to be reasonable as well.

Whether the people attacking you are "strange to you" or not is irrelevant.

Whether our cultural icons are terrible or not, or whether we cling to them or not is also irrelevant.

What matters the most, when considering whether actions are good or evil is not who is doing them, but what they are doing. I would even go futher and suggest that actions can be good or evil, and alignments can be good or evil (in games), but those are not always, er... "aligned" either. It's entirely possible for folks who have good alignment to be in a war with other folks who also have good alignment, and thus one is "attacking the other", and the "response" mentioned previously is perfectly acceptable as a result.


I think that games can have "mostly evil" or even "always evil" races, which have specific meaning within the context of those games. The latter is generally reserved for various actually created beings that are actually inate embodiments of those attributes themselves (like demons and devils and whatnot). The former is more about cultural/deity issues, and certainly becomes a bit more tricky.

But, again, it's not tricky at all if/when a group of people (of whatever race) are attacking you. You are allowed to fight back. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a pillaging group of Orcs, or a group of knights following the lawful orders of their liege. Does. Not. Matter. And while I can absolutely accept a game setting in which Orcs are really just misunderstood creatures, and get a bad rap or something, that doesn't mean I should pause to consider this ethical question when a group of them show up at my door and try to kill me and my family. The fact that some orcs may not be evil, and may even be good, simply doesn't matter at that point in time.

Where it does matter, and where some previous examples showed this, was the whole "you find an orc nusery, what do you do?". That's a perfectly valid moral and ethical question for a game world/setting to contemplate. I guess I just don't understand the value of the point you are trying to make here, nor the examples you are using. At the end of the day, as harsh as this may be for the Orc that's breaking down my door to kill me and my familiy, I'm not actually responsible for whatever historical issues occurred which brought that particular Orc to my door on this particular day. I can only react to the direct threat that Orc represents.


Now. If my players really want to, we can certainly play out a campaign where they investigate why the Orcs are engaged in so much raiding and pillaging, and work out some social interactions and activities to change things, and help the Orcs become more friendly neighbors or something. And there could even be value to doing that. Maybe, over time, we can bridge the gap between the humans living here, and the Orcs living there, and find common ground, and trade with each other, share bread together and become fast friends or something. There's nothing at all wrong with that, and I've actually played out scenarios similar to that in my games.


But in the moment at hand? RPG games tend to revolve around some kind of conflict. And assuming the players prefer to play "good guys", that means that the GM has to come up with "bad guys" for them to conflict with. Those bad guys could be a local merchant who engaged in the slave/drug trade on the side. It could be some evil priest of <whatever> plotting and scheming to use sentient sacrifices to raise some evil demon/whatever to do <something evil and nasty>. And yeah. Sometimes, it's going to be "enemy culture/kingdom/whatever over there trying to do things to our culture/kingdom over here". Whether we label them "evil" or not, kinda misses the point. Whether they are human, or dwarven, or elven, or trolls, or orcs, or whatever, also doesn't really matter. And whether their actions are in line or out of line with some broader cultural "norm" for those people in general is also not super relevant (though it could be in terms of how the PCs deal with them). At the end of the day, someone is doing something that causes us harm, so we deal with it.

Um... This is also why I'm not a super fan of alignment systems in general. A whole lot of the time, these "evil acts" have nothing at all to do with whether someone is actually "evil", and even less to do with what race they are. It's about what they are doing, and whether what they are doing represents significant threat of harm to others that matters.

In the game setting I've been playing for a long time, there are no racial differences among different groups of dwarves (seriously. They're just dwarves and have different starting stats). However, there are serious differences between them based on culture. Some are incredibly isolationist and nearly xenophobic. Others are active in making and trading things, but are notoriously greedly and will take whatever advantage they can get. Still others are very freindly and willing to share what they have, and help out their friends.

Same deal with Elves in our game. Some are friendly and work closely with other cultures near them. Others are somewhat aloof, and stick to their forests, but will trade if needed. Some are super isolationist, and will basically just kill anyone who isn't an elf who enters their forests without invitation. One group is famous for using poisoned arrows, and allowing trade along one road through their forest (with a tax collection box along the way), but if you devitate from the road, light a single fire (and you'd better not collect any wood to do so), or fail to place an appropriate tax payment in the box, you'll likely never be seen again.


Which kinda loops back to my earlier comments about dwarves (and races/sub-races in general). I find it much much more interesting to make the differences not be physical or magical, but about culture and maybe religion instead. More or less just as differences in humans in most game settings are. But that's just the way I play and prefer to run things. It does have the positive that it removes the direct connection between race and "good/evil" or "enemy/friend". It's never about just that. It's about other things.


I think where many game setting developers go wrong is that they spend a huge amount of time creating a bunch of different cultures and religions and environments for humans, but then go "Elves live in the forest and worship <Elven god> and love nature and living things and are good at magic and healing arts"; "Dwarves live underground and worship <Dwarf god> and love stone and metal and are good at tunnelling and making armor/weapons"; "Orcs live in small villages in the hills and moutains, and worship <Orc god> and love pillaging and killing and are good at fighting". As a result, those races seem very one dimensional. They have one culture. One religion. One environment. And then, when faced with this one dimensionality, instead of saying "well, <race> can actually live in any of a number of different environments, and worship any of a number of different gods, and have any of a number of different cultural norms", they instead go "well, here's <subraceA>, and here's the list of ways they are different from <normal race>, now buy my supplement so you can include this variety of <race> in your game".

And yeah, to the point being made, this can lend towards people making "good/evil" associations about the races themselves.

[OldTrees1]

I consider that a different question.

-snip-

"What if there was a type of person whose literal survival required doing harm to other people" is a different question from "What if there was a type of person that was predisposed to evil".

I think worldbuilding questions can lead to other worldbuilding questions. I found the former question interesting. Some partial answers to the former question also raise the latter question. Others don't. When the latter question is an emergent question (rather than some metagame need) then I find it can remain interesting.

However you are right this example I gave was about inhuman/nonhuman people. I am glad I successfully communicated it was not about Orcs.

Edit: I guess my thesis is, if your fantasy race could be replaced with a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits (Classic Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, ect), you should treat them with the same respect that you would treat a group of humans you are writing about.

If your fantasy race is deliberately Inhuman, then that inhumanity should be central to how you explore them.

You thesis sounds good, but I should check. What do you mean by "a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits"?
Are you talking about the species that are basically just humans? No nonhuman traits of significance? For example Elves trance in contrast to a Plasmoid or a Warforged*? You had been talking about species being distinct vs indistinct from human, so I assume this is what you meant.
*Assuming no sapient robots IRL at the time of the reply.

I don't have a formal thesis, but it would be similar to yours but would mention both humans and inhumans/nonhumans are people, and people are not bound by the limitations of humanity.

[Jophiel]

To be fair, *my* point was "we're not talking about just D&D, particularly 5e" and Jophiel's point seems to be adjacent.

Exactly, thanks. We have people discussing "defunct" D&D versions from 1e to 4e, some talk of 5e, some talk of other RPGs, a whole lot of just theoretical talk that could apply to any rule set, etc. Trying to say "Well WOTC is making [race] like this in their next version of 5e, so there" misses a huge part (probably a majority) of the thread content.

[BRC]

You thesis sounds good, but I should check. What do you mean by "a bunch of humans who happen to share some similar traits"?
Are you talking about the species that are basically just humans? No nonhuman traits of significance? For example Elves trance in contrast to a Plasmoid or a Warforged*? You had been talking about species being distinct vs indistinct from human, so I assume this is what you meant.

That would be correct.


Most Fantasy Dwarves could be replaced with humans who happen to grow big beards, enjoy drinking, mining, and smithing. They're short and stout, but besides the obvious architectural implications, there is rarely much built out about them that couldn't be used to describe a human culture that lives underground and values good craftsmanship.

An elves Trance is an Inhuman trait, but I rarely see it explored in a way beyond "Elves sleep a bit differently I guess", I don't think I've ever seen anything that has Elven trance be relevant in a way that, say, a human that's a light sleeper couldn't be. Some stories really get into the idea of Elves having long lives and how that separates them from humanity, but often an 80 year old elf is just written as a 20 year old human with pointy ears.

If you had a bunch of humans who loved nature, thought they were better than everybody else, were light sleepers, and claimed to be four times older than they were, then you're pretty close to a lot of fantasy Elves.

[LibraryOgre]

Does that mean you'd be okay with the South Orkton orcs being mostly evil (say, much like Menzoberranzan's Lothite Drow, Gruumsh's faith was very successful in South Orkton), and those South Orkton orcs who don't wish to participate in raiding and pillaging needing to flee that society for the North or other nations, then?

Actually, this plays into some of my thoughts on these (I think I mentioned them earlier, but this is a long thread).

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.

Now, a CN or NE person in a CE society can probably get along; they're not quite vicious enough, or a bit too regimented, but they can make it work. They may even thrive; that NE guy might be able to create a locus of power around himself, and use that to get a leg up.

As an additional layer, though, there is the size of a society. If alignment tends to get expressed statistically... 1% of this Mostly Chaotic Evil race is LG... then that 1% when there's 100 people is one guy. Easy to dump in a gutter somewhere. When there are 10,000 people, it's 100 guys. And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton.

[Psyren]

Most Fantasy Dwarves could be replaced with humans who happen to grow big beards, enjoy drinking, mining, and smithing. They're short and stout, but besides the obvious architectural implications, there is rarely much built out about them that couldn't be used to describe a human culture that lives underground and values good craftsmanship.

I think this is where more metaphysical differentiators like darkvision, poison resistance, magic resistance or tremorsense will come in handy to better distinguish dwarves from short subterranean humans. Being a dwarf should feel like the stone itself is part of you, or helping you.

An elves Trance is an Inhuman trait, but I rarely see it explored in a way beyond "Elves sleep a bit differently I guess", I don't think I've ever seen anything that has Elven trance be relevant in a way that, say, a human that's a light sleeper couldn't be. Some stories really get into the idea of Elves having long lives and how that separates them from humanity, but often an 80 year old elf is just written as a 20 year old human with pointy ears.

If you had a bunch of humans who loved nature, thought they were better than everybody else, were light sleepers, and claimed to be four times older than they were, then you're pretty close to a lot of fantasy Elves.

In prior D&D editions you'd be right, elven trance was primarily a flavor thing. In fact, if you were a caster you barely got any benefit, because even if you could get your actual 'sleeping' done in less than 8 hours you'd still be forced into inactivity for the remaining time (4+4 typically) to get your spells back. An elf spellcaster wouldn't even get extra time on watch since they were forbidden from skill use while inactive - you weren't much use on watch if you couldn't roll Spot or Listen.

In 5e however trance is a lot stronger, particularly the updated version we got in MPMM (see Eladrin, Sea Elf etc) which is also going to show up in the new PHB. You get the full benefit of a Long Rest after just 4 hours regardless of your class, and you remain fully conscious the entire time - this means you can keep watch over your sleeping allies while 'sleeping' yourself. In addition, if your DM is the type who likes to interrupt a long rest with an ambush, not only do you have a good chance of avoiding being surprised as mentioned, you also have a decent chance of having gotten your resources back before the attack. Lastly, because you don't lose consciousness, you never actually become incapacitated, which means elves can potentially maintain concentration through a long rest. While these benefits can be a little campaign-dependent, there's a pretty decent chance at least one of them will come up, making an elf party member (or eladrin, shadar-kai etc) fairly handy to have around.

There aren't too many spells that last long enough to benefit from the concentration-through-sleep thing, but as an example, an Elf Druid helping the party track down an objective with Find The Path being able to cast it before bed, get their 6th-level spell slot back, and pick up the trail in the morning without casting it a second time could be a pretty nice racial benefit.

[JusticeZero]

I don't have an issue with conflict, I have an issue with bad conflict.
"The Snorgs raid our villages because they are enthralled by a monster that demands it, and we don't know how to cure them of their enthrallment." Okay, there's a threat, we have lots of fights and some actionable plans to deal with it.
"The Blorgs raid our villages because they gain in social class through battlefield feats, so the generals are trying to earn favor through success." Understandable. They're not inherently evil, but their society is set up in a way that we're going to have issues. Again, there's actions we can take to make this better.
"The Noddas raid our villages because the Noddas God is a god of raiding and cruelty and slaughter. They're always evil savages that dress like this real world culture." We're way deep in problem land here. This is lazy and bad writing, and it is applied to real world cultures far too often.
There's multiple points here that make me go "Wait, that looks like something somebody who makes money off of cruelty to the Noddas would tell people..." And while that might make an interesting story, the "Grar, paladins must slaughter all Noddas" angle is really disturbing. Because real people are tired of being treated as always evil bags of XP for paladins in their real life.

[Psyren]

Actually, this plays into some of my thoughts on these (I think I mentioned them earlier, but this is a long thread).

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.

Now, a CN or NE person in a CE society can probably get along; they're not quite vicious enough, or a bit too regimented, but they can make it work. They may even thrive; that NE guy might be able to create a locus of power around himself, and use that to get a leg up.

As an additional layer, though, there is the size of a society. If alignment tends to get expressed statistically... 1% of this Mostly Chaotic Evil race is LG... then that 1% when there's 100 people is one guy. Easy to dump in a gutter somewhere. When there are 10,000 people, it's 100 guys. And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton.

Indeed, this was exactly my point. South Orkton is full of evil orcs (comprising 95%, 99%, or hell even 100% of the adult orcs there at any given time) - not because "good orcs" are a biological or metaphysical impossibility, but because South Orkton is a brutally efficient society that stamps them out anytime they're suspected. This is exactly how Menzoberranzan works.

But for me, the interesting part of stories about South Orkton wouldn't be the 99% maintaining the status quo, it would be the 1% or 0.1% of successful escapees.

[Jophiel]

In a society that is predominantly evil, you are less likely to see good outliers than a society that is primarily good is going to see evil outliers... because good people are less likely to just murder others. So, those good orcs born in South Orkton often just die. They're killed for being weak, or being in the way, or for not being able to defend themselves adequately.

Yeah, basically. Weird "biologically evil" remarks aside, I've said before (and other people have also said repeatedly) that "Always Evil" ain't literally always evil or else you couldn't get your Orc-Drizzt or whoever. But it does likely mean 99.X% evil because the scant ones who'd fail to live up to society wouldn't last long (and probably not past childhood depending on how they're raised).

If anything, you're more likely to have some adult have a "moment" and shift mindsets, unlikely as that is, than you are to have an orc kid who tries to help caterpillars cross puddles and survives into adulthood.

[JusticeZero]

...it does likely mean 99.X% evil because the scant ones who'd fail to live up to society wouldn't last long ...
If anything, you're more likely to have some adult have a "moment" and shift mindsets, unlikely as that is, than you are to have an orc kid who tries to help caterpillars cross puddles and survives into adulthood.

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.

[OldTrees1]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.

I am assuming they were using that single example act as a flag post to reduce word count, rather than claim "Evil" can't help caterpillars. If I am wrong, then thank you for correcting them about that.


However that is not why I replied. From your post I am unsure how much of it is unfamiliarity with the Ethics branches of Philosophy and how much it is a critique of when players conflate those branches. Just in case you find it useful, here are some helpful links from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Philosophy Primers on the 3 dominant ethical theories:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/e...deontological/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Apologies for the interruption. I expect you know all this already.

[JusticeZero]

From your post I am unsure how much of it is unfamiliarity with the Ethics branches of Philosophy and how much it is a critique of when players conflate those branches.

I'm aware of various theories of ethics.

None of them are relevant to D&D and its derivatives, where evil and good are treated as chemical properties of matter subject to continual measurement and gradual change, and in which an individual or object that is Evil will tend to perform Evil acts to anyone around them, independent of any ethical framework or lack thereof, and in which any benevolent acts toward anything for any reason will tend toward causing problems for an Evil object in an Evil society.

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously.

[MonochromeTiger]

Not getting into the other arguments on the last few pages because not only are they a minefield but they're a minefield that is very hard to say anything on without potentially offending all sides involved for different reasons. But the whole objective alignment point I actually feel like commenting on because I'm opinionated and something that occasionally comes up on the matter always bothered me.

The example most old and new players seem to agree on is that Outsiders, things like Angels and Devils and so on, are made of "Good" or "Evil" and as a result are always going to be good or evil. The problem is its never actually been universally true even in game. D&D itself is fully willing to pull out a fallen Angel character which flat out disproves that "being made of Good" means you're objectively good, then on the other side of things there's plenty of cases of fiendish characters doing things against their supposedly objectively evil nature whenever the writers want to show things are really bad and even the "objectively evil" don't want to see what happens if it gets even worse.

Two extremely popular CRPGs, both based on existing systems and one based on an official adventure for its system, even have redeemed Demons; Planescape Torment has Fall-from-Grace and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous has Arueshalae. Both are Succubi and there are some common comments on why the Demon that gets the most redemption stories seems to be the one that looks like a conventionally attractive Woman but despite that they still prove a point. The things that even many detractors of always-evil think should always be evil can still be good, or at the very least neutral.

Part of that issue loops back to the oft repeated point, if something has free will it can technically choose to hold whatever moral view it wants, even with any number of pressures applied to it from cultural to some nebulous claim of "they're made of X so it affects them." If they don't have free will then they can't truly be good or evil, they have no say in things and it would be like saying a building's support beam is good for holding up a building, it's just doing what it was literally made to do and has no say in the matter.

[Witty Username]

But for me, the interesting part of stories about South Orkton wouldn't be the 99% maintaining the status quo, it would be the 1% or 0.1% of successful escapees.

I actually agree with this, but that story doesn't work if there is no status quo.

And does it being localized make the issue better? It seems like we are at just wipe out Menzoborenzen, plot solved, but I am not confident that actually solves anyones problems with the whole encouraging wholesale destruction.

[OldTrees1]

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously.

Thank you for clarifying and my apologies again for interrupting.

[Dr.Samurai]

Seems to me what Jophiel was pointing out is simple; dominant cultures tend to reinforce themselves. A child that shows sympathy in a traditionally brutal and ruthless culture will be ostracized or worse. In this way, the number of orcs, as an example, that don't tow the traditional Gruumsh line, will remain tiny. It is more likely that an adult orc has a change of heart due to some experience or circumstances, because had the orc been good since a child, they would not have made it to adulthood in all likelihood.

This is seen in the Drizz't books, in which Drizz't is suspected and targeted by rival drow and has to inflict non-lethal violence on an innocent elf and pretend to have killed her to avoid suspicion. Because otherwise he will be called out and targeted.

It's an explanation for why a race of creatures with an origin story that stems from a creator deity might perpetuate the evil culture over many generations and give the appearance of an evil "race" when in reality it's a culture that happens to map over the race of creatures in which it originated, and it perpetuates itself as an dominant culture does.

This is also why dwarves are mostly lawful that lean good, and elves are mostly chaotic, etc etc etc. Because they were from the beginning, are influenced by their deities, and the culture perpetuates itself.

[Jophiel]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?

It was a joke. Or, more accurately as OldTrees1 pointed out, a (tongue in cheek) flag for "good" behavior.

[Psyren]

I actually agree with this, but that story doesn't work if there is no status quo.

And does it being localized make the issue better? It seems like we are at just wipe out Menzoborenzen, plot solved, but I am not confident that actually solves anyones problems with the whole encouraging wholesale destruction.

It being localized is better because it solves two problems:

1. The people who are demanding that their immersion hinges on evil gods not being impotent, have a concrete example of their influence in the world. Lolth can't corrupt every Drow on the planet, never mind the multiverse - but sure, she can oppress a large city. Same with Gruumsh and a cluster of tribes.
2. Being localized reinforces the idea that there isn't something innate or intrinsic to these races that makes them worthy of distrust. I would be suspicious of a drow from Menzoberranzan, sure, because chances are if they came from that culture and survived it's because they're part of the 99% that reinforced it. I would be suspicious of, say, a Githyanki kith'rak for the same reason, because being that far up in Vlaakith's hierarchy suggests they were pretty ruthless to get that far. But there's always that small chance they're from somewhere else, or they're in that smaller percentage that didn't internalize that culture or seek redemption from it, as well.

As for "wiping out Menzoberranzan" - I totally agree you shouldn't do that, because then you're wiping out the innocents (however few) that are trapped in that society, as well as the ones with the capacity for reform. So what you do instead is undermine their leaders, and build an underground railroad.

And lastly, if you encounter a drow or orc on the street, of course you defend yourself if they attack - but that's what you should do if a dwarf or a human attacked you too.

[Witty Username]

The people who are demanding that their immersion hinges on evil gods not being impotent, have a concrete example of their influence in the world.

Wouldn't that run afoul of being allowed to include them in official settings though?

Since either they are reduced to inconsequential and therefore not worthy of mention, or promenent and therefore problematic?

[Dr.Samurai]

Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too? So shouldn't there be evil dwarf strongholds alongside the goodly Mithral Hall and Gauntelgrym? We're trying to avoid any inkling of bio-determinism right? Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

On a similar note, should we have more evil human nations other than Thay? Can we count up all of the evil nations in FR? What's the percentage between good/neutral human settlements, and straight up evil ones? I think we may be behind on our evil ones and need to have more.

As far as wiping Menzo off the map... nice work. Now you just have to contend with the other hundreds/thousands of evil drow cities in the Underdark lol.

[Errorname]

Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

I don't think that "there's a good dwarf settlement and a bad dwarf settlement" is a very interesting way to mix it up, but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil.

[Satinavian]

Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too?

Sure. I don't need always good races any more than always evil races. But i do have the feeling that evil orc or elves are already pretty common, mostly because as PCs those had individual alignment since basically forever.

On a similar note, should we have more evil human nations other than Thay? Can we count up all of the evil nations in FR? What's the percentage between good/neutral human settlements, and straight up evil ones? I think we may be behind on our evil ones and need to have more.

Well, yes. Humans aren't even a "good" race. Of course they should produce a lot of evil societies as well.
However humans are generally too common so instead of increasing the numbers of evil human nations one would probably better reduce the number of good ones.

Or even better : Don't use FR and its decades of baggage in the first place. If you really want official settings, there is Eberron with some more modern handling of alignments and generally deeper cultures. Or make your own thing.



Of course some people say that evil is so selfdestructive that it harder to make any society work with it so evil societies regardless of race should be rarer than good or neutral ones. But i am not so sure about it. There are many ways to build societies that are stable with some really nasty elements in it.

However many evil societies actually described in fantasy do read as if they should have collapsed in a month with all the backstabbing, random violence, infighting, friction, lack of trust, paranoia and disregard for anything that actually benefits the society as a whole or the survival of its members. Again over-the-top evulnezz for the lullz does not make a good setting.

[Psyren]

We're trying to avoid any inkling of bio-determinism right?

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.

Shouldn't then good dwarves be localized too? So shouldn't there be evil dwarf strongholds alongside the goodly Mithral Hall and Gauntelgrym?
...
Seems kind of weird that all the dwarf settlements are generally good. We should probably mix that up to avoid any implications that they don't have free will or something...

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron. Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.

As far as wiping Menzo off the map

You mean the thing I said not to do?
Taking away the exact opposite of what I wrote is going to make this a challenging conversation

Wouldn't that run afoul of being allowed to include them in official settings though?

...No? Why do you say that? Menzoberranzan is official.

Since either they are reduced to inconsequential and therefore not worthy of mention, or promenent and therefore problematic?

I disagree with this framing entirely. No setting detail is inconsequential, you can make a story or campaign about anything. And prominent cities/cultures are not problematic; as Samurai elegantly put it, the goal is to avoid bio-determinism.

[OldTrees1]

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.

Is this compatible with the playable Myconoids, Trolls, Ghouls, Illithids, and Fiends? (They already have free will and are playable species in various RPGs/editions)
Or does this necessitate limiting playable species to the human adjacent species (Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling, ...)?

I am mostly trying to gauge whether inhuman biological features (physical:troll's regen, mental:illithid's psionic minds) are permitted.

[Mordar]

...People you'd consider "Evil" can't help caterpillars cross puddles and whatever...?
This is dipping into a thing that I find incredibly weird about D&D-derivative culture, where concepts of good and evil are treated as physical properties of matter or some such. If a thing is Good it is Good for everybody, and always Good. If a thing is Evil it is Evil for and to everyone, and in both cases you can measure the Good and Evil with scientific instruments.
It's a truly strange and alien worldview if you think about it, and I'm happy no longer to be in the gaming ecosystem where that philosophy makes any sense whatsoever.

This sits near the core of my idea for the Proposed Evil Dwarf Race (PEDR). They actively promote, participate and encourage X number of "generally viewed as Evil activities" based on an efficacious, but limited, rationale. They do not participate, tolerate or allow Y number of "generally viewed as Evil activities" for similar reasons. I can tolerate the quantifiable Good/Evil (or Law/Chaos, with Neutrals thrown in on all sides), and believe the measurement can be accurate and consistent...but the validity is an interesting question. Is it really measuring what whomever thinks it is? Part of why I try to always use Good/Evil versus good/evil.

The example most old and new players seem to agree on is that Outsiders, things like Angels and Devils and so on, are made of "Good" or "Evil" and as a result are always going to be good or evil. The problem is its never actually been universally true even in game. D&D itself is fully willing to pull out a fallen Angel character which flat out disproves that "being made of Good" means you're objectively good, then on the other side of things there's plenty of cases of fiendish characters doing things against their supposedly objectively evil nature whenever the writers want to show things are really bad and even the "objectively evil" don't want to see what happens if it gets even worse.
[SNIP]
Part of that issue loops back to the oft repeated point, if something has free will it can technically choose to hold whatever moral view it wants, even with any number of pressures applied to it from cultural to some nebulous claim of "they're made of X so it affects them." If they don't have free will then they can't truly be good or evil, they have no say in things and it would be like saying a building's support beam is good for holding up a building, it's just doing what it was literally made to do and has no say in the matter.

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.

I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will. That doesn't seem to track for me, any more than saying "since I can't leap over tall buildings in a single bound I do not have free will".

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron. Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.

This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.

- M

[Psyren]

Is this compatible with the playable Myconoids, Trolls, Ghouls, Illithids, and Fiends? (They already have free will and are playable species in various RPGs/editions)

That depends in part on how those editions and games handle alignment. But in general, yes, I would expect that if the designers of those games make something playable, they're making sure that thing's morality isn't biologically determined, including playable Ghouls and Illithids.

Or does this necessitate limiting playable species to the human adjacent species (Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling, ...)?

You don't need to limit playable species to Tolkien's miniscule slate, you just have to put the work in. 5e for example created a Haglike playable race with the Hexblood, and an undead-like playable race with the Reborn. They did this rather than make Hags and Wights playable so that the latter's universal evil could remain justified in the fiction. If you would rather have actually playable Hags and Wights, that's fine, just make it so they're not universally evil anymore.

I am mostly trying to gauge whether inhuman biological features (physical:troll's regen, mental:illithid's psionic minds) are permitted.

Not sure if I understand this, but - a troll's regeneration has nothing to do with alignment/morality. An illithid's brain might, but we ultimately don't know exactly why they're evil from birth, nor similarly alien aberrations like Aboleths. There may be a divine component (e.g. Ilsensine) outside interference from their Elder Brain while they were in the tadpole stage, some alien component of their psychology, or any number of other factors; all we have are theories.

I wasn't aware of the idea that beings formed of/by pure Law/Chaos/Good/Evil lacked free will. That doesn't seem to track for me, any more than saying "since I can't leap over tall buildings in a single bound I do not have free will".

It's shorthand; fiends aren't automatons, no, but they don't choose to be evil in the same way mortals do either - any more than a Modron can choose to be Chaotic. Some extraordinary specimens can, but doing so physically changes them and they stop being whatever they were (see Zariel). A good drow like Drizz't meanwhile doesn't stop being a drow.

This does not track for me either. While there might be some "qualities" that are sufficient for determining that a culture/society/race (in the RPG context) is Evil if they express even one, I don't think the same applies to Good, and if there is a necessary list, I don't think that would be on it either.

"Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal I can do much with beyond disagree.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think that "there's a good dwarf settlement and a bad dwarf settlement" is a very interesting way to mix it up, but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil.

We'll continue to agree to disagree on what is "interesting" and "not interesting" necessarily. I have LotR, RA Salvatore, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and countless other classics on my side of the equation but... let's just move beyond that.

With regards to how to "mix it up"... what do you guys propose? Right now, in Forgotten Realms, the Underdark is home to a continent spanning evil drow empire. Countless cities of evil drow exist in caverns all throughout.

We also have this little Lorendrow community, and this Aevendrow community. And the scragglers like Drizz't that escape the Underdark.

Is this enough? An entire continent of evil drow, and then a couple of good drow communities? Is that an okay mix?

Sure. I don't need always good races any more than always evil races. But i do have the feeling that evil orc or elves are already pretty common, mostly because as PCs those had individual alignment since basically forever.

Since the 80s you could play as drow, despite the fact that they were evil, and you'd be considered an outcast. So... this has always been the case.

Or even better : Don't use FR and its decades of baggage in the first place. If you really want official settings, there is Eberron with some more modern handling of alignments and generally deeper cultures. Or make your own thing.

Of course some people say that evil is so selfdestructive that it harder to make any society work with it so evil societies regardless of race should be rarer than good or neutral ones. But i am not so sure about it. There are many ways to build societies that are stable with some really nasty elements in it.

However many evil societies actually described in fantasy do read as if they should have collapsed in a month with all the backstabbing, random violence, infighting, friction, lack of trust, paranoia and disregard for anything that actually benefits the society as a whole or the survival of its members. Again over-the-top evulnezz for the lullz does not make a good setting.

I do love the idea of looking back at all the originals, on which the success of this game rests, and saying "you guys were doing it wrong all along, despite the tremendous success".

For playable or otherwise free-willed species - correct, that's precisely the objective.

An arbitrary distinction that I don't think anyone has supported or substantiated.

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron.

Psyren... this is an untenable position. There's no way you actually believe this.

Diversity/Inclusion is a superficial metric. In fact, all of you are arguing for diverse/inclusive EVIL societies, instead of ones made up purely of orcs or drow. It's extremely easy to imagine that the Hill Giant Steading is instead the Raider's Steading, and is filled with elves and dwarves and halflings and trolls and giants that all want to equal raid and pillage and conquer. Their diverse nature doesn't make them good.

Even in a crapsack world that is predominantly evil - which none of the current published settings are (even Ravenloft is mostly neutral) - an enclave of Good would by definition be willing to take in anyone who isn't actively a problem.

That doesn't matter. Because if we allow these peoples to maintain their culture and lore (gasp! I know, but bear with me) then maybe others won't want to live there! So if dwarves are taciturn dark-dwellers toiling away at their crafts and mining and drinking lots of beer etc... and elves don't particularly take to that culture and lifestyle then it makes sense that we wouldn't see a bunch of elves living among the dwarves. That doesn't make the dwarves "not good", it makes them distinct.

If you wash away all the stuff that makes the races what they are, which we all know is the accusation levied against WotC at the moment, then MAYBE you can expect that all the races would be mingled in together amongst each other.

Traditionally that's been the purview of human nations, where the other races can come together.

What you guys want is that instead of PC adventurers representing the people that buck trends or break free of cultural norms, you want EVERY MEMBER of EVERY RACE to buck trends and break free of cultural norms.

You mean the thing I said not to do?
Taking away the exact opposite of what I wrote is going to make this a challenging conversation

Witty Username mentioned it, not you, and my reply to that idea is that Menzo is one of MANY evil drow city-states, and by focusing on that we're pretending that the drow really aren't an evil race spread all throughout the Underdark, and that something like the Lorendrow can counteract the reality that they are, for most intents and purposes, an evil race.

[KorvinStarmast]

And they may be able to carve out a niche for themsevles, or they may go on to form North Orkton.

We used to play against Oakton High School in football, basketball, soccer, etc.
They will now and forever be referred to as Orkton high school when the old gang gets together. (And yes, we are old).

That's.... a very specific set of tropes, all tending to the absurd when applied seriously.

Correct. This site considered it too far removed from philosophy to even entertain the question. Later in life, they entertained a sub set of the question. Interesting exposition here.

Seems to me what Jophiel was pointing out is simple; dominant cultures tend to reinforce themselves.

It's on the marches and borders the change often takes place.

This is seen in the Drizz't books, in which Drizz't is suspected and targeted by rival drow and has to inflict non-lethal violence on an innocent elf and pretend to have killed her to avoid suspicion. Because otherwise he will be called out and targeted.

Not gonna do my usual eye roll at Drizz't shenanigans.

The point of TTRPG 'races/origins' being based on a creator deity from a pantheon of many deities presents a lot of variations that don't map to standard human ethics/morality. I'll stop there.

... but a species that is just one-note good isn't any more interesting than a species that's one-note evil.

Which once again is a point toward "get the 5e PHB halflings out of the game"

[Brookshw]

The hallmark of a Good civilization/culture is that it would encourage diversity/inclusivity, so an isolationist monospecies Good society is an oxymoron.

That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good.

[KorvinStarmast]

That sounds strange, I'm not seeing why you can't be good but want to generally be left alone. Or, in other words, I knew those introverts weren't up to any good.

Apparently, Psyren would find Medieval Japan to be evil.