The Fantasy Races Thread

[Michael Hopcroft]

18 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

It’s not very possible.  Human players can’t rid themselves of their humanity. Also the truly alien doesn’t work for player characters as non aligned goals will break up the party. But, games as entertainment, means a lot of the customs and tropes from fantasy and science fiction filter into the games. So, that means human in a monster suit, or heavy make-up. There was a thread in the Star Hero forum on The Truly Alien or something like that, where the initial poster wanted a game with truly alien aliens. In the discussion, it became apparent that in most cases the presence of the truly alien became a horror. The truly Alien is CREEPY!!  At best, divergent goals make things a hassle, for the GM and the players. At worst is the alien leading to a TPK, or RL conflicts within the group due to IC/OOC miscommunication. 
 

So what that leaves us is basically actors in funny suits and make up. From Star Trek aliens on the low effort end to Hollywood CG characters, all boil down to actors portraying characters interacting with other actors and the audience. Most people experience with the non human are their pets. But the pets have similar gross motives as their human owners, food, shelter, affection, and breeding. The differences are in intelligence, and knowledge.

 

But the races at this point are required to present the proper atmosphere to a fantasy or science fiction game. Not having them turns a fantasy into  historical fiction with magic, and  science fiction becomes a techno-thriller, not that there is anything wrong with that (see A Song of Ice & Fire, but even that had some non humans). The problem may be more of  being  a good “actor” in one’s role play rather than the non humans being alien. I don’t expect or put any expectations upon my player’s ability to act, just to put out some effort and be involved and active in the game.  But In creating non humans, what I try to do is to give them different capabilities, subtly different goals

or motivations, but not to give them odd mental frameworks that might make them creepy or hard for Joe Gamer to play. Goals should be able to be aligned and having them in a party of mostly humans should not cause a lot of friction nor derail the game. Putting on a funny suit, and heavy make up also keeps the players from getting entirely bored. So it’s a choice to have or have not include them in one’s game, but Intend to include them, like a spice that signifies a dish as foreign, even if it is made of the same meat and potatoes as local dishes. 

This brings to mind some of the most alien aliens, at least in appearance, in popular culture. I refer of course to Doctor Who's Daleks. Daleks are a personification of hate. They kill everyone they encounter unless they decide to enslave them instead, and a Dalek is miserable without someone to bully. They have no positive traits whatsoever -- even their formidable intellects are inextricably linked to their genoicidal xenophobia. Thus there are a lot of people who would want to wipe them off the face of the cosmos. But that too is part of the corruption they inspire, because the hatred they inspire is poison even to those who hate them.

 

Nobody in their right minds would roleplay a Dalek. But it can really add spice to a story when needed as an NPC.

 

[MechaniCat]

I feel I have to pose the question of why should another species be nth degree alien in the first place?

 

Several species in close proximity would inevitably start to homogenize in order to get along so they would become less alien over time.

 

One of the theoretical models or alien species is that they MUST be like us because that's the only way to support life, which is one of the arguments for the Star Trek style of alien (though I don't personally agree with that model.)

 

One would presume that all motivations can be simplified into a small sub-set that all living things share a need for: shelter, food, procreation and so on. The ways that they go about these things might not be comprehensible, but those core parts generally would be.

 

I feel like there's more reason to believe another sapient race would be more like humans rather than less like humans.

 

that said, it hasn't stopped me from having both very human like races as well as very not. Whether it be one instance of a race which had no survival instinct resulting in an outrageous death and birthing rate, or a race of sapient electrical currents who need audio/visual displays to translate their sixth sense into our five.

both of those cases mind, were examples of me deliberately creating otherness in a race though. They are not at all likely to occur I would think.

[Shoug]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:13 AM, Chris Goodwin said:

All right, what is evil?  

 

By which I mean, is it a moral judgement, or a cosmic alignment?

 

If evil is a cosmic alignment, then those who are on "team Evil" are evil by definition, which means those who are on "team Good" are good by definition, right?  (I call that "sports jersey alignment", by the way.  Our guys are Good because they are our guys, and their guys are Evil because they are their guys.)  

 

They can be both, of course... but that means team Good has to be morally good, and team Evil has to be morally evil.  (Can someone who finds themselves on team Evil do good things?  Or is it always considered evil because they are on team Evil?  In other words, do they score Evil points for saving children?)

 

I don't find sports jersey alignment to be interesting.  I don't want to play in games that include cosmic alignment, because one thing they are not, is people who do things for reasons that people do them.  that 

 

If orcs are created to be evil... either they're on team Evil and have no choice in the matter, or they're created to do evil things... and have no choice in the matter.  Robots, in other words.  I don't find that interesting either.  (If I designed a horde of killer robots, and sent them out to destroy orphanages and slaughter villages... are they the ones that are evil, or is it me?)  

 

Lest anyone think I'm being coy, "the cosmic battle of good vs. evil" has been done to death.  I don't find anything interesting about it.  

 

What isn't interesting about pure evil? Don't you realize that pure evil is actually real? Did you know that there are people who traffic children children and animals as sex slaves? Did you know that there are people who make their living by selling videos of them brutally torturing and raping children and animals? Did you know that there are people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for those videos? Not only does evil exist, but elementally pure ultimate evil exists, in real life. It doesn't have to be a matter of "cosmic alignment", it can just be a matter of character. So that's not the problem.

The problem apparently is that ultimate evil is uninteresting. Now, obviously one could simply say, "That is just my taste." and the discussion would be over, but that's not what we're here for. Why isn't ultimate evil interesting? Morality is often talked about with the terms "black," "white," and "grey." G.R.R.Martin is often described as writing stories with morally grey characters and situations, and it is this grey-ness that makes his writing so excellent. But the truth is, the who spectrum is always present. In the best stories, its a kaleidoscope of shades of grey, ranging all the way from black to white. You've got good characters with small skeletons in their closet, even more righteous characters with even more skeletons in their closet, and you've got bad characters with some redeeming qualities (but not enough), and you've got bad characters with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Pure evil is interesting. The almost biblical death of Ned Stark, one of the few truly Good men, the demented villainy of Joffrey Lannister and Ramsey Bolton, and the tumultuous Theon Greyjoy, they paint a more vibrant picture than a story awash with lukewarm "grey-ness."

I don't see why the role of pure evil couldn't be filled by a whole type of creature. In my setting it's ghouls and dragons, but in some, it's orcs. An orc is like The Grinch: Maybe if you made a movie about him, he might be redeemable. But the thing is, the grinch is a children's cartoon, his big crime is ruining christmas by being a sourpuss. In our games, a being of overwhelming evil might cook a whole village alive over ten dozen bonfires and eat them for dinner. Or they might chase prisoners with barbed lashes as a kind of idle entertainment. They're sadistic, cruel, and powerful. They have no reason to give and credence to the wants and desires of the victims of their barbarism because it's usually impossible to resist them. 

This is a scary concept. If you'd stop balking at "black and white" morality and immerse yourself in the concept and use your imagination, it can be viscerally effective. Imagine the tension and fear of a village with an Orc problem. Imagine the terror your character might have walking through the gore of an orcish dining hall. I just can't see that as anything but appealing from a worldbuilding perspective. On the other hand, you've got Orcs who are basically just stand ins of for some nameless vaguely primitive tribe like Mongols or Native Americans or something. That honestly sounds more racist then "All they do is evil. Why? I don't know, they can."

[DShomshak]

I think the starting question(s) need to be divided, between having multiple intelligent races in the world, and having them available as PCs. Many of the mythologies on which we base our fantasies did have multiple intelligent races in rthe world. The Norse, for instance, had elves (light and dark), dwarves and giants (multiple varieties). The Greeks had centaurs, satyrs, and others. Medieval Europeans didn't believe that other intelligent peoples lived with them in Europe, but educated folk knew that distant parts of the world held giants, pygmies, dog-headed men, monopods, and other strange folk: Respectable Classical authors such as Pliny told them so. But they rarely told stories in which such "other folk" acted as protagonists. (I can think of a few Norse stories about dwarfs, but these were usually backstory for myths about gods or human heroes.)

 

These "other folk" were usually quite human in their motivations, though, so I don't see any special need why they should be notably alien in fantasy. Would the myth of the Mead of Poetry be "better" if all the participants had been human, instead of dwarfs and giants?

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Sometimes the point seems to provide a "shock of the familiar" in contexts that initially seem strange. Mandeville's Travels  -- the immensely popular Medieval guidebook to the marvels of the East -- does this several times. For instance, Mandeville assures us that the king of the dog-headed men is very pious in his devotion to the ox-god of his people, and the naked cannibal savages of another country love their parents (even if the way they show it is a little, um, different from European sensibilities).

 

Years back, I read a book about extraterrestrial life whose author mocked many SF aliens as mere "animal fables" -- using animals (or aliens, especially aliens reminiscent of Earthly animals) as stand-ins for human qualities and behaviors. Foxes, the author sniffed, are not actually sly, nor lions brave, nor grasshoppers carefree. Those are human projections. Most aliens, similarly, are clearly not really aliens but just humans in rubber suits and makeup.

 

Which, it could be argued, misses the point. SF writers are rarely trying to create accurate forecasts of What's Really Out There. (Best evidence at pesent would be: bacteria. Nothing but bacteria.) The writers are humans, telling stories for other humans to enjoy. The same is true for fantasy authrors. "If the nonhumans aren't really nonhuman, why are they nonhumans?" Well, if the ant and the grasshopper in Aesop's fable aren't really scientifically accurate insects, why are they an ant and a grasshopper? Answer one question, and you answer the other.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Scott Ruggels]

12 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Years back, I read a book about extraterrestrial life whose author mocked many SF aliens as mere "animal fables" -- using animals (or aliens, especially aliens reminiscent of Earthly animals) as stand-ins for human qualities and behaviors. Foxes, the author sniffed, are not actually sly, nor lions brave, nor grasshoppers carefree. Those are human projections. Most aliens, similarly, are clearly not really aliens but just humans in rubber suits and makeup.

 

Which, it could be argued, misses the point. SF writers are rarely trying to create accurate forecasts of What's Really Out There. (Best evidence at pesent would be: bacteria. Nothing but bacteria.) The writers are humans, telling stories for other humans to enjoy. The same is true for fantasy authrors. "If the nonhumans aren't really nonhuman, why are they nonhumans?" Well, if the ant and the grasshopper in Aesop's fable aren't really scientifically accurate insects, why are they an ant and a grasshopper? Answer one question, and you answer the other.

 

Precisely this.  The top paragraph sounds a lot like Gnome-body's objections to other species, and The final paragraph seems to be the reason WHY other people put them in. To tell entertaining tales (and give my war gaming players a different set of tactical capabilities.)

[ScottishFox]

On 4/6/2020 at 8:00 PM, Old Man said:

I know one player who'll only play if he can play an elf or the equivalent, another player who will basically always play a dwarf, and a third who will play whatever the biggest, strongest possible character is.

 

The Sunday game I attend (as a player!) has two other players who will ONLY play goblins.

 

It's just the worst.  It's a classic D&D Sword Coast setting and they get annoyed when the humans, dwarves and elves openly comment on how much they hate them.

 

Having read many of the books of that setting it's incomprehensible how they aren't getting butchered by the city militia on sight.  But player-preference is accommodated so... goblins.

[tkdguy]

Most of my characters are elves or half-elves. I was influenced by The Silmarillion early in life.

[Lord Liaden]

22 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

The Sunday game I attend (as a player!) has two other players who will ONLY play goblins.

 

It's just the worst.  It's a classic D&D Sword Coast setting and they get annoyed when the humans, dwarves and elves openly comment on how much they hate them.

 

Having read many of the books of that setting it's incomprehensible how they aren't getting butchered by the city militia on sight.  But player-preference is accommodated so... goblins.

 

In Hero Games' Turakian Age setting, the realm of Shar has a rather bipolar relationship with Goblins. The extensive highlands called the Goblin Marches are home to many Goblin tribes. Some of these are the kind of vicious Goblins you'd expect, conducting numerous raids and skirmishes, and occasionally uniting to wage war, against the Sharians. Many Sharian warriors have gained expertise in fighting Goblins (and are known simply as "Goblin Fighters,") reflected in additional Talents and Skills.

 

Sharians call those tribes, "the Black Goblins." But other tribes they call "the Good Goblins," who trade peacefully with Men in Shar and are welcome in their cities. The Good Goblins deplore the depredations of the Black Goblins and sometimes join with the Sharians to fight them.

 

As TA provides a template to make a Goblin PC, Shar would be a particularly good region of origin for one, who could have grown up familiar with Men and unused to the prejudice they might meet elsewhere.

[ScottishFox]

37 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

In Hero Games' Turakian Age setting, the realm of Shar has a rather bipolar relationship with Goblins. The extensive highlands called the Goblin Marches are home to many Goblin tribes. Some of these are the kind of vicious Goblins you'd expect, conducting numerous raids and skirmishes, and occasionally uniting to wage war, against the Sharians. Many Sharian warriors have gained expertise in fighting Goblins (and are known simply as "Goblin Fighters,") reflected in additional Talents and Skills.

 

Sharians call those tribes, "the Black Goblins." But other tribes they call "the Good Goblins," who trade peacefully with Men in Shar and are welcome in their cities. The Good Goblins deplore the depredations of the Black Goblins and sometimes join with the Sharians to fight them.

 

As TA provides a template to make a Goblin PC, Shar would be a particularly good region of origin for one, who could have grown up familiar with Men and unused to the prejudice they might meet elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't be bothered by goblins in a setting where they are a mix of good and bad and how they're treated will be largely related to how their people have behaved in that area.

 

In the sword coast not only are Goblins known for endless centuries of atrocity, murder and death, but their god - Maglubiyet - has waged war on the Gods of races that he has already conquered (bugbears and hobgoblins).  They are an existential threat of incarnate evil and chaos and they threaten not only your mortal well being, but your gods and your afterlife as well.  They don't choose to be evil - they ARE evil.  They are created that way by their deity.  In a setting where there are monstrous races because their gods are able to create them without the level of free will that we generally associated with sentient beings - I struggle with them as a player race.

 

And I blame Drizzt Do'Urden for this.  The one "good" dark elf.  The ultimate rebel.  This appeals to so many players, but too large a subset of those get crankers when their genocidal relentlessly evil people are treated with well-earned prejudice.

 

And Drizzt is likely only good because his chaotic evil spider goddess intentionally created him that way to unleash a titanic amount of chaos on the countless dark elves that would try to take him out.  They hint at this in the later books.  I recall one specifically where the priestess stops what she's doing.  Tells her companions that she finally understands why nobody can kill Drizzt and then heads back to the Underdark a wiser and less dead priestess of Lolth.

[Chris Goodwin]

34 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

In the sword coast not only are Goblins known for endless centuries of atrocity, murder and death, but their god - Maglubiyet - has waged war on the Gods of races that he has already conquered (bugbears and hobgoblins).  They are an existential threat of incarnate evil and chaos and they threaten not only your mortal well being, but your gods and your afterlife as well.  They don't choose to be evil - they ARE evil.  They are created that way by their deity.  In a setting where there are monstrous races because their gods are able to create them without the level of free will that we generally associated with sentient beings - I struggle with them as a player race.

 

I do too. 

 

If they can't choose to be good or evil, then how can they be considered evil?  They might be unfortunate, they might be destructive, they might need to be destroyed for the good of the realm, but they are effectively living tools.  If we find termites eating our house we destroy them without mercy, but we don't consider them evil per se.  They might have been placed there by your neighbor who wants to destroy your house, but that still doesn't make them evil.  It makes your neighbor evil, though.  

[Scott Ruggels]

7 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I do too. 

 

If they can't choose to be good or evil, then how can they be considered evil?  They might be unfortunate, they might be destructive, they might need to be destroyed for the good of the realm, but they are effectively living tools.  If we find termites eating our house we destroy them without mercy, but we don't consider them evil per se.  They might have been placed there by your neighbor who wants to destroy your house, but that still doesn't make them evil.  It makes your neighbor evil, though.  

yes, but Mosquitoes are evil.

[ScottishFox]

16 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

but that still doesn't make them evil.

 

Perhaps a bit of a hair split, but given their predilection for torture, death and mayhem they are most certainly evil.

 

Where I would agree with your sentiment is that they are not accountable for their actions since they had no choice in the matter.

 

I would apply this standard to the demons of the Abyss in that setting as they are formed form the very substrate of the plane itself.  They are embodied chaos and evil.  I don't see the goblins as significantly different.

[Shoug]

17 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I do too. 

 

If they can't choose to be good or evil, then how can they be considered evil?  They might be unfortunate, they might be destructive, they might need to be destroyed for the good of the realm, but they are effectively living tools.  If we find termites eating our house we destroy them without mercy, but we don't consider them evil per se.  They might have been placed there by your neighbor who wants to destroy your house, but that still doesn't make them evil.  It makes your neighbor evil, though.  

I suppose before I get into this, we have to look at the definition of evil, which is a hairy subject. You're view of things is sophisticated, and reflects the ideas written about in Sam Harris's book, Free Will. The position is that, because the actions of the Orcs are a consequence of their nature over which they have no control (not unlike the cruelty of cats), they cannot be considered evil. Now, whether or not you've read the book or not, it's worth mentioning that I'm using a definition of evil which Sam Harris posits in Free Will as a kind of shift in the semantics of the word so that it doesn't produce any paradox's when looked at through an advanced neurological lens. The idea is that "evil" is a kind of act, and that evil is only possible if one does evil acts. There are no evil thoughts or evil intentions, only thoughts and intentions which produce evil acts. 

So, yes, Orcs are a kin to a natural force of destruction. One does not consider the hurricane to be an act of evil, but they do consider it to be an act of God. Now I'm not saying that orcs should be considered an act of God, but the ability to make the comparison at all hints at the kind of spiritual relationship that the denizens of our world might have with Orcs. Orcs *represent* evil on a kind of metaphysical level, which reflects itself in their nature. Orcs *do* evil. This doesn't mean that they don't need plausible motivations for their actions, but the things they end up doing are evil. They're motivations can come from love, honor, glory, greed, gluttony, whatever; The key is that they pursue these things in an evil way, and can't be convinced to do otherwise. They're not like lions, which kill to eat and think of nothing else.  

[Chris Goodwin]

6 minutes ago, Shoug said:

So, yes, Orcs are a kin to a natural force of destruction. One does not consider the hurricane to be an act of evil, but they do consider it to be an act of God. Now I'm not saying that orcs should be considered an act of God, but the ability to make the comparison at all hints at the kind of spiritual relationship that the denizens of our world might have with Orcs. Orcs *represent* evil on a kind of metaphysical level, which reflects itself in their nature. Orcs *do* evil. This doesn't mean that they don't need plausible motivations for their actions, but the things they end up doing are evil. They're motivations can come from love, honor, glory, greed, gluttony, whatever; The key is that they pursue these things in an evil way, and can't be convinced to do otherwise. They're not like lions, which kill to eat and think of nothing else.  

 

So if a horde of orcs rescues a group of starving children, that's an evil act because it was performed by them?  Or is it that they're unable to rescue the group of starving children in the first place?  

 

It seems to me then that either orcs are "team evil" and the only reason they're evil is that they're not on "team good",  and that everything they do is evil by definition, or that they can't choose to do anything but evil acts, which to me puts them in the same category as living tools.  Could be both, as well.  In the first case (team evil vs. team good) I don't really want to play in that game, because "team good" ends up doing things like slaughtering orc babies, because orcs are on the wrong team evil.  In the second, slaughtering them is about like slaughtering termites, or destroying robots.  I find playing in this game about as interesting as I do destroying a termite's nest (i.e. not really).  

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

36 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

Perhaps a bit of a hair split, but given their predilection for torture, death and mayhem they are most certainly evil.

 

The portion of my message you're responding to is... 

 

59 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

If we find termites eating our house we destroy them without mercy, but we don't consider them evil per se.  They might have been placed there by your neighbor who wants to destroy your house, but that still doesn't make them evil.  It makes your neighbor evil, though.  

 

I bolded the part you responded to.  Termites are doing what termites do; they can't choose to do otherwise.  They're annoying and destructive,  and if left unchecked will leave you homeless, but aren't evil by any definition I can come up with.  

[Scott Ruggels]

4 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

So if a horde of orcs rescues a group of starving children, that's an evil act because it was performed by them?  Or is it that they're unable to rescue the group of starving children in the first place?  

 

I would think that theyu would not, unless they are Orc Children. 

 

4 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

It seems to me then that either orcs are "team evil" and the only reason they're evil is that they're not on "team good",  and that everything they do is evil by definition, or that they can't choose to do anything but evil acts, which to me puts them in the same category as living tools.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

  Could be both, as well.  In the first case (team evil vs. team good) I don't really want to play in that game, because "team good" ends up doing things like slaughtering orc babies, because orcs are on the wrong team evil. 

 

That  genocidal impulse is sort of the definition of "Tribal Conflict", and has been a part of human conflict since we were apes.  The morality to exchew that sort of thing is a recent invention, and not a secure one, if the news from Africa is of any indication. Though I can understand why you would NOT want to play in such a game.

 

4 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

In the second, slaughtering them is about like slaughtering termites, or destroying robots.  I find playing in this game about as interesting as I do destroying a termite's nest (i.e. not really).  

 

IF they are eating your house, watching the exterminator inject the coolant or the poison into the nest can be a but satisfyingm, though.

So then, what sort of game are you wanting to play that has fantasy races in it, then?  What is your goal?

[ScottishFox]

8 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Termites are doing what termites do; they can't choose to do otherwise.  They're annoying and destructive,  and if left unchecked will leave you homeless, but aren't evil by any definition I can come up with.  

 

I agree if we're discussing termites.  If we're discussing goblins or other monstrous races created evil by evil gods with limited free will - they never become good - then I would disagree.

 

They might not be responsible for their actions since no free will is involved, but they are committed to gleeful atrocity.  They harm for harm's sake and revel in it.  Evil, imo.

[Shoug]

8 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

So if a horde of orcs rescues a group of starving children, that's an evil act because it was performed by them?  Or is it that they're unable to rescue the group of starving children in the first place?  

 

It seems to me then that either orcs are "team evil" and the only reason they're evil is that they're not on "team good",  and that everything they do is evil by definition, or that they can't choose to do anything but evil acts, which to me puts them in the same category as living tools.  Could be both, as well.  In the first case (team evil vs. team good) I don't really want to play in that game, because "team good" ends up doing things like slaughtering orc babies, because orcs are on the wrong team evil.  In the second, slaughtering them is about like slaughtering termites, or destroying robots.  I find playing in this game about as interesting as I do destroying a termite's nest (i.e. not really).  

 

 

If a horde of orcs rescued a group of starving children, they would do it in a way that you would look at it and say, "That was an evil act." For example, rescue them to plump them for consumption, or to break their minds to make them into slaves and inexpensive soldiers.

The only reasons they do evil are the same reasons that normal people do evil! Calling them "team evil" is like calling a hurricane on "team evil" and the unsuspecting villagers "team good." Yes, they are only evil, but that doesn't mean humans aren't evil either. Everything about the world is the same, except there is a type of person who only does evil, and they are in fact identifiable from the outside. They're orcs! It is in fact racism, but it is *founded on the legitimate premise that, in the alternative nature of our fantasy reality, it is possible for an entire species of sentient beings to be evil by nature.* 

And it can be very interesting to slaughter them. I don't understand why everything you slaughter must for some reason have had enough freedom of destiny that they're rampant, wanton disregard for goodness could be described as "evil." What about a horde of rampaging boars about to completely level a village? Is it not interesting to stave off imminent destruction? I couldn't imagine a more interesting Man vs. Environment situation than Man vs. *Environment as Man*. You can't do anything about a hurricane, but orcs? Orcs have societies, organized forces, machinations and stratagems. A wildfire burns whatever's nearest to it, but orcs can burn whole nations at once. Orcs can visit a variety of evils, ranging from enslavement to destruction to demoralization to cruelty, all with pinpoint precision. *And, unlike the earthquake, they can be fought.* A natural disaster that you can fight with swords and spells, I just don't see how that is somehow too pedestrian and low brow for tabletop miniature gaming.

[Chris Goodwin]

7 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

So then, what sort of game are you wanting to play that has fantasy races in it, then?  What is your goal?

 

I'll be honest, I don't really care to play in games with fantasy races in them, unless they're all just people.  I find the whole allegorical / metaphysical evil thing completely unsatisfying.  My favorite fantasy novels and series are Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos (alternate Earth with magic and technology; what intelligent nonhumans there are are extremely alien at best), Lawrence Watt-Evans' Ethshar series (mostly human, though evidently other races lived there in the past, and there are intelligent dragons), and Glen Cook's Garrett, PI series (lots of nonhumans but they're all just people).  When I want to play in a fantasy game, I usually want to play in one like those.  

 

If I'm playing some flavor of D&D, I usually choose an elf, because when I was 11 I thought the ability to detect secret doors was pretty cool.  Every Fantasy Hero game I've ever played in, I've played a human.

[Duke Bushido]

On April 6, 2020 at 10:51 PM, Michael Hopcroft said:

This brings to mind some of the most alien aliens, at least in appearance, in popular culture. I refer of course to Doctor Who's Daleks. Daleks are a personification of hate. They kill everyone they encounter unless they decide to enslave them instead, and a Dalek is miserable without someone to bully. They have no positive traits whatsoever -- even their formidable intellects are inextricably linked to their genoicidal xenophobia. Thus there are a lot of people who would want to wipe them off the face of the cosmos. But that too is part of the corruption they inspire, because the hatred they inspire is poison even to those who hate them.

 

Nobody in their right minds would roleplay a Dalek. But it can really add spice to a story when needed as an NPC.

 

 

 

Allow me a preface, please:

 

I kind of stepped off this thread when it headed deeper into philosophy: it's unanswerable, with each side holding an opinion that can be proven in some way, regardless of how opposite they might be.  I popped back take a look as a favor to a friend.

 

The discussion has gotten interesting, but (as any philosophy students will recall) it's going to drag itself down into a muddy grey morass shortly.

 

Still in all, interesting.

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 3:28 AM, MechaniCat said:

I feel I have to pose the question of why should another species be nth degree alien in the first place?

 

Several species in close proximity would inevitably start to homogenize in order to get along so they would become less alien over time.

 

That is an interesting point, actually.  I don't have anywhere to go with that, but I did want to spotlight for a moment, because I don't know that it got enough appreciation when you pointed it out.  Granted, the idea makes certain assumptions about the setting:  very long history, with both races bing in close contact throughout yet deciding not to kill one another outright (which paleontology spent decades telling us is what happened here on earth) or commingling to the point of interbreeding and becoming just one mongrel survivor race (which is what DNA tells us is _actually_ happened here on earth).  You'd have to be so different physiologically as to make the inbreeding impossible,  and there would have to be no competition for anything vital or valuable to both races-- 

 

the thing is, this usually implies that there is no thing that is vital or valuable to _both_ races (when this long-term co-existence thing is postulated), but that cycles right back around to making them pretty alien to one another.

 

The other possibility is Death World sort of set-up, where simply existing is so difficult that you've both decided long ago to pool your resources and increase your odds.  Honestly, if you have the same general biological requirements and like the same sort of stuff, this is really the only option that stands long-term, but it makes a kind of crap setting for high adventure: the party is too busy just staying alive.

 

Still:  it was a thought that deserved a lightbulb moment, I believe.

 

 

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 3:28 AM, MechaniCat said:

One of the theoretical models or alien species is that they MUST be like us because that's the only way to support life, which is one of the arguments for the Star Trek style of alien (though I don't personally agree with that model.)

 

Not arguing with you, but I believe the Star Trek universe was supposedly peopled by some great elder race that ran around spraying DNA everywhere, and that was why aliens were just a series of differing bumpy noses?

 

Either way, I will say that the whole idea that an ecosystem dictates one form as superior to all others has never held up to scrutiny (though it's popular for badly-written documentaries).  One merely has to look at the variety of life that exists in the same forest-- sure, some of it eats other bits of it, but not all of it, and even if it did-- well, it's working, right?

 

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 6:15 AM, Shoug said:

What isn't interesting about pure evil? Don't you realize that pure evil is actually real? 

 

Because it isn't, at least not outside of fiction.  Now, gaming _is_ fictional, so if you want to do that in your games, go for it; you're supposed to have fun.  For some of us, though, it just isn't fun. For others, it's sort of boring.

 

Back on track, though: the closest thing analogous to "pure evil" is a complete and total lack of empathy.  I mean a _complete_ and _total_ lack of empathy.  An unsettling, unnerving lack of empathy-- in all cases, with people, in all situations.  But even that's not "evil."  It's damned scary, sure, and it makes evil easy to do.  But it's not evil in and of itself.  Another thing is how incredibly rare it is.  It is so rare that we've been studying like the same three cases since the 80s.  (I am _not_ embellishing when I tell you that _to this day_ I have periodic nightmares about that little blonde girl.  Damn it's horrifying.)

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 6:15 AM, Shoug said:

Did you know that there are people who traffic children children and animals as sex slaves? Did you know that there are people who make their living by selling videos of them brutally torturing and raping children and animals? Did you know that there are people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for those videos? Not only does evil exist, but elementally pure ultimate evil exists, in real life.

 

Incredibly, despicably evil; yes.  No place for such people in a civilized world; no.

 

But it's not pure.  Pure evil, by definition, would be one that taints every thought, every action, every motivation, every goal.

 

What else do these people do?

 

There was a California highway patrolman -- was it back in the 80s?  Raped and killed a woman.  Evil; no doubt.  He was even asked by local news to give a big speech to women on how to stay safe when traveling alone-- and he _did_ it!   Evil?  Well, I don't know his motives.  I know that what he said then brought comfort to thousands of people, and possibly even saved some lives (the advice was pretty solid).  When he wasn't raping and killing, he was doing his policeman thing.  Most of those things aren't evil.  They're pretty damned helpful, even if we don't think so when we get the ticket.

 

 

Who was that drug lord in Mexico a few decades back-- killed and butchered hundreds of people, sent drugs and guns into the streets of Mexico, America, and places south.  Yet at the end, his only concern was the well-being of his daughter-- to the point of lighting stacks of hundred-dollar bills on fire to keep her warm.

 

Evil man?  No doubt about it.  _Purely_ evil?   Not really.

 

So these rapists and slave traffickers and torturers-- I will not attempt to downplay the evil in the things that they do.  Is it pure?  I doubt it.  I imagine every one of them has another aspect of his life where he does who-knows-what: policeman.  Fireman.  Runs a charity?  Plays basketball with orphans?  Donates to NPR  (okay, that may be evil, too; it's an opinion-thing).  Unless an evil goal or evil motivation can be found for that, they aren't pure evil.  Not worth the skin it took to wrap them, and undeniably evil, but not _pure_. 

 

Fact is-- well, I _hate_ to use this example; I really, _really_ do, because the internet has beat the idea of using this as a go-to example of evil into the ground, but even Hitler had people he loved, and a nation that he really believed he was saving.

 

F*KING _EVIL_ DUDE, I will _never_ argue.   But again: not pure evil.  It didn't permeate his every thought or drive his every decision.

 

And that's what an "evil" race is supposed to be: pure evil.  They _exist_ for evil.  If I can point to people who rape children and actively engage in I-pray-it-be-damned-by-God-Himself _genocide_ and still find proof that they are not _pure_ evil....   I just can't imagine what pure evil must be, meaning I certainly can't run it accurately as a GM, and I can't really "make it work" in a game sense, except by having them spend every waking moment doing everything they can to kill, maim, pillage, or otherwise destroy everything else including themselves, which ultimately leads to them...  well, wiping themselves out long before they have enough history or presence to become a problem for player characters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 6:15 AM, Shoug said:

Now, obviously one could simply say, "That is just my taste." and the discussion would be over,

 

Not true.  At least two of us said it on page one, yet we're four pages deep and still going strong.    :lol:   

 

 

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 6:15 AM, Shoug said:

but that's not what we're here for. Why isn't ultimate evil interesting?

 

 

For one, this conversation suggests that people aren't willing to agree on what it is.

 

For two, it becomes a caricature of itself rather quickly:  "What's the most horrible thing this character could possibly do at this very moment?"  Well, you're on a winding yellow brick road, passing through a pleasant meadow.  There's a bird singing--  

 

"I kill it!"

 

Wha-- why?  

 

No reason.  I'm evil.  I'm evil incarnate, purely horrible to the core.

 

Okay...  The bird drops like a stone--

 

I urinate on it's corpse!

 

WHY?!

 

To desecrate it.  That's a vile thing to do, and I'm evil.

 

Okay.....

 

Any more birds?

 

NO!

 

I pick it up and put it in my pocket.

 

What?!

 

When we stop for a meal, I'm going to force one of them to cook it.

 

Why not cook it yourse--

 

Because evil people do evil things, so I'm going to make someone do this against their will!  At sword point!

 

You're going to eat it?  After you pi-- desecrated it?

 

NO!  I'm going to serve it _them_.....

 

 

Okay, fine.  Can we get moving?

 

What else can I kill?

 

Nothing.  No birds; no deer.  

 

I start prying the bricks out of the road and pitching them into the woods.

 

WHY?  

 

Because it's destroying the infrastructure, and it will cost money to repair.  And come nightfall, someone can twist an ankle!  Or maybe fall just right and break their neck and get paralyzed!

 

Dude, what is wrong with you?

 

Nothing!  I'm pure evil.  PURE evil.  You see?  _PURE_ evil.  It says so on my sheet.  Oh wait!  Instead of chucking them into the woods, I want to chuck them at my companions.  Except for two!  I want to sneak two into my pockets, and after they eat the piss bird, I want to bash their skulls in.....

 

 

It's not even that it's boring: it's unsupportable.  Now if you want to make a race that's "kind of dick-ish, I can get behind that.  Or you can just copy someone else's elves; whatever.  Pure evil, though-- it just doesn't work.  At least, not the pure part.

 

 

 

On April 7, 2020 at 6:15 AM, Shoug said:

I don't see why the role of pure evil couldn't be filled by a whole type of creature.

 

For the same reason it can't be portrayed by a single character:  the concept is unplayable.  The concept of an evil person is _not_ unplayable: the concept of _pure_ evil is unplayable, because you can _always_ add a brick to the head or a _slower_ crunching of the fingers, or _more_ kicks to the groin--   we can talk about "pure evil" all day long, but we can't, as humans, grasp it completely enough to do more than make allusions to it.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I wouldn't be bothered by goblins in a setting where they are a mix of good and bad and how they're treated will be largely related to how their people have behaved in that area.

 

In the sword coast not only are Goblins known for endless centuries of atrocity, murder and death, but their god - Maglubiyet - has waged war on the Gods of races that he has already conquered (bugbears and hobgoblins).  They are an existential threat of incarnate evil and chaos and they threaten not only your mortal well being, but your gods and your afterlife as well.  They don't choose to be evil - they ARE evil.  They are created that way by their deity. 

 

 

I disagree.  They are _horrid_, certainly.  But they were _made_ that way.  Here is where you defend them:

 

 

5 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

In a setting where there are monstrous races because their gods are able to create them without the level of free will that we generally associated with sentient beings

 

 

If they have no free will, how are they accountable for their actions?  If they have not willfully chose to do these horrible things, then are _they_ evil, or does the evil reside entirely in the being that sets them in motion?

 

Should I fire up the ol' Johnson Red and do a Leatherface on the next person to drive by with one of those asinine billion-watt stereos, am I gleefully celebratory _and_ evil, or is the evil exclusively in the chainsaw?  Is there any evil in the chainsaw at all?

 

 

5 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

- I struggle with them as a player race.

 

Me, too.  Moreso, though:  I struggle with them as a valid concept

 

 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

So if a horde of orcs rescues a group of starving children, that's an evil act because it was performed by them?  Or is it that they're unable to rescue the group of starving children in the first place?  

 

 

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

I would think that theyu would not, unless they are Orc Children. 

 

I would think it's an irrelevant question:  if orcs were an all-consuming evil, the first generation would have eaten the second while they were helpless babies, because that's damned evil.   When they ran out of babies, they'd eat each other.  We can base an entire campaign on the Last Orc and his desire to burn all the grass, kill all the people, and rape all the corpses, I suppose.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

It seems to me then that either orcs are "team evil" and the only reason they're evil is that they're not on "team good",  and that everything they do is evil by definition, or that they can't choose to do anything but evil acts, which to me puts them in the same category as living tools.  Could be both, as well.  In the first case (team evil vs. team good) I don't really want to play in that game, because "team good" ends up doing things like slaughtering orc babies, because orcs are on the wrong team evil.  In the second, slaughtering them is about like slaughtering termites, or destroying robots.  I find playing in this game about as interesting as I do destroying a termite's nest (i.e. not really).  

 

 

 

Once again:

 

 

THANK YOU!  

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

IF they are eating your house, watching the exterminator inject the coolant or the poison into the nest can be a but satisfyingm, though.

 

 

If I am enjoying that the same way orcs are supposed to allegedly enjoy watching their brethren slaughter others, am I evil, too?

 

How about if my creator made me that way?  Am I evil then?  More evil?  

 

 

 

3 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I agree if we're discussing termites.  If we're discussing goblins or other monstrous races created evil by evil gods with limited free will - they never become good - then I would disagree.

 

They might not be responsible for their actions since no free will is involved, but they are committed to gleeful atrocity.  They harm for harm's sake and revel in it.  Evil, imo.

 

The same could be said of sharks:  The will get worked into a frenzy and kill and eat even when they aren't actually hungry.  Are they evil because of it?

 

Canids will enjoy killing, and _nothing_ enjoys killing more than me (hunting) and a housecoat (killing for the hell of it).  Are they evil?  They have _total_ free will, but seem to lack any sort of moral compass.  Are they evil, or just doing shark things?  They should be more evil than orcs with limited free will, right?  Because they can choose not to participate?

 

 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I'll be honest, I don't really care to play in games with fantasy races in them, unless they're all just people.  I find the whole allegorical / metaphysical evil thing completely unsatisfying.  My favorite fantasy novels and series are Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos (alternate Earth with magic and technology; what intelligent nonhumans there are are extremely alien at best), Lawrence Watt-Evans' Ethshar series (mostly human, though evidently other races lived there in the past, and there are intelligent dragons), and Glen Cook's Garrett, PI series (lots of nonhumans but they're all just people).  When I want to play in a fantasy game, I usually want to play in one like those.  

 

If I'm playing some flavor of D&D, I usually choose an elf, because when I was 11 I thought the ability to detect secret doors was pretty cool.  Every Fantasy Hero game I've ever played in, I've played a human.

 

 

I'm generally a human, too.

 

Best thing about Fantasy HERO is a reasonable INT and a Concealment Skill means _anyone_ can find a secret door as good as elf.  Or an elf can find them no better than anyone else; whatever.    

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

When I answer a post, here, I do try to be interesting enough to lure Duke out of his lair. Thank you, Duke. 
 

A lot of times, I will play the non-human as a role play challenge. I do not know if I am completes successful, but I do have fun. Other times I will play the human for a different role play challenge. Wide range of choices out there. 

[Vanguard]

14 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Having read many of the books of that setting it's incomprehensible how they aren't getting butchered by the city militia on sight.

 

it's the glowing "Player Character" sign that's above them.

 

That sign is what allows the players to get away with a lot of what they do that they shouldn't.  Both in regards to PCs and NPCs.

[DShomshak]

Okay, Duke pretty much put paid to the notion of "pure evil." That still leaves "intolerable evil," of course. That should suffice for most story purposes.

 

My issue with "They're just evil" comes from the logical regress. Orcs, or oblins, or whatever, tend to do evil, however you define it -- gratuitous cruelty and destruction, say -- because a god made them that way. So why is the god evil? You've pushed the question of moral responsibility up a level, but you haven't removed it.

 

You can give the god a motivation. One old article in DRAGON magazine presented a myth in which Gruumsh, creator-god of D&D's orcs, came late when the gods were picking territories for the races they were creating, and nothing was left. Outraged, Gruumsh swore that orcs would take all the world, and destroy everyone else in the process. It's an okay myth, as myths go. A fair number of myths attribute some unpleasant part of the world to a god being pissed at some minor offense.

 

EDIT: I just checked the 5th ed Monster Manual, and it used the Offended Gruumsh" story. If I ever checked before, I'd forgotten. I may actually use the myth in my D&D world -- as a myth.

 

D&D doesn't have the good sense to leave it there, though, with evil being the fault of ass-hat gods who might be either reformed or punished for their ass-hattery. No, evil is made a part of the cosmic system though aligned planes. I demons are evil because they arise from the Abyss, which is evil, where did the Abyss come from and why is it evil? AFAIK it just is.

 

Clearly, that's enough for many people. But I am not many people, and neither are the people I play with.

 

At which point I was going to describe how I'm handling good and evil in my D&D game, but that's probably more than people would be interested in. Suffice to say: I am also not a Medieval European, an Ancient Greek, or any other of the peoples of past millennia whose myths and sagas inspire Fantasy. I try to make adventures that are thrilling and meaningful to me and my friends, not to them.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

I much preferred the alignment categories in the Rules Cyclopedia (white hardcover rule book) of D&D, confined to Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, eliminating the ethical axis. Only I still wasn't happy with Neutrality defined as balance between the other two. Why would we need a separate Alignment for something that exists only as a product of something else? So I declared that Neutrality is "enlightened self-interest." Rather than actively trying to promote Order or Chaos among others, Neutrality avoids that conflict and promotes only its own benefit.