The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Argyle King]

How can you be unsure? It says they're evil in their description. Either you play the game as written (which means you don't have to worry about morality) or you interpret it as real.

And if you pretend it's real, how do purely evil races survive? A completely evil race would name their offspring Spare Rations 1, Spare Rations 2, Spare Rations 3, ... Being evil, they would not just be selfish but go out of their way to hurt others, any other including their own offspring. So how can the race survive if infanticide is a requirement?

As I said before, a race cannot be purely evil. It can at most be extremely xenophobic but purely evil races cannot last.

And if they're not completely evil, you judge individuals by their deeds and not condemn entire populations by the actions of some or even most.

There are some real-world animals which function in a way which isn't far from the hypothetical culture you've outlined here.

Beyond that, my question about certainty of evilness is one that I pose in the context of how elements of contemporary real-world look at fictional worlds.

As said previously, Demons and Devils are said to be always evil, but there are examples of such beings finding redemption. What level of burden is there to prove that a being cannot possibly be redeemed before it's seen as acceptable to resort to baser violent means?

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, there’s lots of potential different things to criticise. And other groups might not share your groups’ particular issue or not agree with your view of it as an issue. Something might only be an issue for a particular while because of circumstance (such as renaming of demons and devils before they slowly made their way back in).

I don’t think anything is invalid to criticise, I just don’t think all criticisms are valid. And that applies equally to all. The validity of a criticism is also subjective as to what is “valid” to you.

In this thread you have tossed around various readings of JRRT's Orcs: fallen angels, more generic fallen/evil beings, soulless expressions of a war machine, etc.

Yet you criticise others, who have much more considered readings based on a greater degree of cited textual material as "subjective" and engaged in "intellectual masturbation".

My personal view is that Tolkein's inspirations are not nearly as important as overall subtext of orcs as the uncivilized barbarians at the gate. Even outside any particular racial animus the trope is itself racist or at the very least ethnocentric in a pretty appalling way as far as I am concerned. That does not mean we should avoid it entirely in fiction, but to treat it entirely uncritically is not a good look for us or the professor.

Then again I do not view the point of literature of any kind as a means of escape, but rather a means to look at ourselves more critically than we otherwise might. Like Moorcock I view the use of fantasy as a means to retreat to a 'simpler time' as promoting aristocratic values. I find Tolkein's work has merit despite that romanticism of the gentry and ethnocentrism, but I have difficulty how you could look at the work and not see it.

Well, let’s not forget, it’s appalling to us in a modern context. I suspect it was viewed as a more accurate description to the citizens of caffa as the mongol horde launched diseased cadavers into their city, or to the citizens of Rome as it was sacked.

The description from accounts would certainly leave a memetic legacy, a well of inspiration for authors to draw from.

Hang on, so now you agree that JRRT's Orcs are evocative of "Mongol Hordes" and of those who sacked Rome, and express a "memetic legacy"?

And this is why we kill them in D&D games?

 

[Aldarc]

Hang on, so now you agree that JRRT's Orcs are evocative of "Mongol Hordes" and of those who sacked Rome, and express a "memetic legacy"?

Battle of Pelennor Fields or "Battle of What if Constantinpole Didn't Fall?"

 

[transmission89]

In this thread you have tossed around various readings of JRRT's Orcs: fallen angels, more generic fallen/evil beings, soulless expressions of a war machine, etc.

Yet you criticise others, who have much more considered readings based on a greater degree of cited textual material as "subjective" and engaged in "intellectual masturbation".


Hang on, so now you agree that JRRT's Orcs are evocative of "Mongol Hordes" and of those who sacked Rome, and express a "memetic legacy"?

And this is why we kill them in D&D games?

I have not criticised others personally, nor would I have the arrogance to claim my readings more considered than others and would expect the same courtesy.

When Ive Discussed critical literature as subjective and intellectual masturbation, I have and continue to apply that to my own readings of the text and discussion as it comes to literature. You mistake my meaning of the term as to be insulting. Far from it. As I’ve stated previously, I enjoy various readings of texts and different interpretations, in fact, were this thread serious about that specific aspect, I’m sure the discourse would range much further along it.

My position has been clear and consistent from the off. That discourse is fine when discussing texts, and the various interpretations and levels of subjectivity. It serves its own purpose and reward. But that to me, it’s less relevant to the game we play as is and is a poor foundation to build a case to change the game upon.

My original statement that brought us on this wonderful Tolkien diversion was a rebuttal to the original claim that Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for East Asian people.

You will note, being the astute, considered reader that you are, that I have agreed with you on many points around the fact that context and society do impact on what we write, communicate and perceive. These two positions are not contradictory.

The reference to the mongol hordes and sacking of Rome was to the notion of ”barbarians at the gates”, specifically around real world context. The memetic legacy of that is part of the informing context. But still, a wonderful attempt to conflate the two.

Now, were we to examine this idea of orcs “evoking” this memetic legacy as a fictional idea (outside of Tolkien), we say that orcs are just orcs, they are not stand ins for any real world group or ethnicity, I do not see that as a bad thing. If you want that in your fiction/game, the warmachine, man (in general, not a specific group) at his worst during war, a literal monster, the orc would serve well at this. You are free from unintentional parallels with your fantasy human kingdoms and cultures.

 

[shawnhcorey]

There are some real-world animals which function in a way which isn't far from the hypothetical culture you've outlined here.

Beyond that, my question about certainty of evilness is one that I pose in the context of how elements of contemporary real-world look at fictional worlds.

As said previously, Demons and Devils are said to be always evil, but there are examples of such beings finding redemption. What level of burden is there to prove that a being cannot possibly be redeemed before it's seen as acceptable to resort to baser violent means?

It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If they only attacked evil races, they would be good. Good and evil are black and white. Simple.

Committing evil against evil doesn't make you not evil, or even neutral. In Call of Cthulhu for example, if a bunch of Deep Ones drag some Nazi's off to do unspeakable acts to them, both are still the baddies.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So I get the deal with orcs and such, but how do people feel about evil non-humanoid creatures? For example, I find the Neogi to have a pretty interesting and bizarre alien culture, what with the cycle of ownership and wheeling/dealing where, for example, a slave can own their master's master and this makes perfect sense to the neogi. Their reproduction is horrific, where older neogi are basically lobotomized and pumped full of embryos that ear their way out, with the ironic honorific of "great old master". Their culture is built on slavery, expansion, and cruelty, so seems appropriate to label it evil. If we ever get a Spelljammer setting, it would feel kind of lame to water down this alien horror with a #notallneogi disclaimer. Are people more accepting of it because they're eel spiders?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Are people more accepting of it because they're eel spiders?

Yes. With respect to the currently evil races, there's two ways to go imo:
1) Human* and not evil.
2) Alien and evil.

The problem (or at least part of it) is:
3) Human and evil.

So orcs, for example, can be improved either by removing the evil part (option 1) or by making them more like demons or other inhuman monsters (option 2).

*By "human" I mean races with very human-like attributes such as:

shape; size; sentience; language; tool use; wear clothes; build structures; biological needs – food, water, shelter; feel pain; can be injured or suffer from disease; mortal; lack of inherent magical powers; bear children; interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring; social; organised societies; culture; religion.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not totally opposed to sentient creatures that act in mostly cruel ways. I just think it should be done with a critical look at the tropes and they should not be inherently cruel. Pathfinder Second Edition does a fairly good job of threading the needle with a bunch of traditionally evil ancestries. Orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and kobolds have societies that are pretty cruel in general and a fair number of those you encounter will probably be engaging in acts of cruelty. However, they also depict societies where not every orc is cruel and their culture has some very admirable qualities as well even though on the balance they tend to live very violent and aggressive lives. They also don't let the civilized ancestries off the hook entirely for their role in perpetuating the cycle of violence even though it's very understandable why they do.

 

[Argyle King]

It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?

I don't know.

How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Hencnman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?

I think a lot of the problem is that most conversations about this sort of thing paint with too broad of a brush. Often, even attempting to parse things out or ask questions is met with assumptions of some sort ism-based motivation.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of this thread appears to be open to having an actual discussion (at least thus far).