Hey kids, guess what time it is…
That’s right! It’s time for Angry to piss everyone off. And I do mean everyone. Even if you read the update and know what’s coming — and you think you’re totally on board with it — I’m still gonna make you mad.
Seriously, though… today’s topic is one that lots of people feel passionate about. Myself included. But, me? I’m only passionate about it as an element of gameplay and narrative. And nothing more. And that’s all I’m talking about. Got it?
This one’s all about alignment and morality and fantasy creatures. And I know some of you can’t discuss this shit without drawing real-world conclusions from it. And about the people who talk about it. If you’re one of those people — if you think what I say below reflects some kind of deeply held, real-life human evil — go find yourself another blog to read. Or at least keep it to yourself. I ain’t tolerating none of that horseshit — because it is horseshit — here.
Meanwhile, the rest of you have Frienemy-for-Life Mendel to thank for this crap. And for my inevitable cancellation. He asked my feelings on how to differentiate supernatural, aligned creatures — like angels and devils — from normal, mortal, aligned creatures. So, basically, I’ve got to tell you why devils are always evil and why orcs are always evil and how the devil is in the differences.
And that’s actually all the introduction I need. So let’s just jump in…
Part I: Why Orcs are Evil
I can’t explain how to portray supernaturally evil beings — like devils — and their supernaturally good counterparts without discussing the nature of normal, mortal evil. This means I’ve got to break down what it means to say that a sentient, mortal creature — like an orc — is always evil. Or to say it’s usually evil or often evil or whatever. That’s assuming your system du jour of the day even has the balls to say such a thing. Because these days, it takes balls — and creative integrity — to make orcs evil.
That said, know that I’m just using orcs as a stand-in for any always evil race. Or, at least, they’re standing in for any sentient — which is to say capable of self-awareness and decision-making — and mortal — which is to say not born of cosmic forces of pure idea or any shit like that. In fact, everything I’m saying about orcs also works — in reverse — for creatures like elves and dwarves that are often described as always good or usually good or tends to be good or whatever.
All of which, by the by, highlights a very important thing about humans. Humans are uniquely and distinctly not always anything. They can rise and fall like no other race. And that makes them special and powerful and dangerous.
Now, using orcs as my stand-in for always aligned is obviously inflammatory. And purposely so. Because I like rustling the jimmies that need rustling. And this shit helps me keep my garden weed-free. So, yes, I am picking a fight and I am not sorry.
More importantly, though, those of you whose rectums are cranium-free should be careful not to confuse the example with the message. This ain’t specifically about orcs and specifically about evil. Nor is it really about alignment. Rather, it’s about what it means for sentient mortal races to have generalized alignments.
Racial Monocultures
It’s become a popular hobby for gamers to piss and moan about how dumb it is for all elves or all orcs or all whatevers to share a common nature. That is, to take issue with the idea that individual members of the non-human races show less variance in personality, motivation, goals, flaws, and social natures than humans do. It’s equally common to complain about the fact that, while humans in, say, the Forgotten Realms have numerous, distinct cultures — like Calishite and Illuskan and Rashemi among dozens of others — elves barely have any and it’s mostly down to tree-huggers, wand-wavers, and the evil ones no one invites to parties.
This is called Racial Monoculture. Race and culture are synonymous. And sneering, post-modern dumbasses hate it. But not me. Because I know it’s a big part of why fantastic worlds feel fantastic. If every member of every race is a unique and distinct individual, then everyone’s just people. Some people are green and some have funny ears and some get to reroll the d20 whenever it shows a 1, but they’re all just people. And thus there’s nothing wonderful or special or magical or terrible or frightening about anything that isn’t human.
Sorry, your elf isn’t special if he’s a unique individual. He’s just like everyone else.
By Word and Deed
So, what does it mean for an orc to be evil? It means, simply, that the orc makes evil choices and takes evil actions. He does evil things. He kills, he pillages, he steals, he slaughters, he destroys, he doesn’t use his turn signal when changing lanes, and he eats puppies.
I shouldn’t have to explain that, but I do. And that’s because gamers tend to have this batshit insane image of sentient, mortal beings doing evil just to do evil. These dumbasses think that, because orcs are listed as always evil, they wake up every day saying, “Gosh, I sure do love being evil and today’s a good day to do some evil. What evils have I got on my evil agenda today?”
But wait, how is that different from what I said. It’s because making evil choices and taking evil actions is not the same as doing evil for its own sake. Why do orcs steal? Because they want shit and they don’t respect the rights of other people to their property? Why do they kill? Because people keep irrationally trying to stop their shit get stolen? Why do they eat puppies? Because they’re hungry. Why do they destroy things? Because they’re angry and they don’t care about keeping their emotions in check. If something pisses them off, they hit it until the anger goes away.
The point is, that they’re not motivated by evil. Orcs are motivated by all the same things that motivate everyone. It’s the choices they make in the pursuit of their survival and comfort and happiness and freedom from pain that are evil. And in that way, orcs are no different from humans. They do evil for all the same reasons human do evil. So why are orcs always evil while humans aren’t always anything?
Nature and Nurture
Orcs are predisposed to evil. It’s just their nature. Just as elves are predisposed to good. Elves have an inherent appreciation for beauty, for example, while orcs have an inherent hatred for beauty. It’s an inborn trait. Where does it come from? Who the hell knows? And who cares? It’s a fantasy world. Given that every fantastical race was made in the image of a specific god with a specific nature, there’s no reason to question it. Of course, Corellon imbued elves with a fundamental and inborn love of beauty while Gruumsh filled orcs with rage and bitterness. How else could it be?
These traits, by the way, are just as inherent to orcs and elves as the human capacity for self-determination is to humans. Whoever made humans filled them, first and foremost, with the capacity to choose their nature for themselves.
Though, to be completely fair, humans are kind of predisposed to evil. Not as strongly as, say, orcs or goblins are, but they are. That’s why humans have to teach their kids to share and be polite and not to hit other children. Elves and dwarves probably don’t have to teach their kids not to pull the cat’s tail or to respect the other kid’s property. Elfin and dwarvish children are probably immensely well-behaved. Orcish children? Probably not.
And that’s the other half of the issue. Humans are predisposed to evil. Without outside influence, humans will take shit from each other and hit each other and disrespect things that should be sacred. They don’t even grow empathy until their mid-twenties. To curb those problems, humans build societies. The rules of society — whatever society it is — are there — or should be there — to ensure a safe, stable environment for other humans. And they do so by checking humanity’s evil tendencies.
The point is, if you’re predisposed to evil, your society can curb that. For humans — in a fantasy world — that’s great news. Usually. Potentially. Humans can build social structures to counter their evil impulses. But, humans can also build social structures that reward, encourage, and enhance their evil impulses. And that’s not so great. And that’s why non-humans — who aren’t nearly as varied and self-determining — get stuck in feedback loops. Elves build elfin societies. Dwarves build dwarven societies. And orcs and hobgoblins build orcish and hobgoblinese societies.
Orcs are always evil — or usually or whatever — because they’re biologically or psychologically or spiritually predisposed to evil and they aren’t varied enough to build societies to check those impulses. Orcish society runs on their evil impulses.
None of which excuses orcs for what they actually do.
Why You Can’t Slaughter Baby Orcs
I’ve got to stop all y’all from taking the wrong conclusion from all I’ve said and running with it. You might walk away with some terrible assumptions about my game worlds. So let me make this clear…
If my players’ characters come upon an orc woman with an orc baby clutched to her breast and they kill them, those player characters are guilty of a terrible, evil act.
It’s tempting to read everything I’ve said above as me saying that it is inevitable that all orcs will do terrible, evil things. And that, therefore, orcs are not responsible for the evil they do. And no intellectually honest, moral person could use what I said above to justify murder or genocide.
Orcs have free will. They are sentient and they are mortal. Orcish nature and orcish culture make it very likely that orcs will make evil choices. But until they have made those evil choices, they are guilty of nothing. You cannot punish a free-willed creature for a crime you think they may commit. Or an evil choice you fear they might make. Doing so is evil. Why? Because life is inherently sacred and cannot be destroyed without the absolute best of reasons. Like, say, self-defense.
No matter how difficult life makes it for a creature to choose good over evil, if they have the capacity to choose, they are responsible for the choice. I will use myself as a real-life example, but I am still speaking only of pretend-elf games here. I do this only to illustrate how fantasy morality works.
I have a very bad temper. I am predisposed to anger and outbursts. It is something I have spent my whole life fighting. It is something that is partially due to certain inborn psychological traits and partially due to the environment in which I grew up. If I punch you in the mouth for pissing me off — and believe me, you will piss me off eventually; everyone always does — if I punch you in anger, I have done evil and committed a crime. Further, there was a year in my life, when I did not have enough money to afford both food and medicine I needed to treat a serious, chronic illness. I was, for a time, very frightened about how I would survive. Had I stolen your money or property, I would have done evil and committed a crime.
Insofar as we imagine orcs to be real creatures inhabiting a real world — which, by the way, they are not — those orcs, despite the obstacles we imagine them facing — which are imaginary — are still responsible for the choices we imagine they make because we imagine — because, and I can’t stress this enough, this is all imaginary — that the imaginary orcs have free will.
People like to piss and moan about how the always evil thing is just there to give heroes permission to wantonly slaughter entire races of people without regard for the morality of it all, but I don’t remember Aragorn ever going on a rampage of orc genocide. I’m pretty sure the only orcs Aragorn and Pals ever killed presented a direct imminent and ongoing threat. They had kidnapped hobbits, they were actively raiding, they were waging war or marching to war, or they were hunting the heroes with the intent to kill them. Hell, the pivotal event in the entire Lord of the Rings Cycle was Bilbo Baggins choosing not to kill a vile, evil creature that had outright stated its intent to murder Bilbo because the creature was not in a position to pose a direct threat to Bilbo.
The point is, when it comes to mortals, you can’t judge them by their natures, only by their actions. And that’s because mortals, by their nature, have the capacity to act against their nature. Even if they rarely do.
When Humans Don’t Rise Above
Do you know why always evil humanoids are great fodder for stories? It’s because they show what happens when, on a societal level, humans don’t rise above their base instincts. They represent humans who failed to create social orders that curb their impulses toward evil. Orcs are humans whose societies are governed by anger, bitterness, and hatred. Hobgoblins are humans whose societies are all about military conquest and enslavement. Goblins are humans whose societies reward the greedy, the grasping, the cowardly, and the lazy. It’s nice to be able to explore this shit without having to use stripped-down caricatures of historical societies that require more nuance to understand than what a story or game can handle.
I’d also like to point out that even the good non-humans aren’t exactly aspirational in traditional fantasy. Take Tolkien’s elves or his ents for example. They were kind of crap. They did nothing, accomplished nothing, and changed nothing until spurred on by the normal, everyday, human people whom Frodo and Sam and Merry and Pippin — and to a lesser extent Aragorn — represented.
Because humans are awesome when they make themselves awesome. When they don’t, though, they’re just the worst.
Are Orcs Really Always Evil?
If orcs are free-willed and responsible for their choices and all that shit I said — or, at least if we imagine that is so because this is all pretend — then is it really fair to call them always evil. Of course not. Orcs aren’t always evil at all. It isn’t inevitable that any orc you meet is guilty of any actual evil. You may have met an orc that’s chosen to go against its own nature and choose not to pursue its own survival and comfort when doing so would lead to evil. That’s what free will means.
It’s just that the odds of meeting a good orc are basically a billion-to-one. And that enhances the gameplay and narrative experience. And it says something important about living your life as a good human. Because, remember, all this shit — and all stories and all games — are about exploring the human experience.
And most gamers actually do get this shit. Instinctively.
When Drizzt Do’Urden was the only dark elf ever to have risen against his nature, his enslavement to an evil goddess, and his evil social upbringing, he was special. He was unique. He was one of a kind. He illustrated that sometimes being a hero — being a good person — meant fighting against literally everything including your own impulses. Now that every dark elf is a good-aligned rebel and they’re not fighting against the core of their very nature to be so, it doesn’t mean anything. Dark elves are just purple-skinned magic people who never take down their Halloween decorations.
Orcs aren’t irredeemable. But if you want orcish redemption — and orcs and also humans — to mean anything — it must come against all odds. Thus, you can have one good orc in your world. Or one village of reformed orcs hiding out somewhere. But they must remain ever in a constant struggle against their natures and their gods. They must constantly be choosing to redeem themselves.
Such is the nature of sentient, mortal evil, and redemption.
Part II: Why Devils Are Evil
So that’s what it means for a sentient, free-willed mortal to be always evil or always good even if they technically aren’t and we have to pretend they’re not. Now I can discuss the thing Mendel really wanted to discuss. Which, I have to admit, I find less interesting than what I wrote above.
See, orcs and elves aren’t the only always evil and always good creatures in the fantasy world space. There are also hosts of beings born from the very essence of good and evil that are similarly described. But though such creatures are also described as always good and always evil, those phrases take on very different meanings when they’re describing demons and devils and angels and archons and devas and assimon and guardianal and eladrins and… shit…
I’ve got a problem. And the problem’s that there’s two different basic kinds of fiends, right? There are devils and there are demons. And I do have to bring up the differences between them. Not in terms of any bullshit lawful-and-chaotic dichotomy because that’s a stupid-ass distinction and worthless besides. My problem is that there’s a similar divide amongst celestials. And it’s a useful one. But D&D doesn’t really have a strongly resonating counterpart to angels. There’s been a hell of a lot of different celestials over the years and editions, but none of the non-lawful-good non-angels have stood out the way demons have stood out from devils.
Technically, I should be distinguishing angels from eladrins. But 4E established eladrins not as chaotic-good celestials but rather as fey uber-elves. And celestials are not and cannot be fey. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a dumbass who doesn’t understand celestials or fey. So, I need to just pick a name. These are all just examples anyway.
So, there are two broad kinds of fiends — devils and demons — and two broad kinds of celestials — angels and guardinals — okay? I know guardinals aren’t, technically, correct here. But I like the name and there isn’t a good name for what I need anymore. That’s WotC’s dumbass fault, not mine.
Moving on…
That’s How They Be
Why are devils evil? They’re evil because they’re evil.
Full stop.
I know I basically implied that orcs are predisposed to evil and that’s awfully close to saying “evil by nature,” but this isn’t the same thing. It isn’t that devils have strong impulses and that their societies don’t keep them in check. Devils aren’t evil because in pursuing their goals, they tend to do evil things. Devils really do wake up saying, “Gosh, I sure do love being evil and today’s a good day to do some evil. What evils have I got on my evil agenda today?”
Devils are evil for evil’s sake. And that’s not just because they are evil by nature. It’s also because they’re not mortal and they have no free will. They don’t have to survive, they have no aspirations, they don’t strive to better themselves, they don’t enjoy pleasure or suffer pain, they don’t have hopes or fears, they’re just evil in the shape of a cloven-hoofed wing-a-ling person.
And that’s true for demons too. And if you swap the word evil for good the basic art design, it’s also true of angels.
Devils are always evil in the same way that humans are always flesh.
Corruption versus Ruination
The problem with saying devils are evil for evil’s sake is that it reveals just how broad and general the word evil is. With orcs, they do evil things, but there’s always a specific cause or motivation, and that’s often more important than just labeling the act as evil. But when evil is the motivation, you need more to work with as a Game Master.
Allow me to suggest you first distinguish between Corruption and Ruination. And I’ll leave you to infer the difference between Elevation and Beautification.
Devils are about Corruption. They increase the amount of evil in the world by instilling evil in the souls of mortals. They want mortals to sin. To act on their base instincts without regard for what is good and right and stable and healthy and sacred. There are lots of names for lots of sins and you can pick whichever list you like. The specifics don’t matter. The classics are good by way of example, so let’s say Devils want to instill in mortals Pride or Avarice or Wrath or Lust or Envy or Gluttony or Sloth.
Demons are about Ruination. They increase the amount of evil in the world by putting evil into the world. They spread terror, decay, suffering, death, misery, disharmony, violence, whatever. They want to watch the world burn and there are lots of different physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological ways to light fires.
Devils want mortals to be terrible people. Demons want the world to be a terrible place.
Likewise, angels elevate mortals. They want mortals to be good people. And guardinals want the world to be a nice place. Full of peace and harmony and justice and beauty and crap like that.
Same split, different side of the moral coin. Got it?
How The Blood War Ruined Devils
It used to be easy with devils and demons. They just were. They did evil and that was that. And that was fine because, given the game’s about mortals and that supernatural entities represent themes and forces and drives, that’s all they needed to do. But then, AD&D 2E went to college and it took a bunch of philosophy courses and it spent all its time smoking weed and saying shit like, “Yeah, but angels and devils are just, like, names we give the sides, man… they’re not good or evil because what does that mean… to devils, they’re the good ones… so what are we supposed to do with that… and what will we do when we run out of Cheetos?”
And so came Planescape. And with it came these complex devilish and angelic societies and the Blood War and stories about how demons and devils and angels and even the gods themselves were just powerful, funny-looking people who lived on other planets. Devils had an evil aristocracy and were ever scheming and planning against each other. And there was a war on.
Now, I love me some Planescape. At least, I did back in my dumbass late-teen days when I was taking philosophy courses and living on my own in a college dorm for the first time ever. But this shit ain’t fantasy. And, just as with stripping away the Racial Monoculture, it works directly against what angels and devils are best used for. It just makes them people. And it’s a bunch of moral relativist crap. I’ve got nothing against it if you want to smoke a joint and talk pop philosophy, but friends don’t let friends do moral relativist post-modernism.
Outsiders are Alien. Really, Really Alien
The practical upshot of all this — if you want your player-characters to interact with devils and angels — is that fiends and celestials are weird. They’re alien. They’ve got no survival instincts, no needs, no drives, and no motivations. They’re just their pure nature. And that pure nature isn’t psychological or biological, but rather spiritual. Moral. So interacting with them is strange.
First, devils are single-minded. The only thing they think about is pushing you down the slippery sin slope. But that doesn’t make them simple or stupid. While maybe they must keep their word, they can use elaborate deceptions. And they’re very good at that. They can pretend they’re not single-minded. They can even pretend they’re redeemable. Or pretend they’re not devils. Or pretend morality isn’t objective so everything is fine as long as you’re not really hurting anyone or at least if the amount of harm you do is less than the amount of harm you prevent or some other bullshit like that.
And that’s surprisingly tough for mortals to cope with. Because mortal brains tend to assume that anything that behaves like a person thinks like a person.
The same thing’s true for demons and angels and guardinals. Well, not the end-game of course. Angels and guardinals can’t harm you or lead you to ruin. A guardinal muse who inspires you, an artist, to create to add more beauty to the world can work in very complex ways. They can help you come to terms with the loss of your wife so you can create again, but it’s not out of love or sympathy. It’s just so there will be more beauty in the world. And that guardinal cannot push you to exhaustion or destruction. An angel can inspire courage to the point of pushing you to give your life for a cause because that’s courageous, but they must give you the choice. You must know you might die. And they can’t sacrifice you uselessly.
Devils and angels and all the rest are single-minded and pursue specific ends, but that doesn’t make them stupid, narrowly focused, or short-sighted.
It does, however, put them beyond reason. And that’s something mortals who deal with devils always forget. If the devil’s negotiating with you, it’s not because that devil is willing to compromise. The devil is negotiating because it knows that that will trick you into thinking that you can come out ahead. That you’re not being tricked into evil. Devils want nothing except for you to be corrupted so there’s no deal you can offer a devil. You have nothing to offer that it wants except your own corruption. And there’s no logic you can employ to change a devil’s mind because it has no mind. It has intellect — cunning, terrible intellect — but no motive or will.
And that’s why social interactions with devils and angels don’t really work as challenges. They’re inherently one-sided. They’re always defensive. The supernatural entity is always acting on the character it’s interacting with. And because you don’t roll dice to see if NPCs influence PCs, any challenge you build around interacting with devils and angels is going to mostly come down to you, the GM, portraying the creature and trying to out-argue the player.
Like or no, that’s how it be.
Playing such a scene, then, is about how well you can play a single-minded entity made of pure morality that may be pretending it’s something else. And that’s a tough thing to get right. This is why it’s best to assign the demon or devil or angel or guardinal a specific motive — a sin, a virtue, a ruin, or a beauty — that it is striving for. Decide up front that the devil is a devil of greed or that the angel is an angel of compassion or that the demon is a demon of terror or that the guardinal is a guardinal of harmony and then just play as if that’s the only thing in the world you give a crap about. Because that one trait is the only reason a supernatural creature exists.
Are Devils Really Always Evil?
Let me cap this shit off by addressing for devils the same question I did for orcs: does always evil really mean always evil.
Obviously, the answer’s yes. This ain’t a matter of practical consideration or long odds. If a devil’s made of evil — if it’s evil by nature — it can’t be anything but evil and still be a devil. Likewise, angels aren’t angels if they aren’t good. And so, angels can’t fall, fallen angels can’t be redeemed, and devils can’t be brought into the light.
Except…
Fallen angels must exist. Why? Because that’s how good and evil work. Good can always fall to evil. That’s why we’ve got to remain vigilant and keep making and remaking the right choices. Fallen angels remind of us that. And that’s why they’re great story elements. Hell, the developers at WotC didn’t make that the canonical story of how Asmodeus and his followers ended up living in the Nine Hells because they felt like D&D needed more Christianity. I promise you that. They did it because it’s a good story. See what I wrote last week about tropes in the mailbag.
By the same token, if angels can fall, they must be allowed to rise again. Because nothing can fall so far that it can’t be redeemed. Again, that’s how the story has to go.
You just can’t let the players see it happening. Angels falling and demons rising are cosmological events. An angel falling isn’t like a liberal arts student changing majors to something actually useful. It’s not even like an orc graduating from an anger management class and becoming a farmer. It’s a transformation that shakes the moral bedrock of the cosmos. It’s the spiritual equivalent of a volcano erupting and creating a new island in the sea. Or wiping an island out.
It’s the sort of thing that can have happened, but not the sort of thing that can happen. And I have to give props to Frienemy-for-Life Nitsua of my supporter Discord for that phrasing even if he was saying it for all the wrong reasons. It’s the sort of thing you can include in the history of your cosmos, but it can’t be a current event.
Except…
Remember that all this shit’s really just to show how amazing the human capacity for self-determination really is. We don’t appreciate that because, well, we’re surrounded by humans in the real world. That’s why we need fantasy worlds to show us all sorts of creatures that lack the traits we humans take for granted. And there is no greater proof of the power of human will and moral dedication than letting it transform the nature of a supernaturally moral being.
And so, one time — and one time only — you can allow the heroes in your story to redeem a previously fallen angel or to bring a devil to the light. Once. And only after they’ve interacted with several other supernaturals first. It must be the rarest, most amazing thing ever. And it should take you three paragraphs of flavor text to describe the event.
Beyond that, when it comes to angels and devils and all the rest, always means always.
Great article, thank you. I have a group of new players, and I was introducing them to D&D by playing THE KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS. There were some orc and goblin younglings in the Caves of Chaos and my newbie players really had some moral quandaries on what to do with them, and there was some debate at the table. They looked to me for advice, and I played it both ways — “Some say these creatures are irredeemably evil, and you don’t want their young growing up to avenge their slain fathers. Other philosophers say that no one is irredeemable and that you shouldn’t wantonly slay redeemable creatures.” So they had to decide for themselves. They chose to walk away from the others and younglings. Good for them!
I dislike the “always evil” label, not because of moral reasons, but because it’s too imprecise. “Always evil” looks very different for devils and demons, as you point out, but also for orcs, drows and hobgoblins. Knowing these races have a nebulous “predisposition to evil” doesn’t help me portray these NPCs at all.
I’d prefer mortal races that are described as “always impulsive, emotional, ambitious, obedient, cowardly…” That would help them stand out from humans, but also from each other. It would make staying good difficult for them, because these traits without moderation lead to evil acts. So nonhuman societies that exacerbate these traits would also be evil, and redemption would also be a struggle against their nature.
To be fair, that stuff is in the monster description. And it’s often quite detailed. There’s plenty in the Monster Manual to help a GM understand exactly why a monster is “always evil” or “usually good” or whatever. The alignment note in the stat block itself isn’t mean to be exhaustive. It’s meant to help a quickly GM quickly scan through the manual to find creatures appropriate for this or that situation. And for that, a small number of clear keywords work best, like the nine alignments. Beyond that, there used to be — and, are still a few very minor — game effects that rely on a creature’s alignment. And thus sometimes a GM really does need to know just that much. After all, alignment is, at its core, just a game mechanic. It’s just a descriptor. It isn’t meant, by itself, to tell you how to play a monster or fit it into the world. That’s what the text is for.
And honestly, the people who do piss and moan about these alignments — not you; you’re not pissing and moaning — seem to forget that there’s an entire page of text for literally every monster detailing their society and culture, often quite richly, and very often highlighting individual variances from the racial norm. So, even the text makes it pretty clear that “always evil” is a very broad, very general game mechanic. The real meat is below the stat block.
Completely true! I do confess to sometimes only reading a monster’s stat block, especially for random encounters.
I think the 2E Monster Manual was the best at this kind of descriptive prose. I loved reading about ecology, habitat, etc. Maybe it’s my negative disposition towards 5E in general, but I feel like the modern monster manuals are really lacking in the “real meat” as you put it.
This is my favorite article, and I’ve read nearly all of them. Wonderful insights. Especially the trap of making every race/culture match the humans in the game.
This is directly applicable to my game, and I appreciate it.
The proofreadaloud for this is gold. I hope everyone signs up for Patreon. Artists need it and oh the perks.
Amazing article, Angry! Every time I thought “ah, but..”, you addressed it in the next paragraph 😀
The best D&D campaign write-up I’ve ever read (takes a bit of setup to get into it’s voice) is https://leagueofimaginaryheroes.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/sepulchraves-tales-of-wyre/
About a paladin who reluctantly spares a succubus who claims to have converted to good; and it takes a lot more than three paragraphs to describe the resulting church schism & world fallout..!
Tales of wyre really is fantastic.
Holy guacamole! Thank you for giving me the revelation that I didn’t know I needed. I could never reconcile all of this in my head, so I tended to just avoid these types of things in my games, often resorting to just making everyone human.
This is, by far, the best article you’ve written on this site, and you’ve written plenty of really good ones. Insightful and very well said, it’s definitely worth reading a second time. Kudos!
I have realized how important monocultural races in Fantasy is. I noticed in Baldur’s Gate 3 that most of the races just melded together because they all acted like humans. Lae’zel was the only one who stood out, because she lived her culture through and through. (I still didn’t like her though). I constantly forgot Astarion was an Elf and Wyll was actually a cursed human and not a Tiefling. But the Tieflings were just funny looking humans, not at all distinct from Wyll.
Also, if you want to have nice Orcs, why not just make them Elves?
Lastly: Fantasy races are an extrapolation of human nature. Much like the different aliens in Star Trek. They are there to be a “pure” version of that human nature.
Orcs tend to be aggression and warlike, because humans CAN BE aggression and warlike. ALL humans has this in them. (Which is why I agree with Angry that associating fantacy races with certain real life groups is dumb).
Elves are arrogant, but also beautiful and graceful, because this is something humans also have.
These days everyone is a subversion
Recent subscriber. This is just excellent – both the content and the writing. Gives me the kind of clarity that I can immediately apply to be a better GM.
Wow! Great article. My favorite Angry GM articles are the ones that gather a bunch of nebulous thoughts in my head, provide order and clarity to them, and then shine light on the implications of those concepts.
The most direct impact on my game may come from the paragraph that states, “Orcs are humans whose societies are governed by anger, bitterness, and hatred. Hobgoblins … military conquest. Goblins … greedy, the grasping, the cowardly, and the lazy.” It will help me to highlight the aspects of each monster that makes then unique and in doing so “de-homogenize” the encounters. I.e. orcs aren’t just goblins with more hit points. Specifically, I was planning to borrow the ogre and goat encounter from the Tactical Infiltration Action Q&A. With the help of this article I know better how to convey the “ogreiness” of the ogre.
Hi angry thx for the article I have been waiting for it for a couple of years!
Part 2 reminded me of some AI safety topics, especially the idea that they might pretend to be something they aren’t if it was the most effective way to achieve their goals. They might act as if they have weaknesses like pride, shortsightedness, or anger issues, but its only because they think you will try to exploit those weaknesses in a way they can use. The image of fiends/celestials as paperclip-maximizing supercomputers that pretend to have emotions because they know it’s the best way to manipulate us is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying.
That’s a fun analogy. Cool way to look at it.
This is one of the reasons I like playing in Middle-Earth. Orcs are nasty, but if you are nasty to them you fall into shadow. So, the game is not only about killing orcs, is also about how to continue to be good (and humane) in the process.
I feel like one of the main issues with racial monocultures (and trends towards cosmopolitan settings) in ttrpg settings specifically is that a lot of players don’t want to play an orc or elf with a somewhat alien mindset: they want to play a human with green skin and +2 Strength or a human named Legolas with pointy ears, +2 Dexterity, and a bow. They care about the aesthetics & mechanics of picking an ancestry, less so the thematics, if at all.
Admittedly that’s a table/player-specific problem, and there are players who want to engage with the given theme of a certain ancestry (or who recognize they don’t want to, and so will stick with playing humans). However, it is a practical problem for a GM trying to make a world that feels magical. It takes one player in a group playing a goblin who’s just “quirky” or a human-with-pointy-ears to shatter the tone of the world. I’ve learned the hard way that the majority of my group just wants the aesthetics of an ancestry (and the one who does care about thematics rarely wants to play an alien mindset, so would stick to humans), so I made a new setting for the next campaign accordingly to not get burned.
The GM/designer could approach the inclinations on a game design standpoint maybe with something like the alternative inspiration/personality trait mechanics you discussed in your 2018 “Let’s Fix Inspiration AGAIN…But Not Really” article. Like maybe a high elf mechanic is that they all have to take the “perfectionist/aloof” trait.
However, the simple solution, if you want to make a world that feels magical & where the different magical ancestries have thematic impact, might be to just limit everyone to humans with the rare exception for an excellent character pitch from a player.
Ab-so-lutely correct in my experience Anna. I have a person who always wants to play an Elf but never _plays_ an Elf.
Another player though always adopts the chosen played race – sometimes in ways I’d have never thought – and makes the table a joy to be at.
New players especially ought to stick with humans.
No, new players should be encouraged to have fun with whatever they want to play. Will it be particularly convincing as a different person…. no…. but it wouldn’t be anyway, they’re new players. They’re just going to be themselves with pointy ears and a funny accent. But they’ll have a vision in their head and that’s probably enough at the start. Let them experiment, explore and make a mess. If the GM is a bit more experienced they can start encouraging them to think about what being X means once they’ve found their feet, know how the funny dice work and so on.
I can’t imagine anything less likely to bring new players into the hobby than starting by saying “No, you’re not good enough yet to know what an elf really is. Stick to humans, they’re easy. You can be an elf after you’ve completed three campaigns.” Except maybe explaining the character sheet….
I think maybe you should have a different expectation of what new players need.
Besides, being a human is hard. There’s no absolute hooks to build the character on. It’s hard to decide on a solid personality that you want to portray. That’s why a lot of people struggle with it in real life.
Question that arises for me is Devil on Devil evil.
If you use Devils that struggle against one another to rise in the hierarchy there is a trope of Devil using pawns to thwart Devil. Optimally they’ll corrupt their pawns while lessening the ability of the Other Devil to achieve their ends. But is that always going to be the case? Can a being of pure Evil do non-Evil (or maybe even good?) in the sphere of a given mortal?
Devil(A) has a great plan to collect 10cc’s of Evil. That will also gain A favor with their Devil boss. Devil(B) hates its rival (A), and devises a counter plan. The counter plan requires allowing a mortal to save a wagon of orphans and heal sick peasants on their way to thwarting (A). Mortal Hero thanks to (B)’s assistance wrecks (A)’s plan. A paltry 2cc’s of Evil are generated, and (A) loses out on the big promotion.
Could this stand to the logic laid forth above? Or must we follow the story forward to see the evil done by the saved orphans and healed peasants 15 years later to pay off the Evil?
You’re viewing this as a deal between equal parties that want things, and seems more descriptive of demons to move against each other so directly.
So I would say this way of running devils doesn’t allow for your trope.
It does allow for a harder deal. The devil presents itself as wanting and providing those things, but takes the orphans back to hell.
“The devil Barnus has bands roaming the countryside to kill you. I have helped you heal these people, but his imps will find them. My magic can get them out of the valley safely, and I will do so. A devil is bound by divine law to keep his word.”
At this point a young man among the orphans pipes up, wanting to go with the PCs to fight the “true evil”. The “Good guy” devil shrugs, “if he gets killed after I healed him, it matters not to me, one less that I need to hide is all the easier for me.”
Play to the PCs want to let the young man help fight.
All a similar setup to what you gave, right?
At the edge of the valley out of sight of the OCs the devil kills all the villagers by promising them that they will be freed if they turn on each other.
The villager that went with the PC tries to backstab them at the worst moment, preferably after the PCs succeed against devil B. Maybe when a PC goes down he runs over to finish the job. He’s been mind controlled by the devil and the last thing the villager tells the PCs before they slay him is “never trust”.
Then the devil thwarts his rival, does extra evil besides, annnnd the PCs will think twice before helping anyone.
(The PCs should also have the ability to counterplay here, obviously. Lots of spots for things to not go according to plan, but this would be the devil’s plan.)
For internal conflicts between devils, I tend to make them actively adverse to plots that would require being complicit in something good — devil B wouldn’t use the ‘save the orphans and peasants’ plan, because it involves doing a very good thing, which would be as unthinkably reprehensible to them as slaughtering the orphans and peasants to prevent the plague they have from spreading would be to most good people.
Devil B needs to find a way to thwart A’s planthat is still aligned with their strictly evil moral code; otherwise it’s not worth it to do something reprehensible just to mess with a rival.
If they do have a plan for how to corrupt those orphans and peasants, or some nefarious use for them, then it becomes a maybe, even if it’s a 20-year plan, because devils are immortal and have all the time they could ever need for very long term plans, but they should know before they even consider something so unspeakably good, how they are going to make sure it ultimately leads to more evil.
Basically; devils don’t do good things to undermine the plans of other devils. Devils undermine the plans of other devils by doing something even more evil than their rival was planning.
If devil A is going to make a paladin fall by getting him to kill a wagon full of plague orphans, Devil B gets someone to save the wagon of plague orphans from the paladin (who still falls, for trying to kill them in the first place) and them deliver them to the orphanage run by Devil B’s cult, so the orphans are raised to be evil cultists who are personally motivated to see paladins as an enemy, since one tried to kill them.
Great, great post. I’ve been meaning to subscribe and this article finally tipped the scale.
I really wanted to like this post, as all but one paragraph is great.
> This is called Racial Monoculture. Race and culture are synonymous. And sneering, post-modern dumbasses hate it. But not me.
Because it’s a lot easier for a white guy to brush aside problematic coding from the past 50 years of D&D racial characterization.
I also want to move on and discuss more interesting topics, but it’s odd to want to pick a fight on this particular hill. Just like any other 50 year old thing, there are parts that have aged less well than others. This one in particular interferes with being able to treat D&D with the level of escapism that I want, and I’m happy to not discuss it here either as that’s not what I come here to learn. But what is being accomplished by starting a fight about it by invalidating a straw man of the other side?
There’s already a fantasy race that doesn’t have racial monocultures. They’re called humans. Also, you just invalidated the author’s opinions based on his ethnicity.
We are NOT doing this in my comment space, thank you. Thread done.
Thank you for some very thoughtful and useful stuff on how monster kindreds should be played (and how that relates to monster alignment).
And from your reply to Camille, I learn that monster/kindred alignment can actually be useful for something.
I look forward to eventually learning what (if anything) you suggest using player character alignment for.
How do you handle Players playing other races than human?
I infer from this article that players get to play however they like. The key here is guidance for the GM to play the NPC’s a certain way, and to give them appropriate reactions to how the player plays. For example, NPC’s assume that an elf PC will behave like an elf. Even other elves, who act like elves, will expect the PC to act like an elf, too. If they don’t, they’re breaking the mold, which is very rare in the game world, and it will react accordingly. Which is okay, because players can do rare things.
I think that’s a good compromise, yeah. To a certain extent, any non-human player race has to either be basically just funny-looking humans, or they’ll end up being more human-like than they should because they’re not real, they’re an imaginary character running on human brainmeat hardware.
So you’re able to make an orc paladin who, sure, is capable of violence, but doesn’t seem to really struggle with overwhelming violent urges. But that orc is basically neurodivergent. He literally does not think like other orcs.
Man, this was an awesome, well written, thought provoking article. Great job.
I’ll agree as far as there is no point in having other fantasy species if they’re just green or funny eared humans, and I think there’s nothing wrong with saying that this particular species is evil and that’s that.
But, I balked at the idea of getting rid of a future threat to be considered an evil act. That rustles my jimmies. Take apples for an example, they are by common knowledge a safe fruit to consume, we don’t live our lives wondering if the next apple we’re going to eat will be poisonous. Thus if orcs in your world are evil and people have common knowledge of this, there should be absolutely no moral quandery in getting rid of what you know to be a future threat. If 99% of orcs are evil, it would be utterly idiotic to assume that every new orc you meet might be from the hypothethical 1% and deserving of any kind of respect or consideration.
And it’s not a matter of some grand ideal like life being sacred, a rabid dog is a living thing, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be put down, it’s a threat. And orcs being sapient doesn’t change that fact, if anything it just makes the matter more urgent, since A) They’re choosing to be the way they are despite being capable of reasoning, and B) that just makes them a bigger threat.
If you know full well that that orc is going to grow up and likely kill some other human, and the mama-orc holding it likely already has, then putting them down isn’t an act of evil, choosing not to do so is negligence and self-serving self-righteousness to the point of sheer naiveity.
Out of curiousity, faced with the infamous trolley problem, how would you act and why?
I’m not a consequentialist. I do not believe the ends justify the means. I also do not believe I have perfect knowledge to the extent that I would commit an act of murder based on what I believe will happen. Until someone commits a crime, they are guilty of nothing. And killing them is an act of murder. Until someone is holding someone at gun point or sword point or whatever, they are threatening no one. The alternative is a very dangerous belief that very quickly leads to reprehensible acts that I know to be evil. Until that orc actually does grow up to kill, it has not done so. Until then, it is a sentient being. You can’t just kill it out of fear. That’s how cowardice leads to murder.
I personally reject the Trolley Problem as being useful because it recognizes only one form of morality and boils it all down to “number of lives saved equals virtue.” The problem then is that I can easily justify acts of imprisonment to “protect people.” Especially if you also have the hubris to believe you can perfectly predict the future and can also act a moral arbiter and predict the perfect good. However, if I came upon a situation such as that described in the classic Trolley Problem, I would, of course shout a warning and switch the track. I would then race as fast as I could to the remaining doomed person, throwing myself in front of the trolley if need be to do everything in my power to rescue them. And if I died failing to save them, that is just how it goes sometimes. Doing the right thing gets costly.
That said, this is not an article discussing real world morality. This is discussing pretend orcs and pretend elves. And a baby orc in its mother’s arms is not a freight train hurtling toward five train-worker elves. It is not an imminent threat. And until it becomes one, you don’t kill it. Or else you’ll get to share a bunk with it in the Nine Hells.
And because this is not a place for moral debate, I have responded to your counterpoint, I have answered your question, and so here ends the thread. If you still disagree with me, that is your right. I’m not looking to convert any folks.
Understood. Thank you for your quick and detailed response.
This article didn’t really do anything to piss me off, even though I lean more in the other direction of the arguments about evil races and even if I don’t agree with everything in this article.
You, sir or madam, have no business being on the internet with an attitude like that. I have said things you disagree with. I have done you violence. You must respond in kind. What even is wrong with you?
The only part of this that I disagreed with was this passage:
“Further, there was a year in my life, when I did not have enough money to afford both food and medicine I needed to treat a serious, chronic illness. I was, for a time, very frightened about how I would survive. Had I stolen your money or property, I would have done evil and committed a crime.”
I would not consider someone to have done evil if they stole out of true and well-founded desperation to survive. I would consider that a failing of an evil society that does not provide for its people for one reason or another. That being said, I don’t claim to have a complex philosophical system or to even consider myself to be a good person.
Bravo. I’ve had this argument so many times with my friends and you covered every point and then some with sound logic. Matt Frickin Mercer’s Exandria is so bland because he just can’t resist making it just as likely to encounter a normal human as a blue cow person with pink hair married to a 3-foot-tall sasquatch, and no one even thinks anything of it! It’s homogeny to the point where there is nothing fantastic about it except physical descriptions, and worlds like that are missing out big time on some amazing stories and interactions with our own human nature.