this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
222 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

250 readers
1 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Every time people lament changes to the lore that amount to "not every member of species X is irredeemably evil" and claim the game is removing villains from it, I think how villains of so-caleld evil species fall into two cathegories: a) bland and boring and b)have something else, unrelated to their species going on for them, that makes them interesting.

top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Shivirani@ttrpg.network 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Evil races give someone the PCs don't have to feel bad about killing. Obviously depends on your party, but if they befriend the hungry wolf pack and negotiate with the bandits, then a band of definitely evil goblins gives the barbarian something to smash without worrying if they're killing little Timmy's dad.

Edited to add: And if "he's an evil race" is your only reason for them being a major villain, that's bad storytelling. About as bad as "yes they're going to help you because they're good," and not for some kind of benefit to them, monetary or spiritual or whatever.

[–] apotheotic 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Eh, but maybe the barbarian should have to think about whether smash is the right path forward?

Also, you can have an individual group of enemies who are very clearly definitely evil without needing to relegate an entire species to it.

That said I run campaigns which are pretty far removed from my players wanting to smash dudes without a second thought.

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] apotheotic 5 points 3 months ago
[–] dragonshouter@ttrpg.network 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your players care about race when murdering people. If you want to murder people then just do it.

Also that's what we have Nazi metaphor's for

[–] Attaxalotl@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 months ago

Szass Tam, Sauron, SecCom, The Empire, etc.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No quarrel there. The only interesting thing about evil races is when you subvert the trope, but as we’ve all been doing that since the 80s that’s just become another tired trope.

Personally I just run campaigns where 90% of the people are humans.

[–] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

90% of the people are humans

I go with a setting where humans don't exist at all. The closest is Elves, and picking them comes with a whole host of implications, like needing twice as much food to survive and everyone assuming you're mega rich.

[–] Adramis@midwest.social 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I feel like:

  1. No race should have alignment locking in any direction, because people are people and can do whatever they want. Our goodness or badness isn't determined by our genes.
  2. But, people are who they are because of the society they grow up in and how people treat them. If humans treat goblins like shit because they're goblins, and a goblin turns into a big bad because they want to kill the humans that slaughtered their village, then that villain is interesting for reasons tied to their species.

"No villain in D&D is interesting for reasons tied to their species" sounds very dangerously close to "I'm race-blind" in terms of not acknowledging that different people have different struggles, and racism is often a huge part of those struggles.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 7 points 3 months ago

If you like this idea, you should read the webcomic The Order of the Stick. It's surprisingly good for a comic that started out as DND jokes and stick figures. It deals a lot with the problem of evil in DND.

[–] shani66@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago

Big cats have hunting instincts that are hard to turn off even if they like you (see: any news story of a big cat eating their owner), humans have instincts relating to forming communities. every single species has some instincts they follow and they aren't the same as ours, they'll deeply shape how a species' cultures/morals/etc develop. Just saying goblins are little green humans is deeply boring and hurts world building.

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Can confirm, I run a LOT of dragons and the interesting dragon villains are generally about finding unique takes on their common traits or villains because of their response to their circumstances rather than pure random villainy. We've got the red dragon who self-perpetuates her own cycle of violence, we've got the black dragon who's mentally broken because their worldview of being entitled to everything due to their strength collapsed after they lost a territorial struggle, we've got the emerald dragon who's desire not to be bothered by their humanoid allies led them to neglect their promises, we've got the silver dragon who loved her friends so much she was willing to fall into necromancy to try and undo their deaths.

Also we have That Bastard With Eight Player Kills.

That said, always remember: To become cliche, something needs to work super well first- so well that everyone does it. It only crosses from great into cliche if everyone does it and forgets why and how it worked in the first place.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, please do tell the story of That Bastards With Eight Player Kills

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Young Black Dragon called Gendridd, wasn't meant to be a major obstacle, his personally is that he's evil mostly just because he's having a fantastic time being an asshole and constantly taunting people (to the extent that the first and so far only lair effect he's got is the ability to heckle people at any location in the lair). Anyways he was fully aware that he'd get one-rounded trying to fight a party of four level 7 PCs, so instead of fighting them stole the party's unattended bags and sat in a tree to taunt them about it before flying off (he did not consider this might lead to fighting them anyway).

The party's plan was to ambush him in his own territory, so their plan was to cut through some of the most overgrown parts of the swamp to get behind his lair and set up an ambush, instead of confronting any of his minions. However, between several spellcaster party members who had both completely dumped their strength/dexterity and couldn't cast spells while drowning, party members wearing full heavy armour that weighed them down significantly, and bad rolls, then two of them fell into a bog, and in trying to rescue them the others also fell in and they all drowned, resulting in the first TPK.

Obviously that wasn't a super satisfying ending, so for closure I offered to run a oneshot with a level 5 party in Gendridd's lair, sent to avenge the original party, on condition that I wouldn't hold back with enemy strategy and tactics (no bullshit with magic, just good enemy postioning, balanced teams that had lots of options in fights, and had actual battle plans). They made it through most of the dungeon pretty well, while constantly trading off verbal barbs with Gendridd who basically ran a snarky sports commentary the entire way through, letting them know how eager he was to crush them when they made it to HIS big boss chamber. Anyways they reached the outside of the chamber and they were just preparing to fight the skeletons who were guarding his door when he jumped out of an acid river behind them and got a Surprise Round, hitting two of them with a breath weapon and then rolling good enough initiative to knock out their fragile backline casters.

After that then he's become popular/respected enough to get Promoted To NPC.

TLDR: First wipe due to RNGiamat cursing the d20 and a party badly suited to dealing with falling in a bog. Second wipe because Gendridd employed the secret chromatic dragon art of 'lying to people'.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago

That's hilarious. First TPK to the hardest boss of the campaign, the bog. And that dungeon crawl with snarky commentary sounds like an absolute blast. Thanks for sharing!

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago

I’m known for running mostly human campaigns, but one of my favorite tricks is to run a seemingly human villain with personality traits usually associated with an evil monster, then as the adventure goes on the learn that the heraldry features the monster etc etc.

Of course they know me, so they all think it’s metaphor and inspiration.

But at the very last minute, when they think they have him cornered and taken care of all the lackeys…. SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS! He drops his magical disguise and it’s an old fashioned D&D lair boss battle!!!!!!!

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 15 points 3 months ago

I think a huge problem with this is trying to frame everything through D&D as well as our perspective. Fuck modern D&D and its desire to control the entire dialogue. Wizards of the Coast aside, there’s also a fantasy component here. I personally dislike requiring all races to act exactly like humans with human motives. From a specific perspective, we view the wanton murder and sacrifice of wood elves by the drow as a terribly evil thing. From the drow perspective, why can’t the opposite be true? I’m not talking about Salvatore’s one-sided writing that makes it clear the whole thing is a massive con. D&D is very biased toward human motive and perspective. Why can’t both be true? Drow are evil to us and we are evil to them? That’s a much more interesting story and completely changes the narrative around someone like Drizzt.

This is a really nuanced take on speculative fiction in general. I also strongly feel that, the way WotC writes things, removing racial alignment is very important. There is no nuance in their universe. Even when we see other races, we always evaluate their action through a human lens rather than being presented a cogent paradigm contrary to ours.

[–] Trumble@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 months ago

I would say that many Mind Flayer villains are quite interesting because they are Mind Flayers.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Dragons are interesting as a species... They're also in the name of the game. You remove them and the game is just "Dungeons And."

[–] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Dragons are pretty cool, but it's also sus as hell that the Lawful Good dragon is a cool daddy and the Chaotic Evil dragon is a crazy bitch. It's got major "divorced guy energy" is all I'm saying.

[–] ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Personally, as a DM I get tired of how many different intelligent species there are. It makes worldbuilding very hard. I tried carving out space for each of them, but it wasn't worth it. These days I prefer to just get rid of most races, but it's a bit hard to tell which ones to keep.

[–] Killer_Tree 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Instead of trying to specifically carve out spaces for each one, try just figuring out the balance of the starting play area and immediate neighboring regions. Then have rough ideas of where some other continents in the world are, and as other spieces come up that are rare for the region you can say they are originally from continent X.

Until the players actually go visit these other places, you don't need to have societies fully formed and figured out. Once players decide to visit, you should have at least one session of sea/air/whatever travel buffer to give you time to populate new lands (and can then adjust for any storyline/player interest.)

For example, in my campaign I told my players that the elven homeland was in the continent to the south. Three years later they are finally going to visit there, and it turns out I now know that the elders and majority of elves in the capital city live in a giant treetop metropolis while halflings and some other races are engaged in a 1920s style drug-fueled gang warfare on the ground level amidst a technological revolution (Drive-by violence is much more interesting with repeating crossbows and fireballs instead of tommy guns and bombs). The elves care very little about what the "dirty ground races" are up to because as a consequence of their longevity, they are very slow to change and adapt to a changing world.

Had I tried to figure out their society at the start of the campaign, it would have been nothing like that.

[–] bear@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 months ago

Your game, your rules. That's the beauty of it. I make everything up as I go along.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago

Deekin is a great example of how an evil species (Lawful Evil Kobold) can make a great narrative.

[–] Thyrian@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 months ago

Mindflayers are definitly evil (from humanoid perstective) because of their species. They eat and bread brains. And they are interesting.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any story pitching “good” vs “evil” is bedtime drivel dressed a different way.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Talk about disrespecting the roots of fantasy

[–] Umbrias 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

respect is a funny way to frame this. The roots of fantasy, written when ontological evil was commonly seen as a thing present in the real world? those roots? or the roots when ethnic nationalism was the way of geopolitics? or when scientific racism informed much of the modern conception of races in dnd? respect is about the last thing anybody owes fiction, the world can change as beliefs do.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was mostly thinking about Tolkien's legendarium and the tales inspiring his work. Some of its roots (like norse mythology) is far older and/or unrelated to what you mentioned.

[–] Umbrias 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

mm no, ontological evil. Also tolkien is not older than any of what i mentioned.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Some of its roots (like norse mythology) is far older and/or unrelated to what you mentioned.

[–] Umbrias 1 points 3 months ago

mmm no, ontological evil

[–] Attaxalotl@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How is Morgoth not Ontologically Evil?

[–] Umbrias 2 points 3 months ago

? you tell me i guess?