Friendly reminder that ontologically evil races always make a setting better. The best stories all have 100% evil races (Sranc, Shanka, Trollocs, demons).
>>92462983I haven't heard of any of those races except the last one.Could have at least gone for something classy like the Cauldron Born.
>>92462983Ontologically evil races only make sense as immortal things like demons. They're incarnate entities, thought given form.
>>92462983Demons aren't even ontologically evil in Christianity. They're just angels that chose to be evil, they weren't born that way.
>>92463383What about in Doom?
>>92462983I guess janny deleted my post for using images of a certain group of people who practice cannibalism, so here’s it again:Friendly reminder that you can have your cake and eat it too by make races that are pure evil (from your point of view) because their culture is based around a completely different belief system. You can have cannibals, child sacrifice, conquest for the sake of conquest, murder, rape, all of it. And you just have to give a bit of backstory instead of saying “they’re le evil because they’re le evil faction!”
>>92463685>why ontologically evil races exist narratively.It's just easier, right? Especially if you're writing a campaign, and just need some violent dudes your players can fight. You don't have to create some elaborate backstory or excuse for why they're doing what they're doing, and your players don't have to worry about judging or rehabilitating them instead of just defeating them
>>92463819Didn't they also represent science and technology? I know that High Fantasy originally started off as a "return to monke" sort of genre.
>>92462983Friendly reminder that if your demons aren't maxed out in charisma they aren't real demons.
Lawful evil or chaotic evil fiends?
Friendly reminder that none of you faggots have friends ;)
>>92463966Wasn't Souron an LE tyrant leading a mostly CE horde? I think it should be like that. LE leaders and CE semi-mind controlled minions.
>>92463945Nah, just the destructive side of industrialisation. That was the only thing Tolkien didn’t leave to applicability. Speaking of applicability, he really should’ve given more concrete guidelines for using it because now it’s just a bandied about excuse for any acid trip an author throws on the screen that their dicksuckers will defend to the last
>>92463992He was. In fact, his obsession with order was what compelled him to start his onslaught
>>92463966Both. The Blood War is cool.
>>92462983I agree.
>>92462983Are Frieren demons even ontologically evil at all? I mean they COULD eventually move past their incompatibility with humans but the way they just shouldn't be allowed to consume the world to do so is treated as something tragic by the story. They're more like victims of a curse then anything.
>>92464448DEldar aren't ontologically evil, though. They're all making a clear and deliberate choice, they can have options at their disposal.
>>92462983based take. I like how 11 has enlightened races and beastmen.
>>92464477even better
>>92464143based
>>92463992Sauron was only "Lawful" in the absurd modern "alignment as personality test" context.The truth is, Sauron's obsession with bringing (his) order to the realm of Arda belied a more fundamental belief that Arda was too Chaotic; and if you believe that Chaos rules the world, you're Chaotic. The Elves and the faithful Men of Westernesse are Lawful, because they can trust that Eru Ilúvatar will be the ultimate victor over His creation. It takes a fundamental belief that Natural Law rules the cosmos to abide Free People governing their own lives.
>>92464462>They're more like victims of a curse then anything.They're an entire race of sapient maneating tigers. You can have whatever emotions you want about them or the misery of their birth, but it doesn't change the fact that the only cure for their condition is complete extermination.
>>92463465Choose to be that way
>>92464462Obviously. If they don't count as evil then the word is completely meaningless.
>>92464744because the word is meaningless
>>92464775Only to pedantic retards.
>>92464783we are on a thread that start using the word 'ontologically'pedantry is the whole point
>>92462983>Sranc
>>92462983>best stories>Sranc, Shanka, Trollocs, demonslmao you have the tastes of a precocious 16-year old
>>92464462Yes.If anything the argument against is that they're not really moral agents by our reckoning, in the same sort of way that a bear isn't evil for killing someone.But demons are capable of reason and - oddly - don't need to eat humans to survive. So they aren't really like the bear at all.>>92464642Nonsense. Law/Chaos alignment mostly comes from Moorcock, and is about how you try to shape the world. Someone that believes the world is chaotic and wants to make it less so is lawful.But law and chaos are not alignments in Middle Earth, because that's not what the cosmic forces there are doing.
>>92465436>Law/Chaos alignment mostly comes from MoorcockWell, he stole it wholesale from Poul Anderson and admitted this.
Where did the posts on Tolkien 's Orcs go?I was going to agree with what was said earlier, Orcs are basically human war crimes made flesh; therefore, they are evil. In one of my past-settings I rationalized their evil nature as being that they were first created by taking very minor immaterial spirits of hell and cloaking them in flesh. On the rare occasions they form something that could pass for a civ it's usually built into the ruins of someone else's. They kill and sometimes eat enemy males, keep the females for the slave-harems, and offer bloody sacrifices to demonic beings... but at least they can keep trade agreements with corsairs with no morals.
>>92465518Hardly wholesale, since in Three Hearts and Three Lions it's pretty much just good and evil. Whereas Moorcock is pretty explicit that the extremes of both are alien and awful from a human perspective. And RPGs tend to lean more towards that.
>>92465597When he started with Elric, it was pretty much good vs. evil in effect even if their were hints it was more complicated.
>>92462983people will say ontologically evil races are bad yet like Lord of the rings (Orcs, Goblins, Uruk-hai)
>>92463966both but with no way of telling which they are
>>92463383That makes it worse. Because angels are beings of pure will unburdened by the weaknesses of the flesh, they deliberately chose to rebel against God, the singular source of all truth and goodness in Creation. God did not create anything evil in essence, if he did he would not be good and therefore not Himself. Evil exists when those with will (angels and humans) choose to do what is contrary to God's laws.
>>92466578>people will say ontologically evil races are badwell if they weren't bad then they wouldn't be evil now would they
>>92462983Friendly reminder that nobody cares that you're watching last season's FOTM.
>>92464448I really need to make a proper sub-folder for all the DEldar art I've saved.
you could just make a race of beings that needs to do something "evil" for biological purposes.the easiest example would be something that has to implant parasitical eggs to propagate their species. think "aliens" add in something like they have to do it in intelligent species or they themselves would lose their intelligence. say it's something about the more advanced neural pathways or something. make the process particularly painful if you want that extra bit. say they can't do it to their own species because it creates disabled or mutant offspring.so bam you got a species that doesn't want to die or become idiots who have to do something that involves the horrible death of another. you would have to assume they've become entirely blasé about it as to them that's just how you have kids. so assuming they don't have enough people who would volunteer for such a bad ending they would have to capture people and probably do some sort of slavery. bam another evil point.extrapolate from there as you want.
>>92462983but why make the ontologically evil races also ontloligically sexo?
>>92466578Does it even matter in LotR? Sauron had armies of humans too, so is there any real reason why orcs had to be inherently bad?
>>92462983One: is this in terms of what ontological actually means, or is it just based off of what you've either twisted the definition into or what you decided to use the word for regardless of its actual meaning?And two: what does this have to do with an actual game?
People who bring up Frieren need to catch themselves up. Demons are absolutely fucked up, but there's plenty of hints going on that it's not simply being evil that drives them.Hell, there's even demons who honestly wish to coexist with humanity, but the demon mindset is so fucked that they're the most dangerous ones. But even then, we get hints that demons can come to understand humanity. Plus the whole "See the future" bit
>>92462983I'd agree with the gist . I like the evil species trope. I'd say you don't technically need it to have it be 'ontological evil', i.e. they're literally made of evil in the 'oh this race was made out of the concentrated evil jizz of beelzebub and so is evil all day every day' way.You can have species which just have drives/viewpoints so incompatible there is no possibility of peaceful co-existence. Technically they might not be evil, but it's a distinction without a difference 99% of the time (and the 1% can be an interesting story) so it doesn't matter. This anon has the right of it >>92466694. That is basicallythe alien Magog from the scifi show Andromeda. A species (implied to be artificial) which reproduced by implanting their eggs in sapients, also obligate carnivores which could also only digest freshly killed meat. So they were biologically driven to attack people, eat some of them, then implant the rest and watch over them until their young ate their way out a few weeks later. Understandably they were treated like the horrorshow they were.There was one non-evil Magog in the series who had been converted by a preacher to a pacifist religion and who wished to atone for killing his 'mother' by eating his way out of her stomach, but he was presented as near unique and the rest of the billions of Magog would basically have needed to die. The Goa'uld from SG1 or the Yeerks from Animorphs work too. Species which take control of or parasitize human bodies can be seen as evil by default, the Yerks especially had a degree of sympathy given with them being blind but intelligent slugs that literally cannot experience the universe without taking someone's brain. Either one is not going to have the same reaction to human suffering as we do though, just through evolution. Instead their biological drive will be to take over someone strong or high in the host totem pole, then surround themselves with other useful tools and potential infestation targets.
I far more prefer the “I’m the good guy from my own perspective” whether its simple biological drivers like Tyranids or Goa’uld all the way to intelligent agents pursuing their own agenda which is not being le evil for evil purposes. Sauron fits here, as do Necrons. I frankly loved the few Necron books that have come out because you’ll see a minor spat between two of them and planetary genocides occur in the margins of the story and are barely given any focus while you follow their own activities.
>>92462983No, they don't.
>>92466578I seem to remember Tolkien himself didn't think of his orcs, goblins and others as ontologically evil, and disliked the concept.
>>92462983Counterpoint: races/factions so evil that they SEEM ontologically evil, even to the reader/player, do the job perfectly.
>>92466705Simple. The humans were supplements from lands within Mordor. Sauron still needed a main core for his army that would be unquestionably loyal, effective, and semi-autonomous. So he took the elves, assblasted them for a couple hundred years, and voila! A bunch of stupid yet cunning humanoids with an industrious mind at his beck and call! Not as specialised as his human forces, but when all you need is a hammer...
>>92466605>something that is Pure Good creates something with the capacity for evilyeah I'm not buying it
>>92462983>Sranc, Shanka, TrollocsThese are all from low to mid tier stories though.Demons in Frieren aren't even evil. The later chapters show them having relationships and empathy within each other's ranks. They're just socially incompatible with humans without generations of active change, during which there would no doubt be much death on both sides. This is a legitimately interesting way of portraying your bad guy race.Always-hostile races are fine though. You generally do have to accede, though, that if they have no ability to not be hostile, they aren't really evil, as evil is a choice. This is entirely fine and effective as a literary device. There ain't nothing wrong with magically designed monsters that are created by an actual evil actor and have no real agency of their own. Or corrupted beings that have been stripped of their ability to make a change for good.
>>92468025He went back and forth about it over the course of his life.
>>92468528>Shanka>These are all from low to mid tier stories though.Wut.
>>92468528How is Bakker mid but some weeb shit good?
Are they truly evil if they're just following their nature? Is a lion evil when it kills and eats a man? I'll agree that 100% purely hostile predatory/parasitic sapient species are great to have.>>92463000trollocs -- wheel of time -- robert jordan
>>92468833>Are they truly evil if they're just following their natureyes
>>92463465Demons make you believe that they're ugly monsters instead of the harbingers of enlightenment they are.
>>92468731How is Frieren mid but some genre-slop no ones heard of good?
>>92469126unpopular = good actually
>>92469126>no ones heard of
>>92469219Man, fuck the Wheel of Time. I got like five or six books into that, then I stopped because the characters were so fucking insufferable that I lost all possible interest in finding out how it ends.
>>92462983They really don't. They're boring, lazy, and an excuse to let players act like sociopath murder hobos which should not be encouraged. It's much more interesting to have anyone be capable of great good or great evil, and for it to be a choice they make.
>>92468590First Law is bad, actually.>>92468731Second Apocalypse is also bad, actually.As actual novels they're extremely poorly written. They have some cool concepts in them, but I'll be read, their characters, prose, and storytelling were so poor I could only get through one book of each. This is unfortunately the case with the vast, vast majority of fantasy novels - stuff like Malazan, Witcher, Black Company, etc. It's almost all pretty bad, leaning hard on a handful of fun ideas with a boatload of shitty actual storytelling. Truth be told, it's much harder to make a great novel than a great TV show. So much more rides on one person being at least good at all elements of what they're doing.
>>92468325Human reasoning doesn't actually have the monopoly on defining Good.
>>92469362Witcher's always hard, because it's a translation, so there's always the question of if it were simply better in it's native tongue.But I do generally agree with you. There's some fine fantasy novels, but it's kind of a ghetto. Mostly for self perpetrating reasons(Sci-Fi is where the more talented authors go, because there's more respect for the genre, which means fantasy doesn't get good authors).I also think that especially in the last 20 or so years, the people with any sort of interest in fantasy have been making games instead, since they're more suited to the genre anyways.
>>92469586it's a human word so it does actually
>>92469656>Sci-Fi is where the more talented authors go, because there's more respect for the genre, which means fantasy doesn't get good authorsIt's funny because there was a time when they were the same people
>>92470020If you really want to get into it, both Sci-Fi and Fantasy are generally looked down upon in a lot of arenas, which means most college/classically trained writers tend to be funneled into traditional fiction. They're the ones, in general, who have all the technical skills thus that's where all the really solid prose lives. Just check out any given "Best of" list of fiction, year by year.Which, on the topic, I will say that Gideon the Ninth is one of the best fantasy/sci-fi books I've read in a good long while.
>>92470209>Gideon the Ninth>Tamsyn MuirGive me reasons that you rate it highly and other fantasy books that you like.
>>92470255I'll spoiler, since I'm going to talk in depth about it.Gideon's a very character driven story, and it revels in contrasts. We're dealing with two over emotional teenagers, brimming with hormones, and Gideon especially being a sassy teenage girl who is basically the polar opposite of what she's supposed to actually represent. However, a good chunk of the novel she's sworn to silence, and her own personal narration is what fuels most of the events of the novel itself. And while she's not an unreliable narrator in full, she's clearly very biased, and fails to understand both the effect she has on people and the presence her house has on others. Because of this, you've really got to pay attention to what's going on, because what Gideon is thinking about a situation is often drastically different from what everyone else sees. And given the only person she can talk to is someone she absolutely hates(both personally and for what they represent), ultimately the novel focuses on her growth as a person and acceptance of her duty in a very personal way, with the actual events of the story, while not unimportant, taking a back seat to her(and Harrow's) growth.As for other fantasy books, man, that's always hard. I've got plenty of books I like, but more in a casual reading/guilty pleasure way than in any sort of merited way. Since we're also on sci-fi, I can list some of them easier: Children of Time, Children of Memory, I enjoyed the Imperial Radch series(Ancillary Justice is the first one), Dune 1-4, Player of Games, and I enjoy most of Lois Bujold's works(though she almost always fucks up their endings).
>>92466605I like to think God realized that Free Will is an overall good thing and just rolled with it. If some people and angles want to do evil then they go to hell. But everyone else is fine.
>>92462983No. One who is evil by choice is better than one who has no choice but to be evil. You have no choice but to do shitty threads, I interact with them because I can.
>>92471591OK cool but when my party of heroes is fighting against a horde of bug demons I dont need every bug demon to have an extensive back story and a fucking joker moment to explain why he chose evil. Its easier to just say "they're all evil because they are."
>>92466605Solid take. God has faith in us.
>>92472273NTA but you don't really need a narrative reason to justify why sapient individuals would choose to do evil. The idea that rational individuals only ever choose to do Good and only ever end up doing Evil because of biases, misinterpretation or ignorance is retarded fucking nonsense along with the rest of Plato and Socrates. This is really where the useless discussion of ontological Good and Evil stems from in the first place.Demons can all just be sociopaths absolutely capable of making rational decisions who just enjoy killing because that's how they're wired. Sapient bugmen might just be absolute collectivist utilitarians that are fine consuming everything to fuel The Hive even though they know it kills everyone else - they just don't care.
>>92466694I like this.>"evil" as biologicalMaybe a brain that isn't developed enough to process higher cerebral function. (i.e reptiles)Or cognitively impaired like systemic heavy metal poisoning, Prions or parasites
>>92466847I like this take as well>Silcates (androids) from Space: Above and Beyondthe Silicates could not act beyond their programming, Could not harm Humans, Until someone uploaded a "Logic Bomb" on their Net>Take a Chance...This phrase caused the Silicates to rebel in an ultraviolent and inhuman manner. It was a perfect storm. Silicates didn't want to be slaves or cannon fodder. Humans didn't want to work or fight for themselves.In an ironic twist the phrase "Take a Chance", When spoken to them, Would cause Silicates to override their logic.In one scene a captive Marine invokes 'TaC', And she plays Blackjack for her and her fellow Marines life. The Silicate literally couldn't resist the Game like a gambling addict."Mr Hickock, You do know this table is crooked yes?""I know, But it's the only game in town"Lol, the capping>VHHH>HHHTHE GAME
>>92464462They're intelligent predators incapable of feeling empathy or sentimental attachment. They only speak human language because it makes them better predators. They're like intelligent sharks, except the fish they prey on made up the concept of good and evil and labelled them "evil"
>>92472522Not my take. This is verbatim Catholic theology on angels and free will.
>>92463207I mean zombies work. But zombies also show why 'all evil' is boring. Because a zombie apocalypse is never about the zombies. It's about the human reaction to them. Nobody can ever really hold a grudge or swear revenge on a zombie because the zombie is a mindless natural force, it'd be like trying to debate a hurricane.
>>92472273But that's a bullshit made up scenario that gets parroted all the time even though it's complete bullshit. People literally slaughter bandits and shit in droves and they are fucking humans. You don't need to have a detailed sob story or whatever for an entire race down to the individual just because they aren't 100% evil, but locking them down as such removes the possibility and makes them boring.
>>92476430Exactly. Even in properties that use always evil enemies, they still ultimately concede by having to supplement the story with additional human/more complex villains and antagonists to actually carry it.
>>92468325You've confused pure good with tyranny again.
>>92466694This does tend to be much better. If it's something intrinsic to the species, then it's going to result in something innately hostile towards humanity. They wouldn't have any sort of concept that murder is wrong. And even if you tried to explain such a thing to them, their only options are to either totally abstain from reproduction and doom themselves to extinction, or forfeit their reproductive rights to a human government who delivers criminals to them as a form of execution. At that point the species would probably be more easily convinced that they'd be better off trying to enslave humanity rather than being glorified zoo animals for humans to gawk at and pat themselves on the back for 'saving'.
>>92472273>if they're not all uniformly evil just because then they all have to be fully fleshed out individuals with masses of detail that they will monologue about at the drop of a hatWhat a bizarre and stupid dichotomy.If some guys attack you on the road it doesn't have to matter if they're evil or not; you've still got to defend yourselves. If they do have a motivation (collectively) it might give you room to negotiate or something.
>>92470859I mean He invented free will so.
>>92462983>>92463207WrongOntological evil is a paradox that precludes being evil in the first place. If a being is evil and ontologically so, it is not a free actor but nothing more than a mindless automaton driven to destruction. To call this evil is as inane as to describe the weather -equally without will or motive- evil. A storm is not evil, it is simply a storm, it knows no better, nor can be turned from its course, thus to describe it as evil is to reduce the word to describe merely bad events which befall you.Evil is a choice. Evil is a deviation from good, a fall from grace as one seeks to willfully inflict malicious harm on those around it for no good reason. Evil is the absence of the heavenly way, a rejection of good choices in favor of needless harm, either to those external to the evil creature or even to itself on a course of myopic self destruction.Demons are not ontologically evil beings, they are chosen evil, which is a distinction the glut of theologies make in lore on demonic origins. Fallen angels, malicious spirits, fallen souls - all presenting an active choice to deviate from good or neutral actions in favor of harm. Even in Gnosticism the Archons are not beyond the point of redemption, and for that matter nor should any demon or other normally ontologically evil creature. Their evil rather manifests from the active choice of malicious action, or being raised within a malicious culture. Redemption should be a path open to all, or else the distinctions of evil and good are nothing more than mindless teams in a war of puppets dancing on strings, rather than the melee of free actors. Ontological evil is the crutch of the hack. The good author throws the entire concept of ontological evil in the trash where it belongs, instead challenging the reader or the player with the concepts of responsibility, redemption, forgiveness, and peace.
>>92463465The average Doom demon was turned into what is basically a murder machine by the above Christian-style demons (or if you want nuDoom lore the Khan Meyer or whatever the fuck they're called), so it's the selfishness of free-willed demons that have caused all the problems in Doom.
>>92462983>Sranc, Shanka, TrollocsI honestly don't think I could pick a worse set of choices for "the best stories" if I tried
Ontological evil is based, dindu nuffins and liberals can fuck off, every setting needs their own version of niggers, jews and russians
>objective morality
>>92478527this is real as fuck
The whole virtue signalling about always-evil races comes from the leftist worldlview how everything and everyone can be changed with good upbringing.Its just Lysenkoism rebranded.
>>92480539Based"objecitve morals" are a copeIt's not written in the structure of the universe somewhere that stealing is wrongBut that doesn't mean we aren't going to NOT chop off your hand for stealing
>>92480818It's a willful misapplication of Rousseau, is what it is. They ascribe the human capacity for free choice and perfectibility to creatures which by definition are not human, and which accordingly are not guaranteed to share that capacity.
>>92480539Very nice sir, now please bend over while these Sranc rape your asshole before converting your buttocks to stew meat; I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear no objective morality is required.
i think its just a uniquely american way of storytelling. Americans hate anyform of hierarchy and cope with a spectrum of morality rather than an ontological good/evilmeanwhile the "old world" has a more heroic view of their history
>>92466847Context for the pic?
>>92486611Nah, you guys are just making mountains out of molehills. The simple fact of the matter is, pure evil robots can't be interesting or memorable characters. There's a pretty good reason why most zombie films and such fall back on human antagonists, because everybody knows that the zombies by themselves can't retain interest or conflict.
>>92486831Counterpoint: the Unholy Consult, Anasurimbor Kellhus, and Cnaiur.
>>92466605>Because angels are beings of pure will unburdened by the weaknesses of the fleshThey aren'tThose are mental wanks that have nothing to do with the base textsThe malakims were individuals that get tired and needed to eatOphanim and cherubim aren't even angels
>>92486831>so illiterate that he has to use zombie movies, a literal b-movie genre, to support his argument
>>92486611Tolkien doesn't have ontological evil either dumbass.
>>92464462They aren't really evil. They often don't even feel malice, as we'd get it. Killing humans is as instinctual to them as eating plants and animals is to us.
>>92476430Human reaction is also a mindless natural force.
>>92488605There's a point when the difference between active malevolence and predatory instinct becomes largely academic, and demonkind crossed it long ago.
>>92488907Sure, but there's clearly something more detailed going on. After all, demons on several occasions express the fact that they can't understand human thinking. It's not even that they're refusing to, they simply do not comprehend. One of the early examples showcases this: A demon points out that young or smaller demons can call for their mother when faced with humans, as it will make the hesitate. When another asks why, the demon says he has no idea.Furthermore, we've encountered demons who wish to coexist with humans, and actively attempt to understand them. But their solution to this is to just keep killing humans to try and understand how they react to it, or even to force humans to kill each other to try and divine some aspect of their nature. This makes them even more dangerous than the bog standard demons, because they go out of their way to seek out humanity and will kill them far more frequently than normal demons do. Despite being logical and sapient creatures who have even been shown to possess emotions, something about demons is entirely incapable of understanding humanity.Then there's the fact that one demon trying to understand humans managed to do so, if only a small amount.
>>92488907True.But the distinction is important. An arc after the anime ended deals with a demon that willingly bound itself to a human king to never commit a malicious act against a city's population. Because the demon wanted to end the conflict between his race and humanity and find some kind of peace. Except he then transmuted the entire city and all its inhabitants into Gold without actually really understanding, himself, why he did that. There was no malice to the action. It was just something he was compelled to do.
>>92486831Why does the pure evil have to be a robot?>>92489012> A demon points out that young or smaller demons can call for their mother when faced with humans, as it will make the hesitate. When another asks why, the demon says he has no idea.It's a neat portrayal of a sociopathic race, but not necessarily evil, is it? I would consider it to be more clearly evil if the demon understood why the human would be hesitant, and intentionally played on that to fuck up the human.
>>92469586Measure good and evil by the Bible and the Commandments. If something violates those rules and guidelines, which are divinely inspired, then it is evil. Therefore we can judge many things to be evil because of their capacity to violate those laws.
>>92478527>reddit spacingyou are a pretentious moron,newfag.
>>92490623lil bro doesn't use paragraphs
>>92486611really you're just talking about people's capacity to change their ways, which is a topic so globally represented that the genre may as well be called Earth Literature. get a job, america-hater
>>92466836They're sticking pretty well to the demons being fundamentally evil. But the precognition plotline is very interesting and makes the demons very unique from a psychological perspective.
>>92490623>calling someone else a newfag>doesn't know what reddit spacing actually is
>>92490755>>92491756go back to r*ddit
>>92462983The Frieren screencap makes this amazing bait. Bravo, OP but you're still a faggot
>>92492659>baitnot everything is bait, newfag.
>>92486611Why do people talk about old literature as if it were all black & white with no moral ambiguity? Even in LOTR which is regarded as black & white you have morally grey characters like Boromir. The whole fucking story is about how evil can corrupt anyone. There was plenty of moral ambiguity in the past, it just wasn't the subhuman shit we have now. Characters now aren't even morally grey, they're straight up sociopaths.
>>92480391You sound like you live in a third world country
>>92478527depends on the setting
>>92462983Explain your argument.
My setting has races that are always antagonists to the player characters. It also has a sin meter that fills up with each kill a player character makes, regardlezs of what they kill. When it's full, the player character turns evil and becomes an NPC I control.Oh, and I don't tell my players about it until the first time a character is turned.Why yes, I play dirty like John Wick. Why do you ask?
>>92497984Can your players transfer that sin to a chicken?
>>92497933Creatures which are 100% evil are another tool for the author/GM to use. If you have somebody that's a bit of a downer when any combat situation comes up because "we're not so different from these bandits", an ontologically evil race can help remove that mental block and help them engage with their lizard brain to have fun.
>>92486611>Americans hate anyform of hierarchyOnly the poor ones. The wealthy ones love the deep state
>>92478527Evil means bad for human(oids) so I will call Demons and Hurricanes and Plagues and more evil. I will calculate the protocols of any action or event by segments and declare the final result not as objectively X or Y, but as a conjoinment of steps which themselves are evil or good. You will not stop me
>>92478527>To call this evil is as inane as to describe the weather -equally without will or motive- evil. A storm is not evil, it is simply a storm, it knows no better, nor can be turned from its course, thus to describe it as evil is to reduce the word to describe merely bad events which befall you.The weather is no living, thinking being, and brings as much good as bad. Speaking of, how could we define "good" and "bad" events without an understanding of some ontological morality?The point of an "ontological" evil is that it IS a living, thinking thing, and we cannot pry into a thinking thing's mind to KNOW the decisions they make, or if decisions are made at all. You also ignore the concept of influence, in the sense that hunger influences, compels even, a man to eat, but even then he may choose not to. A core tenet of fiction in general, but particularly fantasy and science fiction, are the presence of things beyond human comprehension and control, these moralistic influences being among them.Your boredom with ontological evil is simply that: boredom. You are bored with the concept, having been exposed to it your entire life. You are bored with it the way I am personally bored of grasping attempts at inflicting relativistic morality onto settings in an attempt to make the consumer feel something through their ability to empathize. I do not care if the reader can understand that a devil could make a good choice, they do not deserve a pat on the back for that.
>>92489033>if the demon understood why the human would be hesitant, and intentionally played on that to fuck up the humanYeah if they were sociopathic, but they're not. They're evil.
>>92489031In that same arc they also mention towards the end that the Demon King himself got his start also trying to live in peace with humans and that the gold guy was basically on the same path to restarting that entire situation. So the current mages around decide they really don't give a fuck if he wants to try finding a way to live together they aren't taking the risk and demons have to go. Maybe it could work eventually, but is the chance even remotely worth the untold amount of innocent people that are going to have to die to even see if it could?
been working on pure evil races for my African Setting and using birdfolk from a dying sky empire as one. I don't know much about African Mythology and don't know where to start
>>92468528>they aren't really evil, as evil is a choice
>>92462983>always>ontologically>evilno that's retarded. ontologically evil races don't make the setting anything. The setting could be established in such a way that there can by evil races in some form. But usually settings need to be weak for it.Even your pic is not an ontologically evil race in that setting. Those demons are an inherently anti-social magical predator species. Everything they have resembling culture was originally imitated from their pray. They only learned to speak human languages to lure and hunt them. They only look humanoid to blend in. They're not "evil" they just exist as a predator to humans. They're not more evil than a lion. They are anti-social, making them incapable of feeling empathy. They are a natural hazard to people, in that they cannot co-exist in peace by nature. But to call that evil is retarded. For actually ontologically evil creatures there is only >>92463207 For evil to exist it needs to know good, and have the ability to comprehend both. Evil is "ontologically" acting opposed to goodness. So goodness must be defined. An entity incapable of being good is incapable of being evil. ergo, there cannot be an ontologically evil "race".You can make characters perceived something like the demons from that anime as being inherently evil entities. It can be the perspective of those in that society or world in general to believe that. But as the GM to say they are that is retarded.
>>92498553Evil doesn't exist if good doesn't exist. So it only exists if it is a choice. If a wolf eats your granny it's not evil for it. It's a predator, it saw prey, it was hungry. There is no moral action being made. Evil can only act as opposite to good and must therefore know good and be capable of the choice.
>>92492436>>92490623>newfags learned reddit spacing meme on /v/ where they don't even speak in complete sentences>doesn't like paragraphs of discussion and lore building on /tg/ because he's afraid of wordsWhy do they always out themselves like this
>>92498205That is relative. As a GM you would categorically not be among the humans in your setting. It is from their perspective that the other things within the setting are evil. No one is against you having a setting where the societies believe specific races to be evil, but you are not one of them, you sharing that perspective is retarded.
>>92462983Yeah, its always good to have enemies that are always bad so its not even a question of whether or not you should kill them.
>>92464448Reminder that it is always moral to genocide the Dark Eldar, followers of Chaos, Orks, and Tyranids. The other 40K factions at least have some level of moral nuance.
>>92500251Like Nazis!
>>92500251That's what undead, demons, and robots are for.
>>92500665and any creature with a size small or anglo type.
>>92469362>First Law is bad, actually.okay so I remember thinking this after I read it but I don't have any concrete reasons why, so i'm curious to hear yours
>>92462983>Friendly reminder that ontologically evil races always make a setting better because you can rape them.
>>92498907>no uredditor,go back.
>>92500665the OP's image is literally a demon.
I think it's pretty obvious that an "ontologically evil" civilization can't just sprout into being naturally, because you kind of need to be able to form communities with bonds and emotions and shit to get where humanity is, and that alone would give them at least some amount of redeeming qualities. So the obvious decision to me is that if you want to have a purely evil race... just make them designed by someone, be it God/aliens/ancient civilization/mad scientist or whoever with brains and bodies specifically wired to be evil to anyone. And even then you'd run into an issue of "why the fuck would they be working as a unit? Aren't they supposed to be evil to EVERYONE, their own kind included?". You'd probably need their designer, whoever he is, to still directly whip them into working together and not, you know, slitting each other necks or just wandering as far away as it's possible from each other.
>>92464462They are evil in the sense they are completely incompatible with humanity.
>>92498863Choice and ability to choose it what it always comes down to. Makes good matter and makes evil fun.When you have one side completely incapable of choice you need to rely on the side capable of making choices to carry a story or game, as the other side can be at best fauna, and at worst automatons for the plot. With the absolute worst cases just being the author's fetish monsters. In many cases it can work, but usually the people that endorse this shit want to skimp on that former development by relying on the forced conflict of the antagonistic party. There are a handful of people I know who could pull off a DA;O darkspawn type plot at the table. because it turns out the 'I am a wordless force of nature that wants to make everything worse' is kind of boring. And by contrast, an opposition that has more complexity can balance things out so you needn't have the player/reader faction do all the lifting. Even if that is just the variations of harm ranging from 'diabolical ambitious threat' to 'I just want to be a brigand on my old highway for gods sakes.'That's a lot of words to say "you know you could do this in theory but I bet everyone here spanking the monkey to 'Ontologically Evil Antagonists' would run a really shit game."
>wah wah my players keep trying to redeem my always evil raceIts because you told them they were _always_ evil dumbassif you make a group not _always_ evil but usually assholes then your players will happily slaughter all of them
>Setting has evil races>They always have an evil sway their minds>However it can be overcome through faith, hope, and love.How'd I do?
>>92477105Most evil humans are born that way.
>>92498803>They are anti-social, making them incapable of feeling empathy.We've seen demons making moves to avoid unnecessary violence even when they stood to gain from it.
>>92486697sex
>>92462983Sranc don't have souls, they are humanoid animals. They are evil only in the sense that shrieks or bed bugs are evil.I like evil though.
>>92462983The only ontologically evil races are the ones the people that disagree with me online or minorly inconvenience me in real life belong to
>>92511440indians?
>>92511405That's like saying Falmer are not evil because they do not have souls.
>>92462983>>92464462Frieren demons are more like sociopath and autistic than actually evil.After all, if Frieren's demons really were fully evil, Aura wouldn't have killed herself because Frieren did a stupid speech.Actually a good portrayal of a race that is, actually, a different race.
>>92512813>After all, if Frieren's demons really were fully evil, Aura wouldn't have killed herself because Frieren did a stupid speech.That's not why she killed herself though, did you only watch the meme video?
>>92512813>After all, if Frieren's demons really were fully evil, Aura wouldn't have killed herself because Frieren did a stupid speech.Are you retarded?
>>92512835>>92512901Oh right, it was by her own magic trinket. Not actually a denial. Sorry.
>>92470209>Which, on the topic, I will say that Gideon the Ninth is one of the best fantasy/sci-fi books I've read in a good long while.That's the one with the skull themed lesbians, right? I've seen a lot of tumblr fanart for it lately
idk why people want to have these hot takes on well everythign nowadays. X is always gooder than Y ect.feels like OPINIONS are just a way to feel wiser than other people nowadays.
>>92512755I don't know about those, I'm making a point on how we already live in a world with Srancelike creatures. I didn't mention those two species at random: shriek sexual courtship involves building torture gardens and bed bugs want to rape stab wounds. The books are clear that Sranc don't think.
>>92463383>Demon's are angelsNo. Hell existed before the angels fell. Demon's were around in hell before that bullshit.>Demons aren't evilThey sure as hell aren't good. At BEST they are akin to fey in that their sense of right and wrong, normal and abnormal, and such is so completely alien to ours that interaction with them in any way is a stupid ass idea.
>>92464462They are outright monsters. They have no emotions and only learn to mimic acceptable human behavior to get you to drop your guard long enough to slaughter you better. They are cut and dry evil with zero exceptions. That was the ENTIRE point of a two part episode featuring them.
>>92465597>And RPGs tend to lean more towards that.RPGs need to do away with the whole retarded concept.
>>92513377No. RPGs are games. Having clearly defined traits make for better games. You want depth? Go read a fucking book or watch a movie, you story focused fucktard.
>>92492706>Why do people talk about old literature as if it were all black & white with no moral ambiguity?Never actually reading it.>92498139>If you have [shit that never happens]
>>92462983Waiter, this pasta is stale!
>>92513639>3 times in a year>staleit's not that bad
>>92469299That's a common stopping point apparently. I got to the middle of book 5 and just put it down and never picked it up again. The middle books are such a slog which is a shame because the world building is great.
>>92508227A pure evil species could still theoretically form communities and societies out of pure self-interest in cooperating. Those societies would just be extremely ruthless social darwinistic dystopias where the weak always get trampled on and everyone is ready to betray everyone the moment they see an opportunity to rise in the ranks
>>92513680Doing it just once is embarrassing enough.
>>92513189Yes. It's really solid. The next two books are decent, but the first one is where the real meat is.The book has an unreliable narrator. Not in the "what I'm telling you might be a lie" sort of deal, but more that Gideon's got a very skewed perception of the world, so you gotta take some time and think about what the scene actually looks like when not filtered through her own biases. Super important to the narrative.
>>92513417>Having clearly defined traits make for better games.And having alignment makes for retarded arguments.
>>92463492Probably deleted due to anti-semitism by using real world examples of freaks
>>92511036Not really, the fact you believe that though says a lot.
>>92498863>Evil doesn't exist if good doesn't exist. So it only exists if it is a choice. The second sentence doesn't follow the first at all
>>92511405In Bakker's work, the philosophic thrust of the whole setting is that agency is sinful, hence Esmenet being saved not for any virtue of herself, but rather by literally being a dumb bitch who got manipulated so hard she cannot be held accountable for anything, even by the gods.
>>92498318>The weather is no living, thinking being, and brings as much good as bad. Speaking of, how could we define "good" and "bad" events without an understanding of some ontological morality?>The point of an "ontological" evil is that it IS a living, thinking thing, and we cannot pry into a thinking thing's mind to KNOW the decisions they make, or if decisions are made at all.Except this would preclude them from being defined as evil, as they are incapable of knowing either thing truly. Ontology is the very nature of the being, to say something is ontologically evil means it is evil to its very core, but this is a paradox because it also then lacks free will. Without choice, how you can you be evil save in a relative matter as a 'bad event' rather than the meaning of evil as a choice.The whole idea of not being able to comprehend a being's mind is a complete cop out of writing that is just shying from delving into the psychology of the creature in question, especially when the theological lore these creatures are drawn from didn't engage with them in this matter. While we may not totally comprehend of the psychology of an angel, the fall is a choice. It's still a free actor that is evil because it is able to comprehend, weigh the options, and elect for the malicious one. I'm not bored with ontological evil, I find it childish because it's usually just an excuse to have a basic punching bag with no further thought applied to it, engaging only with its surface level aesthetics of being monstrous instead of bothering to delve any deeper. Why is that enemy bad? Well they're green and have horns.
>>92515898 (cont)And as it's been brought up earlier too, not even Tolkien engaged with ontological evil for his villains, most of the time at least. Melkor/Morgoth and Sauron are angelic esque spirits who experience falls based on their own ego/pride into evil. As a Catholic he grappled philosophically with Orcs as a concept - never really reaching a conclusion but realizing the idea of a purely evil servitor race was dumb and that even if impossible to redeem in life - at the very least their souls might be capable of salvation. The various likely maia origin evil creatures in the armies of Morgoth and Sauron also experience evil as a choice or a seduction - they were not always horrible entities. This is also why Orcs are a fantastic metaphor for warfare, in a way that derivative fantasy works (especially RPG's which mostly just include faceless enemies as mindless punching bags for xp/loot) failed by and large to engage with. The enemy in your war isn't ontologically evil, they chose their course in life or were beaten and traumatized to the point they fit into the malicious mold their leader desired. You need to kill them on the field of battle to protect you and yours, yet there's a kernel of hope that future strife might not be needed. The infernal machine which beats such traumatized monsters into existence might be dismantled, and then all can return to their prior lives of plowing fields and singing songs as the conflict fades into memory. The death of every Orc is a tragedy, for the fact that anything might force you to draw a sword is a terrible thing. >>92472273This post feels emblematic of why ontological evil is used in modern writing, because the entire desire is trying to reframe conflict as something -fun-, when the reality of war, death, and bloodshed is the greatest horror one can ever imagine. Instead of the Homeric tragedy, we have pulp mindless violence with the thinnest justifications for the scenarios devised.
>>92515274Nah, anti-social behavior is mostly genetic.
>>92516265I can believe this because Scandinavia exists.
>>92516282Scandinavia disproves it. Going from Viking raiders, to Protestant ISIS, to peaceful White People Wakanda, demonstrates the socialized aspect to a violent culture and people.
>>92516282Look, just hang around for a couple years, and people will feel a little more comfortable telling you their names.
>>92468590Honestly Shanka barely do anything in First Law. You could remove them from the story and replace them with wild wolves and it would change basically nothing.
>>92516365Violent people removed themselves from the gene pool by engaging in violence and thus being more prone to death
>>92469299I pushed through because the three boys are the only genuine reason to care about the story and it pays off pretty good for Rand and Matt, my reading enjoyment of Perrin fell off pretty hard by the end, unfortunately. The Aiels also remain fairly interesting despite being fairly Sueish
>>92516365>Protestant ISISSuch a dumb fucking meme, most of the Swedish army during the 30 Years War and Great Northern War was German.
>>92463383So angels have free will like humans? Also how does free will exist when God knows everything including the future?Also it's kind of interesting to the discussion that humans were cast out of Eden once they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Did they have actual free will before then, and can we consider that free will when they had no knowledge of good and evil?
>>92516477Doesn't change that the driving force was Protestant nor that they fought with extreme religious fervor. And the Swedes only brought in more Germans as the wars continued due to their limited population size. They couldn't match all of the Catholic Germans or Poles by themselves, so mercenaries were necessary. But command was still Swedish and there was always a core of Swedish troops being the most effective on the battlefield.
>>92514759Honestly, you don't belong here.
>>92511191And? That means what? They are still creatures who do not socialize with each other except to reproduce, and are reluctant to work together even when forced to.They have no language of their own and all speak human languages because it was a tool to adopt for hunting humans with. This is all shit they explicitly state in the show.
>>92462983>Sranc>ShankaNo one knows what these are>TrollocsBarely anyone knows what these are>demonsYou are incorrect on a theological level. Demons are capable of redemption.
>>92515328Only if you're retarded. If there are the two things to choose from then they exist, if one doesn't exist the other doesn't. Because the reality of what they are is the choice. Even if you're a tradcath retard shitposter, the fucking bible says the same. You can't do evil without awareness of good and evil. The ability to see and understand the concepts creates the ability to choose between them, which is what makes them real. They don't exist inherently in nature.
>>92513295>wrongbased on literally what? Were you raised by a weird Mormon cult and no one corrected you? Hell existed before angels fell? Theologians argue if hell even exists in a literal sense, and the idea of demons dwelling there or ruling it mostly folk myth, and the idea of them being fallen angels is mostly because of the book of Enoch and other shit people don't even accept as anything but popular pre-Christian Jewish fanfiction. And the idea of demons. Where are you getting this wacky lore from.
>>92513295>No. Hell existed before the angels fell.no
>>92517666>Demons are capable of redemption.Ok, give me an example of when that happened.
>>92516514>Doesn't change that the driving force was Protestant Did that make France and Spain Catholic ISIS or Holland Calvinist ISIS?>nor that they fought with extreme religious fervor.No they didn’t. They were a bunch of mercenaries just like everyone else, their innovative tactics were more influential than some sort of innate fervor.>And the Swedes only brought in more Germans as the wars continued due to their limited population size. The army was always mostly German. National armies didn’t exist on those scales and only Spain really cared about employing nationals, while France had excess people to send into the meat grinder. Italians used Germans, Poles used Germans, Danes used Germans, and Swedes used Germans.>They couldn't match all of the Catholic Germans or Poles by themselves, so mercenaries were necessary.They were using mercenaries before they entered Germany>But command was still Swedish Several senior Swedish commanders were German and Scottish and Johan Baner’s replacement was originally expected to be one of the many German generals in Swedish service.>and there was always a core of Swedish troops being the most effective on the battlefield.By 1643 the Swedish army in Germany had barely 500 Swedes
The reason the bible is so sparse on the topic of demons is because they existed as a cultural belief not as an exclusive part of that religion. Demons and other malevolent spirits were the explanation for a lot of little things, so they were mentioned as casually as trees and dirt and the wind were. The bible doesn't say a lot about the lore around them because it's not a biblical concept. All the shit about angels falling, demons running hell, what demons are like or look like, Satan, etc. it's all fanfiction. it's all folklore. It's like how some semi-literate rural American preacher in the early 1800s sees an ancient word for an ancient thing poorly translated from Hebrew for 2000 years, and he forms this complex story about how a race of giants that once roamed the earth. There is no actual agreed on definition for any of this. No denomination agrees and some differ specifically on this topic. Popes have said wildly different things over the last thousand years. There is no substance to any of it. Because despite what OP says, even the fucking bible can't lore build an ontologically evil race and have it make sense.
>>92517885The reason that Christianity doesn't have much concrete to say about demons and angels is because they don't actually fucking matter, because the religion is almost entirely about men overcoming their own endogenous sin. This doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't include ontologically evil races in a fictional work or that it's difficult to do.
>>92517810Spain was in the New World, much of the time. In Holland and North Western Germany, the Anabaptists were actually insane. The Swedes were far from mercs. They were basically a professional army in the time and operated hundreds of miles away from home on a consistent schedule. They weren't a mercenary company of 2nd sons and failed farmers. They were absolutely extremists at the time. The Swedes were not outnumbered by their German allies in the early stages of their intervention 30 Years War. They consistently made up either all or most of the force in the battles they engaged in. It wasn't until attrition and some losses after Gustav Adolph died that they were worn down enough to make up only part, rather than the whole or majority, of various armies. Swedish use of mercenaries prior to that point was mostly to shore up weaknesses or lack of numbers in their armies. Like in campaigns against Russia, when they didn't have men to spare on other fronts. 1643 is almost 15 years after the Swedes began fighting in the 30YW.
>>92518080>Spain was in the New World, much of the time.I don’t see how that’s relevant in the slightest.>The Swedes were far from mercs. They were basically a professional army in the time and operated hundreds of miles away from home on a consistent schedule.They employed primarily soldiers with no conmection to the crown outside of pay, they even demanded a term of the peace treaty being the emperor paying off their mercenary army so they could disband them without angry mercs sacking Stockholm.>They weren't a mercenary company of 2nd sons and failed farmers.Well no mercenary company was made up of lesser sons specifically and mercenaries often chose their careers because it was lucrative not because they failed at civilian work.>They were absolutely extremists at the time.How so? You have yet to give any examples of them being extremists.>The Swedes were not outnumbered by their German allies in the early stages of their intervention 30 Years War.They went into Germany with a mostly German army and the German ratio would increase over time.>They consistently made up either all or most of the force in the battles they engaged in.Wrong>It wasn't until attrition and some losses after Gustav Adolph died that they were worn down enough to make up only part, rather than the whole or majority, of various armies.They were literally never all of the army and very rarely made up a majority of their own forces in any battles.>Swedish use of mercenaries prior to that point was mostly to shore up weaknesses or lack of numbers in their armies. Like in campaigns against Russia, when they didn't have men to spare on other fronts.Their army from the start was mostly mercenaries funded by French subsidies which the Swedish crown relied on. I don’t think ISIS would mind a pay cut if it meant victory but the “Swedes” sure did.>1643 is almost 15 years after the Swedes began fighting in the 30YW.Do you not know what the word always means?
>>92462983Are they meant to be a social and sapient species (civilization builders with human like reproduction and relatively long periods of helplessness as they mature)? If so, then sociopathy and crazy evil directed inwards makes no sense. They'd basically destroy themselves as they kill all their infants for edgelord points or make themselves so weak as to allow outsiders to do so without having somesort of magical hax. This was especially a problem back in DnD, where orc mothers would instinctual eat their newborns and drow had an instinctual murderous hatred of children (only something like 1/8 of their young would make it to adulthood, and considering they had the usual issues elf races had with reproducing, along with the attrition rate among adult drow, would have led quickly to societal collapse). Unless you get something like mind control going on, genetically evil races would be a bunch of loner freaks or parasites. We can see the first in a lot of animals that are naturally aggressive towards everything.
>>92517655And if you'd kept up on the manga instead of just watching the show, you'd know that demons have been shown that desire to coexist with humans. Fuck man, it's been talked about multiple times in this thread.
>>92518362That presupposes that a fundamentally evil species must be prone to doing evil even when it's not in the self interest of the one doing the act. A species that's evil but also intelligent could form a perfectly functional society through networks of incentive structures.
>>92517783Ok, since you didn't give an example, I guess you're lying.
>>92517246I'm sorry I hurt your feelings anon.
>>92465436>MoorcockIts older than Moorcock, moorcock himself took it from Poul Anderson (three hearts and three lions I think), and you have stuff like that since the start like with Titans/gods in greece myths.
>>92470425The other books you said were mid to bad, but this sounds like slope, Get a taste.
Friendly reminder that ontologically lethal battles always make a setting better. The best stories always have 100% deadly fights. Doesn't matter if it's a friendly duel, a bar brawl, open warfare, or even competitive tea ceremony; it's only guaranteed to be good if somebody dies.
>>92521686also the outcome of fights should be determined with coin flips or dice rollsmy ideal book has a new protagonist every two chapters on average because they keep dying
>>92516480>So angels have free will like humans? Also how does free will exist when God knows everything including the future?"How does an incomprehensibly large and alien intelligence operate, but explain it in a way I can understand." I mean, at some point you either take theological stuff on faith, or you don't. Trying to rationalize it is counter to faith. > Did they have actual free will before then, and can we consider that free will when they had no knowledge of good and evil?Pure fanon here (and I don't buy into 95% of the Old Testament anyway), but the Garden story made more sense to me when I considered it a sign that Adam & Eve developed free will. And the sign was for them, not God. When in doubt, I figure when "all knowing God" seems surprised or limited, it's to compensate for our own shortcomings. God didn't tell Abraham & Issac "psyche" for giggles, but to show -them- where they stood in relation God. Jesus didn't die because God needed his blood and torture to magically empower a cosmic ritual, but it was -literally- the best way "all powerful" God had to show the world that death doesn't have to be the end. But like I said, fanon.More to the topic though, ontologically evil races are fine. Whether dealing with aliens from outer space or orcs in a world of magic, it's all fantasy. The upside to ontologically evil races is that they're like environmental threats, except you can potentially negotiate with them. That's what makes them interesting: they're like plagues you can bribe or threaten into doing what you want.
>>92522882Is this an Aeon Flux reference?
>>92470425>almost all of them are transhumanist or transgender "lesbian" slopWorthless.
>>92464477And they chose evil. Every grown DElfar has been immersed in their society they think anything else is just stupid. In Da Big Dakka, we get a brief glimpse of that. Their shock and horror at the suffering of others is trained out at an early age.
>>92498205Then that's not ontological evil by definition.
>>92478527
>>92486611>meanwhile the "old world" has a more heroic view of their historyFuck are you on about, "old world" was where Murrica got the gray morality pill in the first place. Pure "Good vs Evil" stories pretty much always always belonged to the realm of folk tales. Most "classic lit" is about people being awful towards each other, people being awful towards the world, or the world being awful towards people.
>>92469219I have to say that there's three books in the Misc section with the same grey bar and the author's name larger than the title of the book and I find that really poor cover design.
>>92478527>Evil is a choice.And what of a creature that is physiologically wired to choose evil?
>>92469299>then I stopped because the characters were so fucking insufferableAside from Egwene, who else did you find insufferable that was getting a lot of chapters? You best not be insulting the best Aes Sedai.
>>92516282Probably not for much longer. Same for Germany.
>>92526026I can't remember an Aes Sedai that wasn't insufferable.
>>92476430Zombies as implemented in most stories don't make sense unless viewed as a metaphor. And by that I'm not talking about good or evil, I'm talking about stuff like "why would a Rage Virus cause zombies to only attack uninfected humans instead of each other? Aren't they uncontrollably angry?" Night of the Living Dead was a supernatural horror story more about 'the Other' than anything else so it's fine. Day of the Dead is about consumerism. Return of the Living Dead has zombies that want living brains so it's fine. But a lot of zombie horror like 28 Days Later, Crossed, World War Z, and the Walking Dead have this huge problem of "it's ontologically hostile so why aren't they always fighting each other?"
>>92526426Hold still while I tug my braid at you, spoilered what I think you probably wouldn't have encountered.>beats Moghedien>enslaves Moghedien>Nearly mind-brakes Moggy>fireballs Rahvin>becomes Queen of Malkier, Lady of the Lakes>manipulates weather>Cleanses the fucking Saidin using more Saidar than anyone else ever during current age and previous via Choedan Kal, in amounts that could shatter continents if not the Wheel itself>beats Graendal, master schemer, in unraveling her mindrapes and learning to master healing on level unseen during this age>figures how to cleanse effects of Taint on male channelers>sets a large Borderlander army in motion to ensure Lan doesn't ride alone, but with a whole army to defend Tarwins Gap and ensure one of the first defensive victories of Tarmon Gaidon>somehow saves Talmanes from multiple Myrddraal caused wounds that is nigh impossible to heal>accompanies Rand to the mouth of hell itself because asked to, into the presence of Dark One at the edge of reality and heals Alanna well enough to ensure Rand can win
>>92518012It does mean that calling back to Christianity as a basis for your setting's ontologically evil demons rather than justifying them in the setting shows your hand in that you don't know how to world build and have no idea what ontological means.
>>92526021then they're not choosing are they? Or else it's not evil. I mean I knows there's a lot of underage idiots here, but if you're at least college age go take a philosophy 101 class or read a book before joining a thread where people use words like "ontological".
>>92526540I think I gave up reading after whichever book they actually cleansed the male half of the One Power in.I remember finishing that book and thinking basically nothing else fucking happened of substance and after slogging through hundreds of pages for one admittedly huge plot point I tapped out. It's been a long time since I read that book so I'll just have to accept your contention it was one Aes Sedai personally responsible for it. I remember it vaguely needing a bunch of males to overcome the limitation on women being linked together.I'm not convinced that any of these specific deeds weren't accomplished in an insufferable way. There's a difference between me handing you a sandwich and saying "enjoy, anon," and me throwing a sandwich in your face and saying "eat it like you eat dick, fag" even though both can be boiled down to:>anon gives anon a sandwichHonestly, anon, the first three things on your list are pretty bad even if from context I'm guessing Mog is a baddo. Fireballing someone and manipulating weather are just things. I honestly don't get how any of the things you list are supposed to make me think a character isn't insufferable.
>>92462983Scranc are so fucking goofy. Like some 40K grimdark except the author is presenting it seriously.
>>92526478Autism.
>>92517752Demons and hell are Jewish shit?Better tell the Babylonians, Zoroastrianism folks, Buddhists, Mesopotamians, Ancient Greeks, and more.Hell, demons, eternal punishments and rewards, have all existed before Abrahamic faiths.
>>92516282>>92516365Retards. You're confusing benign with harmless. "Muh viking raiders" were never anti-social, and "Protestant ISIS" genuinely never existed here.Behavior is downstream from culture, and culture is biology in interaction with the environment. Group anti-social behavior is almost entirely genetic, and is exacerbated by mutliracial proximity leading to ethnic friction.The Scandinavian countries were so successful in part due to living in an ethnic bubble with virtually no such friction, being largely homogeneous, surrounded by largely homogeneous countries and contacts.
>>92464143>is*was
>>92492682>not everything is bait, newfag.fine ass bait here.
>>92513295>Demons aren't evilWho are you arguing with? Nobody said this?
>>92462983I like races that are evil to other races because of what they want. Like my "not" vampires, suck the life force out of people, and systematically enslave and genocide all magic users, because they're a threat to their survival. To the party it's super fucking evil, but it's also super fucking necessary.
>>92486611>meanwhile the "old world" has a more heroic view of their historyThis honestly explains a lot about it.
>>92528857>then they're not choosing are they?Yes, they are. The fact that they wouldn't choose otherwise doesn't mean that they didn't have that choice.
It's sloth. People want to feel they are better than others without putting in the effort. So instead find an easy target and say that all such examples of those with similar qualities are evil. If they are evil, then you are good. It's easier than true self-reflection and self-criticism.
>>92543036That's exactly what an ontologically evil "person" would say, using fancy words to try to trick the ontologically righteous into letting it live.
>>92545769>fancy wordsSeems simple to me. Are you trying to paint people who believe in ontological evil as stupid then?
>>92543036>>92546142you are a pretentious moron.We are talking about fantasy and demons, not reality.
>>92546142
>>92463966>Lawful evil or chaotic evil fiends?The latter. Chaotic energy is, after all, stored in the tits.
>>92496510Nah turdies are pretty pro-ruskie.
>>92464775Evil is well definedby ethics. Anyone who argues that is just trying to justify their own evil, such as racism or sexism.
>>92546219Ukraine is a third world country ruled by a Jew.
>>92546183meh,Lawful evil demon's tits are better.
It's lazy and videogamey type shit. It's the sort of thing someone implements because they got mad that that their players kept trying to trick, bargain with, understand, or side with the things they wanted to be the enemy so they make them 100% super evil so there's no realistic or sensible option besides just killing them.
>ctrl+f "tolkien">results with retarded opinions right awayKnew it, before even opened the thread>>92465596>therefore, they are evilTolkien made it clear that not a single race except elves are evil or good by their natureHe also took effort to give every single named orc different and very distinct personalityDon't drag his work into your childish anime garbage discussions
>>92546274>biology and evolution is EVIL because I say so!!!Wrong. Reality just is. Fighting against it causes far more evil than anything else.
>>92546663>Tolkien made it clear that not a single race except elves are evil or good by their natureNo he didn't. Why is it about you "people" that makes you try to constantly and consistently lie, even so transparently?
>>92546679>favors ontological morality yet believes in evolution
>>92546686>Letter 153:>They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote ‘irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.) But whether they could have ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’ seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible ‘delegation’, I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would ‘tolerate’ that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other ‘makings’ all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker’s mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.But even if you only read books(doubt you even did that though)>Elrond openly claims that all races except elves fought for the both sides during last alliance>Orcs have very clear moral values, like cannibalisms is insult punished by death>Had enough honor to be recognized by humans, example Éomer dismounting to have a proper duel with leader of Isengard orcs>Orcs who guarded mordor border near shelob, thought that nazgul shit is too much even for them and planned to run away. Double points that despite having no problems with killing each other, they had enough decency and friendship to let this talk slide, despite Sauron rewarding snitchesPretty sure you can only bring movies and maybe even tvshow to support your claims about tolkien races being 100% good or evil
>>92546679Fighting against one's own nature is part of how humans even got to where we are. If we were slave to our own impulses instead of questioning everything we'd have never harnessed fire because fire bad and scary!
>>92546863No matter what he said, orcs are objectively evilAlso if you hate anime you don't belong here.
>>92546445This existed before video games existed.
Humans are physiologically predisposed to addictive behaviours. Are humans ontological addicts?
>>92547314>Humans are physiologically predisposed to addictive behavioursNo, that's dogs. This is why training them so easilyYou are almost as retarded as this >>92547268 guy, think about it for a little.
>>92547327I think you're onthologically addicted to sucking cocks
>>92547327You're a cowardly faggot. Since you know I'm right, the only thing you can do is insult me.
>>92462983Intelligent beings should only be evil by culture (or mass mind control or something). They can have a propensity to certain evil behaviors, but if they are raised in a completely different culture with "good" values, they should be able to be good.If the race is not intelligent, then 100% they can just be straight-up evil.
>>92548954How can you be evil, if you aren't intelligent?Animals can be cruel, but never evil
>>92546164Some people seem to have a problem differentiating between the two unfortunately.>Noooo, you can't just genocide this fictitious race that is always evil>You have to try and talk to themAs the GM, is it better to have attempts to communicate instantly fail or lure players into a false sense of hope?
>>92546873You assume that not fighting against nature means that you're a slave to your own impulses. This assumption is wrong.>>92546863Yes, the famous letter 153. The letter that not only never says what you retards claim that it says, but that was also unsent by Tolkien specifically because he did not want to make claims that may be counter to the maker.Tolkien was a Catholic autist. In accordance with his belief, everything is redeemable by virtue of being of the creator, in Tolkien's narrative world represented by Eru Ilúvatar. This doesn't mean in any way that something isn't fundamentally Evil, merely that it is redeemable, through the grace of Jesus, at the end of time. As absurd as that sounds to rational beings, this is fully consistent with his faith and his idea that Middle-Earth was an era before our own post-deluge eras and the coming of that promised redemption (Jesus).Nevermind that, again, the letter was unsent, and it went unsent for very good reasons.Also, you're categorically wrong on the topic of elves. Elrond's claims only concern the Last Alliance, but far earlier, there has been many elves in the legendarium that are of questionable moral virtue, such as Maedhros and Maglor, who were both burned by the Silmarils for their (many) crimes, nevermind the fact that it is entirely possible that orcs *are* elves on a fundamental level, but have merely been corrupted, which in itself is evidence that elves CAN be corrupted, nevermind Fëanor who committed the first kinslayings, and so on and so forth.You're a fucking idiot and your lies will ALWAYS be lies no matter how often you spineless dishonest cretin repeat them.
>>92549870>As the GM, is it better to have attempts to communicate instantly fail or lure players into a false sense of hope?Depends on the characters and the situations, as well as the state of the world in question. Just because *we* know that orcs are ontologically evil (or, rather, exhibit natural tendencies towards those traits and attributes that we'd be inclined to label as evil, just to be clear) doesn't mean that everyone inside the context of the universe knows it.It's entirely reasonable for a character to ask themselves if orcs can be reeducated or their souls saved, and maybe make overtures towards more reasonable orcs, etc., and act accordingly. It is no different from Frodo asking Gandalf if they shouldn't just have killed Gollum and have had it over with.
>>92547314>Humans are physiologically predisposed to addictive behavioursNo more than anything else, brainletanon. Also, not all humans are addicts. Also, I don't think you know what ontological means in this context.
>>92550378>TOLKIEN RACES WERE ABSOLUTE 100% GOOD OR EVIL>ACTUALLY I'LL JUST BTFO MYSELF AND REMIND YOU HOW ALL ASSHOLE ELVES DIED DURING FIRST AGEGood job, anonNow you look like an even bigger retard than before.
We are told that no races can be born evil because we are ruled by a race that is born evil.
>>92462983I want to brainwash Aura with my superior mana and yank on her cute hair and horns as I fuck her
>>92550849>I CAN'T READ AND I'M GOING TO MAKE IT EVERYONE ELSES PROBLEMCool, I don't really give a shit, just try to keep your illiteracy out of here.
>>92550865Also, this.
>>92551397>>I CAN'T READGlad you admited it
>>92551446The irony.
>>92550865/pol/ is two blocks down
>>92534598Idiot. The concept of demons we have in western culture is christian. When seeing a similar sort of entity in another culture we'll use the same name in the same language just to convey the gist of what that entity is, but they're not the same thing.We could point to every culture that has the idea of a shapeshifter and call it a kind werewolf. It would be wrong in every possible way, but it would get the idea across so we often do that. Much of the biblical demons of the new testament are influenced by the Hellenistic bias of the era. So in some ways they are similar to Greek demons, but also to prior Jewish demons. But neither are at all alike to modern demons, or even ideas had about them 100 years ago or 1000. So yes. The lore of demons is determined by Christian scriptura, what what jewish scripture is included in that.
>>92542891>the fact that they can't choose otherwise doesn't mean it's not a choicethat's literally what choice means you retard.
>>92462983>Friendly reminderFriendly reminder that OP can't be in this thread today, as he has dicks to suck to pay of his crackwhore mother's gambling debts to the Nebraska pedophile yakuza.
>>92469362My complaints with Bakker are the inverse. I think he's a very good writer with very stupid ideas. He could use an editor.
>>92463992For the love of god, play something that isn't 5e!
>>92463992>leading a mostly CE hordeNo
>>92463966Who you posted is an LE devil though.
>>92556542I would lawfully marry this lawful evil dork demon if you know what I mean
