I'm going to bump the thread you tried to slide with this dogshit one.

>>98394409
thx frien

>>98394315

>wait why do OSR (or just fantasy fans) hate the idea of no evil races?
We don't.

>like don't u want other options than human and human but dif body shapes?
Depends on the setting. But in general, I do want my players to have options.

>anyways whats wrong with not having evil races? at least you dont have to fight a cool looking goat person this time amr?
I don't follow the goat question. But yeah, I find it more interesting when the NPCs who are behaving in an "evil" way have reasons beyond "because they're evil." Goblins who have motivations behind their actions make for more interesting gameplay than goblins who are tabula rasa brigands. A motivated opponent can be manipulated, tricked, incentivized, allied-with, subverted, or swayed (in addition to battled, routed, ambushed, etc.).

>>98395178
I agree with almost all of this.
Enemies also have motivations other than existing to make the pcs look/feel good.
This gives the players different methods to approach situations.

>>98394315
>why do OSR (or just fantasy fans) hate the idea of no evil races?
>like don't u want other options than human and human but dif body shapes?
Many OSRChads advocate for human-only settings.

File: 1671766533690075.png (128 KB, 488x502)

128 KB PNG

>>98394315
Real fantasy fans understand why evil races need to exist. Fantasy is taking metaphorical concepts and dragging them down into a physical shell in the world. The reason why other people hate evil races is because it's a reflection of themselves, they see themselves in something that is objectively evil in the world and freak out. They can never put aside their own thoughts and enjoy the world as is, they need to infect it with their modern ideologies.

>>98394315
>Evil races
Most of the time this is a hold over from alignment stuff that was used for quick and cohesive world building and wasn't some kind of set in stone rule that must always be followed.
There are exceptions to this. Demons and devils are always evil. Mind flayers are always evil. Liches are always evil. This is because those beings have to fundamentally evil shit to even exist or continue existing.
The cohesive world building aspect is pretty important. If you know a band of 10,000 orcs are heading your way, you should assume it's for ill intent because that's a valid assumption to make given how orcs usually behave.

>>98394315
Worlds don't need it to be good, but a lot of storytelling benefits from having a shorthand to fall back on unless you're doing really deep worldbuilding from the ground up.

Things like "dark magic bad" and "a vault necessitates a heist" and "there's a cave behind a waterfall" - they're tropes people can use to make a game fun.

Evil races were or are one of them, but modern society decided that it was absolutely necessary that people can identify with every possible culture and sentient being with no morality extended towards any kind of identity.

File: KeepItDownRagnarShitfist.png (1.15 MB, 1441x736)

1.15 MB PNG

>>98394315
You're operating on at least 3 layers of memes you don't even have the capacity to understand mr bun.

>hate the idea of no evil races
They don't. Its far too broad a grouping to categorize that way and that's before even getting to the idea that evil doesn't mean mutually incompatible. Reaction rolls and party approach along with alignment being a loose orientation rather than a direct ideological control has been a thing since before you were born. A huge part of B2 is figuring out which monsters in the caves you can team up with to fight the other monsters.

>human and human but dif body shapes?
That's most of the evil races too. We're a very useful shape.

That last bit's not exactly incomprehensible but its nonsensical enough there's nothing going on there.

>>98395178
> I don't follow the goat question. But yeah, I find it more interesting when the NPCs who are behaving in an "evil" way have reasons beyond "because they're evil." Goblins who have motivations behind their actions make for more interesting gameplay than goblins who are tabula rasa brigands. A motivated opponent can be manipulated, tricked, incentivized, allied-with, subverted, or swayed (in addition to battled, routed, ambushed, etc.).

This. Also, the concept of most creatures not being inherently evil isn’t something new. If the alignment for any particular creature in D&D 3.0’s Monster Manuals started with “usually”, then that alignment was most likely due to cultural factors rather than being inherent like with celestials and fiends.

Take the drow, for instance: if the story of their creation is accurate then it’s possible every one of the original dark elves were evil, but the same can’t be said for their descendants. Biologically and metaphysically speaking they’re basically just elves adapted to living in the underdark. The reason most drow are evil is because their dominant culture is toxic as fuck, and that’s only because their topmost racial goddess being a psychotic bitch who demands they live like that and will inflict pain and death upon anyone who doesn’t toe the line. If you deprive them of that toxic environment their alignment could be anything.

Contrast demons, where - barring EXTREMELY rare circumstances - their alignment is such an intrinsic part of their being they’re compelled to do evil things even when they’re smart enough to know better. IIRC the reason the Abyss hasn’t won the Blood War is because demons can’t cooperate with each other beyond the bare minimum and will turn on their own the moment they think they’ll benefit from doing so.

>>98397104
Orcs are also like the drow in that they’re beholden to evil gods who demand they behave a certain way, but unlike the drow they lack any famous outliers like Drizzt or sexy rebel goddess like Eilistraee trying to liberate them from subservience to a pantheon of assholes. And this isn’t just about IRL popularity; there’ve been a few moments in Forgotten Realms history where groups of adventurers, knights, and mercenaries decided to help Eilistraee’s followers fight Llolth, with one of the primary reasons heavily implied to be “Dude, the hot elf chicks who dance naked in the pale moonlight and may have literally god-given sex skills will owe us a solid if we ride to the rescue!”

>>98394315
How did this topic effect your last session?

File: Why arent you offended yo(...).jpg (243 KB, 1024x1024)

243 KB JPG

>>98394315

>>98394315
In my ruleset, dwarves must be lawful, elves must be chaotic, halflings must be good, orcs must he evil, and gnomes must be neutral. Humans can be anything. There are no other playable races, but every non-playable race has an intrinsic alignment also. Alignments are cosmic teams, and they directly interact with game mechanics. Some classes have some alignment rules, but every race is capable of playing every class (except Gnome Paladins; Paladins are required to be non-neutral; I might make a special gnome version of Paladin to cover that spot). Some races are restricted to certain versions of classes due to racial alignment.

I try to have an understanding with my players about alignment behavior expectations, which are mostly societal cultural attitudes towards resolving disputes and not particular moral codes. It's sort of an unsolvable problem in general. "The Tomes" has a really good write-up on how alignment is mostly stupid, but I kind of like it as a game mechanic.

>>98394315
>cool looking goat person
Go back to Toby Fox's groomcord, furfag tourist.

>>98396045
>Fantasy is taking metaphorical concepts and dragging them down into a physical shell in the world.
>They can never put aside their own thoughts and enjoy the world as is, they need to infect it with their modern ideologies.
Sounds like they're doing exactly what you think fantasy is about, bruv

>>98396822
>modern society decided that it was absolutely necessary that people can identify with every possible culture and sentient being with no morality extended towards any kind of identity.
It's an overreaction to trends in the other direction, but I suspect it will even out eventually (or at least swing back and forth).
Unironically, the War on Terror made people take sides on the issue of whether any identity can be worse/more violent than another, and that battlefield is reflected in how people choose to play games with orcs and goblins.
Ultimately, that social debate will come to some sort of synthesis, where we recognize that some cultures (e.g. the Aztecs) were fucked up and it's OK to say that, which will lead to a renewed acceptance of evil races in D&D. Corporations may keep walking on eggshells to maximize reach, but gamers will generally stop worrying about it or taking it.

>>98396880
I just love how the artist perfectly depicted a dwarf who is just about to start talking some shit
You know you can't always trust the party's "face" to tell orcs what you are going to do with their bodies once you are done slitting their throats

>>98395178
>allied-with
https://youtu.be/UiQ73s3XrNQ

>>98398380
>Sounds like they're doing exactly what you think fantasy is about
It's amazing how you people pretend to not understand things just to push your own stupid bullshit, therefore proving my point.

>>98398098
God. Remember when Gprime tried to present Homebrew as the Left Invading the Hobby? Hysterical.

>>98399914
>Vagueposting with no argument
I accept your concession.

>>98394315
I find this rabbit looking inside amusing.

>>98399936
Remember when you weren't a faggot?
Me neither.

>>98399936
>Homebrew as the Left Invading the Hobby
Is it not?

>>98394315
Category error OSR/Fantasy fans not homogenous.
i dislike it because non evil races:
add unecessary moral complexity.
can lead to magical realms.
distract from the abstract situation.

not want but i discoverd over time i don't need them (kind of like why use expensive drawing pens if you only write some notes)
why do you anything but humans, almost everything done with elves, dwarfs and orcs can be done with humans aswell (if not better)
But with 'evil' you don't have the moral complexity of killing a fellow imaginary human because they are dehumanized already.
also i don't hate it, but my players want guilt free slaughter and thats harder with humans (cultists are better there).
>>98407939
wargamers did not homebrew back in the 70s we would have no fancy rpgs as we know them.
homebrew (and commercializing you homebrew) is the seed from which the hobby grew.

also get a grip "the Left" doesn't exist outside of propaganda, and twitter, and most Fragments are more concerned with purging heretics, and hating on one another than converting 'infidels' or crusading.
kind of like ttrpg fans, and grognards, or this very board or 4chan itself (you can use this in your worldbuilding).
like to outsiders we are either hackers or facists or facist hackers.
but /tg/ is neither /pol/ nor /b/.
so kindly
if you want:
to wage a culture war instead of an edition war
and
signal other virtues than those of your One True System (or multiple idc).
go there, you will find the atmosphere more to your liking

>>98407110
>vagueposting with insults
how cheerful. but taking you literal for a second: why should I care, i want to rant about the right way to play rpgs and maybe lurk in awe in a battletech thread. Why should they care you don't know them. why should you care even if you did know?

>>98398036
unironically it does not
everyone here who claims they had a 2-hour argument with a player about why they cant play a non-evil orc is lying or exaggerating

99% of all people will tacitly come to the agreement that actually playing the game and having fun with your friends is infinitely more important than some vague notion of "internal consistency"
and anyone who isnt an ass will just let the player play what they want or just not invited them over in the first place if a non-evil orc was truly such a deal breaker
which is why its so easy to believe that everyone here is lying their asses off because all of them seemingly exist in limbo where they have so few players that they literally cannot afford to just not invite someone while at the same time being so adamant on playing their own way that they would be sure to annoy their own guests

>>98412690
>wargamers did not homebrew back in the 70s
lmao

File: dalek.jpg (40 KB, 488x488)

40 KB JPG

Evil Races are cool. Whenever you make an Evil Race not evil they just turn into any other race, making them more generic and uninteresting.

>>98394315
bunuu (you)

>>98412767
he's not wrong, because if you read it you'd and used your context clues you'd understand he meant to put a "if" in front of his sentence
homebrew is an inherent part of this hobby and that comic artist probably rapes kids because he is so cringe and tried to do culture war for a hobby he doesn't understand, something that happens with every hobby now

File: d6u3vb1-9dcc23a4-87de-496(...).jpg (305 KB, 600x1263)

305 KB JPG

>>98394315
>>98398341
What's wrong with cool looking goat people(evil)

>>98415484
>he's not wrong if we accept he's retarded
lmao at (you) too

>>98415986
you're retarded

>>98394315
>why
Because it tends to go hand-in-hand with a GM who hasn't written any compelling or relevant conflicts in their setting.

A good setting has at least 1 or more active conflicts (no necessarily "wars") that players will run into and their actions effect.

I'll admit this is pretty anecdotal, but over all the years I've played it has remained true.

>>98416489
you dont need ontological evil to create enemies
bandits are the most common generic enemy and they can be simply products of a bad society that turns otherwise good people evil or allows evil people within an otherwise good society a place to act out from

or they can simply be beastial creatures who just lack any coherent morality
a lion is not evil for eating people, thats simply what it does to survive

if you literally have no preparation, then bandits will serve you better than the evil people who are evil because they are evil

>>98416506
>society is bad because it is okay?
>somehow better than
>these monsters are bad because they are okay?
lol

>>98417572
this

>>98412791
That's a good point.

>>98394315
If you believe our world houses objective evil, then playing in a setting that doesn't have objective evil will sound too far fetched.

>>98417572
>society is bad because it is okay?
no society is perfect, which can result in large groups of people living on the fringe
we know this to be true because it happens all the time in real life

>somehow better than
first of all, it is
second of all, its just a counter-point to the statement that you need inherently evil enemies to provide conflict
which is just untrue, because the unequal nature of society creates conflict by itself without the need to make evil creatures
or, also mentioned, creatures that are simply beastial
a 30-ton carnivore doesnt need to be evil to eat people, it just needs to be hungry and humans tasty

>>98419536
>first of all my opinion is more correct because
no, its mine

>>98394315
I work with species (e.g. Dwarf, Elf...), races (e.g. Mountain Dwarves, Wild Elves), and cultures. Some cultures cover the vast majority of their race and are evil (as in willing to use force unethically, e.g. Drow, Duergar).

But entire populations of non-alien, non-abberant, non-undead, non-handcrafted by an evil god, humanoids shouldn't be ALL evil.