fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5834 ]

[ SECRET POST #5834 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5834 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #835.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/RxgXJI8.jpg

A pretty straightforward solution could be to have those characters come from a particular cultural microcosm that is generally evil, does evil things, and has evil values. You don't have to say "all of this race is evil," you can say "the particular group of this race that this character is from, believes they are evil and evil is great/praiseworthy/respectable/the only way to survive."

The result is the same: a story about a character who rebels against what they were told all their lives and truly believed were innate traits, which turned out were traits that could be overcome (or at least handled and dealt with) even if habit and worldviews are hard to change.

It achieves the same emotional beats and actually makes more sense that way than The Special Exception somehow rebelling against traits we're supposed to believe were "innate" that applies to entire races.

This is my favorite "fix" for D&D races like orcs and drow. It's not innate, but a chunk of their society worships an evil god, so it's the /culture/ the character then unlearns, which is plenty challenging.

Or you can do "against their nature" with traits that aren't good/evil, which can be fun without getting nearly as messy. Elves that hate nature, dwarves that love flying, genasi dealing with their opposing elements, etc

Yes! I mean, say you're a goblin. You've lived your whole life in a shitty environment with lots of monsters and a high likelihood of death. You're fighting over scraps. You have no particular taboo about killing other races, so if they show up, you're happy to try to kill them and take their stuff. It's hard to see beyond a daily struggle, and goblins who try to do something else with their lives tend to end up dead (or worse, in the case of evil gods). Sometimes a dark wizard shows up and enslaves you. This isn't "evil", this is a shitty life.

This can be a very interesting way to go, but doesn't this leaves the "good" vs "evil" trope a bit? I think it's the opposite to the trope.

Yeah I mean, at the end of the day, I *don't* particularly have a problem with the idea of always-evil races existing in a fantasy setting, but I also don't think there's really any occasion where it's necessary to have them, either. I don't think there's any interesting story you can only tell using that concept.

I get you OP. It's also a trope I like. But I'm sure there are better ways to approach it too.

I don't play D&D so I'm probably missing stuff. But I'm bothered by the idea of an evil society, such as orcs, or the dark side of the Force-based aliens the sith were based on in Star Wars expanded universe canon. Like how does a society even get off the ground if there's no cooperation between others because everyone is busy doing evil things to each other? You'd need farmers, doctors, someone who makes clothes, someone who handles sewage, etc. A lot of society can't happen without not backstabbing each other, and that's why I'm primarily bothered by the idea of inherently evil cultures. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I in general still like the premise of your story ideas, OP, though!

I think this depends on what you consider "evil" in this context. Lawful evil societies run perfectly well on "survival of the fittest" and harsh rules with harsh penalties. Corrupt and chaotic societies run perfectly well at smaller scales, or in the ruins of a more orderly society. And you can have not evil but violent societies like the Klingons in Star Trek, who have a highly valued warrior class and are losing their early technological advantages because all their best and brightest are warriors, not doctors or engineers or builders anymore.

It's OK to have fictional societies that don't actually work if it makes for a better narrative or a better game, imo

I’m not bothered by Orcs being evil or whatever. Games/stories sometimes need a bad guy.

It's true, but you can have orcs be bad guys without saying that they're *always* evil by birth as well.

And there have been times historically where D&D has taken the concept in a very fantasy genocide-y direction which is not a good thing to do at all. Like, it's one thing to say that games need a bad guy, but when you start taking that concept and using it to talk about how lawful good characters should logically start murdering orc children, I think people are justified in having a problem with that. So I definitely understand the criticism, even though I'm fairly OK with the idea of having a race of villains in a fantasy setting because it's fantasy as long as everyone involved remembers that it's a story.

Basically, this is a "nerds ruined it for everyone" situation to me.

Or you could just realize it's a game and it's fictional and it isn't meant to be racist and bigoted against anyone in reality.

You could, but there were some very unfortunately real-world implications (and sometimes straight-out real-world racism) in the earlier editions that they're posting about.

STILL JUST A GAME.

IMO it is bad to play games where your characters are depicted as being morally correct in murdering children because they are from a race that is intrinsically evil

And Birth of a Nation is “just a movie”, but it’s okay to be against it for it’s messages and real world harm. You screaming like a spoilt child about it doesn’t make you right, shockingly.

+1,000,000

-1,000,000,000

Ah more performative moral handwringing over a non-starter of a subject. What a novel thing to see here on FS.

Ah yes, more performative whining as a way to avoid saying anything of value. What a novel thing to see here on FS.

Pointing out that this is pathetic moral handwringing is contributing something though. It's your comment that is pointless.

nayrt

Nah. ayrt's comment serves a function - pushing back against your toxicity, which didn't need to be contributed in the first place. Before calling other people's comments pointless, maybe you should ask yourself if your comment is of any value to the conversation.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-12-28 11:32 (UTC) - Expand

You realize that this discourse has existed for quite some time outside of FS, yes?

That’s expecting them to actually know what they’re talking about, which won’t happen.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only