I suspect that D&D "hin" derives etymologically from a contraction of "halfling" − h’in’.
I kind of doubt the halflings’ own word for themselves stems from a contraction of everyone else’s. If anything, hin likely predates halfling by a good bit of time.
I suspect that D&D "hin" derives etymologically from a contraction of "halfling" − h’in’.
I kind of doubt the halflings’ own word for themselves stems from a contraction of everyone else’s. If anything, hin likely predates halfling by a good bit of time.
I meant the AD&D designers made up the name "hin" from a garbled contraction of "halfling".
The thought occurred to me before, but after seeing the Greyhawk names, garbled variants (like duar from dwarf and olve from elf) seem fashionable during that era of D&D.
I am reminded of the reallife Norwegian folkbelief name, Svirfneblin, which appears to derive from a garbled contraction of Svart-alf-niflinn, Sv’r’f’n’vlin’, literally "the mist of the black elf".
Unfortunately, I have been unable to get a hold of the Norwegian text that mentions this Svirfneblin. One source mentions this Svirfneblin is a local hero, but I remain unaware of the details.
I presume that, like myself, you are not a member of a minority.
That means neither you nor I have any right to dismiss someone else's concerns about aspects of racism within D&D, or any other game.
I presume then that you are suggesting that the OP is a Halfling living in Faerun, and therefore has the right?
Straw man.
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...? Especially in light of the once-commonly-touted belief that Africans were dark-skinned because it was the mark of Cain ...?
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...?
They're not black skinned because they're evil. They're black skinned because they adapted to the strange radiations of the underworld and it allowed them to camouflage themselves. Its why their Elven Cloak & Boots are black and why their mail armor is made of adamantine, that is also black in color.
Which evil races are light skinned? Which dark skinned races in D&D are traditionally described as good aligned? Be fair, there is, or at least historically has been a correlation there, intended or not.
Frost Giants have white skin and are Evil AF. Same with Derro. Vampires are pale. Foxwomen, in their Elven form, are pale skinned. And, of course, White Dragons, and Sivak Draconians (original batch) are Evil.
Or how about the evil (and racist AF) pale-skinned Sueloise humans of Greyhawk that are part of The Scarlet Brotherhood? Sure, not every Suel is Evil (just a whole bunch of them), but those that are part of the Brotherhood all are, and that's a good chunk of those pure-strain (which most peoples of the Flanaess tend to be admixtures of various Flan, Suel, Oeridian and Baklunish depending upon where they're from).The Cruskii, Fruztii and Schnaii Barbarians aren't known for their kindness, engaging in raiding and pillaging of the coasts along the northeastern Flanaess.
Deep Gnomes have medium brown to brownish-grey skin and are Neutral (with Good tendencies). Moon Dogs, also known as Black Hounds, are shadowy grey/black and are intelligent and have an alignment of neutral good. In fact, the entry from MM2 says they're often mistaken for baneful monsters. Shadowpeople of Sanction (on Krynn) have skin covered in smooth dark fur and they're Neutral (Good)
Dwarf is a Human/Common world for a race. They probably have a word for their race in Dwarven and another word for humans that may be as descriptive/rude. I love how in Warhammer Dwarfs (SIC!) call Humans "Umgi" in their own language which roughly translates as "something made hastly and half-competently which somehow still works if not reliably", so they're perfectly fine with Humans calling them Dwarfs, as their own word for Humans is even more insulting.
Another good example is in Discworld where Dwarfs call Humans Tallfolk and just cringe every time human SJW-equivalents try to dance around supposedly-offensive word "Dwarf". They don't see it as offensive. In fact they see it as a compliment, as acknowledgment of their short (compared to humans) stature they see as right and proper height. It's a value dissonanse between two species - with humans being tall means noble and powerful, but with dwarves being tall means quite literal headache (from bumping into doorframes and ceilings). They often (quietly) pity humans for their size and generally believe that size is the main reason for their short lifespan.
Social problems exist in campaign worlds. In the world in which I play, there is a culture where it is very common for a human and elf to fall in love, reproduce, and then realize that the different lifespans make a real relationship impossible. The majority of 1/2 Elf babies will "slip in the bath tub" while being bathed by their own human mother. If that doesn't happen, then they will become discarded and left as "orphans."
I play a 1/2 Elf from that culture who managed to beat the odds.
I think the injustices in a campaign setting do a great job to help build opportunities for character depth and growth.
I really, really dislike the idea of a campaign setting in which the GM has softened all the sharp edges. That includes things like getting rid of "halfling" because it might suggest to someone that the character is "half" of a man. Even IF it were true that a hegemony exists which is so strongly dominated by humans over halflings that it leads to halflings calling themselves by a name they believe means "half a man," (and I am by no means saying that it is true, only that IF it were true), that shouldn't be seen as something bad, but rather as opportunity for character depth and growth.
No, Frost Giants have blue skin. Not as dark as drow but nevertheless, darker than humans.
When there is not a skin colour prejudice involved there is almost always some other prejudice.
So, moving the goalpost I see. You asked, I provided. And no, Frost Giants aren't blue.
From the 1E Monster Manual:
Description: Frost giants have dead white or ivory skin color, blue-white or yellow hair, and pale blue or yellow eyes. Their build is basically similar to a muscular human, with appropriate size differences. Frost giants wear armor and bear arms similar to those of humans of the northern barbarian sort.
Social problems exist in campaign worlds. In the world in which I play, there is a culture where it is very common for a human and elf to fall in love, reproduce, and then realize that the different lifespans make a real relationship impossible. The majority of 1/2 Elf babies will "slip in the bath tub" while being bathed by their own human mother. If that doesn't happen, then they will become discarded and left as "orphans."
I play a 1/2 Elf from that culture who managed to beat the odds.
I think the injustices in a campaign setting do a great job to help build opportunities for character depth and growth.
I really, really dislike the idea of a campaign setting in which the GM has softened all the sharp edges. That includes things like getting rid of "halfling" because it might suggest to someone that the character is "half" of a man. Even IF it were true that a hegemony exists which is so strongly dominated by humans over halflings that it leads to halflings calling themselves by a name they believe means "half a man," (and I am by no means saying that it is true, only that IF it were true), that shouldn't be seen as something bad, but rather as opportunity for character depth and growth.
This has been covered in thread after thread after thread. Social problems existing in campaigns is fine and, as you say, a good thing. When those 'social problems' are treated as genetic or otherwise defined and enforced by Divine edict as being universal, not fine.
The difference is 'some individuals persecute Halflings because they are considered to be inferior due to their short size' vs 'Halflings are inferior due to their short size and therefore persecuting them is justified.' In character individual opinion vs DM fiat from outside the campaign world.
I once played in a game where the world was ruled by benevolent Elves who fought an endless war against the barbaric and evil humans. All humans in that game were evil, they did evil things for evils sake, and although they were extremely powerful and feared warriors, they were not in the least benevolent. They were the polar opposite of the Elves of that world.
The person who ran that game had created a homebrew world where humans were created by an evil god, and were created specifically to spread evil, hatred, malice and fear across the world. As a result, all humans were irreversibly evil. Although there was differences between individuals of how evil and tolerant of others they were, all humans were evil, because that was how their god had made them.
I played a human in that game, who had been raised by Elves, as part of an experiment, to see if nurture could overcome nature, and to a certain extent it did. My character struggled against his nature, and although he could not be said to be good, he tried and eventually gained some measure of control over his urges to be evil. That did not mean that he was not evil though, or that he no longer had evil thoughts, only that he had learned to recognise that those thoughts or actions were evil, and had gained enough control that most of the time meant he was able to keep his nature in check.
As a human though, he was still evil. Only instead of being chaotic evil like a lot of kin, he was neutral evil.
The game was really good and I enjoyed playing that character because I got to play out the struggle of wanting to do the right thing, of wanting to be good, been naturally drawn to the “dark side”, and the war he raged against the evil within.
So, saying that having an entire race, who can’t simply be evil because that is how they were made, doesn’t make sense to me. Just because you are a character from an evil race; just because you are evil, doesn’t mean you have to an idiot or a murderhobo.
Anyway, none of that really has anything to do with the names of races, I just wanted comment on your remarks that having an entire race be evil because they were created that way, was wrong. You can have evil races, just as you can have prejudice.
An example of prejudice is a dwarf I once played. He came from a noble house and he hated any dwarf that was a lower caste than him, but especially those dwarves who had been branded as outcastes. He despised the outcastes for no other reason than they had no family, no caste, and no place in society. He considered them less than dwarves, little more than animals with no rights whatsoever. When he caught an outcaste stealing food to feed their child, he killed them, and didn’t feel any remorse, or even believed that he had done anything wrong. To him, that outcaste was an animal that had become a problem and needed to be put down for the good of society. He felt no pitty for them, or for the child that would now most likely starve to death because of his actions.
The child did not starve to death however. They in fact survived and grew up, and became my character in another game, and started off that campaign imprisoned after getting caught attempting to commit acts of terrorism against the family whose patriarch had killed her father.
She was prejudiced against all nobility and those who supported them, just as the noble character has been prejudiced against all outcastes.
I also once played a Tiefling Warlock, who became a Warlock, only after being refused admittance into a magic school based solely upon his race. He really wanted to be a wizard, and as a child had studied hard, but despite making the grade he was not allowed to join the school because he was a Tiefling, and so he pretty much said, “you deny me entry because of who I am, you call me a monster, a devil; then so be it, a devil I shall become!”
Having prejudice in your game does make you a bad person. Playing a character who is prejudice against others, is not a bad thing. It does not make you a bad person, or mean that you believe in or support such things in real life.
Many stories and movies would not be the same without prejudice or struggle. Prejudice and struggle are nothing but tools, that when used properly can and do transcend the human condition, and allow people to explore thoughts and philosophies that are often alien to them, through the safe medium of story and play. It is how we learn, how we grow, and how we become better people. Take that away and you are left with bothuny but bare bones and a dice game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Ok, fair enough. You found an exception. Other than the fact that they dress as barbarians so instead of skin colour connotations they have 'barbaric tribe' connotations....
Social problems exist in campaign worlds. In the world in which I play, there is a culture where it is very common for a human and elf to fall in love, reproduce, and then realize that the different lifespans make a real relationship impossible. The majority of 1/2 Elf babies will "slip in the bath tub" while being bathed by their own human mother. If that doesn't happen, then they will become discarded and left as "orphans."
I play a 1/2 Elf from that culture who managed to beat the odds.
I think the injustices in a campaign setting do a great job to help build opportunities for character depth and growth.
I really, really dislike the idea of a campaign setting in which the GM has softened all the sharp edges. That includes things like getting rid of "halfling" because it might suggest to someone that the character is "half" of a man. Even IF it were true that a hegemony exists which is so strongly dominated by humans over halflings that it leads to halflings calling themselves by a name they believe means "half a man," (and I am by no means saying that it is true, only that IF it were true), that shouldn't be seen as something bad, but rather as opportunity for character depth and growth.
This has been covered in thread after thread after thread. Social problems existing in campaigns is fine and, as you say, a good thing. When those 'social problems' are treated as genetic or otherwise defined and enforced by Divine edict as being universal, not fine.
The difference is 'some individuals persecute Halflings because they are considered to be inferior due to their short size' vs 'Halflings are inferior due to their short size and therefore persecuting them is justified.' In character individual opinion vs DM fiat from outside the campaign world.
My point is that you can take a character who is weaker, dumber, more spiritually corruptible, etc. as a consequence of his race and you can turn him into a very interesting hero. In point of fact, you can make him a hero precisely because he is weaker, dumber, more spiritually corruptible, etc. as a consequence of his race.
Not only can you make him a hero that way, you can make him a more interesting and fun hero.
DM fiat is half of the substance that one builds great characters with. The other half is your own brainpower.
If Orcs, for example, are defined as 'must be evil because Orc god' then you cannot make one a hero, at least not in any conventional sense of the term.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
If Orcs, for example, are defined as 'must be evil because Orc god' then you cannot make one a hero, at least not in any conventional sense of the term.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
Exactly! Quij, Lord Robilar's trusty sidekick, was an Orc hero. He was Lawful Evil. There is literally nothing that says you cannot be Heroic and be Evil. Now, you're less likely to be heroic if you Chaotic Evil....but...well...there is Elric. From my trusty 1st printing of Deities & Demigods...
ELRIC (hero) ARMOR CLASS: 6 or -6 (see below) MOVE,: 6" or 75" (see below) HIT POINTS: 45 (variable) NO. OF ATTACKS: 2 DAMAGE/ATTACK: See below SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard or 85% (see below) SIZE: M (6') ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil CLERIC/DRUID: 10th level cleric/5th level druid FIGHTER: 15th level fighter MAGIC-USER/ILLUSIONIST: 19th level magic-user/10th level illusionist THIEF/ASSASSIN: 10th level assassin MONK/BARD: Nil PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil Attack/Defense Modes: Nil S:6(15) I: 18 W: 17 D: 17 C:3(15) CH: 18
Really comes down to how you define 'heroic.' In 1st Ed, though, simply being an assassin was considered evil, regardless of context.
Because D&D was built on the assumptions of Swords & Sorcery more than High Fantasy. There is a reason Greyhawk is basically a more fantastical version of Lieber's Newhon and Vance's Dying Earth. Heroes are more in the vein of Classical mythology, where what made you a hero had less to do with doing good for the sake of the community and more to do with courage in the face of adversity. You're supposed to play Conan, not St. Joan of Arc (well, you play St. Joan of Arc in DragonLance, since its Heroic Fantasy).
my point was that unless you play the evil character as not 'reaaaaaaaly' evil
"Good-Evil" axis in DnD alignment system is not about what you do but about why you do it. You may run concentration camps brutally brainwashing people "for their own good" China-style and still count as 100% LG or you can save the world for personal gain and power (or just because you don't have a spare world to escape to) and be capital "E" Evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I kind of doubt the halflings’ own word for themselves stems from a contraction of everyone else’s. If anything, hin likely predates halfling by a good bit of time.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I meant the AD&D designers made up the name "hin" from a garbled contraction of "halfling".
The thought occurred to me before, but after seeing the Greyhawk names, garbled variants (like duar from dwarf and olve from elf) seem fashionable during that era of D&D.
he / him
I am reminded of the reallife Norwegian folkbelief name, Svirfneblin, which appears to derive from a garbled contraction of Svart-alf-niflinn, Sv’r’f’n’vlin’, literally "the mist of the black elf".
Unfortunately, I have been unable to get a hold of the Norwegian text that mentions this Svirfneblin. One source mentions this Svirfneblin is a local hero, but I remain unaware of the details.
he / him
I (and others) have offered long established alternative names. What more do you want?
Straw man.
How do you think POC might feel, being faced with Drow, who're dark-skinned because they are evil ...? Especially in light of the once-commonly-touted belief that Africans were dark-skinned because it was the mark of Cain ...?
http://www.weregeek.com/2020/02/18/
They're not black skinned because they're evil. They're black skinned because they adapted to the strange radiations of the underworld and it allowed them to camouflage themselves. Its why their Elven Cloak & Boots are black and why their mail armor is made of adamantine, that is also black in color.
Frost Giants have white skin and are Evil AF. Same with Derro. Vampires are pale. Foxwomen, in their Elven form, are pale skinned. And, of course, White Dragons, and Sivak Draconians (original batch) are Evil.
Or how about the evil (and racist AF) pale-skinned Sueloise humans of Greyhawk that are part of The Scarlet Brotherhood? Sure, not every Suel is Evil (just a whole bunch of them), but those that are part of the Brotherhood all are, and that's a good chunk of those pure-strain (which most peoples of the Flanaess tend to be admixtures of various Flan, Suel, Oeridian and Baklunish depending upon where they're from).The Cruskii, Fruztii and Schnaii Barbarians aren't known for their kindness, engaging in raiding and pillaging of the coasts along the northeastern Flanaess.
Deep Gnomes have medium brown to brownish-grey skin and are Neutral (with Good tendencies). Moon Dogs, also known as Black Hounds, are shadowy grey/black and are intelligent and have an alignment of neutral good. In fact, the entry from MM2 says they're often mistaken for baneful monsters. Shadowpeople of Sanction (on Krynn) have skin covered in smooth dark fur and they're Neutral (Good)
Dwarf is a Human/Common world for a race. They probably have a word for their race in Dwarven and another word for humans that may be as descriptive/rude. I love how in Warhammer Dwarfs (SIC!) call Humans "Umgi" in their own language which roughly translates as "something made hastly and half-competently which somehow still works if not reliably", so they're perfectly fine with Humans calling them Dwarfs, as their own word for Humans is even more insulting.
Another good example is in Discworld where Dwarfs call Humans Tallfolk and just cringe every time human SJW-equivalents try to dance around supposedly-offensive word "Dwarf". They don't see it as offensive. In fact they see it as a compliment, as acknowledgment of their short (compared to humans) stature they see as right and proper height. It's a value dissonanse between two species - with humans being tall means noble and powerful, but with dwarves being tall means quite literal headache (from bumping into doorframes and ceilings). They often (quietly) pity humans for their size and generally believe that size is the main reason for their short lifespan.
Do they get to pay half the usual taxes, though? I can see stereotypical Dwarves and Haflings rolling with it just fine.
Social problems exist in campaign worlds. In the world in which I play, there is a culture where it is very common for a human and elf to fall in love, reproduce, and then realize that the different lifespans make a real relationship impossible. The majority of 1/2 Elf babies will "slip in the bath tub" while being bathed by their own human mother. If that doesn't happen, then they will become discarded and left as "orphans."
I play a 1/2 Elf from that culture who managed to beat the odds.
I think the injustices in a campaign setting do a great job to help build opportunities for character depth and growth.
I really, really dislike the idea of a campaign setting in which the GM has softened all the sharp edges. That includes things like getting rid of "halfling" because it might suggest to someone that the character is "half" of a man. Even IF it were true that a hegemony exists which is so strongly dominated by humans over halflings that it leads to halflings calling themselves by a name they believe means "half a man," (and I am by no means saying that it is true, only that IF it were true), that shouldn't be seen as something bad, but rather as opportunity for character depth and growth.
So, moving the goalpost I see. You asked, I provided. And no, Frost Giants aren't blue.
From the 1E Monster Manual:
Description: Frost giants have dead white or ivory skin color, blue-white or yellow hair, and pale blue or yellow eyes. Their build is basically similar to a muscular human, with appropriate size differences. Frost giants wear armor and bear arms similar to those of humans of the northern barbarian sort.
I once played in a game where the world was ruled by benevolent Elves who fought an endless war against the barbaric and evil humans. All humans in that game were evil, they did evil things for evils sake, and although they were extremely powerful and feared warriors, they were not in the least benevolent. They were the polar opposite of the Elves of that world.
The person who ran that game had created a homebrew world where humans were created by an evil god, and were created specifically to spread evil, hatred, malice and fear across the world. As a result, all humans were irreversibly evil. Although there was differences between individuals of how evil and tolerant of others they were, all humans were evil, because that was how their god had made them.
I played a human in that game, who had been raised by Elves, as part of an experiment, to see if nurture could overcome nature, and to a certain extent it did. My character struggled against his nature, and although he could not be said to be good, he tried and eventually gained some measure of control over his urges to be evil. That did not mean that he was not evil though, or that he no longer had evil thoughts, only that he had learned to recognise that those thoughts or actions were evil, and had gained enough control that most of the time meant he was able to keep his nature in check.
As a human though, he was still evil. Only instead of being chaotic evil like a lot of kin, he was neutral evil.
The game was really good and I enjoyed playing that character because I got to play out the struggle of wanting to do the right thing, of wanting to be good, been naturally drawn to the “dark side”, and the war he raged against the evil within.
So, saying that having an entire race, who can’t simply be evil because that is how they were made, doesn’t make sense to me. Just because you are a character from an evil race; just because you are evil, doesn’t mean you have to an idiot or a murderhobo.
Anyway, none of that really has anything to do with the names of races, I just wanted comment on your remarks that having an entire race be evil because they were created that way, was wrong. You can have evil races, just as you can have prejudice.
An example of prejudice is a dwarf I once played. He came from a noble house and he hated any dwarf that was a lower caste than him, but especially those dwarves who had been branded as outcastes. He despised the outcastes for no other reason than they had no family, no caste, and no place in society. He considered them less than dwarves, little more than animals with no rights whatsoever. When he caught an outcaste stealing food to feed their child, he killed them, and didn’t feel any remorse, or even believed that he had done anything wrong. To him, that outcaste was an animal that had become a problem and needed to be put down for the good of society. He felt no pitty for them, or for the child that would now most likely starve to death because of his actions.
The child did not starve to death however. They in fact survived and grew up, and became my character in another game, and started off that campaign imprisoned after getting caught attempting to commit acts of terrorism against the family whose patriarch had killed her father.
She was prejudiced against all nobility and those who supported them, just as the noble character has been prejudiced against all outcastes.
I also once played a Tiefling Warlock, who became a Warlock, only after being refused admittance into a magic school based solely upon his race. He really wanted to be a wizard, and as a child had studied hard, but despite making the grade he was not allowed to join the school because he was a Tiefling, and so he pretty much said, “you deny me entry because of who I am, you call me a monster, a devil; then so be it, a devil I shall become!”
Having prejudice in your game does make you a bad person. Playing a character who is prejudice against others, is not a bad thing. It does not make you a bad person, or mean that you believe in or support such things in real life.
Many stories and movies would not be the same without prejudice or struggle. Prejudice and struggle are nothing but tools, that when used properly can and do transcend the human condition, and allow people to explore thoughts and philosophies that are often alien to them, through the safe medium of story and play. It is how we learn, how we grow, and how we become better people. Take that away and you are left with bothuny but bare bones and a dice game.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
So. What.
You're gonna continue to move the goalpost?
Mighty hypocritical of you to assume white as defalut Human...
My point is that you can take a character who is weaker, dumber, more spiritually corruptible, etc. as a consequence of his race and you can turn him into a very interesting hero. In point of fact, you can make him a hero precisely because he is weaker, dumber, more spiritually corruptible, etc. as a consequence of his race.
Not only can you make him a hero that way, you can make him a more interesting and fun hero.
DM fiat is half of the substance that one builds great characters with. The other half is your own brainpower.
Call the races by a name you prefer in your campaign.
Describe skin colors (textures, tints, shades) as you wish in your campaign.
What makes you think you could not be an evil hero? Hell, the very first hero in recorded fiction - Gilgamesh - would be very much Nutral Evil by DnD standards.
Exactly! Quij, Lord Robilar's trusty sidekick, was an Orc hero. He was Lawful Evil. There is literally nothing that says you cannot be Heroic and be Evil. Now, you're less likely to be heroic if you Chaotic Evil....but...well...there is Elric. From my trusty 1st printing of Deities & Demigods...
ELRIC (hero)
ARMOR CLASS: 6 or -6 (see below)
MOVE,: 6" or 75" (see below)
HIT POINTS: 45 (variable)
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2
DAMAGE/ATTACK: See below
SPECIAL ATTACKS: See below
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Nil
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Standard or 85% (see below)
SIZE: M (6')
ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil
CLERIC/DRUID: 10th level cleric/5th level druid
FIGHTER: 15th level fighter
MAGIC-USER/ILLUSIONIST: 19th level magic-user/10th level illusionist
THIEF/ASSASSIN: 10th level assassin
MONK/BARD: Nil
PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil
Attack/Defense Modes: Nil
S:6(15) I: 18 W: 17 D: 17 C:3(15) CH: 18
Because D&D was built on the assumptions of Swords & Sorcery more than High Fantasy. There is a reason Greyhawk is basically a more fantastical version of Lieber's Newhon and Vance's Dying Earth. Heroes are more in the vein of Classical mythology, where what made you a hero had less to do with doing good for the sake of the community and more to do with courage in the face of adversity. You're supposed to play Conan, not St. Joan of Arc (well, you play St. Joan of Arc in DragonLance, since its Heroic Fantasy).
"Good-Evil" axis in DnD alignment system is not about what you do but about why you do it. You may run concentration camps brutally brainwashing people "for their own good" China-style and still count as 100% LG or you can save the world for personal gain and power (or just because you don't have a spare world to escape to) and be capital "E" Evil.