This question was posted by me in another thread, which quickly became a complete shitshow. A couple of people suggested to make a new thread on the topic, so here it is.

Orcs, goblins, and many other species have rather... questionable backgrounds, to say the least. This thread is to discuss how to use these species as "Bad Guys" without the racist connotations that are so closely tied to them.

Now, someone suggested that to make orcs, for instance, evil because of their actions, not just because "they're orcs so it's okay to kill them." My question is, what are some reasons why someone could be seen as objectively Evil? And how would I ensure that these traits are 100% reprehensible, so my players and I don't feel guilty for killing them?

I would like to point out that the word orc comes from an older word, something like orcus, which means walking demon corpse. If that is what your orcs are, the twisted animated corpses of demons, then it makes sense for them to be evil. Tolkien's orcs were evil because they were the animated, tortured bodies of dead elves. They aren't undead though, they are imbued with dark and twisted souls of fiends and have the ability to produce offspring. Using orcs that way would be difficult in dnd because they are a player option. Their offspring may be slightly watered down through the generations, the innate evil wearing off as they interbreed with other species and instead have more choices, they are not driven by as strong a desire for evil. They still have that history of being descendants of evil monsters, so they will be feared, but they have the choice of trying to change how people think of them, or if they want to use that fear to their advantage. Even though the right choice might be hard, they are still held accountable for their decision. A different possibility for good orcs could be that they are similar to the Urgals in the Eragon books. They weren't necessarily evil, but their culture drove them to killing and bloodshed. It was the only way they would gain honor and succeed in their lives. Also, there was little to no communication between them and the other races, so others viewed them as monsters.

For gnolls, the lore for them is that they are hyenas that were given humanoid form by demons and that they are driven by an insatiable hunger for blood and flesh. They cannot become good because they would need some way to satiate that constant hunger for blood but it is so over powering they would attempt to devour everyone they come across. If it is bad to kill a gnoll, I feel like it would be bad to kill a starving lion that is attacking you. I feel that arguing over whether gnolls should be treated with respect and excepted into society would also mean that demons would have to be considered too because they are also innately evil beings.  

I think that goblinoids could also be used as the Urgals are. They might not be innately evil, but their culture strongly encourages it and they often choose a path others would consider wrong because it benefits them. Another way you could play it is that goblins are maybe not innately evil, but they are innately insane. They are chaotic creatures of madness and that often leads them to wrongdoing. Many goblins I meet and read about are kind of crazy and this would make sense. The goblins may have a weird way of thinking, but they still have a choice between right and wrong and the party should act on which choice the goblins choose. That doesn't mean you should kill every goblin you meet. If the goblins aren't hurting anyone they should be left alone, this goes along with the orcs. If the orcs and goblins are evil creatures pillaging towns and killing travelers then they should be stopped and the party should know that it is right. I think they should still all try to find a way to stop the pillagers without having to kill them, and I am always stopping the murderhobos in my group from killing every goblin in sight. I give each goblin and orc the chance to surrender, and give up their evil ways, but if they continue to harm the innocent, then they must be stopped and me and my character aren't going to loose any sleep over it. If the party finds a bunch of human cultists murdering people at night then they probably won't hesitate to stop them. Likewise, if the party finds a bunch of goblins/orcs/gnolls killing people they shouldn't hesitate to stop them.

Honestly, if it’s purely a question of “when is lethal force justified in a fantasy adventure setting?”, my go-to principle is “those who first act to do harm unto others have in turn invited such harm onto themselves”. Basically, if whoever the party is fighting are personally bandits/raiders/enemy soldiers etc quarter might be an option, but until the other side drops their weapons I would not put a moral onus on them for taking a “kill or be killed” approach to the conflict, outside of their own personal character choices. Within the larger scope of species/cultural dynamics, I would say the party has no place to render judgement or move against civilians/non-combatants. Honestly, when you get down to it, actual inter-cultural conflicts are a messy business, so if you’re really worried about the issue stick with something like a cult, gang, or splinter group that is explicitly its own thing separate from the larger culture. Like, for orcs you could say that instead of it just being a generic tribe, this is a cult of Grumush who reveres his most warlike traits and so raids to spill blood in his name, whereas while the larger culture worship him they don’t make killing for its own sake a part of that worship. Ties into lore while delineating that the particular antagonist faction has deliberately chosen to cross a moral line the larger culture respects.

Meh. "The hobgoblin kingdom has declared war on your home; these are specifically enemy soldiers." "These bandits happen to be mostly orcs. There's a non-evil orc city on the other side of the mountain, but you don't really care about them because they're not bandits." "To find the Lost Orb of Mag-Guff-Phan, you must cross the great gnoll hunting grounds. Some packs may be kind enough to give outsiders a warning, but if you press deeper many will consider you valid game."

Quote from deadPan_c >>

Now, someone suggested that to make orcs, for instance, evil because of their actions, not just because "they're orcs so it's okay to kill them." My question is, what are some reasons why someone could be seen as objectively Evil? And how would I ensure that these traits are 100% reprehensible, so my players and I don't feel guilty for killing them?

The problem is that there is no really good answer to this question while honoring your terms. 

If every orc is always reprehensible, that's an acceptance of absolute biological determinism, which is both socially problematic and scientifically unsound.

As soon as you introduce a non-biological reason that all orcs are reprehensible, you also introduce the question, "Are there orcs for whom this reason does not apply?"  If the answer to this question is no, you've created a situation that is at best lacking in verisimilitude, because there is no real world equivalence to that phenomenon in any known complex species.  There are always exceptions to behavioral norms.

The best route, in my opinion, is to introduce a dominant culture for a given humanoid type that is reprehensible.  Let's say they kidnap and ritually sacrifice the children of other cultures.  But accept at baseline the fact that there is a population of that humanoid that does not belong to this culture, and who probably reject it to the same degree that other cultures do.  That's the simplest acceptable expression: just set up a simple division, and you can have the reprehensible culture be as reprehensible as you want. 

It is generally best to also flesh out cultures in enough detail that they are internally consistent and obey their own logic (the "evil people don't believe they are evil" phenomenon), but in a fantasy setting where evil gods definitely exist, demand action on the part of their followers, and punish failure or betrayal, some allowances have to be made for evil for evil's sake.

For bonus points, you can include members of the reprehensible culture that are not from the dominant humanoid type, and spread the remainder of the population of humanoids among other, similarly diverse cultures.

For extra credit, make these humanoids humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, or gnomes, instead of orcs, hobgoblins, goblins, or kobolds, simply because the latter is overdone.

I was flippant before, but on reread that's probably not helpful, so here's ultimately the deal: Say you're running a campaign in a world with only humans. Who are the bad guys? You can't make it an entire species because everyone's the same species, so it might be a kingdom or an organized crime syndicate or a single evil wizard's mind controlled minions. They don't have to be categorically reprehensible, they're just villains because of some intentional role in the world.

The orc bandits in my snarky example aren't evil because they're orcs; they're evil because they're bandits. They're no more killable than human bandits, but they're no less killable than human bandits. You can even say something like "Orcs live in a barren area where there's limited food. Groups of bandits can often raid much richer resources from neighboring kingdoms than civilians can eke out, and thus are powerful and successful. Many neighboring peoples only know orcs as bandits."

Because even if your orcs are categorically, inherently evil, you still usually have to answer what they're doing that qualifies as evil other than... existing? So, basically, add more reasons a lot of orcs would do [evil thing] and, contra, some reasons other orcs might be somewhere else not doing [evil thing]. The hobgoblins have been marshalled to war by an evil goblin king, but some are, like, farming potatoes a hundred miles away from the adventure and frighten their children with scary stories of brutish human adventurers. Some live in The Good Kingdom of Generica and are true good-aligned patriots who oppose the invasion. But you're adventurers. Your immediate concern is the armored phalanx marching into a Generican town to pillage and burn, and these guys are in fact hobgoblins.

The gnoll example I gave is a bit more of an edge case. But they're still hostile because, to their minds, you're trespassing on their territory and deserve what you get. Depending on the context, maybe they're right and you are trespassing! But you need that Lost Orb to catch some Weretigers on the Generican highlands, so conflict is inevitable despite the gnolls' position not being evil-evil. Alternatively, 5e made Gnolls evil by making them creations of Yeenoghu. Being purpose-built by one evil guy makes them more akin to a faction or an extension of that guy than a culture. It's... not always great, but it's better than "That's just how they are" or "They're not inherently evil, they just inexplicably almost exclusively worship a pure evil patron deity!"

But these are all reasons for a group to comprise the main antagonists of a story without depending on the worldbuilding detail that "Species X is inherently evil."

As kind of hinted at, the real key here is the backstory behind everything.

The "why are they the bad guys".

For me, the answer was pretty easy: I made them Fascists.  I based their entire culture on the principles, historical habitus, and their outlook on the assorted "this is what makes a Fascist/Sociopath/etc" lists you can find with a google search.  Then I gave them a reason to be that way: they serve an evil god, blah blah, but also, they wee made to be warriors, blessed with the capability to overcome the major problem during the war they fought long ago -- logistics of supplying the troops.  So they are also cannibals, and they keep slaves.

Now, in the campaign that this is present in, there is a point (at 13th level) where the PCs free several prisoners and they take them to a "free city" that happens to have an elected Goblin as a member of the government -- he hates that culture and that way and so he was *lucky* and escaped -- but many of those who tried to escape with him died.

Because monitoring each other and turning each other in -- policing each other for purity culture -- is one of the most powerful tools of an authoritarian state. 

There are humans there, as well, and they serve as the voice of the gods and whatnot.

Once the players finish that, in the campaign, the ability arises for NPCs (and new PCs) who are actual Goblins arrives. But they still have the "only meat" thing.

However, note that nothing says that Goblins are Evil. Like everyone else, they can be good or whatever -- but their cultural basis is one that makes people suffer and is by modern lights, deeply offensive to most people. 

which is not to suggest i don' t have fun: 

This witnessing, this recognition of masculinity, of heroism, of sacrifice, is an exceptionally critical thing – especially among goblins, who give out their cry of “Karaja!”when launching into battle. For years, we thought it was a battle cry – “kill them all” or “follow me”, that sort of thing. It was quite a shock to realize that they aren’t even speaking to us, but to each other.

It was even more shocking to realize that “Na garege kiho nomnom” means “oh look, fresh meat!”, and is heard nearly as often. Storage of meat and vegetables is usually accomplished through salting and drying, even in Lemurian spaces, and so they are not saying it to intimidate, but because those sent out on the main lines do not get to have fresh meat often. That we are the fresh meat is not of concern to them.

So, um yeah, I do slide in some in-jokes.

In the end, it is key to remember that escaping that culture is difficult -- and that it is an unpleasant culture that normalizes and makes it acceptable.  As they are one of four cultures of "bad guys" , each of which is different, it is again a matter of them not being "evil", merely that they are from realms where the culture is harmful.

The flipside, of course, is that the "good places" tend to be unwilling to support them or allow them a chance to be something other -- hence the free city being the "safe place" for a goblin to escape to.

(I did more -- this is just a quick roughing of the idea. Not all of it is a family friendly thing.)

What if Gruumsh, Maglubiyet, and Yeenoghu - evil deities/demon lords of brutality, conquest, and destruction - put the orcs, goblins, and gnolls in the mortal realms as an extension of those evil deities/demon lords' divine wills to wreak havoc in the world?

I would be sad if that's considered biological determinism and racist instead of mortal beings fated by the gods to play their prescribed parts on the grand cosmic stage, like the mythologies that I grew up reading as a kid; mythologies that were a gateway drug to fantasy for me.

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

What if Gruumsh, Maglubiyet, and Yeenoghu - evil deities/demon lords of brutality, conquest, and destruction - put the orcs, goblins, and gnolls in the mortal realms as an extension of those evil deities/demon lords' divine wills to wreak havoc in the world?

I would be sad if that's considered biological determinism and racist instead of mortal beings fated by the gods to play their prescribed parts on the grand cosmic stage, like the mythologies that I grew up reading as a kid; mythologies that were a gateway drug to fantasy for me.

 if the *culture* has brutality, conquest, and destruction as the highest rules, most critical virtues, and the opposing forces there are considered failures of character, morality, and are punished, but the people (the race) are not 100% stuck in that place, then it avoids the biological determinism aspect.

It is when they have no choice and MUST BE That Way, down to the smallest child, that they are racist and based in biological determinism. There is a difference between the culture they are part of, and the species they are part of.

I will note that most of the stuff around Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, etc -- the same rules apply, If Elves can't be horrible without being a member of a specific race, they are just as BD and Racist.

The linkage of Familial heritage and Culture (as opposed to society, since culture and society are not the same) that runs super deep in D&D is part of the issue here.

I feel like the idea that a whole culture could develop naturally to hold evil concepts like brutality, conquest, and destruction as inherent promulgates more racist stereotypes than the idea that orcs, gnolls, and goblins are evil because their deities/demon lords made them that way to act as agents of havoc in the mortal realms, though.

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

I feel like the idea that a whole culture could develop naturally to hold evil concepts like brutality, conquest, and destruction as inherent promulgates more racist stereotypes than the idea that orcs, gnolls, and goblins are evil because their deities/demon lords made them that way to act as agents of havoc in the mortal realms, though.

surprisingly, not so much.  There are some pretty feral cultures that arose naturally on earth (and many subcultures even extant today that arose naturally -- I could mention a few but it would mean "getting political" -- as real examples of such.

One key thing to keep in mind is that they likely wouldn't see it as "brutality, conquest, and destruction". No villain is the bad guy in their mind -- they are the hero. So they likely see it as "the strong rule, and we are strong. The weak serve, and if you fall before us, you are weak. We are destined to be the rulers of the world, it is our manifest destiny to be the natural saviors of all those who are weak so that we can help them to become strong, like us, or to serve us, as the lesser creatures should."

that kind of thing.

Another  example -- there are Seven heavenly Virtues to go with the Seven Deadly Sins. (real thing. Google). While sociologically the goal is to encourage certain sets of behavior, what if they were reversed? What if gluttony, Wrath, Avarice, Pride, and so forth were the ideals to aspire to, and Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance were sins?

No one would describe themselves that way. The most gluttonous people alive today all claim they are good people -- and the most avarice filled are often selling themselves and their ideas as good things.  

it could happen -- much of it will be the difference between how they see themselves, and how those who they have harmed or intend to harm see them.

Who decided that Gruumsh was a bad guy? Was it Goblins and orcs? hell no. It was those other people, the apostates, the unbelievers! They should be punished!

Creatures of the multiverse: Orcs in one of the myriad of multiverse settings are protectors of nature. By that reference alone, any simplified ideas of intelligent creatures goes right out the window of a 40-story building on a windy day.

Objective views are reserved for the omniscient but not for us. We can only propose scenarios that appeal to the most people, but as pointed out, it'll still all just be points of view and perspectives—meaning what we think is happening is based solely on our perception of a situation, and we must remember that there could be something we're missing.

Then, we get into some good storytelling: Who we thought were the "bad people" is no longer so simple.

A simple "kill the bad people" is done to death. Someone makes a "them's the bad ones" claim, and adventurers take care of it, but what if the person making the claim isn't being completely honest?

Situation: A person was asking adventurers to rid a forest of a dangerous beast. Truth: The beast was actually an apparatus driven by people trying to protect the forest from said person whose intention was to develop the land.

Let's not stop there: The land developer wasn't acting voluntarily. That person was extorted into the task by a cult whose ultimate goal was to gain access to the heartland at the center of the forest but could not without significant corruption of the forest in total. The cult was doing this for a lich who desired to try to undo its lichdom. The lich was tricked into the terrible process of becoming a lich trying to resurrect a grandchild. The grandchild was murdered by a minion of the Mistress of the Webs of Fate specifically to kick off a domino effect that would plunge that entire region of the world into chaos so she could gain enough control in the world to raise her status to godhood with the sole purpose of casting down a seemingly benevolent but actually tyrannical goddess who condemned the Mistress' sister who was innocent of all crimes except questioning whether it was right to oppress people into doing the right thing.

Twists and turns make for long adventures.

Them = evil makes for simple one-shots.

If you don't have the time to dedicate to a complicated story, you will be forced to distill things into simple ideals. There's really nothing wrong with that, though.

Honestly, "everyone is tricking someone and being tricked in turn" is not a super deep story. It's just tacking on a larger scale boss every time you wrap up the current one. There's nothing wrong with having a straightforward BBEG; the big thing is just to not reduce the reason for the E in BBEG to be "because they have green skin and a few extra canine teeth".

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

What if Gruumsh, Maglubiyet, and Yeenoghu - evil deities/demon lords of brutality, conquest, and destruction - put the orcs, goblins, and gnolls in the mortal realms as an extension of those evil deities/demon lords' divine wills to wreak havoc in the world?

I would be sad if that's considered biological determinism and racist instead of mortal beings fated by the gods to play their prescribed parts on the grand cosmic stage, like the mythologies that I grew up reading as a kid; mythologies that were a gateway drug to fantasy for me.

Except gnolls function very differently from orcs and goblins. They are all specifically born when hyenas are subjected to dark magic- typically the power of Yeenoghu- and as such they explicitly only feel a desire to savagely kill and consume intelligent beings. They have no means of procreating on their own, and as of Monsters of the Multiverse have been reclassified as Monstrosities, which I think is a better fit.

Evil cultures are an option, but it's important to avoid coding all members of that culture as "Evil/an acceptable target unless and until proven otherwise". A mortal culture is not going to function effectively if everyone is out to backstab or fight their way up the ladder.

I just don’t understand why Gruumsh and Maglubiyet would give their creations that much free will.

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

I feel like the idea that a whole culture could develop naturally to hold evil concepts like brutality, conquest, and destruction as inherent promulgates more racist stereotypes than the idea that orcs, gnolls, and goblins are evil because their deities/demon lords made them that way to act as agents of havoc in the mortal realms, though.

 
Cultures like that IRL have developed everywhere (if you play this game, you live in one), and those cultures have all kinds of stereotypes of the other that have justified their values and actions, including that the other's god made them that way (e.g. lack free will). And those cultures came about because other cultures brutalized them in turn, but instead of disappearing they survived and triumphed. And so the the wheel turns...

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

I just don’t understand why Gruumsh and Maglubiyet would give their creations that much free will.

 
Not sure; could just be a cosmic “that’s the way things work” if you’re creating a mortal race. Maybe worship only empowers a deity if the worshippers have free will. Regardless, the point is that they do.

Quote from legendarycreatures >>

What if Gruumsh, Maglubiyet, and Yeenoghu - evil deities/demon lords of brutality, conquest, and destruction - put the orcs, goblins, and gnolls in the mortal realms as an extension of those evil deities/demon lords' divine wills to wreak havoc in the world?

I would be sad if that's considered biological determinism and racist instead of mortal beings fated by the gods to play their prescribed parts on the grand cosmic stage, like the mythologies that I grew up reading as a kid; mythologies that were a gateway drug to fantasy for me.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here, maybe I can help resolve it.

The OP specifically asked if the "evil non-humans" trope could be achieved without being racist, implying that the inference of racism from the trope bothers them.

If it doesn't bother you, that's fine.  It's clearly a topic on which reasonable minds can disagree.  What you do at your table with your players is and always has been between you and your players alone, so long as no one is being hurt and everyone is having a good time.  Your points are not invalid, they are just not relevant to the purpose of the thread, which is to address the OP's concerns.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues>>

as of Monsters of the Multiverse have been reclassified as Monstrosities, which I think is a better fit.

I also like this change, or at least the acknowledgment.  I don't use vanilla gnolls, but I decided a long time ago that monstrosities are not biological.  They behave like organisms because they are mimicking life, but their drives are entirely magical in origin.  I don't need an ecological reason for an owlbear rampage, it's just what they do.  In my setting, when they are destroyed, they straight up dissolve into ambient magic.

Evil cultures are an option, but it's important to avoid coding all members of that culture as "Evil/an acceptable target unless and until proven otherwise". A mortal culture is not going to function effectively if everyone is out to backstab or fight their way up the ladder.

 No, that's a bridge too far for me.  Cultures murdering each other en masse and without provocation for their own internally consistent reasons is absolutely a demonstrated thing that cultures do. 

The important thing to avoid is labeling a culture as "backward" or "barbarian" or "savage" from a narrator's perspective.  It's okay for them to feel that way about each other within the fiction, but as the dungeon master and worldbuilder we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.  Cultures develop because of choices their members make, those choices make logical sense to them, and that logic should be presented as internally valid.  Their traits are a result of intelligent adaptation to their environment, not a lack of "civilization" or "enlightenment."

What cultures had the average working class types constantly at each others’ throats? You can have cultures where different demographics skirmish with one another, where certain segments play bloody power games, or where there’s a purportedly lesser demographic that everyone else is encouraged to punch down onto, but if the entire population is supposedly constantly looking for a chance to backstab their way up the ladder, the whole system’s gonna break down. There needs to be some kind of working class element that mostly just does their job to keep all basic necessities going.