thats good to know....at least i have the physical books to also refer back to...in order to make this work again.
i would have honestly loved an opt-in, opt-out of errata sometimes...i mean we can always do it on our end but errata was meant in the physical world as an amendment to the book...the history of the original still existed if you bought it beforehand. this is more of a philosophical thing with me.
The hilarious thing about this "orcs, drow etc aren't evil" is that it makes the player adventuring party evil by default.
When your party infiltrates that goblin or orc or drow camp, you're no longer attacking some evil threat to civilised society, you're now raiding people's homes (albeit one with different value set to your own).
It makes the adventuring party no different to a bunch of murderous colonial era treasure hunters. And given adventuring parties tend to wipe out everything they see, it also turns them into genocidal war criminals.
it actually removes cultural differences (diversity) by emphasising the individual which is actually an extremely western cultural norm not necessarily present in other real life societies. In the west, the individual consumer rules supreme whereas in other societies it's a more collectivist approach (and the west was more collectivist in the past with greater emphasise on communal values at the expenses of individuality and individual agency).
And this pathway starts leadIng into cultural relativism:
The other issue is concept of good and evil is based on cultural values. Eg to a Japanese person in WWII surrender was viewed as the greatest shame possible. Thus suicide was acceptable (and the Japanese had many different terms for death). Even Japanese civilians often killed themselves instead of allowing themselves to fall into American hands - some even performed banzai charges against American troops eg in Saipan.
And this determined their attitude to treatment of prisoners. As a prisoner had surrendered they had shamed themselves and were thus considered less than an animal. In essence the Japanese notion of "good" was that treating a prisoner cruelly was considered just and in fact required given the prisoner's shame. Noteworthy allied soldiers captured whilst still fighting were executed as this was considered "honourable."
The same can be applied throughout history - **** and slavery were considered culturally acceptable practices in many societies. They still are in some places (eg in some parts of Ethiopia, a man gets a wife by kidnapping a young pre-teen girl from another village or town, or the endemic Arab practice of Kafala which is essentially modern slavery, albeit using migrant workers). Similarly western practices are viewed as evil or immoral by many other cultures.
Thus by for example deemphasising the drow as evil, we get into the issue of cultural relativism - drow cultural practices of slavery, torture etc cannot be condemned as they are merely different to those of our adventuring parties.
A drow torturing a slave isn't evil, they are merely participating in their own culture. An adventuring party raiding a drow slave convoy is engaging in cultural supremacism.
Personally my gobbos, orcs, drow etc will continue to stay evil, especially as my players already moralise everything. Eg I had them hunt down some slavers (child traffickers in modern language) in a region where slavery was illegal. Even here they were discussing legalities of taking down the slavers to the point one player was just about promoting not doing anything to rescue the kids.
Also forgot to mention, we are talking about essentially medieval worlds full of superstition, prejudice, illiteracy etc. Playing D&D as worlds full of 21st century well educated university types is a bit absurd and also not very diverse
The hilarious thing about this "orcs, drow etc aren't evil" is that it makes the player adventuring party evil by default.
When your party infiltrates that goblin or orc or drow camp, you're no longer attacking some evil threat to civilised society, you're now raiding people's homes (albeit one with different value set to your own).
Depends on what the camp is doing. There are plenty of times where raiding a camp full of humans isn't evil (for example, bandits, or evil demon-summoning cultists who are sacrificing villages, or whatever), and they are equally not-evil when applied to goblins or orcs or drow. Is it really that much extra effort to make sure your villains are actually... doing bad things?
As stated the bad things could only be bad in the eyes of the party.
-----
If the Orcs eat humans cause it's part of their diet then they aren't acting in an evil manner. Note it's not even cannibalism as they are a different species. (And again cannibalism isn't universally regarded as evil in human societies - it was widespread practice in many civilisations and is still socially acceptable in some isolated parts of the world).
------
Sacrificing victims too isn't necessarily evil - plenty of religions practiced human sacrifice.
So the Drow family are sacrificing captured villagers to their demon goddess Lolth. This isn't considered evil in Drow society but merely accepted cultural and religious practice.
-----
Even the human bandit isn't necessarily evil - they might be there cause the economy has tanked and unemployment is rife, they live in a feudal society with little or no opportunities and where the strong thrive. They might have been kidnapped into the gang at a young age or escaped from a life of exploitative child labour.
Again the D&D/fantasy setting - the feudal medieval world - implies the bandit is there because life is hard, short and brutish, opportunities non-existent, justice a plaything of the rich and absurd wealth inequality (rich aristocracy v impoverished everyone else).
Note that for most western humans life only improved in the 20th century (and sadly for most people in developing worlds, life is still short, hard and brutish). Before that inequality, endemic poverty etc was the norm. Slavery still is common even in our world (more people live in slave like conditions now than in anytime in human history).
----
Even monster slaying could be viewed as unethical as the adventuring party is often intruding on the natural environment of whatever monstrosity is living there. Most likely the monster's attacks on villagers is due to the villagers encroaching on breeding grounds. It's kind of like surfers getting eaten by sharks. Not the sharks fault surfers want to hang out where the sharks feeding and breeding areas are.
Indeed shoving post-modern concepts into D&D doesn't work simply because it ruins the whole concept of a group of brave adventurers exploring the world standing up against evil (and that is exactly what western colonists perceived themselves to be doing back in the past).
All of a sudden the only evil is the adventuring band (the murder hobos) who are murdering those who don't share the same values as them, stealing their stuff and killing rare critters cause they're in the way of human exploitation of natural environments.
As stated the bad things could only be bad in the eyes of the party.
-----
If the Orcs eat humans cause it's part of their diet then they aren't acting in an evil manner.
"Orcs are not automatically evil" does not mean moral relativism. It's perfectly reasonable to say both "Orcs are not automatically evil" and "eating people is evil".
My point is that the only reason they're regarded as evil is because of their cultural and religious practices and/or dietary requirements.
The assumptions monsters are not evil actually creates the cultural relativism.
Indeed is a drow who sacrifices a slave to Lolth, on relevant religious days that require sacrifice evil? They're just acting within the cultural rules of their society.
Otherwise you're assuming the drow, orcs etc don't have a distinctive culture or that their culture is the same your average modern westerner living in the 21st century (ie adherence to human rights etc etc and all that other modern stuff which even today only really applies to the middle and upper classes of a handful of rich countries).
My point is that the only reason they're regarded as evil is because of their cultural and religious practices and/or dietary requirements.
The assumptions monsters are not evil actually creates the cultural relativism.
Indeed is a drow who sacrifices a slave to Lolth, on relevant religious days that require sacrifice evil? They're just acting within the cultural rules of their society.
Otherwise you're assuming the drow, orcs etc don't have a distinctive culture or that their culture is the same your average modern westerner living in the 21st century (ie adherence to human rights etc etc and all that other modern stuff which even today only really applies to the middle and upper classes of a handful of rich countries).
I'm assuming culture is not genetically determined. This doesn't mean you can't have evil cultures, or even that the common Orcish culture in a given area isn't evil. Just that the reason it's evil isn't because of Orcs, it's just because it's evil (though usually when I want cackling evil factions, I don't pick a race. Far more likely to be cultists or something, who might be any locally prevalent race).
Culture isn't genetically determined though some species might have predispositions towards certain behaviours - remember an orc is not a human. Indeed the stats for an Orc indicate a far less intelligent species than humans and their physiognomy a far more brutish or physical based existence. Thus right = might is probably how 99% of them think simply because their intelligence is extremely low. So in the grand scheme of things, an orc might be closer to a neanderthal or even homo-erectus albeit with the aggressiveness of a baboon.
The drow are meant to be a culture - an offshoot of Elven culture that evolved separately.
D&D has a rich lore for drow society (at least for Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms). Their societies are perceived as "evil" by non-drow, it's what meant to make Drizzt Do'Urden so unique - he stepped away from his culture. Note Drizzt is viewed as treacherous by other dark elves. He is viewed as having betrayed them and displays behaviours that other drow view as inappropriate.
But if the Drow are just part of the generic multispecies melting pot, then they're no longer a distinct culture.
Same can be said for any other species in D&D. Once you've turned them all into generic modern westerner good people with different physical features, you've gutted a lot of lore and flavour. You have actually removed culture too.
EDIT: In essence it's the same poor concept Star Trek adheres to with its aliens with slightly different noses or ears but who are all essentially middle class Americans in terms of behaviour!
As for your "evil cult" as stated if this is the prevailing religion in the land, then your adventuring band murdering priests who merely wish to appease their god with human blood is actually immoral! :D
Culture isn't genetically determined though some species might have predispositions towards certain behaviours - remember an orc is not a human. Indeed the stats for an Orc indicate a far less intelligent species than humans and their physiognomy a far more brutish or physical based existence.
Okay, I'm out of this discussion, don't need the umpteenth thread on it.
It might help if, rather than applying a simplistic approach to rewriting the races, the game were to include two morality blurbs for each race: How they typically view themselves, and how others typically view them. Lines up nicely with the idea that alignment is based on one's mindset, both by giving the players a view of the race's "average NPC" mindset, and by helping to justify why fighting them is or isn't immoral regardless of whether there are or aren't any explicit villains.
After all, if a race is cannibalistic, then anyone who fights them is good (they're saving lives from the monsters that cull and eat their friends & families)... but the race might also be good (fighting off the invaders trying to destroy their way of life). Both sides view the other as evil, and each does have a reason; if you present it like this, then the original cultural stereotypes and tropes make a lot of sense. Most merfolk aren't going to see the innards of drow society, for example; they'd only see the outsider-facing parts and have to fill in the rest themselves. Giving people these "inner" and "outer" viewpoints would add a lot of nuance and solve the problem of people being hurt, without needing to significantly alter the races themselves in the process. It could even be used to enlighten and expand upon their culture, rather than to tear it down and genericise it (as the chance has been accused of doing).
It might help if, rather than applying a simplistic approach to rewriting the races, the game were to include two morality blurbs for each race: How they typically view themselves, and how others typically view them.
That's missing the point. The point of this change is to eliminate racially-determined personality, not to change how it's presented.
It might help if, rather than applying a simplistic approach to rewriting the races, the game were to include two morality blurbs for each race: How they typically view themselves, and how others typically view them.
That's missing the point. The point of this change is to eliminate racially-determined personality, not to change how it's presented.
Except one's personality is guided by their own cultural experience. Culture is not just food or religion, it's how you think and how you view and interact the world.
As I've mentioned before the emphasis on the extreme individual with a unique personality not influenced by their society is:
a.) unrealistic
b.) actually racist as it disregards cultural experiences and assumes culture is either irrelevant or even worse, all western Anglo-American with an emphasis on extreme individualism.
c.) discounts differences in perceptions of good and evil.
d.) Decreases diversity as it removes cultures from different species.
I'll use myself as an example. I've grown up in Australia. Sure that influences a big part of whom I am. But I am also ethnically Croatian and whilst I grew up in Australia, I was raised according to Yugoslav cultural and socio-political norms in Sydney suburbs that were mainly immigrant (Indian and Lebanese). I actually identify as Yugoslav as so much of what Anglo-Australians do is completely alien to me. My world view is Yugoslav and my understanding of the world is Yugoslav.
When I talk to other ex-Yugoslavs (or indeed many other continental Europeans) I can do so in a very relaxed format. But I am always an outsider with Anglo-Australians even though I have a perfect Australian accent. Their world view is sooo alien to me and I find it baffling.
And it's here that you get those differences in cultural perceptions of "good and evil/bad."
From a D&D perspective, my Drow do not view themselves as "evil." They view their culture as being the right one much like the various human, elven and dwarvish communities view theirs as right. Good and evil are relative.
Even my human thug or bandit doesn't view themselves as bad.* They define their actions as being a job or just the way of the world or the result of some tragedy. The cultures they live in don't necessarily view theft or robbery as bad as long as it's from the rich or not stealing/thieving from their own.
And note by the "cultures they live in" I might be referring to subcultures within a culture. Indeed the rich and middle classes probably view theft and robbery as bad but then engage in other behaviour such as exploitation and repression which are viewed as perfectly acceptable.
*After Sydney I spent my teenage years in really rough neighbourhoods in Tasmania. I knew drug dealers, wife beaters, an armed robber and lots of petty thugs. A couple of these guys were just violent because they couldn't control themselves None of them viewed themselves or their actions as bad. Even the wifebeaters viewed themselves and their actions as good (yep) or at worse necessary. . I've even known people who venerated acts of serial killers including ones who viewed themselves as good upstanding family people who just happened to have a fetish for Jeffery Damher and Ed Gein.
So good and evil are unfortunately relative, dependent on the particular culture. A person killing their wife or relative is evil in a culture where murder is viewed as evil but in another culture that killing might be acceptable if the woman/relative has perceived to have dishonoured their family (this is a real world example by the way).
So writing up Drow as "underground elves" or orcs as "muscular types with tusks" or mindflayers as "octopus faced creatures" totally destroys their culture within the context of D&D.
Except one's personality is guided by their own cultural experience. Culture is not just food or religion, it's how you think and how you view and interact the world.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about race, not culture.
Guys seriously... it is a game with fantasy races, we are not talking about real people real cultures, and real races... we start really debating the feelings of orcs elves gnomes when we should really start debating the real stuff, in the real world many those problems can be solved, this is a fantasy game, play to have joy and fun, because debating how the elves may feel offended by humans will not solve real racism, debating how orcs are offended will not solve as well. debate the real stuff in the correct channels, not in a game.
Except one's personality is guided by their own cultural experience. Culture is not just food or religion, it's how you think and how you view and interact the world.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about race, not culture.
The drow are a culture as are orcs or mindflayers or goblins or whatever. They are also not really races but rather different species.
In any case from a medieval perspective (or even a modern perspective outside of the urban western world) culture was specific to ethnic groups due to lack of travel (most people never went much past their village let alone to different countries).
The new D&D paradigm is promoting a modern western cultural perspective. It is actually one that I as a non-westerner find offensive
Except one's personality is guided by their own cultural experience. Culture is not just food or religion, it's how you think and how you view and interact the world.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about race, not culture.
The drow are a culture as are orcs or mindflayers or goblins or whatever. They are also not really races but rather different species.
In any case from a medieval perspective (or even a modern perspective outside of the urban western world) culture was specific to ethnic groups due to lack of travel (most people never went much past their village let alone to different countries).
The new D&D paradigm is promoting a modern western cultural perspective. It is actually one that I as a non-westerner find offensive
Then home brew the game to fit more with your style, encourage Wizards to make new models in the next or future editions, but stop trying to enforce a change for those that are perfectly fine as is. One of the greatest things about D&D is that the game takes on its own life and feeling biased upon whoever is playing. If you sat at my table I would work with you to find a play style that is fun, enjoyable and respectful to you...but if you are not at my table what does it matter? And of course there are Western Cultural Perspectives, that is the genre the majority of the game is founded on. If you want something different then go find something different, Legend of the Five Rings is a great TTRPG, or better yet create new content! There are some wonderful new games that are being created out there that I’m sure will fit the bill for what your looking for.
thats good to know....at least i have the physical books to also refer back to...in order to make this work again.
i would have honestly loved an opt-in, opt-out of errata sometimes...i mean we can always do it on our end but errata was meant in the physical world as an amendment to the book...the history of the original still existed if you bought it beforehand. this is more of a philosophical thing with me.
Thanks, Dave!
The hilarious thing about this "orcs, drow etc aren't evil" is that it makes the player adventuring party evil by default.
When your party infiltrates that goblin or orc or drow camp, you're no longer attacking some evil threat to civilised society, you're now raiding people's homes (albeit one with different value set to your own).
It makes the adventuring party no different to a bunch of murderous colonial era treasure hunters. And given adventuring parties tend to wipe out everything they see, it also turns them into genocidal war criminals.
it actually removes cultural differences (diversity) by emphasising the individual which is actually an extremely western cultural norm not necessarily present in other real life societies. In the west, the individual consumer rules supreme whereas in other societies it's a more collectivist approach (and the west was more collectivist in the past with greater emphasise on communal values at the expenses of individuality and individual agency).
And this pathway starts leadIng into cultural relativism:
The other issue is concept of good and evil is based on cultural values. Eg to a Japanese person in WWII surrender was viewed as the greatest shame possible. Thus suicide was acceptable (and the Japanese had many different terms for death). Even Japanese civilians often killed themselves instead of allowing themselves to fall into American hands - some even performed banzai charges against American troops eg in Saipan.
And this determined their attitude to treatment of prisoners. As a prisoner had surrendered they had shamed themselves and were thus considered less than an animal. In essence the Japanese notion of "good" was that treating a prisoner cruelly was considered just and in fact required given the prisoner's shame. Noteworthy allied soldiers captured whilst still fighting were executed as this was considered "honourable."
The same can be applied throughout history - **** and slavery were considered culturally acceptable practices in many societies. They still are in some places (eg in some parts of Ethiopia, a man gets a wife by kidnapping a young pre-teen girl from another village or town, or the endemic Arab practice of Kafala which is essentially modern slavery, albeit using migrant workers). Similarly western practices are viewed as evil or immoral by many other cultures.
Thus by for example deemphasising the drow as evil, we get into the issue of cultural relativism - drow cultural practices of slavery, torture etc cannot be condemned as they are merely different to those of our adventuring parties.
A drow torturing a slave isn't evil, they are merely participating in their own culture. An adventuring party raiding a drow slave convoy is engaging in cultural supremacism.
Personally my gobbos, orcs, drow etc will continue to stay evil, especially as my players already moralise everything. Eg I had them hunt down some slavers (child traffickers in modern language) in a region where slavery was illegal. Even here they were discussing legalities of taking down the slavers to the point one player was just about promoting not doing anything to rescue the kids.
Also forgot to mention, we are talking about essentially medieval worlds full of superstition, prejudice, illiteracy etc. Playing D&D as worlds full of 21st century well educated university types is a bit absurd and also not very diverse
Depends on what the camp is doing. There are plenty of times where raiding a camp full of humans isn't evil (for example, bandits, or evil demon-summoning cultists who are sacrificing villages, or whatever), and they are equally not-evil when applied to goblins or orcs or drow. Is it really that much extra effort to make sure your villains are actually... doing bad things?
As stated the bad things could only be bad in the eyes of the party.
-----
If the Orcs eat humans cause it's part of their diet then they aren't acting in an evil manner. Note it's not even cannibalism as they are a different species. (And again cannibalism isn't universally regarded as evil in human societies - it was widespread practice in many civilisations and is still socially acceptable in some isolated parts of the world).
------
Sacrificing victims too isn't necessarily evil - plenty of religions practiced human sacrifice.
So the Drow family are sacrificing captured villagers to their demon goddess Lolth. This isn't considered evil in Drow society but merely accepted cultural and religious practice.
-----
Even the human bandit isn't necessarily evil - they might be there cause the economy has tanked and unemployment is rife, they live in a feudal society with little or no opportunities and where the strong thrive. They might have been kidnapped into the gang at a young age or escaped from a life of exploitative child labour.
Again the D&D/fantasy setting - the feudal medieval world - implies the bandit is there because life is hard, short and brutish, opportunities non-existent, justice a plaything of the rich and absurd wealth inequality (rich aristocracy v impoverished everyone else).
Note that for most western humans life only improved in the 20th century (and sadly for most people in developing worlds, life is still short, hard and brutish). Before that inequality, endemic poverty etc was the norm. Slavery still is common even in our world (more people live in slave like conditions now than in anytime in human history).
----
Even monster slaying could be viewed as unethical as the adventuring party is often intruding on the natural environment of whatever monstrosity is living there. Most likely the monster's attacks on villagers is due to the villagers encroaching on breeding grounds. It's kind of like surfers getting eaten by sharks. Not the sharks fault surfers want to hang out where the sharks feeding and breeding areas are.
Indeed shoving post-modern concepts into D&D doesn't work simply because it ruins the whole concept of a group of brave adventurers exploring the world standing up against evil (and that is exactly what western colonists perceived themselves to be doing back in the past).
All of a sudden the only evil is the adventuring band (the murder hobos) who are murdering those who don't share the same values as them, stealing their stuff and killing rare critters cause they're in the way of human exploitation of natural environments.
"Orcs are not automatically evil" does not mean moral relativism. It's perfectly reasonable to say both "Orcs are not automatically evil" and "eating people is evil".
Well eating humans is not evil if you are not a human and your non-human culture has nothing against chowing down on "long pig".
That's cultural relativism. It's not the same thing as saying 'non-humans are not automatically evil'.
My point is that the only reason they're regarded as evil is because of their cultural and religious practices and/or dietary requirements.
The assumptions monsters are not evil actually creates the cultural relativism.
Indeed is a drow who sacrifices a slave to Lolth, on relevant religious days that require sacrifice evil? They're just acting within the cultural rules of their society.
Otherwise you're assuming the drow, orcs etc don't have a distinctive culture or that their culture is the same your average modern westerner living in the 21st century (ie adherence to human rights etc etc and all that other modern stuff which even today only really applies to the middle and upper classes of a handful of rich countries).
I'm assuming culture is not genetically determined. This doesn't mean you can't have evil cultures, or even that the common Orcish culture in a given area isn't evil. Just that the reason it's evil isn't because of Orcs, it's just because it's evil (though usually when I want cackling evil factions, I don't pick a race. Far more likely to be cultists or something, who might be any locally prevalent race).
Culture isn't genetically determined though some species might have predispositions towards certain behaviours - remember an orc is not a human. Indeed the stats for an Orc indicate a far less intelligent species than humans and their physiognomy a far more brutish or physical based existence. Thus right = might is probably how 99% of them think simply because their intelligence is extremely low. So in the grand scheme of things, an orc might be closer to a neanderthal or even homo-erectus albeit with the aggressiveness of a baboon.
The drow are meant to be a culture - an offshoot of Elven culture that evolved separately.
D&D has a rich lore for drow society (at least for Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms). Their societies are perceived as "evil" by non-drow, it's what meant to make Drizzt Do'Urden so unique - he stepped away from his culture. Note Drizzt is viewed as treacherous by other dark elves. He is viewed as having betrayed them and displays behaviours that other drow view as inappropriate.
But if the Drow are just part of the generic multispecies melting pot, then they're no longer a distinct culture.
Same can be said for any other species in D&D. Once you've turned them all into generic modern westerner good people with different physical features, you've gutted a lot of lore and flavour. You have actually removed culture too.
EDIT: In essence it's the same poor concept Star Trek adheres to with its aliens with slightly different noses or ears but who are all essentially middle class Americans in terms of behaviour!
As for your "evil cult" as stated if this is the prevailing religion in the land, then your adventuring band murdering priests who merely wish to appease their god with human blood is actually immoral! :D
Okay, I'm out of this discussion, don't need the umpteenth thread on it.
<laughs in Illithid, Neogi, Derro dozen other races who are born to be evil by normal standards and have no way out>
It might help if, rather than applying a simplistic approach to rewriting the races, the game were to include two morality blurbs for each race: How they typically view themselves, and how others typically view them. Lines up nicely with the idea that alignment is based on one's mindset, both by giving the players a view of the race's "average NPC" mindset, and by helping to justify why fighting them is or isn't immoral regardless of whether there are or aren't any explicit villains.
After all, if a race is cannibalistic, then anyone who fights them is good (they're saving lives from the monsters that cull and eat their friends & families)... but the race might also be good (fighting off the invaders trying to destroy their way of life). Both sides view the other as evil, and each does have a reason; if you present it like this, then the original cultural stereotypes and tropes make a lot of sense. Most merfolk aren't going to see the innards of drow society, for example; they'd only see the outsider-facing parts and have to fill in the rest themselves. Giving people these "inner" and "outer" viewpoints would add a lot of nuance and solve the problem of people being hurt, without needing to significantly alter the races themselves in the process. It could even be used to enlighten and expand upon their culture, rather than to tear it down and genericise it (as the chance has been accused of doing).
That's missing the point. The point of this change is to eliminate racially-determined personality, not to change how it's presented.
Except one's personality is guided by their own cultural experience. Culture is not just food or religion, it's how you think and how you view and interact the world.
As I've mentioned before the emphasis on the extreme individual with a unique personality not influenced by their society is:
a.) unrealistic
b.) actually racist as it disregards cultural experiences and assumes culture is either irrelevant or even worse, all western Anglo-American with an emphasis on extreme individualism.
c.) discounts differences in perceptions of good and evil.
d.) Decreases diversity as it removes cultures from different species.
I'll use myself as an example. I've grown up in Australia. Sure that influences a big part of whom I am. But I am also ethnically Croatian and whilst I grew up in Australia, I was raised according to Yugoslav cultural and socio-political norms in Sydney suburbs that were mainly immigrant (Indian and Lebanese). I actually identify as Yugoslav as so much of what Anglo-Australians do is completely alien to me. My world view is Yugoslav and my understanding of the world is Yugoslav.
When I talk to other ex-Yugoslavs (or indeed many other continental Europeans) I can do so in a very relaxed format. But I am always an outsider with Anglo-Australians even though I have a perfect Australian accent. Their world view is sooo alien to me and I find it baffling.
And it's here that you get those differences in cultural perceptions of "good and evil/bad."
From a D&D perspective, my Drow do not view themselves as "evil." They view their culture as being the right one much like the various human, elven and dwarvish communities view theirs as right. Good and evil are relative.
Even my human thug or bandit doesn't view themselves as bad.* They define their actions as being a job or just the way of the world or the result of some tragedy. The cultures they live in don't necessarily view theft or robbery as bad as long as it's from the rich or not stealing/thieving from their own.
And note by the "cultures they live in" I might be referring to subcultures within a culture. Indeed the rich and middle classes probably view theft and robbery as bad but then engage in other behaviour such as exploitation and repression which are viewed as perfectly acceptable.
*After Sydney I spent my teenage years in really rough neighbourhoods in Tasmania. I knew drug dealers, wife beaters, an armed robber and lots of petty thugs. A couple of these guys were just violent because they couldn't control themselves None of them viewed themselves or their actions as bad. Even the wifebeaters viewed themselves and their actions as good (yep) or at worse necessary. . I've even known people who venerated acts of serial killers including ones who viewed themselves as good upstanding family people who just happened to have a fetish for Jeffery Damher and Ed Gein.
So good and evil are unfortunately relative, dependent on the particular culture. A person killing their wife or relative is evil in a culture where murder is viewed as evil but in another culture that killing might be acceptable if the woman/relative has perceived to have dishonoured their family (this is a real world example by the way).
So writing up Drow as "underground elves" or orcs as "muscular types with tusks" or mindflayers as "octopus faced creatures" totally destroys their culture within the context of D&D.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about race, not culture.
Guys seriously... it is a game with fantasy races, we are not talking about real people real cultures, and real races... we start really debating the feelings of orcs elves gnomes when we should really start debating the real stuff, in the real world many those problems can be solved, this is a fantasy game, play to have joy and fun, because debating how the elves may feel offended by humans will not solve real racism, debating how orcs are offended will not solve as well. debate the real stuff in the correct channels, not in a game.
The drow are a culture as are orcs or mindflayers or goblins or whatever. They are also not really races but rather different species.
In any case from a medieval perspective (or even a modern perspective outside of the urban western world) culture was specific to ethnic groups due to lack of travel (most people never went much past their village let alone to different countries).
The new D&D paradigm is promoting a modern western cultural perspective. It is actually one that I as a non-westerner find offensive
Then home brew the game to fit more with your style, encourage Wizards to make new models in the next or future editions, but stop trying to enforce a change for those that are perfectly fine as is. One of the greatest things about D&D is that the game takes on its own life and feeling biased upon whoever is playing. If you sat at my table I would work with you to find a play style that is fun, enjoyable and respectful to you...but if you are not at my table what does it matter? And of course there are Western Cultural Perspectives, that is the genre the majority of the game is founded on. If you want something different then go find something different, Legend of the Five Rings is a great TTRPG, or better yet create new content! There are some wonderful new games that are being created out there that I’m sure will fit the bill for what your looking for.