...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...
This makes sense in the case of physical violence at the table, but why would someone outside a game care about whether the people playing it are having a good time?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad. Make sure that not only they are acting evilly, that they are not uniquely bad, and show other orcs/goblins/etc that are good, that work within civilization, that have just as much right to it as other peoples.
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.
I think we're talking about two different things, and if I misunderstood you or misrepresented myself, I apologize. I agree that a sociopolitically cannibalistic culture like, say, the traditional D&D take on drow, seems unsustainable and requires substantial suspension of disbelief (I'm always hesitant to say something is impossible; people always seem to surprise and impress).
But adventurers aren't "average working class types." They're heroes or marauders, depending on perspective. Average working class types are absolutely "fair" targets for marauders, at least when observing Earth history. And we're still actively struggling globally with the very real, very important question of what is acceptable behavior for a hero when they come across an average working class type and the average working class type picks up a rock.
To be clear, I don't think these questions add a lot of value to D&D. Players should think about whether lethal force is necessary in an encounter, but once that decision is made and the safeties are off, I agree with the OP that turning a combat-focused fantasy game into a guilt simulator serves no one. If the creature is culturally opposed to you and has picked up a weapon, morality is temporarily suspended.
My attitude toward real life, incidentally, is diametrically opposed to what I just said. But that's not relevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
This makes sense in the case of physical violence at the table, but why would someone outside a game care about whether the people playing it are having a good time?
Isn't perspective fascinating?
I absolutely care whether everyone in the world is having fun playing D&D at their respective tables. It's important to have fun. Bad D&D is worse than no D&D. It drives people away from the hobby.
You're under no obligation to, I guess, but I don't know why you wouldn't?
Speaking more specifically, I think the question of fun is at the core of this whole question of evil non-humans. It's fun for some people and not for others. Knowing what the consensus is at your table and whether anyone is outside it is important.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Except this thread is specifically about pushing back against that narrative, which is stupid and harmful even if it is “real”.
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Yes you can let the players decide what narrative to focus on, but they can't do that without knowing the full picture. Without making that background available to them at some point (and sure, maybe they get their first impression of orcs from the village that keeps getting pillaged by the Skar clan, and draw some initial assumptions from those people before learning more about the other clans), but if you just start with what the townsfolk of pillageville are saying and never give players the opportunity to question it, you're essentially withholding important information they might wish to use, from the players.
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.
I wanted to know if having gnolls, goblins, and orcs be the physical embodiments of evil, created to serve the will of evil deities and demons was a way to avoid racism.
To me, the divine influence seemed less racist than saying "Evil is coded into their genes, biologically" or "They have free will, but they chose to build an evil society anyway because they're morally deficient."
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.
I wanted to know if having gnolls, goblins, and orcs be the physical embodiments of evil, created to serve the will of evil deities and demons was a way to avoid racism.
To me, the divine influence seemed less racist than saying "Evil is coded into their genes, biologically" or "They have free will, but they chose to build an evil society anyway because they're morally deficient."
That feels relevant to the thread to me?
Again, gnolls are not comparable with the other examples because their entire body of lore does make them what you describe and has been further refined to set them apart from humanoid.
The problem with the “they were just made that way” patch is that it is something that’s been historically cited as a justification for racism and ethnic cleansing. It still reduces an entire population right down to the infants as acceptable cannon fodder for righteous heroes to slay without remorse.
...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...
This makes sense in the case of physical violence at the table, but why would someone outside a game care about whether the people playing it are having a good time?
Been asking that question ever since the first time they accused us of cavorting with devils and conjuring!
In the end, I did read the ask as " how to do this", and approached it that. may not have been useful to the OP -- for me and my games, all that stuff is important (as a mixed race woman, Sociologist, psychologist, diversity, Inclusion Equity specialist, balah blah), but in the end, really...
it is what the players feel comfortable with. If they don't mind it, then let it be. That is the kind of thing a session zero is really useful for figuring out.
i mean, my whole thing was I needed bad guys, lol, and I needed a reason for them to be the bad guys -- just like the OP. How I got there was a bit more involved, but really, the core need is the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This makes sense in the case of physical violence at the table, but why would someone outside a game care about whether the people playing it are having a good time?
Isn't perspective fascinating?
I absolutely care whether everyone in the world is having fun playing D&D at their respective tables. It's important to have fun. Bad D&D is worse than no D&D. It drives people away from the hobby.
You're under no obligation to, I guess, but I don't know why you wouldn't?
Speaking more specifically, I think the question of fun is at the core of this whole question of evil non-humans. It's fun for some people and not for others. Knowing what the consensus is at your table and whether anyone is outside it is important.
Bad D&D (supposedly) drives people away from the game, yet having no game at all is...better? That's a "fascinating perspective", all right. If anything will drive people away from D&D, it's the self-appointed fun police.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Except this thread is specifically about pushing back against that narrative, which is stupid and harmful even if it is “real”.
Explain that to the villager whose friends and family are being slaughtered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Except this thread is specifically about pushing back against that narrative, which is stupid and harmful even if it is “real”.
Explain that to the villager whose friends and family are being slaughtered.
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Except this thread is specifically about pushing back against that narrative, which is stupid and harmful even if it is “real”.
Explain that to the villager whose friends and family are being slaughtered.
...Umm, what villager is this, exactly?
What? You don't care about little Timmy Montague? He was so precious and kind and my little heart just bled watching him stagger by on his crutches. To think of the horror that young boy has seen, his mother torn apart by gnolls and then eaten by goblins and then used to crow crops by the orcs! All while he was pinned up as a scarecrow and mocked. His poor father cut down in his prime, the Farm -- oh, dear heavens, the farm! I hear the baron is going to take it back for not paying taxes!
Won't you think of poor little Timmy Montague?!?!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The problem with the “they were just made that way” patch is that it is something that’s been historically cited as a justification for racism and ethnic cleansing. It still reduces an entire population right down to the infants as acceptable cannon fodder for righteous heroes to slay without remorse.
Yeah, agreed. Unfortunately, "created that way" is "created that way," whether you're talking about biology or divine fiat. It's not like racism on Earth started with an understanding of genetics and heredity.
The key distinction that makes cultural evil more appropriate is the fact that it is a choice, and that choice should be illustrated in a setting by having members of the relevant creature type who have opted out. If they can opt in or out, the evil isn't linked to any kind of innate identity.
Again, this can further be driven home by making the culture itself diverse in its humanoid membership.
But like I said, no one can or should be telling people how to run at home. Wizards has their own problems involving marketing to a global audience that do not consider or address individual tables. Their guidance on how to run the game has never been anything more than questionable advice, and there's no reason for anyone to think it is different now.
If monstrous humanoids being the physical embodiment of evil is an important element of your play, and everyone at your table is comfortable with that, rock on. But no, I'm afraid divine fiat is not a get out of racism free card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Yes you can let the players decide what narrative to focus on, but they can't do that without knowing the full picture. Without making that background available to them at some point (and sure, maybe they get their first impression of orcs from the village that keeps getting pillaged by the Skar clan, and draw some initial assumptions from those people before learning more about the other clans), but if you just start with what the townsfolk of pillageville are saying and never give players the opportunity to question it, you're essentially withholding important information they might wish to use, from the players.
Well it's your game, but maybe you're giving players too little agency here. If players have made their characters to right the wrongs of racial narratives, they will search for the truth by themselves, and I would certainly let them try. If they don't care at all about that, want to paint all orcs with the same brush. and go to war with the entire species, by all means, reap the whirlwind. It's not up to a DM to make sure players are "doing the right thing", even if thousands of innocent fictitious orcs are murdered in the process. One thing a good DM will do, however, is make clear the consequences of their actions, because that's a story worth telling. But even that isn't mandatory. It's just a ******* game, after all.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
What? You don't care about little Timmy Montague? He was so precious and kind and my little heart just bled watching him stagger by on his crutches. To think of the horror that young boy has seen, his mother torn apart by gnolls and then eaten by goblins and then used to crow crops by the orcs! All while he was pinned up as a scarecrow and mocked. His poor father cut down in his prime, the Farm -- oh, dear heavens, the farm! I hear the baron is going to take it back for not paying taxes!
Won't you think of poor little Timmy Montague?!?!
Somebody get that kid a bastard sword, some iron rations, and a ten-foot pole. He's gonna be big.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I wanted to know if having gnolls, goblins, and orcs be the physical embodiments of evil, created to serve the will of evil deities and demons was a way to avoid racism.
The short answer is yes, it's still a racist trope. It doesn't matter what reason you give for having an entire race/species/whatever be "born evil"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Yes you can let the players decide what narrative to focus on, but they can't do that without knowing the full picture. Without making that background available to them at some point (and sure, maybe they get their first impression of orcs from the village that keeps getting pillaged by the Skar clan, and draw some initial assumptions from those people before learning more about the other clans), but if you just start with what the townsfolk of pillageville are saying and never give players the opportunity to question it, you're essentially withholding important information they might wish to use, from the players.
Well it's your game, but maybe you're giving players too little agency here. If players have made their characters to right the wrongs of racial narratives, they search of for the truth by themselves, and I would certainly let them try. If they don't care at all about that, want to paint all orcs with the same brush. and go to war with the entire species, by all means, reap the whirlwind. It's not up to a DM to make sure players are "doing the right thing", even if thousands of innocent fictitious orcs are murdered in the process. One thing a good DM will do, however, is make clear the consequences of their actions, because that's a story worth telling. But even that isn't mandatory. It's just a ******* game, after all.
Perhaps, but I would like to reiterate once again that the question was how to run evil orcs or goblins without hitting on the "inherently evil" coding with its unfortunate undertones. The answer provided was to highlight that while this individual band could be engaged in anything from banditry to infernal worship, they aren't representative of all members of their species.
You can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad.
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
Yes you can let the players decide what narrative to focus on, but they can't do that without knowing the full picture. Without making that background available to them at some point (and sure, maybe they get their first impression of orcs from the village that keeps getting pillaged by the Skar clan, and draw some initial assumptions from those people before learning more about the other clans), but if you just start with what the townsfolk of pillageville are saying and never give players the opportunity to question it, you're essentially withholding important information they might wish to use, from the players.
Well it's your game, but maybe you're giving players too little agency here. If players have made their characters to right the wrongs of racial narratives, they search of for the truth by themselves, and I would certainly let them try. If they don't care at all about that, want to paint all orcs with the same brush. and go to war with the entire species, by all means, reap the whirlwind. It's not up to a DM to make sure players are "doing the right thing", even if thousands of innocent fictitious orcs are murdered in the process. One thing a good DM will do, however, is make clear the consequences of their actions, because that's a story worth telling. But even that isn't mandatory. It's just a ******* game, after all.
Perhaps, but I would like to reiterate once again that the question was how to run evil orcs or goblins without hitting on the "inherently evil" coding with its unfortunate undertones. The answer provided was to highlight that while this individual band could be engaged in anything from banditry to infernal worship, they aren't representative of all members of their species.
Sure, and the completely plausible (and likely) narrative of the villager in distress doesn't need to change to alter the "fact" that the orcs in this hypothetical setting are not "evil by nature", but due to circumstance.There are reasons the narrative might be different (like the villager has dealings with other orcs, etc.) but these are because of story elements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This makes sense in the case of physical violence at the table, but why would someone outside a game care about whether the people playing it are having a good time?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieYou can easily still use orcs and goblins as bad guys without falling into racially coded stereotypes as long as you consider them as a non-ubiquitous people, rather than a blanket snarling monoculture.
Instead of "help! The village is under attack by orcs! Help us!", think more along the lines of "help! The Skar clan of orc bandits is attacking the town! Someone help us!" Specify who they are as an enemy, rather than just saying "orcs," implying that it's just all orcs. These orcs have an identity, an occupation, maybe even a motive. The more work you do at the back end to flesh out your bad guys and make them three dimensional, the less applicable real world stereotypes become. Like, maybe the Skar clan is an outlaw clan, shunned by the others when they wouldn't follow the new Highleader, and thus, they've taken to raiding countrysides since they no longer have the support of the Grisk clan who tends to much of the food production in orc society, and the Lu clan who controls the mining won't trade with them any longer, etc.
Suddenly with this backstory, the image of orcs as a savage and primitive people falls apart when their society is shown with complexity and nuance, and therfore the racist perception of any real life peoples as being "primitive" is far from people's minds.
Your backstory doesn't have to necessarily be political either. Maybe instead of a politically outcast clan, you have a cult of goblins dedicated to worship of the old gods and the return to the time of blood worship. This cult by no means represents all goblins, but they operate in secrecy, from the shadows. Again, they're not evil because they're goblins, it's not a Goblin Cult per se, it's a cult consisting of goblins because they worship an ancient demon who once acted as a patron diety to a certain goblin nation that they're trying to resurrect. Again, specificity about background and motive dispels assumption.
Another thing you can and should do is also include human bad guys, and elves and dwarves. Whatever species live in your game world, they come in all moralities, and humans are just as likely to turn to banditry as orcs. Maybe even make a point of showing bandits as non-species specific. Maybe sometimes the baddies are just a big hoarde of humanoids who'd rather rob you for your dinner than make their own.
Make clear why these groups are behaving evilly, and you avoid implying that they-- and by extent any free-thinking people-- are just inherently bad. Make sure that not only they are acting evilly, that they are not uniquely bad, and show other orcs/goblins/etc that are good, that work within civilization, that have just as much right to it as other peoples.
I think we're talking about two different things, and if I misunderstood you or misrepresented myself, I apologize. I agree that a sociopolitically cannibalistic culture like, say, the traditional D&D take on drow, seems unsustainable and requires substantial suspension of disbelief (I'm always hesitant to say something is impossible; people always seem to surprise and impress).
But adventurers aren't "average working class types." They're heroes or marauders, depending on perspective. Average working class types are absolutely "fair" targets for marauders, at least when observing Earth history. And we're still actively struggling globally with the very real, very important question of what is acceptable behavior for a hero when they come across an average working class type and the average working class type picks up a rock.
To be clear, I don't think these questions add a lot of value to D&D. Players should think about whether lethal force is necessary in an encounter, but once that decision is made and the safeties are off, I agree with the OP that turning a combat-focused fantasy game into a guilt simulator serves no one. If the creature is culturally opposed to you and has picked up a weapon, morality is temporarily suspended.
My attitude toward real life, incidentally, is diametrically opposed to what I just said. But that's not relevant.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Yes, but people do frequently view the others as a part of a snarling blanket monoculture. In a fictional game, it's kinda up to the players to decide that they are going to push back at the narratives of NPCs, not a responsibility of DMs (or WotC) to remove those narratives to begin with.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieIsn't perspective fascinating?
I absolutely care whether everyone in the world is having fun playing D&D at their respective tables. It's important to have fun. Bad D&D is worse than no D&D. It drives people away from the hobby.
You're under no obligation to, I guess, but I don't know why you wouldn't?
Speaking more specifically, I think the question of fun is at the core of this whole question of evil non-humans. It's fun for some people and not for others. Knowing what the consensus is at your table and whether anyone is outside it is important.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Except this thread is specifically about pushing back against that narrative, which is stupid and harmful even if it is “real”.
Yes you can let the players decide what narrative to focus on, but they can't do that without knowing the full picture. Without making that background available to them at some point (and sure, maybe they get their first impression of orcs from the village that keeps getting pillaged by the Skar clan, and draw some initial assumptions from those people before learning more about the other clans), but if you just start with what the townsfolk of pillageville are saying and never give players the opportunity to question it, you're essentially withholding important information they might wish to use, from the players.
I wanted to know if having gnolls, goblins, and orcs be the physical embodiments of evil, created to serve the will of evil deities and demons was a way to avoid racism.
To me, the divine influence seemed less racist than saying "Evil is coded into their genes, biologically" or "They have free will, but they chose to build an evil society anyway because they're morally deficient."
That feels relevant to the thread to me?
Again, gnolls are not comparable with the other examples because their entire body of lore does make them what you describe and has been further refined to set them apart from humanoid.
The problem with the “they were just made that way” patch is that it is something that’s been historically cited as a justification for racism and ethnic cleansing. It still reduces an entire population right down to the infants as acceptable cannon fodder for righteous heroes to slay without remorse.
Been asking that question ever since the first time they accused us of cavorting with devils and conjuring!
In the end, I did read the ask as " how to do this", and approached it that. may not have been useful to the OP -- for me and my games, all that stuff is important (as a mixed race woman, Sociologist, psychologist, diversity, Inclusion Equity specialist, balah blah), but in the end, really...
it is what the players feel comfortable with. If they don't mind it, then let it be. That is the kind of thing a session zero is really useful for figuring out.
i mean, my whole thing was I needed bad guys, lol, and I needed a reason for them to be the bad guys -- just like the OP. How I got there was a bit more involved, but really, the core need is the same.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Bad D&D (supposedly) drives people away from the game, yet having no game at all is...better? That's a "fascinating perspective", all right. If anything will drive people away from D&D, it's the self-appointed fun police.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieExplain that to the villager whose friends and family are being slaughtered.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie...Umm, what villager is this, exactly?
What? You don't care about little Timmy Montague? He was so precious and kind and my little heart just bled watching him stagger by on his crutches. To think of the horror that young boy has seen, his mother torn apart by gnolls and then eaten by goblins and then used to crow crops by the orcs! All while he was pinned up as a scarecrow and mocked. His poor father cut down in his prime, the Farm -- oh, dear heavens, the farm! I hear the baron is going to take it back for not paying taxes!
Won't you think of poor little Timmy Montague?!?!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yeah, agreed. Unfortunately, "created that way" is "created that way," whether you're talking about biology or divine fiat. It's not like racism on Earth started with an understanding of genetics and heredity.
The key distinction that makes cultural evil more appropriate is the fact that it is a choice, and that choice should be illustrated in a setting by having members of the relevant creature type who have opted out. If they can opt in or out, the evil isn't linked to any kind of innate identity.
Again, this can further be driven home by making the culture itself diverse in its humanoid membership.
But like I said, no one can or should be telling people how to run at home. Wizards has their own problems involving marketing to a global audience that do not consider or address individual tables. Their guidance on how to run the game has never been anything more than questionable advice, and there's no reason for anyone to think it is different now.
If monstrous humanoids being the physical embodiment of evil is an important element of your play, and everyone at your table is comfortable with that, rock on. But no, I'm afraid divine fiat is not a get out of racism free card.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Well it's your game, but maybe you're giving players too little agency here. If players have made their characters to right the wrongs of racial narratives, they will search for the truth by themselves, and I would certainly let them try. If they don't care at all about that, want to paint all orcs with the same brush. and go to war with the entire species, by all means, reap the whirlwind. It's not up to a DM to make sure players are "doing the right thing", even if thousands of innocent fictitious orcs are murdered in the process. One thing a good DM will do, however, is make clear the consequences of their actions, because that's a story worth telling. But even that isn't mandatory. It's just a ******* game, after all.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieSomebody get that kid a bastard sword, some iron rations, and a ten-foot pole. He's gonna be big.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
The short answer is yes, it's still a racist trope. It doesn't matter what reason you give for having an entire race/species/whatever be "born evil"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Perhaps, but I would like to reiterate once again that the question was how to run evil orcs or goblins without hitting on the "inherently evil" coding with its unfortunate undertones. The answer provided was to highlight that while this individual band could be engaged in anything from banditry to infernal worship, they aren't representative of all members of their species.
Sure, and the completely plausible (and likely) narrative of the villager in distress doesn't need to change to alter the "fact" that the orcs in this hypothetical setting are not "evil by nature", but due to circumstance.There are reasons the narrative might be different (like the villager has dealings with other orcs, etc.) but these are because of story elements.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie