>Tolkien: The only kind of always-evil creature is the one that is artificially shaped by supernatural forces and requires an outside force to subd...

>Tolkien: The only kind of always-evil creature is the one that is artificially shaped by supernatural forces and requires an outside force to subdue and organize them so that they may be more than just loose, tiny hobo gangs
>Gygax: Evil creatures are natural-born "races" and tribes just like all the other ones, except ALWAYS evil but somehow trust and support eachother enough to form large self-sufficient societies

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't want to feel bad and relate to the orc warlord and his tribe I just want to slay the monster.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      easy: You fight them because they rob people and attack villages, not because they are non-humans. If you are afraid of "feeling bad" for killing a sapient being out of good reason, you seriously need to get your priorities straight

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, you can still do that if it's just that specific orc tribe that's a bunch of assholes. Even if they're trying to survive, there's ways they could survive WITHOUT fucking murdering people. Gods know halflings were happy to show them how to farm, which some orcs too up. Humans taught orcs trade logistics and law, which some orcs too up. Wood elves taught orcs to be self sufficient and live off the land, which some orcs did. Gnomes taught orcs cool technology and magic, which some orcs did. Dwarves taught orcs good work ethic, which some follow. And high elves and gnomes taught orcs some people are assholes and should just be ignored and avoided.

      But this random fucking orc tribe has decided "we've lost the old ways" and want to go back to being a society almost entirely dependent on raiding and and victimizing their neighbors which include fellow orcs. They were offered a place in greater civilization, they were shown what they'd need to make their own, they chose neither, and so they get put to the sword.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In trying to frame evil actions as some form of traditionalist extremism, you ignore the realities of crime throughout the ages. Bandits and pirates and warlords and thieves and cons have never rejected advancement outright. They use the very tools, physical and immaterial, developed by their victims to enhance their capacity to survive off of misery. Handing tech to an orc does not make him not an arc, it makes him a more deadly orc. Explaining the law and trade to an orc does not make him more civilized, it makes him better able to understand which parts of civilization are most ripe and safe to scalp from. Teach an orc to farm and he will not, because why would he, when he can just steal whatever he wants? Now you say, "put him to the sword", but it's not so easy when they've been enriched and empowered by the tolerance you showed them in the past. If you had followed what was obvious from the start, and not forgone logic in the name of fulfilling your instinct to show mercy and tolerance even to unrepentant monsters, this never would have been a problem.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My biggest issue with purely evil beings is that their cultural and technological development doesn't make sense if they're too evil. Like do they have musicians? Artists? How did their language, architecture, etc. come about? Are there accountants just chilling somewhere? Orcs in the LOTR I guess get a pass can they reference everything to Melkor and Sauron. Much of human development was the result of mundane peacetime advancement. In a lot of fictional works it seems like something as simple as agriculture or metal working would have to be gifted to the evil race, which is why something like the Vogons from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy work so well because they're bureaucratically evil which seems infinitely more plausible than a straight up murderous race.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Always evil racist are almost universally primitive raiders, and slavers for starters. >Do they have musicians?
      Music is noise, noise is amoral, their music I'd probably made with the intention of causing discomfort.
      >Artist?
      Mutilating bodies and rearranging them.
      >How did their language and architecture come about?
      Conflict
      >Are there accountants?
      Why would they need them?
      Evil doesn't really impede anything you mentioned except for the accounting thing, but I imagine stealing would be a big part of an evil society anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why would they need them?
        Amaturs study strategy. Experts study logistics.

        Doesn't matter how many battles you win if you can't afford to stock your troops with bullets. Ask the Russians.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Steal the bullets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know you're running low on bullets unless you've got an accountant keeping track of them? How do you know which battlefield needs more bullets and which one can afford to be shorted a few rounds?

            This is a pretty old problem in Russia, too, going back to the Tsars, but it was all over the place in the Soviet Union, too. The Soviets were a net grain exporter for basically their entire existence even as they needed to constantly import grain from the West for decades in order to avoid famine, because they were just so shit at getting grain to where it needed to go to avoid their people starving.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >How do you know you're running low on bullets
              >How do you know which battlefield needs more bullets
              Ad hoc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tolkien stated that they were very clever and built a lot of things like machines, but never purely decorative or pretty things. No orc is going to waste time making a tapestry but they will make complicated devices.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I know gnolls mostly inhabit abandoned ruins.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're confusing evil (a moral condition) with Evil (an alignment). Nothing about Evil requires that its adherents be disunited, uncooperative, or even particularly evil.
      Alignments aren't reflections of behaviors or beliefs, they're just cosmic sports teams.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most tech advancents were archieved during times of war, but I wouldn't say it was due evilness.
      Still, knowing you can fuck someone and avoid being fucked is a good incentive to be creative.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The hand-wringing about naturally evil creatures is flawed in that it does not wish to do away with the immorality of wanton slaughter, it just wants a threadbare justification ("bandits") to wantonly slaughter non-player-characters. It comes across rather like humble bragging in being the worst of both worlds instead of the better of either.

      Either
      >Treat battle and killing with actual weight and gravity - not baawing over every single death, but having a level of respect and seriousness to killing and dying which is incongruous with being a critical roll knockoff
      or
      >Embrace the irreverence and RPG-y nature of it and stop fucking kvetching about #notallorcs.

      I never took Tolkien's orcs to be the ridiculous level of evil you get with something like warhammer dark eldar/druchii. It's more of a thuggish kind of evil, the evil that we're familiar with without venturing into Khmer Rouge or Serial killers.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder, Tolkien was a devout Catholic, which is why he was never comfortable with making his orcs a race that were by definition all evil, because he fundamentally believed that any one of any background should be capable of salvation.

    You know, back in the day when you could be religious without being an asshole about it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You know, back in the day when you could be religious without being an asshole about it.
      Yes anon, I'm certain Tolkien was an ardent supporter of gay "marriage", trans "rights", à la carte abortion, euthanasia, polyamory and all the other things that Amazon says you should support.

      Just accept that any sincerely religious person is an asshole by your standards and move on, don't try to sanitize the ones you like.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Just accept that any sincerely religious person is an asshole by your standards and move on, don't try to sanitize the ones you like.
        That seems to be a belief you have.

        I say religious people don't have to be assholes. Rather than saying 'yes anon, that's correct, I'm glad we can both agree on this', you instead go out of your way to be an asshole to reinforce the notion that religious people have to be dicks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Now address the paragraph above that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

            I said Tolkien wasn't an asshole. Tolkien doesn't have to support gay rights to be an asshole. He just has to not be an asshole about not supporting gay rights. Which he wasn't.

            You seem to be the one who thinks that holding conservative views on cultural issues makes you an asshole. What makes conservatives assholes is parading around dickery like it's something that should entitle them to free-blowjobs.

            If Tolkien thought that an Orc, a silly magical creature he made up so they could serve as the evil armies of a literal fairy-tale demon he wrote into a book of his was still capable of salvation, and wrestled with his depiction of them throughout his life, then I'm very sure he also thought that anyone in the real-world was capable of salvation too, regardless if they were a gay trans person. That's not the same thing as being supportive of that, it's the same thing as not being an asshole about it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What would you even consider being an asshole about it then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Enacting legislation that makes it harder for trans people to get T to earn brownie points for your base (also stopped me from getting T for Ganker reasons)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Nobody likes you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Euthanasia seems like an odd-one out.
        I literally just had a nightmare where I broke my neck and became quadriplegic and kept begging to be allowed to die, but was denied it and it was the most horrific nightmare I've ever experienced.
        Do you also disapprove of pulling the plug on braindead individuals as well?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Just accept that any sincerely religious person is an asshole by your standards and move on, don't try to sanitize the ones you like.
      That seems to be a belief you have.

      I say religious people don't have to be assholes. Rather than saying 'yes anon, that's correct, I'm glad we can both agree on this', you instead go out of your way to be an asshole to reinforce the notion that religious people have to be dicks.

      Your definition of "asshole" is "someone who doesn't approve of my degeneracy"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He means that someone isn't innately evil or at least doesn't need to fall into their evil nature. Like, theoretically if you consider being gay evil, one can be a celibate, not falling into their "evil" nature.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I also believe that anyone can find salvation through God and Jesus Christ; at the same time, I’m not going to tolerate drag queen minstrel shows at elementary schools, third trimester abortions or MAP-acceptance in my society. You and yours keep your filthy fetishes and retarded politics away from the children, and in turn, I’ll treat you like a stranger and offer you and people like you that abide by the same standards I dictated earlier the most barebones level of respect and politeness. Simple terms, right? We have a deal?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >MAP-acceptance
        Pedo acceptance. Don't let them soften your language, call them what they are.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    cooperation is the most succesful strategy. I never have this "evil" race problem anyway because I run all human settings.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/type/op/width/1025/height/926/
    >he thinks he won't notice him posting the exact same kind of thread for the millionth time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/BcfB5HF.jpg

      >Tolkien: The only kind of always-evil creature is the one that is artificially shaped by supernatural forces and requires an outside force to subdue and organize them so that they may be more than just loose, tiny hobo gangs
      >Gygax: Evil creatures are natural-born "races" and tribes just like all the other ones, except ALWAYS evil but somehow trust and support eachother enough to form large self-sufficient societies

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why do people do this? I honestly don't understand gays like this. He's not trolling, since he's not provoking by stating blatantly wrong or offensive opinions; he's not starting an interesting discussion, nor novel (and he clearly already got his answers multiple time); what's the point? If he just wanted attention without being a troll he could have used a sexy image, if he wanted to get banned he could have posted CP like they used to. This is just basically pointless. What the fuck for?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Autism, you idiot, what do you think?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Now address the paragraph above that.

          What I find weird about these threads is they're a month apart.

          bros, it's a bot. That's why. They're testing to see how much we'll notice or not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a bot, it's a porn addicted gay.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sure, keep thinking it's a bot and not a copy-writer paid by amount of "original" content they post each month. It's surly less disturbing this way.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What I find weird about these threads is they're a month apart.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Saged and hiddenpilled

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >A flat world is just more realistic. Just look outside.

    Weak. Smoothbrained or bait, pathetic either way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Haiti is flat.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    wrong, even real life groups of people who have been labeled evil in most cases still believed themselves to be good and doing the best they could for their people and that there was no other way.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Evil with insider and outsider preferences? Take Hobgoblins for example. Militant slavers. Well, they’re mostly lawful evil. Basically if you’re evil have some laws and not be evil enough to break your evil laws. That’ll get you a nice evil society going.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You can't just call evil anyone you don't like

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      garden gnomes

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >someone PLEASE talk about my fetish with me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bruh these people just need to take it to /d/ or reddit ffs

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Modern D&D: There are no evil creatures because it hurts my fefes and reminds ME of basketball americans and this makes YOU racist!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Gygax
      Oh, you mean the fuckwit who was out of making anything for D&D by 85, and that your statement is bullshit anyways.
      This revisionist twaddle from newfag players who came on board with 5e that all these various "monster" races are Always Evil, is fucking annoying as shit. None of you lackwits are saying anything interesting and your ideas of playing these monsters as good is something people have been doing for FOUR GODDAMN DECADES already, many times officially. Orcs have never been Always Evil, nor gnolls, nor even fucking goblinoids. Even fiends of all stripes have had a couple exceptions here and there despite being creatures literally made from physical evil and the souls of the corrupt and craven and always listed as Always Evil.

      It's only Ganker "culture", the idiotic ways the dumbfucks here post about shit, that says that these things are always evil, no exceptions. And its clear that the people who post about this are nogames tourist fags who dont actually play the fucking games in the first place because Always Evil is a designation from 3.5, which was never used for any of the races usually said to be like that in that edition. Its an idiotic mishmash of rules and ideas from 4 or more different editions clearly used by 4chanfags and their equivalents to shitpost about things they dont actual know.

      You do realize that Orcs have been able to be good for over 3 decades? That their designation in 3.5, the edition that seems to rule D&D discussion outside of 5e shit, has orcs listed as Often Evil, which simply means that over 60% or so of encountered orcs are evil. That there were good orc enclaves and groups in 2e. Even gnolls received this treatment, goblinoids too. Modern D&D, aka 5e, is the exception for some godforsaken reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I never mentioned orcs you RACIST!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nits make lice.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          As good an excuse as any for elves and dwarves to exterminate humans.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why couldn't the evil species just be really savage like cannibal tribes or other death worshiping mesoamerican serial sacrificing nightmare groups? Still intelligent humans but that does not mean they do not constantly go about robbing and pillaging for just about everything they have.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kind of this. No matter how you look at it the Aztecs really were the closest real world example of a pulp novel skulls, blood, and snake god death cult. They would be goddamn frightening to an adventurer to come across. Especially in a world that has real gods, demons, and functioning magic.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Evil can make a functioning society. Why can't an evil race have a functioning evil society? You can trust an underling will work for his own self interest with the prospect of material gain or threats of violence.
    Anon you just want to make this about some personal issue

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. The notion that only good people are capable of working together in a shared interest/goal is extreme cope. People who also rally against always evil races are also incapable of understanding how a humanoid creature could just be built different than humans themselves, and attempting to draw parallels to how humans function simply diludes every race into becoming some variation of, "Humans, but with _______ ."

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Except in DnD shit like orcs, drow, gnolls etc are made by the direct intervention of some evil god, or plain ol created by them just to have a knowingly evil race roaming around on the planet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FUCKING this. Orcs make more sense in DnD than they do in Tolkien since an evil god that loves killing made evil people that love killing. and they still intervene on behalf of their evil shit all the damn time.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't Tolkien say that he regretted making the Orcs 100% evil? Imagine meeting him in Heaven & showing you the new good guy Uruk Hai OC he made.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Anon, you don't understand. When Jesus said "love", he really meant "hate". Everyone knows that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'd have less problem with religions if religious people didn't stand up to contradict people misusing the religion. I know that about, I'm going to estimate 60% of religious people are people who aren't crazy, and actually like the stuff in the bible about giving to charity. Hell, I've volunteered in a soup kitchen with some nuns once, perfectly sane, rational nice people.

      But they act like when some crazy person thumping the bible to preach hate isn't their problem. But if they're not out there trying to counteract that message, society at large starts believing that the only way to practice religion is if you're stoning gay people.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's rather ridiculous how far some people bend themselves to justify some of the most patently unchristian bullshit imaginable. Like the entire concept of "prosperity gospel" - some scam artists have convinced people that material wealth and financial success are direct results of tremendous personal virtue. This despite Christ himself saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    have a nice day, furfag.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This mad ass bro actually thinks corporate and political entities care more about gay bitches than money

    Get fucked, brownshirt-ass cracker

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gnolls aren't exactly naturally born. They were directly created by a demon lord and while they can reproduce normally he also does make a habit of creating new ones fairly regularly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God I hate 5e lore

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That lore actually originates from 4e. And the 4e lore is itself based on the original lore for Yeenoghu dating back to 2e.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          4e Gnolls were created by a Non-Evil god that was killed by Yeenoghu. It also stressed the existence and possibility of non-demonic Gnolls that worshiped Nature

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Eberron's got the Znir Pact gnolls - gnolls who sat up one day and said "Wait a fucking minute, we keep sacrificing shit to demons in exchange for their power, and we STILL haven't conquered shit!"

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I mean, given the track record on religious types being the ones RESPONSIBLE for
    >society being harmed by people seeking to change it in a way that they find destructive
    I feel like the logical answer is: sucks to suck.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is no such track record.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Notice that one of those authors was married and Catholic and the other was a coke addict.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gygax was an infamous sperg and retard. You should regard his opinions and beliefs the way you would any other fa/tg/uy: Take the ideas you like and work for your table, ignore everything else because that other guy is a mentally unstable lunatic.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    fuck off

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And yet all you have to do is not be a cunt and they will leave you alone. Pity such a thing is impossible for (You).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Utterly delusional.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The same they said about gays, "they will just keep to themselves" etc, and now you have state aproved therapies to put hormones on and chop off the genitals of kids.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you can't live next to a raging wildfire

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is that you can't identify the difference between a raging wildfire (tyranny exercised in the name of good) and a well-tended communal fire (genuinely good acts done in the name of good, but you don't agree with those acts so you call them tyranny).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The dumpster fire that is the legbutt "community" is anything but well-tended. Or communal, at that rate.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              See? Can't tell the difference.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your metaphor is as mangled and unrecognizable as your genitals.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's the thing, orcs and goblins won't leave you alone. Every living moment of their lives, they plot and scheme to genocide us all. And that's why they need to be exterminated to the very last one. Mercy only result in our destruction.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >weren't constantly being assailed by political and corporate entities beyond his control.
    >towards a man who lived through both world wars and the depths of the Cold War
    I think you may just be stupid, buddy.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How many times are you going to spam this fucking thread

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Like they won’t be after you next.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We're basically one of the last on the chopping board, they'll go through the biggest and most obnoxious minority first, and then the Muslims next

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Buddy if things get hot with China you're gonna find out real fast just how xenophobic the US can be.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          God I can't wait
          Every day I pray for Armageddon
          Everyone has to die sometime, it's worth it knowing the world will be a better place

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It won't. Nuclear War will wreck the biosphere and all easily accessible resources we could use to rebuild like coal have been depleted. There is no second chance for humanity. This is our first and last post-industrial civilization.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              > Nuclear War will wreck the biosphere and all easily accessible resources we could use to rebuild like coal have been depleted. There is no second chance for humanity.
              Thank God
              Then it would finally be over

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You worship death and are severely mentally unwell.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nta, but you idealize your own slavery and your continuing to tolerate a hell, for no reason or benefit to yourself or anyone else.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you truly preferred death to life you wouldn't be here right now. Instead you're a coward who is unable to see the beauty in life, and you blame reality for your own maladjustment. If your suffering is truly too much to bear then fair enough, but there's no logic in making the lives of others worse.

                Being alive is the key condition to all good things, because guess what? You cease to exist when you die and no longer experience qualia.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >who is unable to see the beauty in life
                Not that anon but, the beauty in life is being destroyed by rich and powerful people who don’t care about the wellbeing of the Earth or it’s inhabitants. That anon is most certainly unwell but I don’t blame his bleak outlook when you see the the people in power taking advantage of large masses of mentally ill people who end up making shit worse for everyone around them.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's not like they'll spare you for being one of the good ones

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I don't hate people who suffer temptation. I hate those willfully spread their blatantly self destructive behavior as good or desireable condition. When Jesus saved a prostitute from stoning, he said "go forth and sin no more". Both you and

    [...]
    Anon, you don't understand. When Jesus said "love", he really meant "hate". Everyone knows that.

    also misundestand what love is. You cannot truly love something without hating that which threatens it. Are you loving thy neighbor when you allowed him to be killed by an invader? Jesus frequently resorted to insult and even physical violence. He was not a hippy or even a pacifist; accepting his death not because he thought it would be better to be executed than fight back, but to fulfill a prophecy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't one of the most commonly attributed sayings to Jesus "turn the other cheek"?
      Futhermore, didn't he espouse that if someone steals from you to seek no recompense, and accept that they needed it more than you?
      And finally, didn't he say judgement was not for man, but was for God only; that to be a good Christian meant that you went about your life helping those you could, especially via monetary means, which precludes hoarding wealth. Not seeking vengeance for wrongdoings against you (the "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" part of the Lord's Prayer) that you don't get mad at evil, that God will take care of it when their time comes.
      Christianity's hardcore

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "Turn the other cheek" means "don't chimp out over an insult", it does not mean to not defend yourself from someone actually trying to harm you or someone else. It's also worth noting he was speaking specifically to the conquered Hebrews, and how they might handle the situation of their subordination. Tell me, if you give a man your cloak and your tunic, are you not now naked? If a man asks you to walk him a mile and you walk him two, have you not walked him too far? The implications were not to roll over like a dog and beg, but to do a little trolling.
        >Futhermore, didn't he espouse that if someone steals from you to seek no recompense, and accept that they needed it more than you?
        No.
        >And finally, didn't he say judgement was not for man, but was for God only;
        You misunderstand that use of "judgement". Jesus was saying not to condemn a person based on reputation, not to just let them do whatever they wanted. He was certainly not against stopping those actively doing evil, by whatever means was required.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So is this thread a false flag to make people hate furries more or is it some kinda gay dogwhistle for all your discord furry pedopals to start raiding /tg/ again?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've never seen a D&D product where humanoids had "large self-sufficient societies." You only encounter them in small groups.
    I've seen the Orclands in GURPS' Banestorm, and the orcs in that setting are still as contentious with one another as they are with outsiders.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gygax was more concerned with making a world to adventure through, so saying "these guys are assholes so you can always kill them without repercussions" may not be realistic but it makes for an easier time playing through it all

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I love how you're trying to compare one religion to all other religions in existence and appeal to minority. Christian terrorist acts are also drastically outnumbered by muslim, buddhist, hindu, and atheist terrorist acts, therefore we can conclude all atheists are terrorists.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >retard babble
    In your posts you were attributing any death under communism to atheism because atheism is woven into the ideology, not just the deaths that were actually caused by the lethal enforcement of state atheism; otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the Holodomor. I was applying the same stupidly broad logic to show you how asinine that was, but you ate lead paint chips as a child and so the point sailed over your head. If militant atheists killing people for any reason is enough to place the tick under atheism, then any militant religious person killing people for any reason is attributable to religion. I'm consistent in thinking both are asinine, but you apparently think only one applies.

    >suddenly okay with them
    I'm not okay with them, I just wasn't talking about them until your mental illness flared up and prevented you from following a simple conversation. I'll spell it out: The state killing people is bad.

    >gives better examples now
    I was referring to the examples you gave in the post. Bringing them up AFTER I pointed out the flaw in your argument doesn't do anything.
    >Well you would've been wrong if I'd said these things then!
    but you didn't, dumb-dumb.

    Even then, the common thread among all of your examples (which are all awful events) is the ideology of communism. That would suggest that communism is more to blame than atheism. :^)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      babble
      That's all you've given me. Hell, this whole conversation is just because you wanted to virtue signal to your r/atheism buddies over Tolkien.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >virtue signal
        You're literally extolling the virtues of Christianity to signal your beliefs to others. The duplicitous retard accuses others of the acts it performs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You're literally extolling the virtues of Christianity
          Where have I done that?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Accurate. A civilization of people who are 100% selfish and also cruel couldn’t function.

    Even chimpanzees cooperate with each other and care for their weak.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    My favorite are non-theists telling other practicing theists what their religion is/says. If Jesus saw drag shows that involved kids, he'd personally whip every single participant who let it happen, and give forgiveness for the CHILD, since their participating with evil was heavily goaded/forced upon them, and redemption possible with proper guidance.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who listens to fucking Tolkien of all people? He's a decaying skeleton.
    Always evil races is realistic and makes sense, just read Goblin Slayer if you need to understand.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically those goblins are in some ways closer to Tolkiens orcs than orcs in other many media, including the part where the distinction between orc and goblin is arbitrary (orcbolg).

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gygax was very open about being a biological determinist. Two different outlooks, two different worlds. A DnD without Gods and magic would work better than a crypto-catholic DnD.
    There's no contradiction between being evil and supporting each others in a society, by the way: you just have to consider it evil to stand in solidarity with evil or do things that benefit evil people (which I think is most people's view anyway). What *makes* these races evil however is their cruel and destructive nature, and they can cooperate in that endeavour of being cruel and destructive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and they can cooperate in that endeavour of being cruel and destructive.

      And what do they do when the only people around that they can be cruel and destructive towards are each other?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ... Find other people they can be cruel and destructive towards? Are you stupid?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          More I'm wondering if you are. If you have a culture built around cruelty and destruction, and it doesn't have anyone obvious it can turn those tendencies on outside of itself, then it is invariable that it will turn those tendencies inwards.

          It's not even necessarily a case of they don't "know" about outsiders so much as they're not in a position and can't get into a position to do anything to them. A small orc tribe is not going to be able to overthrow an entire kingdom and to attempt to do so would be suicide, so they're instead gonna try and keep to themselves, but if they're cruel and destructive by nature then this is going to result in those tendencies being turned against each other.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In what universe can a small orc tribe not say "damn we gutted all the halflings on this countryside. let's up and leave and look for some more halflings, because it's fun to do so" and not just have a unified purpose of gutting halflings? It's not farfetched in the slightest. If you're going to talk about how it's impossible because they'll just end up backstabbing and bullying each other, how do you fucking think human society works?
            You give an evil race a unifying purpose (killing/tormenting X race and raiding their stuff, defiling Y goodly deity's altars, etc) and they can work together to achieve that goal with the society-standard level of inter-evil fuckery. A small tribe of orcs doesn't go straight to a kingdom, they pick fights they can win. Thorpes, caravan raids, etcetera. They gather fame/power/more dudes and pick bigger fights until they get too big for their britches and get put down by the good guys, or they spiral out of control and turn into a horde of destructive assholes. At that point it works out like any other kind of evil society. The strong put the weak in a position where they can't survive unless they do what the strong say, and manage insurrections by forming an inner circle and beating the shit out of the weak until they stop misbehaving.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >In what universe can a small orc tribe not say "damn we gutted all the halflings on this countryside. let's up and leave and look for some more halflings, because it's fun to do so"

              Any with a lick of common sense? An orc tribe that's going around with the express goal of wiping out entire groups of people, with no desire to anything BUT that, is going to be targeted and wiped out by others. Meaning any orc tribe that ACTUALLY EXISTS is going to be the one that's, through natural selection, smart enough to not just go around killing people, but instead spends the majority of its time not being a problem for others so that it's not targeted and overwhelmed by all of its neighbors.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A world with roving bands of murderorcs is not going to be as developed as a world you're used to. You're assuming everywhere has tons of neighbors.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not to mention that assumes that everyone gets along perfectly with each other and will behave reasonably to take care of the murderorcs. If King Goodicus Goodhart rallies his army to vanquish the orcs, King Betrayus Treacherati might use his vulnerability to start grabbing Goodhart's land and slaughtering his depleted defense force.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A world with roving bands of murderorcs is not going to be as developed as a world you're used to

                I'm not thinking of the world I'm used to, I thinking of a world like Greyhawk or Blackmoor or Mystara or the Forgotten Realms.

                >You're assuming everywhere has tons of neighbors.

                I'm assuming that anywhere where a band of murderorcs can find a sufficient number of victims to satiate themselves likewise has a sufficient number of neighbors to kill off the orcs, yes, even if only in the form of a band of intrepid adventures with unclear goals and good intentions.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Again as a matter of comparison, what would happen to an openly Muslim person in 1500 Spain?
    You mean the religion that had literally conquered part of the Iberian peninsula? A part which then fell apart largely due to the differing religious and ethnic groups fighting for power, enabling the Spanish to retake that land?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You mean the religion that had literally conquered part of the Iberian peninsula?

      In 718 AD, eight hundered years prior to the destruction of Granada in 1492, and Hell even five hundred years before the fall of Cordoba. Nobody alive remembered a purely Christian peninsula; Hell, nobody's great-great-grandparents did when they were alive. And it's not like the Visigothic Christians were the native people of the region, either, they were invaders and conquerors themselves, so they have no moral standing to object to being invaded and conquered by others.

      Further, Christians in al-Andalus were officially classified as dhimmis - protected people, allowed to practice their religion freely, with both Churches and the organization left intact. The Caliphate insisted on approval of bishops before allowing them to take office, but their sole goal there was purely political (no firebrand bishops who would try to stir uprisings), not religious, i.e., they didn't force bishops to start talking about Mohammed or anything like that. Christians under Muslim rule were even allowed to assume high offices - Abu Umar ibn Gundislavus was the vizier to Abd al-Rahman III.

      Now compare how a Muslim living in Christian-controlled land had to daily fear for his life, especially once the Spanish Inquisition began.

      Yeah you're not making a strong case here, dude.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Oh boy, a tankie in the wild!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      NTA, but is it TRUE?
      If it is not, then please denote what parts are bs and offer some links to support your assertions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        His comparison between the USSRs treatment of its own native population in the late 20th centurty to Spain's treatment of an overthrown group of invaders in the 16th century is fallacious at best.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well we could also compare it to modern Iran if you like. Christianity as a religion has "calmed down" over the years, but it had its phase of extreme violence towards nonbelievers.

          All you're telling me, at worst, is that people are dicks to each other regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >power hungry people will use any ideology they can to lionize useful idiots into fulfilling their ambitions
            SAY IT AIN'T SO, CHIEF!
            Or do you honestly believe there is a magical set of ethics out there that will not be abused to impose one's will upon another? Do you believe you will come across a magical assemblage of words that won't be misconstrued and used for ill, either by malice or by ignorance?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Or do you honestly believe there is a magical set of ethics out there that will not be abused to impose one's will upon another?

              I do not, no, but then that was never the point being debated. The point was that back in the day it was possible to be religious without being an asshole about it, as evinced by Tolkien, a devout Catholic, being uncomfortable with making Orcs irredeemably evil and in fact deliberately avoided calling them that.

              We've been on a long strange tangent but that was, in fact, the original point, but the Anons gotta Anon and bring in Current Year Politics to it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The point was that back in the day it was possible to be religious without being an asshole about it
                No, the point being debated was that atheist bigots and scumbags are just as awful people as religious bigots and scumbags. Yet for some reason you keep trying to claim atheism is a bloodless ideology despite being responsible for the deaths of millions despite being relatively new in the grand scheme of things.
                >the Anons gotta Anon and bring in Current Year Politics to it.
                Pretty sure you did that when you tried to virtue signal your distaste of Tolkien's religion

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The point was that back in the day it was possible to be religious without being an asshole about it,
                The point he was trying to suggest was that today's Christians are much more likely to be assholes, which is absolutely untrue, in fact most are suicidally tolerant.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Do you believe you will come across a magical assemblage of words that won't be misconstrued and used for ill, either by malice or by ignorance?
              "Do no harm" comes to mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wait, are you dumbfucks comparing Catholicism with the different folks believes in the americas? Even at the most violent, the Spanish inquisition put to death 3000 people (and about half of that was in absentia because different motives), mostly protestants and crypto-garden gnomes, wich were the people they had power over, the inquisition was only for catholics than were apostates.
            Even the witch thing was swiftly put to rest thanks to the investigation of Alonso de Salazar, wich after the shitshow of zugaramundi (wich had the killing of six "witches") , the official statement of the church was than the witches didn't exist and were most times than not actually protected be the inquisition from neighboors than acused them of all kinds of stuff, and Spain has one of the lowest "witch burnings" of all the post-medieval times (because the vast majority of witch hunting was done post the medieval period and with the local courts, not the church ones btw).
            The vast majority of the killings were either in the wars or in raids with different peoples, but the conquest was so swift because the vast majority of people wanted the protection of the Spaniards (like the Zapotecs). Even rebels like the Pueblos had decades of "freedom" only to turn tail and beg to be in the empire because the comanches were raping them.
            Just the rites of the Tlalaloc of the Nahuas was yearly more bloody than the enitre inquisition was for 300 years, without counting stuff like the consecration of new temples and the like.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First, using alignaments is dumb.
    Second, having ever antagonistic is good,you can make them more or less defined and waste a lot of ink in justifiying them or not, but for games they are perfect.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the hobbit there were explicitly evil races. In fact He went and said that the essence of races could be good or evil. like the gobs had a nature that made them cruel as a point of course, while even though the wood elves were not as noble as their earstwhile kin, them being elves still made them essentially good.

    I dont see why this is even a problem, nature comes before nurture anyways. you are kinda begging the question saying that there shouldn't be something of the sort. Yah, you can make your gnolls good if you want, but you can also make them essentially motivated by badness, or make them motivated by something else.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Hobbit was also a children's tale meant for little children. Childrens' stories, especially older children's stories written before we realized that kids are smart and can handle more complex ideas, rarely have much moral complexity.

      The main way he was able to write The Lord of the Rings, however, was that Tolkien realized that the Hobbit was a story he had written for his children for when they were children; The Lord of the Rings, then, was going to be a story for his children now that they were adults. That's why it has far more moral complexity and while Tolkien spent a lot more time thinking about the meaning of good and evil in it and in other works more directly related to Lord of the Rings (the Silmarillion, natch).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thats great, but it still doesn't give any categorical rational why essentiality shouldn't be a thing. I actually like a lot of the aspects of the hobbit better than lotr. its pithy and effective in its project. I was using it as an example of essentialism.

        And it is actually has a good bit of moral complexity, but in regards to humans and dwarves and elves and hobbits. the goblins and spiders are essentially forces of nature and wickedness, but Thorin's greed, the lake-peoples indignation, and the wood elves grudge is actually quite compelling. they each feel they are in the right, and thats where the moral quandaries come into play. with people who appreciate aspects of good in commonality, and others beings who do not have this quality.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The lord of the rings is a lot of things but "morally complex" is absolutely not one of them. Additionally, Tolkien waffling over the intrinsic evil of orcs happened well after those books were published, as is obvious by the fact that every single orc and goblin in LOTR are unambiguously and unsalvagably evil literally from the day they were born.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >OP: No games ever played, just making random bait thread about a total non-issue

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >just like all the other ones
    Gnolls are droppings of some archfiend and even they aren't under the always evil grouping I think

    a lot of other things are animistic outcroppings of elemental evil in the literal sense, not the Tharizdun sense

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Gnoll attracting prey with his flute
    Don't for for this shit, anon.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm mixed on truly "evil" races.
    Some are obvious like devils and demons which usually originate from evil mortal souls in the first place explaining their nature.
    For non-outsiders, I think there are races which just function with such a foreign mindset than us that they can't fathom our concept of morality. Ant culture would be a good example of this. To ants, infants are a commodity rather than an individual, being used as not only a source of population but as a currency and a food source. To them, eating or enslaving a human baby they capture is just what you do when you win. They expect the same of you. Aberrant races like mindflayers, beholders, and things like that are poster children for this form of evil race archetype.
    However, if a race is too humanlike like which is often the case with things like orcs and goblins, it can feel unnerving to kill indiscriminately what could plausibly be redeemed. You could just play it off as them being a barbarian culture in the area of the setting and thus the protagonists are the defender in the situation of the attacking raiders. You don't question the morality of killing human raiders so why would you question it for orc ones, you know?

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >quotes tolkien
    >somehow manages to gloss over the mass amount of innately evil creatures in middle earth as a setting.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *