"evil races" are whatever. it's reasonable that intelligent species with different biology and social norms, often created by completely different gods, would have moral inclinations we find repugnant.

what D&D really should do away with is the concept of "evil" altogether. 1/n https://twitter.com/pcgamer/status/1275584431269478402

in various settings (greyhawk, FR, nentir vale), orcs worship a one eyed creator god named gruumsh, whose portfolio is chaos and destruction. seems to me, from their point of view, those are probably good things, and the "civilized" species are engaged in evil by opposing it. 2/n

consider mind flayers, who reproduce by kidnapping a sentient individual and implanting a larva in its brain: the larva consumes the brain and replaces it, and the body metamorphoses into a mind flayer (with some of the host's memories and personality). 3/n

is that "evil"? to the mind flayer, it's natural and obligatory. ichneumon wasps reproduce in a similar way, infesting a host with their eggs: the eggs hatch and slowly devour the host. is the mind flayer any more "evil" for wanting to reproduce in the only way it can? 4/n

even the mind flayers themselves are victimized. mind flayers are canonically led by "elder brains", which are giant, immobile psychic entities. the final stage in a mind flayer's life cycle is to donate its own brain to an elder brain, which consumes and incorporates it. 5/n

mind flayers believe that their consciousness and personality will merge with the whole of the elder brain, but in truth, only the mind flayer's memories are retained: consciousness and personality are completely destroyed. this is a closely kept secret among elder brains. 6/n

it's very natural for "good" and "evil" to be fuzzy things in the D&D universe, but the intellectual heritage of D&D has done the exact opposite, making "good" and "evil" into literal tangible forces. 7/n

there are evil gods, evil artifacts, entire evil planes of existence (like the nine hells and the abyss). paladins do not detect "deception" or "murderous intent" or "lack of virtue": they detect "evil" and (in earlier editions) lose their powers if they do anything "evil". 8/n

how unimaginative and restrictive this has all been, and how much it's doubtless hamstrung the ability of DMs and players alike to grapple with the really intriguing philosophical and moral questions that ought to exist in a fantasy world! 9/n

D&D has a troubled past, owing to its reliance on fantasy tropes that have often had racist origins. it's also gotten somewhat better over time, e.g., by taking pains to be more inclusive of women, LGBT players, and players of color. 10/n

i've written about this before: https://twitter.com/koaleszenz/status/1254518158813212673 11/n

getting rid of "evil" races is not the worst idea. there is the risk of falling into a different trap (e.g., rewriting "evil" races to be some variety of "noble savage", which is problematic in its own right), and i have no idea how they'll make mind flayers not seem "evil". 12/n

but the courageous and fun thing to do would be to just get rid of "evil" as a concept altogether. rather than impose a particular (and lazy) moral ontology, let DMs and players decide what the fantasy moral universe looks like and how their characters see it!

n/n

wizards' post itself is good. it's clear they take very seriously the burden of improving their hobby. i don't mean any of this to imply that i think it's bad to rethink problematic elements of D&D. i just think they should be more ambitious! (n+1)/n https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd