PDA

View Full Version : For those who favor the alignment system...



rubycona
2009-01-18, 02:56 PM
I have a question, for those who favor the alignment system. Overall, I think it can be a great tool, but there's a problem I'm having a hard time getting around.

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

It just seems so black and white. They're evil, thus they should die. That hardly seems "good" to me.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

Oh, and don't bother taking this thread as a means to bash the alignment system. I'm fully aware of those arguments, but rather than revamping the entire game, I'd rather find a middle ground, if possible. Fortunately, my players are very cooperative, so I have plenty of leeway.

Thanks for your help! :D

Assassin89
2009-01-18, 02:59 PM
A few words...

Look at Eberron. Alignments are a little more loose in that setting.

TheStranger
2009-01-18, 03:02 PM
Before this thread gets out of control, let me chime in with the following advice:

There are many views on the alignment system, and many threads have failed to find a consensus and degenerated into flamewars. There really isn't a clear answer on questions like this. Therefore, if you feel like this is going to be a problem, the best thing to do is sit down with your group and reach an acceptable definition of Good and Evil that you can all live with. Then, you can either ignore the raging internet debate or fan the flames, as you prefer.

Now, allow me to do the latter:

Genocide, even of a mostly evil race, is Evil, IMO.

arguskos
2009-01-18, 03:03 PM
Honestly, I tend to default everyone to a base neutral alignment. Perhaps mentally, they're conniving little bastards who would shank you soon as give you the time of day, but if they never do, then I guess they're not really evil.

It's my general belief that the deeds make the man. If they never ACT evil, then they just aren't, and frankly, I think this makes more sense than a blanket "ur evil lol" statement about race X, Y, or Z.

Just run with this idea, and I think it might help out some.

EDIT: Also, TheStranger's advice is good. I'd do that too. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:04 PM
depends on your sourcebook.

Apart from possibly newly-born eriynes fiends, and chromatic dragon wyrmlings, there is a very strong correlation between acts and alignment in the D&D system.

And anything short of Always Evil (kobolds are Usually LE) gets a certain amount of benefit of the doubt.

Races of the Dragon tells us there is a lot more to kobold than just being an adversary. For one thing, they trade, through intermediaries, with many peoples- the kobold trade in metals is massive.

For another, the Lawfulness in their LE alignment manifests in being extremely selfless and loyal "to serve the tribe" is the kobold credo. I suspect most common alignment after LE (remember its not likely to be much more than 50% LE) is LN.

Book Of Exalted Deeds is one of the strongest sources for: "No its not ok to just slaughter the village of evil creatures" and "even if its to prevent more raids, its not ok to kill non-combatants, like kobold children"

Not everyone likes BoED- it has its own flaws, but it makes a good source to cite to support the position you want.

sonofzeal
2009-01-18, 03:10 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.


Well, let's see.....


Kobold
Kobold, 1st-Level Warrior
Size/Type: Small Humanoid (Reptilian)
Hit Dice: 1d8 (4 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +1 natural, +2 leather), touch 12, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/-4
Attack: Spear +1 melee (1d6-1/×3) or sling +3 ranged (1d3-1)
Full Attack: Spear +1 melee (1d6-1/×3) or sling +3 ranged (1d3-1)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., light sensitivity
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +1, Will -1
Abilities: Str 9, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8
Skills: Craft (trapmaking) +2, Hide +6, Listen +2, Move Silently +2, Profession (miner) +2, Search +2, Spot +2
Feats: Alertness
Environment: Temperate forests
Organization: Gang (4-9), band (10-100 plus 100% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults and 1 leader of 4th-6th level), warband (10-24 plus 2-4 dire weasels), tribe (40-400 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 5-8 dire weasels)
Challenge Rating: ¼
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually lawful evil
Advancement: By character class
Level Adjustment: +0

Nope, a decent number of any kobold tribe are going to be neutral or even good. Killing neutral or good things, especially ones that have never harmed you and pose no serious threat to you, is an EVIL ACT. Hence, genociding an entire tribe is going to involve at least a few evil acts, regardless of philosophical arguments about the greater good.

But yeah, we're firmly in "the ends justify the means" territory, which is definitely non-good. Neutral maybe, but non-good.

Nightson
2009-01-18, 03:14 PM
One of the nice things about 4th edition is that alignment feels a lot more like an optional roleplaying resource and not a vague but totally integral part of the laws of the universe.

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:16 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 lists the most common traits of a LE society. they seemed awfully like a lot of typical medieval societies.

So yes, its quite easy to be LE without being a Complete Monster.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-18, 03:16 PM
I have a question, for those who favor the alignment system. Overall, I think it can be a great tool, but there's a problem I'm having a hard time getting around.

Ooooh, pick me! OK, I'm not the biggest fan of the system, but it's decent and I don't want to bother weeding all of its nuances out of 3.5. We are talking about 3.5, right? Also, disclaimer: The alignment system is open to interpretation, and so a lot of what I will present is how I would personally handle the problem. For example, you'll get a lot of debate over what is actually evil (Check out the Stupid Evil thread if you are quite interested), and I'll be working on my assumptions for the most part, though I'll try to state and clarify them where necessary.


In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.

I don't think this is the case. Even with monsters, it is "Usually [x] alignment." Your actions, along with your intents, motives, and the consequences of your actions, affect your alignment. People can even shift alignment if they undergo serious changes in how they behave, think, or both.


IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

OK, first of all, I'm going to go with what I said above in answering this: That alignment indeed reflects things about a character and is not just a label "regardless of action."

"Monsterous", "evil" races are a very notable challenge in D&D. If kobolds do, like you say, merely work together in their own communities, what makes them evil. There are a few ways to deal with this...

The way which I believe is in older, kick-in-the-door sorts of D&D is: They just are, because their existence is directly unhelpful to their fairer races. Woe is us, for the evil kobolds are mining in /our/ rightful gold mines! Us humans and elves are, of course, good, so anyone who opposes our goals must be evil. As you can tell, I find this explanation rubbish. One good counter would be that good and evil are cosmic forces in D&D, very forces of the universe, so one mortal race disliking another should not determine such founding multiverse forces.

The way I look at it is more as follows: Kobolds are LE. They work together well, they follow their laws and traditions meticulously, and they have a sense of community. However, killing off the weak is acceptable to them, as is assassinating rivals to get important positions. They will use others to their own benefit, treat others with cruelty, and do nothing for the common good that is not prescribed by law or custom. By others here, I refer both to those within and outside of their own community. In other words, alignment is a starting point to extrapolate some trends in culture, when the MM fails to properly elaborate.


And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?

In my world, I view this as morally fuzzy. At best, this is neutral; at worst, it is evil. If the kobolds are building a war machine to attack the baron's castle or stealing and eating up all the crops of the human peasants, killing them is probably somewhere between good and neutral. "Hey, let's slaughter the kobold village to take their stuff; they are evil so it is all good!" would be evil. This still works with my assumption that evil has a variety of degrees, from slightly over the line from neutral to abysmally horrific. Since some evil (such as your average kobold miner) isn't all /that/ awful, it does not justify killing the creature merely on the basis of his alignment.


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

If this batch of kobolds looks like it was probably just chillin', not harming the town, and not performing any serious despicable acts (baby killing or such), that was not a good act and I frankly might even pin it on my players as being over the line into evil (though then again, I do not change my players' alignments because of occasional evil [or good] acts).


But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

It just seems so black and white. They're evil, thus they should die. That hardly seems "good" to me.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

Yes! As I described above. :smallbiggrin: I can link you to more posts where I outline a fuzzier, more encompassing view of the alignment system: Essentially, evil comes in shades and alignment is not black or white with all the shades of gray being in the middle at neutral.


Oh, and don't bother taking this thread as a means to bash the alignment system. I'm fully aware of those arguments, but rather than revamping the entire game, I'd rather find a middle ground, if possible. Fortunately, my players are very cooperative, so I have plenty of leeway.

Thanks for your help! :D

Just let me know if you need any more help (assuming my approach sounds like what you are looking for)!

I bet I am going to get ninja'd....

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:21 PM
doesn't look like it :smallbiggrin:

While you're a bit more generous than me (I'd put it, based on BoED, as definitely evil act to slaughter kobold civilians, though one evil act might not change an alignment. Lots of them would though) the general trend of what you're saying fits with what I've read in the sourcebooks.

Your point on how the borders are a little fuzzy, and Evil can be just over border from Neutral, is pretty much how some of the sourcebooks already put it. D&D has moved on. Or rather, in the many expansions to the core 3 books, it has.

Champions of Ruin is another good example of a sourcebook that looks at evil and shows just how varied it can be.

afroakuma
2009-01-18, 03:24 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.

Flatly wrong.


IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

Here's my question: is the kobold LE? Is he a rules lawyer who complains when things don't benefit him, exploits others for personal gain and takes a bit too much joy in either selfish reward or the suffering of others?


And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians?

Do corrupt politicians, the Enron execs and the jerk colleague who got you stuck with the backshift so that he could make time with your girl deserve to be slaugtered?


To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds?

Their children? Do they deserve to die?


Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?

Yeah, some politicians and power-mad corporate executives go against the grain, but... etc.


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town.

Bears are known to be violent and problematic, but very few bears make it to downtown New York. Just in case, though...


They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

Good call.


But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

Actually, genociding one of demons or devils would be (in 3.X cosmology) a very very bad thing to do.


Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

It is non-absolute and subjective.

arguskos
2009-01-18, 03:27 PM
Actually, genociding one of demons or devils would be (in 3.X cosmology) a very very bad thing to do.
But, it would be HILARIOUS... for all of ten seconds, before the other side wipes out the universe. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:28 PM
Well, sort of subjective in some areas. Given that Murder, and a few other acts, are called out in Fiendish Codex 2 as "Corrupt acts" which are pretty definite evil, some areas are more absolute than others.

Problem is definitions.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-18, 03:37 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.
Nothing is Evil just because the monster's alignment entry in the MM reads "Evil." The assumption is that the monster does Evil things, and that's what makes it Evil. So no, if a bunch of kobolds just hang around their lair and take care of each other they are not Evil, even if they would do Evil if given the opportunity. Good and Evil both require action, in addition to intent.


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.
I'd be prone to say that you're right: annihilating a bunch of kobold non-combatants is probably Evil. I use the word "probably" because it depends on how you handle kobolds in your world. If kobolds can be non-Evil under the right circumstances (by being shown a better way of life by a group of adventurers, for example), then a group of Good PCs should probably at the very least leave them be. It's a gray area though. Especially if the PCs don't know if the kobold warriors were Evil because they were taught to be Evil, or if they were born that way. If kobolds are simply born Evil, much like demons/devils, then the PCs would be justified in annihilating them all.


Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?
3e assumes that alignment is objective and absolute, but you can make it as subjective and non-absolute as you want. That's one of the few perks of being DM; you run the game how you want it to be.

TS

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:41 PM
LE societies, according to Fiendish Codex 2, make sure their offspring move toward LE by treating them to horrible initiation ceremonies and upbringing, and arranging it so the older children have to mistreat the younger.

So yes, kobolds could be LE by being cruel to each other, or having cruel punishments for transgressing kobolds, without ever interfering with outside world.

afroakuma
2009-01-18, 03:41 PM
But, it would be HILARIOUS... for all of ten seconds, before the other side wipes out the universe. :smallbiggrin:

Well, there would be a very amusing war first.

arguskos
2009-01-18, 03:44 PM
Well, there would be a very amusing war first.
Bah, we all know that everyone vs. demons wouldn't even be vaguely fair. I mean, celestials don't have to man up every day and wage an unceasing war on their hated foes, since the demons and devils are doing that FOR them.

Though, a campaign about someone who manages to genocide the devils would be some flavor of awesome: defending plane after plane against the endless demonic hordes, and finally find some way to reverse the genocide and put things right again. Damn, this sounds fun. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:44 PM
Going by Fiendish Codex 2, they would team up if one side was in danger of destruction (Asmodeus has a Cunning Plan to broker a short truce with the demons at some point in the future)

In practice though, given how much "bigger" the Abyss is: more layers, wider layers, giving the Demons a real problem is much harder than giving the Devils one.

arguskos
2009-01-18, 03:48 PM
Going by Fiendish Codex 2, they would team up if one side was in danger of destruction (Asmodeus has a Cunning Plan to broker a short truce with the demons at some point in the future)

In practice though, given how much "bigger" the Abyss is: more layers, wider layers, giving the Demons a real problem is much harder than giving the Devils one.
And by "much harder" you mean impossible. There are infinite demons. There are a finite number of devils, since their creation takes FAR longer and is much more involved (using my knowledge of the Fiendish Codices here). Designing a genophage for devils would be much easier than making one for demons, since no genophage could spread fast enough and still be 100% lethal to wipe out demonkind.

Also, this is rapidly becoming a threadjack. I should, you know, stop it. Sorry rubycona. :smallredface:

afroakuma
2009-01-18, 03:50 PM
Ah, but you see, demons have been put down once before: the obyriths are drastically reduced in number.

The real problem is that a genophage for demons would probably supplant them as worse.

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:55 PM
On the subject of Kobolds, in my 2nd ed D&D books, the beginner adventure had them as the sort of thing that helps you if you bribe them, more than the sort of thing you absolutely have to kill on sight.

The Book Of Lairs, a collection of adventures, had a stampede of animal-intelligence, predatory monsters, and the kobolds presence, while alarming the village a bit, also meant you had a potential ally to protect the village.

In general, kobolds tended toward being not a serious threat, and quite helpful if heroes handled them correctly.

arguskos
2009-01-18, 03:56 PM
Ah, but you see, demons have been put down once before: the obyriths are drastically reduced in number.

The real problem is that a genophage for demons would probably supplant them as worse.
Notably, the obyriths were replaced by other demons. In fact, demonkind as a whole was made better by the obyriths getting curbstomped.

Oh, and yeah, probably. Damn you Chaos!

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 03:58 PM
Shall we create a thread- The Blood war and implications of powerful adventurers interfering?

rubycona
2009-01-18, 04:04 PM
Hehe, have fun with the demon thing if you want XD I'm glad to be amusing :P

Thanks everyone for your answers and insights.

How I'm hoping to address this is, the alignment yields a genetic predisposition towards that alignment. IE, if you're descended from a black dragon, but you were raised in a good family, you could end up fighting your genetic inclination towards slaughter and mayhem, and may even take up a paladin class in your ongoing battle against instinct. Something like that.

I dunno. I guess I'll take that first suggestion and talk it over with my players. Tell em basically I want the alignment to be subjective, so that gray morality exists, meaning wholesale slaughter is a no-no.

And for that matter, I won't have dragons "always" X alignment either... merely a very powerful genetic predisposition that is very rarely changed.

Mando Knight
2009-01-18, 04:07 PM
Here's my question: is the kobold LE? Is he a rules lawyer who complains when things don't benefit him, exploits others for personal gain and takes a bit too much joy in either selfish reward or the suffering of others?

Is he a devout worshiper of She Who Must Have All The Shiny and her minions, the Flying Lizards Of Shiny-Taking And Village Burning?

PinkysBrain
2009-01-18, 04:09 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil?
They will take pleasure in tormenting those below them in the hierarchy. Just because they are all evil doesn't mean they are nice to each other. Evil is as evil does, living in an evil community is not puppy dogs and sunshine.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians?
No, unprovoked violence is evil.

To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?
Rationalization has no role in D&D morality, just because you can rationalize it doesn't make it any less evil.

hamishspence
2009-01-18, 04:10 PM
Faerun seems to handle "always evil" is "incredibly powerful predisposition, almost never changed. Dragon Magazine cited at least one non-evil chromatic dragon (a green one, lives in Moonshaes, allied with elves)

and thats a pretty fair summary of the way Races of the Dragon handles Half-dragons and Draconic Creatures.

Same could apply to the "always evil" but without Evil subtype half-fiends.

Especially since Cambions (5/8 fiend) in Expedition To The Demonweb Pits are 10% Not Evil, despite having Evil subtype.

is it subjective if rule is "murder is Always evil" + "murder of Evil creatures is still murder" + "murder is defined roughly the way most Western law defines it"?

Jarawara
2009-01-18, 05:18 PM
Warning: Overly long post, and sounding kinda rantish. I didn't mean it to sound that way, sorry 'bout that.

*~*~*

There are some important facts that have to be clearly stated here.

#1: Killing non-combatants, women and children, farmers and miners... is evil.

#2: Destroying eggs and hatchlings, so that they may never grow up to be potential threats... is evil.

#3: Rationalizing it all away based on a black-white view of 'racial alignments'... is evil.

#4: And therefore, the players who do these henious acts, and who justify these henious acts, or who sit idly by as they henious acts are being committed....

....are players. Nothing more.


You see, the problem with trying to discuss, clarify, (and codify into rule), a code of action for your players to follow, is that the players came to *play*, not to study the intricate details of foreign cultures. Trying to enforce a set of beliefs on how to behave when dealing with an imaginary tribe of little demonic-looking dog-people is contrary to what the players came to your house to do. They weren't interested in social studies; they aren't looking for an educational examination of the nature of good and evil; they aren't looking to 'behave'. They wanna play, and they chose characters who have the power and the might to lay waste to entire hordes of enemies. So give them those enemies. If you give them women and children and pre-hatched eggs, they will look at their list of skills and powers and see "fireball" and come to the next logical conclusion.

And they won't be evil for it. *Maybe* their characters would be, but perhaps it was your assumption that "Good" is a tangible and fully attainable goal, something they were committed to above all else. Your players probably saw "Good" as being simply a statement of who's side they are on. Humans, or the 'others'. Kobolds sure look like 'other' to them, and so logically the good thing to do is to eliminate the threat, now and forever.

That isn't the definition of 'good'... but it's probably the definition of the alignment they consciously chose at the beginning of the campaign.


Now if you've got a pure representation of "Good" in the party, like say, a Paladin, then perhaps you've got a problem here. This is exactly why I won't let a new player to my group to play a Paladin for his first character. I want him to get some real-life experience in my gameworld, and let me get a better view of him or her as a player too, before trying to tackle moral dilemmas and shady alignment issues with his Paladinhood on the line.

I even have a major religion in my world that helps define the issue clearly to my players. Two gods, father and son - the father is the god of Paladins, and he has taken the belief of good and fairness to its illogical conclusion, to the point that a Paladin in my world would be duty-bound to defend that poor defenseless tribe of Kobolds against the aggressive and evil actions of the players. But the son got tired of following Dad's whacky messed up moral code, and simplified it for his followers. Defend your people against all threats. Defeat your enemies so they may not defeat you. And why wait till the threat is upon your doorstep? Take the fight to the source of the threat and destroy it before it can destroy you.

Both religions are considered "good", but while the Paladin would have to defend the Kobolds against aggressors, the Knights of the Son would have no problem coming to the Kobold tribe and wiping them out, warrior, women, and egg alike. It protects future generations of humans, and protecting humans is good, right?

Now obviously, both religions are characatures, both wrong in their own extremes, but guess which religion is far more popular? Even when I give the players the option of which religion to take, (and even when I don't emphasize the logical extremes that can come up in Paladinism), the players still choose the Son over the Father - because they want to take the fight to the enemy and destroy them, in the name of all that is right and good.

(And after slaying all the Kobolds, taking their stuff is also good! :smallbiggrin:)


I suspect your players chose the Son over the Father too. No need to beat them over the head on what is right and wrong. Let them play their religion, and remember not to give them a Holy Avenger or anything requiring "Purity and Utter Goodness" to use. I hear Wands of Fireball is a fitting gift for less than pure PC's... it makes cooking up a Kobold Egg Ommlette real easy. :smallwink:

*~*~*

By they way, since I already had an overlong post, I might as well add to it...

If you're looking for another example of the problems of following and enforcing the true Paladinic code, I think I see an example of it in your own story. You said "They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that..."

Ummm... why? I mean, "If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony", then clearly the warriors are doing the same, just defending the Kobold tribe so that its members can continue to exist and benefit each other. In fact, those warriors really do sound like any other human settlement, and they chose their side (in this case, 'Kobold' vs 'other'). In fact, they might even be more like Paladins, in that they are committed to defending their tribe, but do not seem to take aggressive action on neighboring tribes or the human settlements. They weren't attempting to eliminate the 'human threat' before it could materialize, (even though apparently they should have!)

And what did the PC's do? They broke into their homes, killed the defenders, then massacred the unarmed. Just like PC's always do. These Kobolds would have been better to follow the Son instead of the Father, they might have been able to avoid this sad end.

So unless you're going to try to show how the players were wrong to kill Kobold warriors, how against the code it is to go into dungeons and slay things for their stuff... then I suggest you accept them as followers of the more practical Son, and just let them play.

*~*~*

In the novel series DUNE, Emperor Paul Atredies was petitioned by rival factions, both looking for his blessing and assistance, but assisting either would mean destroying the other. He was troubled by that, and turned to his right hand, Stilgar, for advice.

"Which should I chose?", he asked his friend. "If I chose either, I destroy the other. If I chose neither, both suffer from inaction. Which deserves to win, and which deserves to die?"

Stilgar, a practical man born of the harsh sands of Arrakis, answered:

"It is simple: Save your friends, and destroy your enemies."


And that, simply stated, is a good-enough definition of 'good'.

*~*~*

PS: Congrats on your new D&D game. First time DMing?

Shalizar
2009-01-18, 05:36 PM
Alright, first of all, I didnt read the entire thread, because i dont feel like it. Now first of all, it is evil if the group is acting evil, such as if they are planning to destroy that village close by. Second of all, it also depends on the character. If there is a Paladin who feels it is his or her duity to destroy any form of evil in the world, then it wouldnt be evil, but if someone does just so then they can destroy the kobold village, then yes it is evil. In the end it is all up to you. I have runned into a simular problem. A character was took a Lizard Folk captive, and they were planning on selling it into slavery, I belive that to be Chaotic Evil, but all the players argued that it was just the character playing their alignment, Chaotic Neutural. In the end they killed the Lizard Folk when they couldnt sell it into slavery, thus i think i should have stood by my dicision. In the end it depends on the character and the DM's view.

AslanCross
2009-01-18, 05:44 PM
And for that matter, I won't have dragons "always" X alignment either... merely a very powerful genetic predisposition that is very rarely changed.

Take a look at Eberron. The dragons can be of any alignment, and are just as likely to team up with each other across chromatic/metallic lines. In general, though, they're too busy contemplating the Draconic prophecy to raid pastoral towns for livestock and virgins.

Cleric alignments aren't tied to their deities' alignments either. The Silver Flame (LG), for example, has a LG "pope" and an LE "High Cardinal."

Humanoids only tend to have the alignment of the society they're brought up in, but find it just as easy to break out of the mold. Goblinoids once had a vast LE empire, but when that was crushed in a battle against the Daelkyr invasion, their scattered remnants end up in any alignment. They do have a new LE nation that was founded recently, but they're not even "usually evil."

Also, hippie orcs beat the evil Daelkyr.

I think the only creatures in Eberron that have "always" alignments are outsiders, who are all busy battling each other endlessly on the plane of Shavarath.

MickJay
2009-01-18, 05:52 PM
I recall a text, from WotC site if I'm not wrong [ed. I recalled that wrong as Yahzi noticed ;) ], on what's acceptable and not in D&D world. It went along the lines that it's basically accepted as more or less OK by all sentient, social races to raid villages/settlements, rob them and burn down and, unavoidably, kill some inhabitants in the process. Orcs do it, humans do it, dwarves do it, kobolds do it, hobgoblins do it, etc. It's just something that happens, and if in particular case you're on the "wrong" side, it's okay to seek revenge, organize some other folk and make a raid yourself.

What's totally unacceptable is wiping out the other race's settlement and murdering everyone. If something like that happened, the perpetrators would be seen as utterly mad and needed to be dispatched in a similar manner. It was suggested that all the other races in the area could make a temporary alliance and similarly wipe out the settlement that initiated the first massacre, to prevent something similar from happening in the future. For that, even traditional enemies who would be otherwise fighting from time to time would set their differences aside (eg. dwarves, kobolds and hobgoblins against humans).

So if your players insist on murdering everyone in that kobold village, maybe let them know some time later that because of their actions the town they were supposed to help was burned to the ground and its inhabitants were massacred by some unlikely alliance of nearby tribes.

Just a thought. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2009-01-18, 07:00 PM
I recall a text, from WotC site if I'm not wrong
You are quite wrong. That's from Frank & K, who are as far from WotC as it is possible to be and still remain on the same planet.:smallbiggrin:

I agree with the unspoken theme of this thread: namely, that justifying the slaughter of kobold babies requires something more than "they have evil thoughts!" In my world, they are active agents of Evil, merely by existing. They serve the purposes of the Dark Gods and give them power through their worship. Thus, killing them is on the same level as killing civilians in WWII to stop weapon production - with the difference being that some of the civilians in WWII could be convinced to change sides, but kobolds cannot be Good no matter how hard they try. Even if they wanted to. Which they don't.

MickJay
2009-01-18, 08:52 PM
Somehow I find the idea I mentioned more interesting, players have to consider consequences of their actions more...

Killing of civilians because they're making weapons goes beyond what's commonly acceptable, even during total war (at least the kind of war the WWII was); and even in such sensitive industry as populace of conquered territories was used eventually, and it was easily replaced, so there was little point in killing the workers. Killing of civilians that farm the land (because they feed the army), that work in transport (they supply the army) would be acceptable by that logic. Eventually killing of children would be acceptable, since they'd grow up to be soldiers, farmers etc. I won't go into detail, since it's still quite sensitive topic, but the few events when only civilians and civilian infrastructure were targeted are regarded as shameful and were made possible only by the high degree of desensitization, desperation or demand for revenge. Military infrastructure, on the other hand, was the main target, and civilian casualties were accepted by the attackers as a necessary evil.

I find your reasoning for killing kobolds more acceptable than the "killing of civilians example", since from your game's perspective it's that, or evil gods grow in power. I imagine mindless slaughter of each and every kobold has certain bloody appeal :smalltongue:

Morandir Nailo
2009-01-18, 10:45 PM
When it comes to monsters like kobolds and goblinoids, I take the view that they just spawn from the inherent chaos of the Underworld (http://www.philotomy.com/#dungeon) - i.e. that they are evil, only exist to do harm, and don't have babies. They don't lead "normal" lives like the common races; they come up from the shadowy abysses that spawned them and run amok until adventurers do something about it. They'll have a lair, obviously, but that lair will be filled with evil chaos beasts, not Goblin mommies. Thus alignment issues like this don't really show up in my game. It's nice.

Mor

Assassin89
2009-01-18, 10:55 PM
When it comes to monsters like kobolds and goblinoids, I take the view that they just spawn from the inherent chaos of the Underworld (http://www.philotomy.com/#dungeon) - i.e. that they are evil, only exist to do harm, and don't have babies. They don't lead "normal" lives like the common races; they come up from the shadowy abysses that spawned them and run amok until adventurers do something about it. They'll have a lair, obviously, but that lair will be filled with evil chaos beasts, not Goblin mommies. Thus alignment issues like this don't really show up in my game. It's nice.

Mor

The main problem that arises is when one of those creatures is in your party. In such a case, I bring the following scenario:
Throw an enemy of mine down a well :smallsmile:
Throw a friend of mine down a well :smallmad:
Throw me down a well :smallfurious:
What I am saying is that I judge characters by deeds rather than alignment.

In encounters, if the beings are hostile towards me, I will attack and attempt to kill them unless they retreat.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-18, 11:21 PM
Thus alignment issues like this don't really show up in my game. It's nice.

Well, I can understand why that would be appealing, though that flavor isn't the sort I'd enjoy in games. Each to their own, of course. As to respond to Assassin_89, if goblinoids and such are inherently evil spawn, the DM should make it clear that they are not viable PC options. :smallsmile:

Shosuro Ishii
2009-01-18, 11:30 PM
Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?



Sadly, it is really not plausible assuming that you don't overhaul the mechinical effects.

i.e. If a person casts protection from Evil, who's definition of evil do we use to determine who is kept at bay. If a paladin only has to believe that a person is evil, than he can smite pretty much anything. Yet, no one is going to willfully acknowledge that they are evil to be smitten by a paladin. If I cast detect evil, how does that work when every single person has a different view of what makes a person 'evil'. What happens if someone just rejects the idea of morality as a whole?

Objective alignment systems don't work in the logical sense. Subjective systems don't work in the mechanical sense.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-18, 11:35 PM
Objective alignment works just fine, there is after all an all powerful arbitrator present at every game to give a quite definite ruling on what is good and what is evil.

Shosuro Ishii
2009-01-18, 11:41 PM
Objective alignment works just fine, there is after all an all powerful arbitrator present at every game to give a quite definite ruling on what is good and what is evil.

You have to ignore the meta-conceit of the GM for an alignment discussion. The PCs are unaware of the GM's arbitration of morality, as is the rest of the universe, so (at least as far as I can see) an objective system of morality is just as unworkable in a fictional world as it is in our world.

Granted, 99% of players can ignore this with ease, some of us just get really annoyed at it.

Jayabalard
2009-01-18, 11:41 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.This is not correct, so it's not surprising that the conclusions that you draw based on this don't make a whole lot of sense.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-18, 11:47 PM
You have to ignore the meta-conceit of the GM for an alignment discussion. The PCs are unaware of the GM's arbitration of morality
Why would they have to be aware? I'm not aware of how the universe exactly works, or why it persists in kicking my ass. If the PCs really want to know they can get a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

Shosuro Ishii
2009-01-18, 11:53 PM
Why would they have to be aware? I'm not aware of how the universe exactly works, or why it persists in kicking my ass. If the PCs really want to know they can get a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

It's less about them being aware so much as about the general idea that there is a single all knowing being (GM in this case) who activly decides what is 'good', what is 'evil', and assigns mechanical real world effects based on these decisions to be ludicrious, from my PoV at least, no matter how you reach that end.

Some people have a much easier time making this leap, and they tend to much more favorable towards the alignment system.

shadowfox
2009-01-19, 12:07 AM
I hate the PHB descriptions of alignments. When I was new, it seemed like a best friend. Everything was clear-cut. And then my jadedness kicked in. I started thinking about things like this. I always wondered why, in a sense, there should never be an evil-aligned hero. That's when I started seeing a lot of gray that the PHB left out.

Yes, the game and its mechanics are simplified, but as a DM, I don't want alignments to be simplified. As a DM, I'd let Paladins work with evil characters, so long as the Paladin had a good reason to do it (that part might have come from me playing WK40k, as I was taught early on to shout the Tau's most recognizable phrase: For the Greater Good!). Actually, I have, but he kept trying to smite what he was told was an inanimate object (it was a metal steam-powered airship that was sentient; it took a lot of effort for him to be convinced that, coming from Baator, it had only absorbed the evil aura of its creators). That same Paladin also tried to kill a new convert of the "Mighty Mephistopheles," under the grounds that the new convert was technically evil (started worshiping an Archduke of Hell). Just because I didn't want him to become a Fallen Paladin in the second session, I explained to him that, yes, although the man is evil, he has not knowingly done anything to make him evil, and that it was as good as slaughtering an innocent. (I didn't penalize him for putting the sword blade up to the man's neck, though.)

Honestly, with the kobold example, I can sum up the same result on the entire Lawful axis:
(For argument's sake, there are three mercenaries: one LG, one LN, and one LE, and were just ordeedr by their superior to kill X a kobold that is helpless/innocent (very young, very old))
LG- Would refuse to follow through with the order. Although, yes, he does follow rules and laws, these kobolds have done nothing wrong, and, therefore, killing them would be as good as murdering a human, halfling, or elf.
LN- Would voice his opposition to such an order, but would carry it through with hesitation and, deep down inside (at the very least), some grief. It was for the greater good, so to speak.
LE- Would do it. He's a team player. They're kobolds. "I'm getting paid for it," he comments. "Plus, what's a little collateral damage? People won't miss the kobold raiding parties."

At least, that's how I would put it. Maybe even my example is simplified... I hope not...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 12:50 AM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

I've seen a bunch of people say you were wrong here, but nobody said why you were wrong. I will be citing the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) extensively, usually in spoilers.
To begin with, your alignment is how you interact with the world around you, not an end-result of your actions.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment

Let's say the Kobold living in the mine is LE. What does this mean?

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

To start with, he lives in a society where the rulers prize tradition and hierarchy, and one's position is of the utmost importance. This is how a LE society is organized.

Our Kobold Miner will spend his life working under the direction of his superiors and doing his best to take advantage of the laws he operates under. If he's smart, he will do his best to improve his position within the system so that he can live more comfortably; if he has to injure or kill someone to do so, so be it.

Remember, alignment is a state of mind not a course of action.

OK, now to your dilemma:

It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

Before we go to alignment analysis, I have a question: if the kobolds never threatened the town, then why did the PCs find and kill them in the first place? :smallconfused:

Now, onto alignment

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

This is the definition of Good as presented in the SRD. You are correct to say that genocide is not Good ex ante, since wanton killing violates the "respect for life" clause of the Good alignment. However, alignment is about how you approach the world, not actions; no action is ever absolutely Good or Evil - context matters.

If the Kobolds had been a plague on a town, repeatedly killing innocents and causing terrible harm, then it may be correct for the PCs to eradicate the colony. If the aggressor is stopped, then there will be no further loss of life, particularly innocent life.

Does this necessarily mean butchering every man, woman and child? No. A Good PC respects life, so he will look for the least murdersome way to accomplish his goal. By comparison a Neutral character will generally avoid killing, but won't try particularly hard to avoid it, while an Evil character will resort of violence first.

Killing all the warriors is not a very good way to accomplish this goal. A stable colony can re-train and re-arm its army if it is not prevented from doing so; if the PCs are just passing through, then who is to stop them from starting up their raids in a year or so? But, if you wreck their infrastructure (mines, forges, etc.) it is more likely that the kobolds will seek another place to live, or at least not attack the town again!

In this case, a Good character would likely go into the depths of the kobold warrens and start wrecking up the joint. He would kill any who opposed him, but he wouldn't chase down fleeing kobolds. If he cannot get into the warrens, he might use a Cloudkill effect to flush them out - but he would not seal the exits to ensure that they all died.

Finally, on the issue of "subjective alignment systems." These do not work, for the simple reason that everyone considers themselves "good" and those who oppose them "evil" or at least "neutral." It becomes meaningless to refer to yourself as "Lawful Good" if all that means is doing what you think is right, and following the laws (that you recognize as legitimate).

If you want to try to build a subjective alignment system, be my guest, but I imagine you'll either find it useless or impossible to make. Far better to adopt a personality-based system (like White Wolf's "Nature & Demeanor" system) and forget Good and Evil altogether.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:02 AM
=Finally, on the issue of "subjective alignment systems." These do not work, for the simple reason that everyone considers themselves "good" and those who oppose them "evil" or at least "neutral." It becomes meaningless to refer to yourself as "Lawful Good" if all that means is doing what you think is right, and following the laws (that you recognize as legitimate).

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree. When I, at least, say "subjective alignment system," I mean it is not clear cut, there are morally gray situations, and that people throughout the world define good/evil and what is acceptable or not rather differently. This, however, does not mean the system is entirely subjective; that would be entirely incompatible with the cosmoligcal forces of good and evil (which I assume to exist based on the Outer Planes and spells which deal damage based on alignment). You are right that an entirely subjective alignment system would be useless, and perhaps us using the term "subjective" isn't entirely appropriate, but I think a "slightly fuzzy" alignment system is a good approach: Not because there isn't a moral answer to everything, but in terms of determing for every act (or motive) what exactly is good or evil, and to what degree, is beyond the scope of moral understanding. Maybe not the way for everyone's campaign, but it is not incompatible with the RAW (as far as I know) and I find it a satisfying approach.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-19, 05:06 AM
I mean it is not clear cut, there are morally gray situations
Okay give one (on the good/evil axis, lets leave the lawful vs good situation from the paladin out of this for the moment).

Satyr
2009-01-19, 06:26 AM
The alignment system has three - rather extreme - shortcomings. The first one is the idea of objective morals. The second is the idea that whole societies - instead of individuals - can be categorized along these very general terms. And the third one is the idea that a person's morality is static and more or less only changes under stress or through major traumas. These asumptions are utterly and completely wrong.

The first folly is the more obvious one - when there is anything proven in dozens of alignment discussions and flame wars, than that morals are highly dependable on the involved party's point of view, cultural background and conventions. There is no such thing as a superordained, obective morals, only some points so general that everyone can agree on under the right circumstances - it is easy to come to an agreement about "Killing is wrong" in general. Taken out of the abstract and put in a direct context - is it wrong to kill the man who is going to rape your sister, to take a rather blunt example - the agreement is going to melt away.

The second wrong premise is the idea of a general, usual moral behavior which can be assumed to be usual among a certain group of people. This is even based on their ethnic background, which is an additional problem, but the relevant fact is: Even with an identical cultural background, the idea of a moral life differ widely among people. I am not talking about actual behaviour yoet, only about the perception and concept of a "good" behaviour. Morals are a result of many, many factors, from sociocultural upbringing to personality and current conventions. Due to this multitude of influences, a generalisation of them will always fall short. The most relevant or even only relevant object of discussion about morals is the indiviual, not without the social and societal environment, but not on a broadly generalised level.

The third problem is the assumption that people are static or even consequent in their regards of moral behaviour or practices; they aren't. I am not talking about "take away their food and security and see how the world's nicest family turns into the Lord of the Flies", I am talking about double standards (which everyone has), different moods, different behavior within and outside of close social contacts and so on.
People are so easy manipulable on a lower level, because in many non-essential questions, situational "moral" decisions are highly variable and often depending on almost arbitrary minimal influences.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-19, 06:42 AM
it is easy to come to an agreement about "Killing is wrong" in general.
Straw men ... no it isn't, killing isn't inherently wrong in D&D.

Satyr
2009-01-19, 07:01 AM
That is only an example for an easy to find moral compromise. I seriously don't want to argue if killing is wrong per se, within the D&D context or whatever. The important question is "is there a uniform agreement about te moral evaluation of killing other people?" If there were one, you could argue for some kind of an objective base fo moral decisions. As there is almost certainly none, you have basically two possibilities: Accept that this question is subjective and depends on the individual's perception; or claim that you are right and everyone who disagrees therefore must be wrong, using your own moral standards as a measure for everyone else's. The latter one is, generally speaking, less recommendable.

hamishspence
2009-01-19, 10:18 AM
Comment about alignment being the way you look at world, not result of your actions: if thats the case, why do Champions of Ruin, and Fiendish Codex 2, contradict this?

Champions of Ruin page 113 :
"certainly many of these acts are present in a standard campaign, and even good charcaters could be driven toward them from time to time. But the repeated, deliberate use of most of these is the hallmark of an evil character"

Fiendish Codex 2 page 14:
"one must actually commit evil deeds to suffer the torments of Baator, merely thinking bad thoughts does not incur damnation. Thus, lawful evil societies often employ coming-of-age rituals designed to force their young men and women to commit evil deeds to win full adult status. Young men, for example, are often placed in barracks and encouraged to beat and torment younger boys."

Talya
2009-01-19, 11:32 AM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. :D

Uh. No? Your actions dictate your alignment.

There are certain creatures which are "Always {alignment}." This is not just a description on entry...that means every single one of them will act in a way that measures up to {alignment.}

hamishspence
2009-01-19, 12:00 PM
Except when the DM chooses otherwise, still, the phrase in Savage Species was "Either unique or one in a million"

Satyr
2009-01-19, 12:17 PM
Comment about alignment being the way you look at world, not result of your actions: if thats the case, why do Champions of Ruin, and Fiendish Codex 2, contradict this?

Actions are the result of the intentions behind them, which are linked to the awareness of the person. Any deliberate action is linked with a causal chain to the actor's personality, world view and so on. Any division between action and perception of the world are artificial for the purpose of this debate.

You can not divide the actions someone does from the intentions behind them - if the actions are done unintentional, they prove nothing about the character behind them; everybody could have or cause an accident, and no one can be made responsible for the consequences of the accident - only for the circumstances that led to it.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 12:31 PM
Okay give one (on the good/evil axis, lets leave the lawful vs good situation from the paladin out of this for the moment).

A group of goblin raiders move near a village They begin stealing from the villagers' homes, eating their crops, and robbing travelers coming in and out of the village, leaving them on the road naked and beaten half-to-death. (This assumes a setting where goblins are usually but not inherently nor always evil.) I'm not going to argue that it is not good to kill the goblins. However, there are also several children amongst the goblins. They have not taken part in any of these attacks, though there is a very strong chance they would have after growing up. What is the morally correct thing to do with the children? What is the good option, the neutral option, and the evil option? Do you kill the children, leave them abandoned, try to find homes for them, or take them under your wing? I do not think there is any very clear cut answer for this.

Another example: You are captured by a villian. He gives you a choice: You can kill your fellow party members in a gladiator match for his entertainment, or he will burn down the local village. While several of us may think there is a clear answer, D&D alignment does not specifically state any value such as "Save as many lives as possible" or "No matter what, if you kill someone, their blood is on your hands." Different moral philosophers would have different answers to this question, and despite what we may think, from my reading of the alignment system as described in the SRD, it does not specify which principles are required for good or take precedence. Immanuel Kant (a very well-known moral philosopher) would argue that you should not kill your party members, as you would be responsible for their deaths but you are not responsible for the actions of the villain. Utilitarian philosophers would argue that you are given the choice between the lives of 3 people (your party members) and 30 people (the villagers), so clearly you should engage in the action which saves the most lives. If you can cite a core document which clears this up RAW, then fantastic. If not, then, at least RAW, there are moral situations which require some judgement on the part of the players and DM and do not have a clear, black or white morally correct solution by D&D alignment system RAW. If we say there is a clear solution, unless we can back it up by RAW or a very strict interpretation of it, we are then considering our moral views, not just good/evil in terms of the alignment system. (And things like murder, rape, and slavery are pretty clearly outlined in RAW by describing evil as not caring about human life or dignity.)

Canadian
2009-01-19, 01:07 PM
It is not wrong to kill an evil creature and to do so is a good deed even if the evil creature is a little baby evil creature.

Simply because a creature in not currently capable of carrying out an evil deed does not mean it is not evil. For example if you locked an evil monster in a jail cell it would be incapable of harming anyone or doing any evil deeds. This does not mean it is not evil. I just has no options for evil activity.

If the monsters in the underground community do not encounter anyone coming into their area and if they stay confined to their own area they do no cease to be evil. They simply have no outlet for their evil. They will go about their daily business until they have a chance to do what comes naturally to them. They are evil in waiting.

Let's look at this in terms that (hopefully) everyone can relate to.

Even if you're a virgin you have a very solid idea if you're into the opposite sex or not. It would be like saying if you've never had sex you're not gay or straight. Believe me I didn't need to have sex with a woman to know I'm straight! I've also met people who knew they were gay before they ever had sex with a man.

I've also met people who had sex forced on them by a member of the same sex. This does not make them gay. They are straight people who had gay sex forced upon them.

Sexual desire is what determines your personal sexuality - not a list of the sex acts you have or have not performed. If that was true a boy who was molested when he was nine years old would be labeled "gay" for life even if he grew up to like women.

Evil is not about what you do or what you have done but your desire to do it. All that is required to be evil is a constant desire to do evil deeds - even if you never get the chance to. Even if you have never done an evil deed you can still be an evil person.

Serial killers and child molesters could be classified as evil people. Locking them up and keeping them away from children does not mean they are no longer evil. They are just evil waiting to be released.

The fact that they have evil desires all the time is a reason why they're not allowed to live near schools. Parents fear them not because they're doing something evil ALL THE TIME. They fear them because they know they are thinking evil thought and being tempted by evil all the time. They just need to act on it once to hurt someone. The act isn't "the evil" it is the result of an evil person.

A compulsive shoplifter who chooses not to steal in a particularly secure store does not cease to be a compulsive shoplifter. They are just a compulsive shoplifter looking for a better opportunity.

Some people seem to interpret an evil person as doing evil things all the time. They have a desire to do evil all the time. That is true. Depending on their level of intelligence they pick the right opportunity to do evil.

That's why evil sex offenders are so hard to catch. They aren't doing it 24/7 out in the open. They pick a specific victim and do it quietly. They pick and choose. Evil desires are constant but the acts are spread out. They might think evil thoughts all day long but only do one evil act per week or month.

They might even do seemingly “good” deeds so they can lure a person into a position where they can victimize them. This is how sexual predators lure people into relationships with them. These seemingly “good” deeds do not make them any less evil. They are just doing them to spring their evil trap.

Evil people also take days off, go shopping, watch TV, etc. You can't be doing good or evil deeds all the time. Sometimes both good and evil people think about the same things like what to have for dinner or what the weather will be like tomorrow. Taking care of the chores of daily life makes a creature mundane but does not remove their evil status. Even serial killer John Wayne Gacey washed the dishes once in a while.

I think you're confusing "crimes" and "criminality" which have to do with acts - and evil which has to do with a state of mind. Baby monsters are too young to have done any evil acts. But they sit there thinking evil thoughts and one day they will be big enough to carry them out. Unless you stop them right now. Putting an end to a new or old evil is still a good deed.

In a sense they are “virgin evil” they have the desire to do evil but have not done their first evil deed. With humans, who can be of any morality, it makes sense to wait and see if they do something evil. If something is “known to be born evil” their “virgin” status need not be taken into account.

When someone sets the timer on a bomb you don’t have to “wait and see” what happens next. You know the outcome – that’s why disarm or destroy it right away. Evil little monsters are the same.

Reducing sexuality, morality, or philosophy to a laundry list of activities is bound be seem confusing. Remember it’s not what you have done or have not done. It’s what you think and feel. That’s the essence of evil

hamishspence
2009-01-19, 01:11 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 has Corrupt acts, which are basically Evil in all circumstances, and if you do enough of them, no matter what you do afterward, no matter what your alignment, you will (if Lawful) go to Nine hells unless you Atone properly.

(which means fixing the damage in some way, apologizing to the victims, and doing some sort of good act specifically as part of it)

Murder, Torture, Stealing from the Needy, are among these.

Of course, murder is very hard to define, so I tend to ask myself- would a jury knowing exactly what happened, generally convict?

the gladiator match type dilemma one has been done lots of times in fiction. David Gemmell, a fantasy author, generally has his more uncompromising heroes say- No, its not ok to murder a child on the orders of the Evil Overlord to Save the City.

BoED says same, but the example it gives (lying) is a bad one since BoVD specifically calls it out as Not Always Evil.

BoED also states very explicitly that most D&D monsters are redeemable. Goblin/orc/drow children? Killing is wrong. Only "always Evil" creatures might be justified (some of these are dangerous fighters from birth- dragon wyrmlings, for example)

EDIT:
Some D&D novels show some sort of answer, with the gruff dwarf in Elaine Cunningham book Thornhold not killing the orc youngsters, or Zaknafein Do'Urden's never harming a drow child, even if he wonders "are all drow children born evil?"

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 01:34 PM
Here's the way I use alignment. You might find it usefull

Players:
The alignment is an agreement between the player and the dm, stating "I'll play my character mostly in accordance with ... alignment. I expect to get plot hooks in accordance with the alignment, and I'll mostly act on the based on the alignment"
The alignment can change, but it says a bit about what kind of game the campaign will be (a epic adventure to save the world, a slay everyone in sight campaign, a dungeon crawl for treasure and so on)

NPCs
The NPC acts in such and such way, interpreted to confirm to the dms definition of alignment. The alignment remind the dm how to play the NPC

Rases (monster, demihuman):
Typical representatives for this race (like your run of the mil orc) will act in such and such way when encountered by the players

Monsters/organisations/realms/religions:
From the dms or the groups point of moral reference, the actions of this NPC group will be viewed to conform to this alignment by the population from which the player group originates from (The green dragons raids on the hometown of the PCs is a Chaotic Evil act in the eyes of the players, but Neutral in the eyes of the dragon, who's merely eating)

Alignment detection spells and powers:
Only extremely powerful characters of an aligment, or characters really following the alignment will turn up. Examples:
The reincarnated Champion of Balance, who at present is a little child reads True Neutral
The evil wizard who slaughters children on a weekly basis is detected as Chaotic Evil
The smith that overcharges his prices and killed a drunk in a bar brawl 3 years ago doesn't show alignment
The lvl 1 commoner who tried to defend the children from the above mentioned wizard reads Good
The lvl 3 paladin doesn't show alignment.
The lvl 13 paladin reads Lawful Good

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 01:57 PM
It is not wrong to kill an evil creature and to do so is a good deed even if the evil creature is a little baby evil creature.

I strongly disagree with this. If you could take a human baby and determine in advance if they would be a serial killer, would you kill it? Also, you are assuming that ALL goblins or such turn out to be evil. If that is the case in your setting, great, but a "USUALLY NE" alignment means that 10-30% of the population is good or neutral. Also, I do not think that as children, adventurers can reasonably pick out which goblins will turn out evil or not. Both of our interpretations are, of course, just that and the alignment system does NOT specify which one is correct.


Simply because a creature in not currently capable of carrying out an evil deed does not mean it is not evil. For example if you locked an evil monster in a jail cell it would be incapable of harming anyone or doing any evil deeds. This does not mean it is not evil. I just has no options for evil activity.

I'm not going to argue this, but I would also like to point out that creatures can change. An old black dragon probably will not, but a goblin kid has a decent chance. Honestly, if we are to apply the alignment system to children, that's just going to open a whole can of worms: Young children hit and bite others, scream when they don't get what they want, and always place their benefit first. Your argument that they have the same intents, values, and motivations as adults therefore is very shaky.

[/QUOTE]If the monsters in the underground community do not encounter anyone coming into their area and if they stay confined to their own area they do no cease to be evil. They simply have no outlet for their evil. They will go about their daily business until they have a chance to do what comes naturally to them. They are evil in waiting.[/QUOTE]

If they don't commit evil deeds and they have a reasonable opportunity to, they are not evil. It's quite simple. If within their own communities they do not kill, steal, cheat, abuse, or harm others, and they would not likely do that to any outsider who did not appear to pose a threat, how can you argue they are evil?

I'm not going to get into your sexual comparison because I understand your point just fine and I vehemently disagree. As I've said many times before, if you run your game as such, that's peachy, but your view of morality is an interpretation, not a RAW reading of the alignment system. Since humanoids can change their alignment and even within primarily evil communities there are many neutral and good individuals, advocating genocide down to their children is NOT inarguably good by the D&D alignment system.


Evil is not about what you do or what you have done but your desire to do it. All that is required to be evil is a constant desire to do evil deeds - even if you never get the chance to. Even if you have never done an evil deed you can still be an evil person.

People don't just hang out "wanting to do evil deeds." People who do good things and do evil things oftentimes have the same motivations: A sense of belonging, personal well-being, feeling good about themselves, staying fed and clothed, etc. Evil is NOT entirely about desire. It is about motive, intent, actions, and consequences. If you only have one or two of those, you do not have a full case for evil (nor for good or for neutral: it becomes fuzzy).


Serial killers and child molesters could be classified as evil people. Locking them up and keeping them away from children does not mean they are no longer evil. They are just evil waiting to be released.

Yes, but these people have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they have commited serious evil. You not only say that one has never had to do evil in the past to do evil, you haven't given the examples of the sort of evil all these goblins would /beyond a reasonable doubt/ actually commit if given the chance.


The act isn't "the evil" it is the result of an evil person.

Yes, the act IS the evil. If people just have evil desires but never act upon them, THERE IS NO HARM. Evil is about harm. Evil motives and intents are wrong, but the reason that they are dangerous is purely because they can be carried out.


A compulsive shoplifter who chooses not to steal in a particularly secure store does not cease to be a compulsive shoplifter. They are just a compulsive shoplifter looking for a better opportunity.

I'm noticing a very black and white view of people here, where people cannot change at all. By that notion, anyone who commits a crime should be locked up for the rest of their lives, since they are evil and continue posing a threat no matter what.


That's why evil sex offenders are so hard to catch. They aren't doing it 24/7 out in the open. They pick a specific victim and do it quietly. They pick and choose. Evil desires are constant but the acts are spread out. They might think evil thoughts all day long but only do one evil act per week or month.

Of course they aren't doing it constantly! If you only murder someone once a year, I'm still going to call you evil! It's not because you think about hurting people, it's because you are /actually taking human life./ Occasionally committing a severe evil still makes you evil.

I cut out a lot because no one here is arguing that evil people never do good things or go for long periods of time without committing evil.


In a sense they are “virgin evil” they have the desire to do evil but have not done their first evil deed. With humans, who can be of any morality, it makes sense to wait and see if they do something evil. If something is “known to be born evil” their “virgin” status need not be taken into account.

Goblins are not born evil. Period. They are USUALLY evil, as stated in the MM. As I argue above, young children can not be classified by the alignment system. Secondly, individuals can change. Third, there is no way of knowing which ones might be evil. By this logic, if you had a pair of identical twins, one of whom is known to be a serial killer, and had no good way of telling them apart, wouldn't the morally imperitive thing to do be to slay both?


When someone sets the timer on a bomb you don’t have to “wait and see” what happens next. You know the outcome – that’s why disarm or destroy it right away. Evil little monsters are the same.

Reducing sexuality, morality, or philosophy to a laundry list of activities is bound be seem confusing. Remember it’s not what you have done or have not done. It’s what you think and feel. That’s the essence of evil

Again, your entire argument is based on assuming that ALL goblins start off evil. Secondly, you assume that all evil is the same severity and deserves to be killed without question. The first argument is incorrect by canon. The second is arguable, but not is neither asserted nor disproved by the core alignment system. Thirdly, evil is not purely thoughts and feelings, but actions and consequences. Take the WotC alignment test. If asks some about feelings, but the vast majority of it is based on what you /would do/. Desires are not always followed out; it's called self-control. Some may have evil desires, but control their actions so that they do not follow them.

hewhosaysfish
2009-01-19, 02:10 PM
The alignment system has three - rather extreme - shortcomings. The first one is the idea of objective morals. The second is the idea that whole societies - instead of individuals - can be categorized along these very general terms. And the third one is the idea that a person's morality is static and more or less only changes under stress or through major traumas. These asumptions are utterly and completely wrong.





The first folly is the more obvious one - when there is anything proven in dozens of alignment discussions and flame wars, than that morals are highly dependable on the involved party's point of view, cultural background and conventions. There is no such thing as a superordained, obective morals, only some points so general that everyone can agree on under the right circumstances - it is easy to come to an agreement about "Killing is wrong" in general. Taken out of the abstract and put in a direct context - is it wrong to kill the man who is going to rape your sister, to take a rather blunt example - the agreement is going to melt away.


I would say that there are actually three problems here:
1) It can be slightly tricky to get the half-a-dozen-or-so people around a gaming table to agree to a single conception of morality that doesn't strain their suspension of disbelief when you declare that that is actually how things definitely work within a campaign setting, even when all those people are being reasonable.
-This is true but I wonder whether this is really such a big problem given that most people can agree on the broad strokes and (if the group agrees to consciously avoid any identified grey areas where possible) then this should be enough.
2) It is completely impossible to get the 33,658 members of this forum to agree to a single conception of morality that doesn't strain their credulity when you try to declare that that is actually how things definitely work in any and every campaign settings and possibly in the real world as well.
-This is very true but unless they all turn up at my gaming table I really don't care.
3) There has been so much written about alignment (even just counting the official material), by so many differnet authors, often in such vague terms that it is now possible to find "evidence" to both agree and disagree with any given point of view. This leads many people to mistakenly believe that everyone else at the gaming table (and on these forums) has, by accepting the alignment system, accepted the same concept of morality. Since most people actually do agree on the broad strokes, this delusion may persist for some time before a point of disagreement is reached.
- This is definitely a problem. So ignore everything WotC says (about what alignment is. You can still use the published material for alignment based magic, outer planes, etc). The meaning of alignment should be decided on a group-by-group basis, or even a campaign-by-campaign basis, as something that they can all lwork with and that fits the intended tone and style. Remember it doesn't have to be precise if you agree to steer clear of the grey areas!





The second wrong premise is the idea of a general, usual moral behavior which can be assumed to be usual among a certain group of people. This is even based on their ethnic background, which is an additional problem, but the relevant fact is: Even with an identical cultural background, the idea of a moral life differ widely among people. I am not talking about actual behaviour yoet, only about the perception and concept of a "good" behaviour. Morals are a result of many, many factors, from sociocultural upbringing to personality and current conventions. Due to this multitude of influences, a generalisation of them will always fall short. The most relevant or even only relevant object of discussion about morals is the indiviual, not without the social and societal environment, but not on a broadly generalised level.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here:
Are you saying that people are so diverse that you can't ever have a society which encourages charity and condemn violence and thus could be called "Good"? That you couldn't have a society which allows or even encourages it's members to kill or enslave foreigners/heathens for pleasure and profit and could thus be called "Evil"
Or are you attacking the strawman that every single member of a Good society is a Good person and every single member of an Evil society is Evil?
Or are you attacking Fantastic Racism, the idea that certain species will always form Evil societies and some will always form Good societies?

Assuming the latter (because it's the only one I can understand), is this really a problem with the alignment system? Does the concept of objective morality, which can be measured and interacted with necessarily entail as a consequence that all goblins are Evil? I think not. It's simply the case that setting designers have copied their fantasy races wholesale from previous editions which in turn copied them largely from Tolkien.
The alignment system doesn't cause this problem: it merely makes the pattern visible.



For what it's worth, the PHB section on alignment only talks about individual creatures and the DMG section on creating towns only discusses the alignment of the power centres within a town not of the town as a whole.
The idea of a "Good city" or a "Evil country" seems to be something that we the readers have invented. I wonder what we mean by it: a city in which most of the populace are Good or act in a Good manner? a city which acts toward other cities as a Good person acts towards other people? a city controlled by Good people or forces who treat the poplace in an appropriate manner?
When we refer to a "Good city" we seem to blend all 3 concepts together despite the fact it is quite possible to imagine a place where the rulers treat their subjects and their neighbours well but the common people are concerned only with their own business. Is this a Good city?








The third problem is the assumption that people are static or even consequent in their regards of moral behaviour or practices; they aren't. I am not talking about "take away their food and security and see how the world's nicest family turns into the Lord of the Flies", I am talking about double standards (which everyone has), different moods, different behavior within and outside of close social contacts and so on.
People are so easy manipulable on a lower level, because in many non-essential questions, situational "moral" decisions are highly variable and often depending on almost arbitrary minimal influences.

If DnD used a more fine-grained system then I might agree with you but your three choices are "motivated to help others", "unconcerned about harming others" and "neither of the above".
How much variation can one person show?
- Wobbling between Good and Neutral: Still demonstrates "altruism, respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Call them Good unless the Good acts are really, really infrequent. He just sometimes has a bad day and feels grumpy.
- Wobbling between Neutral and Evil: Still "hurting, oppressing or killing others" but occasional pangs of mercy. Evil.
- Bouncing up and down between Good and Evil: Has some respect for life and dignity but obviously not enough to stop him from strangling hookers. Evil.

Canadian
2009-01-19, 02:20 PM
The discussion is not about people. It is about fictional monsters that are known to be evil. If a factor is know there is no need to question it. If the book says evil then they are evil. It does not matter how old they are.

Cesar Millan the Dog Whisperer helps people with unruly pets. The cites the largest factor in dogs misbehaving is the people treat their dogs like humans. He says that dogs want to be treated like they would by other dogs. When people learn to stop treating their dogs like people the pets are happy.

You can't equate monsters with people. I never say in my previous post that people can't change. Sure they can. But if something is quantified by the rules as evil then there obviously is no change. Monsters are not people and for the most part they can't change.

You're treating monsters like people. They are not human. If they are quantified as evil then that's it. Even if they can change you need a vehicle for change. Killing all the adults in their village won't make them like humans any more. You've ruined any chance for that change to happen. It's worth the 1-2% change that one might not be pure evil.

hamishspence
2009-01-19, 02:26 PM
Thing is though, many D&D "monsters" really are "people" Slightly alien people, but still people, in the fiction, in the adventures, in the campaign setting descriptions.

What Measure Is A Non-Humanoid may kick in a bit, but as a general rule, orcs, goblinoids, drow, kobolds, etc, as written in most of 3.0 to 3.5, are much less monstrous than what you seem to be describing.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-19, 02:29 PM
What is the morally correct thing to do with the children? What is the good option, the neutral option, and the evil option? Do you kill the children, leave them abandoned, try to find homes for them, or take them under your wing? I do not think there is any very clear cut answer for this.
Killing them or selling them into slavery is evil, leaving them is neutral and seeing they are cared for is good (insanely good seeing how hard it would be). I fail to see the problem.

Another example: You are captured by a villian. He gives you a choice: You can kill your fellow party members in a gladiator match for his entertainment, or he will burn down the local village.
A consensual duel is not evil (not good either) so it depends on the agreement of all party members. If one of the party members disagrees it's evil to pull him into the fight regardless. Again I fail to see the problem.

Both of these are pretty easily adjudicated with the BoED.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:32 PM
The discussion is not about people. It is about fictional monsters that are known to be evil. If a factor is know there is no need to question it. If the book says evil then they are evil. It does not matter how old they are.

You are ignoring the Monster Manual defintion here. "Usually evil" does not equate with always born evil. That is not RAW. I have nothing more to say on that, as you are disputing RAW. If you interpret it like that, fine, but do not claim it is RAW.

Canadian
2009-01-19, 02:33 PM
Can you express "usually" as a %?

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:34 PM
Both of these are pretty easily adjudicated with the BoED.

I don't buy splatbooks, so I take my alignment RAW strictly from the core three rulebooks. If you use BoED, then I'm sure it does clear up a lot, and I'd have to read it fully to find any fuzziness with it. So, I'll say this is a matter of us basing our interpretation of the system off of different sources. :smallsmile:

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 02:39 PM
You know, there isn't one approach that is more right than the other:
You want a simple dungeon crawl or hack and slash game?
- Fine, then alignment is absolute, monsters don't change, and the paladin can wipe the Kobold tribe from the face of the Earth.
You want a in depth role playing game with lots of challenges that can't be overcome by your combat power alone, and character development in the game?
- Then things get a lot more complicated. And then you get Drizzt Do'Urden, Complains of Names, and LE blackguards fighting for the greater good.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:40 PM
Can you express "usually" as a %?

Sadly my SRD does not give me the %ages, but if I recall correctly, the breakdown was as follows:

"Often evil": 40-50% of these monsters are evil.

"Usually evil": 60-80% of these monsters are evil.

I'd also like to point out that there are sections for monsters as races and an explanation under both goblins and kobolds for how to make them into characters. If they are entirely unlike humans and purely evil, it would make no logical sense to make them available as PCs (since the core rulebooks even state, I believe, that evil alignments are not appropriate for PCs).

Also, there is nowhere in the rulebooks where it makes clear that dwarves and elves are "like people and can change" whereas goblins and kobolds "are monsterous and cannot change." If you can cite something that states that in the core rulebooks or SRD, please hit me up.[/QUOTE]

Canadian
2009-01-19, 02:43 PM
If a group of twenty monsters attack you and they are defined as "mostly evil" that means at least a few out of that twenty won't be evil.

Do you kill all of them? How do you determine (without a spell) which ones are good? Do you simply not kill any of them to avoid killing the good or neutral ones. Would the most moral tactic be to always run away because fighting them would be morally wrong?

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:43 PM
You know, there isn't one approach that is more right than the other:
You want a simple dungeon crawl or hack and slash game?
- Fine, then alignment is absolute, monsters don't change, and the paladin can wipe the Kobold tribe from the face of the Earth.
You want a in depth role playing game with lots of challenges that can't be overcome by your combat power alone, and character development in the game?
- Then things get a lot more complicated. And then you get Drizzt Do'Urden, Complains of Names, and LE blackguards fighting for the greater good.

Oh, I entirely agree with this. I have my preferred way, other people have a different one. However, I'm trying to show that RAW (or even Rules-as-Intended) does not support the former interpretation over the latter.

Actually, back to our original poster, she already seems to be looking for a more subjective answer, where humanoid races are not always one alignment or another, and killing their babies is therefore not acceptable. So, either people are outlining why they like to look at it a different way, or are trying to show why her way of running the game is wrong. :smallconfused:

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 02:45 PM
If a group of twenty monsters attack you and they are defined as "mostly evil" that means at least a few out of that twenty won't be evil.

Do you kill all of them? How do you determine (without a spell) which ones are good? Do you simply not kill any of them to avoid killing the good or neutral ones. Would the most moral tactic be to always run away because fighting them would be morally wrong?

This is very simple! If someone is directly threatening your life, you are entitled to defend yourself. There is nothing morally confusing about that. This is a matter of the actions of the creatures, not how the creatures feel on the inside. You can make a guess on their alignment here from their actions, not because of some innate racial tendency.

Canadian
2009-01-19, 02:53 PM
If you want to look at the intention of the rules I'd say the "mostly" is built in to allow people to play monsters because they think playing monsters is cool.

In previous editions monsters were just that - monsters. I'd say taking a loophole designerd to broaden the options for PC's wasn't designed to be a crucial point of morality in the "do we raze the village" debate.

Instead of "mostly" they could have put: These monsters are evil unless somebody in the group wants to play one. Then they can be anything you want.

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 03:02 PM
...In previous editions monsters were just that - monsters...

Yeah, in first edition D&D, a dwarf was simply a dwarf, not a fighter or a cleric. Still, he could choose his alignment (you only had lawful, neutral and chaotic at that time).
Then came 1st ed AD&D, and things got more complicated. I believe the Birthright module is from 1st ed AD&D. There you had evil surface elves. And evil dwarfs. And I think Drizzt is first edition as well.
In 2nd ed alignment is described as what's most common for the race, not absolute, and in 2nd ed Players Option AD&D, you had rules to play most humanoid monsters as player charactes.
I'm not sure how it were in 3.0 though.
3.5 at least clearly leaves room to have any monster of any alignment desirable

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 03:05 PM
If you want to look at the intention of the rules I'd say the "mostly" is built in to allow people to play monsters because they think playing monsters is cool.

In previous editions monsters were just that - monsters. I'd say taking a loophole designerd to broaden the options for PC's wasn't designed to be a crucial point of morality in the "do we raze the village" debate.

Instead of "mostly" they could have put: These monsters are evil unless somebody in the group wants to play one. Then they can be anything you want.

Heh, and this is why I play 3.5. Honestly, from what I've heard about previous editions, they were much more rigid in "This is how the world works. Monsters are always evil, LG is the best alignment, and elves can't be paladins (I mean, what?!)." So, I rather interpret it the opposite way; I think they leave that open because they were trying to get away from "Monsters are always godless fiends of no moral value", though my interpretation, like yours, can neither be proved nor disproved by core RAW.

Canadian
2009-01-19, 03:07 PM
Are humans in the monster manual? If so it would make debate over the moral monster issue easier. Then technically everything would be a monster including humans. It used to be that PC races were not monsters and monsters were monsters. In 1st edition human bererkers were listed as monsters but not normal humans.

Neek
2009-01-19, 03:10 PM
The discussion is not about people. It is about fictional monsters that are known to be evil. If a factor is know there is no need to question it. If the book says evil then they are evil. It does not matter how old they are.

Because they're fictional means they're not malleable or distinct? So Drizzt cannot exist, because the book says Drow are evil, so therefore he's evil? Moreover, to determine what "evil" means and how you view it, you have to comprehend what an Evil alignment means, and furthermore, what an Evil action is.

If D&D is static as you say it is, there shouldn't be rules for Paladin's falling; they are always Lawful Good, and so the book tells us, so there should be no reason for them to fall. Stop appealing to the book, it'll lock you into a circular fallacy that you'll never crawl out of.

Furthermore:


It is not wrong to kill an evil creature and to do so is a good deed even if the evil creature is a little baby evil creature.

A man murders his wife and kid. He's evil. His kid's evil. His wife's evil. Because they're evil, now he's good?

No.

It doesn't work that way. Everyone has a right to live, and a Good person knows that. If you're a Paladin and you're at an inn, enjoying a tumbler of cranberry juice, and there's a man next to you talking about his family, and you casually cast Detect Evil on him, and he pops up hot, murdering him right where he sits and say, "It's okay, he was evil" would not fly. Despite him being Evil doesn't give you the right you to deprive him the right to live, the right to a family; nor is it Good to deprive a family of an Evil father who may in fact be a good father raising competent and intelligent children.

People have a right to live. This is a Good act. Being a judge and determining that right based solely on alignment is not a Good person; you have to prove that this person is not just Evil, but has committed such Evil acts that are so apprehensible, that he has given up his right to live based on those actions.


The act isn't "the evil" it is the result of an evil person.

...is a circular fallacy. The Paladin who falls must have been an evil person, so he fell before he falls. So he wouldn't have fallen, because he already fell. Which means he couldn't have taken those levels of Paladin. So by that statement, there are no paladins who can fall, because they already fell, and if they were evil from the start, they would not meet the requirements for the class.

I wound remember what Queenfange said: There are four components to an alignment: Motive, intent, action, and consequence.


I think you're confusing "crimes" and "criminality" which have to do with acts - and evil which has to do with a state of mind. Baby monsters are too young to have done any evil acts. But they sit there thinking evil thoughts and one day they will be big enough to carry them out. Unless you stop them right now. Putting an end to a new or old evil is still a good deed.

So you're all for committing mass genocide on a people, regardless of their gender, age, or occupation, societal contributions, provided that the Book tells you they're Evil?


In a sense they are “virgin evil” they have the desire to do evil but have not done their first evil deed. With humans, who can be of any morality, it makes sense to wait and see if they do something evil. If something is “known to be born evil” their “virgin” status need not be taken into account.

Morality does not equal sexuality. A thief doesn't think he's a thief when he's a kid. A man who beats his wife doesn't think he's going to grow up big and strong, so he can beat his wife big and strong. Nor does a serial killer. Nor does a child molester. Nor does a CEO who moved his factories to a 3rd world nation to capitalize on the cheapness of child labor. Nor does a dictator think he's going to be a genocidal ruler when he was a kid? I'd drop this false analogy when you get the chance, it's only going to hurt you in the long run.

And as an addendum:


If the monsters in the underground community do not encounter anyone coming into their area and if they stay confined to their own area they do no cease to be evil. They simply have no outlet for their evil. They will go about their daily business until they have a chance to do what comes naturally to them. They are evil in waiting.

You walk into a dungeon. The dungeon has a delicately balanced ecosystem with various intelligent species, and some oddities. They are trying to make their own, despite their alignment. Raise their children, have enough food for the next day, and protect their children from the harm when the ecosystem gets disrupted.

So you walk in there, and you slaughter them. You disrupt their ecosystem and no one is safe. You take their goods. You take the goods they couldn't get to.

And people'll call you an adventurer. You get away with it because all the creatures in there were Evil or mindless (and therefore Neutral). But if it were an equally diverse village, you'd be Evil. Or a viking. Either way.

It seems pointlessly ad hoc to assume the only reason monsters live in a dungeon to maintain a static alignment. That they move in there under no other motive than to exist in a state of quantum evil--a Schroedinger's Dungeon, if you will--and the moment a PC peers in, they cease being in a fluctuating state of not-doing-evil and doing-evil, they're suddenly just doing-evil.


You're treating monsters like people. They are not human. If they are quantified as evil then that's it. Even if they can change you need a vehicle for change. Killing all the adults in their village won't make them like humans any more. You've ruined any chance for that change to happen. It's worth the 1-2% change that one might not be pure evil.

How do you define the difference between a person and a monster? Is a kobold a monster, or a person? What about a goblin? An orc? A drow elf? They're listed in the Monster's Manual as humanoid. They have an intelligence of 3 or greater. There is no "monster" in the Monster Manual. There are aberrations, animals, constructs, dragons, elementals, feys, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, outsiders, plants, undead, and vermin. So which ones are the monsters? Certainly a person might call everything except his own kind as monsters. An adventurer might view as everything in the way of the treasure or the MacGuffin as a monster. A Paladin might view anything as Evil as a monster. A Druid might view anyone who doesn't respect nature as a monster. A farmer might consider the fox that eats his chickens a monster, as well the man who raped his daughter, or the bandits who mugged him on his way to the market last week as monsters.

So how do you define the difference between a person and a monster?

[edit] Nevermind:


Are humans in the monster manual? If so it would make debate over the moral monster issue easier. Then technically everything would be a monster including humans. It used to be that PC races were not monsters and monsters were monsters. In 1st edition human bererkers were listed as monsters but not normal humans.

So do you believe that EVERYTHING in the Monster's Manual are monsters? Because dwarves, orcs, halflings, half-elves, and half-orcs are listed in the book. So are they not subject to human morality because they're simply not humans? Or is the answer simply: Because they're not PCs?

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 03:11 PM
Are humans in the monster manual? If so it would make debate over the moral monster issue easier. Then technically everything would be a monster including humans. It used to be that PC races were not monsters and monsters were monsters. In 1st edition human bererkers were listed as monsters but not normal humans.

In 2nd ed humans are listed in the monster manual. All kinds, from merchants to vikings.
Also, elves couldn't be paladins because it was a human concept. And humans could only dual class, not multiclass....

Canadian
2009-01-19, 03:36 PM
If everything in the monster manual isn't a monster then they should have come up with a better name for it.

You don't see people opening mexican restaurants that exclusively serve chinese food.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 03:47 PM
Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree. When I, at least, say "subjective alignment system," I mean it is not clear cut, there are morally gray situations, and that people throughout the world define good/evil and what is acceptable or not rather differently. This, however, does not mean the system is entirely subjective; that would be entirely incompatible with the cosmoligcal forces of good and evil (which I assume to exist based on the Outer Planes and spells which deal damage based on alignment). You are right that an entirely subjective alignment system would be useless, and perhaps us using the term "subjective" isn't entirely appropriate, but I think a "slightly fuzzy" alignment system is a good approach: Not because there isn't a moral answer to everything, but in terms of determing for every act (or motive) what exactly is good or evil, and to what degree, is beyond the scope of moral understanding. Maybe not the way for everyone's campaign, but it is not incompatible with the RAW (as far as I know) and I find it a satisfying approach.

I'm unclear how this makes an alignment "system." You seem to be saying that you'd make a system with Good and Evil, but also include a category of "fuzzy" for moral quandaries. Could people be Lawful Fuzzy? :smallconfused:

Or are you saying that DMs and Players should just say "But for the grace of God go I" and not consider the ultimate morality of some situations? Who defines those special situations? Will it be written down like the Nine Alignment System or left entirely up to the DM and/or Player?

As for moral relativism, you haven't answered the main question - who isn't Good in such a system? Unless you define Good & Evil by a group larger than the individual, every person will define their acts as "Good" and those they disagree with as "Evil." Or at least Neutral. And if you decide to let a family group, or town, or province, or nation define morality - why did you privilege that particular group and not others? Like the Gods themselves?

I just don't see how such a system adds anything to the RP experience, and it does throw up unnecessary problems. Far better to scrap the alignment system altogether and describe Angels and Demons as "Sacred" and "Profane" and trigger effects off of that. Perhaps mortals can align themselves in one way or another, but basically everyone else doesn't interact with this system one way or another.

Murderous Hobo
2009-01-19, 03:51 PM
I really think the Enlightenment screwed this game up. It used to be: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius", Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are his. Gods absolves the winners, his Paladins.

Easy right?

---

Slightly more serious, this argument is pointless. People either argue their own version of morality or the rickety construct from the game that everybody with a sense of plot already ignores because it just gets in the way.

Give your character his own morality, reasons motivations and all such that generally align and play by that. You fall if you betray your ideals but you won't be hunted just because you are evil but because either your actions or those you affiliate with.

It's pretty much instant plot-complexity and saves long arguments over good and evil as the reasons are no longer absolute but rather character based. The detect spells just work as arbitrarily as before, perhaps only on the most extremes were there is no argument and as such the world doesn't give as much weight to them.

Canadian
2009-01-19, 03:51 PM
As far as alignment goes as long as we can agree that there are two opposite sides that's good enough. You can call them side 1 and side 2 or good and evil or matter and antimatter. You could have each side say they are really good and the other one is evil. They are still on opposite sides.

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 04:03 PM
If everything in the monster manual isn't a monster then they should have come up with a better name for it.

You don't see people opening mexican restaurants that exclusively serve chinese food.

You are sorely needed in the metal thread, where there's an argument about the possibility of Greek Viking Metal


...As for moral relativism, you haven't answered the main question - who isn't Good in such a system? Unless you define Good & Evil by a group larger than the individual, every person will define their acts as "Good" and those they disagree with as "Evil."

Exactly! Every group views themselves as the good guys. Then whoever follows the moral code that the players and the dm, not the player characters, define as good, evil, chaotic and lawful will be the reference

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 04:13 PM
Exactly! Every group views themselves as the good guys. Then whoever follows the moral code that the players and the dm, not the player characters, define as good, evil, chaotic and lawful will be the reference


:confused:

Are you arguing that the DM & Players should define the morality system for the entire world? That's just another Objective Alignment System; I thought we were looking at Subjective Alignment Systems?

Canadian
2009-01-19, 04:19 PM
I think Greek Viking Metal falls into the category of Pirate Ninja.

I just want to clarify.

If an evil monster attacks you and you are good and you kill it everything is fine.

If a monster is of a race that is "mostly evil" but is actually good and it attacks you and you kill it are you still good?

If a good thing kills a good thing isn't that bad?

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 04:22 PM
:confused:

Are you arguing that the DM & Players should define the morality system for the entire world? That's just another Objective Alignment System; I thought we were looking at Subjective Alignment Systems?

Well, I wasn't.
After all, I'm not planning on making a Ph.D on this. I'm just interested in playing the game, and need to deal with alignment in that context.
Also, except from true moral relativism, you will have to use one moral system as baseline. And the logical baseline for the alignment system is the players and the Dm


I think Greek Viking Metal falls into the category of Pirate Ninja.

Wrong thread


I just want to clarify.

If an evil monster attacks you and you are good and you kill it everything is fine.

If a monster is of a race that is "mostly evil" but is actually good and it attacks you and you kill it are you still good?

If a good thing kills a good thing isn't that bad?

Depends on who's attacking who in each instance.
It's just like most countries have laws against murder, and laws that allow self defense

Talya
2009-01-19, 04:32 PM
The OP used a Kobold as an example.


Alignment: Usually lawful evil

Kobold's aren't locked in to any alignment.

Oslecamo
2009-01-19, 04:35 PM
If a monster is of a race that is "mostly evil" but is actually good and it attacks you and you kill it are you still good?


Heerr, I think that attacking someone unprovoked is one of those things that qualifies as "nongood".

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 04:39 PM
Well, I wasn't.
After all, I'm not planning on making a Ph.D on this. I'm just interested in playing the game, and need to deal with alignment in that context.
Also, except from true moral relativism, you will have to use one moral system as baseline. And the logical baseline for the alignment system is the players and the Dm

Fair enough.

Still, I have to wonder: do your players and the DM sit around during Character Creation and thrash out an alignment system? Or do you have debates every time someone disagrees on the morality of a given action? Or do you not, in actuality, use an alignment system at all?

Narmoth
2009-01-19, 04:52 PM
Fair enough.

Still, I have to wonder: do your players and the DM sit around during Character Creation and thrash out an alignment system? Or do you have debates every time someone disagrees on the morality of a given action? Or do you not, in actuality, use an alignment system at all?

Well, mostly we agree on what alignments will be allowed in the group (e.g.: no evil characters, or all evil, and so on). But we play it rather loose, not caring if the character is more chaotic or more lawful than his alignment is on the paper.
But if we disagree on the morality of an action, then yes, we debate. Mostly even before the action happens.
We have had some "moral blunders" where the group after much arguing admitted that the action was wrong and the ranger and paladin had to repent.

One such case was if they were right to slay a vampire (the bloodslave of the vampire they were hunting) when they thought she was acting threatening, but they knew they would kill her easily if needed, as they just killed 5 vampires down the hall.
In the end they agreed that it was wrong if she wasn't going to kill them (she was in fact scared, but hoping they would help her get free from the vampire)

hamishspence
2009-01-19, 05:09 PM
Makes sense, D&D does have less dangerous vampires turn up on occasion. Jander Sunstar, elven vampire in Heroes of Valor short story, and later, Ravenloft- positively heroic for a vampire.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 05:34 PM
I'm unclear how this makes an alignment "system." You seem to be saying that you'd make a system with Good and Evil, but also include a category of "fuzzy" for moral quandaries. Could people be Lawful Fuzzy? :smallconfused:

No, people could not be lawful fuzzy. "Fuzzy" moral questions are ones where there is not a clear, by-the-book answer and so the player and DM judgement come into play. As such, they are also less liable to affect the character's alignment. If you have a good character but commit a morally "fuzzy" act, which is not clear whether it is neutral or evil by the book, as a DM I'd consider your argument and what makes sense to me, but admit that it really came down to a matter of interpretation, and would be less liable to penalize your character's alignment for it than if it was a clearly evil act.


Or are you saying that DMs and Players should just say "But for the grace of God go I" and not consider the ultimate morality of some situations?

What ultimate morality? You say this like there is a book I can go to with the absolute, inarguable clear moral answers for questions. As DM, I take what I can from the RAW and admit that I must interpret some of the fuzziness.


As for moral relativism, you haven't answered the main question - who isn't Good in such a system?

People who rape, murder, or abuse children. People who steal excessively when it is not needed to survive. I mean, the list goes on; if you really want to see what I define as evil, see all my arguments in the "Stupid Evil" thread.


Unless you define Good & Evil by a group larger than the individual, every person will define their acts as "Good" and those they disagree with as "Evil." Or at least Neutral. And if you decide to let a family group, or town, or province, or nation define morality - why did you privilege that particular group and not others? Like the Gods themselves?

:smallconfused: They may have different socially acceptable views of behavior, but as I've said over and over, good and evil are cosmological forces. While some situations are fuzzy, there are many clear good and evil acts, motives, etc. as defined by said forces. Things like rape are not morally defined by one particular culture. There may not be an absolute Moral Law that clearly answers everything, but there are a few absolute moral principles that are rooted in those forces and are universally understood (even if cultural acceptance of acts varies).


I just don't see how such a system adds anything to the RP experience, and it does throw up unnecessary problems. Far better to scrap the alignment system altogether and describe Angels and Demons as "Sacred" and "Profane" and trigger effects off of that. Perhaps mortals can align themselves in one way or another, but basically everyone else doesn't interact with this system one way or another.

Each to their own. I've explained why my system works for me, and my players have been quite happy with it. I don't understand why some other people's interpretations adds anything to the experience, but I'm not gonna agrue with how they run things in their own games.


I really think the Enlightenment screwed this game up. It used to be: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius", Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are his. Gods absolves the winners, his Paladins.

Heh, oh so true.


As far as alignment goes as long as we can agree that there are two opposite sides that's good enough. You can call them side 1 and side 2 or good and evil or matter and antimatter. You could have each side say they are really good and the other one is evil. They are still on opposite sides.

Hear, hear. There are two opposite sides. We may interpret them and exactly how they pan out differently in our settings, but I think we have come to a good common ground and respect for agreeing to disagree. *Thumbs up*


If a monster is of a race that is "mostly evil" but is actually good and it attacks you and you kill it are you still good?

If a good thing kills a good thing isn't that bad?

If it is good and it attacks you, you are still within your rights to kill it. Race and alignment is irrelevent in self-defense. I mean, I might argue that the /really/ good thing to do would be not kill unless absolutely vital (just hurt them enough to compromise any danger and figure out what on earth is happening), but just like I don't hold evil dudes to really evil standards, I would never hold a good PC to such a high standard of good.



Still, I have to wonder: do your players and the DM sit around during Character Creation and thrash out an alignment system? Or do you have debates every time someone disagrees on the morality of a given action? Or do you not, in actuality, use an alignment system at all?

Honestly, it's never really come up as an issue. My players aren't prone to acting in ways which are particularly thorny, and my interpretation of the D&D alignment system has worked just fine thus far for them. None go around slaughtering kobolds, so we never really have to worry about whether that is justified or not in an argument at the playing table.

Evilfeeds
2009-01-19, 08:16 PM
Throwing my two pence in: apologies if anyone has brought up any of these points before...

Firstly let me say that I dislike the alignment system, and (by and large) I pretty much ignore it entirely (no detect evil for you!)

The problem is, as I understand it, alignment in d&d exists not as a moral quandry as in our universe, but as a force. Attempting to apply real world morality does not apply here. Good exists. Likewise, evil, or law, or chaos. Actual beings of these forces exist, if it were any more "real" you could pick evil up and throw it at things. (I dont actually have my books on me just now, so unable to reference properly, apologies).

So, assuming this is true, then if adventurers were to slay a kobold orphange (and for some reason we can be assured there are no neutral or good kobolds), it would be a good act. No moral grey exists here, simply good defeating evil. Evil that is wearing diapers is still evil; given a chance, it will grow up and slay humans/elves/whatever.

If you are to say "but they're babies!" well.... it doesnt really matter. They will grow up to become evil. This isnt a happy world where people all get along and sometimes people argue, this is a place where entire cities get razed.

But theyre babies! You say. Ok, fine, killing babies is evil. So is probably killing kobold civilians. But what about kobold adults? Kobold soldiers? (Kill the soldier, suddenly the wife cant afford to feed the child anymore?) If you want to argue that way, then killing *at all* is an evil act. Chances are that your adventurers are, in fact, mass murderers. How many level 10 characters havent killed enough "evil" monsters to populate a village? I fail to see any specific line at which murder becomes acceptable. (or theft, or any of the other sins adventurers routinely commit).

So, in this care, its really irrelevant. Your characters are evil anyway.

So, what about the 1/10 that are good? Well, hypothetical situation: there are 10 children. One will grow up to do something unspeakably evil, which for whatever reason ends up killing a 10 million people. Do you just walk away, because killing babies is always, always evil? Or do you kill the babies, something which is distasteful certainly, but achieves a greater good? If its about the greater good, then given that kobolds are generally a menace to "good"kind, is it still an evil act to wipe them all out, given that you're overall, saving lives?

Or, perhaps you'd like to adopt them all. I cant see many adventurers spending their hard earned cash to set up homes for the kin of the hundreds of monsters we slay. A home where they can learn to abandon their evil ways! Basically turning d&d hackfests into the sims. This would be the TRUE "good" option, but I cant see it being terribly popular.


So, (imho) either genocide is justified, or you're all a bunch of evil psychopaths anyway (occasionally acting for the greater good), or you stop adventuring and start a real job, preferably in the care sector.

Besides, pretty much no-one ever has considered themselves evil. Was the Khmer Rouge evil? Was stalin evil? Was ... (actually, lets avoid that particular Godwin). Most people would say, yes. But they didnt all get up in the morning and go "Mwahah! How evil can I be today?". They were, for the most part, ordinary people who got into positions of power and, for whatever reason, abused it horribly.
(and if you dont think "ordinary people" is appropriate, then I urge you to look at some of the psychology experiments they did in the 60s which names i cant remember offhand, in particular the students prisoners/guard, and the shock the person in the next room until he dies experiments. Ordinary people are messed up.)

But then, I dont like the alignment system anyway :)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 08:42 PM
What ultimate morality? You say this like there is a book I can go to with the absolute, inarguable clear moral answers for questions. As DM, I take what I can from the RAW and admit that I must interpret some of the fuzziness.

Well, in most D&D universes, there is an afterlife where people are judged by their actions in life. These divine arbitrators generally seem to be able to determine the Good or Evil of any particular act. Unless your world contains a Final Judge who is unable to adequately judge people, it seems that there must be some kind of Ultimate Morality.

In D&D, these guidelines are laid out in the Nine Alignments Systems. I have yet to find a character or course of action that I cannot place in one of the nine slots. However, I am always looking for a challenge.


:smallconfused: They may have different socially acceptable views of behavior, but as I've said over and over, good and evil are cosmological forces. While some situations are fuzzy, there are many clear good and evil acts, motives, etc. as defined by said forces. Things like rape are not morally defined by one particular culture. There may not be an absolute Moral Law that clearly answers everything, but there are a few absolute moral principles that are rooted in those forces and are universally understood (even if cultural acceptance of acts varies).

Ah, I see. What you are doing here is assuming some universal cultural traits (ex: Rape is always bad) and labeling anything outside of those traits as Evil. Within this collection of traits are a variety of actions which may or may not be Good or Evil depending on the Universal Culture (and possibly local culture :smallconfused:).

Please let me know if this is correct. If so, then what you have here is merely an Objective Morality System which has a lot of holes in it. There is an absolute right and wrong answer for some acts, but there are many which fall into a Fuzzy Area and do not count. What these Fuzzy Area acts are seem to be determined by the DM out-of-game, and by some relevant divine authority in game. Are these rules written out in the in-game universe somewhere?

Anyhow, this is not substantially different from the Nine Alignments System. All it does is reduce the relevance of alignment to character actions since some number (perhaps a large number) of actions can be argued to fall into a Fuzzy Area. I would argue such a system is more arbitrary than the Nine Alignments System, but if it works for you, then it's all good.

On Subjective Alignment Systems
A true Subjective Morality System would have to be based to some extent on Moral Relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). Moral Relativism holds that there are no Universal Truths (Objective Morality standards) and that the Good or Evil of any particular action must be judged in relation to some particular context. Typically this is either Individual (a person's own moral code) or Cultural (society's moral code); either is disastrous in the context of a D&D setting where one's Goodness and Vileness can have in-game effects.

If you use an Individual set, then everyone considers themselves Good and their enemies Evil, or at least Neutral. Here, Paladins will constantly be smiting each other and detecting Evil all over the place. Nobody will use Evil aligned weapons, or Good-attacking spells. It makes alignment meaningless and ridiculous at the same time.

However, if you use a Cultural set, then you quickly result in a Clash of Civilizations. People from cultures different from your own start showing up as Evil, since they persist in activities which are labeled as "bad" in your own (like worshiping different gods), while avoiding "good" ones (such as venerating your deceased ancestors). Paladins are now literal Culture Warriors, and, depending on how broadly you define "culture" you may have every faction in a society detecting all others as Evil.

This is a fascinating setting hook, but it has very little to do with "heroic fantasy;" at least that which is still respected in this day and age.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 09:09 PM
Well, in most D&D universes, there is an afterlife where people are judged by their actions in life. These divine arbitrators generally seem to be able to determine the Good or Evil of any particular act. Unless your world contains a Final Judge who is unable to adequately judge people, it seems that there must be some kind of Ultimate Morality.

Nope. There may in fact be an ultimate moral answer to every dilemma but most humanoids do not know it. The system by which some final judges considers precisely what alignment someone was is not fully understood by any humanoid. Furthermore, where one ends up after death in my setting depends on deity first, alignment second.


In D&D, these guidelines are laid out in the Nine Alignments Systems. I have yet to find a character or course of action that I cannot place in one of the nine slots. However, I am always looking for a challenge.

Do you watch Firefly? Go check out the argument about Jayne's alignment on that thread. Yes, it's likely that you think there is a right answer, and I do too, but judging by people arguing so vehemently from both sides, there is not a clear-cut answer.


Ah, I see. What you are doing here is assuming some universal cultural traits (ex: Rape is always bad) and labeling anything outside of those traits as Evil. Within this collection of traits are a variety of actions which may or may not be Good or Evil depending on the Universal Culture (and possibly local culture :smallconfused:).

Please let me know if this is correct. If so, then what you have here is merely an Objective Morality System which has a lot of holes in it. There is an absolute right and wrong answer for some acts, but there are many which fall into a Fuzzy Area and do not count. What these Fuzzy Area acts are seem to be determined by the DM out-of-game, and by some relevant divine authority in game. Are these rules written out in the in-game universe somewhere?

As I've already stated, my system is not entirely subjective. I do not call it objective, because for the average person, there is not a clear, obvious, entirely objective answer. Additionally, there are a few dilemmas which, yes, do not have a clear single morally correct answer (such as the village versus party members dilemma). In those cases, one is not Good and the other is Neutral or Evil, but the intent and motives are what's important as far as alignment.


Anyhow, this is not substantially different from the Nine Alignments System. All it does is reduce the relevance of alignment to character actions since some number (perhaps a large number) of actions can be argued to fall into a Fuzzy Area. I would argue such a system is more arbitrary than the Nine Alignments System, but if it works for you, then it's all good.

Yup, it is more arbitrary, since I like a realistic setting. Just like in real life, there is no clear, objective good as understood by all people (even if some Power does know all the correct answers), there is some of that lack of clarity in my setting.


On Subjective Alignment Systems
A true Subjective Morality System would have to be based to some extent on Moral Relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism).

Yup, as I've said before /I do not use a truly subjective system. I call it that because it is not purely objective nor are they clear moral answers to all questions in the eyes of mortals. It isn't as simple, but the arguments against a real subjective system aren't really very relevent since a true subjective system, well, is not really a system at all and I certainly wouldn't claim it is compatible with how alignment works in D&D.


This is a fascinating setting hook, but it has very little to do with "heroic fantasy;" at least that which is still respected in this day and age.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always assumed one could interpret D&D differently and that while "heroic fantasy" of the old-fashioned sort was its original assumption, 3.5 is not so simple. If it was, goblins would always be evil, first off. The flavor and assumptions of traditional heroic fantasy are not to my tastes, nor my players, so I do not base my interpretations off of that.

Devils_Advocate
2009-01-19, 09:23 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.
That's precisely how alignment DOESN'T work.


IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc.
No, they're not.


If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil?
Well, if he's helping the colony to accomplish evil, then maybe he's evil. But, other than that, he isn't.

Seriously, if a bunch of humans decide to gang up and wipe out a tribe of kobolds because purely because of their race, it's not the kobolds who are Lawful Evil. Alignment is not a racial trait. It's how a sapient being chooses to interact with others.

Good: Benevolent
Evil: Cruel
Lawful: Compliant
Chaotic: Defiant

Good/Evil covers how nice or how big of a jerk you are in general. Law/Chaos deals with how you interact with your society's values in particular. D&D does cover cultural standards independent from the cosmic absolutes of Good and Evil, and it does it with the Law/Chaos axis. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 09:30 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always assumed one could interpret D&D differently and that while "heroic fantasy" of the old-fashioned sort was its original assumption, 3.5 is not so simple. If it was, goblins would always be evil, first off. The flavor and assumptions of traditional heroic fantasy are not to my tastes, nor my players, so I do not base my interpretations off of that.

One can interpret any gaming system however they wanted. Heck, I once ran a oWoD Vampire game based entirely in a Miami Vice-style setting. However, it is clear that the Nine Alignments System, at its heart, is trying to mirror the Good vs. Evil themes you see in the works of Tolkien and similar fantasy writers.

I'm not at all certain that it is easier in 3.5 to work around these conventions than in other editions, since alignment has always been a short-hand for general outlooks on life.

It's far easier to say that Kobolds are LE than it is to write a treatise on kobold society and mores, after all :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:
I actually haven't seen Firefly but I will have to check it out sometime it seems.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 09:42 PM
One can interpret any gaming system however they wanted. Heck, I once ran a oWoD Vampire game based entirely in a Miami Vice-style setting. However, it is clear that the Nine Alignments System, at its heart, is trying to mirror the Good vs. Evil themes you see in the works of Tolkien and similar fantasy writers.

Just because it was originally based on Tolkein does not mean that seeing it strictly as such is the canon interpretation. Again, if that was the case /goblins would always be evil/. The fact that the Monster Manual does not condemn all goblinoids or kobolds to an evil alignment already suggests more of a flexibility than black and white Tolkein views where hobbits and people are usually good but can change, and all orcs are at their essence evil. I do not think my "some is subjective, despite many clear good and evil values" is a stretch from the RAW as you seem to be suggesting.


I'm not at all certain that it is easier in 3.5 to work around these conventions than in other editions, since alignment has always been a short-hand for general outlooks on life.

It's far easier to say that Kobolds are LE than it is to write a treatise on kobold society and mores, after all :smallbiggrin:

I haven't played other editions, I admit up front, so all of my assumptions about them are based on what I've heard from others. Yes, it is easier to throw everything into boxes, and alignment is used as shorthand, but that means I treat it as such: Shorthand. It does not encompass all cultural nuances, moral dilemmas, or racial traits in a perfect, clear way by mortal standards. It's a general trend, an overview. Not an end-all, be-all for defining all non-human races.


EDIT:
I actually haven't seen Firefly but I will have to check it out sometime it seems.

I highly recommend it; it is a fantastic show.

Neek
2009-01-19, 10:18 PM
If everything in the monster manual isn't a monster then they should have come up with a better name for it.

You don't see people opening mexican restaurants that exclusively serve chinese food.

Bad analogy. Chinese food is objective, as is Mexican food. Nor is the Monster Manual mislabeled: Virtually anything non-humanoid can be considered a person. Note the difference between Charm Person and Charm Monster: Person only effects humanoids, while Monster effects anything else. That's the closest we get to a real definition of what a "monster is."

So why are humanoids featured in the Monster Manual? Because it's a design element. Every encounter has a challenge rating, a location (with location-dependent elements such as weather, terrain, hazards, obstacles, innocentset al.) and a population of one or more individuals elements, or simply put, monsters; it may also have treasure, but not always. Since the majority of unique entries in the book are non-humanoids, it makes sense to continue to refer to the book as the Monster's Manual.

...which is an acceptable definition as a design element in spells and monsters provided we do not attach a negative connotation to the word (that is, a Chaotic Good monster can be you ally. It being monster doesn't mean it's your enemy). So, that means that goblins are people, as are orcs. So by your statement, we should not preclude them from human morality. Intelligent monstrous humanoids must be given some concession, no matter how primitive they may appear, when it comes to morality. We should be less concerned with aberrations, on the opposite side of the spectrum, which are defined by truly alien motives. They would be the ones least likely to care for any morality system.


Slightly more serious, this argument is pointless. People either argue their own version of morality or the rickety construct from the game that everybody with a sense of plot already ignores because it just gets in the way.

Give your character his own morality, reasons motivations and all such that generally align and play by that. You fall if you betray your ideals but you won't be hunted just because you are evil but because either your actions or those you affiliate with.

It's pretty much instant plot-complexity and saves long arguments over good and evil as the reasons are no longer absolute but rather character based. The detect spells just work as arbitrarily as before, perhaps only on the most extremes were there is no argument and as such the world doesn't give as much weight to them.

Which would work, because it does in d20 Modern, however D&D is a game built with a universal conflict of Good and Evil, which exist as absolute values, not relative concepts. You're free to remove it from your campaigns, but that isn't the point of this conversation.

I'd like to say some more, but I think Queenfange has definitely wrapped up the points rather well (especially about defining who isn't good).

Attempting to reconcile Tolkien's depiction of orcs and goblins as being always evil, and D&D ought to because the progenitor of Heroic Fantasy did is so silly: D&D orcs and goblins are not fallen elves. Therefore, it's up to the writers of D&D to define, which becomes RAW, the alignment of orcs. Any DM is free to change their alignment, but again, that's not what we're discussing.


Ah, I see. What you are doing here is assuming some universal cultural traits (ex: Rape is always bad) and labeling anything outside of those traits as Evil

Wait. When is rape not bad?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 10:23 PM
Wait. When is rape not bad?

Apparently, when it is done by orcs (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-01-26).

Sorry, couldn't resist. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it isn't that hard to imagine a society where such activity is condoned in certain circumstances. If you go the Moral Relativism route then pretty much any activity can be shown to be unobjectionable for certain people. Just because we haven't seen a society which condones the practice (IIRC) doesn't mean it can't be imagined. I mean, there aren't any such things as dragons or elves either, and we play games full of 'em.

Yahzi
2009-01-19, 10:26 PM
When it comes to monsters like kobolds and goblinoids, I take the view that they just spawn from the inherent chaos of the Underworld (http://www.philotomy.com/#dungeon)
That's actually a brilliant idea. It allows the monsters to be purely monsters, and is close to both Tolkien and Vance. However, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be the D&D canon.

Maybe it's Blizzard's fault, for making the orcs cute in Warcraft. :smallbiggrin:



If you go the Moral Relativism route then pretty much any activity can be shown to be unobjectionable for certain people.
Or if you go the different biology route. It's not immoral for black widows to eat their mates.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-19, 10:29 PM
If you go the Moral Relativism route then pretty much any activity can be shown to be unobjectionable for certain people. Just because we haven't seen a society which condones the practice (IIRC) doesn't mean it can't be imagined. I mean, there aren't any such things as dragons or elves either, and we play games full of 'em.

We aren't going for a totally moral relativism route. Have I not state that clearly? Unless that was entirely directed at Neek. And since it isn't purely mortally relative, that means there is a distinction between what some societies condone/tolerate and what is, by the cosmological forces, defined as good or evil. So, yeah, you keep bringing up examples where I will not disagree there is a morally clear answer in all terms in the game world. That doesn't make every single possible situation morally clear or purely objective, though hopefully that's not what you are trying to argue (since again, your example is not relevent to such a claim).

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-19, 11:42 PM
We aren't going for a totally moral relativism route. Have I not state that clearly? Unless that was entirely directed at Neek. And since it isn't purely mortally relative, that means there is a distinction between what some societies condone/tolerate and what is, by the cosmological forces, defined as good or evil. So, yeah, you keep bringing up examples where I will not disagree there is a morally clear answer in all terms in the game world. That doesn't make every single possible situation morally clear or purely objective, though hopefully that's not what you are trying to argue (since again, your example is not relevent to such a claim).

No, no, I recognize that your system is not a Subjective Alignment System. It has Objectively Bad things and is willing to give a pass to various situations that are not sufficient clear cut.

We got on the Subjective Alignment System topic back when you claimed to have a working Subjective Alignment System.

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree. When I, at least, say "subjective alignment system," I mean it is not clear cut, there are morally gray situations, and that people throughout the world define good/evil and what is acceptable or not rather differently. This, however, does not mean the system is entirely subjective; that would be entirely incompatible with the cosmoligcal forces of good and evil (which I assume to exist based on the Outer Planes and spells which deal damage based on alignment). You are right that an entirely subjective alignment system would be useless, and perhaps us using the term "subjective" isn't entirely appropriate, but I think a "slightly fuzzy" alignment system is a good approach: Not because there isn't a moral answer to everything, but in terms of determing for every act (or motive) what exactly is good or evil, and to what degree, is beyond the scope of moral understanding. Maybe not the way for everyone's campaign, but it is not incompatible with the RAW (as far as I know) and I find it a satisfying approach.

We merely had a failure to communicate. It's good to see that nobody is advocating a subjective alignment system here.

EDIT:

Or if you go the different biology route. It's not immoral for black widows to eat their mates.

Do spiders really have morality? :smallconfused:

In D&D, creatures of animal intelligence have traditionally been outside of the alignment system, perhaps for this very reason.

Shosuro Ishii
2009-01-19, 11:56 PM
Wait. When is rape not bad?

Many theories of ethics and morality reject the idea of 'good' and 'bad' actions.

While that doesn't mean they condone rape, it is very easy to see a view of the world that doesn't label it as 'bad'.

These theories (unlike the utalitarian and Kantian theories explored above) are completly thrown out the window in the D&D world.

Neek
2009-01-20, 01:29 AM
Do spiders really have morality? :smallconfused:

In D&D, creatures of animal intelligence have traditionally been outside of the alignment system, perhaps for this very reason.

Oddly enough, it's a common misunderstanding: Only Southern Black Widows eat their males, of the three species of black widows that exist (There's also northern and southern). And they only eat them occasionally. More often than not, the male escapes because he knows better than to cuddle (which is where the human male instinct to not cuddle comes into play. He's scared. He should be!)

The mantes, who are also known for eating their males after copulation, actually only do it in captivity. They do in the wild sometimes, but it's quite rare. The reason is unknown, more than likely to remove a member from the species so the next generation won't have to compete with a member of the previous generation for food. The male, in this instance, has less inhibitions of cuddling. They still don't, for some reason.


Many theories of ethics and morality reject the idea of 'good' and 'bad' actions.

While that doesn't mean they condone rape, it is very easy to see a view of the world that doesn't label it as 'bad'.

I could use a counter argument with universals, but I hate those (especially in linguistics. Language universals are not universal at all). Being that as it may, I have yet to encounter a culture where rape is socially acceptable and condoned--it may be tolerated to certain degrees. The rights of the victim may be entirely ignored (which is a problem regarding legality, rather than morality), and the punishment may be less than the crime. There's also the problem of defining rape (statutory, date, violet, et al.), where there is plenty of gray area. I'd rather not discuss it further, I was just curious if there was a culture were raping was considered an acceptable cultural norm.


Apparently, when it is done by orcs (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-01-26).

Sorry, couldn't resist. :smalltongue:

*Faceplam.* :smalltongue:

hewhosaysfish
2009-01-20, 11:43 AM
Seriously though, it isn't that hard to imagine a society where such activity is condoned in certain circumstances. If you go the Moral Relativism route then pretty much any activity can be shown to be unobjectionable for certain people. Just because we haven't seen a society which condones the practice (IIRC) doesn't mean it can't be imagined.

Surely societies which practice slavery or treat women as chattel* (which definitely have existed) would condone acts that we would consider rape?

*Theoretically, this could also apply to a society which treated men as chattel instead but I can't think of any such society.



Wandering a bit closer to the main topic of discussion:
Is there anyone else here who considers the alignment entries in the MM (and the descriptions of society and culture) to be a demographic measurement rather than racial trait?
That is to say, 40-50% of goblins in "generic-DnD-setting-with-Greyhawk-gods-and-Planescape-cosmology-described-in-the-corebooks" are Chaotic Evil but that is a result of the culture and society that goblins have in that setting rather than as some inherent trait of the goblins themselves.

There seems to be this idea that any given goblin baby will have a 40-50% chance of being CE when it grow up regardless of whether it was raised by CE goblin parents in a tribe of CE goblin, by CG goblin parents in a village of halflings or by an (LN) Inevitable tutor in a city made from gears in Mechanus. There is absolutely nothing any outside influence can do to instil any particular value system in a young goblin: it's just a crap-shoot.

Neek
2009-01-20, 01:39 PM
Is there anyone else here who considers the alignment entries in the MM (and the descriptions of society and culture) to be a demographic measurement rather than racial trait?

That is to say, 40-50% of goblins in "generic-DnD-setting-with-Greyhawk-gods-and-Planescape-cosmology-described-in-the-corebooks" are Chaotic Evil but that is a result of the culture and society that goblins have in that setting rather than as some inherent trait of the goblins themselves.

One has to assume, that unless the creature is listed as Always Evil, or has the [Evil] subtype, that it is a measurement of demographic; this could be from natural tendencies based on environment, culture, or upbringing. However, the tendency towards Evil is not reflected by the entire population, but enough to note that they are generally Evil.

ericgrau
2009-01-20, 03:58 PM
I have a question, for those who favor the alignment system. Overall, I think it can be a great tool, but there's a problem I'm having a hard time getting around.

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

It just seems so black and white. They're evil, thus they should die. That hardly seems "good" to me.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

Oh, and don't bother taking this thread as a means to bash the alignment system. I'm fully aware of those arguments, but rather than revamping the entire game, I'd rather find a middle ground, if possible. Fortunately, my players are very cooperative, so I have plenty of leeway.

Thanks for your help! :D

They're not always evil, but rather usually evil. Here's something straight from the SRD on the matter:



Law Enforcement

The other key distinctions between adventuring in a city and delving into a dungeon is that a dungeon is, almost by definition, a lawless place where the only law is that of the jungle: Kill or be killed. A city, on the other hand, is held together by a code of laws, many of which are explicitly designed to prevent the sort of behavior that adventurers engage in all the time: killing and looting. Even so, most cities’ laws recognize monsters as a threat to the stability the city relies on, and prohibitions about murder rarely apply to monsters such as aberrations or evil outsiders. Most evil humanoids, however, are typically protected by the same laws that protect all the citizens of the city. Having an evil alignment is not a crime (except in some severely theocratic cities, perhaps, with the magical power to back up the law); only evil deeds are against the law. Even when adventurers encounter an evildoer in the act of perpetrating some heinous evil upon the populace of the city, the law tends to frown on the sort of vigilante justice that leaves the evildoer dead or otherwise unable to testify at a trial.


So in short what your player tried to do really was genocide - at least in the eyes of humanity in general - and even killing the warriors was questionable. In one group I was in it was typical to allow surrender, leave monsters unconcious and continue on, etc. In fact, we often had to spend time figuring out what to do with them, as killing a defeated opponent was not an option.

I also like how in Start of Darkness Rich pokes fun at the evil of humanity in general. Happens in OoPCs too. Yet the answer isn't mass slaughter of eachother, is it?

Narmoth
2009-01-20, 04:59 PM
Back in 2nd ed, it was stated that you got xp for defeating monsters, not necessary killing them. Still most people found it more convenient to kill the monster than to incarcerate orcs.
I believe it's mostly the same in 3.5
Personally, I would make a paladin fall for killing monsters unable to defend themselves, like monster offspring and prisoners.

Morty
2009-01-20, 05:22 PM
I don't really mind aligment system that much. What I do despise however, is labeling whole races as "evil cannon fodder" that's evil and therefore meant to be killed for XP and loot without giving it a second thought. But that's not the point.
The point is, I have a question for all those who make up stuff like "kobolds/orcs/goblins are always evil". Do you allow evil and neutral dwarves and elves? By your interpretation of racial alignments from Monster Manual, all elves and dwarves ought to be pure, distilled good.

Templarkommando
2009-01-20, 07:46 PM
One thing that always bothers me, is that players often think that a person of a given alignment will always behave a certain way. (i.e. A LG character will always turn in his party if they've stolen something).

While alignment is a good way to get some guidelines for how to play your character, it is not the end all and be all of what DnD is about. Characters are not a class, race, alignment, level, and gender. Occasionally, a chaotic evil character may charge in to the orphanage to save all the children if he thinks it will get him a big reward, or get him off the hook for something he's done earlier. The lawful good paladin, may on occasion may murder every last man, woman, child, and domesticated animal in a town if he thinks they will otherwise become an army of undead (probable case for an alignment shift, but still) or if an evil wizard has cast a spell so that the pally's detect evil misreads.

If alignment works for your party, it can be fun to use, but if it takes away from the fun your party is having, it needs to be done away with. Eliminating alignment from DnD is kind of awkward though, because it nullifies certain class special abilities and spells (detect evil, protection from "alignment" etc.).

Probably my biggest pet peeve are DMs and players that think a paladin will always fall. Or if the paladin steps one toe out of line it means he loses his class abilities. There is a time to revoke an alignment based class's abilities, it should come after a long string of offenses (intentionally ripping off his party members for gear, making a shady deal with an obviously evil character, and then ignoring someone in obvious need), or if he commits a major offense (robbing a bank, killing civilians, engaging in major sin and debauchery, etc.)

Murderous Hobo
2009-01-20, 08:17 PM
Which would work, because it does in d20 Modern, however D&D is a game built with a universal conflict of Good and Evil, which exist as absolute values, not relative concepts. You're free to remove it from your campaigns, but that isn't the point of this conversation.


This discussion spawned because something as subjective as the morality behind Good and Evil has been set into stone. For the OP it created a disconnect between what he feels is evil and that which is actual evil.

So my implicit solution was to do away with the absolute morality. Accepting it as a matter of fact as you seem to do is another ofcourse. Though I strongly feel that your suggestion lacks refinement, as the OP seems to be thinking about morality at a higher level then DnD does.

Roderick_BR
2009-01-20, 09:04 PM
In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

Common misconception: If the race is evil, it is not minding it's own business. It is raiding others places, taking values, and probably killing creatures from others races. If it IS just minding it's place, then they are not evil.
Yes, actions change it. If a race is "usually X", it means the society is prone to it (dwarves are usually LG, orcs are usually CE), doesn't mean there can't have different individuals, or even a full town/city/whatever full of different people.
"Always X" means that the whole race behaves in a certain way. Demons and devils, for example, are aways evil, unless you find a GOOD reason for them not to be.

And yes, destroying a whole race is still genocide, and usually considered evil. Especially if the race you are destroying is not evil. I can point the webcomic Goblins, where the local goblins is a pacific tribe, that want no trouble with others races, but they attract mindless adventurers because of the fame of another goblin tribe that used to be there and were evil.

horseboy
2009-01-21, 05:22 PM
And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?
Well, you don't kill women and children because they're evil, you do it because it's the merciful option.


Yeah, I'll let that sink in.



An "evil" culture is not going to have an egalitarian gender definition. They're evil. One or the other gender is going to "win". This will lead to one of two "types" of cultures:
The Cat Culture. Women are in charge of civilization. This is either because they are the dominate gender or males have decided all they're interested in is war. So like lions the females are in charge of everything that isn't about fending off hostiles or killing other cultures and taking their stuff. IFF you've identified to your players that kobolds do fall into this category, they will default to the other option.
The Cattle Culture. Women exist solely to breed the X male heirs. Felmale kobolds are barefoot and gravid in the kitchen making their husband a pie, where she belongs. So they think, what? I said they were evil.
So let's see. Your party just killed off every able bodied male in the area and all you're left with is the unborn, the small and the unskilled. What are the player's next options?

A) Kill them all. Offer up a quick, merciful sword thrust that ends their missery.
B) Take them back to town kicking and screaming. Where they'll be used as a source of cheap, unskilled labor (read slave) and face persecution and bigotry for being a kobold.
C) Turn their back and leave them. There are no hunters left and that glowing fungus in the room with the last knot of defender? Yeah that was their garden spot. There is now no new food coming and and anything of value they could use for trade has just been taken from them. They are now doomed to die a slow, agonizing death due to starvation.
So, your options are basically starvation, slavery or quick death. What do you do?

Asbestos
2009-01-21, 06:14 PM
*stuff*

You roll your eyes.

1st off, the 'cat/cattle culture' is laughably simplified. Gnolls (and hyenas) for example are female dominated groups, but everyone fights and everyone does the same thing. Female kobolds could easily be the same, since they lay eggs they could probably toss a blanket over the buggers while they go off to defend the cave. Being kobolds however, they're more than likely to take some crazy Viet Cong-like tunnel escape route.

Turning your back and leaving them is the best option. Even if its just females and eggs or females and children ... the females are still decently capable of doing things! Every mother doesn't have to be with her kids at all times, especially in a Lawful society. Groups of females could go out gathering/hunting while others stay back and look after the kids. You'd end up with Kobold Amazons or something. Of course, they'll probably want some sort of revenge.

horseboy
2009-01-22, 08:33 AM
I don't really mind aligment system that much. What I do despise however, is labeling whole races as "evil cannon fodder" that's evil and therefore meant to be killed for XP and loot without giving it a second thought. But that's not the point.
The point is, I have a question for all those who make up stuff like "kobolds/orcs/goblins are always evil". Do you allow evil and neutral dwarves and elves? By your interpretation of racial alignments from Monster Manual, all elves and dwarves ought to be pure, distilled good.Usually, it's more of a "Dwarves and elves have more in common with humans" type thing. All being cursorial hunters with low birth rates and what not. Something like, oh say, a kobold are different. "Back in the day" they had something stupid like 1d4x100 eggs in a lair. There were that many kobolds in the lair. At any point in time they could completely repopulate the warren in a few days. That's extremely prolific. A species that's that prolific can not afford a respect for life. If they did they would quickly over populate the environment and wipe themselves, and local species, out. Since "respect for life" is one of the things that's included in "good or evil". That means they tended to have to be evil so that adventurers would come "cull the herd" and create room for a new generation.

You roll your eyes.

1st off, the 'cat/cattle culture' is laughably simplified. Gnolls (and hyenas) for example are female dominated groups, but everyone fights and everyone does the same thing. Female kobolds could easily be the same, since they lay eggs they could probably toss a blanket over the buggers while they go off to defend the cave. Being kobolds however, they're more than likely to take some crazy Viet Cong-like tunnel escape route. hyenas fall under subsection one of cat. Females are dominate, like drow. So yes, like drow it is theoretically possible for there to be "warrior women" kobolds. But unless the GM has made that clear either in the fight or the setting, what is there to tell them that this is so?
Edit: Oh yeah, hyenas are also one of the four cursorial hunters on Earth. Cooperation tends to come easily to us.

Turning your back and leaving them is the best option. Even if its just females and eggs or females and children ... the females are still decently capable of doing things! Every mother doesn't have to be with her kids at all times, especially in a Lawful society. Groups of females could go out gathering/hunting while others stay back and look after the kids. You'd end up with Kobold Amazons or something. Of course, they'll probably want some sort of revenge.Gather and hunt what? All the kobolds that are strong/skilled enough to go into the dangerous outside are now dead and on the floor. The ones left are the heavily sheltered ones who don't know what animals/plants are dangerous, which are tasty or where/how to get them.

As to what is best, well that's the point of playing in grey areas. Rule #2 of playing in a morally ambiguous campaign is Some times there will be no "good" aligned option. Corollary 1 of rule 2 is you can not punish a "good" character for failing to take a good aligned action if there is not one. The "good" option was that the kobolds surrender, and after they have proven that they really are surrendering and not just faking it to lure them into a trap the players stop. (What? Players are allowed to be Good, not mandated to be Stupid Good) This didn't appear to be on the table, as few would argue that continuing to kill after a surrender is Evil. What you have here is a chance to determine which aspect of good is most important to your character. Is Honour more important and you refuse to strike an unarmed foe. Is Mercy more important and you refuse to allow them to suffer? Is Protective more important and you kill them all to make sure the town is safe? Is Sanctity of life more important and you allow them to live on as slaves. Hey, where there's life there's hope. Any one of these are equally viable. None of them are good.