[3.5] Nature vs. Nurture: Another Alignment Thread

[Umael]

I was reading "Drow of the Underdark" and it mentioned that some scholars theorize that the drow are evil by nature, and others believe that the drow are evil by nurture. This means that if the drow are evil by nature, you could raid a drow city, kidnap a drow baby, raise her with a loving family, and she would turn out to be just much of a sadistic, manipulative, murderess as the rest of her people. If the drow are evil by nurture, it means that because everyone around her is a sadistic, etc., etc., she will grow up to be just as bad.

Incidentally, either way you can blame Lloth, but in a setting where gods are little more than divine representation of primordial forces, the embodiment of some titanic foundation of the universe, does it make sense to blame a god for acting in accordance to its nature? Furthemore, would this mean that anyone who ascends to godhood is likewise bound to that nature?

In any case, D&D is rife with examples of evil creatures, yet sparse with good creatures, which leads one to wonder just how many evil creatures there are and how many good creatures there are - or is it just that evil has a greater diversity? And is it because evil fights evil (mind flayer versus drow versus derro) that good is allowed to actually survive?

By making the drow default to evil (usually neutral evil), it means that either the world is so nasty that the environment (nurture) perpetuates evil, or it means that there is a mystical default switch that makes all drow evil (again, either way, I blame Lloth). Yes, you have examples like Drizz't, but I gather that people like Drizz't are supposed to be as rare as serial killers are in the real world, and probably viewed in a similar light.

Assuming it is a mystical default switch, the only way to change that is to use the iconically popular Helm of Opposite Alignment or a version thereof (Tomb of Horrors, anyone?). It seems likely that something like this has already happened (Erinyes, anyone?).

Through all of this is also the notion of balance and neutrality. We can assume that most of the people in the world are neutral, that the universe is in balance, but with literally hundreds of monsters to pick, most of them hostile, if not evil, how can the idea that the universe is in balance be fairly represented?

Going back to the drow, are the drow supposed to be the evil balance to the elfs, that you cannot get evil elves who are not drow?? In DragonLance, dark elves were just that, what the rest of the world called an evil elf, but in this forum, I am betting there are plenty of examples of evil elf PCs and NPCs running around who are not drow.

Personally, I detest the idea that a race like the drow is evil because it just says so in the book. I can buy the society being evil, as Lloth has set it up, but I think this should be totally an issue of nurture - drow are evil because they grow up in an evil environment.

On the other hand, dragons and other creatures with their racial memories are evil because they have the memories of their race, a race that is filled with evil thoughts and deeds. If racial memory is a natural part of the dragon, then some dragons are evil because it is in their nature.

Things like liches and vampires - evil by nature, at least most of the time. Demons, devils - evil, again by nature. Mind flayers - evil, by their pseudonatural grotesque nature.

Orcs? Goblins? Even kobolds? Evil by nurture.

Okay, that was a long enough rambling post.

Thoughts?

[Faulty]

I agree wholly. One thing I could see, however, is maybe with orcs and such, is a mental predisposition towards aggression, something that is just a typical mental aspect of orcs. For the most part, I think it really is a nurture thing. I'm glad you mention Outsiders, I think the anti-alignment people don't take them into consideration often. Succubi, balors, etc are literally chaos and evil made flesh.

[PonceAlyosha]

I agree wholly. One thing I could see, however, is maybe with orcs and such, is a mental predisposition towards aggression, something that is just a typical mental aspect of orcs. For the most part, I think it really is a nurture thing. I'm glad you mention Outsiders, I think the anti-alignment people don't take them into consideration often. Succubi, balors, etc are literally chaos and evil made flesh.

You could have it both ways. Say the "evil" races are simply more predatory by evolution, and that those who live in more xenophobic areas think of humans or what have you as delicious snacks, because they'd only see humans in situations where they were preyed upon. Like Uberward!

[The Neoclassic]

I was reading "Drow of the Underdark" and it mentioned that some scholars theorize that the drow are evil by nature, and others believe that the drow are evil by nurture. This means that if the drow are evil by nature, you could raid a drow city, kidnap a drow baby, raise her with a loving family, and she would turn out to be just much of a sadistic, manipulative, murderess as the rest of her people. If the drow are evil by nurture, it means that because everyone around her is a sadistic, etc., etc., she will grow up to be just as bad.

This approach works well for people who don't like complex moral questions and want to be able to slaughter humanoid creatures without having to think of any possible negative implications on their character. And some people even claim this is the "best/proper/correct" way to interpret the alignment system. :smallannoyed: I know that's not what you're advocating, but goodness do I hate it when people act so exclusive about the "rightness" of that approach!


We can assume that most of the people in the world are neutral, that the universe is in balance, but with literally hundreds of monsters to pick, most of them hostile, if not evil, how can the idea that the universe is in balance be fairly represented?

Well, I don't really assume that most people are neutral. I assume that the alignments are, across the cultures, decently evenly distributed, though perhaps they lean slightly towards neutral/good. However, I tend to use a fuzzier & more fine-tuned alignment system, rather than assuming that rape or eating babies is vital to be evil or that good individuals must regularly risk their lives to save the unfortunate & crusade to end evil. Lots of small good or evil acts add up. So, I'd say it depends on DM/setting whether "Most people are neutral" holds true or not.


Things like liches and vampires - evil by nature, at least most of the time. Demons, devils - evil, again by nature. Mind flayers - evil, by their pseudonatural grotesque nature.

Orcs? Goblins? Even kobolds? Evil by nurture.

I'd generally agree with that sentiment. Again, some DMs choose to run things in more black & white terms, so I'd say it boils down in large part to personal preference. Some of us (OP and myself included it seems) want a bit more moral ambiguity and societies rather than humanoid races to be good or evil. No, slaughtering the helpless kobold or goblin baby is NOT good, or even neutral, since if it grows up in the right circumstances it could easily end up being good or neutral. Heck, I don't even think that "They're evil" is a justifiable reason to slaughter a race; unless they pose an imminent threat to one's safety or livelihood, how can that be justified? Alignment is after all a combination of motivation, intent, action, & consequence. Do mortals really have the knowledge or reasonable right to punish based on motivation? Perhaps the man saved the damsel in hopes that he could seduce her and take over the kingdom, which combined with his general character makes him evil, but can you prove that? Do you really have the right to kill him just because his motives are less pure than one who only wanted to save a woman in need? The deities can judge on those matters, but generally I'd say it's a dangerous game for mortals to think they can slaughter others just for being evil and keep their happy golden LG/NG/CG alignment. :smallwink: Again, I realize this will depend on your DM/game/players, but as long as no one tells me that *I* am not allowed to run things that way, we're good.


One thing I could see, however, is maybe with orcs and such, is a mental predisposition towards aggression, something that is just a typical mental aspect of orcs. For the most part, I think it really is a nurture thing.

Absolutely. A slight disposition towards certain traits which could more easily be channeled towards a certain alignment makes perfect sense. Orcs being impulsive and aggressive is an excellent example. This can also add a touch of flavor for non-evil orcs, who must work to overcome this or turn it into something good. Maybe the orc paladin finds that his natural impulse towards action allows him to achieve great levels of bravery.

[Umael]

I'm glad you mention Outsiders, I think the anti-alignment people don't take them into consideration often. Succubi, balors, etc are literally chaos and evil made flesh.

*chuckle*

I guess I might be one of those "anti-alignment" people, because I prefer my games to be run without alignment.

Still, I understand both where alignment originates and how to use it, instead of letting it use you (and manipulate what you are supposed to act and think in-character). The issue with outsiders is, exactly as you said, literally chaos and evil made flesh.

Of course, you could argue that if they are the embodiment of chaos and evil, why is it that they are both so different? Yes, there is no doubt that they are these alignments, but the way the balor approaches life and the way the succubus approaches life are quite different.


As a sidenote, concerning orcs, especially good orcs, especially orc paladins, I'm not sure why, by I have this image of an orc in shining armor walking along, singing/whistling "I'm Just a Gigolo".

[Zombimode]

*chuckle*
Of course, you could argue that if they are the embodiment of chaos and evil, why is it that they are both so different? Yes, there is no doubt that they are these alignments, but the way the balor approaches life and the way the succubus approaches life are quite different.


First, Tanar'Ri dont approache life, as they have none.
Second, why assume the Balor and the Succubus are different entities?
Precieving outsiders as persons doesnt vibe well with their established properties.

[The Neoclassic]

First, Tanar'Ri dont approache life, as they have none.
Second, why assume the Balor and the Succubus are different entities?
Precieving outsiders as persons doesnt vibe well with their established properties.

... Assuming that outsiders have personalities is wrong? :smallconfused: Maybe in your game you have outsiders as mindless automatons (which doesn't make sense to me, honestly, since they have Int, Wis, & Cha scores which are quite decent), but most of us don't play that way. We can compare outsiders to people in that they have personalities and yes, approaches to life. Outsiders are alive/conscious/aware, and have the ability to think/notice/theorize, so it makes perfect sense that they would have a philosophy, an approach to life, a style of doing things.

I tend to assume that when the description, stats, fluff, combat style, and method of getting mortals to fall for certain demons are different that they are different entities. Again, I suppose it'd be possible to run a game where all demons are just different forms of the same mindless chaos/evil-stuff-ness, but most of us don't play that way.

The established property of having chaos and evil flow through one's veins, and being tied to or more closely related to an outer plane, the deities, alignment, or something of that sort in no way suggests that they will be nothing like people or lack any hint of independence or noticeable personality. Heck, if one's so closely tied to chaos that they have the [Chaos] subtype, I'd rather imagine a lot of variation in everything about such creatures as a whole, including how they look at things.

:smallbiggrin:

[arguskos]

First, Tanar'Ri dont approache life, as they have none.
Second, why assume the Balor and the Succubus are different entities?
Precieving outsiders as persons doesnt vibe well with their established properties.
Eh... they do have lives. They are living beings, since you can utterly annihilate their being. You can track them down in the Abyss and slaughter them and that individual will never return. So, yeah, they are alive. As for their being persons, what stops them from having opinions, thoughts, ideas, loves, hates, friends and enemies? We simply can't put ourselves in their shoes (them being made of Evil and all, and us being made of meat instead).

As for the question at hand, I think that when dealing with mortals, they're always nurture. The BoED (yeah yeah, just listen) has an example of a redeemed illithid who, upon being treated well by its saviors, actually turns around and redeems itself, because it was shown kindness. It seems to me that nurture makes sense for many creatures in D&D.

Now, when taking outsiders, beings stated to be composed of alignments themselves, the very ESSENCE of Evil, Chaos, Good, Neutrality, Fish Sticks, Liniment, Whatever, they are bound by their nature. A demon must be evil, much as I must breathe. It's a limitation of my being. Nothing short of powerful magic (alignment swapping for him, a clear ioun stone for me) can change those facts.

[Optimystik]

The nature/nurture question gets clouded when you get deities involved. Lloth makes the Drow and she makes their society, so which is it? It could go either way.

Chromatic Dragons have strong evil tendencies by Draconomicon, to the point that a non-evil person will always be unsuccessful raising them from eggs (and ditto for evil people with metallic eggs.) So with them it is mostly nature.

And I have to insert Sanctify the Wicked and other alignment-changers into this discussion.It seems to me that if evil is Nature, they are overwriting an existing alignment; if it is Nurture, they are undoing mental conditioning. Which is it? Is it a race-by-race basis?

[Zombimode]

... Assuming that outsiders have personalities is wrong? :smallconfused: Maybe in your game you have outsiders as mindless automatons (which doesn't make sense to me, honestly, since they have Int, Wis, & Cha scores which are quite decent), but most of us don't play that way. We can compare outsiders to people in that they have personalities and yes, approaches to life. Outsiders are alive/conscious/aware, and have the ability to think/notice/theorize, so it makes perfect sense that they would have a philosophy, an approach to life, a style of doing things.

I tend to assume that when the description, stats, fluff, combat style, and method of getting mortals to fall for certain demons are different that they are different entities. Again, I suppose it'd be possible to run a game where all demons are just different forms of the same mindless chaos/evil-stuff-ness, but most of us don't play that way.

The established property of having chaos and evil flow through one's veins, and being tied to or more closely related to an outer plane, the deities, alignment, or something of that sort in no way suggests that they will be nothing like people or lack any hint of independence or noticeable personality. Heck, if one's so closely tied to chaos that they have the [Chaos] subtype, I'd rather imagine a lot of variation in everything about such creatures as a whole, including how they look at things.

:smallbiggrin:

So, what you do is basicly to make up bunch of new races who live on other planets.
Well, if I wanted to do this, I would do EXACTLY that, and leave the upper planes for something different.

The beauty of this is, if I want a race that is tainted by universal forces of good, evil, chaos etc. I can just use one of the existing races and develop their culture like that or create a new race for that purpose. But I still have beings in the upper planes that I can use to create a mythology and a world in which not everyone is a human in disguise.

Btw. I dont see why mental ability scores are relevant here. I can assinge mental ability scores to computers, robots and golems, without them being persons.


Eh... they do have lives. They are living beings, since you can utterly annihilate their being. You can track them down in the Abyss and slaughter them and that individual will never return. So, yeah, they are alive. As for their being persons, what stops them from having opinions, thoughts, ideas, loves, hates, friends and enemies? We simply can't put ourselves in their shoes (them being made of Evil and all, and us being made of meat instead).

The possiblity of a single instance in the world to be destroyed is not sufficient to render this instance alive.
A zombie can be destroyed, without being alive.
A golem can be destroyed, without being alive.
Hell, a house can be uttlery annihilated, without being alive.

About the second part of your statement I unsure how to understand.
Are your saying outsider can have these states of mind?
Or do you say, they can not, because they ara not like mortal beings?

[The Neoclassic]

So, what you do is basicly to make up bunch of new races who live on other planets.
Well, if I wanted to do this, I would do EXACTLY that, and leave the upper planes for something different.

Absolutely not. Could you please cite some sources which support your viewpoint here? Furthermore, you use language which suggests I'm somehow forcing an idea upon you, when I specifically stated that you can run your world however you please but no evidence suggests that most people agree with you. How do you define "races"? Any being that is capable of cognizant or semi-independent thought? Also, "other planets"? Rather than planes? What on earth is that in there for? I've read the Manual of the Planes, and I didn't read it like "Oh, it's just winged people but on other planets!" nor did I notice anything saying "These creatures are all identical. They don't think or reason or have any personality in the way that mortals do. In fact, to suggest so would be blatantly insulting and a clear misunderstanding."

Heck, Celia from the comic is an outsider, and she seems to be an independent, thinking individual. No, she's not a demon, but nor is she any humanoid, mortal, or native to the Material Plane. Sabine is a demon! She certainly has a worldview and a personality. Unless Rich Burlew's interpretation is total crudmuffins too? :smallamused: In which case, the discussion ought to end here, as I tend to agree with his way of looking at things.


The beauty of this is, if I want a race that is tainted by universal forces of good, evil, chaos etc. I can just use one of the existing races and develop their culture like that or create a new race for that purpose. But I still have beings in the upper planes that I can use to create a mythology and a world in which not everyone is a human in disguise.

Why do you equate "Personality rather than automaton" with "human in disguise"? Again, I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that outsiders don't think or are independent, much less that they have no minds of their own or variation.


Btw. I dont see why mental ability scores are relevant here. I can assinge mental ability scores to computers, robots and golems, without them being persons.

Huh, it looks like flesh golems have no Intelligence score and a Charisma of one. Representing their inability to think on their own. Mental ability scores represent one's ability to think for themselves, to analyze, to recognize themselves as independent entities.

I'm getting the impression, no offense, that you're trying to derail the discussion and upset people who play differently than you do. If that's the case, I promise I won't bug you by responding further, since I enjoy the OP and their ideas and would rather focus on that. :smallwink:

[arguskos]

The possiblity of a single instance in the world to be destroyed is not sufficient to render this instance alive.
A zombie can be destroyed, without being alive.
A golem can be destroyed, without being alive.
Hell, a house can be uttlery annihilated, without being alive.
This, I will grant. However, none of the above feel pain, speak, THINK, or respond to stimuli. Outsiders do all of the above.


About the second part of your statement I unsure how to understand.
Are your saying outsider can have these states of mind?
Or do you say, they can not, because they ara not like mortal beings?
Oi... ok. Here's a better way to say it:

I can relate to you because our minds are similar on a chemical and fundamental level. The way I am wired and the way you are is amazingly similar, with the differences being almost completely cosmetic. This permits me to relate to you and your points of view.

Now, if I compare my mind to that of an outsider, I can not relate to it in any way. It talks, has opinions, has ideas, loves, hates, desires things, but when it comes to true understanding, it's thought patterns are too different. It's brain is wired completely differently, much like how a punchcard machine and a top-of-the-line supercomputer can share data, but they can't do things the way the other does. The hardware is just too different.

If we extrapolate out somewhat, we see that an outsider and a human are different enough to be impossible to relate to one another, but not so different they can't both be said to be alive or to have feelings and thoughts.

Was I clear enough this time? :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Chromatic Dragons have strong evil tendencies by Draconomicon, to the point that a non-evil person will always be unsuccessful raising them from eggs (and ditto for evil people with metallic eggs.) So with them it is mostly nature.


I's put that as "Nearly always" since it does happen in D&D novels. And the Myth Drannor sourcebook, (and later Realms books referring to it) has a hybrid half-red, half-blue dragon, raised from the egg by an elf, of Good alignment, called Garnet.

How hard it is to raise an chromatic wyrmling to be non-evil Adult Chromatic, or steer an existing Evil Chromatic away from evil, generally depends on the DM.

[Myrmex]

Orcs? Goblins? Even kobolds? Evil by nurture.

Okay, that was a long enough rambling post.

Thoughts?

I like to assume some level of evolution has occurred in my campaigns, and that mean, aggressive orcs, etc. have been selected for being mean & aggressive over time. They're not ugly people, they're an entirely different species that has been under radically different selection pressures. Humans are capable of love and compassion and whatnot, because there are times when having those feelings is advantageous, just as going into a blind rage and killing someone can be advantageous. I make the assumption that orcs & giants, due to their size and carnivorous diet, benefit most from low population density, and that co-operation has been counter-productive, since they never really picked up animal husbandry.

[Umael]

First, Tanar'Ri dont approache life, as they have none.
Second, why assume the Balor and the Succubus are different entities?
Precieving outsiders as persons doesnt vibe well with their established properties.

:smallsigh:

I knew I should have been pendantic and used the term "existence" instead of "lives".

Well, damage done. The can of worms has been opened. Call the birds, it's feeding time!

1) If you WANT to be pendantic, my comment is still totally valid. I believe that demons (which includes MORE than the Tanar'Ri, by the by - a little tidbit you conveniently skipped) are characterized as being somewhat outside of time - that is to say, they have no beginning, but they have an end (usually an adventurer's sword*). HOWEVER, they do "approach" life, which is to say, they have a view of life - not their lives, of course, but the lives of others.

* - Or axe, mace, spell, psionic power etc., etc. And of course, only on their home plane.

2) What you suggest is an interesting alternative, but you need to realize that you are in the minority here. The dominant view is that all demons, all devils, pretty much all outsiders are independent entities. If you look at the myriad examples of NPCs (mostly villains) and a few PCs that are running around the gaming community, they depict outsiders as individuals, with their own goals and agendas. Sometimes outsiders of the same kind fight one another, which seems indicative of a lack of a singularity to their existence.

If I understand you correctly, creatures like balor and succubus are like projections of chaos and evil, where what IS chaos and evil is much like a vast pool of liquid, and the balor is just a solidified chunk from that pool which is shaped differently than the solidified chunk that comes to be known as "succubus". Like I said above, an interesting alternative, but one that is in the minority.

3) And lastly,


Precieving outsiders as persons doesnt vibe well with their established properties

It doesn't?

I think most of the gaming community perceives them quite well as independent individuals, with diverse opinions and thoughts and so forth. Just what exactly are these properties that deny them their status as separate entities - especially since your argument will have to include why they function AS separate entities, to the point where they have conflict and competing agendas sometimes within their own monster entry?

[Umael]

Just wanted to toss this interesting bit out.

We talk about humans and elves and dwarves and dragons as races, but we need to keep in mind that D&D does not have a scientific view on biology, or at least, on interbreeding.

Because so many species and interbreed with so many others, discussing things like evolution and psychology come with a caveat that "it may not always be like we know it", and for good reason.

(Sorry for the double-post.)

[chiasaur11]

* - Or axe, mace, spell, psionic power etc., etc. And of course, only on their home plane.


Or ultra manly fists, of course. Rip and Tear!

More seriously, I agree. Demons in DnD tend to be, basically, people.

Horrible, evil people of the sort Ghandi would advocate atomic warfare against, maybe, but capable of independent decisions, free will, and the like.

And capable of very badly regretting getting in the way of that loud guy in armor waving a chainsaw around.

[Jade_Tarem]

Just want to point out from above that liches are a special case - you have to be evil to be a lich, since the process of turning yourself into one (remember, liches are made, not born) requires a succession of very evil acts along with the channeling of "dark forces." That's all fluff, but the strong implication is that it's a Faustian bargain. Unlike some other monstrosities, like vampires or dragons, you get a 100% say in whether or not you become a lich - it's pretty hard to be forced into lichdom. Pure freaking nurture.

Of course, you can reconstruct the fluff in such a way that this changes, but that's my basic understanding of it.

[Wings of Peace]

Just want to point out from above that liches are a special case - you have to be evil to be a lich, since the process of turning yourself into one (remember, liches are made, not born) requires a succession of very evil acts along with the channeling of "dark forces." That's all fluff, but the strong implication is that it's a Faustian bargain. Unlike some other monstrosities, like vampires or dragons, you get a 100% say in whether or not you become a lich - it's pretty hard to be forced into lichdom. Pure freaking nurture.

Of course, you can reconstruct the fluff in such a way that this changes, but that's my basic understanding of it.

Untrue sir! There are now the Arch-Liches and the Baelnorn.

[Myrmex]

Just wanted to toss this interesting bit out.

We talk about humans and elves and dwarves and dragons as races, but we need to keep in mind that D&D does not have a scientific view on biology, or at least, on interbreeding.

Because so many species and interbreed with so many others, discussing things like evolution and psychology come with a caveat that "it may not always be like we know it", and for good reason.

(Sorry for the double-post.)

Most D&Ders also don't have a scientific view on biology! Biologically, the concept of a species is very tenuous, and almost meaningless. Your idea of what a species is comes from Aristotle and heavily dogmatic Christian theologians & naturalists. Even after Darwin, the concept of a species was strongly influenced by 19th and early 20th century misconceptions about evolution.

[Zombimode]

Was I clear enough this time? :smallsmile:

Yes, very much so :) And your basic premise is the same as mine (that: if something isnt human, supposing human standarts may not be adequat), just on the conclusion we differ. Buts lets leave it at that, otherwise it would derail the thread further (sorry for that).


Absolutely not. Could you please cite some sources which support your viewpoint here? Furthermore, you use language which suggests I'm somehow forcing an idea upon you, when I specifically stated that you can run your world however you please but no evidence suggests that most people agree with you. How do you define "races"? Any being that is capable of cognizant or semi-independent thought? Also, "other planets"? Rather than planes? What on earth is that in there for? I've read the Manual of the Planes, and I didn't read it like "Oh, it's just winged people but on other planets!" nor did I notice anything saying "These creatures are all identical. They don't think or reason or have any personality in the way that mortals do. In fact, to suggest so would be blatantly insulting and a clear misunderstanding."

I will give you that: the books donts support my interpretation very well. Instead they are inchoherent about the nature and the possible states of mind of outsiders.
Questions that arise:
Outsiders (for sake of simplicy, lets concentrate on the outer planes (damn, I confused "outer" with "upper" in my earlier posting)) are supposed to be the "personification" of the aligments. Now, a person normally is more than an aligment. Are outsiders entitled to have this "more"? If yes, is this "more" free, or are there boundaries (in case: what bounderies?)? Wouldnt that lead to contradictions with the original intent?
Say if a succubus (which is a personification of a specific form of chaotic evil), is free to develop a compassion for the week, wouldnt that lead to an contradiction in its nature (as this is not chaotic evil)? WotC material said this is possible, but the questions arises: what exactly do you mean with "nature"? Because in this case one could think of a personification of chaotic evil, where this contradiction is not possible. Would this personification not be more true to its nature (the essence of the aligment)? Do both types exist? If only one type exists, why that and not the other?
You can ask many of these questions, but the answers in WotC material dont answer them or is not coherent about it.

Because of this incoherence, an interpretation is necessary.
Now, the OP asked the question about the orgination of evil in general and of outsiders in specific. I suggested my interpretation, but admittedly I did it not very eloquently.


Why do you equate "Personality rather than automaton" with "human in disguise"? Again, I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that outsiders don't think or are independent, much less that they have no minds of their own or variation.

Personality presupposes a person. Our perception on what a person is, is a wholly human one; its the only possible one since we are all human.
That means: whenever we try to personalize a being which is not a human, we "humanize" it in a way. If done sufficiently, we get a human-in-disguise, a human-with-a-funny-hat, and possibly a rubber forehead alien, if our budgets are low :smalltongue:

Note: I dont say this is a bad thing. To some extend it is neccesary for an RPG. But it doesnt have to go everwhere. Beeings of the outer planes, beholders, Ilithids, Elder evils... things who are VERY different from humanoids. I dont see the point of humanizing them. Why suppose a being vastly different from a human, but in the next step humanize it?

For the record, I think thats one of the reasons the Elder Evils got introduced. Because the fiends werent coherently portrait as truly and utterly inconcievable evil, but it was felt that such being should exist. Therefore the elder evils.

I wait for the day when the Elder Evil get their share of humanisation, but then Even Elder Evils get introduced :smallwink:


Huh, it looks like flesh golems have no Intelligence score and a Charisma of one. Representing their inability to think on their own. Mental ability scores represent one's ability to think for themselves, to analyze, to recognize themselves as independent entities.

Pinpointing specfic instances doesnt help your course here. I can suppose a computer program, that is intelligent (= is able to supposing a way towards a specific goal) and has the ability to imitate a personality (so it has a charisma score). This computer program might even identify itself in contrast to other "real" persons. It still doesnt have the ability to set its own goals, what I think an essential ability of a person.


I'm getting the impression, no offense, that you're trying to derail the discussion and upset people who play differently than you do. If that's the case, I promise I won't bug you by responding further, since I enjoy the OP and their ideas and would rather focus on that. :smallwink:

Maybe theres some truth in your perception. I have the tendency to get carried away in internet discussions.

But, my original posting intent was relevant for the topic:
The OP, in my understanding, asked about two ways of orginating "evil" within the beings of a world. How they can be used and what would be the consequences.

Lets discuss the possibilities:

A) Evil by nature:
A being that is evil by nature is not a moral agent. The outcomes of its actions may be evaluated and one could come to the conclusions that the actions of a certain being are best to be prevented, since they tend to cause much harm (or are undesirable in other ways).

Now, things dont have to be strict. You could ask the question: can the nature be changed?
If yes, could it be done by the being itself?
If yes, this indicates that it is not evil by nature alone.

Lets take Drow as an example and explore the possibilities: (disclaimer: all my examples are just ideas)

Drow where created as a result of a great shizm within the elven race. An evil goddes Loth used its power to make the Drow what they are: brutal, oppressive, racist etc.
They exist because of the will and for the goals of Loth. Because of that only a power that can trump the power of Loth can change the nature of a drow.
They for themselves are unable and unwilling to change.

B) Partly evil by nature/partly evil by nurture:
A being that is somehow "tainted" by an evil force, but in the same vein is blessed with a free mind. The ability to think freely may vary greatly.
Beings of this type are the most difficult to create (for the DM), since it will tap into some philosophical questions who are not easy to answer.

In short: if a being due to its nature commits action which are precieved by other beings as evil, but it (the evil being) has to proceed with these actions to sustain it self (because, it is its nature; that it can conclude with its own ratio, and thus willfully decides its actions), how can it self be called evil?

Let take a look at orcs:

Orc lack an aquivalent of the human emotion of love. Its just the way they are: they dont have it. This doesnt make them evil, but it has trendemous impacts on how orc socieities will be. I.e. a widespread faith of very evil gods like Gruumsh, Ilneval and Shargaas was possible. This strong religous influence of evil powers form the orcs into a race that is rife with bloodlust, rape and imperialism.
This development wasnt inevitable. One could discuss morals and the way of good with a orc. The end of the dicussiong shall be illustrated:

:redcloak: Well, yes, I can see your point. This could work for my people, too.
:roy: So, no more war, rape and plunder?
:redcloak: Actually, why? We are comfortable with our way of life as it is now.
:roy: But.. but, think of all the people you will hurt!
:redcloak: Well, watch me care. Besides, you have a fine sword. Hope you dont mind if I crush your head against the wall and than take it for myself.

Beings of this type are moral agents, but judging and interacting with them must take the nature of the being into account.

If say an orcish cultur would be changed, because they develop love, it indicates that they are not evil by nature, but nurture alone.

C) Evil by nurture:
Beings who are evil only by nurture have the potential to be a moraly respectable agent, but a external reason prevents them to live up to their potential. The question is, if having no excuse of an "evil" nature to fall back, are they more responsible for their actions?

Lets take orcs again:
For some reason or another the faith of the known orcish gods became widespread. Orcish children are raised with hatred and domination in mind, tender feelings througoutly supressed. They commit evil actions because they havent learned anything else. But given enough patience they could be turned to the "light", or they could themself question their ways.

As the DM you can put your creatures into this categories by answering each time the question: what kinf of moral agent I would this creature like to be?
For the players this shouldn be visible of course :)

Tangent: humans of earth can be category B) or C), depending on your views :)

Opinions? :)

Edit:


If I understand you correctly, creatures like balor and succubus are like projections of chaos and evil, where what IS chaos and evil is much like a vast pool of liquid, and the balor is just a solidified chunk from that pool which is shaped differently than the solidified chunk that comes to be known as "succubus". Like I said above, an interesting alternative, but one that is in the minority.

Yes, pretty much & dully noted.
I will not further bring it up in this thread.

Btw: I didnt know Tanar'Ri and demons arent synonymous. Enlight me, what are the other types?

[Umael]

Questions that arise:
Outsiders (for sake of simplicy, lets concentrate on the outer planes (damn, I confused "outer" with "upper" in my earlier posting)) are supposed to be the "personification" of the aligments.

There is a difference between "personification" and "embodiment". Aristotle vs Plato type argument - personification would be to take what IS chaos and evil and reflect unto it a personality. Embodiment would be to take FROM chaos and evil and make it into an form - one that can be given a personality.

If you will, neither the balor nor the succubus are the be-all and end-all of Chaos and Evil, but rather, crude copies, each one a different take on what it means to be Chaos and Evil combined.



Now, a person normally is more than an aligment. Are outsiders entitled to have this "more"? If yes, is this "more" free, or are there boundaries (in case: what bounderies?)? Wouldnt that lead to contradictions with the original intent?

No, it does not.

In part, it is about free will vs. pre-destination, which I cannot discuss at length because of the forum rules. There is more to it than that though.

Before I go into it, let me point out something - maybe it is semantics, but I like to stick to the notion that there is a difference between "individual" and "person" - and outsiders like demons are individuals.

Quick proof? Separate demons have individual names. They have identities. Even within the same monster manual entry.

As for this "more", you have two ways of looking at this - demons are nothing more than robots, programmed to not only do evil, but do their particular style of evil a particular way every single time. Or, demons are beings with choices, but that it is their nature to choose evil - like our ability to jump into orbit - we can jump, but gravity keeps us earthbound - a demon can make a choice, but its nature will keep it bound to evil.



Say if a succubus (which is a personification of a specific form of chaotic evil), is free to develop a compassion for the week, wouldnt that lead to an contradiction in its nature (as this is not chaotic evil)?

Let me ask you this:

Which is more evil?

A being that is evil because it has no choice?
Or a being that has a choice and chooses evil every single time?


Personality presupposes a person. Our perception on what a person is, is a wholly human one; its the only possible one since we are all human.

This is going to get into semantics real fast...

The Borg are a race. They have a personality, albeit that personality is a lack thereof. A single Borg is a person - but would you say that they have a personality?

And our perception on what makes a human is not based on solely us being human. A number of animal-lovers will point out that various animals, particularly the more intelligent ones, will display a personality. To then call such a thing an attempt to "humanize" the animal is a rather arrogant and possibly quite ignorant mindset to take, as if humans are the only creatures on this planet capable of doing things that require individuality and/or personality.


Note: I dont say this is a bad thing. To some extend it is neccesary for an RPG. But it doesnt have to go everwhere. Beings of the outer planes, beholders, Ilithids, Elder evils... things who are VERY different from humanoids. I dont see the point of humanizing them. Why suppose a being vastly different from a human, but in the next step humanize it?

I think that in part, the idea is to be able to understand it so that we can interact with it. Yet I argue that you do not need to "humanize" a creature to understand it and interact realisticly with it.

For example, beholders are paranoid xenophobes. We can understand that, we know what paranoia is and we know what xenophobia is. What we cannot understand is what makes a beholder a paranoid xenophobe, nor can we understand why the entire race is like that.

Given this as part of their nature, beholders should be evil creatures - but each one is different, each one is an individual, each one is the ultimate expression of the Great Mother and all other beholders are abominable copies... but it is also possible to treat a beholder as an individual, which means it is possible to even do something as radical as befriend one. We do not need to make the beholder "just like a human, only always paranoid and xenophobic", but instead to treat each beholder as an individual.

To fire back at the whole "humanize" aspect: all humans are individual, but not all individuals are human. We should not translate non-human individuals into humans (humanize them), but rather accept that as individuals they can share traits with us, who are also individuals.



Pinpointing specfic instances doesnt help your course here. I can suppose a computer program, that is intelligent (= is able to supposing a way towards a specific goal) and has the ability to imitate a personality (so it has a charisma score). This computer program might even identify itself in contrast to other "real" persons. It still doesnt have the ability to set its own goals, what I think an essential ability of a person.

1) Yes, giving examples DOES help - it shows that there is a rationale behind a conclusion, aka, inductive* logic.

* - It is inductive logic, yes? All sample pool, one conclusion on seeing what they have in common? Great for psychology studies, lousy for detective work?

2) Turing test (I believe it is called Turing). Any computer program that has the ability to function as an artifical intelligence, has to ability to fool a sentient being into thinking it is a sentient being, should be treated as if it IS a sentient being.

Philosophically speaking, can you prove to me that you aren't an AI? Or that your brain doesn't function just like a computer CPU does?

Theologically speaking, can you prove you have free will and the ability to set your own goals?



Lets discuss the possibilities:

*snip*

This... was well-thought out. Very good.

I don't necessarily agree with you (you make drow evil by nature, which works, but I don't think that should always be the default), but it works.

Edit:

Yes, pretty much & dully noted.
I will not further bring it up in this thread.

Btw: I didnt know Tanar'Ri and demons arent synonymous. Enlight me, what are the other types?

I did not bring up the fact that you were in the minority as an attempt to subdue your outspokeness on the issue. All I wish is for you to acknowledge (which you did) that your opinion is different than most people's opinion in this matter.

If I was to play in a game that you ran, and I doubt I would find this view disconcerting. Having a different opinion is usually considered quite healthy, after all, and having a different experience follows likewise.

As for the Tanar'Ri and the demons, I wish I could give you a good answer. Unless they changed it on me, it mentions in the Monster Manual that there are more demons than just the Tanar'Ri, but that the Tanar'Ri are the most numerous. If memory doesn't fail me, it also gives one example, the Retriever, as a demon which is NOT a Tanar'Ri (and therefore has different racial abilities, including immunities).

I wonder if anyone else could help here.