PDA

View Full Version : What alignment are newborn babies?



Scarey Nerd
2010-07-17, 10:11 AM
As stated, what alignment is a newborn? True Neutral? The same as one of the parents? The average of the parents (e.g, an LG father and a CG mother would make a NG child)?

kamikasei
2010-07-17, 10:13 AM
True Neutral, since they're morally more or less equivalent to animals, simply too unformed to be moral agents.

A large part of me wants to say Chaotic Evil, though...

The same as one of the parents? The average of the parents (e.g, an LG father and a CG mother would make a NG child)?
Definitely not - this makes no sense at all. A child may tend to take after its parents in this respect just as in other learned aspects, but you won't inherit your alignment so directly any more than you would your religion or politics.

Yora
2010-07-17, 10:15 AM
Neutral.

Alignment is seen as either depending on a creatures actions, or it's ethical believes. As a baby hasn't done anything or formed believes about anything, it's still Neutral.
For the same reasons Animals are Neutral.

Aroka
2010-07-17, 10:17 AM
True Neutral, since they're morally more or less equivalent to animals, simply too unformed to be moral agents.

A large part of me wants to say Chaotic Evil, though...

Yeah, TN. Unless there's something unusual involved (like outsider blood, although that could just be handled as a subtype rather than actual alignment; or divine intervention or destiny or other magical mucking), newborns are not moral agents. Indeed, children probably don't become moral agents until they're a few years old. (It's been a while since I read developmental psych, though, so I'm not going to throw out any numbers.)

Unless magical absolutes are involved, alignment is about moral agency - actions and intents - which babies are incapable of.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-17, 10:18 AM
Assuming you mean human babies, true neutral. Babies don't directly act in terms of good and evil... though their parents may think they're vile torturers at times and absolute angels at others, they mostly whine when they're hungry, poop when they gotta, and want attention when they're lonely. They're unable to consider the impact of their actions. A little bit later, they start to get an idea that actions have consequences (if I throw this toy, Mommy will pay attention to me and give it back), but they're still essentially selfish-neutral... not actively malign, but not actively benign.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-17, 10:20 AM
Then I pose another question: What INT score does a newborn baby have? They act animal-like, so does their INT increase over time from 1/2, or is it their normal INT score, just not displaying itself?

Closak
2010-07-17, 10:22 AM
Babies have been known to cause the death of people.

They have also been known to laugh about it.

They have also been known to try to stab their older siblings with sharp objects :smallannoyed:

Starscream
2010-07-17, 10:23 AM
I'm going to go with Neutral as well. Children of course are Chaotic Neutral. Your alignment shifts as soon as you hit the "Terrible Twos"

Aroka
2010-07-17, 10:23 AM
Then I pose another question: What INT score does a newborn baby have? They act animal-like, so does their INT increase over time from 1/2, or is it their normal INT score, just not displaying itself?

Probably 1, increasing fairly rapidly. Since this is D&D, full Int might be reached around the time puberty begins (so 10-15). Newborns have no capacity for the reasoning human Int implies - indeed, they have only the most basic ability to distinguish themselves from their environment, so they probably have very low Wis and Cha as well. Really, newborns probably start with all 1s.

Tyger
2010-07-17, 10:23 AM
As a parent of two boys, let me put this to rest 100% conclusively. Babies are 100% Chaotic Evil. :)

Seriously though, the above posters are correct - True Neutral is the only one that could apply, as they lack the capacity or understanding of order/chaos or good/evil to be anything other than neutral.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-17, 10:24 AM
I'd say the alignment of a baby is Selfish Alive. It only cares about itself and it's happy to be alive (and trying to stay that way). Unless it's some kind of undead baby. They're not alive. :smallwink:

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-17, 10:32 AM
My blanket answer for "what alignment is tricky subject X" questions is whatever fits in the setting.

kamikasei
2010-07-17, 10:35 AM
Then I pose another question: What INT score does a newborn baby have? They act animal-like, so does their INT increase over time from 1/2, or is it their normal INT score, just not displaying itself?
A strange question - the only correct answer is to remain silent.

The stat system simply breaks down for the very young, as for other edge cases.

Volthawk
2010-07-17, 10:38 AM
There is an exception to babies being neutral. Unholy Scions.

Bharg
2010-07-17, 10:41 AM
I would say it depends on the personal world view of the baby.

Volomon
2010-07-17, 10:51 AM
Probably 1, increasing fairly rapidly. Since this is D&D, full Int might be reached around the time puberty begins (so 10-15). Newborns have no capacity for the reasoning human Int implies - indeed, they have only the most basic ability to distinguish themselves from their environment, so they probably have very low Wis and Cha as well. Really, newborns probably start with all 1s.

Technically newborns don't know they have limbs till around 5-7 months. So I'm not even sure about the tell themselves from the environment thing.

SimperingToad
2010-07-17, 10:57 AM
None. The same for ability scores. It's a pointless exercise in minutae IMHO.

Want to have the bambino possessed? That's a different story, but any alignment and stats would be that of the possessor, not the possessee.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to check alignment and stats for the grass under my feet. It might think I'm attacking it. :smallbiggrin:

PS: Now, if one wanted to make up a strange little campaign of "Babies & Binkys", you might have to go there. :smallwink:

AvatarZero
2010-07-17, 11:38 AM
I'd say the alignment of a baby is Selfish Alive.

Isn't that pretty much just Neutral? Not True Neutral, that's something strange to do with Druids that should probably have just been a particular code of conduct under Lawful Neutral. (ORDER of Druids devoted to maintaining the balance so that the world doesn't fall into CHAOS)


Unless it's some kind of undead baby. They're not alive. :smallwink:

I can tell without even knowing that there's a monster stat block somewhere that matches your clearly demented vision. It's like a nerdy version of the iPhone ads.

"Need an undead baby? There are stats for that."

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-17, 11:46 AM
"Need an undead baby? There are stats for that."

Actually...Sword & Sorcery's Scarred Lands Creature Collection does in fact.... 3.0 stats, granted, but still...

Shademan
2010-07-17, 11:49 AM
chaotic evil.
they also shoot lazers from their eyes

Jergmo
2010-07-17, 11:50 AM
I can tell without even knowing that there's a monster stat block somewhere that matches your clearly demented vision. It's like a nerdy version of the iPhone ads.

"Need an undead baby? There are stats for that."

Atropals, anyone?

Fenrazer
2010-07-17, 11:52 AM
With the exception of Drow, I have not been made aware of any inherently evil races, so I highly doubt that it is either of the parents or a split. I'm also behind with the loop. Anyway, what I would say is this: Babies are very selfish, but only out of necessity and because they don't know anything else aside from their survival instinct to cry when uncomfortable, or to suck on stuff to be fed. Its pretty simple. Their only functions that are not taught, are selfish, but only because they are not aware of anything aside from themselves, so whatever you would say that is.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-17, 11:54 AM
Chaotic Evil. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html)

Aroka
2010-07-17, 11:59 AM
With the exception of Drow, I have not been made aware of any inherently evil races

Drow are a prime example of a socially evil race, not inherently.

Inhuman Bot
2010-07-17, 12:01 PM
Chaotic Evil.

Damnit, Tengu!

Aroka
2010-07-17, 12:10 PM
Chaotic Evil.

Damnit, Tengu!

kamikasei, actually, in the very first reply.


A large part of me wants to say Chaotic Evil, though...

Curmudgeon
2010-07-17, 12:10 PM
Chaotic Needy

mucat
2010-07-17, 12:14 PM
Isn't that pretty much just Neutral? Not True Neutral, that's something strange to do with Druids that should probably have just been a particular code of conduct under Lawful Neutral.

Er, wait...with all due respect, that doesn't make a lot of sense. You just invented a distinction between "Neutral" and "True Neutral" -- there is no such distinction in the actual rules, not does the issue have anything to do with druids -- and then argued that the distinction never should have existed?

Sarquion
2010-07-17, 12:17 PM
Graek if it helps i made a superhero on a game where he threw his babies at people and they exploded on contact so they could be seen as evil?

Aroka
2010-07-17, 12:18 PM
"True Neutral" is just the (AD&D) term for Neutral Neutral, where both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis are neutral. It has nothing to do with any stupid idea of insanely switching sides all the time, even though that probably was mentioned (as a possible option for TN alignment characters, not the definition) in the AD&D 2E PHB (revised, at least), and has nothing to do inherently with druids.

okpokalypse
2010-07-17, 12:29 PM
NC.

A Baby has no morality yet (as far as we know) - but they are definitely chaotic.

Hurlbut
2010-07-17, 01:00 PM
Actually...Sword & Sorcery's Scarred Lands Creature Collection does in fact.... 3.0 stats, granted, but still...If I remember right, they did had updated the collection to 3.5 (it's one of my favorite bestiary books)

awa
2010-07-17, 01:04 PM
The problem is there several broad ideas for true neutral the 2 that seem to be in question the animal version where the creature is not smart enough to make moral or unmoral choices and the (in my opinion stupid) idea that a neutral character would seek balance between good and evil making sure to kill one good person for every evil person he killed

mucat
2010-07-17, 01:25 PM
The problem is there several broad ideas for true neutral the 2 that seem to be in question the animal version where the creature is not smart enough to make moral or unmoral choices and the (in my opinion stupid) idea that a neutral character would seek balance between good and evil making sure to kill one good person for every evil person he killed
Someone who "makes sure to kill one good person for every evil person he killed" is thoroughly evil, not neutral. Good and evil are not symmetric, and they don't "balance" in that way.

A lot of this concern about True Neutral as a poorly thought-out philosophy of balance, seems to be left over from Second Edition and earlier, when the alignment really was described that way. (Even then, though, it didn't mean "murder good people and evil people equally".) Since the advent of Third Edition, there has been no reason to think of the Neutral alignment that way.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-17, 01:44 PM
Unless it's intelligent enough to know what's going on around it, true neutral.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-17, 01:47 PM
Unless it's intelligent enough to know what's going on around it, true neutral.

...unless it's a mindless undead. :smallconfused:

Dr.Epic
2010-07-17, 01:49 PM
...unless it's a mindless undead. :smallconfused:

Like in the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake?

MachineWraith
2010-07-17, 01:55 PM
Linky (http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html)

Evil :smallwink:

But no, seriously, I agree with most of the other people in the thread. They haven't had a chance to develop any sense of morality or right and wrong. Even if they somehow did something that's considered evil, the fact that they don't know it's evil makes them innocent and not evil themselves.

Aroka
2010-07-17, 02:12 PM
Linky (http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html)

Y'all need to read the thread, it's only 2 pages. You were beaten to that on the first page...


Chaotic Evil. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html)

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-17, 08:49 PM
As stated, what alignment is a newborn?
Probably Unaligned, Neutral, or True Neutral, depending on what edition we're talkin'.


Then I pose another question: What INT score does a newborn baby have?
There are no rules for this in 3.5, and the related rules do not correspond to the real world in anything but the vaguest way. Creatures that cannot understand language do not have exactly three distinct levels of intelligence in reality. Nor do adult humans, as a rule, become smarter as they age. (They become more experienced, but that's covered by, you know, experience points, not points of mental ability scores.)


They act animal-like, so does their INT increase over time from 1/2, or is it their normal INT score, just not displaying itself?
Is what their "normal Int score"? Are you asking whether, in statting up humanoid infants (for some crazy reason), they should be "given" an "Int score" that makes no sense for them, in that the number written in their stat block would misrepresent their actual mental abilities? Like magical automatons that can follow orders being classified as "mindless"?

Because if so, then my personal answer is "No, that's dumb". :smalltongue:


The stat system simply breaks down for the very young, as for other edge cases.
Specifically: The d20 system was clumsily designed for characters to start at first level with more than a level's worth of stuff. Partly this is done by giving more stuff at first character level, partly depending on class -- max hit points, quadruple skill points, an extra feat -- and partly by giving more stuff at first class level (also depending on class, obv) -- good saves starting at +2, front-loaded class features. Several things probably would have worked better had 4 simply been chosen as the default starting level. Anyway, one upshot of this is that there's no convenient way to model someone who is working his way up to the rather considerable, in the grand scheme of things, capabilities of a typical novice adventurer. (Another is that multiclassing is a bit unbalanced.)


Isn't that pretty much just Neutral? Not True Neutral, that's something strange to do with Druids that should probably have just been a particular code of conduct under Lawful Neutral. (ORDER of Druids devoted to maintaining the balance so that the world doesn't fall into CHAOS)
Well, "maintaining the balance between Law and Chaos" seems more like a broad general goal than a specific set of rules. They'd be as opposed to totalitarianism as to anarchy.

"The world has almost completely fallen into order. It's up to us to restore chaos."
- The Grim Adventures Of Billy And Mandy


With the exception of Drow, I have not been made aware of any inherently evil races
In which setting/edition/whatever are drow inherently evil?


Er, wait...with all due respect, that doesn't make a lot of sense. You just invented a distinction between "Neutral" and "True Neutral" -- there is no such distinction in the actual rules, not does the issue have anything to do with druids -- and then argued that the distinction never should have existed?

"True Neutral" is just the (AD&D) term for Neutral Neutral, where both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis are neutral. It has nothing to do with any stupid idea of insanely switching sides all the time, even though that probably was mentioned (as a possible option for TN alignment characters, not the definition) in the AD&D 2E PHB (revised, at least), and has nothing to do inherently with druids.
Well, I don't know a whole lot about previous editions of D&D, but my understanding is that True Neutral was at some point specifically dedicated to balancing, in some sense, the other alignments, and that druids were exemplars of this alignment, much as paladins were for Lawful Good. If so, then it makes some sense to reserve this particular old school term to refer to this particular old school philosophy.

I favor "False Neutral" as a descriptor for characters who are markedly Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and Evil rather than none of the above. :smallwink: (Rorschach from Watchmen, for example.)


Someone who "makes sure to kill one good person for every evil person he killed" is thoroughly evil, not neutral. Good and evil are not symmetric, and they don't "balance" in that way.
Depends on one's precise definitions of "good" and "evil". Symmetric definitions wind up describing symmetric qualities, obviously. But e.g. the opposite of killing someone is saving a life, or resurrecting someone if you want to get technical, not killing someone else of the opposite alignment.


A lot of this concern about True Neutral as a poorly thought-out philosophy of balance, seems to be left over from Second Edition and earlier, when the alignment really was described that way. (Even then, though, it didn't mean "murder good people and evil people equally".)
Eh, you'd be surprised. Planescape: Torment had a dude who wanted to kill off a Good and an Evil faction, on the principle that they both represented dangerous extremes. Granted, he could have been an Evil dude who was too confused to see that he should kill himself, too. Indeed, upon reflection, it seems just a little bit implausible that he didn't qualify as a dangerous extremist himself. :smalltongue:

Alignment in that game was hella messed up, though. Asking to be paid for your work? More Evil than not helping at all, since you're "profiting at another's expense"! Insane mage who wants to set all creation aflame? Chaotic Neutral, because he's not seeking to empower himself! (Not that he wants to hurt anyone, mind. And while that might sound like a contradiction, the guy is actually sort of a living testament that burning for eternity can be both fun and profitable. He is aware that most people die when you set them on fire, though; he just doesn't let this bother him.)

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Torment's alignment system would contradict a lot of the actual Planescape material on alignment, e.g. when applied to many of the Fated. More broadly speaking, I think that there's enough non-coordinated, ad hoc official material that talks about alignment that it was inevitable that it wouldn't even be internally consistent when taken as a whole, and that lots of it would be bloody stupid besides. Within pretty much any single edition, even, I'm guessing.


Since the advent of Third Edition, there has been no reason to think of the Neutral alignment that way.

Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
It's still there. Boccob and Mordenkainen were all balance-happy in 3.5 Greyhawk, as I understand it, but basically sane about it. (More "Prevent a single faction from dominating everything", less "Always support whichever side of a conflict is currently losing".) In contrast to the PHB, as I recall, where Boccob specifically has no agenda. (Presumably he just grants spells to his Clerics automatically (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#grantSpells) because he simply has no reason to deliberately not do that.)

awa
2010-07-17, 09:07 PM
now don't get me wrong i mentioned that i though the neutral person wiping out good and evil alike was stupid but it is a part of dnd albeit poorly thought out.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 01:24 PM
In which setting/edition/whatever are drow inherently evil?

So far, the only source that seems to suggest Drow are strongly evil, is Dragon 298 AKA "Drowconomicon"- in which drow are intelligent even at birth, and drow kill each other in the womb (a bit like sand-tiger sharks). And that small drow children are extremely dangerous, and will have levels in PC classes.

Aside from that, most sources don't go that far. BoED points out that characters should deal with "orcs, goblins, and even the thoroughly evil drow" based on the assumption that they are not irredeemably evil.

Similarly, Drow of the Underdark doesn't assume drow are completely malevolent from birth.

I think there may have been a reference to Pathfinder drow being much more evil than standard D&D drow, though.

Jergmo
2010-07-18, 01:49 PM
So far, the only source that seems to suggest Drow are strongly evil, is Dragon 298 AKA "Drowconomicon"- in which drow are intelligent even at birth, and drow kill each other in the womb (a bit like sand-tiger sharks). And that small drow children are extremely dangerous, and will have levels in PC classes.

...

...

Bahaha, oh wow. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 01:55 PM
Probably best not played in combination with players who are used to the idea that small children, even small drow children, are not supposed to be attacked.

Imagine the DM pulling "The five-year old drow is actually a 10th level rogue, and knifes you in the back in the middle of the fight" on the players- they may not be entirely happy, to say the least.

Jergmo
2010-07-18, 02:00 PM
Probably best not played in combination with players who are used to the idea that small children, even small drow children, are not supposed to be attacked.

Imagine the DM pulling "The five-year old drow is actually a 10th level rogue, and knifes you in the back in the middle of the fight" on the players- they may not be entirely happy, to say the least.

Maybe my campaign is just a lot darker than most, but I'm not afraid to introduce morally horrible situations. I had a Necromancer cult leader that used a bunch of brainwashed children as body shields.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 02:16 PM
Heroes of Horror does tend to use this sort of thing- the "Annalee's Baby" adventure has a fiendish, but apparently normal, child which mind-controls its mother, even in the womb.

And "To Grandmother's House" has a bunch of children, turned into "lost ones" through the draining of their emotion, under the command of a green hag and a gray jester (evil, emotion-draining fey) which, when the party encounter them, are cutting up a living member of their group, and feeding the pieces to the disguised hag.

Jergmo
2010-07-18, 02:17 PM
Heroes of Horror does tend to use this sort of thing- the "Annalee's Baby" adventure has a fiendish, but apparently normal, child which mind-controls its mother, even in the womb.

And "To Grandmother's House" has a bunch of children, turned into "lost ones" through the draining of their emotion, under the command of a green hag and a gray jester (evil, emotion-draining fey) which, when the party encounter them, are cutting up a living member of their group, and feeding the pieces to the disguised hag.

I seem to recall it being a child that was on the table - and the children were feeding her. :smalleek:

Nero24200
2010-07-18, 02:18 PM
It may depend on some factors. Some philosphers believe that when you are born you already have a "set" personality. Events may slightly alter how you think, but fundementally you are always "you" in that your personality remains the same. In this instance, they would have whatever alignment they would receive when they grow up (so if they became an evil person they would be evil, despite being a child).

On the other hand, others believe that when you are born you are essentially a blank slate - The events in your life influence what type of personality you have 100%.

Personally, in RL I beleive it is a mix of the two, but leaning far more towards the latter theory. Determining the alignment of newborns really comes down to which theory you choose to apply to the setting you're using - and if you are using something in between, to what extent?

Volthawk
2010-07-18, 02:20 PM
Heroes of Horror does tend to use this sort of thing- the "Annalee's Baby" adventure has a fiendish, but apparently normal, child which mind-controls its mother, even in the womb.


See Unholy Scion.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 02:22 PM
I seem to recall it being a child that was on the table - and the children were feeding her. :smalleek:

Child on the table- yes (all the "lost ones" are simply children drained by the jester) but she wasn't the one being fed- the hag was.

And yes- "Annalee's Baby" was an unholy scion. Which, while of varying origin, are often descended of fiends, or the result of fiendish possession of an unborn child.

Jergmo
2010-07-18, 02:31 PM
Child on the table- yes (all the "lost ones" are simply children drained by the jester) but she wasn't the one being fed- the hag was.

And yes- "Annalee's Baby" was an unholy scion. Which, while of varying origin, are often descended of fiends, or the result of fiendish possession of an unborn child.

Er, d'oh. I meant they were feeding the girl to the hag.

Acero
2010-07-18, 02:35 PM
You need at least 2 INT to have an alignment.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 02:37 PM
Er, d'oh. I meant they were feeding the girl to the hag.

Yup- all the children were "lost ones" including the victim.

The idea of Unholy Scions is interesting- some of the previous ideas, like "The Shadowchild" in BoVD, actually require something more like an Unholy Scion, rather than a half-fiend, to work. The Shadowchild, in BoVD, was described as "a half-fiend elf indistinguishable from normal elves"- but normal half-fiends don't work that way.

It's also a good way to represent Jupiter and Leech in the Robin Jarvis Deptford Mice & Deptford Histories books- which are implied to have been fathered by a fiend in cat form. The half-fiend template can't be applied to a cat- but the Unholy Scion template can.


You need at least 2 INT to have an alignment.

What about undead? And possibly some kinds of fiend? Lemures: Int -, Always LE.

Jergmo
2010-07-18, 02:41 PM
You need at least 2 INT to have an alignment.

3, actually - that's the bare minimum for sapience, it seems.

awa
2010-07-18, 03:33 PM
I always disagreed with making mindless undead evil. making something with no drive evil seems pointless. Now im not getting into an animate dead spell is evil or shouldn't be evil that's not the point the point is that creatures who if not told to do something sit in the corner till the end of the world and if told to do something take the most literal possible approach to doing it shouldn't be considered evil. Although i suppose it might be done for mechanical simplicity allowing them to be detected by a detect evil spell or something.

Hurlbut
2010-07-18, 03:45 PM
It may depend on some factors. Some philosphers believe that when you are born you already have a "set" personality. Events may slightly alter how you think, but fundementally you are always "you" in that your personality remains the same. In this instance, they would have whatever alignment they would receive when they grow up (so if they became an evil person they would be evil, despite being a child).

On the other hand, others believe that when you are born you are essentially a blank slate - The events in your life influence what type of personality you have 100%.

Personally, in RL I beleive it is a mix of the two, but leaning far more towards the latter theory. Determining the alignment of newborns really comes down to which theory you choose to apply to the setting you're using - and if you are using something in between, to what extent?
with the "Mix of the Two" basically it's indicating that you have traits that are likely to push you toward a certain direction but at same time experience can still shape you, so ultimately your traits and your experience shape you.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 03:48 PM
Probably works well for D&D- especially with "Often X alignment" and "usually X alignment" races- they may have inborn traits which, combined with the biases of their culture, tend to push them toward particular alignments- but there are exceptions, and experience can make a big difference. Hence "redeemed villains" of various "monster races".

megabyter5
2010-07-18, 05:56 PM
If I may interject, science has proven that infants are capable of amazing deductive reasoning, and learn faster than any other age group. The only reason they aren't considered geniuses is because they spend all of these incredible cognitive powers learning basic living skills and how to tell the difference between mommy and a squirrel. Babies probably have a sizeable bonus to int that goes away shortly after they learn speech.

As for alignment, they're obviously morally neutral, since they aren't going out of their way to help or to harm other people. The ethical axis is slightly harder, but you can eliminate lawful right off the bat. There's an alright argument for CN, but I'd have to say they're probably just Neutral.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 06:03 PM
If I may interject, science has proven that infants are capable of amazing deductive reasoning, and learn faster than any other age group. The only reason they aren't considered geniuses is because they spend all of these incredible cognitive powers learning basic living skills and how to tell the difference between mommy and a squirrel. Babies probably have a sizeable bonus to int that goes away shortly after they learn speech.

That would be great, except for the fact of what Int does in D&D. It essentially models your general learning and experience. Babies aren't going to be better than the average untaught idiot at Search, Appraise, and Knowledge skills, or in any other application of Int. The reasoning and learning they exhibit doesn't really differ that much from a dog's abilities in same, in practice - they're excellent at picking up patterns and learning reactions and such, too.

jumpet
2010-07-18, 07:12 PM
I'd say neutral. I'd also disagree with the idea that they might chaotic, in fact I would say the opposite; that they would lean to lawful. Most babies like fairly rigid routine. Feed, play, sleep. rinse and repeat.

Anyway in the dnd world where evil is almost tangible and measurable, it would be quite possible to have babies born as evil. I'd say any race with an alignment 'mostly' or 'always' evil, the babies would be like wise. Sames goes for good aligned races.

Coidzor
2010-07-18, 07:13 PM
True Deliciousness. :smallamused:

Amiel
2010-07-18, 09:06 PM
Are we talking about newborns (an infant who is within hours, days, or up to a few weeks from birth) or babies in general?

Newborns are neutral, or more appropriately, I think, unaligned; their behaviour is still instinctive and undefined (being reflexive).

Babies, on the other hand, are very clearly and very much chaotic neutral, with considerable bonuses to Cha and Dex.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 04:31 AM
Anyway in the dnd world where evil is almost tangible and measurable, it would be quite possible to have babies born as evil. I'd say any race with an alignment 'mostly' or 'always' evil, the babies would be like wise. Sames goes for good aligned races.

Officially, in the MM, creatures with Always X Alignment are "born with the listed alignment"

However- there's nothing like that for "usually"- which may be, at least partly, cultural rather than inborn.

Dragon 298 seems to go with "Always Evil, Usually Neutral Evil" for drow- but it exaggerates the evilness of drow somewhat, suggesting that even before they can walk, drow children have an "instinctive homicidal urge" especially toward their siblings.

If you go with other sources, it's more a case of starting alignment: Neutral with Evil tendencies, but the culture rapidly reshaping the alignment to Evil.

Fenrazer
2010-07-19, 04:26 PM
@ everybody who asked me about Drow being inherently evil: My understanding is that there is a rare case where somebody is born within Drow society that they dont wind up evil, or question their society. By the novels that actually talk about Drow society, it's pretty obvious that Drizzt, Zak and a couple others, are the only two born with a conscience, as seen in the first ever surface raid. I know what a major reply will be, I agree that people can be fooled. It happens to us every day, but we still walk away with PTS or other things that Drow clearly never suffer from. While it may not say so in RAW, it certainly shows that they are by their interaction with society. If there is some novel of a Drow baby being raised elsewhere...please inform me. Otherwise, I feel it is safe to say that they are at least inherently evil with few exceptions. Probably less often as a disfigured human baby.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 04:37 PM
Liriel Baenre (Starlight and Shadows).

Qilue- and the many drow who end up joining the church of Eilistraee.

Phaerun Mizzrym (War of the Spider Queen) is, canonically, Chaotic Neutral.

As is the leader of the drow rogue band "The Hidden" in the adventure City of the Spider Queen.

Jarlaxle is NE- but definitely possesses something of a moral code.

Tos'un Armgo, in The Orc King, is more of an "ex-bad guy" than a naturally CN guy though.

Zak asked the question "Are most Drow children born evil"- to Drizzt in Homeland- and both agreed it was the ways of Lolth that twist drow to evil- they aren't really "born evil".

Aroka
2010-07-19, 04:37 PM
If there is some novel of a Drow baby being raised elsewhere...please inform me. Otherwise, I feel it is safe to say that they are at least inherently evil with few exceptions. Probably less often as a disfigured human baby.

Look at all the Forgotten Realms material that touches on Eilistraee and Eilistraeen drow. Eilistraee is a goddess of good drow, and has thousands of worshippers in Faerùn (mostly living on the surface).

Liriel is a specific example of a drow being raised by drow and becoming good (and I think there's another in the War of the Spider Queen series).

Jarlaxle is a non-evil drow elf who grew up in mainstream drow society.

Reading the novels, it's pretty easy to see how the society, its traditions, and its religion rear drow to be evil. Many Elistraeen drow even grew up in mainstream drow society, but for whatever reason abandoned it and ended up good or neutral (sometimes, the alignment conversion even only happens after being introduced to Eilistraee's philosophy and seeing that there is an alternative way to live).

Interesting stuff: real-life sociopathy may not even be entirely inborn, and may in fact be largely learned - many serial killers share similar experiences growing up, and they bear a lot of resemblance to the childhood of the average drow (abusive parental relationship, cruel upbringing, etc.). Human morality - and by extension the morality of most D&D non-human humanoids - is essentially a learned set of behaviors.


Summa summarum, Eilistraeen drow = drow not inherently evil. It's an unnecessary supposition anyway, since their society completely explains why they're a bunch of sociopaths. It's a fairly alien society with fairly alien values, which makes it cool (when done right).


Edit: hamishpence! :smallfurious:

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 04:42 PM
Jarlaxle is a non-evil drow elf who grew up in mainstream drow society.


Strictly, the splatbooks do say he's evil (FRCS, Underdark- both list him as NE Fighter, though FRCS says 17th level, and the later book Underdark says 18th level). However, he's definitely on the milder side.

Liriel was listed as True Neutral in the 2nd ed Heroes Lorebook- but hasn't appeared in an official 3rd ed or 3.5 ed splatbook.

Aroka
2010-07-19, 04:48 PM
I think I got Qilue and Liriel mixed up into one in my head. Qilue is one of the Seven Sisters, not Liriel, right? And Qilue wasn't born to drow society, but to the woman Mystra was possessing?

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 04:52 PM
I think the woman Mystra was possessing was killed while pregnant with Qilue- by her husband who believed she was possessed- and Mystra dealt the the problem somehow- possibly by implanting the baby in a drow, and adjusting her so she could be safely born?

EDIT: Apparently so:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Qilue

Qilue's history was a little odd.

Liriel was a more ordinary drow- the daughter of Gromph and granddaughter of Matron Yvonnel Baenre.

Fenrazer
2010-07-19, 05:07 PM
And these touch on Drow as babies? I'm just curious because it seems like Drizzt is the only one with a conscience among all Drow there and it was not taught to him. Either they are inherently evil, or he is inherently not evil. Do drow raised outside of Menz have a different result of a conscience? I recall them having that conversation, and I agree that it is Lolths doing, but I feel that it has been ingrained so much that its as much in their blood as their Darkvision.

I should read up on these other Drow. I still feel they are more likely the exception, not the rule.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-19, 05:09 PM
According to Confuscious, a newborn child is inherently good. Given the chance, a child will do the right thing.

According to Sun Tzu, a newborn child is inherently evil. Given the chance they will do what's best for them, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

Now these are my takes on the two philosophies and may be inaccurate according to someone else's understanding.

Generally, people believe that children, when they are born, are neutral with no inherent moral or philosophical distinctions. This is because people see them as they do unformed clay that has potential, but undeveloped. If people believed in destiny, then they might accept that one could be born inherently good or evil, chaotic or lawful.

As for the second question, intelligence is a funny thing. The ability for it to be accurately measured is questionable at best. If intelligence is ones level of potential knowledge then it is possible that a newborn is born with the level of intelligence they will have till they die. Since actual knowledge is accounted for in the game by skills.

Bharg
2010-07-19, 05:14 PM
And these touch on Drow as babies? I'm just curious because it seems like Drizzt is the only one with a conscience among all Drow there and it was not taught to him. Either they are inherently evil, or he is inherently not evil. Do drow raised outside of Menz have a different result of a conscience? I recall them having that conversation, and I agree that it is Lolths doing, but I feel that it has been ingrained so much that its as much in their blood as their Darkvision.

I should read up on these other Drow. I still feel they are more likely the exception, not the rule.

I think that's part of Drizzt's "mythology". :smallwink:
Though, I didn't read anything about other drow children.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 05:15 PM
Liriel has something of a conscience- but generally, at least early on, she's more amoral than Drizzt. Her mother was unusually affectionate for a drow parent- until she was killed when Liriel was five.

As for Drizzt- the fact that Drizzt spent quite a lot of his formative years with Zaknafein might have contributed to his better personality traits.

Bharg
2010-07-19, 05:24 PM
Do you think there are good genes?

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 05:29 PM
In D&D- it might possibly apply. Zaknefein wasn't evil- his daughter was a bit less evil than the average drow priestess.

In Expedition to the Demonweb Pits- whether a Cambion (Extraplanar Outsider with Evil and Chaotic subtypes native to the Abyss, born of a demon and a planetouched) is born evil or not, depends on the planetouched parent's alignment.

If the planetouched (usually a tiefling) was not evil, the child will be born "Not Evil"- despite being a demon, technically. Its alignment may end up changing later though.

Rasman
2010-07-19, 09:33 PM
NE

once you've experienced having a little brother or sister you had to help with or had a kid yourself, you'll understand why

Schylerwalker
2010-07-19, 10:35 PM
True Deliciousness. :smallamused:

I was going to say True Neutral, but this wins. This wins so much. :smallamused:

Fenrazer
2010-07-20, 05:14 PM
Do you think there are good genes?

Technically yes. In 4E anyway. They wanted a genuinely evil race to play, Tieflings, and then they wanted something opposite of that, a yin for their yang, and went through the process of making Devas. The authors even said they wanted a race that was as naturally good as the Tieflings were naturally bad.

EDIT: Well...thats if you figure Devas have DNA since they have a peculiar way of being reborn. Still, if they bleed, they more than likely have DNA.


Liriel has something of a conscience- but generally, at least early on, she's more amoral than Drizzt. Her mother was unusually affectionate for a drow parent- until she was killed when Liriel was five.

As for Drizzt- the fact that Drizzt spent quite a lot of his formative years with Zaknafein might have contributed to his better personality traits.

Yeah, but he spent his earliest years and training under his sister, who was brainwashing him whole heartedly while teaching him their other inherent abilities. I think it's safe to assume that child psychology does apply here, but as you were referencing Drizzts most formative years, I think that Child Psych is applicable. With that, we can now see that Drizzt spent the very most important time of his life, when it comes to developing ones perception of the world, with a priestess of Lolth learning magic and Drow Lore.

The only difference I am seeing in Drizzt is that when he was forced into situations where he must judge a persons character, his conscience was stand alone when you compare him and his Drow Bretheren.

Even at that point, Zak never pushed forward with discussions. Drizzt was always the first to act, and Zak always confirmed that Drizzt was correct in his thinking. I don't see how a house so favored by Lolth could remain so highly in favor while doing such a sloppy job of keeping the faith, especially when Lolth was completely aware of the happenings concerning Drizzt. Eventually Drizzt came to the same point as all other Drow. He was given the same opportunities as all of his other bretheren with all of the same formidable brainwashing, yet he still made the right decision during the surface raid.

I suppose we cannot fully know unless there is a book released on Zaks childhood, where we could see how he managed to pull away from Drow society. Some may read the discussion between Drizzt and Zak and see that they are saying "No they are not inherently evil, but it is only the teachings of Lolth" but others, like myself read the same thing and understand that "No they wouldn't have been inherently evil, had it not been for Lolths teachings being a part of them."

Bharg
2010-07-20, 05:23 PM
I thought Aasimars were the opposite of Tieflings. :smallconfused:

Lloth, the demon queen, loves intrigue and chaos. So why would she intervene?

A book about Zaknafain and Jarlaxle... sounds interesting.

Fenrazer
2010-07-20, 05:30 PM
I thought Aasimars were the opposite of Tieflings. :smallconfused:

Lloth, the demon queen, loves intrigue and chaos. So why would she intervene?

A book about Zaknafain and Jarlaxle... sounds interesting.

Yes and No. In 3.5 they are the celestial answer to Tieflings, but they were never declared by the game designers as as the opposites. The reference I am making was to the 4E reboot of Aasimars, which is the PC race of Deva. In Dragon Magazine there is an article about it. There were many reasons why they didn't stick with Aasimar as the name, but they also wanted a creature that actually wore their good, like the Tieflings wore their evil.

EDIT: By wear (wore) I meant they have visual manifestations. Tieflings have various warm colors for skin complection, Devas have various cool colors. Tieflings have freaky eyes, Devas have divine lookin eyes. Tieflings have a tail and horns, Devas have their racial garb which is made in the likeness of wings...etc.

I take it you haven't looked into 4E Races much?

EDIT: IMHO... a book about Zak and Jarl would rawk my socks off with a capitol awk. I wouldn't even wear socks while reading it, just for safety purposes. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2010-07-21, 03:49 AM
There are short stories with Zak in (I believe in Realms of the Underdark)

Drizzt actually meets Lolth as a child in one of these. Why doesn't she kill him?

Possibly because, as a goddess of Chaos, Lolth likes having a few not-so-evil drow around- they stir things up, they cause strife, they make things unpredictable.

In one of the later books, one of the drow speculates that Drizzt is "in the favor of Lolth" despite seeing himself as completely opposed to her.

Lolth loves dark irony.

HunterOfJello
2010-07-21, 04:20 AM
All newborns are Chaotic Evil. This is why men in armor aren't allowed in hospitals.

Fenrazer
2010-07-25, 02:44 AM
There are short stories with Zak in (I believe in Realms of the Underdark)

Drizzt actually meets Lolth as a child in one of these. Why doesn't she kill him?

Possibly because, as a goddess of Chaos, Lolth likes having a few not-so-evil drow around- they stir things up, they cause strife, they make things unpredictable.

In one of the later books, one of the drow speculates that Drizzt is "in the favor of Lolth" despite seeing himself as completely opposed to her.

Lolth loves dark irony.

Thats difficult to say. She had house Do'Urden in her line up as top of the realm master type delies. Matron Benrae said herself that it was Lolths will that their house would be highest. She must have wanted complete chaos within her realm of control if that were the case. I dont doubt it, had it not been for how she kept Matron Hagatha Benrae informed as to how imperative house Do'Urden was toward her top ten.

On a different, and same, note...Where can I find these short stories. My favorite with him is the opening where he takes out a Priestess' tongue with a whip. Short enough story for me haha. Zak shows up, and everybody dies Chuck Norris Style. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2010-07-25, 02:49 AM
Lolth loves dark irony.

Lolth just loves anything that kills drow, causes chaos amongst them, and keeps them from getting their act together enough to realize she's holding them back from their actual potential.:smallamused:

Connington
2010-07-25, 04:11 AM
Generally, people believe that children, when they are born, are neutral with no inherent moral or philosophical distinctions. This is because people see them as they do unformed clay that has potential, but undeveloped. If people believed in destiny, then they might accept that one could be born inherently good or evil, chaotic or lawful.

None of that really applies to me, for the record. I'd peg an infant as being TN because cognitive tests show that aside from their frightening ability to learn, babies share most or all of the cognitive abilities of animals. They lack self-awareness, understanding of the permanence of objects, and any of a dozen other things necessary, in my view, to really act in a good or evil fashion.

dragonfan6490
2010-07-25, 11:39 AM
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to check alignment and stats for the grass under my feet. It might think I'm attacking it. :smallbiggrin:


You know, you shouldn't joke about those sorts of things, remember Ultima III?

Stompy
2010-07-25, 12:05 PM
Lolth just loves anything that kills drow, causes chaos amongst them, and keeps them from getting their act together enough to realize she's holding them back from their actual potential.:smallamused:

Anything the turns Drow society into a violent episode of Desparate Housewifes = Lolth win.

Also, human babies are TN (imo); they should be able to be trained as per the handle animal skill.

hamishspence
2010-07-25, 01:02 PM
She must have wanted complete chaos within her realm of control if that were the case. I dont doubt it, had it not been for how she kept Matron Hagatha Benrae informed as to how imperative house Do'Urden was toward her top ten.

On a different, and same, note...Where can I find these short stories. My favorite with him is the opening where he takes out a Priestess' tongue with a whip. Short enough story for me haha. Zak shows up, and everybody dies Chuck Norris Style. :smallbiggrin:

Hagatha? The name given in The Legacy was Matron Yvonnel Baenre.

Also- Realms of the Underdark probably has the short stories- though it's been a long time since I've read it.

gorfnab
2010-07-25, 01:19 PM
For baby stats you could reference this D&D Baby Creeper (http://www.jinx.com/minigeeks/baby/video_games/level_1_human_creeper.html?catid=81&cs=2&csd=81#bigdesign)

Stompy
2010-07-25, 01:33 PM
For baby stats you could reference this D&D Baby Creeper (http://www.jinx.com/minigeeks/baby/video_games/level_1_human_creeper.html?catid=81&cs=2&csd=81#bigdesign)

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d92/ErjadTCS/129156181078764106.jpg

LurkerInPlayground
2010-07-25, 01:36 PM
According to Confuscious, a newborn child is inherently good. Given the chance, a child will do the right thing.

According to Sun Tzu, a newborn child is inherently evil. Given the chance they will do what's best for them, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

Now these are my takes on the two philosophies and may be inaccurate according to someone else's understanding.
One is an idealist. The other is a cynic.

I mean what did you expect? I'm sure that dealing with scheming feudal lords inclines one to believe that no good deed goes unpunished.

Leolo
2010-07-25, 01:48 PM
Unaligned. ^^

Fenrazer
2010-07-25, 03:19 PM
Hagatha? The name given in The Legacy was Matron Yvonnel Baenre.

Yeah, I know. Hagatha is an insult toward old mean women. Agatha, an old fashion name + Hag = Hagatha. My bad. I keep forgetting that very few people here have learned the majority of their vocab from 60+ yo in the Midwest.

Coidzor
2010-07-25, 03:39 PM
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d92/ErjadTCS/129156181078764106.jpg

Why do I suddenly get the feeling that the ancient greeks played D&D? :smallconfused: :smalleek:


You know, you shouldn't joke about those sorts of things, remember Ultima III?

Thankfully, I think I've mostly repressed it. Mostly because I can't get it to work on a modern computron anymores. :smallfrown: Lousy DosBOX!!!


Yeah, I know. Hagatha is an insult toward old mean women. Agatha, an old fashion name + Hag = Hagatha. My bad. I keep forgetting that very few people here have learned the majority of their vocab from 60+ yo in the Midwest.

Ahh, Hagatha Christie....:smallamused:

Zovc
2010-07-25, 03:44 PM
A large part of me wants to say Chaotic Evil, though...

Isn't it a good act to destroy evil creatures?

...what am I getting at?

Chrono22
2010-07-25, 04:12 PM
Neutral, just like any other creature with animal intelligence.

9mm
2010-07-25, 06:29 PM
neutral cute.