PDA

View Full Version : Mind Flayer Eating Habits - Why Evil?



Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 12:28 PM
Let us, for the moment, ignore Mind Flayer culture (with the enslavement and all). Instead, let us focus on their breeding and feeding needs. In order to breed, Mind Flayers must take humanoids and infect them with their young. In order to survive (see Lords of Madness), they must consume living brains from sapient creatures. Both of these activities are depicted as evil.

Why? If they need to do these things to ensure their survival as a species, they are unpleasant but ultimately necessary. It's not as though someone with their brain eaten doesn't go to their appropriate afterlife (though the state of someone who's been flayer-fied is a little fuzzier). I honestly cannot fathom the bit that's evil about these actions if they are motivated by survival.

Subtopic: If you wanted to create a society of good-aligned mind flayers, what would their culture be like?

Jacque
2010-10-20, 12:34 PM
The evil label which mind flayers have, is not limited to their diet or reproduction. While you might be able to argue that its a question of survival and reproduction as a race you also have to take into account how they interact with other species as well as their own race members. Mind flayers are evil in all the aspects of their existance - not only when it comes to reproduction and diet.

shadow_archmagi
2010-10-20, 12:36 PM
Mindflayers are ruled over by an Elder Brain, which they revere and obey. The Elder Brain is a super-powerful psionist who obliterates dissenters as soon as their subconscious shows signs of doubt.

Mindflayers infect and consume brains not just as a means for survival, but because they genuinely think they're the superior beings and your death is unimportant. In fact, they think you were meant to die. Eating you is like using a battery.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 12:37 PM
Subtopic: If you wanted to create a society of good-aligned mind flayers, what would their culture be like?

Well, the Elves with their Necromancer religion in Eberron is close, but I could borrow from some science fiction examples where the goal is to join the Great Mind and become part of the One and Many!

Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?

ETA: The example of Julian May's Galactic Milieu may qualify.

Sipex
2010-10-20, 12:37 PM
Good aligned Mindflayer society, I imagine, would consist of a small pocket of flayers and many many other races. People would need to volunteer to become mindflayers (is that how they work, they convert or is it more akin to alien where the young kill the host?).

From there they'd need some 'good' way of getting sustinance. Criminal executions would be able to provide some but probably not enough depending on how often they need to feed. Donations of brains from the recently deceased would help and possibly having parties of mercenaries kidnapping sentient evil creatures (goblins and the like) to have their brains scooped out.

HunterOfJello
2010-10-20, 12:38 PM
In d&d, good and evil aren't two abstract concepts that can be judged through actions independently by philosophical though. Good and Evil are magical, measurable forces that act on individuals and the world. Questioning different cultures within d&d based upon different ethical perspectives is a waste of time because the concepts aren't abstract when divine magic is involved.

You can tell something is measurably 'good' by casting a Detect Good spell or witnessing Positive Energy. You can tell something is measurably 'evil' by casting a Detect Evil spell or witnessing Negative Energy.

Mindflayers and their habits are evil because if you cast the spells in the d&d multiverse to determine their alignment, the results come out with a capital E for Evil.

Mordaenor
2010-10-20, 12:44 PM
An interesting question. Personally, I define "evil" in terms of any sentient creature which causes the harm, death, or suffering of another sentient creature without provocation. (And yes by these terms, I also consider an adventuring party which goes and kills a bunch of orcs "just because" also to be evil.) So if the Mind Flayers need to feed on other sentients, then they cannot help but be an evil society. They couldn't develop any other way. In order for a society of "good" Mind Flayers to develop, they would need to find a way to survive with out harming other sentients, i.e. by feeding and breeding on non-sentient animals, or even plants . (Yes! Vegan Mind-flayers, I love it!)

akma
2010-10-20, 12:47 PM
It`s easier to make man eating creatures evil then not. Besides, it can be rationalized, since after being forced to kill people, you less value human life, and eventully you don`t care about humans and killing them becomes naturel for you.



Mindflayers and their habits are evil because if you cast the spells in the d&d multiverse to determine their alignment, the results come out with a capital E for Evil.

So no matter how a mind flayer will behave, he would count as evil?

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 12:47 PM
Or volunteers.

It is the great glory in life!

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-20, 12:51 PM
but I could borrow from some science fiction examples where the goal is to join the Great Mind and become part of the One and Many!

That is what Mind Flayer religion is all about!

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 12:55 PM
@Hunter - So, essentially speaking, Good and Evil are both sadistic opponents playing a gigantic game with human lives and they're both jerks?

Personally, I can see the volunteer breeding angle working perfectly. As far as brains, that becomes somewhat more complicated, since they need sapients in order to survive. Criminals and prisoners of war, eaten humanely, would be solidly gray in my book. Perhaps combat-brain eating as well? It's not like it's any more or less cruel than a sword or a fireball, though you end up with mind flayers as a mercenary culture then.

Tanuki Tales
2010-10-20, 12:55 PM
So no matter how a mind flayer will behave, he would count as evil?

Seeing as there's a redeemed Mind Flayer in the BoED? No.

Jergmo
2010-10-20, 12:57 PM
Mind Flayers are also evil because of Sensory Orbs (like what the Society of Sensation in Planescape has, only affecting a wide radius and being all over their cities). Developing Illithids don't yet understand emotions, and their development is largely dependent on the emotions they're exposed to in their formative stage. The most common emotions present in the Sensory Orbs of an Illithid society are those that promote the general sense of racial pride/superiority over all the other races. They're molded from a young age to be sadistic power-hungry monsters. These are described in Lords of Madness.

Me, I like Illithids without the Elder Brain, traveling in small groups. They're often Chaotic and still Evil - they're hedonists for emotions, doing things like having their slaves engage in death matches and mass whoopie so they can revel in the pain, passion and pleasure.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 12:58 PM
@Hunter - So, essentially speaking, Good and Evil are both sadistic opponents playing a gigantic game with human lives and they're both jerks?

That's the Babylon 5 interpretation. Sorta.


Criminals and prisoners of war, eaten humanely, would be solidly gray in my book.

Except if you do that, then their experiences become that of the brain, because aren't Mindflayers what they eat in a very literal sense??

Terumitsu
2010-10-20, 01:10 PM
I created a group of good mindflayers a while back, stating that the need for all mindflayers to eat brains was for the latent psychic energy that allowed them to 'ground' their own power. The small group of good mindflayers found an alternative way to get that grounding psychic energy by way of a technomagic machine that distilled the faint psionic energy given off by people when they dream. It was less effective as it took more people to gather the same level of grounding power but it was entirely nonlethal.

Thier group could only grow through recruitment of other mindflayers, though, as they weren't about to go turning other people into more of them. That would be mistreatment of another sentiant species.

I should add that this was a radical movement on the fringe of 'standard' mindflayer society. They did not care so much for the Elder Brain either..

Anyway, my two copper on the topic.

shadow_archmagi
2010-10-20, 01:12 PM
aren't Mindflayers what they eat in a very literal sense??

I believe that they experience some random memories and sensations; a small impact at best. No mindflayer ever said "Man after eating all those Paladins I really want to go fight for some JUSTICE or something"

Terumitsu
2010-10-20, 01:15 PM
I believe that they experience some random memories and sensations; a small impact at best. No mindflayer ever said "Man after eating all those Paladins I really want to go fight for some JUSTICE or something"

Actually.... That sounds like a pretty awesome character concept in the making there. A wierd one, but I'd like to give that a try some time. Do you mind if I steal that idea for later use?

Keld Denar
2010-10-20, 01:16 PM
So no matter how a mind flayer will behave, he would count as evil?
No. Mindflayers don't have the [Evil] subtype (like evil outsiders), nor do they have the [Undead] type. Those are the only creatures that radiate evil regardless of their actual alignment. If you pinged a friendly, pleasant, helpful, and generally upstanding mindflayer with Detect Evil, it would not show. Always evil, as defined in the alignment section of the MM, means that 95% of the creatures are of that alignment. Thus, 5% of mindflayers are non-evil, with a very small percent of those having the potential to be good as well.


That is what Mind Flayer religion is all about!

The funny thing is according to Lords of Madness and the old 2e ILLITHIDS! book, the religion is a lie. The elder brain propogates this religion to ensure mindless devotion to its will. According to the books, in reality, a dead mindflayer's brain that is placed in the elder brain pool is simply consumed for all of its deliciousness the same as any lesser being's brain matter. There is no collective consciousness formed by the merging of many flayer brains, just the malevolent overmind imposing its will on lesser illithid.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-20, 01:17 PM
I believe that they experience some random memories and sensations; a small impact at best. No mindflayer ever said "Man after eating all those Paladins I really want to go fight for some JUSTICE or something"

Well, there is a PrC where they can gain skills and stuff from brains. But yeah, it's not a basic ability - they have to work at it.

Although Elder Brains can retain all knowledge and memories of brains they eat - but that's it, just the knowledge and memories. No gestalt entities here.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 01:44 PM
If you need to eat sapient creatures to survive, then as long as you prey or innocents, you're evil. Yes, even though you need to do this to survive. There are non-evil ways of satisfying such hunger, and "I do that in order to survive!" is no excuse for a good character. And if it turns out that you absolutely must kill innocents in order to survive, and there is no other option, then a good character would commit suicide, unless his goals really are worth so many innocent deaths. And then he'd be constantly filled with regret.

Same for other man-eating races. "I'm a vampire who kills innocents to survive, but I'm still good, I do that in order to survive!" is complete bull.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 01:48 PM
Suicide? That would be sinful!

Alignment, it isn't the can of worms for D&D, I don't know what is.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 01:53 PM
Huh? Show me a single example where DND calls suicide (the general act, not a specific instance of it) an evil act.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 01:57 PM
You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 02:01 PM
Nope, but it builds foundations that we can base our more in-depth and coherent analysis on.

Also, on Illithids: Spoon of Sustenance, costs 5400 gold (which is nothing for such a high-magic culture), provides enough food for 4 mind flayers. In a good/neutral Illithid society, those things should be incredibly common. There's no excuse for them to eat brains.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:02 PM
Nope, but it builds foundations that we can base our more in-depth and coherent analysis on.

It's a very unstable and shoddy foundation if the numerous arguments I've seen about it are any indication.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 02:04 PM
It's a very unstable and shoddy foundation if the numerous arguments I've seen about it are any indication.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to build on that foundation... what if there was an earthquake? :smalleek:

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:07 PM
Earthquake? I'm worried about dying in the quicksand! :smalltongue:

Prime32
2010-10-20, 02:08 PM
Re: Memories

According to fluff, mind flayers occasionally retain some traits from the host the tadpole was implanted into, but they try to hide them. They have a legend of a being called "The Adversary", a tadpole which will absorb its host's mind completely and be taken over by it.

Mind flayers don't technically need a host, but they mutate into horrifying monsters if they're not implanted. Being from the future, it's implied that they're a hyper-evolved form of humanity and that they need host bodies to prevent them from evolving any further.

Tanuki Tales
2010-10-20, 02:08 PM
Nope, but it builds foundations that we can base our more in-depth and coherent analysis on.

Also, on Illithids: Spoon of Sustenance, costs 5400 gold (which is nothing for such a high-magic culture), provides enough food for 4 mind flayers. In a good/neutral Illithid society, those things should be incredibly common. There's no excuse for them to eat brains.

Didn't know that item could create brain matter.

bloodtide
2010-10-20, 02:09 PM
The In Game answer is that Illithids Chose to infect and kill people, on purpose. The illithid race was not born infecting and eating people, they chose to modify themselves that way. It's their fault they are addicted to the two.


And, as been said, you can judge Good and Evil in D&D by the gray areas. You could run around all day saying what is good and evil and never, ever be 'right'.

But D&D says, ''If you do X, you are evil" and ''If you do Y you are good". There is no gray.

Shpadoinkle
2010-10-20, 02:09 PM
From there they'd need some 'good' way of getting sustinance.

I thought about this a while ago and came up with Rings of Sustenance. Maybe modified slightly in that they ONLY remove the need for food or water, but don't reduce ones need for sleep or rest or whatever mind flayers do, to lower the cost of creating them. Maybe make them only usable by illithids as well, AND only good-aligned creatures.

I don't know what the final cost would be (if someone wants to figure out what a ring of sustenance usable only by members of X race of Y alignment would cost, that would be great.) Removing the reduced sleep requirements I think would further reduce the price by maybe a third to half. They'd still end up being fairly expensive, but... hell, local governments might be willing to reimburse them for the costs (it's better than having them sucking out people's brains, after all,) or they could get them as gifts from some powerful organization.

Failing both of those option, illithids are still incredibly smart and should be able to figure out a way to raise the money needed without a lot of trouble.

Prime32
2010-10-20, 02:11 PM
The In Game answer is that Illithids Chose to infect and kill people, on purpose. The illithid race was not born infecting and eating people, they chose to modify themselves that way. It's their fault they are addicted to the two.Actually, they infect people because the alternative is turning into these things (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/neothelid.htm).

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 02:12 PM
But D&D says, ''If you do X, you are evil" and ''If you do Y you are good". There is no gray.

It really doesn't though. D&D is far from consistent and is quite vague and even contradictory on what it means to be Good or Evil, let alone Lawful and Chaotic.

These aren't the philosophical works of Kant or anything like that, and treating the D&D material like it actually presents a consistent absolute morality scale is just wrong on so many levels.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 02:12 PM
Didn't know that item could create brain matter.

From D20 SRD:
Sustaining Spoon

This unremarkable eating utensil is typically fashioned from horn. If the spoon is placed in an empty container the vessel fills with a thick, pasty gruel. Although this substance has a flavor similar to that of warm, wet cardboard, it is highly nourishing and contains everything necessary to sustain any herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous creature. The spoon can produce sufficient gruel each day to feed up to four humans.

Faint conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, create food and water; Price 5,400 gp.

Also: thick, pasty and probably grey gruel, tasting like warm cardboard? It already creates brains by default! I know from personal experience, I ate a brain (not a human one of course).

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:15 PM
I could make an argument that Illithid are not entirely herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous, but instead require um...what's the word for requires mental energy to survive? Psionovorous doesn't sound right...

Prime32
2010-10-20, 02:17 PM
I could make an argument that Illithid are not entirely herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous, but instead require um...what's the word for requires mental energy to survive? Psionovorous doesn't sound right...Cerebrevorous? Neurovorous? Egovorous?

Coidzor
2010-10-20, 02:17 PM
Me, I'm more worried about the walls, floor, and ceiling getting in an argument over who gets to eat me first.


Actually, they infect people because the alternative is turning into these things (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/neothelid.htm).

I thought the elder brains ate all of the ones that got close to becoming one of them.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-20, 02:17 PM
Let us, for the moment, ignore Mind Flayer culture (with the enslavement and all). Instead, let us focus on their breeding and feeding needs. In order to breed, Mind Flayers must take humanoids and infect them with their young. In order to survive (see Lords of Madness), they must consume living brains from sapient creatures. Both of these activities are depicted as evil.

Why? If they need to do these things to ensure their survival as a species, they are unpleasant but ultimately necessary. It's not as though someone with their brain eaten doesn't go to their appropriate afterlife (though the state of someone who's been flayer-fied is a little fuzzier). I honestly cannot fathom the bit that's evil about these actions if they are motivated by survival.

Subtopic: If you wanted to create a society of good-aligned mind flayers, what would their culture be like?

This is exactly what the Mindflayers say (Its practically a quote from Lords of Madness). The issue is that you are still eating the brains of sentient creatures to make your offspring mindflayers instead of neolithids. Mindflayers can survive without doing this, they choose not to.

And the reason the mindflayers are considered evil by others is they are inherently sociopathic; all other species are food, you can only get promoted by killing the person above you, you only exist as a society at all because everyone wants to be absorbed into the elder brain, etc.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 02:18 PM
I could make an argument that Illithid are not entirely herbivorous, omnivorous, or carnivorous, but instead require um...what's the word for requires mental energy to survive? Psionovorous doesn't sound right...

Eating brains counts as carnivorous for me. And even if you disagree, there are always rings of sustenance that Shpadoinkle mentioned - it's a more expensive option, but still viable.

Prime32
2010-10-20, 02:20 PM
The issue is that you are still eating the brains of sentient creatures to make your offspring mindflayers instead of neolithids. Mindflayers can survive without doing this, they choose not to.It's entirely possible that a neothelid will kill more sentients in its lifetime than ten mind flayers.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:26 PM
Eating brains counts as carnivorous for me.

The brain yes, but the contents of the brain?

Different story. And I do feel that is a necessary part of a healthy illithid diet!

Mordaenor
2010-10-20, 02:27 PM
Query: My own knowledge is limited to what is written in the Monster Manuals. Is it written anywhere that Mind Flayers need to feed on living brains? Would the brain of a recently deceased suffice?

Keld Denar
2010-10-20, 02:33 PM
If you need to eat sapient creatures to survive, then as long as you prey or innocents, you're evil. Yes, even though you need to do this to survive. There are non-evil ways of satisfying such hunger, and "I do that in order to survive!" is no excuse for a good character. And if it turns out that you absolutely must kill innocents in order to survive, and there is no other option, then a good character would commit suicide, unless his goals really are worth so many innocent deaths. And then he'd be constantly filled with regret.

Same for other man-eating races. "I'm a vampire who kills innocents to survive, but I'm still good, I do that in order to survive!" is complete bull.

Polar bears stalk people, sometimes for miles, before attacking them with the sole purpose of devouring their tasty tasty manflesh. Are polar bears evil? They are, as you indicate, consuming sapient creatures for their own nourishment. Most predators that kill humans do it out of convenience. You're there, their hungry, the bell rings and dinner is served. Polar bears actually HUNT people, among other things. You are on the menu.

Also, without getting into verbotten material, the term "innocent" is VERY subjective.

Jergmo
2010-10-20, 02:36 PM
Polar bears stalk people, sometimes for miles, before attacking them with the sole purpose of devouring their tasty tasty manflesh. Are polar bears evil? They are, as you indicate, consuming sapient creatures for their own nourishment.

Also, without getting into verbotten material, the term "innocent" is VERY subjective.

The argument against such a comparison would be that polar bears are incapable of making reasoned decisions between what we see as right and wrong - it just knows it's hungry, and apparently other prey is hard to come by currently. We suck as prey - it's another party of why we survived as a species. Our meat to body size ratio is rather low.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:38 PM
The argument against such a comparison would be that polar bears are incapable of making reasoned decisions between what we see as right and wrong - it just knows it's hungry, and apparently other prey is hard to come by currently. We suck as prey - it's another party of why we survived as a species. Our meat to body size ratio is rather low.

Suck as prey for Polar Bears. For creatures like Illithids we're apparently full of nice delicious thoughts and memories, which their Far Realm-based "biology" really needs.

Otherwise they end up like the dog from the Goode family.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-20, 02:40 PM
Polar bears stalk people, sometimes for miles, before attacking them with the sole purpose of devouring their tasty tasty manflesh. Are polar bears evil? They are, as you indicate, consuming sapient creatures for their own nourishment. Most predators that kill humans do it out of convenience. You're there, their hungry, the bell rings and dinner is served. Polar bears actually HUNT people, among other things. You are on the menu.

Also, without getting into verbotten material, the term "innocent" is VERY subjective.

First, those aren't capable of thinking about what they are doing. Good and Evil imply self-awareness. A Polar Bear's mind works: Food, Sleep, Sex.

Second, a cannibal amongst humans is still considered evil, and treated as such by other humans. Even if he thinks he needs to eat others we treat him that way (or as insane).

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-20, 02:42 PM
Polar bears stalk people, sometimes for miles, before attacking them with the sole purpose of devouring their tasty tasty manflesh. Are polar bears evil? They are, as you indicate, consuming sapient creatures for their own nourishment. Most predators that kill humans do it out of convenience. You're there, their hungry, the bell rings and dinner is served. Polar bears actually HUNT people, among other things. You are on the menu.

Also, without getting into verbotten material, the term "innocent" is VERY subjective.

Polar bears, as animals, are not intelligent enough to have any alignment but Neutral.

Mind Flayers are capable of telling right from wrong, they just don't care.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:43 PM
Ahem, you may wish to broaden your cultural horizons, or at least your knowledge of the history of Cannibalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism).

For some it was a cultural norm.

ETA: Funny coincidence (http://lfgcomic.com/page/400)

Tvtyrant
2010-10-20, 02:47 PM
Ahem, you may wish to broaden your cultural horizons, or at least your knowledge of the history of Cannibalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism).

For some it was a cultural norm.

I'm aware. So was human sacrifice at one point. And Slavery, and Genocide. And Rape. These things aren't less evil because you do them or believe in them.

In D&D morals are designed to be objective; the devils and demons are real and objective facts, and what they want is for you to do evil things. A sentient creature like a Mindflayer knows what it is doing is wrong, is just does it anyway.

Zeofar
2010-10-20, 02:47 PM
In order to breed, Mind Flayers must take humanoids and infect them with their young. In order to survive (see Lords of Madness), they must consume living brains from sapient creatures. Both of these activities are depicted as evil.

Why? If they need to do these things to ensure their survival as a species, they are unpleasant but ultimately necessary. It's not as though someone with their brain eaten doesn't go to their appropriate afterlife (though the state of someone who's been flayer-fied is a little fuzzier). I honestly cannot fathom the bit that's evil about these actions if they are motivated by survival.



Personally, I can see the volunteer breeding angle working perfectly. As far as brains, that becomes somewhat more complicated, since they need sapients in order to survive. Criminals and prisoners of war, eaten humanely, would be solidly gray in my book. Perhaps combat-brain eating as well? It's not like it's any more or less cruel than a sword or a fireball, though you end up with mind flayers as a mercenary culture then.

*Disclaimer: I haven't read Lords of Madness, so I don't know the exact details on Mind Flayer life or feeding beyond that they eat brains to survive and somehow use human bodies to make more of themselves*

Okay, first off, its cultural; Mind Flayers, as a rule, eat brains not because they have to, but because they can, will, and want to do so. I know you said "ignoring culture," but this is such a large factor that it bears repeating.

Secondly, let's look at evil. Evil acts are those that deny the rights of an individual; killing them includes this. Killing can indeed be justified, and even be a good act, but it all depends. Now, when a Mind Flayer eats someone's brain (let us assume that it is motivated either by the goal of sustenance and/or justly killing the person) he denies that person his right to life. Whether or not they go to an afterlife is totally irrelevant; somehow stopping that would be an additional breach of assumed rights, and not doing so isn't some sort of kind benefit. His intent only has some impact on the act, but not as much as the circumstance or the act itself.

Now we'll look at brain-eating for the benefit of sustenance. From a certain point of view, the Mind Flayer is somewhat justified in his act, since he needs to do it to live. But at the same time, what of a vampire that kills someone to live? Is their act also justified? How about someone that kills another and cannibalizes them while awaiting rescue? At the very best, this act has to be neutral, and it definitely goes into evil when it is repetitive, as is necessary for a Mind Flayer.

On the other hand, doing it at all treats the being as prey and denies him the human dignity due to him (and by "human dignity," I mean the quality that all sapient creatures posses that give them inborn rights) by treating him as an animal. Violation of human dignity is the basis of most evil acts, and well intentions cannot put one above this. The Mind Flayer is also placing the value of his life over that of another person, which is made especially heinous by the fact that, in all likelihood, the other person doesn't need to kill more people to survive. If there is some great reason that the Mind Flayer needs to survive for the benefit of many others, the act becomes probably neutral at best.

Now, about killing the person for the purpose of execution or in combat. To start, it is my understanding that Mind Flayers can do an instant-kill extraction without actually eating the brain; this means that a viable, instantaneous method of killing someone is separate from their ability to eat brains. In combat, they can kill someone without eating their brains; if they do eat their brains, they are again depriving that person of their due human dignity. "Waste not, want not" is not a sufficient reason to sublimate moral values. The same thing applies to killing prisoners in this manner; it could still be a good or neutral act to destroy their bodies or brains as part of a just punishment, but once you eat them, it goes beyond a just punishment when it is for the material benefit of others.

As for breeding: Obviously, for reasons above, this is typically evil. However, in terms of "volunteer breeding," it gets more gray. In my opinion, though, this will typically ping as evil simply because it is taking advantage of someone for the benefit of another. The fact that someone would want to do it would tell me that they have either been brainwashed, have mental issues, or genuinely believe that the life of another Mind Flayer is more valuable than their own. As such, this could only be good or neutral if this is really true or the person sacrificing himself has a special reason to want the baby Mind Flayer to live, otherwise you are allowing someone to act under false pretenses. Now, I'll say, the act of the person volunteering isn't necessarily evil in any of these cases, and it mostly depends on intent.

I think that just about covers all the questions asked, doesn't it?


You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Tengu_temp
2010-10-20, 02:53 PM
Polar bears stalk people, sometimes for miles, before attacking them with the sole purpose of devouring their tasty tasty manflesh. Are polar bears evil? They are, as you indicate, consuming sapient creatures for their own nourishment. Most predators that kill humans do it out of convenience. You're there, their hungry, the bell rings and dinner is served. Polar bears actually HUNT people, among other things. You are on the menu.


This argument assumes that bears are not sociopathic killing machines fueled by hate for all other lifeforms.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 02:59 PM
In D&D morals are designed to be objective; the devils and demons are real and objective facts, and what they want is for you to do evil things.

They are often presented that way. They meet the real world though, and things go...ka-boom!

And devils and demons are one thing, illithid are another.


A sentient creature like a Mindflayer knows what it is doing is wrong, is just does it anyway.

Not starving to death is hardly a wrong.

And are non-vegetarians evil?

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 02:59 PM
What you need to realize, based on illithid biology, is that the very existence of mind flayers is "evil," or at the very least, unnatural.

A naturally-spawned illithid begins its life as a tadpole in the brine lake of the Elder Brain. Left alone, the tadpoles begin to compete in the pool, devouring one another in order to grow. The most successful leaves the pool in search of prey, becoming a neothelid.

Mind flayers are deviations from this cycle in the same way urophions, uchuulons etc. are, the result of a larva entering the ear canal of a humanoid and undergoing ceremorphosis, a process rife with instability and potential for distaster. The propagation of the mind flayer "race" is the result of mind flayers choosing to make more aberrations by murdering a humanoid in order to subject one of their own larvae to an unnatural chemical mutation process that may fail.

Now then, when it comes to food, mind flayers can eat many different things to acquire the necessary enzymes and nutrients (much like we do). There is nothing exclusive to the brain in mind flayer diet save that it serves as an "all-in-one" meal. So why is it that illithids "require" one brain per month, and desire one brain per week?

The answer, apart from the fact that brains are the illithid equivalent of pizza, is that they require the psionic energy. However, psionic energy is by no means unique to sentient, cultured beings. Brain moles, folugubs, phrenic animals, ustilagors... these are just a few of the many creatures that could be (and often are) farmed by illithids for sustenance. Less savory to our mindset, but still less cruel than rapacious attacks on surface dwellers, illithids can also farm thralls or specially-bred thrall species (oortlings, for example). Logistics and simple math decry these latter options, however, as being less appetizing as well as difficult to provide and maintain. Further,

we know that the mind flayers have a vast galactic empire in the future. Continued ceremorphosis compared to the the timescale required for proper development of a pizza-quality brain clearly demonstrates that the illithid diet cannot "require" sapient brain matter at such a pace.

The Adversary is also a demonstration of the lack of need for psionic sources of nourishment, practicing special psychic techniques to naturally grow, regulate and regenerate psionic ability. Yes, eating well is easier than exercise, but that doesn't excuse a whole society's laziness.

In conclusion:

1) The illithid diet is far more varied than fantastical reports would lead us to believe. The fresh brains of humanoids are a tasty and nourishing pizza, certainly, but other internal organs of various species serve as various carbs, proteins and vitamins would and are just as nourishing in the long run. Ustilagors are something similar to burgers, intellect devourers a fine steak, brain mole much like chicken. Udoroot makes a decent veggie, while ground crysmals provide a psionic "salt". Ectoplasmic swarms are akin to caviar - rare, expensive and objectively a gross thing to be eating.

2) Illithids do require brain matter (to a point - see below) for one reason: the nourishing of tadpoles. This is not specifically because of any one property of brain matter, but rather the necessity of a high-fat diet for the growing tadpoles, preferably one involving psionic nourishment as well (though this is not specifically necessary for larvae, which remain largely animalistic until ceremorphosis or devouring of a complete sentience regardless). Any suitably oily, fatty fish could provide for the same needs, but again, illithid culture is shockingly lazy when it comes to trivial matters. Which is a shame, the idea of a mind flayer sitting out in a boat with a fishing rod and an angler's hat is hilarious.

3) Since it is largely a matter of convenience and entirely unsustainable, as well as largely unnecessary, it can only be concluded that the "traditional" mind flayer diet is in fact evil; further, that illithids themselves obviously don't see it that way. To their alien mindset, anything sentient that is not an illithid is a can of Coke waiting to be cracked open, as - much like some hardcore gamers - they simply cannot be bothered to take the time and effort to provide themselves with a proper, more varied diet.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 03:03 PM
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Sweet, do I get a new car?

Person_Man
2010-10-20, 03:04 PM
A Good Mind Flayer could work as a doctor in an emergency room, and only eat the brains of patients who can't be saved. I'd love to see that character added to Grey's Anatomy.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-20, 03:04 PM
They are often presented that way. They meet the real world though, and things go...ka-boom!

And devils and demons are one thing, illithid are another.



Not starving to death is hardly a wrong.

And are non-vegetarians evil?

Post above this one shows that it is not necessary. Also, eating a Chimp or Dolphin knowing they are near-sentient is evil. If you were truly starving to death I would agree, but the mindflayers get the same thing out of none sentient animals that they do out of humanoids. It might not taste as good, but it works.

I will explicitly say here that I believe that sentient life has intrinsically more worth then none-sentient life.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:09 PM
Post above this one shows that it is not necessary. Also, eating a Chimp or Dolphin knowing they are near-sentient is evil. If you were truly starving to death I would agree, but the mindflayers get the same thing out of none sentient animals that they do out of humanoids. It might not taste as good, but it works.

I don't see that as being proven, but rather than waste time over that argument, since it's a fictional made-up race, ask yourself...what if it were not so? What if these non-sentient beings are not suitable sustenance?


I will explicitly say here that I believe that sentient life has intrinsically more worth then none-sentient life.

So do a lot of people. Others feel different.

Zeofar
2010-10-20, 03:11 PM
Thank you there, Afroakuma, I'm glad somebody here had the facts on whether or not it was absolutely necessary. This simplifies things quite a bit...

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:13 PM
It's not a fact.

It's a work of fiction.

So the simplicity is only so far as you wish to take it, and given how much inconsistency there is in D&D, I wouldn't expect there not to be contradictions.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-20, 03:15 PM
I don't see that as being proven, but rather than waste time over that argument, since it's a fictional made-up race, ask yourself...what if it were not so? What if these non-sentient beings are not suitable sustenance?



So do a lot of people. Others feel different.

Well, first it is so. Its even directly stated that the Neolithid survives without sentient food and grows up eating rodents in the Lords of Madness.

Second, I believe we have established that morals within D&D are objective due to the divine nature of said morals, so beliefs of individuals don't come into play in the game, only actions. If we want to debate our real life beliefs, on a public forum is hardly the place to do so. Feel free to PM me and we can talk about the none-game aspects.

And finally if the Mindflayer couldn't survive without sentient food there are better ways to do so. A mindflayer crime fighter would be awesome!


It's not a fact.

It's a work of fiction.

So the simplicity is only so far as you wish to take it, and given how much inconsistency there is in D&D, I wouldn't expect there not to be contradictions.
We are talking about a work of fiction. If you want to make your own work of fiction, thats fine, but don't argue that fictional accounts don't matter in a work of fiction. That's silly.

DeathsHands
2010-10-20, 03:15 PM
You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.

That man right there has a point. Mind Flayers are evil guys. That's just how it works.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 03:17 PM
The whole "Morals in D&D have a divine source" argument doesn't hold water, folks. You need a SINGULAR judge-figure to make that work, and even then it's less morality and more "Did I make this one powerful outsider happy with me?"

Keld Denar
2010-10-20, 03:19 PM
A Good Mind Flayer could work as a doctor in an emergency room, and only eat the brains of patients who can't be saved. I'd love to see that character added to Grey's Anatomy.

I like it. Kinda a Dr Zoidberg meets House. Sitcom writers, make it happen!

Mikeavelli
2010-10-20, 03:20 PM
This has come up several times in the Playground, very similar discussions each time.

Essentially, D&D Morality is both arbitrary and human-centric. It must be this way because, at the heart of pretty much any philosophical or moral system, you have to start with some assumptions (Axioms, I think is the word?) that are simply assumed to be true without any further backing. The rest of the system is built upon that.

In an Illithid-centric morality system, consuming other thinking creatures would be no more "evil" than humans who eat cows or chickens or whatever. "Thinking creatures" is not a moral distinction for them. Rather, a "Good" Mind flayer would work in Harmony with the Elder Brain, prevent the creation of Neothelids by finding excellent hosts for new Mind Flayers, etc.

An "Evil" mind flayer would willingly break off from the community, pursue Undeath as an alternative to joining with the Elder Brain, worship any god other than Illsensine (Or, did they get any other dieties? I haven't kept up to date), etc. The Book of Exalted Deeds Illithid is an example of what what would appear in an Illithid-centric morality's Book of Vile Darkness.

[hr]

Basically it's the same point as tvtyrant had below, D&D Morals are objective, things like Fiends are evil because the D&D Universe has defined them as evil. Illithids are not all that different.


The whole "Morals in D&D have a divine source" argument doesn't hold water, folks. You need a SINGULAR judge-figure to make that work, and even then it's less morality and more "Did I make this one powerful outsider happy with me?"


Eh, All the Evil gods go around shouting, "Look at me! I'm Evil McEvilPants!"

All the good gods go around shouting, "Be Good for Goodness sake!"

They've pretty much agreed with each other on what is good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaotic, etc. There's no need for a single judge.

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 03:20 PM
What, Gareth, no comments on my essay? :smallwink:

Myself, I don't think mind flayers are evil in the same capacity that a villainous lich or a demon is evil; they have an alien mindset that is self-centered, amoral and highly regimented (Lawful Evil), but in the main they're not archvillains, just jerks.

Now, Elder Brains... those are evil. In the extreme.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:21 PM
Well, first it is so. Its even directly stated that the Neolithid survives without sentient food and grows up eating rodents in the Lords of Madness.

But the Illithid race dies. And Neolithis are not, to the best of my knowledge actually better. Besides, what if you are a rat? You probably don't like that idea! Won't you think of the Mice of NIMH!

Still, I asked you to "what if it were so" for a reason, to make you think about it.


Second, I believe we have established that morals within D&D are objective due to the divine nature of said morals, so beliefs of individuals don't come into play in the game, only actions.

I'm sorry, but that is so funny. I don't want to debate your real life beliefs at all. I just think you're mistaken in the way you present good and evil in D&D as if it were divorced from the whole affair of what people believe. It's not. If it were, we wouldn't have so many arguments about alignment.

There's a reason why I say it's a can of worms.


And finally if the Mindflayer couldn't survive without sentient food there are better ways to do so. A mindflayer crime fighter would be awesome!

Then we go back to the "You are what you eat" problem where the Mindflayers become criminals because that's what they eat.

That would make for a delightfully interesting story.


We are talking about a work of fiction. If you want to make your own work of fiction, thats fine, but don't argue that fictional accounts don't matter in a work of fiction. That's silly.

Ahem, I don't think you understood, I'm saying that there are contradictions regarding Mind Flayers. It's not as proven as you think.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:26 PM
This has come up several times in the Playground, very similar discussions each time.

It's very similar wherever I go and discuss D&D and alignment on the Internet.


Eh, All the Evil gods go around shouting, "Look at me! I'm Evil McEvilPants!"

All the good gods go around shouting, "Be Good for Goodness sake!"

They've pretty much agreed with each other on what is good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaotic, etc. There's no need for a single judge.

They don't in my worlds. I actually find that idea rather...silly.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 03:27 PM
That man right there has a point. Mind Flayers are evil guys. That's just how it works.

I was thinking more "stop pretending WotC is presenting a working model for absolute morality and adjudicate based on what works for your setting. Heck, you can even pick an actual philosophy of absolute morality, like Kant."

Zeofar
2010-10-20, 03:33 PM
Yeah, I don't want to make this thread too general, but this is basically how alignment works, though WotC screwed it up by not giving any baseline way to evaluate actions and trying to avoid calling Chaos entropic or negative so it wouldn't seem "evil." This is, essentially, the most stripped down you can take alignment without providing any further explanation (which I'm not inclined to do, especially not in this thread). There isn't any need for a "divine source" or a "single judge." The "Evil" gods don't see themselves as evil, they simply do evil and thus are evil. The fact that they're evil pretty much proves that they aren't thinking about it most of the time.

Good: Explicitly or implicitly respects the rights of others.
Evil: Explicitly or implicitly denies or ignores the rights of others.

Lawful: Explicitly or implicitly respects society
Chaotic: Explicitly or implicitly disrespects society.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:35 PM
The screw-up was long before WOTC was involved.

Mikeavelli
2010-10-20, 03:35 PM
What, Gareth, no comments on my essay? :smallwink:

Myself, I don't think mind flayers are evil in the same capacity that a villainous lich or a demon is evil; they have an alien mindset that is self-centered, amoral and highly regimented (Lawful Evil), but in the main they're not archvillains, just jerks.

Now, Elder Brains... those are evil. In the extreme.

Your Essay is the work of an Illithid Apoligist, and your brain will be eaten first when their unseen empire rises out from the dark :P.

Seriously though, your essay just contradicts established D&D lore (or FAW, Fluff as Written, if you prefer), proving still further that the only way to really make sensical morality system in the D&D world is to refluff it as you desire.




They don't in my worlds. I actually find that idea rather...silly.



Case in point.

Zeofar
2010-10-20, 03:38 PM
Seriously though, your essay just contradicts established D&D lore (or FAW, Fluff as Written, if you prefer), proving still further that the only way to really make sensical morality system in the D&D world is to refluff it as you desire.


Wait, what? Are you telling me that I just read lies? Quick, someone give some page references for whether or not Illithids can only eat brains to get their required nutrition.

DeathsHands
2010-10-20, 03:40 PM
I was thinking more "stop pretending WotC is presenting a working model for absolute morality and adjudicate based on what works for your setting. Heck, you can even pick an actual philosophy of absolute morality, like Kant."
That makes sense too.

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 03:41 PM
Your Essay is the work of an Illithid Apoligist, and your brain will be eaten first when their unseen empire rises out from the dark :P.

Apologist? Not remotely. I don't apologize for their brain diet in the least - rather, I condemn it for what it IS - not necessary, but rather convenient.


Seriously though, your essay just contradicts established D&D lore (or FAW, Fluff as Written, if you prefer), proving still further that the only way to really make sensical morality system in the D&D world is to refluff it as you desire.

Untrue. Lords of Madness specifies the dietary needs and function of illithids, identifying that they can and do eat the organs of a variety of living creatures for nutrients, and that the singular quality of brains is that they possess all three completed nutritional profiles. I extrapolated from their psionic need that other psionic creatures can also be exploited as snacks. Ustilagors and intellect devourers are cited as species which illithids eat as a delicacy, and oortlings are explicitly fluffed as a thrall race bred by illithids to be the ultimate bulk food. Bruce Cordell, in a published 2nd edition adventure, revealed that the psionic component of the illithid diet can be replaced by what is essentially a mental equivalent of exercise.

The "conventional" fluff is merely the minimalist tripe that adventurers learn from such trivial, ill-researched documents as the Monster Manual. :smalltongue:

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:43 PM
Wait, what? Are you telling me that I just read lies? Quick, someone give some page references for whether or not Illithids can only eat brains to get their required nutrition.

I believe the Illithiad has the information required.

Zeofar
2010-10-20, 03:43 PM
The screw-up was long before WOTC was involved.

They reworked the alignment system and wrote new works describing it. They screwed up, and it is their fault that the alignment system in 3e, 3.5e, and 4e is absolutely screwed. It was their choice not to accurately and succinctly describe alignment; using what I described as a baseline is, that I know of, the only way to look at alignment from the ground up, using the same two axes that WotC did, in a way that makes sense.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 03:46 PM
You make it seem like it wasn't screwed up before they rewrote it.

They wouldn't have tried to rewrite it if it were perfect.

It wasn't.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 03:48 PM
The question, of course, comes to this - what happens when one being's inalienable rights conflict with another's to the point of mutual exclusion?

By the by, there's no reason for vamps in D&D to be evil. Not only can they feed on animals and non-sapient beings, but they don't even have to kill humanoids (or, indeed, animals) when they feed, should they so choose/pick someone with a decent Con score.

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 03:55 PM
The question, of course, comes to this - what happens when one being's inalienable rights conflict with another's to the point of mutual exclusion?

But as I've pointed out, that's not the question you're asking. If you want to ask that question, ask that question. The very existence of mind flayers as a self-propagating "species" is not an inalienable right, any moreso than I have a right to your organs for transplant if I have captured you. Their supposed "right" to eat brains is no more valid than my right as a North American citizen to hunt other humans for use as food.


By the by, there's no reason for vamps in D&D to be evil.

Not only can they feed on animals and non-sapient beings, but they don't even have to kill humanoids (or, indeed, animals) when they feed, should they so choose/pick someone with a decent Con score.

Which, of course, is why not all of them are evil.

Mordaenor
2010-10-20, 03:57 PM
So, I'm now imagining a Mind Flayer farmer who, over years of experimenting, breeds a race of sentient livestock with more than one brain. Eat one, the other takes over while the first one grows back. I guess its open to interpretation if this is enough to qualify a race of "good" Mind Flayers, I suppose it depends on if the livestock got some benefit in return, but the idea is kind of fun.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 03:58 PM
@Afro - Then let there be additional alignment thread! *runs off to make it*

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 03:59 PM
So, I'm now imagining a Mind Flayer farmer who, over years of experimenting, breeds a race of sentient livestock with more than one brain. Eat one, the other takes over while the first one grows back. I guess its open to interpretation if this is enough to qualify a race of "good" Mind Flayers, I suppose it depends on if the livestock got some benefit in return, but the idea is kind of fun.

Like some sort of... head... crab...?

:smallbiggrin:

Mikeavelli
2010-10-20, 04:00 PM
Apologist? Not remotely. I don't apologize for their brain diet in the least - rather, I condemn it for what it IS - not necessary, but rather convenient.

Untrue. Lords of Madness specifies the dietary needs and function of illithids, identifying that they can and do eat the organs of a variety of living creatures for nutrients, and that the singular quality of brains is that they possess all three completed nutritional profiles. I extrapolated from their psionic need that other psionic creatures can also be exploited as snacks. Ustilagors and intellect devourers are cited as species which illithids eat as a delicacy, and oortlings are explicitly fluffed as a thrall race bred by illithids to be the ultimate bulk food. Bruce Cordell, in a published 2nd edition adventure, revealed that the psionic component of the illithid diet can be replaced by what is essentially a mental equivalent of exercise.

The "conventional" fluff is merely the minimalist tripe that adventurers learn from such trivial, ill-researched documents as the Monster Manual. :smalltongue:

Eh? Trivial ill-researched documents such as the Lords of Madness book you're quoting and ignoring. It describes Illithids who don't get their one brain per month snack as suffering from Malnutrition. Quoting a different (outdated) source that describes exercise as the cure for malnutrition is somewhat nonsensical.

In regards to the Adversary, not all Flayers are psionic. Expecting the whole race to do what an exceptionally dedicated individual with a different moral system than them did suffers from the same problem as putting the whole race on Rings of sustenance.

The vast galactic empire of Illithids could also be supported pretty much the same way existing empires of Illithids were supported, thrall brains. Noble flayers might even have "gardens" where sentient creatures are allowed to roam freely and have experiences so that they might become more tasty to their Illithid masters.

The Gith Rebellion in the Ancient past might have started this way.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 04:01 PM
IT IS DONE! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9594784#post9594784)

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 04:04 PM
So, I'm now imagining a Mind Flayer farmer who, over years of experimenting, breeds a race of sentient livestock with more than one brain. Eat one, the other takes over while the first one grows back. I guess its open to interpretation if this is enough to qualify a race of "good" Mind Flayers, I suppose it depends on if the livestock got some benefit in return, but the idea is kind of fun.

That would be the Tandu of the Uplift Universe, though I think they're more biologically close to insectoid, so they may or may not be compatible.

You could always get the Orlens and give them regeneration though!

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-10-20, 04:09 PM
I don't get why good mindflayers don't just buy a ring of sustenance, or whatever that ring is that allows you to survive without food and drink. Most have pretty powerful magical stuff, it wouldn't be very hard.

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 04:10 PM
Eh? Trivial ill-researched documents such as the Lords of Madness book you're quoting and ignoring. It describes Illithids who don't get their one brain per month snack as suffering from Malnutrition.

Indeed it does. It in fact says both things. This can be explained in one of two ways:

1) "The equivalent of one brain a month," which would make sense.

2) Three authors = fail.


Quoting a different (outdated) source that describes exercise as the cure for malnutrition is somewhat nonsensical.

All sources on mind flayers are outdated, save those of 4E. :smalltongue: However, as 3.X manages to remain canonical with the prior editions far better than the present game, it seems logical to include The Illithiad and its contemporaries as sources. They're certainly better than the internally-contradictory LoM.


In regards to the Adversary, not all Flayers are psionic.

Not all flayers follow the rules of the Psionics Handbook. However, all flayers have psionic capabilities, including a set of abilities specifically labeled "psionics." As we don't know the nature of the Adversary's practices but DO know the reasons behind them, it's likely that the capability required is inherent to all illithids, else his risk would have been untenable.


The vast galactic empire of Illithids could also be supported pretty much the same way existing empires of Illithids were supported, thrall brains.

Except that it cannot. Lords of Madness makes note of this fact - that large groups of illithids cannot exist together because the bulk required to sustain them properly is too great. Factor in the time required to "farm" what illithids consider a suitable brain, and it rapidly becomes unsustainable.


Noble flayers might even have "gardens" where sentient creatures are allowed to roam freely and have experiences so that they might become more tasty to their Illithid masters.

That I certainly don't doubt. Illithid restaurants probably list brains like a wine menu. "Drow brain, 500 years old, finely aged..."

Fact is, Gareth was trying to provoke a conundrum in which to hide a question. It's no longer relevant now that he's openly asked the question in another thread on his unfavorite topic.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 04:15 PM
I resent that, Afro! The subtopic can still be explored immensely!

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 04:19 PM
I don't get why good mindflayers don't just buy a ring of sustenance, or whatever that ring is that allows you to survive without food and drink. Most have pretty powerful magical stuff, it wouldn't be very hard.

Why, exactly, do you feel that eating something with an average int score 8 below yours is Evil? Humans seem to get off the hook for it. Hardly seems an absolute system, now does it?

And before someone says something about "sentience" I'll tell you that animals are sentient.

And before someone says something about "sapience" I'll tell you that that just means "intelligence similar to a homo sapien, aka human." Why does a universal cosmic force set the yardstick on humans? Does everything in the multiverse just revolve around them?

You need a better basis than that for a system of absolute cosmic morality that transcends the species, gods, and planes.

In fact, it's almost like the alignment system was written by silly biased humans with rather arbitrary values that contradict themselves.

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 04:19 PM
I resent that, Afro! The subtopic can still be explored immensely!

Being as the subtopic seems to come down to "which sources are valid," I don't see a point in propagating it. :smalltongue:

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-20, 04:22 PM
The subtopic of "what would a good-aligned mind flayer culture look like in your game?" Afro. THAT one.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 04:25 PM
The subtopic of "what would a good-aligned mind flayer culture look like in your game?" Afro. THAT one.

I gave my answer on the subject.

Should I expand on it?

afroakuma
2010-10-20, 04:39 PM
The subtopic of "what would a good-aligned mind flayer culture look like in your game?" Afro. THAT one.

Didn't see you ask that, but sure.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't see a good-aligned culture of mind flayers existing, here's what we'd have:

A highly psionic culture of fairly self-absorbed researchers and scholars who provide for their own needs primarily, while recognizing that the higher cognitive power generated by their collective consciousness gathered gives a value to the societal need. This is a culture that is explicitly capitalist and values contribution for the sake of personal exploitation. A sort of intellectual hedonism is predominant. You have farm overseers who research biology, restauranteurs, teachers, scientists, doctors and, of course, more inquisitive minds. There is a "good," but it is still rather alien from our traditional concepts of such, as it is exploitative of everything that is done for any reason. Phrenic creatures are bred to supplement mental exercise, crysmal salt is a trade good, and sentients are viewed as cultures which should be contacted for informational exploitation, rather than physical exploitation. Flayers will likely still take brutish creatures as thralls, as value is still placed primarily on the quality of the mind.

Most notably, there is no elder brain. The larvae feed primarily on fish paste - and each other - and the flayers monitor the cities above for the recently deceased as vessels for ceremorphosis. They superstitiously value the corpses of intellectuals more highly (foolishness, of course) and use their potent psionic and/or magical abilities to keep the bodies viable. As is no doubt discernable, the fact that these are "good" flayers makes them no less creepy to those who live around them. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-10-20, 04:47 PM
Why, exactly, do you feel that eating something with an average int score 8 below yours is Evil? Humans seem to get off the hook for it. Hardly seems an absolute system, now does it?
The rings work for them to. Seriously, think about how much time and effort could be saved with those rings! No need to hunt, plant or cook! Farmland could be converted to living space! No more silly moral debate about eating sentient beings!

I only said good mind flayers because evil ones likely wouldn't care about the awesome benefits of these rings, since they like to "play with their food," y'know?

Why don't they just make these rings for EVERYTHING?! There'd be a lot less conflict in the world if we weren't all trying to eat each other! :smallbiggrin:

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 05:54 PM
Why don't they just make these rings for EVERYTHING?! There'd be a lot less conflict in the world if we weren't all trying to eat each other! :smallbiggrin:

That could be why I've seen various DMs disallow them in their games. *Shrug*

AslanCross
2010-10-20, 06:04 PM
An interesting question. Personally, I define "evil" in terms of any sentient creature which causes the harm, death, or suffering of another sentient creature without provocation. (And yes by these terms, I also consider an adventuring party which goes and kills a bunch of orcs "just because" also to be evil.) So if the Mind Flayers need to feed on other sentients, then they cannot help but be an evil society. They couldn't develop any other way. In order for a society of "good" Mind Flayers to develop, they would need to find a way to survive with out harming other sentients, i.e. by feeding and breeding on non-sentient animals, or even plants . (Yes! Vegan Mind-flayers, I love it!)

This, pretty much. They consciously consume and assimilate sapient creatures for their purposes. Mind Flayers themselves are amoral, being from the Far Realm/Xoriat, but in the eyes of humanoids they are definitely evil.

Frankly, though, I think the application of real-world moral standards to a game is just unnecessary.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-20, 06:43 PM
The whole "Morals in D&D have a divine source" argument doesn't hold water, folks. You need a SINGULAR judge-figure to make that work, and even then it's less morality and more "Did I make this one powerful outsider happy with me?"

yea, from a certain point of view the gods are just manipulators who don't actually embody or care about what concepts and domains they have- they just do the things they do so that they keep their power intact cause if they didn't they would lose believers which equals less power, they are actors playing out their roles for more power.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 06:46 PM
This, pretty much. They consciously consume and assimilate sapient creatures for their purposes.

Yet again:
Sentient includes things like "cows." Humans commonly use these creatures as either a food source or as slave labor, as convenient. We also murder them at public sporting events because we think it's manly or something.

Sapient means "humanlike intelligence." Actually, intelligence like a homo sapien.

Even if you want to use "capable of language," you've got to realize that there are, in real life, non-human animals that totally are capable of language.

Relative to illithids, humans are about as intelligent and capable of reasoning as cows appear to humans.

Having your definition of Evil rely on "sentient" means you include humans for eating cows, and having your definition of Evil rely on "sapient" seems extremely conspicuous. Why does a universal cosmic force set the yardstick on humans? Does everything in the multiverse just revolve around them?

You need a better basis than that for a system of absolute cosmic morality that transcends the species, gods, and planes.

In fact, it's almost like the alignment system was written by silly biased humans with rather arbitrary values that contradict themselves.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 06:49 PM
The rings work for them to.

Not in my games! :smalltongue:


Why don't they just make these rings for EVERYTHING?! There'd be a lot less conflict in the world if we weren't all trying to eat each other! :smallbiggrin:

You may wish to read a certain book series by Nancy Kress.

The one that specifically begins to address this subject is Beggars and Choosers, but you may want to start with Beggars in Spain.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-20, 06:53 PM
Yet again:

Sentient includes things like "cows."

Sapient means "humanlike intelligence." Actually, intelligence like a homo sapien.

Relative to illithids, humans are about as intelligent and capable of reasoning as cows appear to humans.

Having your definition of Evil rely on "sentient" means you include humans for eating cows, and having your definition of Evil rely on "sapient" seems extremely conspicuous. Why does a universal cosmic force set the yardstick on humans? Does everything in the multiverse just revolve around them?

You need a better basis than that for a system of absolute cosmic morality that transcends the species, gods, and planes.

In fact, it's almost like the alignment system was written by silly biased humans with rather arbitrary values that contradict themselves.

Maybe the thing that needs fixing in DnD is not any mechanic but the Alignment system itself. A redefining of it might clear things up, maybe making the alignments more definite in a way, to clear up what they are about.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 06:55 PM
Maybe the thing that needs fixing in DnD is not any mechanic but the Alignment system itself. A redefining of it might clear things up, maybe making the alignments more definite in a way, to clear up what they are about.

I'm pretty sure I already said "the alignment system presented for general D&D by WotC makes no sense whatsoever, is utterly contradictory, and falls to a million pieces under even the most casual scrutiny. You really should just make your own alignment system as appropriate for your campaign's setting." Or something to that effect.

If you want to use an at least somewhat consistent absolute moral philosophy, we have moral philosophers that do exactly that. But they didn't write the D&D books.

Personally, I take a rather different approach, as I have detailed previously.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-20, 07:07 PM
What you need to realize, based on illithid biology, is that the very existence of mind flayers is "evil," or at the very least, unnatural.

A naturally-spawned illithid begins its life as a tadpole in the brine lake of the Elder Brain. Left alone, the tadpoles begin to compete in the pool, devouring one another in order to grow. The most successful leaves the pool in search of prey, becoming a neothelid.

Mind flayers are deviations from this cycle in the same way urophions, uchuulons etc. are, the result of a larva entering the ear canal of a humanoid and undergoing ceremorphosis, a process rife with instability and potential for distaster. The propagation of the mind flayer "race" is the result of mind flayers choosing to make more aberrations by murdering a humanoid in order to subject one of their own larvae to an unnatural chemical mutation process that may fail.

Now then, when it comes to food, mind flayers can eat many different things to acquire the necessary enzymes and nutrients (much like we do). There is nothing exclusive to the brain in mind flayer diet save that it serves as an "all-in-one" meal. So why is it that illithids "require" one brain per month, and desire one brain per week?

The answer, apart from the fact that brains are the illithid equivalent of pizza, is that they require the psionic energy. However, psionic energy is by no means unique to sentient, cultured beings. Brain moles, folugubs, phrenic animals, ustilagors... these are just a few of the many creatures that could be (and often are) farmed by illithids for sustenance. Less savory to our mindset, but still less cruel than rapacious attacks on surface dwellers, illithids can also farm thralls or specially-bred thrall species (oortlings, for example). Logistics and simple math decry these latter options, however, as being less appetizing as well as difficult to provide and maintain. Further,

we know that the mind flayers have a vast galactic empire in the future. Continued ceremorphosis compared to the the timescale required for proper development of a pizza-quality brain clearly demonstrates that the illithid diet cannot "require" sapient brain matter at such a pace.

The Adversary is also a demonstration of the lack of need for psionic sources of nourishment, practicing special psychic techniques to naturally grow, regulate and regenerate psionic ability. Yes, eating well is easier than exercise, but that doesn't excuse a whole society's laziness.

In conclusion:

1) The illithid diet is far more varied than fantastical reports would lead us to believe. The fresh brains of humanoids are a tasty and nourishing pizza, certainly, but other internal organs of various species serve as various carbs, proteins and vitamins would and are just as nourishing in the long run. Ustilagors are something similar to burgers, intellect devourers a fine steak, brain mole much like chicken. Udoroot makes a decent veggie, while ground crysmals provide a psionic "salt". Ectoplasmic swarms are akin to caviar - rare, expensive and objectively a gross thing to be eating.

2) Illithids do require brain matter (to a point - see below) for one reason: the nourishing of tadpoles. This is not specifically because of any one property of brain matter, but rather the necessity of a high-fat diet for the growing tadpoles, preferably one involving psionic nourishment as well (though this is not specifically necessary for larvae, which remain largely animalistic until ceremorphosis or devouring of a complete sentience regardless). Any suitably oily, fatty fish could provide for the same needs, but again, illithid culture is shockingly lazy when it comes to trivial matters. Which is a shame, the idea of a mind flayer sitting out in a boat with a fishing rod and an angler's hat is hilarious.

3) Since it is largely a matter of convenience and entirely unsustainable, as well as largely unnecessary, it can only be concluded that the "traditional" mind flayer diet is in fact evil; further, that illithids themselves obviously don't see it that way. To their alien mindset, anything sentient that is not an illithid is a can of Coke waiting to be cracked open, as - much like some hardcore gamers - they simply cannot be bothered to take the time and effort to provide themselves with a proper, more varied diet.



What, Gareth, no comments on my essay? :smallwink:

Myself, I don't think mind flayers are evil in the same capacity that a villainous lich or a demon is evil; they have an alien mindset that is self-centered, amoral and highly regimented (Lawful Evil), but in the main they're not archvillains, just jerks.

Now, Elder Brains... those are evil. In the extreme.



Just to say that the above essay and so on I found, though (or partly because) it contradicts the Lords of Madness stuff (or some of it, anyway), both quite interesting and not at odds with how I personally run them. Provided very nourishing brainsfood for thought.

Incase anyone might be interested, here's some copy-pasted stuff I've previously written up both for past threads and for my own notes.



So, this thread has got me thinking about, well, a lot of unrelated junk mostly.

But it's also got me considering Mindflayer related Character Ideas and Plot Hooks/Campaigns.

So, here are some things that have struck me throughout this debate.

1) Elder Brains are unquestionably and significantly evil. It's quite possible that they are more significantly evil, even in the opinions of those who have posted condeming the Illithids in general. They are Big Bad Brains.

2) Illithids may not necessarily, depending on interpretations of wording, and which splat-books you consider canon, need to eat sentient brains to live. Depending on what you listen to, they may not even need to eat brains!

3) They are 'wrong' on a cosmic level. Either they originate in the Far Realm, the Far Future, or are in some other way just damn wrong. (In addition, they freak the Aboleth's out on account of being the one creature they don't remember 'starting'. They just appeared, fully formed, as if from no-where.)

4) Illithids reproduce via their (original?) Larval form. The Larvae are left in the Elder Brain's Briny Bath for 10 entire years, and if they are one of the (probably few) who are not eaten by the elder brain then they are implanted in a sentient creature, preferably humanoid. If the 'Far Realm' origin is the true one, likely this form is carried over from their previous, insane-outside-realm origin.

5) Elder Brains completely and utterly dominate Illithid society. They enforce strict rules of conduct and whatever that create the 'classic' mindflayer society. They also have no compunction about lying to their illithid underlings. (Illithid's are unaware that once 'joined' with the Elder Brain, their personality DOES NOT continue. The Elder Brains jealously guard this secret, for quite obvious reasons).

6) Illithids do not go against the Elder Brain very often, if at all. Alhoon's (Illithid Liches) are about the only case of this. This is possibly due to the Elder Brain's psionic aura/dominance. The Illithid are so used to this ever-present psychic presence, or 'buzz', that when they have to be away from it, there exist items to reproduce the same sensation!

7) Illithids express a very limited range of emotions, but very strongly. However, despite being essentially rage-filled engines of spite and loathing, they have a natural tendancy to work together.

8) Depending on your sources, the Illithids once ruled a Vast multi-planar Empire. They were successful enough as a society to not only conquer a planet, but many planets across the entire multiverse. Though impressively enduring, at some point, something went wrong. Perhaps the Githyanki/Githerazi rebelion? Perhaps something that allowed the rebellion...


And all of this is just getting me thinking, suggesting things and Ideas that aren't even fully formed yet, but here's some;
(Spoilered for length)

Elder Brains do not feel right. They just don't. They're an Iconic part of Mindflayer society, but they just don't feel like they are entirely playing for the same team.
The illithid tadpoles - Ten years in the Elder Brains tank? That's a long time. Frankly, suspiciously long. I cannot believe that they are left there purely because of how defended the location is. I do not believe that the Brain is looking out for them. It snacks on them at will! So what else could be the reason? The only one that makes sense to me, for a psionic being of 'Godlike' Intelligence, is that it is indoctrinating them, psionically, over a long period of time so that it is both subtle and enduring.
So, why would it do this, if it is merely the collective conciousness of Illithid Ancestors? It just feels wrong.

Speaking of wrong, is it only me that has difficulty with the idea that the Elder Brains are a natural part of the Illithid life-cycle? I'd agree that's a view that the Brains themselves would no doubt hope the illithid held, but i'm not convinced. The Illithid, originally, were some kind of far realm creature that started in something analgous to their larval form. Perhaps they were essentially parasitic, perhaps not. There is still a kind of logic there. They live, quite probably hunt, (which would fit on some level with their essentially predatory mindset, and their tendancy to co-operate). They live, they thrive, and then? Everything dies. But why would a creature that see's brains as a source of Food, create an 'ancestor god' of sorts that is, itself, essentially a giant foodstuff? it doesn't fit. I propose that the Elder Brain must have been a later development. A matter for civilised times in their development, not the impossible primal past.

And Furthermore, I propose that they were one of two possible things.

First option;
At the height of their eternal empire of the planes, Illithid society must have gotten pretty damned decadent. I see the idea of Powerful Illithid 'Emperors', having conquered pretty much everything and everyone they could find, as then turning their attention to that last enemy, the one that all things must face. Death. The 'Elder Brain', would at it's core, be an attempt to cheat Death. A way for those few, ancient evils, to exist, and rule on till the end of time. just so long as their subjects can be convinced to continue feeding them with what they require.
To hold on to their position of god-kings of the Illithids, they make themselves part of the life-cycle of the Illithids, they make themselves ancestor gods, they deify themselves and make life without them unthinkable. Then, just to make sure? They literally crawl inside the brain of every new-spawned Illithid and quite literally worm out any possible hint or desire to even consider that possibility.

They have two or three main problems. Firstly, Illithids are powerful, essentially arrogant creatures. They sound on so many levels like the kind of 'Magnificent Bastard' types that they should be staging coup-de-etat's every couple of years. If the Elder Brain's Subjects ever really found out the unspeakable truth, their situation would become very...very dangerous.

Secondly, they are not Liches. They aren't even Undead. They can, if cared for properly, live forever. But they are bodiless monstrosities, soft, vulnerable. They need constant care and endlessly vigilant protection. A creature, no matter how powerful, that doesn't even have skin, is going to get a bit paranoid, really, don't you think? It would help make sense of the Elder Brain's Aversion to Illithid Liches, perhaps.

If something did go wrong with Mindflayer Society, wouldn't it make sense that the emergence of these self-proclaimed 'god kings' could have been the cause? An initial uprising of Illithids, or even just the inevitable lapses of quality of judgement that would arise from a lack of fresh blood, fresh ideas, at the head of their empire.
In the instability that followed, it would make any slave-uprising that much more likely both to happen, and to succeed.

The Second Option for their origin is that the Elder Brains come from an external source.
They are not, perhaps, Illithid in nature at all.
Think about it for a moment. They certainly do not act like they are part of Illithid Society. They do not, really, act like they have Illithid wellbeing as their main concern. They act, rather, like they are either the Slave-masters to the Illithid, or the Cookoo children of. They dominate, they stifle and rule absolutely, with a tenuous thread of lies and misdirection as their only protection.

What cosmic horror would be capable of infiltrating and subverting Illithid Society at it's height, so completely? So Utterly? it's an intruiging question, you've got to admit. Like the previous possibility, this event would make a perfectly disruptive calamity in the Mindflayer Empire to destablise it enough for the Rebelion to succeed.

So, Character Concept, and/or Adventure Hooks?
Imagine the consequences of revealing either of the above possibilities, (or even those few facts as we know are definate already) to Mindflayer Society. I do not see the 'masters of the universe' reacting very well to the idea that, far from joining an ancestral hive-mind with their memory and personality in tact, they essentially merely become food, with any kind of decorum or philosophical moderation.

Imagine, perhaps, that the revelation is given to a mindflayer (Or, for instant mindflayer adventuring party, a mindflayer inquisition...) whilst on an errand for their elder-brain outside of it's influence. Just imagine, for a moment.

I cannot see them reaching any decision other than for the pressing and complete need to return to their lair, set the Elder Brain's plans to the torch and feast on it's treacherous (Yet delicious!) brainy mass. Cue a campaign of mindflayer-on-mindflayer guerrilla terrorism, sedition, and outright assault culminating in them storming their own lair, kicking their own doors down, and eating their own hideous god.

Food for thought.






The following are my notes, mostly unused, on Mindflayers for my own little multi-planar setting.

Key Elements - Eats Brains, possibly sentient as prefered. May or may not need brains to actually survive.
Psionic in nature.
Life-Cycle includes a parasitic stage. Possibly Human Host required.
Works well with others of its kind.

Removed Elements
Explicitly Evil
Elder Brain controlling and moulding their society.

IDEA - Cosmic Empire of Illithids shattered across time and the planes along the Elder Brain issue.
Illithids ALWAYS originate from outside the known/knowable universe, with their true forms being based off of the Illithid-Parasite, and the worm-like-beast that it develops into given time and no suitable host.
Illithid settlements form independantly across reality where the Far-Realm intrudes, but some come from elsewhere or elsewhen. These others appear to be from a fragmented/destroyed future-empire of illithids that are led by 'ancestor gods' in the form of the Elder Brains. They are universally more evil and are essentially indoctrinated into 'classic' mindflayer behaviour by the Elder Brains.

Elder Brains - Are alien to Mindflayer Society. Over time, their original physical forms began to grow weak, so they transformed themselves into the form that survives to this day, using the Illithids as both Food and Servitors. They infiltrated Mindflayer Society, and use them to maintain their fleshy pseudo-bodies, using their psychic might both as a tool to continue their plans, and a source of sustainance. They carefully weed out Flayer Parasites that would be resistant to their influence in the larval stage, as well as slowly building psychic controls into the creatures.
There are currently few, powerful Elder Brains, in comparison to the Far-Future Illithid Empire where the EB's originally hail. They are powerful but vulnerable, and thus insane with paranoia.

Possible Mindflayer Society (Minus Elder Brain Subjugation)
Desert Dwelling Psions

This particular Society has manifested itself largely on the wind-blasted surface of a largely-desert world. They have an almost symbiotic relationship with the lesser Humanoids who populate it, ruling large thralldoms with a relatively even hand in some regions. Seen as living gods in regions that have successfully subdued the Humanoid population. They are rare, seperate even then, holding themselves in their inhuman, dark and biomechanical looking fortresses/towers/etc. These powerful rulers have access to Spelljammer technology, though the rest of the blasted world is relatively primative. It is thought that they somehow brought this knowledge with them from the Far Realm itself, rather than gleaning it from the minds of their new home.
They do not need frequent meals of brains, and can survive on a simple, unsatisfying looking gruel that maintains their physical forms, but require Sentient Brains (either from convicted criminals or semi-willing sacrifices) to develop their potent Psionic talents.

Illithid Parasites spawned within these conclaves are 'birthed' into a large central vat of mysterious fluids, not entirely unlike the nourishing gruel, where they spend the first few years of their life being periodically tended by their Elders. Often there are several such creatures developing in the vats at the same time, and some are lost at this stage as the creatures fight or feed upon each other, though relatively rarely. In time, they are removed from the vats and allowed to bond with a (usually semi-willing) sacrifice. The Humanoid which the Parasite 'bonds' with is killed in the process as their brain is devoured, and they are fully aware of this fate, however, they believe that their essence will merge with the Illithid Tadpole. Those who volunteer for this fate are reveered in the conclave society at large, and spend their last months of life living in relative luxory. Any surviving family receives a pension of sorts, though they have no contact with the mindflayer who emerges from the union.

Outside of the conclaves, the Illithid Parasites that emerged from the far-realm (and still sometimes do), exist in a semi-feral state as part of the world's harsh eco-system. Though essentially aquatic looking in nature, the Parasites do not apparently need moisture to survive. If left in a dry enough enviroment, they adapt through various subtle mutations and become instead a borrowing creature, escaping the heat of the day by dwelling in the sands themselves. They hunt for living prey during the night, and will devour anything smaller than themselves. If they bring down larger prey, they will eat the Brain of said creature preferably (and derive significant nutrition from doing so.)

Assuming they do not encounter a suitable sentient host during a certain time-frame in their development, the proto-flayer continues to develop in it's worm-like form instead. They become large, non-sentient beasts with ravenous apetites that roam the Deserts. Their apetites wane over time as they grow ever larger, however they will remain a threat to anything they encounter till their death. It is rumoured that without predation or accident, the Mind-Worms could live all but indefinately. Myths speak of collosal worms in the deep deserts, capable of eating entire sand-ships in a single bite.

If they do, however, encounter a suitable Humanoid during their highly morphic phase of development, they will attempt to 'bond' with it, by consuming the creatures brain. Little is known of the Mindflayers that are produced by this unsupervised union, but they tend to be much more solitary than their Conclave brethren, and prone to wander. Like their brethren, they seem to derive knowledge from some additional, possibly ancestral source, as well as some residual memories and personality traits from their 'host'.

So called Desertborn Flayers rarely venture into Conclave controlled territory and are treated with suspicion and occaisionally outright hostility both by the Conclave Flayers, though their Humanoid thralls both revere and fear these mysterious desert dwelling Illithid.

Some of the Desertborn Illithid prey upon travellers, whereas others mainly appear to be content to wander the wastes on inexplicable errands and quests. Some few attempt to band together with similar creatures as themselves, either to hunt for food (brain based or otherwise) or to provide protection from the Deserts more dangerous inhabitants.

Unlike the Conclave Illithids who exclusively subsist on either the mysterious, gruel-like substance or Brain matter, some Desertborn Illithid have very varied diets, apparently being able to stomach and metabolise things that would kill most Natural Humanoids. Like with their Conclave Brethren, however, the consuming of Brain-Matter is apparently required for them to develop any really noteworthy psionic strength.

Whenever they encounter the forces of the Elder-Brains, there is inevitable hostility, and often outright conflict. The existence of such creatures seems to enrage the Elder-Brain society Illithid, and they cannot long abide the presence of their 'apostate' brethren.


TL;DR What Akuma said, but with Sand-Worms.

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 07:07 PM
If you want to use an at least somewhat consistent absolute moral philosophy, we have moral philosophers that do exactly that. But they didn't write the D&D books.


And you thought Gygax had a fondness for digging words out of the depths of the Thesaurus!

Also, Alignment IS a mechanic.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 07:25 PM
And you thought Gygax had a fondness for digging words out of the depths of the Thesaurus!

Uhm, what? :smallconfused:
Non sequitur much?


Also, Alignment IS a mechanic.

Only in a limited sense. I mean, there are a few explicit rules that set your alignment to X (like that one spell that makes you Evil) and rules that work off of what alignment you have been determined to be, but in general your alignment is set by fiat, not mechanics. Also, what exactly your alignment means regarding your behavior is also largely relegated to fiat.

Prime32
2010-10-20, 07:35 PM
Food for thought.Strike that, reverse it. :smallamused:

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 07:44 PM
Uhm, what? :smallconfused:

Gary Gygax had a reputation for wordiness, but most of the moral philosophers I've read are worse.


Also, what exactly your alignment means regarding your behavior is also largely relegated to fiat.

Yes, alignment has been reduced in terms of its impact, but it's still a game mechanic.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-20, 07:48 PM
Yes, alignment has been reduced in terms of its impact, but it's still a game mechanic.

So?

(Apparently I have to lengthen to ten characters)

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 07:54 PM
So?

(Apparently I have to lengthen to ten characters)

Somebody above said:


Maybe the thing that needs fixing in DnD is not any mechanic but the Alignment system itself.

Except it is a mechanic. So I mentioned it in my reply to you when I shared my thoughts on the result of moral philosophers writing D&D.

Nothing more than that.

Amiel
2010-10-21, 12:05 AM
I think their evil results from the destruction of sapience, the obliteration of sentience, as they subsume free will.
There is also the fact that the one being harvested has no way of fighting back or resisting.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-10-21, 05:53 AM
Even if you want to use "capable of language," you've got to realize that there are, in real life, non-human animals that totally are capable of language.
Not many, and arguably so even in those cases. In any case, they are pointed to as possibly "intelligent" for precisely this reason, and while I'm sure dolphin and chimpanzee are delicacies somewhere, they're hardly considered staple food sources in the mainstream.


Relative to illithids, humans are about as intelligent and capable of reasoning as cows appear to humans.
The Intelligence stat is not linear. Just because the distance from animal intelligence to "average human" is 8 doesn't mean any difference of 8 or more is equivalent. Indeed, humans exist across a range greater than 8. By your reasoning, a very smart person could eat a very stupid person and say it was equivalent to eating an animal. But an average person couldn't. It's not what the stat represents. Of course, Illithids may think they're so fantastically more intelligent than everyone else, but that doesn't make them right.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-21, 06:41 AM
The Intelligence stat is not linear.

Alright, whatever, but this doesn't answer the larger question.

Say you have something with godlike intelligence that really can say that humans are like cows. You know, exactly how Lovecraft's mythos treats people.

What then?


Not many, and arguably so even in those cases. In any case, they are pointed to as possibly "intelligent" for precisely this reason, and while I'm sure dolphin and chimpanzee are delicacies somewhere, they're hardly considered staple food sources in the mainstream. And I suppose you think this is because of moral concerns?

Anyways, I point you to dogs. Mmmmm.


By your reasoning, a very smart person could eat a very stupid person and say it was equivalent to eating an animal.
If relative intelligence really is the factor that limits what's okay to eat, then it would be okay to eat a brainless (completely unintelligent) human. Most westerners would say it's not though, but that's entirely because of a cultural taboo. Indeed, I would argue that there are nonevil cannibalistic cultures (though I'm not sure if I'm allowed to cite real world examples by the rules of this forum).

The point is that there needs to be an argument reliant on moral reasoning, rather than taboo, if we're going to talk about a universal absolute cosmic force that evaluates your actions.

You can't just say "eating humans is bad because we humans think humans are important." Which is why I don't think using the words "sentient" or "sapient" are good ways of going about it. As mentioned before, "sentient" actually includes things like cows, and "sapient" specifically refers to humans, and is thus a bit racist.

I'm not arguing either way as to whether you should consider illithids good or bad or whether it's okay to eat anything... I'm just pointing out that if you're going to have absolute cosmic evaluations, you need to work on your definition a little bit more than saying "Messing with humans is bad! So it's okay for humans to mess with you!"

Humans enslave, torture, slaughter, and devour creatures of other species whenever it suits them and they don't give a damn whether they have feelings. Except for the vegetarians. But then the other humans make fun of them.


It's not what the stat represents. Of course, Illithids may think they're so fantastically more intelligent than everyone else, but that doesn't make them right.

I dunno, mainstream humanity is pretty stupid, last time I checked. :smalltongue:

They're also pretty scary about it.

To quote someone...
"We poison our air and water to weed out the weak! We set off fission bombs in our only biosphere! We nailed our god to a stick! Don't @#$% with the human race!" :smalleek:

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-21, 06:57 AM
D&D morality is objective. It is not morally wrong to eat animals. It is morally wrong to eat humanoids.

'Kay? 'Kay.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-21, 06:58 AM
D&D morality is objective. No it's not. You can't hold up an objective system that's self-contradictory, so it pretty much falls to fiat in practice. It pretends it's an objective absolute morality system but doesn't really work out that way.

To quote myself...
You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.

This is especially egregious on the Law/Chaos scale where sometimes they'll pretty much use synonyms for the same darned thing to describe why one person is Lawful and the other person is Chaotic. Argh.


It is not morally wrong to eat animals. It is morally wrong to eat humanoids.

Why? Eating lifeless flesh is little more than a cultural taboo.

Heck, in some cannibalistic cultures it honors the dead.

"It is because it is" is not much of a justification.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-21, 07:00 AM
Why? Eating lifeless flesh is nothing more than a cultural taboo.

Heck, in some cannibalistic cultures it honors the dead.

"It is because it is" is not much of a justification.

Well, for a start, eating a corpse makes it harder to raise its owner from the dead...

And Mind Flayers don't eat corpses. They extract brains from living victims.

Kansaschaser
2010-10-21, 08:54 AM
I actually created a D&D universe where Mind Flayers were neutral traders. Some would be evil, and some might be good, but the majority of them were neutral. Due to their magical and psionic nature, most magic shops were run by Mind Flayers, or Mind Flayers were employed by magic shop owners.

I took the players in my universe from a Forgotten Realms setting and flung them thousands of years into the future and by then, the Mind Flayers had evolved somewhat and they no longer needed sentient brains to sustain themselves. Through magic, they were able to create a substance that gave them all the nutrients that sentient brains gave them. So no killing was ever needed.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-21, 10:36 AM
No it's not. You can't hold up an objective system that's self-contradictory, so it pretty much falls to fiat in practice. It pretends it's an objective absolute morality system but doesn't really work out that way.

To quote myself...
You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.


An alternate take on the 'Objective Morality' issue is that it is, technically, Objective. It's also nothing to do with actual morality, ethics or so on.

Just because the universe considers it objectively bad for nebulous reasons, doesn't make it actually bad.

Problem is, when I follow this train of thought I get into one of my 'kill the tyrannous gods!' moods. :smallwink:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-21, 12:06 PM
Why? Eating lifeless flesh is little more than a cultural taboo.

Heck, in some cannibalistic cultures it honors the dead.

"It is because it is" is not much of a justification.

It is evil to kill a humanoid for food. (murder)

It is not evil to eat someone already dead (although it might turn them into a ghoul according Monster Manual).
Book of Vile Darkness says that much.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-21, 12:11 PM
It is evil to kill a humanoid for food. (murder)

It is not evil to eat someone already dead (although it might turn them into a ghoul according Monster Manual).
Book of Vile Darkness says that much.

Ah, the Books of Silly Alignment Stuff.

I also seem to recall the discussion of poison and ravages from the Book of Exalted Deeds.


You're not going to go far if you pretend that WotC presents a coherent and sensible take on morality throughout D&D. End of story.

tbarrie
2010-10-21, 12:20 PM
Even if you want to use "capable of language," you've got to realize that there are, in real life, non-human animals that totally are capable of language.


This is unproven, and the bulk of the evidence is rather strongly against it.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-21, 12:25 PM
This is unproven, and the bulk of the evidence is rather strongly against it.

Uhm. Seriously? So apes don't exist, or what?

afroakuma
2010-10-21, 12:25 PM
Is there any further need for the thread topic itself, or has this turned into yet another "Why alignment is bad" thread? Cause if so, it might as well be closed.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-21, 12:43 PM
Looking over D&D's treatment of intelligence and other monsters, mind flayers are not evil because they eat brains of humans. This is because eating humans is a neutral act. They're evil for their general lifestyle of doing bad stuff like enslavement, self-identification of being evil, and worshiping evil gods (my money is on wanting to destroy the sun is evil too but I have no proof of that).

In D&D, there are only 2 "intelligence" barriers. The first is the jump from nil to 1. You go from mindless to animal intelligence. You're now vulnerable to mind-effecting powers and you can be targeted by stuff like animal handler.

The second is 2-3. This is the more important jump for the mindflayer debate. Once you hit 3, you no longer have to worry about tricks and are targeted by diplomacy. You also can get class levels and can have an alignment other than Neutral. No matter what a brown bear does, as long as he has an INT of 2 he'll stay Neutral. Our group referred to individuals with INT scores 3 or higher as voting to avoid the whole sapience/sapient semantics mess and I will use this term from now on.

There is not other intelligence barrier after that. You don't go all post-human at 30 INT or anything like that. You get +1 to some skill rolls, an extra skill point per level/hit die, and maybe some abilities get more powerful. There is an argument that there is a barrier at reaching Divine Ranks, but since mind flayers usually don't reach that level, it can be safely ignored.

In the D&D world, it is safe to say that killing non-voting creatures is inherently neutral. I've never heard even under the most dickish GMs paladins falling from killing monstrous scorpions or brown bears roaming the countryside. Now it may be modified by circumstances, but it in itself isn't that bad or good.

Killing voting creatures is another question. It is neutral possibly modified by circumstances. If it was evil, paladins would fall for using their class abilities. If it entirely depended on what you were killing, demons and devils would spontaneous become good fighting the Blood War.

Now, an interesting analog for the whole mind flayer debate is our friend, the gibbering mouther. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gibberingMouther.htm) Like the mind flayer, it's a voting aberration. In even the fluff-lite SRD, it mentions that the gibbering mouther regularly consumes and prefers the bodily fluids of voting creatures. Yet it is usually neutral. Unless gibbering mouthers regularly save puppies, it's safe to say seeking out and consuming the bodily fluids of intelligent creatures is neutral. Getting your fluids drained or your brain eaten kills you just the same since you can be raised from the dead just as easily unlike say a Bargehst's ability to eat souls. Therefore, consuming and killing voting creatures for the sake of consumption is an neutral act. Following that, mind flayers eating the brains of voting creatures and using the brains to reproduce is likely neutral.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-21, 12:44 PM
Uhm. Seriously? So apes don't exist, or what?

Problem is Clever Hans theory. Are they really learning a language or just getting hints from the trainers of what to do next.
These hints can be subtle too.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-21, 12:49 PM
Just because the universe considers it objectively bad for nebulous reasons, doesn't make it actually bad.


I'm always amazed at these discussions. How could anyone look at mind flayers and their societies and regard the reasons for saying their capital E Evil as 'nebulous'?

What people always forget is that we're talking about fantasy. Rule mechanics aside, fantasy allows for Good and Evil in a way real life (and most science fiction) does not. The rules try to reflect that.

Mind flayers were created, and then later further developed, to be a horrific, alien, dangerous-as-heck race, pretty much as Evil as one could imagine without going to absurd degrees. Why does anyone have a problem with this? Well, to answer my own question, I think it's because people have hard time letting go of their modern real-world viewpoint, where you really can't label any human culture as outright 'evil', and can't really imagine being in a world where that viewpoint just doesn't apply.

PopcornMage
2010-10-21, 12:57 PM
There is not other intelligence barrier after that. You don't go all post-human at 30 INT or anything like that.


Actually some of the "rules" for divine intelligence do say just that.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-21, 01:37 PM
Actually some of the "rules" for divine intelligence do say just that.

What are the rules? Are they really rules or just "divine people are just suppose to be awesome?" Do you need divine ranks (which I mentioned can be a modifier)? I can't find them but I'll admit I'm just using the SRD as a reference.

PopcornMage
2010-10-21, 01:51 PM
Nope, not the SRD, my copy of Deities and Demigods from 1st edition though, has 21+ as Godlike Intelligence, and rules for not being fooled by illusions.

I don't know about later editions offhand, it's always been something I've handled differently anyhow.

tbarrie
2010-10-21, 02:04 PM
Uhm. Seriously? So apes don't exist, or what?

Certainly they exist. They don't have languages, as far as we can determine.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-21, 02:14 PM
Nope, not the SRD, my copy of Deities and Demigods from 1st edition though, has 21+ as Godlike Intelligence, and rules for not being fooled by illusions.

I don't know about later editions offhand, it's always been something I've handled differently anyhow.

...In 3.5, humans can have 21 Int at first level.

In first edition, 18 was the maximum possible ever. In 3.5, not at all.

Randel
2010-10-21, 03:02 PM
Idea for a Good Neutral society of mindflayers.

An organization of mindflayers locate a society of sapient beings and help them out by defending them against attackers, imroving their education, coordinating construction projects and helping them deal with disease or famine and occasionally using their Plane Shift ability to help them spread to other planes.

The mindflayers basically farm the humans (or whatnot) by defending them against attackers and ensuring they are healthy and well fed. Proper education ensures that productivity can be ramped up to keep up with their population and the Mind Flayers planeshift ability (and other psychic powers) ensure that the humans don't run out of room to colonize.

In exchange, the Mindflayers get a number of humans every year (or other measure of time) to eat their brains or convert them into more mindflayers. The people selected are generally criminals (who have been properly convicted or crimes) or volunteers or sick people or unproductive members of socieety (the mindflayers intentionally eat the less intelligent members of society so that the more intelligent ones can breed and latand them er on the people seen as less inteliget will be smarter than the ones in previous generations).

They improve the quality of life for any humans living in their society while (more or less) painlessly ending the lives a small umber of humans so that they can life to help the rest.

If another nation attacks their chosen nation then the Mindflayers quickly conquer the attackers (eating all who resist while sparing those who don't fight) and then methodically convet the new nation into another People Farm. They might employ human soldiers (to ensure that their 'livestock' isn't completly defenseless without them) but they don't want the soldiers too powerful and would rather they take people alive rather than kill them in the field (if a sapient being is going to die them its better to have them become mindflayer food than to have them die in a ditch somewhere).

They want their controlled nations to be as pretty and prosperous as possible (so that maybe other people would want to move there) and to improve the welfare of their people. But of course they are going to eat people, they just don't want it to be so unpleasant that the others want to rebel.

After a while it would be kind of like the Morlocks and Eloi from The Time Machine. The humans live in idealistic societies where they don't want for food or necessities and can just play around while the Mindflayers work behind the scenes (or maybe openly, who knows) and use their superior intellect and powers to give the humans their perfect world. However, the humans have to pay for it by having some people vanish in the night to be eaten by mindflayers... but its never anybody who they miss so its okay.

Actually, it would probably be something like the Tippyverse except with mindflayers and they actually care what happens to the people under them (because they are going to eat them later).

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-21, 03:32 PM
Say you have something with godlike intelligence that really can say that humans are like cows. You know, exactly how Lovecraft's mythos treats people.

Ah, that's an easy question to answer. Any time any entity says "I am beyond such petty concerns as good and evil" or "is it anymore wrong for us to feed on [self-aware non-animal intelligent sapient sentient creature race] that it is for you to feed on [animal species]?" they are ALWAYS automatically Evil. Always. By the very uttering of that sentence.

Proof: you know who says that latter statement? Vampires. Case closed.

Heck, I'm as Evil as they come, but at least I'm not deluded about it... I have some empathy with Illithids, actually. I mean, yeah they could not kill people and eat their, same as I could not have a load of prisoners in the brig, force them to roleplay and then arbitarily kill them off to keep the other players in line. But, like, where's the fun in that?

Eldonauran
2010-10-21, 04:36 PM
I like to think that everything is black and white as far as Good and Evil are concerned and it is our limited understanding that prevents us from seeing and/or accepting (for those that can see and/or refuse to see) the line that seperates the Good from 'everything else'.

I also like to think that there is only one 'right' way to do things, even though there are many not-entirely-right ways to do things that still get the same (or nearly the same) result. Such as we are, I don't think we can actually see the long reaching effects of these not-quite-right actions.

Now that I've explained that, I can comment on what I think about the Illithids eating the minds of 'intelligent' creatures. This definately pings 'evil' on my detect evil radar. Beings (creatures/constructs/etc) that have an intelligence below the 'playable character threshold' (3) are to me, a background resource in the universe and are meant to be used like all resources, responsibly. The reason I choose Int 2 or lower is because creatures like this have a limited, if any, affect on the universe around it as a whole and/or can not conceive of a 'moral' code, thus act on instinct.

Illithids, as they are, have created their own problem. Whether they are from the Far Realm (and thus don't belong in this universe) or from the distant future, their actions are Evil as far as this universe cares (alien moral code + acts deemed evil by the alignment system = evil race of creatures).

D&D alignment system: Sure it has a few holes and is a bit contradictory at times, especially when people try to justify real world ethics in it. Real life ethics is like that too. Good luck getting everyone to agree on the same thing.

PopcornMage
2010-10-21, 04:39 PM
Good luck getting everyone to agree on the same thing.

The Elder Brain would like to thank you for your good wishes!

Eldonauran
2010-10-21, 05:16 PM
The Elder Brain would like to thank you for your good wishes!

Yeah, I suppose killing everyone who doesn't believe like you do and then brainwashing everyone else to follow you is one way of doing just that. :smallannoyed: Evil has soo many quick solutions to life's major problems. That's the problem with evil though. A lot of quick easy promises and not a lot of follow through.

PopcornMage
2010-10-21, 06:52 PM
Whereas good doesn't even deliver, but when you do get something nice, hogs all the credit!

TechnOkami
2010-10-21, 08:16 PM
As per the good aligned illithid society (and surely to open a new can of worms) have rings of sustenance passed around :D

But I have a new question. How would an Illithid act if there was no elder brain there to control him?

...did I just kill the conversation? o.O

Pyrite
2010-10-22, 02:03 AM
As per the good aligned illithid society (and surely to open a new can of worms) have rings of sustenance passed around :D

But I have a new question. How would an Illithid act if there was no elder brain there to control him?

...did I just kill the conversation? o.O

Most would act in the manner they had been programmed to act. Over time, they'll be host to more individuality and diverse opinions and moral codes, but their society of enslaving people and eating their brains would probably do a good job of corrupting their youth. Best case scenario, a few begin reading the minds of or telepathically communicating with their thralls (assuming a thrall's mind isn't completely destroyed) and come to the conclusion that maybe these people don't deserve what's being done to them.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-10-22, 02:17 AM
Alright, whatever, but this doesn't answer the larger question.

Say you have something with godlike intelligence that really can say that humans are like cows. You know, exactly how Lovecraft's mythos treats people.

What then?
That question is neither relevant to the real world nor to D&D, so I wonder what you hope to gain by asking it. In Lovecraft's mythos, such beings are completely beyond human morality or indeed understanding. Mind flayers, regardless of how much they may look like Cthulhu, are more or less on the same level as humanity so it stands to reason they ought to be governed by the same moral laws.


And I suppose you think this is because of moral concerns?

Anyways, I point you to dogs. Mmmmm.
Um, what? So, basically, there are animals that for the sake of argument we'll assume are intelligent. We don't, by and large eat them. As far as I can tell the reason we give for not eating them (is it really necessary to have a reason for not doing something?) is totally irrelevant given that your initial point was about where to draw the line with regards to eating intelligent creatures. We don't eat them, so it doesn't matter which side of the line they fall on.

Also, there are other animals that for the sake of argument we'll assume are not intelligent that we also don't (generally) eat. This fact is totally irrelevant to everything. What is your point?


If relative intelligence really is the factor that limits what's okay to eat, then it would be okay to eat a brainless (completely unintelligent) human. Most westerners would say it's not though, but that's entirely because of a cultural taboo. Indeed, I would argue that there are nonevil cannibalistic cultures (though I'm not sure if I'm allowed to cite real world examples by the rules of this forum).

The point is that there needs to be an argument reliant on moral reasoning, rather than taboo, if we're going to talk about a universal absolute cosmic force that evaluates your actions.

You can't just say "eating humans is bad because we humans think humans are important." Which is why I don't think using the words "sentient" or "sapient" are good ways of going about it. As mentioned before, "sentient" actually includes things like cows, and "sapient" specifically refers to humans, and is thus a bit racist.

I'm not arguing either way as to whether you should consider illithids good or bad or whether it's okay to eat anything... I'm just pointing out that if you're going to have absolute cosmic evaluations, you need to work on your definition a little bit more than saying "Messing with humans is bad! So it's okay for humans to mess with you!"

Humans enslave, torture, slaughter, and devour creatures of other species whenever it suits them and they don't give a damn whether they have feelings. Except for the vegetarians. But then the other humans make fun of them.
We use those terms because there aren't any better. And when we do, pendants leap on them pronouncing them racist. So you pick a word.

I don't think the word actually matters. The difference is pretty clear, except in the middle. You are muddying the waters by concentrating on ambiguous cases. Just because we can't draw a clear line doesn't mean there's no distinction.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-22, 02:20 AM
How about this one:

If a being is capable of comprehending the idea of morality, it gets moral consideration. This means rights, privileges, et cetera, so forth. If a being is incapable of comprehending morality due to circumstances beyond its control (such as an animal, or a demon) it does not get moral consideration beyond those acts so heinous that they degrade the one performing them as well as the victim (rape, torture). If a being is incapable of moral reasoning due to insanity, it deserves consideration insofar as it is kept away from those it might harm and treated.

Thus, demons aren't exactly evil but, due to their inherently harmful nature and incapability of moral reasoning, don't have a right to life that would justify any hesitation in killing them humanely or on the field of battle.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 04:33 AM
That question is neither relevant to the real world nor to D&D, so I wonder what you hope to gain by asking it. In Lovecraft's mythos, such beings are completely beyond human morality or indeed understanding. Mind flayers, regardless of how much they may look like Cthulhu, are more or less on the same level as humanity so it stands to reason they ought to be governed by the same moral laws.

I wasn't hinting at Mind Flayers. I was actually suggesting those silly folks that jostle around for slots in Deities and Demigods. They usually have alignments. And cognitive functions that would make Santa Claus envious. Have a habit of killing off their followers in seemingly pointless conflicts that they could have easily handled by blinking. You know, those guys. It's a wonder they seem to care about human affairs at all, in many settings.

You could also just as easily turn this around the other way for pointing out hypocrisy:

Lions eat people. They do not get an Evil tag. Or does intelligence actually give you more blame? Is ignorance the best way to keep out of the lower planes?

You know what does get an Evil tag? Mindless undead. No int score at all.

____

Anyways, you will note that I have not presented my own take (in this thread, at least. I've established my alignment system elsewhere). I am merely putting forth some simple questions. Whatever definition of alignment you use, if you're going to say you have an absolute cosmic evaluation system you have to be able to explain away at least basic discrepancies with statements other than "it just is." Otherwise we're not talking about an absolute moral system, we're just talking about fairly arbitrary labeling.



You are muddying the waters by concentrating on ambiguous cases. Just because we can't draw a clear line doesn't mean there's no distinction.

Oh really? I don't think I've even gotten close to touching on the harder and more ambiguous cases (like those that regularly come up in the real world). I was trying to go easy and give ones that you can easily find your own answers and consistent definitions for, without telling them what their system of judgments should actually be, as it should be specific to their world. :smalleek:

Pyrite
2010-10-22, 07:05 AM
I wasn't hinting at Mind Flayers. I was actually suggesting those silly folks that jostle around for slots in Deities and Demigods. They usually have alignments. And cognitive functions that would make Santa Claus envious. Have a habit of killing off their followers in seemingly pointless conflicts that they could have easily handled by blinking. You know, those guys. It's a wonder they seem to care about human affairs at all, in many settings.
Yeah, 'cause there's no chance that they're expending all that effort just keeping the host of evil gods in check. Or that they've effectively eliminated the great plagues and dying of infections in minor wounds by introducing divine magic into the world. No, it must just be their apathy that's to blame for all human suffering, not the fact that the good gods are just one side of a very complex strategic game.

You could also just as easily turn this around the other way for pointing out hypocrisy:

Lions eat people. They do not get an Evil tag. Or does intelligence actually give you more blame? Is ignorance the best way to keep out of the lower planes?
yep. An int score of 2 or lower means you go to the beastlands when you die, no matter how many innocent children you ate, because you couldn't possibly have known better.

____

Anyways, you will note that I have not presented my own take (in this thread, at least. I've established my alignment system elsewhere). I am merely putting forth some simple questions. Whatever definition of alignment you use, if you're going to say you have an absolute cosmic evaluation system you have to be able to explain away at least basic discrepancies with statements other than "it just is." Otherwise we're not talking about an absolute moral system, we're just talking about fairly arbitrary labeling.

There's not a list of things that go "this is good, this is evil" theirs a fairly simple standard. "do your actions show respect for the dignity of people, and do you make personal sacrifices to make other people's lives better?" Just because that doesn't allow you to use relativism or ends-justify-the-means sophistry to let your paladin do whatever the hell he wants isn't a discrepancy, it's consistency.


Oh really? I don't think I've even gotten close to touching on the harder and more ambiguous cases (like those that regularly come up in the real world). I was trying to go easy and give ones that you can easily find your own answers and consistent definitions for, without telling them what their system of judgments should actually be, as it should be specific to their world. :smalleek:

Really, with a few simple principles rigorously adhered to, answers can be come up with for nearly every case I've ever heard. Not everyone may like the answers, but they are there.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-10-22, 07:07 AM
I wasn't hinting at Mind Flayers. I was actually suggesting those silly folks that jostle around for slots in Deities and Demigods. They usually have alignments. And cognitive functions that would make Santa Claus envious. Have a habit of killing off their followers in seemingly pointless conflicts that they could have easily handled by blinking. You know, those guys. It's a wonder they seem to care about human affairs at all, in many settings.
Nope. They have perfectly human-like thought processes, and their actions are easy for us to understand. Frankly those stats in Deities and Demigods are a little generous. Nothing on the level of Lovecraftian ineffability. Not even on the level of real world theology.


You could also just as easily turn this around the other way for pointing out hypocrisy:

Lions eat people. They do not get an Evil tag. Or does intelligence actually give you more blame? Is ignorance the best way to keep out of the lower planes?
Not the best way, I shouldn't think. But it's true that creatures that can't understand good and evil can't actually be good or evil (unless magic is involved, sometimes).


Anyways, you will note that I have not presented my own take (in this thread, at least. I've established my alignment system elsewhere). I am merely putting forth some simple questions. Whatever definition of alignment you use, if you're going to say you have an absolute cosmic evaluation system you have to be able to explain away at least basic discrepancies with statements other than "it just is." Otherwise we're not talking about an absolute moral system, we're just talking about fairly arbitrary labeling.
I've been saying "intelligence", for this particular example (which apparently is not the example you've been talking about). What that means is difficult to quantify in real world terms, but easy in D&D terms. INT > 3. Problem solved. Is that all you wanted?


Oh really? I don't think I've even gotten close to touching on the harder and more ambiguous cases (like those that regularly come up in the real world). I was trying to go easy and give ones that you can easily find your own answers and consistent definitions for, without telling them what their system of judgments should actually be, as it should be specific to their world. :smalleek:
What are these real world examples that are harder and more ambiguous than a world with multiple intelligent species and demonstrable deities? There is a compelling reason to use humans as a baseline in the real world, and may cattle complain if they disagree.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 07:08 AM
That question is neither relevant to the real world nor to D&D, so I wonder what you hope to gain by asking it. In Lovecraft's mythos, such beings are completely beyond human morality or indeed understanding. Mind flayers, regardless of how much they may look like Cthulhu, are more or less on the same level as humanity so it stands to reason they ought to be governed by the same moral laws.

Actually, if you read some of the "fluff" on Mind flayers they don't perceive time in the same way, let alone morality, so I don't believe that's a fair conclusion at all.

To put it another way, I don't believe that mind flayers go to hell.

Unless they cast plane shift, of course.

OOh, there's an adventure, Mind Flayer in Hell!

Pyrite
2010-10-22, 07:11 AM
Actually, if you read some of the "fluff" on Mind flayers they don't perceive time in the same way, let alone morality, so I don't believe that's a fair conclusion at all.

To put it another way, I don't believe that mind flayers go to hell.

Unless they cast plane shift, of course.

OOh, there's an adventure, Mind Flayer in Hell!

You might have a point there, but Smite Evil still works on the buggers.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 07:29 AM
You might have a point there, but Smite Evil still works on the buggers.

That ain't nothing but a bum rap!

More seriously, if they're creatures of the Far Realm, being so divorced and other, then that alone could put them in a different paradigm from conventional definitions.

If your explanation of them is different, well, that's on you.

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 10:34 AM
That ain't nothing but a bum rap!

More seriously, if they're creatures of the Far Realm, being so divorced and other, then that alone could put them in a different paradigm from conventional definitions.

If your explanation of them is different, well, that's on you.

If I was the universe and something from outside my realm came into my domain and proceeded to act similar to all the other evil creatures, I would definately classify it as an evil creature, regardless of how alien it is. D&D laws of everything, this thing is evil and will be treated as such!

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-22, 10:40 AM
That ain't nothing but a bum rap!

More seriously, if they're creatures of the Far Realm, being so divorced and other, then that alone could put them in a different paradigm from conventional definitions.

If your explanation of them is different, well, that's on you.

Sadly, being from a really weird plane doesn't exempt you from D&D morality. A lot of fundamental physical concepts are completely different on the many planes of D&D. Wizards get to make their own planes and rules. However, no matter where you go, your alignment doesn't change or detect spells work any differently. Demons who walk into Hell don't ping good or neutral or whatever. Paladins who walk into the Abyss don't fall due to alignment change. So evil is evil and good is good in the D&D world and where you come from doesn't matter.

Now what does that exactly mean is a far more different issue. D&D morality is so messed up and alien to many a poster's moral systems that the question "is D&D good is actually good in the real world sense" is a valid question. Now it'll be a mess to actually try to answer it and might be against the forum's rules.

The Big Dice
2010-10-22, 10:50 AM
That ain't nothing but a bum rap!

More seriously, if they're creatures of the Far Realm, being so divorced and other, then that alone could put them in a different paradigm from conventional definitions.

If your explanation of them is different, well, that's on you.

The Far Realm thing depends on which version of Mind Flayer origins you subscribe to. And there have been several over the 30-odd years they've been schlurping up cerebral snack food.

Arguing for them not being inherently evil is like arguing that sparkly vampires aren't a bad thing. Yes there is a position you can do it from. But you aren't going to be taken seriously by most people who are aware of them.

Mind Flayer society is based on slavery. To the modern sensibility behind pretty much everything in D&D, slavers are evil. End of story. The feeding habits can be questioned, but there's nobody who will agree that keeping slaves is anything other than an evil act. Therefore, Mind Flayers are evil, as their entire lifestyle depends on having them around to do just about everything.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 10:51 AM
I agree, it'd be a terrible mess.

ETA: And yes, there are several different interpretations of the Mind Flayer's over the years. Just goes to show there's no sense in arguing over it. Somebody else can make up something completely different in the next edition.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 10:58 AM
Not the best way, I shouldn't think. But it's true that creatures that can't understand good and evil can't actually be good or evil (unless magic is involved, sometimes).

So, if a person is completely ignorant of the possibility that his actions could be wrong, he cannot be Evil? :smallconfused:

I mean, really? That's descriptive of some pretty heinous individuals (though again, I'm not sure I'm allowed to give real life examples).

Remember, we're talking about an absolute system, so your statements have to apply universally. If you say that not being able to understand the concepts of good and evil prevent you from being good or evil, that will include a lot of people who you'd probably not want to classify as neutral.

Maybe you don't even agree that it's possible for a human being that's still walking around upright to lack the cognitive faculties to grasp the knowledge of Good and Evil (I actually take quite the opposite view, I think that the majority of people can't and only operate on rather baser instincts than an intellectual understanding of moral reasoning, but I'll grant this for the sake of argument). Consider other possibilities that would make this rule kinda sucky. If we're going by a D&D cosmology where you have variable afterlives based on your alignment, what if you get brain damaged before you die and your Int drops to 2 and no one is nice enough to cast Restoration on you?

What if you died while you while you were under the influence of ability damage / drain?

Does your Evil Sword of Evil that drains levels of nonevil guys who try to hold it start draining you when someone hits you with Feeblemind?

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I don't think most people debating absolute systems of moral evaluation are actually thinking through the implications of the sweeping things they say. If your cognitive faculties influence your alignment, that has some pretty serious implications that need to be addressed.


yep. An int score of 2 or lower means you go to the beastlands when you die, no matter how many innocent children you ate, because you couldn't possibly have known better.
Boy, I really hope no one casts Feeblemind on my Paladin when she dies.

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 11:20 AM
Having an Int score higher than 2 (Int 3+) and not being able to control your actions or tell right from wrong is typically associated with Insantity (also, see confused, entralled, charmed or other forms of not being able to control your actions). That is an entirely different ballpark. Also, if your character, gods forbid, has his/her Int dropped below three, you no longer control that character. The DM is total control because INT < 3 = nonplayer character.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 11:22 AM
Also, if your character, gods forbid, has his/her Int dropped below three, you no longer control that character. The DM is total control because INT < 3 = nonplayer character.

And this justifies the fate of said character (according to Pyrite) how? The fact that the player no longer controls the character is irrelevant, that's a metagame detail. What I care about is if my character gets screwed over by a ridiculous interpretation of the alignment system and gets sent to the Beastlands because she had a spell cast on her when she was fighting evil. The fact that I don't control her anymore doesn't change the fact that I care what happens to her.

I mean, I find it very difficult to take these arguments predicated on intelligence seriously. It's not even remotely consistent. You know what's Evil? Mindless undead. You know what they're as smart as? A rock. They have less ability to make moral judgments than the very computer you are typing on.

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 11:54 AM
And this justifies the fate of said character (according to Pyrite) how? The fact that the PC no longer controls the character is irrelevant, that's a metagame detail. What I care about is if my character gets screwed over by a ridiculous interpretation of the alignment system and gets sent to the Beastlands because she had a spell cast on her when she was fighting evil. The fact that I don't control her anymore doesn't change the fact that I care what happens to her.

I'm pretty sure a temporary magical penalty or damage to your base Int score (or any score for that matter) isn't going to make a big difference in where you are going in the afterlife of D&D. Any DM that would rule otherwise is just being a jerk about it.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 12:02 PM
I'm pretty sure a temporary magical penalty or damage to your base Int score (or any score for that matter) isn't going to make a big difference in where you are going in the afterlife of D&D. Any DM that would rule otherwise is just being a jerk about it.

I suppose I should establish a few things.

1) I do indeed think that a lot of the takes on alignment expressed around here would make your DM a jerk. I find that this is a common result of DMs who pretend that WotC presents a consistent system of absolute morality, then in practice actually just use whatever they, personally, feel is morally right or wrong in any given situation as the answer. Sometimes said DMs have rather sickening (to me, at least) ideas of what is "right" regarding such issues as how a slave should treat their master.

2) If it's being relegated so heavily to DM fiat, it is not a consistent rule system of absolute morality. I simply wish people would stop pretending that there actually is such an absolute system described in the rules.

3) If you're making your own system of absolute cosmic moral evaluations, at least have some explanation of what it actually means. Not just in terms of "what circumstances put what people into what categories." I mean, seriously, where is it coming from? What in-game force is telling you that X is on the list of approved moral actions if you want to be Lawful Good?

4) When people say something like "respecting the rights of others," as a fast and loose rule to judge things by, that doesn't actually represent an absolute system.

TheCIASentMe
2010-10-22, 12:20 PM
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way. Consider this: Good and Evil are actual forces of the multiverse in D&D. They go by various names such as holy energy, vile energy, etc. You can't leave out the fact that in D&D, evil can be a tangible thing. Something can be evil because it is made of evil itself.

So one could make the argument that they are evil because their race is being controlled by this evil force and the evil-ness of their society is self-perpetuating as a result.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 12:25 PM
I think you guys are going about this the wrong way. Consider this: Good and Evil are actual forces of the multiverse in D&D. They go by various names such as holy energy, vile energy, etc. You can't leave out the fact that in D&D, evil can be a tangible thing. Something can be evil because it is made of evil itself. Oh, that's exactly how I go about it in my take on alignment, but my system has not been detailed in this thread. I've merely questioned others about their systems.

To summarize quite briefly, I expand on the bits and pieces provided by the Eberron campaign setting, and indeed a priestess with a heart of gold that holds the community together can give off an aura of Evil because she channels negative energy. And a corrupt cleric of the God of Undead Hatred can be Good because he channels positive energy. And a mindless undead is Evil because it's animated by negative energy and that's what Detect Evil detects. As for details like reading a normal person, people are "aligned" with different forces, as you will. Think humors or some other outdated metaphysical medical nonsense. Using Detect Evil to determine if that guy over there is a Bad Person is like using a polygraph test to detect if that guy over there is a Liar. It measures actual physical forces related to personality and deeds that suggest Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos by the established standards, but does not necessarily mean that, say, the Evil guy is actually a really bad dude who you should kill because he pinged on the Detect-o-meter. I treat it as an actual physical force rather than an omniscient moral judge beyond the realm of the gods who totally knows better than you what Good means, even though it's actually just some random guy behind the screen preaching his values at you.

But obviously that's not what a lot of people here want.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 12:27 PM
So one could make the argument that they are evil because their race is being controlled by this evil force and the evil-ness of their society is self-perpetuating as a result.

I make the argument that because they are from "otherness" (AKA the Far Realm), they are more "other evil" than the are "evil evil" if such a distinction makes sense.

And yes, I almost typed Farm Realm.

Sigh.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 12:35 PM
I make the argument that because they are from "otherness" (AKA the Far Realm), they are more "other evil" than the are "evil evil" if such a distinction makes sense.

I think it makes sense, assuming that by "other evil" you mean Blue and Orange morality. Would this be an accurate interpretation of what you mean?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 01:00 PM
But obviously that's not what a lot of people here want.

Yeah, it differs from the PHB guidelines. I sort of use that as a basis for everything alignment based and then whichever Bo_D is applicable afterwards. Not that you have a bad idea there, its interesting and I might apply a portion of it to my games (namely ping 'evil' for a brief time when using negative energy).

But, if your players agree to use that system, mor epower to them. I don't argue house rules. Can't win there.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 01:14 PM
I think it makes sense, assuming that by "other evil" you mean Blue and Orange morality. Would this be an accurate interpretation of what you mean?


Yes, yes it would.

Though I don't know if they like the color orange.

TheCIASentMe
2010-10-22, 01:18 PM
I think it makes sense, assuming that by "other evil" you mean Blue and Orange morality. Would this be an accurate interpretation of what you mean?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

Edit: Nevermind. Not a terribly important point to make for the discussion.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-22, 01:36 PM
Feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm) is an interesting case study. The spell feeblemind changes (not lowers or drains or anything but erase and rewrite) your INT to 1 (along with other things not relevant to this discussion). You therefore become non-voting. So what does this mean when you are feebleminded alignmentwise?

The easiest part is that your further actions no longer carry moral weight. You're non-voting and thus can no longer tell. Now it's kindof hard to abuse this because "I'm going to feeblemind myself so I'm not going to be morally responsible for destroying this village" doesn't fly as much as "I'm not morally responsible if I leave this bomb to destroy this village" as either way you are setting up said destruction of village (even if the agent that does the destroying can't make moral choices at the time). This isn't even going into practical considerations of doing stuff while feebleminded.

Paladins may still fall while feebleminded. This is because they can fall due to breaking their code of conduct which is just a list of actions that must or can't do. Why they broke it doesn't matter. However they do no longer have to worry about willingly committing evil acts though since they can't commit them anymore.

However does your alignment automatically becomes Neutral when you are feebleminded? While I'll be looking for more examples on this, my initial argument is no. Your alignment has inertia and tends to stay whatever state it is in. Otherwise your alignment would swing wildly from action to action. Also a given creature of an given alignment does not have to act in accordance 100% of the time with their alignment to remain so. In addition atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) would not need a tempt/redeem option in its description. You could just commit a good and a chaotic act and bam! you're chaotic good no 500XP needed. Nor would you need a excuse to change alignments drastically. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a voting creature who becomes non-voting keeps the alignment he had at the time of loss of voting status. Since he can no longer take moral actions, he will stay that alignment.

So our hypothetical paladin who is feebleminded remains Lawful Good and keeps paladin status (for now). When she dies, she goes to whatever plane appropriate to her god and/or alignment.

Now I'm not arguing that D&D alignment is good in any real world sense or even that it's consistent overall (lawful and chaotic stupidity stops that notion cold). It's just that in these cases there are guidelines for what happens.

Does following alignment rules make the GM a jerk? Often yes. However, the DM's a jerk if he heavily uses CC or plays foes intelligently enough to risk total party kills or if the wizard speaks while resting. If DM jerkhood is an issue for you, why are you playing D&D?

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 01:50 PM
Yeah, it differs from the PHB guidelines. Yeah, but the PHB guidelines are actually defunct and inconsistent. What everyone's actually using is their own unique take. Some just don't seem to realize it.


Feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm) is an interesting case study. The spell feeblemind changes (not lowers or drains or anything but erase and rewrite) your INT to 1 (along with other things not relevant to this discussion). You therefore become non-voting. So what does this mean when you are feebleminded alignmentwise?

The easiest part is that your further actions no longer carry moral weight. You're non-voting and thus can no longer tell.

Nonvoting? What does this mean? Does a minor's decisions lack moral weight? Does an adolescent spree killer get off the hook from the great fire below? Nevermind the fact that one has to wonder what qualifies someone as a voter in D&D-land. After all, we're not living in Kansas in D&D-land and even if we were non-humans don't have the right to vote in Kansas, as far as I'm aware. And it wasn't that long ago that if you were Reincarnated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) as a woman, you suddenly became nonvoting. And not much longer ago than that (still well within the lifespan of many common D&D humanoid races) if your skin color changed when you got hit with Reincarnation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) you counted as 3/5ths of a person.

I can only imagine it gets worse when you go to D&Dland and you find out that there aren't just various shades of Human civilization, but you can actually go to places like Elfland or Dwarfland or Orcland.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-22, 03:25 PM
Nonvoting? What does this mean? Does a minor's decisions lack moral weight? Does an adolescent spree killer get off the hook from the great fire below? Nevermind the fact that one has to wonder what qualifies someone as a voter in D&D-land. After all, we're not living in Kansas in D&D-land and even if we were non-humans don't have the right to vote in Kansas, as far as I'm aware. And it wasn't that long ago that if you were Reincarnated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) as a woman, you suddenly became nonvoting. And not much longer ago than that (still well within the lifespan of many common D&D humanoid races) if your skin color changed when you got hit with Reincarnation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) you counted as 3/5ths of a person.

I can only imagine it gets worse when you go to D&Dland and you find out that there aren't just various shades of Human civilization, but you can actually go to places like Elfland or Dwarfland or Orcland.

As described in my earlier posts in this thread, voting in this context means having an INT score of 3 or greater. It also means being able to make moral choices in the context of D&D. This term is used to avoid the whole sapient/sentient semantic mess. I have continued using it and I thought you would have caught that reading this thread.

If a creature has an INT score of 3 or greater, they are capable of moral choices. What age they are doesn't matter. Since they haven't haven't done any moral choices before that happens, they start off as Neutral. Now as to when this happens in the course of normal development, I have no clue. However this is due to lack of information on how growing up works in D&D rather than any "well it's all relative" deal. In much the same way, I know China has a government when I myself don't know its entire organization.

To further make the argument that growing up isn't covered in D&D I will provide another example. There is no clue on how you can end with 1 level of fighter unless you always had 1 level of fighter. If children had 1 Commoner level (the standard way in 3.X to handle "kids"), they would have to keep those levels. So you could see Commoner 1 / Fighter 1 creatures, but in order to just be Fighter 1 you'll have to be never been a child. Either children don't exist and you come into being as an adult, you're a first level whatever as a child and the whole "children are 1st level Commoners" approach is wrong, everyone actually should have a level of commoner or racial hit die, or you can retrain class levels while growing up. While I have my preferences for which is the case, there are arguments for any in the D&D system.

Now for the classic "what about orc babies, what alignment are they?" debate, it depends. If they are voting, then they could have any alignment. If they are non-voting, then they are Neutral. Either way, killing them is neutral act (see my earlier posts about why this is) possibly modified by circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, this rapidly leads to stupid outcomes. Awaken vipers rapidly find themselves becoming evil. Many players have severe issues with D&D morality from the sometimes people need a'killing viewpoint to you can have evil sand in your pants metaphysics. And I'm all for houseruling it. In fact, when I do finally go mad and actually play D&D seriously, I'll push for a "good and evil are forces that can tinge things" approach you use Godless Paladin.

PopcornMage
2010-10-22, 06:18 PM
I propose we take some orc babies and raise them to adulthood as an experiment.

Hah, if you tried that with 3 different DM's, you'd be lucky to only get 5 different answers.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 06:32 PM
Hah, if you tried that with 3 different DM's, you'd be lucky to only get 5 different answers.

This is exactly it.


If a creature has an INT score of 3 or greater, they are capable of moral choices. I still don't see an answer from you regarding mindless creatures that have alignment tracks most certainly other than neutral. I've mentioned it several times now yet you continue to repeat the same thing about so called "intelligent" creatures making moral decisions.

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 06:40 PM
I still don't see an answer from you regarding mindless creatures that have alignment tracks most certainly other than neutral. I've mentioned it several times now yet you continue to repeat the same thing about so called "intelligent" creatures making moral decisions.

I'll add to that. Mindless creatures that have an alignment score other than neutral are most likely animated creatures (undead/constructs) and when magic gets involved, weird things happen.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 07:14 PM
I'll add to that. Mindless creatures that have an alignment score other than neutral are most likely animated creatures (undead/constructs) and when magic gets involved, weird things happen.

Really? That's the answer? "Weird stuff just happens"?

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 07:30 PM
Really? That's the answer? "Weird stuff just happens"?

Yep. Otherwise you have to come up with a reason why the use of negative energy is evil and positive energy is good or why the use of necromancy is evil and conjuration (healing) is good.

Rules say so, so let's assume that's why. It is beyond our mortal understanding as to why they are that way and we only know that we become slightly more evil using the evil necromancy spells (yay for detect ____ spells to help us there).

Its not a far reach from there to grasp the concept that mindless creatures created via these energies (or other magic methods) might have an alignment outside of the norm from neutral.

Dr.Epic
2010-10-22, 07:33 PM
It makes about as much sense for them to be investing others brains as it does for other races killing and eating animals when they could consume plants instead.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-22, 07:37 PM
It makes about as much sense for them to be investing others brains as it does for other races killing and eating animals when they could consume plants instead.

Hey, leave the plants alone. What right does anyone have to eat them?

Eldonauran
2010-10-22, 07:56 PM
Hey, leave the plants alone. What right does anyone have to eat them?

Yeah! :smallamused:

They still scream (http://io9.com/5623112/the-smell-of-freshly+cut-grass-is-actually-a-plant-distress-call?) when you hurt them, even if you can't hear it!

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-22, 08:08 PM
Yep. Otherwise you have to come up with a reason why the use of negative energy is evil and positive energy is good or why the use of necromancy is evil and conjuration (healing) is good. I did come up with a reason. I posted about it. They also do it pretty much the way I described in a certain official campaign setting.


Rules say so, so let's assume that's why.
:smallsigh:

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-22, 10:21 PM
This is exactly it.

I still don't see an answer from you regarding mindless creatures that have alignment tracks most certainly other than neutral. I've mentioned it several times now yet you continue to repeat the same thing about so called "intelligent" creatures making moral decisions.

Mindless undead are evil because paladins need to smite them. :smalltongue:

Mainly I haven't answered it because it doesn't really factor in mind flayer alignments as a racial whole and I do try to stay at least a bit on topic. Nor have you ever addressed any of my points.

However in universe, there are several answers to what is going on here. Firstly, the moral acts in of them themselves are also good/evil. Casting an evil spell is an evil act and the spell itself is evil. Animate Undead is an evil spell and thus all its effects are evil. Since one of those is effects is the zombie/skeleton created, the resulting undead is evil. If Wall of Force was evil, the wall of force made would be evil as well. Since the zombie/skeleton is mindless, it can't make moral acts so it's stuck as evil. This explains why certain summoned creatures have alignments even if they otherwise shouldn't. That's also why you don't see non-evil undead made by this or other evil spells. It also explains why alignment of the original owner never seems to matter. If you got around to awaken undead, its alignment could then change.

As to why Animate Undead is evil, I have no clue. However it's very clearly evil in the D&D world. Much like acid is an energy type in D&D. It's also responsible for whole "is negative energy neutral or evil?" paradox (the answer is yes) and that's no untangling that issue without going extremely meta and talking about the changes in authors and their opinions throughout the D&D 3.X line.

Good and Evil in D&D is also a thing. Now what exactly is going on the Hell I don't know. I'll admit my planar knowledge is weak and confused between multiple editions. I never did look too closely want happened between 2nd and 3rd edition settingwise so I can't get too deeply into planar metaphysics.

I'm not arguing that D&D morality is complete or not self-contradictory (as I said before Lawful and Chaotic alignments stop that argument). It also at best superficially resembles real world morality. However what I have argued in that it is clear on the situation of mind flayers eating brains being an neutral act in D&D. Mind flayers are still Usually Lawful Evil, but that's due to other things they do (like causal enslavement and worship of evil gods) than brain eating. Now you can totally houserule it just like gamers totally houserule all sort of things and honestly I'll encourage it with D&D alignment.

Gralamin
2010-10-22, 10:37 PM
Mindless undead are evil because paladins need to smite them. :smalltongue:

Having heard this excuse before, I turn to a reasonable answer: That is a problem with Smite, not with mindless undead. Change the mechanic :smalltongue:.

Jergmo
2010-10-23, 12:43 AM
As per the good aligned illithid society (and surely to open a new can of worms) have rings of sustenance passed around :D

But I have a new question. How would an Illithid act if there was no elder brain there to control him?

...did I just kill the conversation? o.O

Well, as I said in my post about how I have Illithids, with no Elder Brain...I feel they'd go wild in their unregulated development of emotions and they'd become a bunch of emotion hedonists. Soaking in the sensations of thralls fighting to the death, torture, orgies, pleasant memories of petting kittens...you name it.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-23, 02:38 AM
Having heard this excuse before, I turn to a reasonable answer: That is a problem with Smite, not with mindless undead. Change the mechanic :smalltongue:.

Oh hell yes. Removing the whole falling nonsense, the code of conduct crud, and smiting only evil should all have been thrown in the wastebin when they threw out paladin equipment limits, tithing, and ability requirements.

Callista
2010-10-23, 03:43 AM
Mindless undead are evil the same way a spell can have the "Evil" descriptor without being a sentient spell. They probably detect as Evil because of the way they would, if uncontrolled, start killing anything living in the vicinity; and because their creator knew this and created them anyway. They pick up the evil aura despite being mindless and unable to make moral decisions because every step of their creation and existence is associated with evil. They're made of evil in almost the way an air elemental is made of air.

In a world where the undead didn't do anything if they weren't ordered to do it, they probably wouldn't be evil, though, and I can totally see houseruling that. In fact, I think it'd be an interesting world to play in, where necromancy isn't considered an evil branch of magic and people regularly reanimate the dead to serve the living, or even create sentient undead or become undead themselves.

Oh--and Good-aligned mindflayers would just have to buy themselves a Ring of Sustenance. It's a very low-level magic item, and mind flayers are rich enough to afford one. It's not actually such a big problem. (Pardon if someone's mentioned this; I stopped reading after two pages.)

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 04:57 AM
It also at best superficially resembles real world morality.

"Real world morality"?

You make it sound like there's one.


They probably detect as Evil because of the way they would, if uncontrolled, start killing anything living in the vicinity

Yes, and the arboreal army is going to kill off all the dwarves.

Tetsubo 57
2010-10-23, 05:52 AM
Seeing as there's a redeemed Mind Flayer in the BoED? No.

How does it eat? It still needs sentient (technically sapient) brains to survive.

Tetsubo 57
2010-10-23, 05:59 AM
Killing a human being (or other sapient race) without their consent is an immoral act. The only justification is self-defense or the defense of the innocent *in the act of violence*. If you are attacked or interrupt an attack, killing is justified. As would defense of a nation against attack. But eating brains to survive? Not justified and immoral. Unless the victim willingly volunteers. I don't think people are going to be queuing up for that 'privilege'...

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 07:18 AM
Killing a human being (or other sapient race) without their consent is an immoral act. The only justification is self-defense or the defense of the innocent *in the act of violence*. If you are attacked or interrupt an attack, killing is justified. As would defense of a nation against attack. But eating brains to survive? Not justified and immoral. Unless the victim willingly volunteers. I don't think people are going to be queuing up for that 'privilege'...

Hmmm, where have I heard this very same argument before... oh right.

So are you in support of certain particularly infamous murderers, then? After all, they had consent, so it's not immoral, right?

But not saving innocent lives that are threatened by someone not immediately in the act of violence (e.g. the fantasy-land stormtrooper is shooting at them but missed the first shot because he's comically incompetent. If this is not the case, the victims are likely already dead) is not okay unless you classify it under the thin veneer of nationalism? Or if you made the call to pull the plug on a coma patient, you're committing a more immoral act than assisted suicide of a depressed individual?

...:smallannoyed::smallmad:

Tetsubo 57
2010-10-23, 07:58 AM
{Scrubbed}

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 08:01 AM
{Scrub the original, scrub the quote} Well that's good to hear. It just seems notable that you used the exact same argument they used to get the Master Butcher off the hook.

If you don't support that reasoning, you shouldn't be so quick to make such statements about morality.


{Scrub the original, scrub the quote} Really? Why not?

What is your sound logical argument that desiring to continue living is rational?

There is nothing inherently irrational about not desiring to live any longer. It's like saying that you're irrational if you don't like the great taste of apple jacks.


{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

This is directly contradictory to what you said in your very last post. You said, quite explicitly, that it is not immoral if the subject is willing, and that it is immoral if the subject is not willing. Therefore, you are revising your position.

It is not deliberately obtuse to think that what you said before was a wildly misguided statement. I don't think you thought through the implications of exactly what you said.

It is, though, to revise your position and pretend that's what you said all along (even if what you said wasn't quite what you meant).

Starbuck_II
2010-10-23, 08:04 AM
How does it eat? It still needs sentient (technically sapient) brains to survive.

Actually, no it doesn't. Only one book says they do.
Other books say they only need it (eat sentient brains) to use their psionic powers.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-23, 08:07 AM
Actually, no it doesn't. Only one book says they do.
Other books say they only need it (eat sentient brains) to use their psionic powers.

Indeed. As I understand it, not only do half of the alignment issues originate from the same book, but it pretty much contradicts other established fluff at every turn, and is generally a source of a lot of my least favourite Illithid related information.

I find the above far preferable, as it makes a lot more sense and allows for a far greater range of possible characters, situations and stories.

EvilJames
2010-10-23, 08:07 AM
What makes mind flayers evil is that they are cruel. It's not enough just to eat brains they inflict unspeakable horrors on their victims because it flavors the meal. They even go as far as to make eating a very special meal a public spectacle so that everyone can psychiclly share the fear and pain that flavors the victim. What makes them evil is the utter disdain they have for anything that is not them. They are as close to mortal demons as one can come, and one of the few races in my games that is almost completely universally and irredeemably evil.

As for being good aligned. Well kidnapping evil creatures to feed on them would be evil so that's out. The best you can do is a race of warriors taking the fight to evil, defending caravans, attacking bandits, (ie not random villages of goblins) as long as it was a conflict heavy world they could do OK eating as they went. As for their birthing process... volunteers otherwise it's pretty evil.
The only reason Slaad can do it and not be evil is for one thing they tend towards amorality rather than immorality since they don't believe that it's necessary to excessively cruel about it. (A somewhat weak difference I know but thats all I got) Also Slaadi wouldn't dream of suppressing your free will, bully you into submission, yes, but gosh darn it you are an individual and should express yourself as one. Now if you want any tips on how to really express yourself go talk to one of the reds or blues when they get done fighting.

Tetsubo 57
2010-10-23, 08:07 AM
Actually, no it doesn't. Only one book says they do.
Other books say they only need it (eat sentient brains) to use their psionic powers.

If they are an organic being, they need to consume *something*. And what is a mind flayer without it's psionics? Of course, all the other psionic races don't eat brains. Or they do and it is a vast, hidden conspiracy...

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 08:20 AM
Killing a human being (or other sapient race) without their consent is an immoral act.

The only justification is self-defense or the defense of the innocent *in the act of violence*

You've changed your position on the other issue, but I still would like to know your response here:

But not saving innocent lives that are threatened by someone not immediately in the act of violence (e.g. the fantasy-land stormtrooper is shooting at them but missed the first shot because he's comically incompetent. If this is not the case, the victims are likely already dead) is not okay unless you classify it under the thin veneer of nationalism?

Would you like to revise your position here, too?

I find the standard presented her very unrealistic and impractical. If you can't defend people from anything but inept stormtroopers, then you're not much of a defender at all.

The innocent can sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. Those are the guys with Smite Evil.

Not the guys who only act in "self defense" or any of this. Self defense is a secondary concern to the self-sacrificing Good guy. If anything, self defense is merely neutral. The Good guys go out and lay down a righteous smiting for the sake of other people, and they don't wait until the evil tyrant standing in the same room with the persecuted minority and pulling the trigger to do it.

Actually, another poster had something to say in this regard:


This? Right here? This is why Asmodeus spends so much of his time saving the multiverse. Because WotC wrote Good exactly like this, and that means, more often than not, they're not up for the job. When your alignment system ends up with the king of hell as the primary defender of innocent lives, there is a problem."

You can either play Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood), or Good is Heroic.

I'll take my paladins that don't sit on their hands while people other than themselves suffer, thanks.

HidaTsuzua
2010-10-23, 11:27 AM
"Real world morality"?

You make it sound like there's one.


While I admire your attention to rigor and reading analysis, does it matter for the purpose of my statement? I mean if there is one, D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to it. If there isn't, D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to lack of one. If they're more than one, then D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to them. If they're negative real world moralities (gotta be sure), then D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to them.



You can either play Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood), or Good is Heroic.

I'll take my paladins that don't sit on their hands while people other than themselves suffer, thanks.

But why since in your early arguments, good doesn't exist or at least is unknowable?

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 11:43 AM
While I admire your attention to rigor and reading analysis, does it matter for the purpose of my statement? I mean if there is one, D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to it. If there isn't, D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to lack of one. If they're more than one, then D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to them. If they're negative real world moralities (gotta be sure), then D&D morality doesn't bear a relationship to them.

Pretty much. Feel free to completely ignore that statement I made. Heh.


But why since in your early arguments, good doesn't exist or at least is unknowable?

Wha? What exactly are you referring to? I never said good doesn't exist. In fact, I believe very strongly in it. I did say that no human(oid) can ultimately know for sure the best possible choice is (and thus it's kinda silly for people to be talking about, say, a paladin choosing the absolute best of all existing options. She can only pick what she thinks is best, based upon the information she has and the limits of her reasoning abilities. For all you know, smiting the goblin raider could have been a far worse option that others, etc etc), but that's a statement with about as much impact as saying that the theory of gravity is indeed a theory, not something that you can prove (still something that needs to be explained to a surprising number of people. That and why .9 repeating is in fact exactly equal to 1. And a variety of other fundamental logical principles...).

If you are referring to the "you make it sound like there's one" statement, what I meant to imply was that there are many conflicting standards of moral evaluation in the real world to choose to superficially resemble :smallwink:. It's really a moot point either way though, as you said above.

megabyter5
2010-10-23, 11:47 AM
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but Lords of Madness, 63-64 under The Illithid Mind mentions that Mind Flayers cannot experience positive emotions. So basically, imagine the most cynical bastard ever to live, then kill everyone he's ever cared about and show him irrefutable evidence that all religion is wrong; It should give you someone about one-tenth as awful as an Illithid. If they decided to use Rings of Sustenance or whatever else, they'd still be so EEvil that one capital E isn't enough for them.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-23, 04:43 PM
Speaking of animal intelligence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsN63PRCW8&NR=1&feature=fvwp)