A clarification about dragons and alignment

[Dwy]

In the 842 discussion thread I saw pretty many arguing that Girard, and/or the other members of the Draketooth clan would be evil, due to being relatives to black dragons. I'd like to adress the flaws in that logic here.

First off: the Alignment system simplified:
- An evil act pushes you towards the evil end of the system.
- A good act pushes your alignment towards the good end.

Now, for a quick look at Black Dragons:
a) They are sapient creatures capable of making their own choices, based on their own better judgement. Thus a BD must be capable of performing a Good deed.
b) A good deed does still push your alingment towards the good end of the scale.
c) If a BD still always is evil, that would require that their actions have no say on their alignment. A Black Dragon could by that logic run a hospital for a thousand years, and still killing it would be justified, just because of it's colour. That, my forumites, is racism/specieism, and should not be the basis of our gaming experiences.

Then, we have sources claiming black dragons are always evil in-comic, you say? Yes. Yes, she's called Miko, and had a keen understanding of this kind of things. One that got her de-paladined, and landed her on a lower plane.

That being said: Can a black dragon be evil? Yes. In-comic examples:
The teen BD attacking the order on sight. The order was right to defend themselves, yet V killing the defenseless thing is another issue.
The ABD's justified, but incredibly evil plan to get revenge.

Does that make Black Dragons inherently evil? NO.
Inherited alignment is one of the most messed up parts of the game, which Rich illustrates masterfully with the whole Gobbotopia/Redcloak-situation. Inherited alignments cannot possibly exist in a world run by the alignment system, as that would either make your actions not mean anything, or require you to be non-sapient.

As O-Chul seem to have understood, judging by his interactions with Monster-san: It is not whose company we keep, or who our parents are, but our actions that define us.

/rant

edited for spelling reasons.

[ellindsey]

We have also seen in-comic examples that half-dragons don't have to share their parent's alignment. Blue dragons are Always Lawful Evil, yet Enor the half blue dragon bounty hunter is True Neutral.

[pendell]

Then, we have sources claiming black dragons are always evil in-comic, you say? Yes. Yes, she's called Miko, and had a keen understanding of this kind of things. One that got her de-paladined, and landed her on a lower plane.


Objection! Speculation. We don't know what Miko's eventual destination was. We know that she was in a place where she could be visited by her celestial mount, and that she wouldn't be a paladin. That could put her anywhere in the neutral or upper planes but a lower plane is unlikely.



That being said: Can a black dragon be evil? Yes. In-comic examples:
The teen BD attacking the order on sight. The order was right to defend themselves, yet V killing the defenseless thing is another issue.


I disagree. The black dragon was not defenseless. It was under the influence of a charm spell which was about to wear off, at which point it would again attempt to start killing the entire party again. V's killing of it before it could make another attempt to attack the party, given how nearly successful it had been the first time, was prudent and justifiable.



The ABD's justified, but incredibly evil plan to get revenge.


Debatable. The order was on an adventure to retrieve star metal and inadvertently entered a dragon's lair. I'm not quite sure how D&D handles this, but I think simply attacking people entering your home is not a good act, especially when said people did not know it was your home. Some magic mouths warning 'no trespassing' or something like , perhaps. The area is gray, but once the order was attacked with lethal force without warning it was justified in defending itself.

Were revenge justified, the ABD's justified revenge would have been to kill V. Expanding that revenge to his children was completely improper.

The rest of your post I agree with. Since Salvatore created Drizzt it has been improper to judge an individual solely by the species s/he belongs to.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dalek-K]

Objection! Speculation. We don't know what Miko's eventual destination was. We know that she was in a place where she could be visited by her celestial mount, and that she wouldn't be a paladin. That could put her anywhere in the neutral or upper planes but a lower plane is unlikely.



I disagree. The black dragon was not defenseless. It was under the influence of a charm spell which was about to wear off, at which point it would again attempt to start killing the entire party again. V's killing of it before it could make another attempt to attack the party, given how nearly successful it had been the first time, was prudent and justifiable.



Debatable. The order was on an adventure to retrieve star metal and inadvertently entered a dragon's lair. I'm not quite sure how D&D handles this, but I think simply attacking people entering your home is not a good act, especially when said people did not know it was your home. Some magic mouths warning 'no trespassing' or something like , perhaps. The area is gray, but once the order was attacked with lethal force without warning it was justified in defending itself.

Were revenge justified, the ABD's justified revenge would have been to kill V. Expanding that revenge to his children was completely improper.

The rest of your post I agree with. Since Salvatore created Drizzt it has been improper to judge an individual solely by the species s/he belongs to.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

You know, when someone with weapons entered my house I pulled a gun and told them to leave... By law in most states I could have shot them dead due to them breaking in with intent to harm... We know this CHILD was left home for the first time... Think about it, you are 13 -15 left home for the first time and a few ppl with knives swords and bow and arrows come into your house? There is no back door or not one you can get to easily, you either hide (you will be found eventually) or you pick up your parents gun and defend yourself.

If one of the theives in court said "we were just there to still their stuff..." yeah that doesn't fly in most states.

Mother Dragon ... Used evil methods for revenge that was justified though not in the matter she was doing it... Yeah...

[Peelee]

You know, when someone with weapons entered my house I pulled a gun and told them to leave... By law in most states I could have shot them dead due to them breaking in with intent to harm... We know this CHILD was left home for the first time... Think about it, you are 13 -15 left home for the first time and a few ppl with knives swords and bow and arrows come into your house? There is no back door or not one you can get to easily, you either hide (you will be found eventually) or you pick up your parents gun and defend yourself.

If one of the theives in court said "we were just there to still their stuff..." yeah that doesn't fly in most states.

Mother Dragon ... Used evil methods for revenge that was justified though not in the matter she was doing it... Yeah...

OBJECTION! You are trying for improper change of venue. This situation does not take plane in any of the United States, nor even on the planet Earth. U.S. law does not govern a case like this, and as such you can not use it for any sort of grounds for justification. The only exception would be a universal law, which again would not necessarily apply here, as you seem to use "house" and "cave" interchangeably. A house is an artificial construction, clearly meant and expected to be lived in by people, while any given cave holds no such assumptions. Yes, sentient creatures lived there, but as previously mentioned, without any sort of indications that the cave was occupied and that trespassing was prohibited (eg. a magic mouth warning travelers, or even a sign "Here there be dragons" - which, in the D&D world, would almost guarantee someone would come in and fight, but regardless, would mark the cave as inhabited), the adventurers could not be reasonably expected to know that it was a home for a sentient creature.

[SGNenets]

We have also seen in-comic examples that half-dragons don't have to share their parent's alignment. Blue dragons are Always Lawful Evil, yet Enor the half blue dragon bounty hunter is True Neutral.

As ellindsey has said here, there is absolutely no reason why the quarter-dragon (Girard) and his descendants (most likely all with more human bloods added rather than dragon blood) would need to be evil just because one of their ancestors was from an "always evil" species.

[pendell]

By law in most states I could have shot them dead due to them breaking in with intent to harm...


Actually , no. I can't get into the real world on this board, but if you fire a gun with intent to kill, things are going to get sticky even if your state has a 'castle doctrine' law on the books. Also, there is civil liability as well as criminal liability.

I would also point out that there's a big difference between breaking into an obvious habitation and walking through an underground dungeon. The party had no reason to believe that they were entering the home of a citizen under protection of law.

A more apt analogy would be if your 14 year old teenager took up residence in one of the pyramids of Egypt and shot an archaeologist who had entered the pyramid in search of , say, a golden mask or something like.

Despite this, I think adventurers wandering in and being ambushed by the black dragon were a feature, not a bug, of the lair. I suspect the black dragon and his family didn't gain that great big pile of treasure by putting on bardic performances around the world. It is possibly (but by no means certain) that they put out the rumors of treasure in the dungeon specifically as a lure to draw adventurers , who could then be murdered , their stuff taken and themselves eaten. Except in this case the trapper was himself caught.

This is not certain, of course. But I believe my point stands that the original engagement with the black dragon was a gray area. Also, if the dragons truly did not want intruders trespassing in their lair, there are probably better ways to accomplish this than leaving the lair wholly unmarked and simply ambushing anyone who came in. I suspect the rumor of unpillaged treasure would only bring in more adventurers, not less.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JSSheridan]

You're assuming free will exists in a gaming framework, specifically Rich's. It may not, we don't know. I wouldn't include it if it were me however.

[Gnoman]

Actually , no. I can't get into the real world on this board, but if you fire a gun with intent to kill, things are going to get sticky even if your state has a 'castle doctrine' law on the books. Also, there is civil liability as well as criminal liability.

While there is limited depth that can be gone into here, in states with Castle Doctrines, it's illegal to arrest or prosecute a person for the situation unless there is grounds to challenge the story. I know of at least one cop who did six months for this.

[Smolder]

First off: the Alignment system simplified:
- An evil act pushes you towards the evil end of the system.
- A good act pushes your alignment towards the good end.


Well, there's your first problem. In D&D, your alignment rarely changes. Yes, there are specific restrictions for paladins and clerics, but if you're playing pen-and-paper, alignment is more or less set in advance. In fact, alignment has very little effect on the game at all.

I have played other games in which alignment was dynamic via a Karma score or the like. But not in D&D. That's the whole thing that Rich is making fun of in the comic: D&D tries to pigeon hole everyone into a permanent alignment, with little thought to how that will hogtie player behavior in long, open campaigns.

I admit to being one of the jerks who said things like "if all black dragons are evil, why not kill 'em all" but I meant it as sarcasm, specifically mocking the hardcoded alignment system to which we all slavishly cling.

To address this, I homebrewed a set of alignment-specific feats for each class and if a player starts behaving out of character, I just impose penalties on those feats. Instant karma police. Still not a moving score, but a reasonable attempt to keep players in line.

[Gnoman]

Your alignment IS supposed to change in D&D. They just left it open to "DM's interpretation" instead of providing a clunky mechanical system. It's right there in the DM's guide.

[Ravian]

See this is one of the reasons I like Ebberon's decision on dragons and 4e's adoption of said decision.

They both ditched the: always certain alignment thing, they may typically be evil or good but you shouldn't be surprised to find a silver dragon ruling a city as a dictator or a blue dragon concerned with helping fight off the undead invasion for purely humanitarian reasons.

Heck not even angels and demons are pigeonholed. Sure the wide majority are tied to their masters alignment, but Asmodeus and the devils were originally angels of an ancient deity before they rebelled, and Grazzt and his legions of hell decided to join the hordes of the abyss during the blood war.

In other words, anything that is fully sentient has free will and therefore should be able to change alignments just as easily as a human could.

[Stormlock]

It's not so much an issue of them not all being evil as an issue of NONE of them being evil. It'd be like finding out that the alignment of every goblin the order killed in Dorukan's dungeon was actually neutral and not evil. It just makes no real sense.

Even the OotS has a blatantly evil member and another toeing the line, you'd expect people with an ABD for a parent/grandparent to have some evil tendencies. People don't get born and then magically aged to maturity so they can roll some dice and determine their alignment. If they have a backstory it should influence them.

[Kish]

Objection! Speculation. We don't know what Miko's eventual destination was. We know that she was in a place where she could be visited by her celestial mount, and that she wouldn't be a paladin. That could put her anywhere in the neutral or upper planes but a lower plane is unlikely.

We also know, by expert testimony by a fellow named Rich Burlew, that while she was willing to let Roy off the hook for killing a dragon whose "scales weren't all shiny," she wouldn't have attacked the young black dragon without using Detect Evil first herself.

You're assuming free will exists in a gaming framework, specifically Rich's. It may not, we don't know. I wouldn't include it if it were me however.
...Remarkable. How exactly would you even have a game in your "no free will included" gaming framework?

I thought the DM in DM of the Rings was a railroader, but not including free will absolutely requires every session to consist of you telling the players, "You do this. Then you do this. Then you do this. What do you mean, you want to do something different? You think we have free will here?"

[Math_Mage]

I have played other games in which alignment was dynamic via a Karma score or the like. But not in D&D. That's the whole thing that Rich is making fun of in the comic: D&D tries to pigeon hole everyone into a permanent alignment, with little thought to how that will hogtie player behavior in long, open campaigns.

Actually, for the most part, Rich makes fun of players who interpret alignment as a straitjacket that they think restricts their behavior in long, open campaigns. It's pretty clear from such instances as the trial in Azure City and Roy's judgment that the Giant considers the alignment system to be interesting, complex, nuanced, and flexible.

[sr123]

One thing about alignment and morality in general:

People keep calling D&D a Euro-Medieval setting (fine, generic fantasy). In that setting, "Good" and "Evil" could be defined solely as "Us" and "Them". That is the essence of why common soldiers fight to the death against an "enemy", and why the nobility who actually directed the war allowed those soldiers to fight to the death.

In this interpretation, to be "Good" in D&D is simply to be human or human-like. Good deeds help humans and Bad deeds harm humans. A creature that does Good deeds is tolerable, but all clearly non-human typically-anti-human creatures are Fair Game until proven otherwise.

AKA religious heretics. AKA Chivalrous knights vs anyone not a knight. AKA the French vs the English. AKA Africans and Americans to the colonialists and slave traders. *(obvious exceptions abound, but you get the point -- that's why I hate when people bring up Euro-Medieval as the D&D "setting")

D&D is certainly not unique in treating entire taxa of sentient life as Fair Game. The Alignment system may simulate the reality of the genre better than we may think.

[Eigenclass]

First of all, does bringing real-world analogies into D&D morality really enrich the conversation? D&D cosmology is fundamentally different from our's, and completely different rules apply. The D&D alignment system is enforced not only by Da Rules, but also by the presence of literal deities and afterlives. Evil is a real force, something a god can have as his or her portfolio, and has actual champions to its cause.

For example, the dogma of Cyric or Shar in the Forgotten Realms is that evil is actually not only a viable philosophy, but ultimately the better philosophy. Tiamat, the goddess of chromatic dragons & kobolds in Rich's world, comes off as having much the same outlook (wanting good dragons to die, associating with fiends, etc).

Chromatic dragons like black dragons, therefore, have some very important reasons to be evil - the goddess that rules their race tells you to, and can hold your immortal soul ransom to enforce her will. If you have the power to be evil - i.e., impose your will on others in whatever way is necessary to ensure your own survival and pleasure, and you have actual divinities looking out for your right to do so, then actually, being evil isn't such a bad idea for you. It seems like if you were a black dragon, you have some pretty good reasons for being evil.

R.A. Salvatore notwithstanding, it is factual, is it not, that the drow in Forgotten Realms are actually overwhelmingly evil, and are kept that way by Lloth? For every Drizzt or even To'sun Barrison Del'Armgo, you have thousands of Masoj D'Hunetts, or Kaerlic Sun'Wetts. Heck, even Vierna might have turned out halfway decent if Lloth hadn't toyed with her so mercilessly. And well, even Drizzt wasn't that pure if you really think about it - he belonged to a class whose power source is racism and hatred (favored enemy - tongue in cheek).

See, the wrong argument is that free will somehow means that absolute evil alignments are impossible, or that an entire society or race can't be evil. Just because a dragon might potentially run a hospital for thousands of years, doesn't mean that said dragon is "good" unless it actually runs a hospital for thousands of years (but knowing black dragons, it'd probably actually do it so it could score some free meals by devouring the weak and sickly).

The evil of black dragons, gnolls, and other such monsters is mondo stuff, and has no analogy that people like us can even comprehend. This is way beyond even the depravity of the vile bullies that inflicted wedgies and divers other humiliations upon us for liking D&D and Pokemon.

This is a society-wide belief, taught by evil parents to their evil children, that it is okay and desirable to hurt other creatures to get what you want, and that you have a powerful divine patron who can and does routinely manifest their powers to protect your evil ways just as much as the good gods do for good people.

Kill 'em all for XP, I say, and let the daevas sort 'em out.

[Kish]

R.A. Salvatore notwithstanding, it is factual, is it not, that the drow in Forgotten Realms are actually overwhelmingly evil, and are kept that way by Lloth?

No.

For every Drizzt or even To'sun Barrison Del'Armgo, you have thousands of Masoj D'Hunetts

Rather, for every three Drizzts, you have 17 Masoj Hun'etts. (Yes, those numbers are official, albeit in 2ed. No specific numbers have been named for 3ed, that I'm aware of, but if it was "for every nonevil one there are thousands of evil ones," they'd be listed as Always, not Usually Evil.)

Massive inflation of what "Usually" means: Check.



Kill 'em all for XP, I say, and let the daevas sort 'em out.
Just so long as you realize that this comic is very much designed not to cater to your tastes.

No? You don't realize that? Well then: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108 , http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120 , http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12743252&postcount=511 , and, for good measure, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718655&postcount=132 , for a response to your first sentence.

[sr123]

This is a society-wide belief, taught by evil parents to their evil children, that it is okay and desirable to hurt other creatures to get what you want,

Contradiction. That morality is pretty much incompatible with a society -- there have to be more than two creatures whom it is neither okay nor desirable to hurt. At a minimum, family counts, so then isn't your dedication/helpfulness to your family "Good"? Then we again can invoke the notion of Us versus Them, which once again forces Good and Evil to be relative.

You do, however, make an excellent point about the gods holding the immortal soul at mercy as the marker of the Alignment, and that being what makes Good and Evil pure, measurable (via Detect) qualities. This is quite reminiscent of the Fire and Brimstone theology of Cotton Mather: you are nothing but a spider that God holds dangling by the leg over a pit of fire, and He alone determines your fate. The result: Salem, Massachusetts.

And let me say,

does bringing real-world analogies into D&D morality really enrich the conversation?
Yes.

[Eigenclass]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenclass
R.A. Salvatore notwithstanding, it is factual, is it not, that the drow in Forgotten Realms are actually overwhelmingly evil, and are kept that way by Lloth?
No.

I don't believe "no" is correct. I quote, from the Drow outlook in "Races of Faerun":


Drow are, on the whole, sadistic, destructive, and treacherous.

In addition:

The very reason for the existence of the dhaerow is that the Illithyri followed Araushnee into cruelty and consorting with demons.
Drow society is ruled by an evil sexist theocracy that routinely engages in sacrificing sentient beings and other unspeakable horrors.
Any Drow male that goes against the will of Lloth (or tries to serve the will of Lloth and fails, or for no reason at all really) usually ends up getting Dridered.
All of the Eliastree (sp?)-worshiping drow have been redeemed and transformed, and are thus no longer drow.


Also, "Usually evil" lends itself to loose interpretation - "usually" could mean anywhere from 51% to 99.999% of the time. If something applies the majority of the time, it applies "usually". In addition, it could be flavors of evil alignments - "Usually Evil, sometimes Chaotic Evil, and once in a while truly atrociously perverse beyond your wildest imaginings". :0)




Quote:
does bringing real-world analogies into D&D morality really enrich the conversation?
Yes.

I don't see how.


Contradiction. That morality is pretty much incompatible with a society -- there have to be more than two creatures whom it is neither okay nor desirable to hurt.

Not necessarily - the philosophy of chaotic evil is usually "It's okay to hurt anyone, except those who are powerful enough to crush you". It is fear, not morality, that compels obedience or at least not crossing certain boundaries. Think of every scheming incompetent prince that's just waiting to depose his stronger father/mother and seize the throne. Think Darth Vader being mentored by the Emperor, and plotting to seize the crown for himself. The Sith don't teach obedience for the sake of obedience. The demons of the Abyss also operate this way.

All examples that couldn't possibly work in the "real" world, but clearly exist in D&D and other fantasy tropes. :-)

[Eigenclass]

This is quite reminiscent of the Fire and Brimstone theology of Cotton Mather: you are nothing but a spider that God holds dangling by the leg over a pit of fire, and He alone determines your fate.

Remember - in our world, theology. In their's? Any ol' Berk can Gate over to the afterlife and look for themselves, or defy their deity and get all your clothes spectacularly color-changed to grey.

Also, I can't resist - in Drowiet Faerun, spider dangles you!

[JSSheridan]

...Remarkable. How exactly would you even have a game in your "no free will included" gaming framework?

I thought the DM in DM of the Rings was a railroader, but not including free will absolutely requires every session to consist of you telling the players, "You do this. Then you do this. Then you do this. What do you mean, you want to do something different? You think we have free will here?"

Well you don't understand what I mean and are already putting words in my mouth, so I'm not having this argument.

Let me just leave you with this: Believing we're free to make a choice is a lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night.

[SadisticFishing]

First off: the Alignment system simplified:
- An evil act pushes you towards the evil end of the system.
- A good act pushes your alignment towards the good end.




Yes, this is correct. After this you go completely non sequitur though.

Your next logical step is "A black dragon is always chaotic evil."

It isn't that a black dragon is inherently chaotic evil no matter what - it's that the acts it takes are evil ones, and ALL black dragons end up chaotic evil.

-A character with an evil alignment has many evil acts, or intends to.
-A character with a good alignment has committed many good acts (and few evil acts).
-Black dragons all have evil alignments.

Ergo, black dragons have all committed evil acts, or will later.

You're looking at it from a weird direction - we have a rulebook though. ALL Black dragons are chaotic evil. No ifs ands or buts.

[factotum]

You're looking at it from a weird direction - we have a rulebook though. ALL Black dragons are chaotic evil. No ifs ands or buts.

Even the rulebook doesn't say that. "Always Chaotic Evil", as Kish points out, means that almost all examples are CE, but it is still possible to find the one in a thousand who is not. This is almost certainly rules fluff to allow DMs to not be straitjacketed into having their friendly black dragon NPC be Chaotic Evil no matter what, but nonetheless, it's there in the rules. There are even examples of demons or what-have-you--beings who are the essence of a particular alignment--being a different alignment; Fall-From-Grace, the Lawful Neutral Succubus from Planescape: Torment, springs to mind.

[Cronos988]

Well, while "good" and "evil" are only relative terms in the real world, they are absolute in the D&D Universe.

That means that if a Black Dragons genome (it's nature) causes it to be selfish and sadistical, it will always be evil, because such traits are defined as evil in the D&D framework. Sure the dragon is sentient and has free will, but free will is not absolute freedom (aka randomness), but rather a degree of freedom within the framework of its nature. If its nature is evil, then his actions will, statistically, also be evil.

Note that an absolute system of morality like in D&D requires us to measure actions solely based on intent, not effect. If the intent is selfish, sadistic etc... its an evil action, even if it saves the lifes of thousands.

[Kish]

Well, while "good" and "evil" are only relative terms in the real world,

Debatable, but not legal to debate here...

they are absolute in the D&D Universe.

...true...


That means that if a Black Dragons genome (it's nature)

Horrific false definition there...

causes it to be selfish and sadistical, it will always be evil, because such traits are defined as evil in the D&D framework.

If this means, "There is no question of looking at a creature who acts evil and arguing that it isn't actually evil," it's true, but I don't see how it's terribly relevant.

If, as putting "it's[sic] nature" in a parenthetical for "genome" implies, this is another assertion that all black dragons are evil, then no. Not only not proven, nothing you've said is evidence for it.


Note that an absolute system of morality like in D&D requires us to measure actions solely based on intent, not effect. If the intent is selfish, sadistic etc... its an evil action, even if it saves the lifes of thousands.
I think very few, if any, ethicists would agree that deontologist morality lends itself more readily to moral absolutes than consequentialist morality systems...much less that there is any validity at all to "if you believe there are moral absolutes you can't be a consequentialist."

[Acanous]

Even if something is "Always chaotic evil" that doesn't mean it can't have a few Lawful and or Good acts behind it, too. The acts could be completely random, driven by ease, opportunity, or how you felt at the time.
If you go around burning orphanages and kicking puppies, that doesn't mean you can't have a soft spot for kittens.

A decent example actually happened to me today, when my barbarian decided mid-combat to subdue and tie up one of the werewolf bandits that ambushed us. Everyone gave me weird looks, and even the DM asked what I planned to do with this NPC, as it was seriously just a random encounter which hadn't been fleshed out.

My responce was "I treat him kindly and well, keep him under watchful guard for the rest of the trip, and when we get to the next town, I see he is fairly and lawfully tried for banditry by the local authorities."

Why? Well, because it sets one heck of a good impression with those same local authorities. If something happens later, I'll probably have the benefit of the doubt. "It was an honest mistake".

Plus, dude was a bandit that attacked supply wagons. Prolly get free beer out of it.

When applied to Drow or Black Dragons, the former has a society which promotes evil and punishes good. This would cause most people to go with the more selfish/evil options and feel OK about it (See soviet russia) while the latter may have some kind of genetic memory ingraned upon it at birth. Either one CAN do good, if put in a situation where they find it advantagious, but is more likely to do evil.

[Cronos988]

Horrific false definition there...

If this means, "There is no question of looking at a creature who acts evil and arguing that it isn't actually evil," it's true, but I don't see how it's terribly relevant.

If, as putting "it's[sic] nature" in a parenthetical for "genome" implies, this is another assertion that all black dragons are evil, then no. Not only not proven, nothing you've said is evidence for it.


I did not mean to define anything, I used the word "nature" as a shorthand to describe the constraints that a Black Dragon's "brain structure", or "soul" (whichever applies in D&D) puts on his or her behaviour.

I was not making any argument that such constraints are in place in the OOTS-verse. But such constraints could logically explain why some creatures are by definition "evil" and others are not.



I think very few, if any, ethicists would agree that deontologist morality lends itself more readily to moral absolutes than consequentialist morality systems...much less that there is any validity at all to "if you believe there are moral absolutes you can't be a consequentialist."

I will admit that I have just googled these terms, but I would not call that a strictly deontologist morality. If anything, D&D seems pretty close to a concept of "virtue ethics". An act is evil if it signifies an "evil" character, regardless of the consequences or the rules. That seems to be pretty close to measuring actions purely based on intent. The way I understand the term, a deontologist might still consider killing a person evil, even if the intent was to save an orphanage. D&D morals, as I understand them, would probably not.

I do see your point though. A consequence that would benefit the "good" gods in D&D would by definition also be good. So killing a fiend is always good, no matter the reasons. D&D Morals seem to make more sense if they are applied to intent though, consequences can hardly be "lawful" or "chaotic".

[hamishspence]

The very reason for the existence of the dhaerow is that the Illithyri followed Araushnee into cruelty and consorting with demons.
Drow society is ruled by an evil sexist theocracy that routinely engages in sacrificing sentient beings and other unspeakable horrors.
Any Drow male that goes against the will of Lloth (or tries to serve the will of Lloth and fails, or for no reason at all really) usually ends up getting Dridered.
All of the Eliastree (sp?)-worshiping drow have been redeemed and transformed, and are thus no longer drow.


The Illithyrii weren't the only ones transformed- many of their green elf allies were, as well.

There's a lot of variety- not every drow is hopelessly devoted to Lolth. And even Lolth priestesses vary- Liriel Baenre was closer to CN than CE even when she was a priestess.

They weren't transformed until the Lady Penitent trilogy. And it had less to do with being Eilistraee-worshipping and more to do with being descended from green elves- those dark elves (including Drizzt) descended from the Illithyrii were not transformed by the events in the trilogy.

[sr123]

Believing we're free to make a choice is a lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night.

Except this cannot be used to argue for individual morality. It's a perfect point though, but if in its simplest form there's no Free Will for NPCs in D&D, then objective Alignments and the consequential ethics are justified straightforwardly enough, which I guess is your point.

That said, there are of course there are many fatalistic religions (Calvinism, etc.), and they often will use "Fire and Brimstone" or "Dangling Spider" to enforce consequentialist morality in lieu of Free Will. Thence comes the theory that Alignment in D&D is controlled by the gods and enforced on their patrons by that theology, in which case the question of Free Will is thrown back into the arena: What happens to the apostate -- the case where one god wins oversight of that person's soul from another god? (example question: does the god then have free will, and thus ability to change its own Alignment? Calvinism and Dr Who both say "yes, except no...")

And reiterating my earlier point: Evil in its "selfish" definition does not exist in pure form for a social animal. There is inherent self-sacrifice in having children, having a family unit, and especially in having a larger functioning society. There can be antisocial elements within that society, but a critical mass of "common goodsies" must yet exist to maintain some kind of social order. Thus the question again becomes one of objective Alignment: given all of the above, can Evil still exist in a pure form for an individual on all levels, and at that point can it ever be purely Good to kill a sentient social creature justified solely by a Detect Evil spell?


And anticipating a possible conterpoint: yes, one can have a society that functions by one "selfishly" wanting power and a stable government, and police "selfishly" wanting excuses to kill troublemakers, and citizens "selfishly" desiring that very protection and order so they don't die, and having children "selfishly" because of their biological urges. Invoking this argument I think loses usefulness -- either a being is sentient on some level or they are a glorified robot, and acting solely out of this type of "selfishness" is following robotic urges. A sentient being necessarily acts outside these urges, and whether through choice or random fluctuations about the mean, its choices can be for good or bad for the society. Is Belkar a mere line, a mechanical weapon for Roy to aim at the Bad Guys?

[Rajhiim]

Well you don't understand what I mean and are already putting words in my mouth, so I'm not having this argument.

Let me just leave you with this: Believing we're free to make a choice is a lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night.

That's one philosophy... but there are others that do say we have free will and it's only through free will we are validated, anything else is false.

That's another philosophy - no more "correct" than any other.

If it fits, wear it.

[hamishspence]

And reiterating my earlier point: Evil in its "selfish" definition does not exist in pure form for a social animal. There is inherent self-sacrifice in having children, having a family unit, and especially in having a larger functioning society.
All these could be said to be in one's own "genetic self-interest".


can Evil still exist in a pure form for an individual on all levels, and at that point can it ever be purely Good to kill a sentient social creature justified solely by a Detect Evil spell?

Eberron Campaign Setting argued that it wasn't justified- "They don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers"

And that's completely outside of the issue that not everyone that pings Detect Evil in fact has an evil alignment.

[Kish]

Let me just leave you with this: Believing we're free to make a choice is a lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night.I could take a guess at your favorite authors, but instead I'll just note that that assertion is much more "trite" than "profound."

[The Giant]

In the future, when people ask me to define what a "morally justified" thread looks like, I may link them back here.

Locked, probably with a few infractions for Real World politics/religion thrown in for good measure.