How much importance does "alignment" play in OotS characters personalities?

[Daniel Kay]

This may be a strange question.
I myself have not read much of the comic but it was recommended to me quite a bit and from some of the parts I read it does have good humor and all.

But there is a little something irking me. I know it's all based on DnD and its rule systems, but it's also parodying it.
However there is the question of how much characters alignment plays a role in their personality in the comic.

Now I actually less mean the main cast, I mean more the lesser important or side characters. And even more the ones that come with a "natural alignment" like the different dragon colors.

For example, I read quite a bit that the empress is an "evil aligned red dragon", but my question here is, is she evil because of acts she performs or simply "red dragon = evil"?

Also the weight of this, is evil a more vague concept or the hard lined "evil means they want to do bad stuff only"?


I know the question might be odd but I wanted to ask it because, personally, while I know you should let yourself get into the setting a bit and see things more loosely, I don't know if I can find much enjoyment of the majority of the comic if it is the "by the rules" way. Mostly because I do have certain character preferences which usually get stamped of as "standard evil" in most settings.


EDIT:
Also personally I care less for the "token minority" examples where there's ONE character out of a group that is handled in a different light but still everyone else is the same.

[Chess Tyrant]

The alignment system is one of the most controversial parts of D&D, basically because it tries to mathematically quantify things that, under many circumstances, simply can't be quantified. As a result, it's repeatedly addressed in the comic.

For PC's, it's 'actions = alignment:' their alignments are the dependent variables in the equation. For example, Belkar is chaotic evil because he runs around gleefully murdering things - he doesn't run around gleefully murdering things because he's chaotic evil. (He does it for $#!%s and giggles, actually.)

For monsters and NPCs, though, OOTS serves to deconstruct and analyze some of the alignment system. All too often, in D&D games, everyone assumes that the antagonists are just Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil), and this is reflected in the idea that certain creatures are just born irredeemably evil, no matter what. Redcloak's entire goblin revolution and its backstory is a deconstruction of this idea and how it might come to be; we see it discussed in V's treatment of the black dragon (spoiler below - don't read it until you get past comic #640); there's a story arc in On the Origins of PCs that deals with this... There's a lot of discussion on alignment and morality within the comic, which isn't surprising in a world where the most common profession for the players is murdering other sentient beings by the dozens or hundreds.

Regarding what it means to be evil, there are a lot of evil characters getting a lot of important screen time, so we see a lot of their motivations and what being evil means to them - and what evil would mean in a real world that's still bound by the D&D alignment system. Equally, look at Miko for an example of a person who is technically lawful good, simply because she checks all the boxes on a premade list.

V wipes out the black dragon's entire family line, and the families of all those creatures, with a single spell. This was widely denounced as an immoral act by the OOTS community (and by those few characters who are aware of it), but the subtext makes for a really interesting discussion. I recall Rich Burlew saying at some point that, if it is wrong to kill all the black dragons just because their statistics block says 'Alignment: Chaotic Evil,' then it is wrong to kill one black dragon for the same reason. Conversely, if you think attacking a black dragon just because they're labelled as evil is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (and pretty close to what the Order did while on their quest to fix Roy's sword) then V did nothing wrong in butchering a quarter of their race. (Although s/he did do wrong in killing any non-evil relatives of the ABD.)

[Daniel Kay]

Yea I read about that plotline already, that was one of the main points why I registered and also wanted to ask questions.
Also because I personally just can't find any sympathy with the classic "hard coded" and numerical alignment systems.

Though from what you wrote I might give the comic a bit of a read now if it really tries to deconstruct them.

Well ok partly I am also a bit of a sympathizer for some of the generally more "abused" characters in those settings, speaking of dragons and lizard/reptile people mostly (guess you can see where the always evil thing can bother me on that). Pretty much not only their treatment due to alignment but also because they are not human and therefor treated with "lesser importance".
A small example that kinda irked me was when the "linear guild" formed Malack was told to "man up" about having to join with the person who killed his children... my question is would that treatment have sat well with anyone if he was a human character?
Granted I don't know much about the community or what the opinion generally is, as said I haven't read much and only joined a few days ago so I might be off about this, but I just wanted to ask.

[Chess Tyrant]

OOTS is generally pretty good at picking apart the alignment system, but the most important part (Redcloak's backstory) happens in Start of Darkness.

Regardless of its stance on the alignment system, the comic is definitely worth reading - it's the best webcomic I've ever found, and one of the best stories I've ever read. :smallbiggrin:

[SadisticFishing]

Okay, the alignment system is far simpler and more elegant than it looks.

If you commit evil acts, or intend to actually commit you are evil. That is effectively the only way to become evil. It doesn't have to have happened already, but the moment the person decides (and I mean DECIDES, not considers) to slaughter a bunch of innocent people, they've become Evil.

Now, for creatures that are always Evil - they just have an inherent propensity towards those acts. Red Dragons are Always Chaotic Evil because they (genetically, magically, whatever) have already made the decision to hurt people, effectively. It's not that they don't have a choice, it's that they're already made their choices. It's who they are.

With things that AREN'T "Always X", there's a lot more leeway - but racial tendencies are still there. Most goblins are genuinely evil, in that they're going to do evil acts.

It's the fact that most goblins commit evil acts that makes the Monster Manual say "usually Evil", not the other way around.

[Chess Tyrant]

It's the fact that most goblins commit evil acts that makes the Monster Manual say "usually Evil", not the other way around.

Thanks for the explanation, since what I said is pretty hazy.

The deconstruction of the alignment system in OOTS is mostly aimed at a tendency among D&D players to get the last point backwards and assume that all goblins/dragons/whatever commit evil acts because their statistics block lists them as Evil. It could also be connected to a failure of most Dungeon Masters to design and roleplay evil races properly. (See: SoD.)

[factotum]

A small example that kinda irked me was when the "linear guild" formed Malack was told to "man up" about having to join with the person who killed his children... my question is would that treatment have sat well with anyone if he was a human character?


The person saying that to Malack was Tarquin, someone who he'd known and adventured with for decades...I suspect any lack of care in the audience came from that rather than any consideration of Malack's species. Gannji and Enor, on the other hand, are superb examples of non-humans in the comic that we're supposed to empathise with, while there are plenty of examples of human (or human-looking, anyway) characters who are really not very pleasant people, starting with Belkar and including Samantha (the bandit sorceress from an early side-quest) and even Miko.

Overall, I've never seen the slightest hint of "Oh, they're not human so they don't matter" in the strip, apart from in the opinion of characters who are not themselves good people!

[Asha]

Really, I'd be very surprised if this was the end of it. Malack backed off waay too easily there.

On the same issue, I remember when it looked like Malack was going to tear Nale - aka the person who killed his children - apart a bit earlier (Strip#811 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html)), most people in the main thread cheered him on. :)

[Steward]

Yeah, I definitely don't think that Rich had a problem with, "only non-human characters really count". Redcloak got an entire book's worth of character development to himself, and he only started out as Xykon's hapless lackey. Half of the Order of the Stick are non-human, and two of them have received their own story arcs (one of which is hotting up right now!) And I definitely don't think that Malack was meant to be unsympathetic in that scene!

[Michaeler]

A lot of people are interpreting Malack backing off as indicating that Tarquin gave a signal that it's not safe to discuss what's really going on. Thus Malack is biding his time in the hope he'll get a better chance later.

As for the original question, none whatsoever. The characters' personalities shape their alignments, not vice-versa.

[MeanMrsMustard]

A small example that kinda irked me was when the "linear guild" formed Malack was told to "man up" about having to join with the person who killed his children... my question is would that treatment have sat well with anyone if he was a human character?
Well, maybe it's just me, but I never saw it as being treated positively. Of course I thought it was ridiculous of Tarquin, but that scene was used more to show how bad Tarquin is, not that it doesn't matter that Nale killed Malack's kids just because Malack is a lizardfolk. I think that moment (as well as others) was included there so that we could see that Tarquin is, in fact, Evil. (With a capital E!) Tarquin is very charismatic, and funny, and all that fun stuff, so we need to see him doing things as little reminders that yes, he may be affable (http://www.tvtropes.org/main/AffablyEvil), but he's still evil. (Comic 759, the phoenix paté, etc.)
TL;DR: Tarquin telling Malack to man up was used to showcase Tarquin's character.

[Winter]

How much importance does "alignment" play in OotS characters personalities?

None. Alignment follows character and personality, not the other way around.

[veti]

Now, for creatures that are always Evil - they just have an inherent propensity towards those acts. Red Dragons are Always Chaotic Evil because they (genetically, magically, whatever) have already made the decision to hurt people, effectively. It's not that they don't have a choice, it's that they're already made their choices. It's who they are.

With things that AREN'T "Always X", there's a lot more leeway - but racial tendencies are still there. Most goblins are genuinely evil, in that they're going to do evil acts.

It's the fact that most goblins commit evil acts that makes the Monster Manual say "usually Evil", not the other way around.

I'm sorry, but... You're saying that most goblins are going to do evil acts because they're evil, but the only reason they're evil is because they're going to do evil acts? Is it just me, or does that seem disturbingly - circular - to anyone else?

As for the dragon, I can see three ways that might work:

Dragons' morality is enforced by some sort of ultra-strict deity who instantly destroys any dragon that deviates from its preset alignment. So alignment isn't a matter of choice for them, and you can tell from the fact that a red dragon is still alive that it's automatically CE.
The dragon's colour is actually determined by its alignment, not vice versa. If a dragon changes alignment it also changes colour to reflect that. So you can tell a red dragon is CE because it's red, but its parents and its offspring might be a whole rainbow of different colours.
The dragon is predisposed to be CE, because it's so big and powerful that it sees no reason to consider the position of any "lesser beings", and that's the culture its parents raise it in - but it can still change. So "always", in this context, doesn't really mean what it says.

Personally I like explanation (2) best, but I believe the official rulebook version is (3).

[rbetieh]

I'm sorry, but... You're saying that most goblins are going to do evil acts because they're evil, but the only reason they're evil is because they're going to do evil acts? Is it just me, or does that seem disturbingly - circular - to anyone else?

As for the dragon, I can see three ways that might work:

Dragons' morality is enforced by some sort of ultra-strict deity who instantly destroys any dragon that deviates from its preset alignment. So alignment isn't a matter of choice for them, and you can tell from the fact that a red dragon is still alive that it's automatically CE.
The dragon's colour is actually determined by its alignment, not vice versa. If a dragon changes alignment it also changes colour to reflect that. So you can tell a red dragon is CE because it's red, but its parents and its offspring might be a whole rainbow of different colours.
The dragon is predisposed to be CE, because it's so big and powerful that it sees no reason to consider the position of any "lesser beings", and that's the culture its parents raise it in - but it can still change. So "always", in this context, doesn't really mean what it says.

Personally I like explanation (2) best, but I believe the official rulebook version is (3).

Wait, dragon breath weapons are also determined by color. I thought Red Dragons were CE because they especially like to eat livestock and especially dont like peasants hurling rocks at them while they eat......

[veti]

Wait, dragon breath weapons are also determined by color. I thought Red Dragons were CE because they especially like to eat livestock and especially dont like peasants hurling rocks at them while they eat......

Yeah, but that's my explanation (3), and it carries the implication that they don't have to be that way, you could theoretically run into a good or neutral aligned red dragon.

As to the breath weapon - it's magical, there's no reason why that can't change too.

[Reverent-One]

I'm sorry, but... You're saying that most goblins are going to do evil acts because they're evil, but the only reason they're evil is because they're going to do evil acts? Is it just me, or does that seem disturbingly - circular - to anyone else?


No, he said most goblins are evil because they've decided to do evil acts, but didn't say why they made that decision. He did specifically say it's not just because they're listed as usually evil though.

[veti]

No, he said most goblins are evil because they've decided to do evil acts, but didn't say why they made that decision. He did specifically say it's not just because they're listed as usually evil though.

... and then he ascribed their propensity to do evil to "racial tendencies". That's called "having your cake and eating it too".

If there are "racial tendencies", that means they're evil because that's just the way goblins are. Which is indistinguishable from saying "because the Monster Manual says so".

[Reverent-One]

... and then he ascribed their propensity to do evil to "racial tendencies". That's called "having your cake and eating it too".

If there are "racial tendencies", that means they're evil because that's just the way goblins are. Which is indistinguishable from saying "because the Monster Manual says so".

So a DM describing the goblin culture in such a way that explains the racial/culture influences that result in a trend toward evil is the same as just going "Eh, the MM says so"?

[rbetieh]

Yeah, but that's my explanation (3), and it carries the implication that they don't have to be that way, you could theoretically run into a good or neutral aligned red dragon.

As to the breath weapon - it's magical, there's no reason why that can't change too.

Yes, but imagine what that looks like. A red dragon living in a mountain cave that either shepards his own sheep or grows his own organic vegetables and mainly keeps to himself. Such a dragon would either have no gold hoard to steal (he is a hermit, but he is supposed to have a bunch of money simply because he is a dragon and those are the dumb rules) or he is a benevolent Scrooge McDragon that made his money through honest and legal ventures while not scaring his trading partners with the fact that he is a .... dragon. To this day, I still have no idea why Gold Dragons have hoards at all. How did they get that money and why would they keep it instead of using it to help people?

Of course, the thought of a Scottish accented red dragon business entrepenuer is intriguing, time to flesh out such a character. He's the richest guy in RedDragonsville (which incidently is a town that exists in oots :smallbiggrin: )

[Bastian Weaver]

The goblins have racial tendencies to behave in an evil way. Because of that - and perhaps other reasons - many of them do just that, and they're considered Evil because of their behaviour. Thus, the goblins are "usually Evil". Which means "if you meet a goblin, he's probably evil. Maybe not all of them, but the odds are high. Because they're naturally agressive and don't go to good schools".
Does that sound logical?
Now, about OotS... Roy is Lawful Good, and what's more important - he tries to act like that, even if sometimes he has his bad moments. So alignment is important, but what's more important is how you play the game.
Something like that.

[Math_Mage]

Goblins are specified as Usually Neutral Evil in the MM. The REASON WHY they are UNE is left unspecified. That means the DM can decide it's due to racial tendencies, a history of oppression, a fanatic religious cult, or something else entirely. The only thing that matters is that it's not "Because the MM says so," because that's lazy worldbuilding and lazy DMing.

As for why good dragons have hoards, they acquire them the same way adventurers acquire hoards--by defeating the hordes of evil that are in the way. :smallwink:

Anyway, to the OP, if you dislike lazy by-the-book interpretations and 'token minority' examples, you will LOVE Order of the Stick and you should read it right now. Get to archive crawlin'.

[Dracarot]

Yes, but imagine what that looks like. A red dragon living in a mountain cave that either shepards his own sheep or grows his own organic vegetables and mainly keeps to himself. Such a dragon would either have no gold hoard to steal (he is a hermit, but he is supposed to have a bunch of money simply because he is a dragon and those are the dumb rules) or he is a benevolent Scrooge McDragon that made his money through honest and legal ventures while not scaring his trading partners with the fact that he is a .... dragon. To this day, I still have no idea why Gold Dragons have hoards at all. How did they get that money and why would they keep it instead of using it to help people?

Of course, the thought of a Scottish accented red dragon business entrepenuer is intriguing, time to flesh out such a character. He's the richest guy in RedDragonsville (which incidently is a town that exists in oots :smallbiggrin: )

Well Metallic dragons could theoretically raid the forces of evil for their hordes of treasure though there are other methods. Trading extra meat for treasure is one possibility, the dragon species that breathe fire can forge items (that's what the Red Dragon Hephaestus did in R.A. Salvatore's works) so there are methods for a dragon to get treasure by trade.

[Calliope121]

I agree. Oots is mainly making fun of the alignment system, not supporting it as a means of deciding a characters fate. In many ways, it is completely ignoring the alignment system (Miko ring any bells?) and instead using the alignment system as a way to make you think about the mechanics of the world of DnD at all

[Math_Mage]

I agree. Oots is mainly making fun of the alignment system, not supporting it as a means of deciding a characters fate. In many ways, it is completely ignoring the alignment system (Miko ring any bells?) and instead using the alignment system as a way to make you think about the mechanics of the world of DnD at all

Miko is definitely NOT an example of OotS ignoring the alignment system. Miko parodies the stereotypical player's response to the Paladin's Code in NCftPB by being Technically Lawful Good, and in W&XPs she provides the archetypal "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" story of a paladin's fall. The alignment system is a heavy player in these themes.

[Dwy]

- A well-written character is more than a race/class-combo, some templates and some alignment.

An alignment is a simplified pointer to the essecense of a character's way of thinking, or moral codes, but says nothing about what made the character think/act like that.

Alignments are tools. Characters should always be more than that.
In OotS I for one would argue the vast majority of them are.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not completely certain which side of the "morally justified"-rule some arguments above my post here is. No insult to the above posters, but well, it could go the wrong way if we don't take some care ;)

[veti]

So a DM describing the goblin culture in such a way that explains the racial/culture influences that result in a trend toward evil is the same as just going "Eh, the MM says so"?

That would be a "cultural tendency", not a "racial tendency".

Calling it "cultural" makes it clear that if an individual goblin is removed from that environment and raised by (say) Elan and Haley, there's no reason to suppose it will be prone to evil in later life, any more than their biological children would be. Conversely, if Inkyrius had been killed (by the dragon, say) and his two children were later found alive and raised by goblins, there's every reason to suppose they would very likely have turned out evil.

My argument is: if your explanation for goblins being "usually evil" is biological, then you haven't really moved beyond "because the MM says so" as an explanation, even if you think you have.


Of course, the thought of a Scottish accented red dragon business entrepenuer is intriguing, time to flesh out such a character. He's the richest guy in RedDragonsville (which incidently is a town that exists in oots :smallbiggrin: )

I'm looking forward to fleshing out the character of the Extremely Impressionable Dragon, who is so easily swayed by philosophical arguments that he routinely changes colour three or four times while listening to a heated debate.

I'm glad something so productive has come out of this thread. Thank you.

[Math_Mage]

That would be a "cultural tendency", not a "racial tendency".

Calling it "cultural" makes it clear that if an individual goblin is removed from that environment and raised by (say) Elan and Haley, there's no reason to suppose it will be prone to evil in later life, any more than their biological children would be. Conversely, if Inkyrius had been killed (by the dragon, say) and his two children were later found alive and raised by goblins, there's every reason to suppose they would very likely have turned out evil.

My argument is: if your explanation for goblins being "usually evil" is biological, then you haven't really moved beyond "because the MM says so" as an explanation, even if you think you have.

FWIW, the PHB makes it a little bit of both: an orc raised by humans is less likely to be racially aligned, and a human raised by orcs is more likely to be orc-racially aligned, but it's not a total conversion, suggesting some inherent factors. I don't have my book handy, but the discussion is right above the alignment chart showing what races map to which alignments.

[Valyrian]

To this day, I still have no idea why Gold Dragons have hoards at all. How did they get that money and why would they keep it instead of using it to help people?
I've always thought that keeping a hoard is just the dragons' way of life. Similar to how humans like to have decently furnished houses without being constantly being called out on that they can't be good just because they continue to have stuff they don't necessarily need to survive. It's just that the perception of utility and value of hoards varies between dragons and humans (or other races).

[Reverent-One]

That would be a "cultural tendency", not a "racial tendency".

Calling it "cultural" makes it clear that if an individual goblin is removed from that environment and raised by (say) Elan and Haley, there's no reason to suppose it will be prone to evil in later life, any more than their biological children would be. Conversely, if Inkyrius had been killed (by the dragon, say) and his two children were later found alive and raised by goblins, there's every reason to suppose they would very likely have turned out evil.

My argument is: if your explanation for goblins being "usually evil" is biological, then you haven't really moved beyond "because the MM says so" as an explanation, even if you think you have.

Because there's been absolutely no races in fantasy/sci-fi literature that are more inclined towards good/evil other than in D&D, so the only reason why such an idea might exist is because the MM says so.

More seriously, the question of whether humanity is inherently good, evil, or neither hasn't been conclusively answered as far as I know. So if we can't even be certain about whether or not it's a factor in the real world, who are you to say it's automatically wrong in a fictional one?


FWIW, the PHB makes it a little bit of both: an orc raised by humans is less likely to be racially aligned, and a human raised by orcs is more likely to be orc-racially aligned, but it's not a total conversion, suggesting some inherent factors. I don't have my book handy, but the discussion is right above the alignment chart showing what races map to which alignments.

This. Though this obviously won't satisfy Veti, since it's just repeating what a book says.

[Daniel Kay]

Seems like I kicked off a bit more of an discussion than intended but I guess that is at least partly the intention of OotS.

I don't think I could even befriend myself with alignment systems as they actually make things more complicated the more you think about it as opposed to simpler as they where intended.

Especially because a lot of things are subjective AND they can actually be objective and still arguable.
For example, RL cinnamon is poisonous to cats, if you'd transplant that to a fantasy setting that has cat people to them it could be poisonous as well. So to THEM sprinkling cinnamon on someones food could be seen as an EVIL act while to us it would generally be seen as a kind act.

I have been trying to come up with a few fantasy environments myself, one thing I do is actually base cultural and developmental differences on the morphology and actual physical/genetic differences between the worlds inhabitants. Those are realistic factors how they developed different law sets based on their needs, wants and abilities/drawbacks instead of saying "they are born as X so they do bad stuff".

[veti]

Because there's been absolutely no races in fantasy/sci-fi literature that are more inclined towards good/evil other than in D&D, so the only reason why such an idea might exist is because the MM says so.

Various authors have indeed presented races that are associated with what in D&D would be called "alignments", but those authors - the ones who were any good, at least - also presented some sort of arguments explaining why this was the case. Not just "biology" or "racial tendencies", but actual honest to goodness reasons that are part of their respective worlds' (or races') cosmology.

And where "biology" is the root of the alignment difference, I think you'll usually find that "alignment" itself is defined quite simply in terms of "us vs them". Biological alignment is not compatible with D&D's idea of "absolute" standards of morality.


More seriously, the question of whether humanity is inherently good, evil, or neither hasn't been conclusively answered as far as I know. So if we can't even be certain about whether or not it's a factor in the real world, who are you to say it's automatically wrong in a fictional one?

Our whole society is based on the assumption that morality is a matter of choice, not birth. Take away that assumption, and the whole idea of "morality" itself pretty much falls apart. If "good" is something you're born with, rather than something you choose, then what exactly does it mean, and what's the point of praising or rewarding it? Where's the justice in gods who reward goodness and punish evil, if it was those selfsame gods who implanted those traits in the people to begin with?

No, I can't say it's "automatically wrong". I can, however, say that if that's your working assumption, you are giving yourself a lot more intellectual groundwork to do before your world starts to look half-way coherent.

[Reverent-One]

Various authors have indeed presented races that are associated with what in D&D would be called "alignments", but those authors - the ones who were any good, at least - also presented some sort of arguments explaining why this was the case. Not just "biology" or "racial tendencies", but actual honest to goodness reasons that are part of their respective worlds' (or races') cosmology.

And yet the point of yours I was responding to seemed to deny that biology could play any part. If you're now saying you just meant there needs to be in-universe explanation to go along with it, we don't disagree. Basically I'm just with Math_Mage on this.


Goblins are specified as Usually Neutral Evil in the MM. The REASON WHY they are UNE is left unspecified. That means the DM can decide it's due to racial tendencies, a history of oppression, a fanatic religious cult, or something else entirely. The only thing that matters is that it's not "Because the MM says so," because that's lazy worldbuilding and lazy DMing.

[avakeiya]

When I picture the alignment system's effect on whether a race is always or usually good or evil, i imagined it's 50/50 nature vs nurture.

Take orcs, which are listed as chaotic evil. According to the monster manual they are aggressive and believe that to survive they must conquer as much territory as possible. Their gods teach them that other species are inferior and stole what rightfully belongs to the orcs. They are patriarchal with women relegated to trophies and breeding stock, and scars and battle prowess are signs of pride and worth.

These are mostly cultural sources of their general alignment, brought on by environment, religious teachings, and societal standards. If that was all that was controlling alignment then an orc raised among good aligned humans would also turn out good.

But then you look at half orcs, who according to the PHB have personalities that are short tempered and sullen, with the tendencies to fight instead of argue. This correlates with the orc's aggressive personalty as described by the MM, and the PHB even says that they need to have self control to suppress these urges to survive and thrive in civilized society.

To me that means that there is a biological factor to each race that makes it easier to lean towards one alignment over the other. Orcs and Half-Orc's brains may just be wired to be more aggressive and territorial. Maybe they have more testosterone in their system so they anger more easily. And if you anger quicker than others, and have the strength and skill to take out your aggression and win, you might become arrogant and prideful and develop a superiority complex. Then you stop caring about those weaker than you, start killing for fun or profit and then become evil.

So a race labeled usually evil could come from a society that promotes selfishness and violence, or be wired for aggression and being territorial, or have the physique needed to just take what they want without worrying about consequences. They still have a choice, they still control their actions, but these factors make it more likely to encounter a chaotic evil orc rather than a lawful good one.

[rbetieh]

When I picture the alignment system's effect on whether a race is always or usually good or evil, i imagined it's 50/50 nature vs nurture.

Take orcs, which are listed as chaotic evil. According to the monster manual they are aggressive and believe that to survive they must conquer as much territory as possible. Their gods teach them that other species are inferior and stole what rightfully belongs to the orcs. They are patriarchal with women relegated to trophies and breeding stock, and scars and battle prowess are signs of pride and worth.

These are mostly cultural sources of their general alignment, brought on by environment, religious teachings, and societal standards. If that was all that was controlling alignment then an orc raised among good aligned humans would also turn out good.

But then you look at half orcs, who according to the PHB have personalities that are short tempered and sullen, with the tendencies to fight instead of argue. This correlates with the orc's aggressive personalty as described by the MM, and the PHB even says that they need to have self control to suppress these urges to survive and thrive in civilized society.

To me that means that there is a biological factor to each race that makes it easier to lean towards one alignment over the other. Orcs and Half-Orc's brains may just be wired to be more aggressive and territorial. Maybe they have more testosterone in their system so they anger more easily. And if you anger quicker than others, and have the strength and skill to take out your aggression and win, you might become arrogant and prideful and develop a superiority complex. Then you stop caring about those weaker than you, start killing for fun or profit and then become evil.

So a race labeled usually evil could come from a society that promotes selfishness and violence, or be wired for aggression and being territorial, or have the physique needed to just take what they want without worrying about consequences. They still have a choice, they still control their actions, but these factors make it more likely to encounter a chaotic evil orc rather than a lawful good one.

But half-orcs are probably short tempered because they are ugly and not treated well by others. Not to mention the whole -2 to Cha means they lack force of personality. Even the most upstanding Half-Orc isn't really someone people look up to.....

I like OOTS Orcs/Wild Half-Orcs. They just want to have fun, by rampaging. And they get along great with others who want to have fun too.....

[Alanzeign]

Well, I always saw it as the core material as being a guideline for DMs.

If a race is usually evil, the DM is supposed to come up with reasons that they are usually evil. A huge factor in this is cultural. There is no reason that a race can't be ALWAYS evil, as in the definition of always, but this requires a certain fluff such as magical domination or a race being created like constructs. The main reason is that if they are a sentient race capable of complex thoughts and emotions, it is impossible for them to always turn out the under the same alignment due to their free will.

A biological tendency towards anger might exist, but not evil. Rich has said numerous times how having a race defined as evil simply because they have different skin or color or culture is flat out wrong and disgusting.

People (and races in D&D that mimic people in the way that they can communicate and actively make choices about how they act, meaning dragons, kobolds, orcs, or whatever) aren't just born with an interpretation of how to live. Evil/Good/Neutrality/other is largely culturally infused, but also personally chosen. Culture plays a part in usually alignment races, but even in technically "always" races there is the occasional deviant. The reason for "always alignment" races is so there is something for people to kill in D&D, because that's what you do in D&D to level up and progress.

The system creates guidelines to create a world and it is up to the DM to realize that world. Unfortunately, most people take the alignment system as "they are this way because the book says so" rather than "they do these evil things, hence they are this alignment." Oots does its best to show many different archetypes that prove the alignment system works, and specifically how players sometimes interpret it and cause it to fail. I think it is a very interesting read that challenges the reader to explore these different ideas of alignment, culture, and race. That's probably why people constantly debate these things on this forum. :smallwink:

[SadisticFishing]

It's not circular at all.

If there was no alignment system in D&D, Goblins would still act the way they do.

They act that way because they're goblins, and that makes them evil

Evil is a description, like calling goblins "short and orange", we also call them "evil". YES, the monster manual calling them short and orange is technically what makes them short and orange, but it's not the in-universe reason for it.

You're mixing up meta and in-world.

So to reiterate: The monster manual technically is the reason for everything, but the causality is:

The monster manual says they are short, orange, and evil -> ingame, they are short, orange, and commit evil acts -> they have an evil alignment.

Acting evil causes having an evil alignment, not the other way around.

[Daniel Kay]

Well OK, going with "the alignment is dictated by behavior" is ok, but there's still a question open.

Who or what dictated what the evil acts are and why should creatures be compelled to just do it without any reason given?


From what I got the definitions of good and evil ARE absolutes in DnD, what is seen as evil for one thing is also seen as evil for another with only "loopholes" allowing you to bend the rules (like killing is evil unless you kill someone evil).

If it was dictated from just one standpoint it's hardly fair in any way. I gave the "cats and cinnamon" example before, to a cat race putting cinnamon in food would be an evil act as it's poisonous to cats while to humans it would be a kind act as it makes food taste better.
If it only takes the human standpoint it's unfair towards a cat race, if it only take the cat race standpoint it's unfair towards humans. But it can't take both standpoints as it has an absolute "this is good/evil" dictate on it (not necessarily that specific example but you can extrapolate from it).

Then there's compulsion. If you have an entire race that has the compulsion "go out and kill humans" I would call that bad writing above all, not a believable race.
Now however if this compulsion is based on a physical necessity, lets take a race that requires to ingest blood (no, lets not say vampires, that has too much bad associations to be fairly evaluated) would it be fair in any way to call them evil for doing that?
Or if the compulsion is a derivative, like if dragons hoarding gold would be based on a natural compulsion to collect shiny materials because in their early development it was something useful to them, how could you call that evil. At most that would be a "bad habit".
And further, if someone or something put that compulsion into them, lets say a deity, than that being would be the evil one for putting it into them, not the creature it affects.

[Kish]

If it was dictated from just one standpoint it's hardly fair in any way. I gave the "cats and cinnamon" example before, to a cat race putting cinnamon in food would be an evil act as it's poisonous to cats while to humans it would be a kind act as it makes food taste better.
If it only takes the human standpoint it's unfair towards a cat race, if it only take the cat race standpoint it's unfair towards humans. But it can't take both standpoints as it has an absolute "this is good/evil" dictate on it (not necessarily that specific example but you can extrapolate from it).

Putting poison in food is generally evil. Putting flavoring in food is not. Neither of those is any different for the existence of a species which uses the poison as flavoring, or for which the flavoring is poisonous.

From that, you cannot derive the morality of "putting cinnamon in food" without more information. But that's not a flaw in the alignment system, since there's no reason you should be able to. For that matter, you don't need to add nonhuman species; lots of foodstuffs (nuts, bread, dairy products...) are poisonous to significant numbers of humans.

[Morty]

When thinking about how alignment affects OoTS characters' personalities, I think Redcloak, Nale and Tarquin are best examples of how flexible it is in this story. They're all Lawful Evil, and yet completely different. Now, Nale and Tarquin have somewhat similar personalities - they're both egomaniancs and just use different means to sate their egos - but neither of them can really compare with Redcloak in terms of motivation, methods and overall personality.

[FujinAkari]

like calling goblins "short and orange",

Are we looking at the same Goblins? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)

[SadisticFishing]

...

It's like calling red dragons red then. It's not about OotS, it's about D&D.

DMs can do what they want.

[veti]

Putting poison in food is generally evil. Putting flavoring in food is not. Neither of those is any different for the existence of a species which uses the poison as flavoring, or for which the flavoring is poisonous.

Putting poison in food is only evil if you intend to do someone harm by it.

Putting, say, peanuts in food is not evil, even though some people are massively allergic to peanuts, unless you do it with the intention of feeding it to someone you know will be harmed by it.

It's not what you do, it's why you do it that makes an act 'good' or 'evil'. Killing someone just to get your hands on their magic sword = bad. Killing that same person in order to prevent that same sword from slicing through some random passer by = good. It doesn't make any difference if the sword-holder is a paladin or an assassin - all that matters is what motivated you.


The monster manual says they are short, orange, and evil -> ingame, they are short, orange, and commit evil acts -> they have an evil alignment.

Acting evil causes having an evil alignment, not the other way around.

You still haven't explained what makes them evil. All you're saying is "They commit evil acts because the Monster Manual says they're evil". And then you say "They're evil because they commit evil acts, not the other way around". But the only reason you've given for them to commit those acts is the stated fact that they're evil, in the same way as they're "orange"...

That's so circular we could hula it all week.

[SadisticFishing]

They commit evil acts because the DM has them commit evil acts in the background, hence earning their Evil alignments.

Else they wouldn't have evil alignments - the system talks about acts and intentions, not inherentness.

A creature is evil if and only if it commits evil acts (which we don't need to define here, it's not relevant to our specific definition). Otherwise, by the D&D rules it is not evil.

Most goblins are evil.

Hence, most goblins commit evil acts.

The monster manual says they're evil, which it would only say if they commit evil acts, which in turn make them Evil. It's not circular at all, it's simple straightforward causality. It just starts in an odd place due to the fact that it involves a rulebook.

Picture it as two different things happening: we have the out-of-game MM, which tells us what goblins are like in game.

Then we have the in-game world, in which goblins commit evil acts. This causes them to have evil alignments in-game.

The reason it seems circular is that there's no box for "meta-alignment" in the MM, as it would be redundant.

To please you, it seems that it would need something saying "Goblins commit evil acts often," somewhere in the MM, as WELL as saying "Goblins: Usually evil." Every single monster would require that, else we run into our "circular logic". So they left that bit out.

It's not circular, it just starts at alignment (meta), moves to actions, and ends with alignment (in-game)

[Dr.Epic]

Well Roy is supposedly LG, but he never acts it.

[Palthera]

Well Roy is supposedly LG, but he never acts it.

My assessment of Roy is pretty much that of the archon judging him. He's definitely and obviously good, he actively combats evil and even shows concern for those who are technically his enemies. Like his concern for YY when he's sent off to "detect" the traps on the pyramid.
And I agree with the archon on the "lawful" bit too, he's very dedicated to one cause, but occasionally slips on his execution. But no one's perfect.

But then I don't know how you expect a lawful good person to act...

[SadisticFishing]

He believes it and does his best to act it... He acts LG relatively often.

[Michaeler]

As for the question of what constitutes an evil act, be aware that gods can objectively identify Mens Rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea).

[Dr.Epic]

He believes it and does his best to act it... He acts LG relatively often.

Yeah like...

-Abandoning a loyal teammate to hostile enemy forces (and being happy to get rid of said teammate)
-Betraying his entire party for an attractive you only care about physically female who moments ago was trying to kill your entire party
-in no way atoning for these major offenses you committed

[LadyEowyn]

Oh, come one. In the first case, Roy realized he was wrong and went back to rescue Elan. In the second case, Miko trying to kill them was due to a misunderstanding, and stopping the fight was more of a Good option than killing her (and since she represented a legitimate authority, letting her take them captive was the Lawful action). Roy isn't as Lawful as, say, Durkon, who was willing to leave party members to life imprisonment based on the laws of a tyrannical state, but he does his best to follow the law within the bounds of reason.

From what I've seen in the comic, there's room for a wide range of personalities within a single alignment. LG includes Roy, Durkon, Lien and O-Chul among others, and they're not all that similar personality-wise. Shojo and Haley aren't particularly alike, but both are Chaotic Good; both are a lot more pragmatic than Elan, but he's also CG. Lawful Evil ranges from Tarquin (charming but unapologetically evil, happy to kill people for trivialities, and entirely in it for himself - "I get to live like a god for three decades") to Redcloak (anti-human and with a potentially world-destroying scheme, but genuinely cares about his people and looks out for them).

So no, alignment doesn't determine personality.

[Palthera]

Yeah like...

-Abandoning a loyal teammate to hostile enemy forces (and being happy to get rid of said teammate)
-Betraying his entire party for an attractive you only care about physically female who moments ago was trying to kill your entire party
-in no way atoning for these major offenses you committed

I'm with LadyEowyn, he showed remorse for the first offense (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html 7th panel), realised he was a disgrace to his alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html) and then went to rescue the rest of his party. He was even going to confess to what he'd done to Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0172.html) except that Haley defended him. How much more atonement do you want?

And I don't think the second one is anything other than good, siding with the legal authority of a paladin for a crime you legitimately thought you'd committed? Sounds lawful to me...

[Jaros]

And I don't think the second one is anything other than good, siding with the legal authority of a paladin for a crime you legitimately thought you'd committed? Sounds lawful to me...

His motives for that were kinda suspect, but he owned up to that & realised he'd done wrong.

[veti]

And I don't think the second one is anything other than good, siding with the legal authority of a paladin for a crime you legitimately thought you'd committed? Sounds lawful to me...

Well, the "legal authority" of the paladin is very suspect (as Roy points out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html) later). And the justification that Shojo gives at that stage relies on Secret Voodoo Knowledge that the party isn't privy to at the time.

Paladins don't automatically have "legal" authority everywhere they go. What they may have is a sort of moral authority - because of who Miko is, she gets the benefit of the doubt, and Roy is willing to assume that her motives are good and she doesn't really wish them any harm.

[Particle_Man]

The dragon's colour is actually determined by its alignment, not vice versa. If a dragon changes alignment it also changes colour to reflect that. So you can tell a red dragon is CE because it's red, but its parents and its offspring might be a whole rainbow of different colours.

A bit off-topic, but that would be an interesting idea if one extended it to everything in the game. So that a goblin who became a lawful good would immediately become a dwarf or halfling, and a human would became evil would immediately become one of the "evil" humanoids, (orc, goblin, hobgoblin) etc.

Hmmmm . . . I wonder if I can sell some players on this idea . . . :smallcool:

[Math_Mage]

You still haven't explained what makes them evil. All you're saying is "They commit evil acts because the Monster Manual says they're evil". And then you say "They're evil because they commit evil acts, not the other way around". But the only reason you've given for them to commit those acts is the stated fact that they're evil, in the same way as they're "orange"...

That's so circular we could hula it all week.

The reason people can't give you a definitive answer as to what exactly makes goblins evil is that the whole point is to leave that up to the DM.

"Goblins: Usually Evil. You get to decide whether it's because they got screwed by creation, because they're devoted followers of a world-eating cult, because it's Relativistic Alignment time and they happen to be fighting humans, because their creator Lraweoijoea implanted them with an inborn hatred of all that is good and pure, or whatever else."