PDA

View Full Version : What alignment would you give these sort of druids?



Agrippa
2012-03-31, 12:32 AM
Out of general curiosity I'd like to ask the good people of Giant in the Playground forums, just as I asked at Minmax, what sort of alignment they would assign to the druids depicted in this article (http://www.2worthingtons.net/downloads/druids.pdf). Not based on the writer's claims but upon your judgement of course.

hamishspence
2012-03-31, 04:12 AM
Their overall goal (eliminating the influences of every Aligned force) is a slightly iffy one- when compared to a "live and let live" version of non-evilness.

How they go about this may determine their actual alignment (as opposed to the one they perceive themselves to be- which is True Neutral).

If they massacre Always Good monster races- just because, being Always Good, they are "unnatural" I'd have no problem giving them an Evil alignment.

If they're more subtle in their opposition to "aligned forces"- neutral may be more feasible.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-31, 10:55 AM
An organized group of fanatics who think that the only way to bring "balance" to the world is to destroy all evil and good creatures? Deluded lawful evil who think they're true neutral.

In fact, the standard DND pre-3e druid, with his approach of "keep balance by committing an equal amount of good and evil acts, helping the villagers first and then the goblins" is almost always some flavour of evil. That's not how neutrality works.

Agrippa
2012-03-31, 12:28 PM
You won't find any arguments from on this topic Tengu. The druids in this article fit Lawful Evil much better than they do True Neutral. In fact, the way I imagine heroic True Neutral would be something like how Neil Gaiman described John Constantine in the Books of Magic. "John Constantine… Yes. He dances on the edge of the known, like a crazy man, pitting himself against heaven and the pit, because he is John Constantine; and because he is alive." Morally ambiguous and with the nigh suicidal urge to piss of some of the most powerful entities in the universe. Combine that with little or no interest in what shape society takes and you get True Neutral.

Ravens_cry
2012-03-31, 12:40 PM
Indeed, Evil of some flavour would be definitely my response as well.
Even if Neutrality did work like that, there is infinite layers to the Abyss, and therefore Infinite demons, but not so with the Good aligned planes. So killing enough of an equal number of Always Evil creatures and Always Good creatures would result in a victory for Chaotic Evil.

hamishspence
2012-03-31, 01:32 PM
"ejecting the invaders" is a little sympathetic- but not when those so-called invaders are willing to get along with the rest of the world.

Necromancers in the Diablo-verse have a similar attitude to the creatures of the High Heavens and the Burning Hells- but since both tend to destroy the planets they are fighting over, the desire of the Necromancers to protect their home world is understandable.

That said, in that setting the angels have not come to the planet much since the last occasion (the Sin War) whereas the demons have been subtly corrupting the planet and its creatures, and sometimes coming in force.

So the Necromancers are mostly defending others from demon attacks.

Coidzor
2012-03-31, 01:39 PM
I'd peg 'em as evil of some stripe.


Indeed, Evil of some flavour would be definitely my response as well.
Even if Neutrality did work like that, there is infinite layers to the Abyss, and therefore Infinite demons, but not so with the Good aligned planes. So killing enough of an equal number of Always Evil creatures and Always Good creatures would result in a victory for Chaotic Evil.

Nah, Bloodwar would continue to be a stalemate.

Ravens_cry
2012-03-31, 01:53 PM
Nah, Bloodwar would continue to be a stalemate.
Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

Eloel
2012-03-31, 02:15 PM
Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

Forces of True Neutral? If they could wipe off everything that could reliably oppose Chaotic Evil, they can pretty easily keep them in check as well.

Coidzor
2012-03-31, 02:42 PM
Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

Well, let's just say that Asmodeus is the original Magnificent Bastard. And you were just talking about killing an equal number of Good and Evil creatures, rather than theoretically eliminating them altogether and keeping them eliminated for millennia.

Adventurers already kill off Evil gribblies and the like in spades and the Abyss isn't boiling over and destroying the setting before they're 10th level, generally speaking.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 05:56 PM
*shrug*

Divorcing RL morality from D&D morality is hard, but if they are clearly opposing Law, Chaos, Good AND Evil, they literally cannot be anything but True Neutral. We may call them "Evil" in our RL morality, but D&D doesn't work like that.

D&D morality doesn't run on philosophy and ethics, it runs on mathematics.

JCarter426
2012-04-01, 06:34 PM
Just because they claim to be something, or even think they're something, doesn't mean they are. Their goal is to destroy the establishment. That sounds fairly chaotic evil to me.

However, I don't think it's fair to judge them so unilaterally. Intent has to matter somewhat... and accidents do happen. Look at the Linear Guild: They're agents of chaos, but not all of them, individually, are chaotic by alignment. In fact, just look at any typical adventuring party: They're usually a mix of various flavors of good, but leave behind a lot of collateral damage in their wake.

So I guess the group as a whole is chaotic evil, but its individuals could be of any alignment due to purported neutrality. You could have some chaotic evil beings that believe their chaotic evil ways are the way the universe works - see Belkar's views on the criminal justice system - some true neutral beings that just want to spread neutrality - "Tell my wife... hello." - and some lawful beings (maybe not lawful good) that equate balance with order. I don't think this is the author's intent, but it sounds like a pretty cool story idea to me.

Blacky the Blackball
2012-04-01, 06:51 PM
From that description, I'd say that druids would be a mix of alignments just as any other group of people would be.

Sure they all want outer-planar creatures (including gods) to leave this particular prime material world alone; but that has nothing to do with their individual ethics and morality. There can be good druids who wish to relocate outer planar creatures peaceably and with diplomacy as much as with force, and evil ones who wish to simply kill them all. Similarly there can be lawful druids who wish to arrange the removal of outer-planar creatures in a structured and ordered manner using long term plans and there can be chaotic ones who wish to simply do it in an ad-hoc manner as and when they get the opportunity.

The first couple of paragraphs of the article are at pains to point out that alignment in itself is not unnatural and neither druids nor Nature have any particular issue with good or evil existing - it's just part of natural free will. So I would expect there to be good and evil druids as well as lawful and chaotic druids, all of whom agree on a goal of ending outsider interference with their prime material world but who disagree vehemently on how that goal should be achieved.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 07:06 PM
D&D morality doesn't run on philosophy and ethics, it runs on mathematics.
Crud nuts. You got a real life person running the game, you can do better than video game style "Well ,you saved 500 kittens from a burning fire, but you tortured a small child to death. So. . .keep up the good work, Hero!"

Agrippa
2012-04-01, 07:08 PM
The druids in the article consider all gods to be alien parasites and their continued worship itself to be alien interference, which must be fought at all costs. It's not a view I would ascribe to my druids, but that's the author's choice.

Tengu_temp
2012-04-01, 07:13 PM
Divorcing RL morality from D&D morality is hard, but if they are clearly opposing Law, Chaos, Good AND Evil, they literally cannot be anything but True Neutral. We may call them "Evil" in our RL morality, but D&D doesn't work like that.

Opposing evil doesn't mean you're not evil yourself.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 07:41 PM
Crud nuts. You got a real life person running the game, you can do better than video game style "Well ,you saved 500 kittens from a burning fire, but you tortured a small child to death. So. . .keep up the good work, Hero!"

Oh, and I do, but nobody here plays in my games, so talking about what these people would be in my games is irrelevant. The only way to avoid alignment debates is to treat the subject as logically and mathematically as possible.


Opposing evil doesn't mean you're not evil yourself.

In a world with Detect Alignment spells, you would have to kill yourself if that was the case. Either this druidic sect was forced to self-terminate after their actions turned them Evil, or their actions did not turn them Evil. I am simply going with the latter scenario because the former one precludes any form of relevant discussion.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 07:47 PM
Actually ,there is a fair bit of tropes involving self acknowledged evil that fights evil.
"Yes, I am Evil, but if that is what it takes to end this Wrong, then so be it.
If I am Damned, then let me take them with me."

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 07:59 PM
Actually ,there is a fair bit of tropes involving self acknowledged evil that fights evil.
"Yes, I am Evil, but if that is what it takes to end this Wrong, then so be it.
If I am Damned, then let me take them with me."

Yes, but in D&D, the proper course of action would be "Oh goshdarn it, I'm Evil. And I fight Evil. Welp, time to climb the highest tower in my castle and leap off it."

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 08:08 PM
Yes, but in D&D, the proper course of action would be "Oh goshdarn it, I'm Evil. And I fight Evil. Welp, time to climb the highest tower in my castle and leap off it."
Says who?:smallconfused:*
*Besides you of course.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 08:15 PM
Says who?:smallconfused:*
*Besides you of course.

Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 08:29 PM
Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.
Boring or not, it allows the circumstances "Fight Evil while being Evil" in a world with alignment detection.

Acanous
2012-04-01, 08:54 PM
I had a bard do that to an overzealous, "Ends justify the means" type. Seven diplomacy checks and the guy had his vassal execute him for being evil.

Siosilvar
2012-04-01, 09:04 PM
Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

One can be evil-aligned without realizing it, or one can do enough evil actions "for the greater good" to be evil-aligned despite motivation. The standard fallback example for this kind of character is the Alliance operative from Serenity.


The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 09:18 PM
One can be evil-aligned without realizing it, or one can do enough evil actions "for the greater good" to be evil-aligned despite motivation. The standard fallback example for this kind of character is the Alliance operative from Serenity.

Yes, but I did mention I'm exclusively talking about a world with Detect Alignment spells. The only ways you can not know your alignment in D&D is either if you're in Ravenloft or through wilful ignorance.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 09:22 PM
Yes, but I did mention I'm exclusively talking about a world with Detect Alignment spells. The only ways you can not know your alignment in D&D is either if you're in Ravenloft or through wilful ignorance.
<sarcasm> Right, because that never happens.</sarcasm>

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 09:39 PM
<sarcasm> Right, because that never happens.</sarcasm>

It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?

Coidzor
2012-04-01, 09:45 PM
You do realize that an entire class of villains in literature and gaming depends upon such things, right? :smallconfused:


Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.


"Blood War, Huh, Who Is It Good For?"
Good gods, y'all! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0632.html)

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 09:45 PM
It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?
Well, you can know your preforming your task adequately by the results.
Is Evil been destroyed? Yes or No?
If No, Destroy Evil.
If Yes, Destroy more Evil.
Are you been subverted?
Impossible!
***
Self deception is a very, very human emotion.

Siosilvar
2012-04-01, 09:52 PM
It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?

By assumption. And by not being a robot. Tends to help. :smallwink:

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 10:24 PM
You do realize that an entire class of villains in literature and gaming depends upon such things, right? :smallconfused:

Nope. Only a small (yet bizarrely and disproportionately popular) subset of "evil" is self-deluded. Most forms of "evil" are perfectly self-aware that they are evil and either actively enjoy it or don't care (most don't care).

I theorise that the reason self-deluded evil is so common in fiction is because stories are mainly a form of escapism and most people don't want to be reminded of how reality actually is.


Well, you can know your preforming your task adequately by the results.
Is Evil been destroyed? Yes or No?
If No, Destroy Evil.
If Yes, Destroy more Evil.
Are you been subverted?
Impossible!
***
Self deception is a very, very human emotion.

A problem which is adequately solved by increasing intelligence. Or wisdom. I forget which. An increase in the appropriate attribute leads to a corresponding increase in self-checks, which leads to a corresponding resistance to subversion. Self-delusion is counter-productive to most activities (escapism aside). That's elementary and frankly too obvious to even debate.


By assumption. And by not being a robot. Tends to help. :smallwink:

I have no idea what you're saying. :smallconfused:

Coidzor
2012-04-01, 10:26 PM
I have no idea what you're saying. :smallconfused:

Humans don't run perfectly accurate self-diagnostics, nor do they usually run diagnostics unless they're forced to or they have a particular worry or doubt in themselves.

I believe that's what he was getting at, anyway.

Tengu_temp
2012-04-01, 10:34 PM
Nope. Only a small (yet bizarrely and disproportionately popular) subset of "evil" is self-deluded. Most forms of "evil" are perfectly self-aware that they are evil and either actively enjoy it or don't care (most don't care).

Actually, it's the complete opposite. Most evil people do not consider themselves evil, in fiction or real life. They use justifications like "I'm just doing what I must to survive" or "I'm doing this for the greater good" or "the world would be so much better under my rule". Self-aware Xykon-types who know well they are evil and embrace it wholeheartedly are very rare and have to be pulled off well in order not to come as two-dimensional cartoon villains.

Benjuri
2012-04-01, 10:45 PM
Actually, it's the complete opposite. Most evil people do not consider themselves evil, in fiction or real life. They use justifications like "I'm just doing what I must to survive" or "I'm doing this for the greater good" or "the world would be so much better under my rule". Self-aware Xykon-types who know well they are evil and embrace it wholeheartedly are very rare and have to be pulled off well in order not to come as two-dimensional cartoon villains.
This. Almost no one says "I'm evil. LOLOLOLOL. Let's go kill kittens." At best, people say, "Okay, I've done some bad things. I had my reasons."

Also, there are very, very intelligent people both IRL and in fiction who are have an incredible ability to self-deceive or act illogically. If all the smart people were capable of acting perfectly logically, we'd live in a perfect world. Don't kid yourself into thinking that because someone's smart everything they do will make perfect sense or will be uncoloured by their biases.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 10:47 PM
A problem which is adequately solved by increasing intelligence. Or wisdom. I forget which. An increase in the appropriate attribute leads to a corresponding increase in self-checks, which leads to a corresponding resistance to subversion.

*falls over laughing*
You might want to go take a Turing test because you're practically failing here.

Self-delusion is counter-productive to most activities (escapism aside). That's elementary and frankly too obvious to even debate.
I think Shadow-bot 1.2 needs to get their programming debugged.
Humans . . .don't work like that.
Humans are, especially driven ones certain of their rightitude, are only introspective if some circumstance forces them to.
There is an old saying, "Go looking for trouble and you'll find it".
Go looking for evil to vanquish, and you'll find it, whatever it's true nature.
Self introspection would create doubt and doubt endangers the mission.
And even if they realize, "Hey, I'm actually what I am trying to destroy!" others and myself have laid out rationalizations which would allow one to continue without immediate self termination.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 10:48 PM
Humans don't run perfectly accurate self-diagnostics, nor do they usually run diagnostics unless they're forced to or they have a particular worry or doubt in themselves.

I believe that's what he was getting at, anyway.

*shrug*

I would disagree completely (we run self-diagnosis all the time, most just happen to be undramatic and very much unlike the crippling moments of self-doubt you describe), but that's not really the topic here.

EDIT:


*falls over laughing*
You might want to go take a Turing test because you're practically failing here.

I had to look that up. Interesting experiment.


I think Shadow-bot 1.2 needs to get their programming debugged.
Humans . . .don't work like that.
Humans are, especially driven ones certain of their rightitude, are only introspective if some circumstance forces them to.
There is an old saying, "Go looking for trouble and you'll find it".
Go looking for evil to vanquish, and you'll find it, whatever it's true nature.
Self introspection would create doubt and doubt endangers the mission.
And even if they realize, "Hey, I'm actually what I am trying to destroy!" others and myself have laid out rationalizations which would allow one to continue without immediate self termination.

All of that is true, but you can't undertake a mission of such significance ("END *ALL* GOOD, CHAOS, LAW AND EVIL!") without massive resources and mental capacities. I am presuming these massive mental capacities will be poured wisely, professionally and intelligently, not merely squandered as the leaders of this organisation make amateur mistakes as the ones you describe.

Benjuri
2012-04-01, 10:56 PM
*shrug*

I would disagree completely (we run self-diagnosis all the time, most just happen to be undramatic and very much unlike the crippling moments of self-doubt you describe), but that's not really the topic here.

Reflect? Yes. Self-diagnose? No. It takes a lot to makes someone reevaluate themselves on the scale that would make them say, "Holy -beep-, I'm evil!"

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 10:59 PM
Reflect? Yes. Self-diagnose? No. It takes a lot to makes someone reevaluate themselves on the scale that would make them say, "Holy -beep-, I'm evil!"

You know, there's a reason this topic is banned on these forums.

What? I'm not talking about religion or politics. Sigh. I'll edit just in case people really are that irrationally uptight.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 11:01 PM
All of that is true, but you can't undertake a mission of such significance ("END *ALL* GOOD, CHAOS, LAW AND EVIL!") without massive resources and mental capacities. I am presuming these massive mental capacities will be poured wisely, professionally and intelligently, not merely squandered as the leaders of this organisation make amateur mistakes as the ones you describe.
What mistake? If the mission is to continue, they must exist.
As I, and other's have pointed out, repeatedly, they can just . . .kill themselves last.
You yourself pointed out, but dismissed it as . . . boring?:smallconfused:
Holy Self Delusion Batman!

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 11:07 PM
What mistake? If the mission is to continue, they must exist.
As I, and other's have pointed out, repeatedly, they can just . . .kill themselves last.
You yourself pointed out, but dismissed it as . . . boring?:smallconfused:
Holy Self Delusion Batman!

Being vulnerable to subversion is a mistake. If you're vulnerable to subversion and end up being a pawn of Good or Evil (or Law or Chaos), you are fundamentally hampering your own goals and no amount of "killing myself last" will solve it.

Benjuri
2012-04-01, 11:08 PM
What? I'm not talking about religion or politics. Sigh. I'll edit just in case people really are that irrationally uptight.
Yeah, but you started to wander into the whole moral relativity thing, which is getting smacked with the lock-hammer more often than not these days. I'll edit mine too.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 11:13 PM
Being vulnerable to subversion is a mistake. If you're vulnerable to subversion and end up being a pawn of Good or Evil (or Law or Chaos), you are fundamentally hampering your own goals and no amount of "killing myself last" will solve it.
How does ones alignment work into that? As long as the mission continues, your alignment does not matter, only the mission matters.
Evil can still destroy evil.
What do you think the whole Blood War is, a big, Evil-subtype, love in?

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 11:30 PM
How does ones alignment work into that? As long as the mission continues, your alignment does not matter, only the mission matters.
Evil can still destroy evil.
What do you think the whole Blood War is, a big, Evil-subtype, love in?

No, you're muddying the issue. I'm talking about ending up as the pawn of one alignment and therefore actively endangering your own mission. If you're fond of engaging in self-delusion, you can be easily deluded by other sources as well, which means that you can easily end up being Lawful Evil and fighting the forces of Good and Chaotic Evil, which may seem at first glance to be furthering your goals until you discovered you have been strengthening one of your enemies. If you're keen on fighting ALL evil, you cannot associate or benefit any form of evil or else you're putting your goals at risk (this is another reason "I'll kill myself last" is not very logical, if you're evil and you are not to associate with, improve or promote the goals of evil, you cannot associate with, improve or promote your own goals, which means you're immediately stuck in a permanent state of incongruence until you terminate yourself or stop being evil).

Ravens_cry
2012-04-01, 11:42 PM
No, you're muddying the issue. I'm talking about ending up as the pawn of one alignment and therefore actively endangering your own mission. If you're fond of engaging in self-delusion, you can be easily deluded by other sources as well, which means that you can easily end up being Lawful Evil and fighting the forces of Good and Chaotic Evil, which may seem at first glance to be furthering your goals until you discovered you have been strengthening one of your enemies. If you're keen on fighting ALL evil, you cannot associate or benefit any form of evil or else you're putting your goals at risk (this is another reason "I'll kill myself last" is not very logical, if you're evil and you are not to associate with, improve or promote the goals of evil, you cannot associate with, improve or promote your own goals, which means you're immediately stuck in a permanent state of incongruence until you terminate yourself or stop being evil).
Simple solution, continue fighting everyone.
Which is what you were doing in the first place.
Well, that was easy.
Are you sure you're human?
You seem to have a very lax understanding of the sheer lengths of self delusion and doublethink people are willing to undertake.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-01, 11:48 PM
Simple solution, continue fighting everyone.
Which is what you were doing in the first place.
Well, that was easy.
Are you sure you're human?
You seem to have a very lax understanding of the sheer lengths of self delusion and doublethink people are willing to undertake.

The goals of the organisation are not "fight everyone" they are "end Good, Evil, Law and Chaos" to save everything else. Clearly, fighting everyone to achieve those goals is much like trying to cure an infection by cremating the patient.

No, I understand. Like I said, I'm merely presuming that if this organisation is going to undertake such an EPIC task, they will need both epic resources and the epic mental capacities to properly take advantage of them. Said epic mental capacities would leave behind the petty refuge of self-delusion upon understanding it's a liability to be expunged.

Eloel
2012-04-02, 12:36 AM
"Leave us alone, alien, we came first" is a True Neutral attitude by my book. How they do it might give some tendencies, or even switches towards some extremes (make them peacefully leave vs track them into their elemental planes and kill them there), but that's individuals and not organizations, as someone stated before me.

Also, "kill kittens vs burn orphans" argument is -very- flawed. Killing a Good, a Lawful, an Evil and a Chaotic outsider, all of exactly equal power, is True Neutral. They're not humans, they're literally reflections of alignments, they're not 'redeemable', and killing them tips the balance in exact ways.

Solaris
2012-04-02, 02:22 AM
A problem which is adequately solved by increasing intelligence. Or wisdom. I forget which. An increase in the appropriate attribute leads to a corresponding increase in self-checks, which leads to a corresponding resistance to subversion. Self-delusion is counter-productive to most activities (escapism aside). That's elementary and frankly too obvious to even debate.

Fun fact, smart people are really, really good at convincing themselves of things. These things may or may not necessarily be true.

You're thinking of Wisdom, though. The point remains. Nobody is 'too smart' or 'too wise' to be evil.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-02, 12:00 PM
Fun fact, smart people are really, really good at convincing themselves of things. These things may or may not necessarily be true.

You're thinking of Wisdom, though. The point remains. Nobody is 'too smart' or 'too wise' to be evil.

And I never said otherwise. I'm not talking about evil, I'm talking about self-delusion. An increase in the corresponding stat (wisdom, you say?) means a decrease in self-delusion. Wise evil knows it's evil and either doesn't care or actively enjoys it. After all, not all evil is the same. Some evil might be more schadenfreudian in nature, enjoying other people's misfortunes, rather than actively causing them.

hamishspence
2012-04-02, 12:09 PM
And I never said otherwise. I'm not talking about evil, I'm talking about self-delusion. An increase in the corresponding stat (wisdom, you say?) means a decrease in self-delusion.

Doubt it. Some deluded characters are clerics or paladins- which tend to have higher wisdom than average.

Exemplars of Evil has a cleric of Corellon who, after being transformed by an drow enemy's dying curse into a perfect duplicate (looks-wise) of that enemy- ended up having to play that draw's role in society to survive.

Eventually she fell, Lolth started granting her powers instead- but since she had only one domain (Chaos) thanks to an alternative class feature- she never realised she'd fallen in the first place. She commits evil deeds, but refuses to accept that she's evil herself.

Rorrik
2012-04-02, 12:17 PM
And most of this argument is banking on a very narrow definition of "fight evil". Even if an evil character isn't deluded, recognizes his own evil nature, and revels in it, that doesn't stop him from killing off other evil creatures as often as good ones for his own personal gain, enjoyment, or accruence of power.

hamishspence
2012-04-02, 12:24 PM
A character who has embraced "Pay Evil Unto Evil" to the point of being extremely sadistic- might still be an eager ally of traditional good guys- at least as long as they don't catch the character "having fun" and stop them.

LikeAD6
2012-04-02, 09:35 PM
I am going to have to argue for these druids being lawful good, even though druids cannot have that alignment in most editions and the druids seek to destroy lawful good outsiders. I do not think these druids are evil because druids who are "mathematically neutral" destroy good creatures to balance out their destruction of evil creatures. These druids, however, are destroying both good and evil creatures (as well as lawful and chaotic creatures) because these creatures and their gods represent an affront to the natural order that the druids are sworn to protect.

The Cabal appears to be structured in great detail, and the druids are completely devoted to its tenets and their duties, which I think makes them lawful. They are good because they are putting their lives on the line to protect their ideals of naturality. The druids believe the natural order of their world is worth protecting, and they do so selflessly. That does not seem to be evil or chaotic in any way.

Epsilon Rose
2012-04-03, 01:15 AM
So, in order:
@ the OP: I think this document gives a to high level of an overview to make a judgement on the organisation it self, though I there are probably a disproportionately large number recruits coming from the deep end of the alignment pool. That said, I'd be willing to bet good money that at-least one of the ringleaders is LE. Genocide is bad folks.

@Shadowknight12: I am half way tempted to ask if you're trolling, but I might as well through in my 2 cents.
It is perfectly possible for evil to fight evil. For starters, as some have already pointed out, there's not really a coherent "team evil". To an evil character there's really very little difference between an angle and a devil who's in your way. As for being self deluding, no amount of wisdom or intelligence could possibly help with that.

The problem is that self delusion is a natural defense mechanism of the psyche. Any expanded resources are going to be put to the task of making it better. A higher wis will help you notice when others try to deceive you and might help you prune minor conflicting traits or identify ones that have already caused problems. Unfortunately in the case of a long held belief or something that's part of your core self (and considering yourself unaligned while really being LE would be both long held and extremely central to who you are) it's just going to help you come up with justifications and biased tests, a higher wisdom just means better justifications and more cunning tests. No amount of increased stats will circumvent this for exactly the reason you think it's impossible; from an evolutionary, instinctual and almost any other standpoint self-termination (or even real self harm) is basically the worst possible outcome (keep in mind, evolution wasn't taking your personal goals into account when it designed your defense mechanisms [it doesn't care that your continued existence might be a detriment to your goals]), it's game over, so all resources are going to be used to prevent that. And if that means your world view is a bit off? Oh well, that's why we have convenient phrases like "Umwelt" and it's not like you'll ever know differently.

Also, the document it self said they have know trouble associating with evil, they just don't do it normally because evil tends to be more destructive.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-03, 05:43 AM
@Shadowknight12: I am half way tempted to ask if you're trolling, but I might as well through in my 2 cents.
It is perfectly possible for evil to fight evil. For starters, as some have already pointed out, there's not really a coherent "team evil". To an evil character there's really very little difference between an angle and a devil who's in your way. As for being self deluding, no amount of wisdom or intelligence could possibly help with that.

/facepalm. I never said evil couldn't fight evil. I'm saying that if you are sworn to destroy ALL evil, it's very stupid to become evil, for it means you will eventually have to destroy yourself.


The problem is that self delusion is a natural defense mechanism of the psyche. Any expanded resources are going to be put to the task of making it better. A higher wis will help you notice when others try to deceive you and might help you prune minor conflicting traits or identify ones that have already caused problems. Unfortunately in the case of a long held belief or something that's part of your core self (and considering yourself unaligned while really being LE would be both long held and extremely central to who you are) it's just going to help you come up with justifications and biased tests, a higher wisdom just means better justifications and more cunning tests. No amount of increased stats will circumvent this for exactly the reason you think it's impossible; from an evolutionary, instinctual and almost any other standpoint self-termination (or even real self harm) is basically the worst possible outcome (keep in mind, evolution wasn't taking your personal goals into account when it designed your defense mechanisms [it doesn't care that your continued existence might be a detriment to your goals]), it's game over, so all resources are going to be used to prevent that. And if that means your world view is a bit off? Oh well, that's why we have convenient phrases like "Umwelt" and it's not like you'll ever know differently.

Your view presumes psychology is A) Deterministic, B) Unchangeable, C) a product of biological evolution, and D) exactly the same in all individuals. I disagree on practically all accounts (as do most psychologists who are not specifically from that school of thought), so I won't actually debate any of that.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-03, 06:26 AM
These people want to destroy, or at least negate every creature with an alignment subtype, including the Good ones.
Assuming Good actually means good, and not just a label, that's evidence enough these characters are delusional.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-03, 01:58 PM
These people want to destroy, or at least negate every creature with an alignment subtype, including the Good ones.
Assuming Good actually means good, and not just a label, that's evidence enough these characters are delusional.

I fail to follow. What does Good or good have that the other three don't? And frankly, it depends on the setting. If it's impossible to utterly end Good, Evil, Law or Chaos, then they're obviously delusional. If it's possible, however, they aren't.

hamishspence
2012-04-03, 02:52 PM
Might be interesting to compare these guys to the Athar, who regard the gods as "frauds" - powerful outsiders who don't deserve adulation.

Only in this case- they don't just oppose the gods- but the aligned outsiders as well.

"We don't want to be the battleground on which the Cosmic Forces compete with each other" is a pretty understandable position.

Reduce the scale of the order's goals- focus less on the long term and more on pushing back the influence of the other factions- trying to turn people away from both the "Good force" and the "Evil force" without actually committing good acts (self-sacrifice) or evil acts (violating other people's rights) - and they could be a bit more convincing as Neutrals.

Talakeal
2012-04-03, 04:50 PM
C) a product of biological evolution, and D) exactly the same in all individuals. I disagree on practically all accounts (as do most psychologists who are not specifically from that school of thought), so I won't actually debate any of that.

As opposed to what? I can't think of what alternative to biological evolution you could possibly be referring to, unless you are saying most psychologists don't believe in evolution at all, which is both factually incorrect and leads down a road we probably shouldn't get into on this forum.

Ravens_cry
2012-04-03, 06:30 PM
I fail to follow. What does Good or good have that the other three don't? And frankly, it depends on the setting. If it's impossible to utterly end Good, Evil, Law or Chaos, then they're obviously delusional. If it's possible, however, they aren't.
If Good is actually good ,then they are seeking to destroy beings who actively work to make the universe a better place, to help others without selfishness, to be light the way so others may follow.
To destroy that would be a crime of, dare I say it, epic proportions.

Urpriest
2012-04-03, 08:26 PM
Rilmani have similar goals to these guys, and are True Neutral. Keepers are similarly destructive, and are also Neutral. I'd peg these guys as consistent with the game's concept of Crazy Neutral.

Benjuri
2012-04-03, 10:01 PM
Rilmani have similar goals to these guys, and are True Neutral. Keepers are similarly destructive, and are also Neutral. I'd peg these guys as consistent with the game's concept of Crazy Neutral.

Neither generally resort to all out slaughter though and neither seek to eliminate the other alignments. The Rilmani act to keep all alignments in balance and generally use manipulation and politics to achieve their end. Ironically, the Rilmani would likely be the most ardent opponents of these Druids.

The Keepers are largely sociopathic and I would argue not neutral since they eliminate anyone who knows one of their secrets. All depends on how ruthless you play them though.

If the Druids used non-violent manners achieve their ends, similar to what the Athar do in Sigil, they could be True Neutral. The second they start killing to achieve their ends, they jump off of their slippery slope into Neatral Evil.

Urpriest
2012-04-03, 10:29 PM
The Keepers are largely sociopathic and I would argue not neutral since they eliminate anyone who knows one of their secrets. All depends on how ruthless you play them though.


What you argue isn't terribly relevant, they are Always Neutral. The alignment guidelines are ambiguous: short of in-depth research like hamishpence's the only thing we have to go on to define the alignments are examples.

Anyway, what about the Formians? World domination is classically pretty Lawful Evil. In general, Neutral can indicate, rather than an unwillingness to harm people unnecessarily, instead that the creature involved has a particularly alien mindset. Animals, for example. I'd argue that if these Druids are stated as True Neutral then that could mean that they're simply so crazy that evil isn't really a good characterization. As I've said, there is precedent.

Benjuri
2012-04-03, 11:05 PM
In general, Neutral can indicate, rather than an unwillingness to harm people unnecessarily, instead that the creature involved has a particularly alien mindset. Animals, for example. I'd argue that if these Druids are stated as True Neutral then that could mean that they're simply so crazy that evil isn't really a good characterization. As I've said, there is precedent.

Fair enough. I'd buy that for animals and keepers. Not so sure about mortals though, since assumably their minds work the same way ours do and their aim is to eliminate entire alignments. I find it difficult to buy that genocide is anything but evil for a human/elf/dwarf/whatever. Attempting to change people's minds is one thing. Killing entire races because of their alignment is another. Which ironically enough, one of the points that The Giant is trying to make with OotS.

SowZ
2012-04-05, 02:08 PM
Everyone seems to be assuming that within D&D, people accept that good and evil are absolutes or that they are synonymous with right and wrong. There is no reason some people can't just say, (about alignments,) 'no, I don't buy it' and keep going. Mechanics don't actually exist in D&D. They are a way to represent abstract or difficult to pin down concepts in a way that allows us to simulate the world with dice. If alignment is universally acknowledged as part of a characters make up, you may as well have people in character asking each other, "Whoever has the most ranks in diplomacy and highest charisma modifier should talk to this guy!"

"But there is a spell that SAYS you are evil!" is not good enough. Who made the spell? A god? A person? Someone at some point declared it was evil and that isn't enough to make it so. People are going to think in universe, (and rationally so,) this is very arbitrary. If there was a single creator entity that bound the entire universe together and wasn't something that had a certain power level but was a fabric of the universe or something and had a specific consciousness maybe I'd accept some sort of universal morality, but until then no, I won't.

You can disagree with me. You can say morality is concrete within the D&D world and that is fine. But it would be silly to suggest my viewpoint/arguments would never be used by people living inside a D&D world.

Knight13
2012-04-05, 03:02 PM
In a world with Detect Alignment spells, you would have to kill yourself if that was the case. Either this druidic sect was forced to self-terminate after their actions turned them Evil, or their actions did not turn them Evil. I am simply going with the latter scenario because the former one precludes any form of relevant discussion.
All Detect Alignment spells are cleric magic and are therefore supplied by the gods. To the wise and logical leaders that you are suggesting of an organization explicity devoted to opposing the gods, such spells must be considered unreliable at the very least and possibly even subversive and therefore cannot be used for internal policing.

hamishspence
2012-04-05, 03:08 PM
There is no reason some people can't just say, (about alignments,) 'no, I don't buy it' and keep going.
...
"But there is a spell that SAYS you are evil!" is not good enough. Who made the spell? A god? A person? Someone at some point declared it was evil and that isn't enough to make it so. People are going to think in universe, (and rationally so,) this is very arbitrary.

Champions of Ruin does say that different D&D cultures will have different definitions of "evil" - some much more "liberal" than others.

And there's quite a few examples of characters who insist that they and their actions are not evil. In Tome of Magic, there's a blackguard, once a paladin, who still does not understand why he's lost his paladin powers, and thinks it's a test of faith by his deity- Michael Ambrose, Witch Slayer.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-05, 04:46 PM
As opposed to what? I can't think of what alternative to biological evolution you could possibly be referring to, unless you are saying most psychologists don't believe in evolution at all, which is both factually incorrect and leads down a road we probably shouldn't get into on this forum.

I never said psychologists didn't believe in evolution, I'm merely saying that evolutionary psychology is only one school of thought. Other schools of thought are the tabula rasa, the Jungian theory of social subconscious, the socialisation theory, the imprinting theory, and others I am currently forgetting. And mind you, these are the "respectable" theories. I assure you that there is a frankly astonishing number of psychologists that subscribe to far more... shall we say, New-Age-y theories.


If Good is actually good ,then they are seeking to destroy beings who actively work to make the universe a better place, to help others without selfishness, to be light the way so others may follow.
To destroy that would be a crime of, dare I say it, epic proportions.

I fail to see how that cannot be immediately and automatically counterbalanced by destroying beings who actively work to make the universe a worse place, to harm others selfishly, tempt others into corruption and perform all kinds of hideous and depraved acts.


All Detect Alignment spells are cleric magic and are therefore supplied by the gods. To the wise and logical leaders that you are suggesting of an organization explicity devoted to opposing the gods, such spells must be considered unreliable at the very least and possibly even subversive and therefore cannot be used for internal policing.

Clerics need not be devoted to a god to have spells. Divine spells do not exclusively originate from the gods in settings other than Faerun. Furthermore, outside core, Detect Alignment spells can be found in classes that are not associated with gods in the slightest and some of which are not even divine at all.

Benjuri
2012-04-05, 05:12 PM
I fail to see how that cannot be immediately and automatically counterbalanced by destroying beings who actively work to make the universe a worse place, to harm others selfishly, tempt others into corruption and perform all kinds of hideous and depraved acts.

Because killing something because you cast detect evil on them and it came out positive is not a good act. At best, it's solidly neutral. Ask Miko, Belkar almost made her fall by killing him if V hadn't intervened. Rich made a similar point in On the Origins of PCs when the "heroes" Roy was with wanted to kill orcs because orcs were listed as evil when all the orcs wanted was to go to a heavy metal concert. Could they counter balance it and stay true neutral by countering killing celestials with helping people? By helping aid heroes who were fighting said being to protect the innocent? Perhaps. But killing evil beings just because they are evil is not a good act.

hamishspence
2012-04-05, 05:14 PM
But killing evil beings just because they are evil is not a good act.

Indeed, it might qualify as murder in a lot of settings. Eberron in particular emphasises that evil does not mean "deserves to be attacked".

Shadowknight12
2012-04-05, 05:43 PM
Because killing something because you cast detect evil on them and it came out positive is not a good act. At best, it's solidly neutral. Ask Miko, Belkar almost made her fall by killing him if V hadn't intervened. Rich made a similar point in On the Origins of PCs when the "heroes" Roy was with wanted to kill orcs because orcs were listed as evil when all the orcs wanted was to go to a heavy metal concert. Could they counter balance it and stay true neutral by countering killing celestials with helping people? By helping aid heroes who were fighting said being to protect the innocent? Perhaps. But killing evil beings just because they are evil is not a good act.

They don't intend to kill living beings. They intend to kill embodiments of evil, which is widely held to be an automatically good act (save a few sources who disagree).

SowZ
2012-04-05, 05:53 PM
They don't intend to kill living beings. They intend to kill embodiments of evil, which is widely held to be an automatically good act (save a few sources who disagree).

Then what about the demons who kill other demons? By killing enough demons, a demon becomes neutral. Eventually, the neutral demon will encounter another neutral demon and whoever wins that battle will become evil again! It just doesn't work.

hamishspence
2012-04-05, 05:56 PM
Don't know about "widely held"- there's one source that says it's an automatically good act (BoVD) but even that says that slaying creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil" purely for personal benefit is not a good act (but not evil, either).

Problem is- several sources suggest fiends aren't in fact irredeemable. In Savage Species, the Ritual of Alignment can change a fiend's alignment subtype without killing the fiend- though it does have a chance of dying.

There's the Lawful Neutral fiend Fall From Grace (Planescape Torment). There's the famous succubus paladin from the WotC site. There's the cambion demons from Expedition to the Demonweb pits (despite being fiends, they have some human blood, and 10% of Cambions are neutral or good).

Talakeal
2012-04-05, 05:56 PM
I never said psychologists didn't believe in evolution, I'm merely saying that evolutionary psychology is only one school of thought. Other schools of thought are the tabula rasa, the Jungian theory of social subconscious, the socialisation theory, the imprinting theory, and others I am currently forgetting. And mind you, these are the "respectable" theories. I assure you that there is a frankly astonishing number of psychologists that subscribe to far more... shall we say, New-Age-y theories.


Ok, that explains it. I didn't think you were saying psychologists didn't believe in evolution, which is why I asked. I am no expert on new age psychology, but I was under the impression that most of those other theories still used evolution as a base point, for example Jung believing in some sort of inherited racial memory, but I get what you are saying.

hamishspence
2012-04-05, 06:00 PM
They don't intend to kill living beings. They intend to kill embodiments of evil

actually, going by this:


As a rough rule, any race which is listed in THE MONSTER MANUAL has having an inherent alignment is seen by the druids as literally alien or, at best, a native who has been perverted by the efforts of the gods who wish to rule them and use them as their tools on the Prime Material Plane.

some non-outsiders will qualify as well- chromatic dragons, for example, may qualify as "natives who have been perverted by the efforts of the gods" - Tiamat, in this case.

Benjuri
2012-04-05, 06:28 PM
There's the Lawful Neutral fiend Fall From Grace (Planescape Torment). There's the famous succubus paladin from the WotC site. There's the cambion demons from Expedition to the Demonweb pits (despite being fiends, they have some human blood, and 10% of Cambions are neutral or good).
And sticking with Planescape, there's A'kin, who may or may not be a risen fiend, but regardless is a perfectly nice pleasant person. There are NG proxies of NE gods. There are rogue Modrons who were once perfect beings of perfect law, but are now something far more ambiguous. There is even a NG Ultroloth in canon, who secretly leads an entire gatetown. Is it easy for a fiend to rise? No. Is it possible? You bet.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-05, 08:52 PM
Ok, that explains it. I didn't think you were saying psychologists didn't believe in evolution, which is why I asked. I am no expert on new age psychology, but I was under the impression that most of those other theories still used evolution as a base point, for example Jung believing in some sort of inherited racial memory, but I get what you are saying.

No, not really. There's a big difference, conceptually, between "we acquired this or that psychological mechanism due to evolution" and "we have a series of psychological mechanisms pre-engraved in our minds" (the main difference between those theories is that the evolutionary one claims those mechanisms are capable of changing with time, whereas the latter theory claims those mechanisms are unchanging). Furthermore, the tabula rasa theory sustains that we learn our psychological mechanisms from our surroundings and/or develop them spontaneously to cope with situations, which would mean that evolution plays no role in regards to the mechanisms we end up developing (unless you want to speculate that society as a whole encourages certain mechanisms in individuals, but that in and of itself does not necessarily involve evolution. In fact, there would be a split between those that say that said mechanisms arose evolutionary and those that say those mechanisms arise spontaneously according to sociocultural specifications and change not out of an evolutionary impulse but according to the prevalent situations that society encounters).

But that's frankly quite off topic.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-07, 04:15 PM
It'd definitely depend on their methods. If they see Orcs as being "corrupted" by the Evil Gods and intend to just wipe out the Orcs entirely, that's one thing. If they intend to open a big portal to the Paraelemental Plane of Violence and mass exodus the Evil people in...

I definitely wouldn't paint them as Good, but "Get out get out get off my PLANET" could definitely be a Neutral alignment.

Toy Killer
2012-04-07, 05:15 PM
I dunno, I tend to look at the Good/Evil axis as being the method of action, and the Chaos/Law as the means to the action, in terms of alignment for organizations.

This is just a general guide, not a hard fast rule.

If a organization is powered by malice, is out to gather power for power's sake or just plain encumbering on everyone not involved, I would rule them as Evil. If they are out to provide for others, help and heal, or are just simply a boon for others not involved, I would rule them as generally good. These druids don't seem to be driven by spite or encumbering anyone they can, so I would rule them as Neutral.

If the organization is strictly established, with a running hierarchy, a code or written law of some sort and generally well organized, I would rule them as lawful. If they are more of a off-the-cuff, do as they wish without anyone to answer too directly, as long as it moves towards the goal; I rule them Chaotic.

again, they have a structure, but aren't especially well organized, I may rule them lawful, but probably leaning to true Neutral on this one.

Haarkla
2012-04-08, 10:06 AM
Out of general curiosity I'd like to ask the good people of Giant in the Playground forums, just as I asked at Minmax, what sort of alignment they would assign to the druids depicted in this article (http://www.2worthingtons.net/downloads/druids.pdf). Not based on the writer's claims but upon your judgement of course.
Lawful Evil. The druids have a very rigid worldveiw and goals, and ending any distiction between good and evil is a strongly evil act.

hamishspence
2012-04-08, 10:09 AM
"ending distinction between good and evil" isn't listed anywhere in the splatbooks- and doesn't entirely fit their attitude anyway.

"Being opposed to the influences of Good and Evil forces" seems closer.

With some opposition to Law and Chaos, as well.

These are the guys who rally to the defensive when the slaadi are invading, the formians are invading, the fiends are invading .... and the celestials are invading.

Talakeal
2012-04-10, 02:42 AM
In second edition wasn't part of the druids code that they HAD to oppose both good and evil, and they had some weird sort of "high neutral" alignment that forced them to actively oppose whichever alignment, Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos, which grew to eclipse the others?

I would say these guys are neutral, just a more archaic form of neutral than most modern gamers use, although I believe the option to play "high neutral" is still in more recent PHBs, just not the default assumption for the druid class.

hamishspence
2012-04-10, 05:47 AM
These druids are like that but a bit more extreme- they oppose all four "aligned forces" always- not just when one grows to eclipse the others.

Knaight
2012-04-10, 07:52 PM
I never said psychologists didn't believe in evolution, I'm merely saying that evolutionary psychology is only one school of thought. Other schools of thought are the tabula rasa, the Jungian theory of social subconscious, the socialisation theory, the imprinting theory, and others I am currently forgetting. And mind you, these are the "respectable" theories. I assure you that there is a frankly astonishing number of psychologists that subscribe to far more... shall we say, New-Age-y theories.
Evolutionary psychology, the questionable field, is not synonymous with "the way the brain works is due to how it evolved". The latter point is basically a given, whereas the former routinely makes large scale claims well beyond that, and is frequently criticized for those large claims that regard specific beliefs, as said claims have a tendency to trivialize the affects of culture. That our brains evolved, and evolved differently than, say, insect brains, and are as such a product of biological evolution is the dominant theory in the biology underlying psychology.

Shadowknight12
2012-04-10, 09:52 PM
Evolutionary psychology, the questionable field, is not synonymous with "the way the brain works is due to how it evolved". The latter point is basically a given, whereas the former routinely makes large scale claims well beyond that, and is frequently criticized for those large claims that regard specific beliefs, as said claims have a tendency to trivialize the affects of culture. That our brains evolved, and evolved differently than, say, insect brains, and are as such a product of biological evolution is the dominant theory in the biology underlying psychology.

You confuse psychology and neurology. Everything you're saying refers to neurology, which is a branch of biology, where evolution holds undisputed sway. While all but a scant few psychologists believe that biology influences psychology somehow, not every school of thought prescribes the entirety of our psychological processes as purely biological. The distinction is subtle, but it's frankly quite important.

Ironvyper
2012-04-10, 10:19 PM
Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

Yes but when you kill yourself it limits your potential tally of dead evil to 1, YOU.
Its very easy using basic D&D alignments to have an evil character justify sticking around and fighting evil knowing that he is damned. He knows he will one day fall in the struggle and until then all he can do is send as many of the bastards to the hells as possible.


That being said i find these druids to be lawful neutral. They have a sense of the order of things and how they should be and enforce that order irrespective of perceived good or evil because its the order itself that matters.

Epsilon Rose
2012-04-11, 02:10 AM
You confuse psychology and neurology. Everything you're saying refers to neurology, which is a branch of biology, where evolution holds undisputed sway. While all but a scant few psychologists believe that biology influences psychology somehow, not every school of thought prescribes the entirety of our psychological processes as purely biological. The distinction is subtle, but it's frankly quite important.

Are we still on this?
When I cited evolution I was just referring to Darwinism. A species that reproduces like humans do and has mental processes that reliably result in self termination isn't likely to survive very well; especially compared to one with processes that actively prioritize survival. Additionally the list I gave was inclusive, not exclusive. The mentality you're suggesting doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, an instinctual standpoint, a societal standpoint or any other standpoint (save maybe a child's logic). The phrase "and almost any other standpoint" indicates that there are other possible explanations for a persons behavior, and I can't think of any that would support your claims, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to list all of them.