PDA

View Full Version : Races with tendancies towards good and evil...



Zovc
2013-05-05, 12:52 PM
It's been a while since I've looked through a monster manual, but I remember races being described as varying degrees of inherently evil. Or in some cases good.

Is this not a little ambiguous? Shouldn't monsters/monstrous races have tendancies towards specific evil things? Like causing violence, as an example.

So, the most evil of races might specifically enjoy torture. Where as less evil races might simply enjoy hurting things too much to generally not be able to resist do so.

JellyPooga
2013-05-05, 01:24 PM
It would certainly make more sense to describe common behavioural traits than to list an Alignment, but then it's rather the point of an alignment system to, in theory at least, describe behaviour with a catch-all term like Lawful Evil.

I've never had much truck with the D&D Alignment system. With the possible exception of Outsiders, I've always looked at any given entry as mutable:

Goblins are "Usually Chaotic Evil"? To me that reads "Some Goblins are Lawful Good".
Wights are "Always Lawful Evil"? I read "A non-Evil Wight is super-rare"

CoffeeIncluded
2013-05-05, 01:33 PM
Frankly I throw racial alignments out the window. I hate that part of the system and it's one of the things I have always and will always houserule. Instead, I use cultural traits: For instance, I'd say the average orcish society values physical might and a lot of their cultural rituals revolve around tests of strength and endurance--and instead of being good or bad, it just is. I leave the interpretation of it up to the player.

Remmirath
2013-05-05, 01:44 PM
My view on alignment is generally that if you just take it as a creature's place on the scales of chaos/order and selflessness/selfishness it works reasonably well, but when you try to use it as more than a shorthand for how the character is it gets a bit hairy. In the case of monster entries, it's definitely being used as shorthand for "these are generally the cohesive bad guys (LE)" or "these are generally the rampaging, unordered bad guys (CE)", or instance. Deeper things such as a particular affinity for torture are always up to the DM.

I take the racial alignments as very loose guidelines, and feel perfectly free to toss them out wholesale if I want to put together a group of that species in which the members of it have different alignments than the racial one, or even just one individual who does, be they PC or NPC.

The Monster Manual has a basic overview of the monsters, and I view as mostly presenting how their societies generally work within the current default campaign setting of D&D. So, if I am running a campaign in the default setting I'll be much more likely to actually pay attention to those things, but if I'm running a campaign in my own setting (which is by far the more likely for me) I'll mostly just use the stats and a few things from the descriptions as I see fit.

Morty
2013-05-05, 01:48 PM
I also think that racial alignment is rubbish. It's best to chuck it out and try to make humanoid cultures actually interesting and believable.

Scow2
2013-05-05, 03:46 PM
I also think that racial alignment is rubbish. It's best to chuck it out and try to make humanoid cultures actually interesting and believable.You can do that without chucking racial alignment. In fact, using it as a guideline and constraint allows more interesting cultures than letting them be unconstrained.

In my games, though, I've had to make a prominent change to the most common form of "Evil" humanoid - Goblinoids. In my games, I go back to the fairy-tale roots - they're (descended from) disobedient children of the major races. At least Goblins(You know the type) and Bugbears (Schoolyard bullies) are. Hobgoblins are descended from adults that exemplify Hobbes' philosopy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HobbesWasRight), at least as understood by popular culture.

The rest are much more complex. Except orcs, which are orcs. And gnolls, which are demonically-infused sociopathic Hell's Angels-style gangsters and looters and fratboys (Note - Gnolls are also my FAVORITE "evil" race, exemplifying a "**** the world!" mentality).

Vultawk
2013-05-05, 07:27 PM
I like racial alignments because they tell you that killing those monsters is a good thing. :smallamused:


I do like giving the humanoid races some culture beyond "Lawful Evil". Goblins are psychotic children, hobgoblins are fascists, gnolls are opportunistic predators in a matriarchy, and orcs (which aren't evil but CN in my games) are more like vikings than anything else.

Morty
2013-05-06, 05:54 AM
You can do that without chucking racial alignment. In fact, using it as a guideline and constraint allows more interesting cultures than letting them be unconstrained.

In my games, though, I've had to make a prominent change to the most common form of "Evil" humanoid - Goblinoids. In my games, I go back to the fairy-tale roots - they're (descended from) disobedient children of the major races. At least Goblins(You know the type) and Bugbears (Schoolyard bullies) are. Hobgoblins are descended from adults that exemplify Hobbes' philosopy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HobbesWasRight), at least as understood by popular culture.

The rest are much more complex. Except orcs, which are orcs. And gnolls, which are demonically-infused sociopathic Hell's Angels-style gangsters and looters and fratboys (Note - Gnolls are also my FAVORITE "evil" race, exemplifying a "**** the world!" mentality).

At which point they stop being evil. Because they don't do what they do out of evil motivations, but because their nature compels them to. In fact, we should pity them because they're driven to destructive behaviour through no fault of their own.

Saph
2013-05-06, 05:54 AM
I also think that racial alignment is rubbish. It's best to chuck it out and try to make humanoid cultures actually interesting and believable.

This attitude has never made any sense to me. Saying "racial alignment is rubbish" means you're saying that every race must have exactly the same ethical tendencies as humans. No race is allowed to be more lawful, or more chaotic, or more good, or more evil . . . which in practice ends up meaning that every race has basically the same moral standards that humans do, just with a slightly different flavour.

This is silly enough when you're dealing with troglodytes or bugbears (why on earth would every single different species have the same ethical outlook as ours?) but gets ridiculous when you start applying it to dragons, aboleths, mind flayers, and other creatures that have virtually nothing in common with humanity.

Racial alignments work fine as long as you keep in mind that they're tendencies, not ironclad rules. So yes, you do get Lawful Good orcs, they're just a lower percentage of the species than Lawful Good dwarves are.

Water_Bear
2013-05-06, 08:21 AM
At which point they stop being evil. Because they don't do what they do out of evil motivations, but because their nature compels them to. In fact, we should pity them because they're driven to destructive behaviour through no fault of their own.

In D&D, if your nature compels you to say, for example, eat the brains of sentient creatures, and you do so, you are Evil. As long as you aren't Int -- or under a heavy-duty Compulsion effect, that's pretty much still entirely on you.

Think about it like this; if I get the urge to burn down my neighbors house because I'm a pyromaniac (I'm not, just to be clear here), and then I do it, saying "Well, I'm just a huge pyro I couldn't help it" isn't going to win any points with the judge. Some people have a harder time being "good" than others in RL with our subjective moralities, and some NPC Races have more trouble being Good than others in D&D with it's objective alignments.

Mastikator
2013-05-06, 08:36 AM
This attitude has never made any sense to me. Saying "racial alignment is rubbish" means you're saying that every race must have exactly the same ethical tendencies as humans. [snip]

Thing is, saying a race is predisposed to some evil tendency doesn't really tell you much about the race, you have to also explain WHAT specific evil tendencies, are they violent or vindictive or sadistic or hateful? At which point alignment becomes redundant. This is why it's rubbish, it's necessarily meaningless or redundant, it never adds anything meaningful, but it steals attention from important things.

Morty
2013-05-06, 09:02 AM
This attitude has never made any sense to me. Saying "racial alignment is rubbish" means you're saying that every race must have exactly the same ethical tendencies as humans. No race is allowed to be more lawful, or more chaotic, or more good, or more evil . . . which in practice ends up meaning that every race has basically the same moral standards that humans do, just with a slightly different flavour.

This is silly enough when you're dealing with troglodytes or bugbears (why on earth would every single different species have the same ethical outlook as ours?) but gets ridiculous when you start applying it to dragons, aboleths, mind flayers, and other creatures that have virtually nothing in common with humanity.

Racial alignments work fine as long as you keep in mind that they're tendencies, not ironclad rules. So yes, you do get Lawful Good orcs, they're just a lower percentage of the species than Lawful Good dwarves are.

You can make races different, with various psychological tendencies without slapping a moral label on them. It's better to describe the races as they are - possibly inclined to violence through inherent nature or circumstances - and let characters within the setting, PCs included, make their own judgements.

Scow2
2013-05-06, 09:31 AM
At which point they stop being evil. Because they don't do what they do out of evil motivations, but because their nature compels them to. In fact, we should pity them because they're driven to destructive behaviour through no fault of their own.Are you seriously arguing that Fiends aren't evil? Animals aren't evil because they don't have the intellect to make moral decisions. Evil races and species do have that intelligence and can discern right from wrong - but just don't give a damn about it. They may not be aware of the 'higher concept' of Cosmic Good, but they're aware of at least some (If not most), of its individual tenets, and reject them (Mercy is for the weak! Peace is boring! The wanton waste of life is music to my ears! The only person that matters is ME!)


Thing is, saying a race is predisposed to some evil tendency doesn't really tell you much about the race, you have to also explain WHAT specific evil tendencies, are they violent or vindictive or sadistic or hateful? At which point alignment becomes redundant. This is why it's rubbish, it's necessarily meaningless or redundant, it never adds anything meaningful, but it steals attention from important things.


You can make races different, with various psychological tendencies without slapping a moral label on them. It's better to describe the races as they are - possibly inclined to violence through inherent nature or circumstances - and let characters within the setting, PCs included, make their own judgements.
Well, in 3.5, the Monster Manual DOES go out of its way to explain why the culture of its 'evil' humanoids make them evil, and how that evil manifests within their culture and psychologies. The alignment section just reinforces how the cosmos reacts to the. Complaining that the races are "Arbitrarily labeled as evil without any explanation or depth" when there's usually several paragraphs giving a complete overview of their psychology and culture is intellectually disingenuous.

Mastikator
2013-05-06, 09:38 AM
[snip]Complaining that the races are "Arbitrarily labeled as evil without any explanation or depth" when there's usually several paragraphs giving a complete overview of their psychology and culture is intellectually disingenuous.
Saying that I'm complaining about lack of information about psychology and/or culture when I'm clearly saying that emphasizing on it being evil with that information already made clear is stealing attention from that information. That is intellectually disingenuous.

Attention is a finite resource, so is time. The more the book emphasizes on the drow wearing an evil hat the less attention is paid to their psychology and culture and natural predisposition. It is detrimental.

Scow2
2013-05-06, 09:58 AM
Saying that I'm complaining about lack of information about psychology and/or culture when I'm clearly saying that emphasizing on it being evil with that information already made clear is stealing attention from that information. That is intellectually disingenuous.

Attention is a finite resource, so is time. The more the book emphasizes on the drow wearing an evil hat the less attention is paid to their psychology and culture and natural predisposition. It is detrimental.Have you EVER GMed a game?

Alignment has mechanical ramifications in a fight (Detect/Smite evil and the like), and needs to be readily available. It also gives a quick flag to say "This sort of thing might be appropriate mook-material". "Evil" fits on a table or quick-reference chart. Detailed explanations of culture doesn't.

Yes, attention and time are finite resources - which is why races are given a quick alignment tag in their statblock instead of wasting your attention and time with paragraphs and sentences trying to explain the exact details of their culture and behaviors, which is all conveniently spelled out below to be read and used during campaign prep-time, so the GM can play them properly. Nobody will give a **** about monsters unless they have a role in the campaign and setting's narrative. Alignment helps snag attention toward that role.

D&D isn't meant to be a sociopolitical simulator beyond providing unique and exciting adventures to a party.

Morty
2013-05-06, 10:04 AM
Are you seriously arguing that Fiends aren't evil? Animals aren't evil because they don't have the intellect to make moral decisions. Evil races and species do have that intelligence and can discern right from wrong - but just don't give a damn about it. They may not be aware of the 'higher concept' of Cosmic Good, but they're aware of at least some (If not most), of its individual tenets, and reject them (Mercy is for the weak! Peace is boring! The wanton waste of life is music to my ears! The only person that matters is ME!)

Yes, alignment being an inherent part of a creature's nature is illogical regardless of whether we're talking about an elf, goblin, a devil or a daeva. Is it really "evil" or "good" if they have no choice in the matter?


Well, in 3.5, the Monster Manual DOES go out of its way to explain why the culture of its 'evil' humanoids make them evil, and how that evil manifests within their culture and psychologies. The alignment section just reinforces how the cosmos reacts to the. Complaining that the races are "Arbitrarily labeled as evil without any explanation or depth" when there's usually several paragraphs giving a complete overview of their psychology and culture is intellectually disingenuous.

Yes, the Monster Manual goes to great lengths to describe how the monstrous humanoids are horrible, awful vermin. I consider it to be part of the problem.

Scow2
2013-05-06, 10:12 AM
Yes, alignment being an inherent part of a creature's nature is illogical regardless of whether we're talking about an elf, goblin, a devil or a daeva. Is it really "evil" or "good" if they have no choice in the matter? They do have a choice. They just choose to be evil. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you have to do it. And while some may feel they don't have a choice in the matter, or are marginalized into doing evil, they're still willfully doing evil. Two wrongs don't make a right. And thinking of outsiders as humans is a problem - they are supernatural manifestations of primal forces.

Yes, the Monster Manual goes to great lengths to describe how the monstrous humanoids are horrible, awful vermin. I consider it to be part of the problem.Well, they do tend to be horrible, awful vermin. If they weren't, they wouldn't be monsters. Some are made to be that way by circumstance.

Lorsa
2013-05-06, 10:17 AM
As someone already stated, it would be quite boring if all races / species had the same moral tendencies as humans. The fact the they are different makes it interesting to me. Some outsiders don't have a moral choice because they are, more or less, the embodiment of a certain alignment. Again I see no problem with this. Other settings work differently of course but I want my angels and demons to be vastly different from humanity, and their fixed alignment is only the cosmic in-game spell-effect box that best describes their nature.

Of course their can be a lawful good goblin, and a chaotic neutral gold dragon. They are just more rare. I don't see these things as only cultural either (in some cases they are, as with the drow) but part of the psychological build that differentiate some races from another. Elves tend to be more chaotic whereas dwarves are more lawful. Yes, their society and culture reflect this but I see it more as their innate tendencies is a cause of their culture than the other way around.

A good thing to remember, as always; they are guidelines and tendencies. If you start stereotyping and killing all kobolds (or black dragons) on sight you will soon enough loose your paladin powers.

Morty
2013-05-06, 10:20 AM
They do have a choice. They just choose to be evil. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you have to do it. And while some may feel they don't have a choice in the matter, or are marginalized into doing evil, they're still willfully doing evil. Two wrongs don't make a right. And thinking of outsiders as humans is a problem - they are supernatural manifestations of primal forces.

Wait a second. Are they supernatural manifestations of primal forces... or do they have a choice in terms of alignment?

More seriously though, I think D&D outsiders are too human. If they're literally manifestations of cosmic forces, they should be alien. Instead, they're just good humans or bad humans with wings, horns or halos.


Well, they do tend to be horrible, awful vermin. If they weren't, they wouldn't be monsters. Some are made to be that way by circumstance.

Right. Which brings me back to my original point that this is bad writing and we should try to do better.

hamishspence
2013-05-06, 10:28 AM
As it currently stands, many seem to be mortal souls reincarnated in an outsider form after death.

Scow2
2013-05-06, 10:31 AM
Wait a second. Are they supernatural manifestations of primal forces... or do they have a choice in terms of alignment?

More seriously though, I think D&D outsiders are too human. If they're literally manifestations of cosmic forces, they should be alien. Instead, they're just good humans or bad humans with wings, horns or halos. What? No they're not. They aren't human at all. They may look and act Human(oid), but that's because humanoids are the primary creators of society and morality - fiends and outsiders are the creations of human imagination, created in our image. And a lot of them aren't human anyway. Have you even LOOKED at the art of demons, devils, and many aberrations and evil outsiders?

Right. Which brings me back to my original point that this is bad writing and we should try to do better.Why? There aren't any Monstrous Humanoids with "Always Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral Evil". Most of them turn to evil because they've been marginalized, or feel that, because they're stronger than others, they're also better than everyone else and deserve anything they can get - but there are still plenty of exceptions. Many are also created by inherently evil and inhuman creatures, such as Aboleths and other Aberrations, or fiends.

A big reason for Evil is moral myopia.

As it currently stands, many seem to be mortal souls reincarnated in an outsider form after death.I've never seen anything point to that. Mortal souls become Petitioners. Outsiders just spontaneously appear - if anything, they're created by significant alignment-exemplifying actions and events occur - such as the creation of a new fiend whenever Good makes a concession to evil (Whenever a paladin willingly commits an evil act, a balor gets its wings), and creation of a new archon/guardinal/eladrin when Good triumphs over Evil, the creation of a new Slaad whenever, and creation of new Inevitables when more laws are laid down and enforced.

Water_Bear
2013-05-06, 11:16 AM
I've never seen anything point to that. Mortal souls become Petitioners. Outsiders just spontaneously appear - if anything, they're created by significant alignment-exemplifying actions and events occur - such as the creation of a new fiend whenever Good makes a concession to evil (Whenever a paladin willingly commits an evil act, a balor gets its wings), and creation of a new archon/guardinal/eladrin when Good triumphs over Evil, the creation of a new Slaad whenever, and creation of new Inevitables when more laws are laid down and enforced.

The Fiendish Codexes go into a lot of detail about how Devils and Demons are made from mortal souls. At the same time though, there are a lot of outsiders which are explicitly sexually reproductive, reproduce asexually, are built for specific purposes, arise randomly, etc; the Baatezu and Tanar'ri seem to be exceptions rather than the norm.

I, on the other hand, haven't seen anything like what you're suggesting. Where are you getting that?

hamishspence
2013-05-06, 11:35 AM
The sample petitioner for Celestia, is the Lantern Archon.

Joe the Rat
2013-05-06, 11:36 AM
While Alignment Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) do fit (generally) to our (human) concept of the moral or ethical values of certain types of acts, they are not necessarily the same thing. The trick here is that this is a more fantastic setting than real life, and Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable things. In D&D, I can get the essence of pure Chaos, and pour it on my pancakes. Anarchic Flapjacks! In real life, I have to make do with cinnamon maple. Outsiders are more or less made out of/subsist on "Alignment" essence. The amount of free will an Outsider has in terms of ethical reasoning may vary - or be debatable as to existing at all. The not-dead-yet, more cosmic-minded individuals may cheerfully identify themselves as Evil with a capital E, and expound upon the virtues of being Evil, and most certainly not see themselves as the bad guys. This is not "Your Evil is my Good," or "I'm Evil, excuse me while I cackle and twirl my mustache." Our Evil is their Evil too, and they see Evil as "Right."

For races-in-the-manuals usage, I treat it as a cultural shorthand. A race that is "Always/usually Evil" says to me "The values and structure of the dominant cultures of this group tends towards Evil, and encourages a more Evil mindset in its people." That does not mean there can't be exceptions. Good-aligned misunderstood rebels, Chaotic Dwarves, "To be Lawful, not necessarily Evil" Hobgoblin Republics with less-than-typical levels of cruelty, hidden villages of not-really-all-that-into-baby-eating Kobolds. Red dragons that stand up for labor rights. Whatever you can imagine. Not always likely, not always plausible, but you could have one if you needed it.

From a narrative standpoint, why do you need this exception? What is it in your story that calls out for an Orc Paladin or an Elven Dictator or Aasimar Assasins or Modron Marauders? Are you wanting to throw a dilemma at the players? Do you want to show a richer cultural background, and want the players to not start slaughtering everything until they see there are some admirable traits in the culture? Are you wanting to make a point about Cosmic Alignment Good or Evil not necessarily being the same as Right and Wrong? Do you want to have a mix of Evil and Neutral Orcs in the opposing horde to confuse the party Alignometer? Are you just wanting to screw with the party?

Any reason is fair, really. If you don't have a reason to set up an unconventional race/alignment mix, don't worry about it. If you want to do something more than one-Alignment-fits-most-bugbears, go for it.

hamishspence
2013-05-06, 11:38 AM
While Alignment Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) do fit (generally) to our (human) concept of the moral or ethical values of certain types of acts, they are not necessarily the same thing. The trick here is that this is a more fantastic setting than real life, and Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable things. In D&D, I can get the essence of pure Chaos, and pour it on my pancakes. Anarchic Flapjacks! In real life, I have to make do with cinnamon maple. Outsiders are more or less made out of/subsist on "Alignment" essence. The amount of free will an Outsider has in terms of ethical reasoning may vary - or be debatable as to existing at all. The not-dead-yet, more cosmic-minded individuals may cheerfully identify themselves as Evil with a capital E, and expound upon the virtues of being Evil, and most certainly not see themselves as the bad guys. This is not "Your Evil is my Good," or "I'm Evil, excuse me while I cackle and twirl my mustache." Our Evil is their Evil too, and they see Evil as "Right."

For races-in-the-manuals usage, I treat it as a cultural shorthand. A race that is "Always/usually Evil" says to me "The values and structure of the dominant cultures of this group tends towards Evil, and encourages a more Evil mindset in its people." That does not mean there can't be exceptions. Good-aligned misunderstood rebels, Chaotic Dwarves, "To be Lawful, not necessarily Evil" Hobgoblin Republics with less-than-typical levels of cruelty, hidden villages of not-really-all-that-into-baby-eating Kobolds. Red dragons that stand up for labor rights. Whatever you can imagine. Not always likely, not always plausible, but you could have one if you needed it.

This is a pretty good summary.

Haarkla
2013-05-14, 04:20 PM
It's been a while since I've looked through a monster manual, but I remember races being described as varying degrees of inherently evil. Or in some cases good.

Is this not a little ambiguous? Shouldn't monsters/monstrous races have tendancies towards specific evil things? Like causing violence, as an example.

I agree.

Goblins enjoy malevalent and harmful practical jokes.

Orcs were created for war and destruction.

Minotaurs tend to be bullies and are quick to anger.

Nymrod
2013-05-14, 05:38 PM
I agree.

Goblins enjoy malevalent and harmful practical jokes.

Orcs were created for war and destruction.

Minotaurs tend to be bullies and are quick to anger.

Moreover I think in many cases their societies cement those alignments by creating rights of passage. If you are never considered an adult in your tribe until you've tortured a slave, there's a good chance the society will turn you evil. In fact many of these races have strong religions defining their social mores and such rituals would be part and parcel of their activites. Goblins are not born evil nor are they naturally evil but if their society has developed so that at the present point it requires evil acts to survive, then goblins will become evil by simply being part of it.

Wardog
2013-05-14, 05:50 PM
At which point they stop being evil. Because they don't do what they do out of evil motivations, but because their nature compels them to. In fact, we should pity them because they're driven to destructive behaviour through no fault of their own.

Or despise them utterly because their very nature means they are antithical to everything good.


Really, it could be argued either way:

* Beings that are compelled by their nature a guiltless. Only those that have the capacity for moral choice, and choose to do evil are really Evil.

* Beings that have choice and choose to do evil things have merely chosen to do evil. It is the ones whose very nature makes them incapable of doing anything but evil that are truely Evil.


(Now roll to Save vs. Philosophy).

LibraryOgre
2013-05-15, 12:51 AM
In most D&D-like worlds, races are each the result of special creation. Where do dwarves come from? Well, the Lawful Good Moradin made them. Thus, they're mostly Lawful and Good, because that is the way they're made. Where do drow come from? Well, their entire existence has been controlled by Lolth for generations. So, yeah, they're all CE.

Do you know what a CE dwarf is? He's insane. He's insane in a way humans (who tend towards TN in D&D, either because they're a compromise or because they were given the gift of choice or because the designers really didn't want to get into human origins) really cannot understand... at most, a human can be two steps away from "average". A CE dwarf (or a LG drow) is twice as crazy as a human can be. In human terms, a LE or CG drow, or a LE or CG dwarf, are about as crazy as any human ever was.

People say "Oh, they're sentient beings who are capable of making choices!" Sure. But chances are, they're going to choose the alignment that they're made to be, especially since everyone around them (family, friends, community) will be making the same kinds of choices. They may have many and nuanced reasons for doing so... "I am supporting my clan" actually works for both the LG dwarf who helps a wounded foe on the battlefield (for he is helping his clan by forging a relationship with a political enemy that can help end the violence) and the CE drow who ritually murders her matron mother to gain the favor of Lolth and great personal power (since the old, weak matron couldn't have been killed if she'd been properly vigilant).

All of the problematic aspects of viewing people from one culture as being inherently evil go away really fast when you realize that they actually are... that their gods actually made them evil, their gods like them evil, and they, without influence, will happily continue to be evil. Because while they have choice, so do the gods... and the gods made them evil. When the gods are real entities, their real choices have real consequences.

Now, these design choices may manifest themselves in various ways. I like to say that Orcs tend towards Brutality, Goblins towards Viciousness, Bugbears towards Cruelty, and Hobgoblins towards fascism... leave them to their own devices, an orc will gleefully beat you with a club, a goblin will find some way to debilitate you, a bugbear will cause you pain, and a hobgoblin will enslave you. You might have vicious orcs or brutal bugbears of fascist goblins or cruel hobgoblins, but these don't alter their inherent evil... they're just odd ways that they manifest themselves. Most hobgoblins will enslave you... the quirky ones beat you to death with your own leg. The really crazy ones? The ones that other hobgoblins hear about and wonder "What kind of society are we that we could produce such a warped individual?" They're paladins.

Because a LG hobgoblin is just as far from the hobgoblin norm of LE as a LE, CE, CG, or LG human is from the (D&D) human norm of N. With "Usually", chances may be 60/40 that any given individual is of the listed alignment... but it's not likely that 60% are CG and the other 40% are evenly distributed. It's a lot more likely, if 60% are CG, then most of the remaining are CN or NG, with other alignments becoming rarer the further away you get. It's not that 99% of succubi are are CE and 1% are LG... it's that 99% are CE, and 45% of those remaining are NE and 45% are CN, while 8% of that 1% are LE, NN, or CG, 1.9% are the really crazy NG and LG, and that infintesimaly rare one-tenth of one percent are LG.

Because, for all that they're people, they're not humans. And human thinking does not, necessarily, apply. We have enough variation in our own psychologies between cultures and subcultures. And I like my hobgoblins to be more than orange-skinned, pointy-eared stand-ins for whatever kind of human I want them to be.

Jay R
2013-05-15, 10:36 AM
Do humans have a general alignment? It depends on the culture that they are brought up in.

A human brought up in a slave-holding culture is much more likely to consider slavery all right than one who grows up in a free culture. I would consider the alignment of somebody who grew up a slave-holding culture to be "usually Lawful Evil".

Similarly, people in a society of raiders could be "usually Neutral Evil".

I find it much easier to think in terms of cultural alignments than racial ones. The customary alignment of goblins is based on the goblin culture at this time and place.

Ashdate
2013-05-15, 10:42 AM
I think the biggest problem with alignment is that the words "good" and "evil" are too loaded. I tend to think of it as more of a person who acts primarily in the interest of the "group" (good) or their "self" (evil).

(Of course, "Lawful Group" and "Chaotic Self" does not roll of the tongue.)

Scow2
2013-05-15, 12:16 PM
I think the biggest problem with alignment is that the words "good" and "evil" are too loaded. I tend to think of it as more of a person who acts primarily in the interest of the "group" (good) or their "self" (evil).

(Of course, "Lawful Group" and "Chaotic Self" does not roll of the tongue.)So elves are evil and Hobgoblins are good? :smallconfused:

Self is an aspect of individuality, which is part of Chaos. Group is an aspect of conformity, which is a part of Law.

I think Mark Hall put it best.

Wardog
2013-05-15, 12:30 PM
So elves are evil and Hobgoblins are good? :smallconfused:

Self is an aspect of individuality, which is part of Chaos. Group is an aspect of conformity, which is a part of Law.

I think Mark Hall put it best.

Indeed, defining "good" and "evil" (or "Good" and "Evil") in D&D is a lot easier than in real life, because a great many things that people have argued about being good or evil in real life have been shoved ontothe Law/Chaos axis.

(Which of course makes Law/Chaos a horrible mess of barely-connected concepts where complete opposites of ideology and behavious can be the same alignment).

Ashdate
2013-05-15, 12:52 PM
So elves are evil and Hobgoblins are good? :smallconfused:

I would suggest that "good" creatures are purposefully acting for the benefit of a much larger picture, be it history, family, or even something as huge as their race. Perhaps calling it something like the "greater good" would be more accurate if it did not also contain the word "good" in it to muck things up. Elves may value freedom and individuality, but they wouldn't necessarily put themselves first in a crisis.

An "evil" creature only cares about how events benefit themselves. That they may work within a group and have families does not mean they're not always thinking about number one. A hobgoblin may be evil, but they're also not savages. They organize themselves in a very militaristic fashion. In the end, they're still out for themselves however. Rather than fighting the social order however, they would attempt to manipulate it to get what they want. They might talk big about protecting their "race" but at the end of the day they're more concerned about their own welfare.

But then again, the problem with terms like "good" and "evil" is that they have a hard time capturing such nuance. Do I think my interpretation is "correct", to the exclusion of other interpretations? No, but presenting it in such terms such as "group" and "self" - rather than "good" and "evil" - I think takes a lot of the baggage out of alignment.

As an aside, I think such a definition opens up the concept of "neutrality" a bit on the good-evil axis, rather than sticking it in this awkward place where you have people who could be defined as "not liking good" but "tolerating evil", which is just strange.

LibraryOgre
2013-05-15, 05:29 PM
It's worth noting that, originally, D&D only had two alignments... Law (which tended to represent good and civilization) and Chaos (which tended to represent selfishness and wildness... the Fae and Conan).

Mr Beer
2013-05-16, 06:43 AM
I'm happy with the concept that D&D Evil is not real world evil, where people do bad things for reasons they justify to themselves. D&D Evil explicitly does bad things for the sake of being evil.

I'm not saying that's always the case, but generally I don't feel the need to justify why the Archdevil's baroque plot has unnecessarily cruel elements to it, any more than I have to justify how 50 foot long dragons can fly or why 25 foot tall giants are immune to the inverse-square law.

Jay R
2013-05-16, 11:16 AM
It's worth noting that, originally, D&D only had two alignments... Law (which tended to represent good and civilization) and Chaos (which tended to represent selfishness and wildness... the Fae and Conan).

Neutral existed as well. In fact, according to Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes, Conan was Neutral, not Chaotic.

And the sum total of alignment rules for PCS were as follows:


Note that Clerics of 7th level or greater are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!

Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take - Law, Neutrality, or Chaos.

Character types are limited as follows by this alignment:
<followed by table of alignments by race>

Law, Chaos and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively.

Note that underlined Clerical spells are reversed by evil Clerics. Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead; however, evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.

Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The Chief exception is the Raise Dead spell, which becomes:

The Finger of Death: <spell description>

Anti-Clerics: Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest.

That's it - the entire list of rules for alignment in Men and Magic, the first book. (There are a few more in Monsters and Treasures, mostly about the alignments of swords and a few other magic items.)

The biggest mistake you can make about original D&D is to consider it a game, rather than three pamphlets of guidelines on how to create a game. Not counting the covers, the complete set of rules was 28 sheets of letter-sized paper, folded over.