PDA

View Full Version : Is Surviving Evil if it Causes Harm to Others?



Vrock_Summoner
2015-05-18, 10:09 PM
Obviously, a good person would almost always choose to end themselves if their continued existence directly resulted in the deaths of others. But things that aren't good don't necessarily jump straight to being evil.

There are few situations where this applies to anything attempting to emulate reality, but a vast majority of people on these boards play fantasy games, so the situation could come up.

What if, whether by limitation of species or because of a magical curse you can find no way of undoing, the only sustenance you can survive on is, say, the flesh of humans you killed yourself? I suppose in a weirdly contradictory setting that's harmonious enough to have large standing hospitals but awful enough to have extremely regular deaths by disease or such, you can sit in a hospital finishing off those who are about to die anyway, but most likely you'll have to kill and eat people who would have lived on in order to, yourself, keep living.

Or maybe it's an even more direct curse; for every week you live, a single random person in the world except yourself is immediately struck dead. In a fantasy world where it's possible to have a curse like this, I figure an appropriate requirement to not be an evil douchebag is to probably be constantly searching for a way to remove the curse, but is choosing your own survival week after week an automatic dump into moral blackness?

This is most appropriate in games with alignment, as there's a tangible result, but it applies in fantasy games in general, I should think. Anyway, what're your thoughts?

Kane0
2015-05-18, 10:48 PM
Nah. Unless you have no intent on fixing the curse and in fact, find it enjoyable and/or entertaining. Then you'd be evil.

kyoryu
2015-05-18, 10:59 PM
Arguably neutral. But the caster is clearly Evil!

Choosing to sacrifice yourself is definitely a Good act. If the curse has no impact on you, I'd say that trying to cure it is also a Good act.

Rater202
2015-05-18, 10:59 PM
Are you doing more Good for the world than Evil? If you bring a net amount of Good to the world, then the act of survival is a necessary evil, making it neutral.

If, on the other hand, you are bring equal or less Good into the world than the evil you have to do to survive, then if you have a good bone in your body, you should probably just lay down and die.

And as always, there are loopholes in this curse. You could kill and eat people who could be argued, from a certain point of view, to deserve death, such as unrepentant murderers. Or perhaps those with incredibly sickness to whom a quick death would be a mercy?

Is this a D&D game? does our reluctant Cannibal know the Clone Spell? Mass produce clones of himself, which are technically alive in a sense, then kill the mindless, soulless clone and eat ti's flesh.

Does rekilling the undead count?

What about a murderhobo who takes out a few barbarians who were planning a little of the old rape and pillage?

mephnick
2015-05-18, 11:10 PM
Or maybe it's an even more direct curse; for every week you live, a single random person in the world except yourself is immediately struck dead. In a fantasy world where it's possible to have a curse like this, I figure an appropriate requirement to not be an evil douchebag is to probably be constantly searching for a way to remove the curse, but is choosing your own survival week after week an automatic dump into moral blackness?

Random person a week? Who's to say any of them are better for the world than me? Like 150,000 people die a day on Earth, it's not a big deal.

I don't think it's evil to choose your own life. It's not my fault I'm cursed.

Segev
2015-05-19, 12:21 AM
As long as you take no positive action to kill those who die due to your living, you are not evil. You can even be good; self-sacrifice can be noble, but unless you have a depraved indifference to the deaths your continued existence causes, and make no effort to prevent it, you can be a good person. This kind of existence would probably necessitate you becoming a hero, because you're going to have to quest to find a way to fix this curse. However, you're not responsible for those deaths just because you refuse to kill yourself.

On the other hand, if you have to ACTIVELY kill them, and you do, that's your choice and you are evil. Even if the alternative is starving to death, you have no right to actively kill anybody else.

It's about agency. You are responsible for your actions. If it is an external force killing people, you do not have responsibility for it, even if you've been told that your death would make it stop. In fact, anybody who came after YOU to kill you would be rather evil, because you're as much a victim as those who die to that force's power.


To put it in another example, if you are told by the BBEG that he will kill somebody each day that you live, you're not responsible for those deaths just because you refuse to die. He is.

So even if the volcano will erupt if you don't sacrifice yourself to it, you're not responsible for the deaths the eruption causes when you don't; the volcano is. You could be more heroic if you did sacrifice yourself, but wanting to find another way and not being willing to die are not sins. You have a right to live, and no responsibility to lay down your life for others' sake. You also have no right to actively take others' lives from them to sustain yourself, however.

The line is, again, agency. You are evil if you choose to murder. You are not evil for refusing to commit suicide, even if it causes death of others. Murder requires intent to kill. Being unwilling to sacrifice yourself to prevent a death is not intent to kill. It's drive to live. And you have that right.

goto124
2015-05-19, 12:22 AM
You could kill and eat people who could be argued, from a certain point of view, to deserve death, such as unrepentant murderers. Or perhaps those with incredibly sickness to whom a quick death would be a mercy?

Adventurers tend to kill a lot, especially monsters. Eating people you were going to kill anyway shouldn't be any more evil than... er... killing them.

Rater202
2015-05-19, 01:20 AM
Adventurers tend to kill a lot, especially monsters. Eating people you were going to kill anyway shouldn't be any more evil than... er... killing them.

Was kinda going for that with the murderhobo eating the barbarians what was gonna rape and pillage.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-19, 04:22 AM
Obviously, a good person would almost always choose to end themselves if their continued existence directly resulted in the deaths of others. But things that aren't good don't necessarily jump straight to being evil.

It is a truism of life -- merely by living, every organism is depriving life to others.

Designations of "good" and "evil" are nonsensical in this regard.

Segev
2015-05-19, 07:01 AM
It is a truism of life -- merely by living, every organism is depriving life to others.

Designations of "good" and "evil" are nonsensical in this regard.

This is a bit of a dangerous generalization. While there are those who would equate animal life to human life in a moral sense, that is not the normal assignment. It may be evil to needlessly torment any living creature, but killing animals for purpose is only considered evil in some rather extreme philosophies. Normally, when one speaks of depriving something of life as being evil, one is assumed to be referring to sentient/sapient/intelligent creatures. That is, people.

I doubt, for example, that the need to slaughter your own chicken for it to have nutritive value to you would make anybody think, "wow, that guy's cursed to be evil or die!" It might be thought, "Eesh, that's an inconvenient curse," but that's it. The curse suggested above is implied to require the killing and consumption of beings which are characterized as people.

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 07:12 AM
This is a bit of a dangerous generalization. While there are those who would equate animal life to human life in a moral sense, that is not the normal assignment. It may be evil to needlessly torment any living creature, but killing animals for purpose is only considered evil in some rather extreme philosophies. Normally, when one speaks of depriving something of life as being evil, one is assumed to be referring to sentient/sapient/intelligent creatures. That is, people. Except there is no definition of sentient/sapient/intelligent that applies to all humans, and doesn't apply to any animal on some level without being arbitrary and excluding all non-humans. Humans are animals - just self-important about it.


I doubt, for example, that the need to slaughter your own chicken for it to have nutritive value to you would make anybody think, "wow, that guy's cursed to be evil or die!" It might be thought, "Eesh, that's an inconvenient curse," but that's it. The curse suggested above is implied to require the killing and consumption of beings which are characterized as people.Welcome to the life of an Illithid. I'm pretty sure there are qualitative differences between human and illithid neurology that also allow them to say Humans are non-intellectual equals with just as much authority as humans declare Animals to not be intellectual equals.

Segev
2015-05-19, 08:03 AM
Except there is no definition of sentient/sapient/intelligent that applies to all humans, and doesn't apply to any animal on some level without being arbitrary and excluding all non-humans. Humans are animals - just self-important about it.

Welcome to the life of an Illithid. I'm pretty sure there are qualitative differences between human and illithid neurology that also allow them to say Humans are non-intellectual equals with just as much authority as humans declare Animals to not be intellectual equals.

This is why I ultimately used the term "people." We can define "people" and understand what it means. We also are capable of observing living things and determining personhood with a certain degree of intellectual honesty. In truth, illithids know they're eating people. They can philosophize about it if they like, but most don't even care to; they're evil and view other people as chattel to be used as they see fit, anyway.

You can try to make claims about, say, cows and chickens being "people" and equate humans calling them "animals" to illithids thinking of humans as similarly "beneath them," but the truth is that we have the capacity to recognize those qualities which make a person a person. The Turing Test, to a degree, works. (I would argue that even those obviously non-sentient/sapient/intelligent/person devices which can, on occasion, pass said test are not evidence that it's unreliable, because they are purpose-built BY people to fool other people. They're impressive feats of acting, essentially, because they're acting-by-proxy, but actors can create convincing false people all the time.)

In short: animals aren't people. They are very clearly not people.

Also, I will not argue this further, as it's likely to start getting too close to real-world philosophy and even religion for this board's rules. You are, of course, free to disagree and think animals are people, too.

boomwolf
2015-05-19, 08:59 AM
That's one of the flaws of the alignment system.

It applies good and evil as cosmological standards, but they only make sense from the viewpoint of a humanoid.

By th e goid/evil logic, predators are evil by default, or monsters are not - as they basically do the same thing, kill a similar lifeforms for food.

Basically it's a poor shoehorn of objective standards over vast number of different subjective viewpoints.

Segev
2015-05-19, 09:12 AM
That's one of the flaws of the alignment system.

It applies good and evil as cosmological standards, but they only make sense from the viewpoint of a humanoid.

By th e goid/evil logic, predators are evil by default, or monsters are not - as they basically do the same thing, kill a similar lifeforms for food.

Basically it's a poor shoehorn of objective standards over vast number of different subjective viewpoints.

Nah. If the predators are animals, themselves, then they're not moral agents: neutral. If they're people, then you can judge them on whether they prey upon other people or just upon non-people-type-creatures (which, again, are recognizable even if you can't spell out a strict definition).

The world of the webcomic "Kevin & Kell" is a horrific one wherein every animal is a person; the way they address the issue is interesting, though disturbing.

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-19, 09:15 AM
Let's see, curse A is basically a vampire who has to kill unlike HPoH or in Masquerade/Requiem, and is evil. Maybe not capital e Evil, but definitely evil enough that suicide is moral.

Curse B is, strangely, more lenient, as you aren't causing the deaths, I agree with it being neutral as long as you're relatively moral and put effort into solving us.

But switch that to 'random person who had a meaningful interaction with in the past week' and it gets grayer.

Segev
2015-05-19, 10:32 AM
Let's see, curse A is basically a vampire who has to kill unlike HPoH or in Masquerade/Requiem, and is evil. Maybe not capital e Evil, but definitely evil enough that suicide is moral.I'll note that suicide is not directly required to be neutral, here. In fact, with some effort to mitigate or choose carefully, you can manage 'neutral,' especially if you try to do more good than the evil you regretfully cause (using D&D alignments; I, personally, real-world, would not condone murder in any event...though maybe if you were an executioner and could get by on legitimately-worthy death row inmates...). You could even be good if you didn't commit suicide, but were willing to starve to death while you desperately tried to find a way to get free of the curse. Painful way to go, though.


Curse B is, strangely, more lenient, as you aren't causing the deaths, I agree with it being neutral as long as you're relatively moral and put effort into solving us.

But switch that to 'random person who had a meaningful interaction with in the past week' and it gets grayer.Interestingly, that gives you a little MORE freedom, if only because you can take active effort to avoid it. Don't interact with people more than absolutely necessary. Become a hermit, set up any goods you can't self-produce to be delivered perfunctorily, and interact with people only enough to do minimal business.

It probably still won't work perfectly, but you can at least do your best. Even warn people not to interact with you if they can avoid it, and explain the curse.

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 11:14 AM
This is why I ultimately used the term "people." We can define "people" and understand what it means. We also are capable of observing living things and determining personhood with a certain degree of intellectual honestyThat measurement being "Looks, walks, talks, and/or acts like a Human." Nothing more.

What we see as 'people' don't come across as 'people' to Illithids any more than a horse comes across as a person to a horse-trainer, even though they can both communicate. And a human trying to communicate in the same way as an Illithid does to an Illithid gets about the same respect as a person as humans give talking parrots.

Humans have defined "person" to exclude anything they sustain themselves on, to the point of disregarding all evidence to the contrary.
Nah. If the predators are animals, themselves, then they're not moral agents: neutral. If they're people, then you can judge them on whether they prey upon other people or just upon non-people-type-creatures (which, again, are recognizable even if you can't spell out a strict definition).
Only because, in D&D, animals are not like real-world animals, and are instead some arbitrary and ignorant nonsense based on prejudices and long-held misconceptions.

There is nothing special about life or 'sapience'.

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-19, 11:56 AM
I'll note that suicide is not directly required to be neutral, here. In fact, with some effort to mitigate or choose carefully, you can manage 'neutral,' especially if you try to do more good than the evil you regretfully cause (using D&D alignments; I, personally, real-world, would not condone murder in any event...though maybe if you were an executioner and could get by on legitimately-worthy death row inmates...). You could even be good if you didn't commit suicide, but were willing to starve to death while you desperately tried to find a way to get free of the curse. Painful way to go, though.
Why I used moral, not good. :smallwink:

Interestingly, that gives you a little MORE freedom, if only because you can take active effort to avoid it. Don't interact with people more than absolutely necessary. Become a hermit, set up any goods you can't self-produce to be delivered perfunctorily, and interact with people only enough to do minimal business.

It probably still won't work perfectly, but you can at least do your best. Even warn people not to interact with you if they can avoid it, and explain the curse.

It really depends on the curse, are we dealing with 'harmful spell' or 'horrible prophecy'? Because the second type is a much older style of curse, and implies that no matter what you do, a person WILL meaningfully interact with you and WILL die. You can mitigate it, but not completely avoid it. This gets into the 'free will' thing with all prophecies, but as long as the curse is loose enough there's less worries.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-19, 01:40 PM
In short: animals aren't people. They are very clearly not people.


Unless they have the People template or subtype -- People Animal or Animal (People).

People with the Animal template, Animal People, should be considered people too. However, People with the Animal subtype, People (Animal), is just plain silly.

Elbeyon
2015-05-19, 02:12 PM
What if, whether by limitation of species or because of a magical curse you can find no way of undoing, the only sustenance you can survive on is, say, the flesh of humans you killed yourself? Turn a rock into a non-intelligent human and slay the newly existing living flesh.

Adventurers murder, I mean kill, humans all the time. Food sources shouldn't be an issue.

Death is temporary. Kill a human and bring them back while keeping their old bits.

Take the evil alignment hit, but change the characters alignment back. Ex: Use lots of good spells if your class doesn't depend on alignment to become good again. Carry around an alignment shifting item. Because getting a good alignment is easy. If people want to change a character's alignment change it back through mechanics. No rp required. Oh, no, I'm eating babies again. *Puts on helm.* But, the universe says I'm good again. "Yay! Thank you universe. You're always right."

To answer the thread tittle with my opinion: No. Lots of people do harm to others by just living for a whole wide range of reasons. I don't see anyone suggesting that they are all evil. Trying to fix the problem (even if they will never succeed) should be enough to avoid an alignment shift.

Solaris
2015-05-19, 02:32 PM
Except there is no definition of sentient/sapient/intelligent that applies to all humans, and doesn't apply to any animal on some level without being arbitrary and excluding all non-humans. Humans are animals - just self-important about it.

I'm not concerned with definitions that apply to any animal, just the definitions that apply to animals I'm planning on eating. No animal I eat qualifies as sapient, self-aware, and capable of complex cognitive processes such as tool-making, long-term planning, or building tools to make other tools. These are all things humans are capable of doing outside of a physiological or psychological defect. Aberrations do not define species, and therefore we need not be concerned with a definition broad enough to encompass humanity's aberrations.

veti
2015-05-19, 04:11 PM
Can we please not turn this into yet another RL vegetarianism thread?

To the OP: is an illithid evil? Your answer to that question is your answer to your own question. I'm not going to try to persuade you either way.

Solaris
2015-05-19, 05:02 PM
Can we please not turn this into yet another RL vegetarianism thread?

When you tap into the madness that is an alignment discussion, all of the crazy will come pouring out.

Besides, we're not discussing vegetarianism. We're discussing personhood for animals and where lines get drawn.

CantigThimble
2015-05-19, 05:19 PM
Being weak-willed shouldn't make you evil. If you don't actively risk (or give up) your life to prevent the deaths of others that doesn't mean you're evil or even neutral, just not a paladin.

theNater
2015-05-19, 06:53 PM
Except there is no definition of sentient/sapient/intelligent that applies to all humans, and doesn't apply to any animal on some level without being arbitrary and excluding all non-humans.
In D&D there is. Anything with an intelligence score of 3 or more is sapient, and natural human stats range from 3 to 18. Meanwhile, animals have int scores of 1 or 2.

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 07:09 PM
Nah. If the predators are animals, themselves, then they're not moral agents: neutral. If they're people, then you can judge them on whether they prey upon other people or just upon non-people-type-creatures (which, again, are recognizable even if you can't spell out a strict definition).Except, again - "People" has no definition beyond "Arbitrarily Human".


I'm not concerned with definitions that apply to any animal, just the definitions that apply to animals I'm planning on eating. No animal I eat qualifies as sapient, self-aware, and capable of complex cognitive processes such as tool-making, long-term planning, or building tools to make other tools. These are all things humans are capable of doing outside of a physiological or psychological defect. Aberrations do not define species, and therefore we need not be concerned with a definition broad enough to encompass humanity's aberrations.Aberrations have just as much right to define species as humanoids do. There are a number of pyschological traits Illithids possess that humans do not that could lead Illithids to conclude that Humans are beyond reasonable doubt Not Sapient (lack of inherent psionics and telepathy first and foremost, followed by radically different instincts, neuropsychology, and ).

Animals ARE sapient, and significantly more self-aware than we like to give them credit for, simply because we cannot speak with them directly. Tool-making and long-term planning have nothing to do with rights to life (Are you saying a Sphinx wouldn't be a person?). Also, humans are far less self-aware than we like to admit, in case you haven't actually watched people interacting with each other, especially in large numbers.


In D&D there is. Anything with an intelligence score of 3 or more is sapient, and natural human stats range from 3 to 18. Meanwhile, animals have int scores of 1 or 2.Again - animals in D&D are completely divorced from reality.

theNater
2015-05-19, 07:46 PM
Again - animals in D&D are completely divorced from reality.
Yes they are. However, given that this is a thread about D&D(and other fantasy games), not reality, it's the D&D animals that are relevant to this conversation.

Ettina
2015-05-19, 08:40 PM
In D&D there is. Anything with an intelligence score of 3 or more is sapient, and natural human stats range from 3 to 18. Meanwhile, animals have int scores of 1 or 2.

Is it OK to eat a human whose Int stat has been permanently lowered to 1?

Maglubiyet
2015-05-19, 08:44 PM
Don't you have to knowingly perform an evil act for it to be considered Evil? To the OP's question, if you didn't know you were cursed and people died on your account, wouldn't your soul be untainted?

If you slaughter chickens and you happened to unknowingly kill a polymorphed paladin one day, did you commit an Evil act?

Or, what if, the chicken you slaughtered was fated to wander off and be captured and eaten by a starving orphan who would one day rise to become a great champion of justice. But instead, you killed that chicken, the orphan starved, and the kingdom was plunged into wickedness 20 years later for lack of its orphan protector. Your actions may have directly caused the apocalypse...but at least you got some fried chicken.

Anyway, why is causing death in a universe with a known, confirmed afterlife necessarily considered Evil? You're not really destroying anything permanent. Maybe it's Good to kill the innocent so that their souls can ascend to a realm of happiness before they learn evilness and end up somewhere else.

Alignment is so silly.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-19, 08:47 PM
Is it OK to eat a human whose Int stat has been permanently lowered to 1?

Yes, that's what Feeblemind is for. Clerics get Create Food and Water, it's only fair that arcane casters have some way to feed themselves too.

Elbeyon
2015-05-19, 08:48 PM
Permanent doesn't really mean permanent. Everything can be fixed with enough magic.

What about a human (that was a rock) with intelligence "-"?

theNater
2015-05-19, 09:17 PM
Is it OK to eat a human whose Int stat has been permanently lowered to 1?
No such thing. Even "permanent" ability drain is only permanent until a Restoration spell is cast, at which point the character's actual Int stat reasserts itself.


What about a human (that was a rock) with intelligence "-"?
That's not a human, it's a human-shaped pile of meat. Or, if animated, a flesh golem.

theNater
2015-05-19, 09:29 PM
Anyway, why is causing death in a universe with a known, confirmed afterlife necessarily considered Evil?
This isn't made explicit, but it seems that becoming undead or other forms of corpse desecration can prevent the soul from moving to the afterlife. It also seems that murdered characters are more likely to become undead(think vengeful ghosts). This suggests that when one murders somebody, one is more likely locking their soul into a torturous half-existence than sending it to an afterlife.

Elbeyon
2015-05-19, 09:37 PM
That's not a human, it's a human-shaped pile of meat. Or, if animated, a flesh golem.

It very much gains the human subtype.

theNater
2015-05-19, 11:10 PM
It very much gains the human subtype.
I am not familiar with this effect. What are you describing?

The only thing close I'm aware of is 3.5's Stone to Flesh spell, which explicitly turns a statue into a corpse(aka a human-shaped pile of meat).

Elbeyon
2015-05-19, 11:29 PM
I'm referring to polymorph any object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm), but I'm sure other similar spells/powers/abilities exist. If duration is an issue a timeless plane of finite size can be created for 5k (1k xp) or ~30k. (or found/researched for ~free.)

Affordable by wbl at level 6-11 at the earliest.

theNater
2015-05-19, 11:41 PM
I'm referring to polymorph any object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm)...
Polymorphing a rock into a human grants it human intelligence:

Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form.
No human with intelligence "-" there.

Rater202
2015-05-19, 11:43 PM
Unless you specifically polymorph it into a braindead human...

Elbeyon
2015-05-19, 11:50 PM
I wasn't really aiming for efficiency here. There are better targets for Polymorph any object to make it permanent without anything fancy. I like rocks though. They make good pets.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-19, 11:53 PM
What about the Awaken spell? Does an Awakened carrot have a soul and go to an Outer plane at death?

theNater
2015-05-20, 12:35 AM
Unless you specifically polymorph it into a braindead human...
The Polymorph line derives from Alter Self, which specifies that the form's qualities must fall within the norms for a creature of that kind. Braindead is not normal for humans, so it's out.


What about the Awaken spell? Does an Awakened carrot have a soul and go to an Outer plane at death?
There's no indication that it wouldn't. Presumably the Awaken spell draws a soul from an appropriate plane, and the soul returns when the body is no longer a viable vessel.

Rater202
2015-05-20, 01:39 AM
Braindead is not normal for humans, so it's out.

So change it into a specific braindead human.

Alternatively, Braindead is normal for brain dead humans.

theNater
2015-05-20, 02:38 AM
So change it into a specific braindead human.
Not seeing where any of those spells can copy a specific individual(with the exception of the caster).


Alternatively, Braindead is normal for brain dead humans.
I'm pretty sure that's not what the rules mean by "type". I also suspect that you know that, and are just being silly. Is that correct?

Kriton
2015-05-20, 02:42 AM
What about the Awaken spell? Does an Awakened carrot have a soul and go to an Outer plane at death?

I think the elemental plane of Carrot should exist in any cosmology.

Hawkstar
2015-05-20, 07:11 AM
The way I think it, honestly, is that Self-interest is Neutral. Nature is the cosmic embodiment of Neutral, and its overriding rule is "Survival of the Fittest". Neutral is NOT Good.

Evil requires actively looking to crush the rest of the world beyond the desire of the continued proliferation of the species and quality of life of the individual. A predator, intelligent or not, hunting another species to extinction out of pursuit of the growth of its own person, family, community, or species is a Neutral Act. A Predator, intelligent or not, hunting another species to extinction out of a desire to make that species suffer and die is Evil.

Likewise, Good requires actively looking to improve the world of those around you beyond improving your own life and species.

Of course, when emotion gets involved, it becomes murkier, because the value of seeking positive emotions is hard to gauge.

Segev
2015-05-20, 11:13 AM
I think the elemental plane of Carrot should exist in any cosmology.

It would be full of 6-foot tall NG dwarves!

rafet
2015-05-20, 11:38 AM
Don't you have to knowingly
Anyway, why is causing death in a universe with a known, confirmed afterlife necessarily considered Evil? You're not really destroying anything permanent. Maybe it's Good to kill the innocent so that their souls can ascend to a realm of happiness before they learn evilness and end up somewhere else.

Alignment is so silly.

Causing death generally causes pain and/or suffering. Most likely physical to the person being killed, but possibly also emotional to their family or friends.
As for it being good to kill an innocent before they become evil, if you have foreknowledge maybe, I'm sure a case could be made. Yet your removing someone's choice and hence freedom.
On the lines of choice, if they wanted to experience the afterlife, there are plenty of ways to get there by oneself. By not taking such actions it means they are choosing to stay alive and killing them go against their will.

Killing because your going against their will, and causing pain/suffering, killing without any justification is an evil act. It doesn't have to be malicious, just so long as it is self-interested.

Elbeyon
2015-05-20, 11:45 AM
The Polymorph line derives from Alter Self, which specifies that the form's qualities must fall within the norms for a creature of that kind. Braindead is not normal for humans, so it's out.

Losing all mental facilities (in old age) certainly is normal.

I hear old flesh is more tender anyway.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-20, 12:24 PM
Causing death generally causes pain and/or suffering. Most likely physical to the person being killed, but possibly also emotional to their family or friends.
As for it being good to kill an innocent before they become evil, if you have foreknowledge maybe, I'm sure a case could be made. Yet your removing someone's choice and hence freedom.
On the lines of choice, if they wanted to experience the afterlife, there are plenty of ways to get there by oneself. By not taking such actions it means they are choosing to stay alive and killing them go against their will.

Killing because your going against their will, and causing pain/suffering, killing without any justification is an evil act. It doesn't have to be malicious, just so long as it is self-interested.

So causing pain and suffering is bad. Killing someone (against their will) is bad. That's pretty much the definition of what an adventurer does.

I will never understand this kind of self-serving argument. "We kill others so that they won't hurt us or our allies, therefore we are good." It's only compounded by the subsequent actions adventurers take -- no notifying next of kin, no transferring possessions according to inheritance laws, no providing services for the disposal of the bodies according to the fallen's religious preferences, no accommodating the invalid members who are suddenly without support (infants, elderly, eggs, etc.)

Murder and loot. But don't worry, we're the good guys.

theNater
2015-05-20, 12:24 PM
Losing all mental facilities (in old age) certainly is normal.
It isn't in D&D. Your mental stats go up as you age, not down.

Elbeyon
2015-05-20, 12:43 PM
It isn't in D&D. Your mental stats go up as you age, not down.

True, true.

rafet
2015-05-20, 12:49 PM
So causing pain and suffering is bad. Killing someone (against their will) is bad. That's pretty much the definition of what an adventurer does.

I will never understand this kind of self-serving argument. "We kill others so that they won't hurt us or our allies, therefore we are good." It's only compounded by the subsequent actions adventurers take -- no notifying next of kin, no transferring possessions according to inheritance laws, no providing services for the disposal of the bodies according to the fallen's religious preferences, no accommodating the invalid members who are suddenly without support (infants, elderly, eggs, etc.)

Murder and loot. But don't worry, we're the good guys.


Who you chose to kill and why makes for the different alignments. Not every adventurer just kills to solve problems, a good or lawful character generally tries to bring a bad guy to trial. Or they are specifically commissioned to kill well-known villain. It's when the story takes a twist that the ethics of the situation change.

The attitude of "we're the good guys because we say so." leads to folks like Javert from Le' Mis, or Tarquin. While they may view themselves however they want, objectively they clearly aren't the good guys.

A neutral party is pushing the bounds of neutrality if it regularly looks to murder to solve a situation when there are other methods.

Segev
2015-05-20, 01:01 PM
In no small part, the reasons moral systems tend to prohibit murder are about the severance of potential for good. One must not punish just for potential to do harm without historical evidence of intent to enact that potential. One must not kill the innocent because they deserve a chance to do good things. One must not kill the infirm because it is always possible - however slim - that they might recover/improve. etc. etc.

Necrus Philius
2015-05-20, 01:06 PM
It is a truism of life -- merely by living, every organism is depriving life to others.

Designations of "good" and "evil" are nonsensical in this regard.

You just became the basis of the next villain in my d&d campaign!

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-21, 09:11 AM
Within context of all versions of alignment found in D&D or derivatives, hunting for food and killing for self-defense have been non-evil acts. Hunting for food can count as evil if a predator primarily targets sapient beings or if excessive suffering is caused in the process - refer to actual guidelines of ethical hunting (yes, such exists) if you want to know where the life gets drawn.

As far as the latter goes, causing harm to rebuke an unjust assault of any type is acceptable. "Unjust" meaning you were attacked first and with a level of force inappropriate for the situation.

In general, "good" in the sense of alignment refers to a hierarchy of Creature Rights, similar to but more expansive than real-life Human Rights. Some rights come before others. For example, right to absence of suffering is typically considered higher principle than right to property, meaning that when it is done to remove suffering, depriving someone of their belongings can be justified. Similarly, right to life can be considered higher than right to absence of suffering, so it can be acceptable to cause someone pain and bodily harm if it will save someone else's life. Whoever acts in violation of these rights automatically voids some of their own, so others can take action to preserve theirs.

In some corner cases, such as Undead, Demons and other forms of supernatural evil, causing harm to "others" who belong to the aforementioned groups is not only acceptable, it is a good act in itself.

hamishspence
2015-05-21, 09:28 AM
Which, of course, may depend on the harm. Torturing a demon or a vampire may still qualify as Evil.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-21, 09:55 AM
You just became the basis of the next villain in my d&d campaign!

Awesome! I still stand behind this statement.


In general, "good" in the sense of alignment refers to a hierarchy of Creature Rights, similar to but more expansive than real-life Human Rights. Some rights come before others. For example, right to absence of suffering is typically considered higher principle than right to property, meaning that when it is done to remove suffering, depriving someone of their belongings can be justified. Similarly, right to life can be considered higher than right to absence of suffering, so it can be acceptable to cause someone pain and bodily harm if it will save someone else's life. Whoever acts in violation of these rights automatically voids some of their own, so others can take action to preserve theirs.

How far do you push this, though? A goblin tribe is driven out of the mountains by a dragon and takes up residence near a human village. Cold, desperate, and starving the goblins "deprive" the villagers of some of their food stocks. The villagers need that food to survive the winter, so the theft is a threat to their survival. They retaliate by killing some goblins to try to oust them. The goblins see the existence of the village as a threat to their survival so they burn it down.

Who has done Good and who has done Evil? By your logic the goblins had a "right" to the villagers' property to alleviate their suffering. The villagers had a "right" to cause harm to save their own lives.

All sides are merely acting in their own self interest. Good and Evil are labels placed on these actions to justify individual's own choices. "Well, they're Evil, so I'm just doing Good by killing them."

Segev
2015-05-21, 10:04 AM
How far do you push this, though? A goblin tribe is driven out of the mountains by a dragon and takes up residence near a human village. Cold, desperate, and starving the goblins "deprive" the villagers of some of their food stocks. The villagers need that food to survive the winter, so the theft is a threat to their survival. They retaliate by killing some goblins to try to oust them. The goblins see the existence of the village as a threat to their survival so they burn it down.

Who has done Good and who has done Evil? By your logic the goblins had a "right" to the villagers' property to alleviate their suffering. The villagers had a "right" to cause harm to save their own lives.

All sides are merely acting in their own self interest. Good and Evil are labels placed on these actions to justify individual's own choices. "Well, they're Evil, so I'm just doing Good by killing them."

The goblins do NOT have a right to that property. In acting proactively to take that which others need to survive, they have committed evil. Need does not justify harm to innocents.

The villagers DO have a right to protect themselves and their goods, even to the point of violently seeking to recover them and prevent future such thefts.

It's tragic what's happened to the goblins. The dragon, likely, committed evil by driving them out, though in the context of what we're presented with the dragon's more force-of-nature than moral agent. Could as easily be "a terrible blizzard and set of avalanches that rendered the goblins' mountain home uninhabitable."

Maglubiyet
2015-05-21, 10:43 AM
The goblins do NOT have a right to that property. In acting proactively to take that which others need to survive, they have committed evil. Need does not justify harm to innocents.

The villagers DO have a right to protect themselves and their goods, even to the point of violently seeking to recover them and prevent future such thefts.

It's tragic what's happened to the goblins. The dragon, likely, committed evil by driving them out, though in the context of what we're presented with the dragon's more force-of-nature than moral agent. Could as easily be "a terrible blizzard and set of avalanches that rendered the goblins' mountain home uninhabitable."

What options do the goblins have in their starvation and how would they know they're jeopardizing others? They and their children are hungry and they see a bunch of fat chickens in an easy-to-open wire box. Without codified property laws like humans and with the knowledge that humans tend to shoot goblins on sight, they take the most prudent (to them) actions to ensure their survival.

That's evil? What if the roles were reversed?

Hawkstar
2015-05-21, 11:29 AM
Awesome! I still stand behind this statement.



How far do you push this, though? A goblin tribe is driven out of the mountains by a dragon and takes up residence near a human village. Cold, desperate, and starving the goblins "deprive" the villagers of some of their food stocks. The villagers need that food to survive the winter, so the theft is a threat to their survival. They retaliate by killing some goblins to try to oust them. The goblins see the existence of the village as a threat to their survival so they burn it down.

Who has done Good and who has done Evil? By your logic the goblins had a "right" to the villagers' property to alleviate their suffering. The villagers had a "right" to cause harm to save their own lives.

All sides are merely acting in their own self interest. Good and Evil are labels placed on these actions to justify individual's own choices. "Well, they're Evil, so I'm just doing Good by killing them."The Goblins are the evil ones because they're Goblins, and make humans uncomfortable. Cosmic Alignment is entirely based around making humanity comfortable.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-21, 12:24 PM
The Goblins are the evil ones because they're Goblins, and make humans uncomfortable. Cosmic Alignment is entirely based around making humanity comfortable.

Nailed it.

hydroplatypus
2015-05-21, 12:56 PM
In regards to the goblin scenario, assuming that the goblins either tried - and failed - at diplomacy, or had very good reason the believe that diplomacy would fail (say, humans kill goblins on sight), and had no other practical options available, I would not classify them as evil. However, neither would I classify the villagers as evil. In this case, their needs were simply mutually exclusive. If I had to pick a side, I would probably go with the villagers, but that doesn't imply moral condemnation of the goblins.

Regarding Illithids, I don't see them as evil either. Simply in opposition to humanity and other sapient species. They kill things because they have to in order to survive. Humans kill Illithids because they rather dislike being killed. Neither side is morally superior, provided there are no viable alternatives to the current situation that don't result in the extinction of one of the species. Naturally I would side with the humans - being on myself - but again, that doesn't imply moral condemnation of the other side.

Segev
2015-05-21, 01:47 PM
What options do the goblins have in their starvation and how would they know they're jeopardizing others? They and their children are hungry and they see a bunch of fat chickens in an easy-to-open wire box. Without codified property laws like humans and with the knowledge that humans tend to shoot goblins on sight, they take the most prudent (to them) actions to ensure their survival.

That's evil? What if the roles were reversed?

THe moral thing to do is to try to reach out. If humans shoot goblins on sight when the goblins are actively and as obviously as possible trying to approach peacefully, that's indicative of either a state of active war (which is not indicated by this scenario) or of the humans being evil.

Even neutral people recognize efforts at parley and tend to (with care and defensive posturing) allow the others to have a chance to speak.

If all involved are neutral, then the level of evil being engaged in by the goblins' theft is not generally enough to push them down to evil alignment. Desperation and solid justification can justify evil acts for neutral beings. It's why they're not good.

If all involved are good, then there is sorrow all around, and they probably do want to help. The humans will value their families above the goblins; there's nothing wrong with that. However, they will also do their best to help however they can. The scarcity of supplies means this whole situation is tragic: people are going to die. The good will attempt to help those they can, however, to minimize casualties in the long run.

Hawkstar
2015-05-21, 08:54 PM
Regarding Illithids, I don't see them as evil either. Simply in opposition to humanity and other sapient species. They kill things because they have to in order to survive. Humans kill Illithids because they rather dislike being killed. Neither side is morally superior, provided there are no viable alternatives to the current situation that don't result in the extinction of one of the species. Naturally I would side with the humans - being on myself - but again, that doesn't imply moral condemnation of the other side.I think the thing about Illithids and Aboleths is that Alignment doesn't really care about them, and they don't care about Alignment (Honestly, "Good"-attacking spells should be just as effective against them). They are Cosmic Horrors, and embodiments of the idea that No, humans AREN'T anything more than self-important animals. Aboleths predate the cosmos, and cosmic alignment. Illithids are incompatible with the assumptions cosmic alignment is built on.

Relevant TVTropes link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreCthulhu)

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-21, 11:27 PM
How far do you push this, though? A goblin tribe is driven out of the mountains by a dragon and takes up residence near a human village. Cold, desperate, and starving the goblins "deprive" the villagers of some of their food stocks. The villagers need that food to survive the winter, so the theft is a threat to their survival. They retaliate by killing some goblins to try to oust them. The goblins see the existence of the village as a threat to their survival so they burn it down.

Who has done Good and who has done Evil? By your logic the goblins had a "right" to the villagers' property to alleviate their suffering. The villagers had a "right" to cause harm to save their own lives.

When the right to life of two parties are at stake and mutually exclusive, the struggle is amoral, AKA neutral. This is the exact same situation as hunting for food. Nothing changes if you switch the goblins for another tribe of humans, or a pack of wolves. Only if one party engages in torture or disproportionate retribution, are they evil. This becomes a possibility at the step where humans start killing goblins, and the goblins burn the whole village down.

So either neither are evil, or both are. Both scenarios are acceptable in my games. Pray tell me, why would there even need to be a good party in any of this? All conflicts don't need to be framed in terms of good and evil.

hamishspence
2015-05-22, 12:35 AM
Illithids are incompatible with the assumptions cosmic alignment is built on.


They're basically not that different from vampires, except they aren't undead. Like vampires they reproduce by turning their victims into them.

Elbeyon
2015-05-22, 12:44 AM
I hear there are other methods of natural reproduction. Wo! Half-vampires.

hamishspence
2015-05-22, 12:48 AM
There's certainly half-illithids, though that's implied to be due to magical experimentation.

Rater202
2015-05-22, 01:32 AM
There's certainly half-illithids, though that's implied to be due to magical experimentation.

Were is this? The only place I see Half-Illithids is in the 3.X Fiend Folio, which state that, as illithid tadpoles must take over a human host to develop into a proper illithid, placing the tadpole in a nonhuman host results in an incomplete transformation.

hamishspence
2015-05-22, 02:19 AM
Underdark - their later version of the template also allows a much wider range of creature types than the FF version. The example creature for the template is a beholder.

Lords of Madness also mentions that it isn't just humans that become full mind flayers when implanted - any creature with the humanoid type, Medium size, and one or two other requirements, qualifies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illithid

Hosts generally are humanoid creatures that are between 5 feet 4 inches and 6 feet 2 inches. The most desirable of races for hosts are Human, Drow, Elves, Githzerai, Githyanki, Grimlock, Gnoll, Goblinoid, and Orc.

Hawkstar
2015-05-22, 07:09 AM
They're basically not that different from vampires, except they aren't undead. Like vampires they reproduce by turning their victims into them.
Except that "Not undead" is a major difference. With a vampire, Anna the Living Human becomes Anna the Vampire when bitten, her soul is trapped and possibly mirrored by evil magic energy. With an Illithid, Anna The Living Human dies and goes to her final destination (fox only, no items) when Xyphod The Illithid Tadpole is put into her body, which then matures into Xyphod The Illithid.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-22, 07:34 AM
While the specific comparison between illithids and vampires doesn't interest me much, Hawkstar is right that in the context of fantasy in general and D&D in specific, a distinction has to be made between natural and supernatural creatures. A wolf eating your flesh is neutral. A demon eating your soul is Evil. Where duality of body and soul exists, the latter is typically given much more worth and signifigance, and predations targeting it are automatically more severe than those targeting the former.

Solaris
2015-05-22, 01:37 PM
Except, again - "People" has no definition beyond "Arbitrarily Human".

Not necessarily. Take a gander at my earlier post, where I alluded to certain qualifying traits - all of which described a particular bipedal hominid of genus Homo, and none of which relied solely on physical characteristics unique to humanity even in the real world.


Aberrations have just as much right to define species as humanoids do. There are a number of pyschological traits Illithids possess that humans do not that could lead Illithids to conclude that Humans are beyond reasonable doubt Not Sapient (lack of inherent psionics and telepathy first and foremost, followed by radically different instincts, neuropsychology, and ).

Aberration as in an anomaly or exception, not the D&D creature type. I doubt most illithids would consider humans as non-people. They just don't care; they are, after all, quite alien in mindset and explicitly evil. They must recognize some quality of sapience in humanity, as they prefer sentient brains over non-sentient ones.

As for why they're evil? Ring of sustenance and create food and water. Illithids are, to a squid, highly intelligent and magically powerful creatures with a very involved and deliberate method of reproduction. They needn't create a new illithid without ensuring the means to nourish it without sentient brains, and yet they do. They thus continue to feed on sentient creatures, effectively living by murder, when they have another option. Because of this, they are evil not for their nature but for their actions and thus are quite compatible with the idea of a cosmic alignment.


Animals ARE sapient, and significantly more self-aware than we like to give them credit for, simply because we cannot speak with them directly. Tool-making and long-term planning have nothing to do with rights to life (Are you saying a Sphinx wouldn't be a person?).

You missed my point. I'm not talking about all animals. The animal kingdom ranges the intellects of Einstein and Hawking on down to sponges and Youtube commenters. Many animals qualify as sentient, but I'm not talking about those animals. Many animals are unquestionably not sapient, and have demonstrated no self-awareness whatsoever. They are aware of and react to their environment, but they're not aware of themselves in that "I think, therefore I am" sense.
Therefore, if we suppose something that must kill in order to survive, their right to life exceeds that of non-sentient critters, such as cows and sheep (unless you're suggesting we ought to exterminate all carnivorous species for killing prey animals). It equals that of sentient critters, which is where the question of morality comes into play.

As for a sphinx, we have hard evidence in game terms that it is intelligent and self-aware. Setting that aside, it speaks a complex language that is more than just instinctive. That is tool use.


Also, humans are far less self-aware than we like to admit, in case you haven't actually watched people interacting with each other, especially in large numbers.

I've been uncomfortably close to bombs going off while I was playing crowd control. You tell me if I've watched people interacting in large numbers in a panic situation.
The reason humans act as they do in stressful mob panic situations isn't due to the fact that they aren't self-aware, it's due to the fact that the human's brain is a sloppy mess and certain parts all but shut down during fight-or-flight scenarios. Once again, aberrations exceptions do not define the norm. Exceptions can inform our decisions, but the fact that you can induce certain behaviors with certain stimuli does not change the fact that humans are fully self-aware.


Again - animals in D&D are completely divorced from reality.

I'm a biology student. I'm painfully aware of how badly they screwed up animals in D&D; it's one of the things I almost invariably house-rule when I'm making a game that's closer to reality than it is a high fantasy type. Elephants in particular are fascinatingly close to human intelligence and are unquestionably sentient, and I'd argue they count as people. Among other things, they recognize that human beings are also sentient - a version of the Turing test, if you will. Elephants have been known to show empathy for humans they've never encountered before, which is rather remarkable considering how they're in a state of low-grade war with local human populations. In game terms, I'd place them at somewhere around 6-8 (corresponding to IQs of around 80-90). Even dogs ought to have Intelligence scores of 2-3 given their problem-solving abilities, even if they don't pass any tests of self-awareness.

DodgerH2O
2015-05-22, 10:30 PM
The reason humans act as they do in stressful mob panic situations isn't due to the fact that they aren't self-aware, it's due to the fact that the human's brain is a sloppy mess and certain parts all but shut down during fight-or-flight scenarios. Once again, aberrations exceptions do not define the norm. Exceptions can inform our decisions, but the fact that you can induce certain behaviors with certain stimuli does not change the fact that humans are fully self-aware.

It's a matter of opinion, I'd say that humanity spends most of its time in "animal" mode, while only self-aware a fraction of the time. That fraction makes a massive difference in our behavior and gives an extraordinary edge to our species compared to others we know of but "fully self-aware" looks to be an exaggeration from my perspective.

That said, I think Hawkstar said it best.


The Goblins are the evil ones because they're Goblins, and make humans uncomfortable. Cosmic Alignment is entirely based around making humanity comfortable.

Humans are more comfortable killing and eating creatures with less similarity to them rather than more. Plants are pretty okay by most folk, as are most invisible creatures that ride along with our other foods (microorganisms). More responsive and less reflective critters such as fish and insects don't seem to raise feelings of guilt in most humans, though some feel otherwise. Animals that we anthropomorphize or that show qualities we relate to tend to be elevated on people's moral compass, which is what Alignment attempts to standardize.

Hawkstar
2015-05-23, 11:21 AM
I think I may have been being a bit snide there, but the point still stands. D&D alignment is based strongly on real-world morality, which is based on making Humans comfortable and prosperous. This works in games about Humans struggling for survival in a harsh world (With assistance from socially, ecologically, culturally, and morally compatible species such as Halflings and Dwarves, and from the comically self-sacrificing Elves), but it breaks down hard as soon as the species traits that make humans human and think like humans are changed. Alignment based on a morality developed by Halflings or Dwarves, while compatible with and similar to human-derived alignment, would also be different enough to be notable.

Amusingly, it also ensures humans are the most influential in any fantasy setting - races with faster life-cycles (Goblins and Orcs) have natures that inevitably lead to 'open season' on them - Theoretically, under the "All People are created equal" ("Person" being of at least human intellectual expression, and denying the possibility of greater than human intellectual expression), there are non-murderous goblins. In the world itself, those goblins are not numerically viable for even short-term survival. Races with slower-than-human life cycles, because each individual has the same vote as a single human, is outnumbered and marginalized.

Also - Elves have hilariously bad ecosystem compatibility with humans. The reason elves are always waning in Fantasy Worlds is because they're Good Aligned, and thus not allowed to exterminate or at least heavily control human population growth, dooming them to be a rounding error in demographic concerns.

Solaris
2015-05-23, 11:24 AM
It's a matter of opinion, I'd say that humanity spends most of its time in "animal" mode, while only self-aware a fraction of the time. That fraction makes a massive difference in our behavior and gives an extraordinary edge to our species compared to others we know of but "fully self-aware" looks to be an exaggeration from my perspective.

Any evidence to back up this opinion?


That said, I think Hawkstar said it best.

~~~

Humans are more comfortable killing and eating creatures with less similarity to them rather than more. Plants are pretty okay by most folk, as are most invisible creatures that ride along with our other foods (microorganisms). More responsive and less reflective critters such as fish and insects don't seem to raise feelings of guilt in most humans, though some feel otherwise. Animals that we anthropomorphize or that show qualities we relate to tend to be elevated on people's moral compass, which is what Alignment attempts to standardize.

That's just silly. Evil goblins aren't evil because they're goblins, they're evil because they raid, loot, steal, and murder. Goblins who don't do that sort of thing aren't evil. That's why their alignment in 3.XE is only usually evil, as opposed to always evil.

Hawkstar
2015-05-23, 11:40 AM
Any evidence to back up this opinion?



[quote]That's just silly. Evil goblins aren't evil because they're goblins, they're evil because they raid, loot, steal, and murder. Goblins who don't do that sort of thing aren't evil. That's why their alignment in 3.XE is only usually evil, as opposed to always evil.
Of course. But there aren't enough goblins that DON'T raid, loot, steal, and murder to maintain viable long-term survival, even if they're all in the same area. While the mental stat numbers between humans and Goblins are the same, the qualities between the minds are not. Assuming all goblins think like humans is as accurate as assuming all cats, horses, badgers, rhinos, and other INT 2 WIS 12 CHA 6 creatures act and think like dogs.

... actually, Goblins are even more different in thought from humans than dogs think differently from badgers.

And the proper alignment block in 3.5 (And ONLY 3.5) says "Usually Neutral Evil" - Which means more than 60%, and almost all the rest are Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, or True Neutral.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-23, 12:38 PM
That's just silly. Evil goblins aren't evil because they're goblins, they're evil because they raid, loot, steal, and murder. Goblins who don't do that sort of thing aren't evil. That's why their alignment in 3.XE is only usually evil, as opposed to always evil.

For goblins, raiding is merely survival. They mostly live in marginal, low-yield environments due to being forced out of the lush, productive areas by more organized and aggressive races. They face constant population pressure due to their high reproductive rate. Their short lifespan doesn't allow them to accumulate great knowledge on topics such as agriculture, engineering, and architecture, that could improve their quality of life.

So the only options left to them are usually to take food and tools from others. They are not philosophers with the luxury of playing thought exercises to try and empathize with others. Rarely do they even get to parlay with other races to have the opportunity to understand any other points of view. They are just cold and hungry, trying to make it through another day the best way they know how.

And yet, this is defined as Evil.

DodgerH2O
2015-05-23, 01:10 PM
Any evidence to back up this opinion?

Plenty, but all anecdotal, talk to people who have spent time observing themselves and others, anthropologists, psychologists and folk who deliberately take time to be "self-aware" such as via mindfulness meditation and similar mental exercises. It's a bit of an exaggeration to make a point, if you define "human-level awareness" as "fully self-aware" then of course a bunch of creatures fall short, but one could easily imagine a spectrum of awareness with humanity somewhere in the middle rather than the top, and "higher" creatures justifying the incidental killing of humans by the fact that we spend a good amount of our time sleepwalking through life and only occasional exhibit signs of conscious reflection. I'm aware that in some disciplines "self-awareness" has a very specific meaning, but I'm using it here in a general sense.

(Not 100% serious, but this comic gets to what I'm saying: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3733)


That's just silly. Evil goblins aren't evil because they're goblins, they're evil because they raid, loot, steal, and murder. Goblins who don't do that sort of thing aren't evil. That's why their alignment in 3.XE is only usually evil, as opposed to always evil.

Theft and murder are concepts that arise from human-centric social norms though. Is it theft when an obligate carnivore takes a chicken from a farm? Suppose the carnivore is intelligent and recognizes humans believe in property rights, but the carnivore doesn't have such a concept in its own moral framework?

Hawkstar
2015-05-23, 01:54 PM
(Not 100% serious, but this comic gets to what I'm saying: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3733)Dangit... that's not the comic I was hoping it was. There's another that deals with aliens deciding humans aren't 'sapient' because they lack a mental quality the aliens don't.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-23, 02:48 PM
Dangit... that's not the comic I was hoping it was. There's another that deals with aliens deciding humans aren't 'sapient' because they lack a mental quality the aliens don't.

Kind of like how the orangutan Tribunal in the Planet of the Apes "proved" that Taylor was not intelligent by asking him questions about their culture and religion that he couldn't answer.

HONORIUS: "Tell the Court, Bright Eyes, what is the Second Article of Faith."

TAYLOR: "I admit I know nothing of your culture."

HONORIUS: "Of course he doesn't know our culture, because he cannot think!
(to Taylor) Tell us why all apes are created equal."

Cazero
2015-05-23, 05:02 PM
You know what's really funny about alignement in fantasy worlds?

From the perspective of a dryad, lumberjacks are murderers and cereal crops are extermination camps. Any person supporting the use of wooden tools or the concept of agriculture is just as Evil as an Illithid.

Just for fun, let's create a photon-based sapient lifeform that will make photosynthesis unethical.

ylvathrall
2015-05-23, 09:56 PM
I agree with the people saying that predation for survival is Neutral. I mean, basic ecology is enough to show that any given organism is going to cause some degree of harm to other organisms; there's no way around it in a resource-limited world. Some organisms are more obvious about it than others, but that has no real significance. Ethics developed by humanity regard causing harm to humans as being worse than causing harm to other organisms, unsurprisingly, but there's no obvious objective reason for that, particularly in a world where there are numerous comparable or superior species.

So no, it isn't Evil to seek to survive at the expense of others. That's just natural. It might be Evil to do so when it isn't necessary to harm others, or to take pleasure in harming others, but there's nothing in the proposed curse that would require that.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-23, 10:23 PM
In the curse scenario, the cursed should hunt down a cure. In the eating scenario, it becomes a matter of who is being killed. If the eater ensures that no innocents are being killed (is an executioner or kills bandits) they are neutral. I would not enforce an alignment change to evil in that case. If they rampage, killing whomever, I would change them to evil. I would even consider giving them "bonuses" for it, transforming them into a lycanthrope or lycan over time.

Solaris
2015-05-24, 12:11 PM
Of course. But there aren't enough goblins that DON'T raid, loot, steal, and murder to maintain viable long-term survival, even if they're all in the same area. While the mental stat numbers between humans and Goblins are the same, the qualities between the minds are not. Assuming all goblins think like humans is as accurate as assuming all cats, horses, badgers, rhinos, and other INT 2 WIS 12 CHA 6 creatures act and think like dogs.

... actually, Goblins are even more different in thought from humans than dogs think differently from badgers.

And the proper alignment block in 3.5 (And ONLY 3.5) says "Usually Neutral Evil" - Which means more than 60%, and almost all the rest are Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, or True Neutral.

I'm sure the Mongols and Vikings would have been thrilled to learn they don't think like humans.

The goblin ability to live alongside wolves speaks of their psychological similarity to canines. You know another species that's rather similar, psychologically speaking, to canines?
Humans.
We're mentally more similar to dogs and wolves than we are to chimpanzees. We're more similar to goblins than we are to dwarves or elves, too.


For goblins, raiding is merely survival. They mostly live in marginal, low-yield environments due to being forced out of the lush, productive areas by more organized and aggressive races. They face constant population pressure due to their high reproductive rate. Their short lifespan doesn't allow them to accumulate great knowledge on topics such as agriculture, engineering, and architecture, that could improve their quality of life.

So the only options left to them are usually to take food and tools from others. They are not philosophers with the luxury of playing thought exercises to try and empathize with others. Rarely do they even get to parlay with other races to have the opportunity to understand any other points of view. They are just cold and hungry, trying to make it through another day the best way they know how.

And yet, this is defined as Evil.

Are you sure they aren't marginalized because they act like little bastards? In a setting that permits harmonious cooperation between humans, halflings, dwarves, elves, and gnomes, it's hard to believe goblins couldn't live well alongside the rest of them if they were morally compatible. They may be ugly, but so are dwarves. They may be short, but so are halflings and gnomes.

Also, the goblin lifespan is the same as the average human lifespan in a medieval period. Their high reproductive rates mirror human patterns in pre-modern societies, when many children were necessary to continue the bloodline. Being smaller, a single goblin needs less food than a single human. The physiological traits you listed all lend towards their being more successful in a pre-modern culture, not less.

Lastly, if we consider the ecological implications of D&D ecosystems wherein countless predators have little trouble surviving and thriving, goblins should have little to no trouble surviving by hunting and foraging, even if they lack the wherewithal to farm. Societies in the real world survive quite well without resorting to raiding despite living in marginal environments.


Plenty, but all anecdotal, talk to people who have spent time observing themselves and others, anthropologists, psychologists and folk who deliberately take time to be "self-aware" such as via mindfulness meditation and similar mental exercises. It's a bit of an exaggeration to make a point, if you define "human-level awareness" as "fully self-aware" then of course a bunch of creatures fall short, but one could easily imagine a spectrum of awareness with humanity somewhere in the middle rather than the top, and "higher" creatures justifying the incidental killing of humans by the fact that we spend a good amount of our time sleepwalking through life and only occasional exhibit signs of conscious reflection. I'm aware that in some disciplines "self-awareness" has a very specific meaning, but I'm using it here in a general sense.

(Not 100% serious, but this comic gets to what I'm saying: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3733)

The "Your mind is nothing but a chain of chemical reactions" school of thought is missing the forest for the trees.
It's like saying a tornado is just a bit of wind, or a computer nothing but a bit of wires and electrons, or matter is nothing but a bunch of protons, electrons, and neutrons.


Theft and murder are concepts that arise from human-centric social norms though. Is it theft when an obligate carnivore takes a chicken from a farm? Suppose the carnivore is intelligent and recognizes humans believe in property rights, but the carnivore doesn't have such a concept in its own moral framework?

Yes.
Being a sociopath doesn't make it okay to go around hurting and killing other people, after all. The sentient carnivore not recognizing property rights doesn't change the fact that the farmer worked to acquire the food the sentient carnivore's taking, and thus that the sentient carnivore has effectively robbed the farmer of that time he spent working towards that chicken's growth and development. Because the sentient carnivore is capable of recognizing this belief, even if it doesn't share it, it is morally wrong for it to steal the chicken.

Hawkstar
2015-05-24, 12:39 PM
I'm sure the Mongols and Vikings would have been thrilled to learn they don't think like humans.I never said anything about mongols and vikings. Goblins are not mongols or vikings, though some people may decide they have some superficial cultural resemblances.

The goblin ability to live alongside wolves speaks of their psychological similarity to canines. You know another species that's rather similar, psychologically speaking, to canines?
Humans.

We're mentally more similar to dogs and wolves than we are to chimpanzees. We're more similar to goblins than we are to dwarves or elves, too.Yes, but not culturally or ecologically compatible.




Are you sure they aren't marginalized because they act like little bastards? In a setting that permits harmonious cooperation between humans, halflings, dwarves, elves, and gnomes, it's hard to believe goblins couldn't live well alongside the rest of them if they were morally compatible. They may be ugly, but so are dwarves. They may be short, but so are halflings and gnomes.

Also, the goblin lifespan is the same as the average human lifespan in a medieval period. Their high reproductive rates mirror human patterns in pre-modern societies, when many children were necessary to continue the bloodline. Being smaller, a single goblin needs less food than a single human. The physiological traits you listed all lend towards their being more successful in a pre-modern culture, not less. Which is why humans marginalize them - Humans, unlike Elves, are smart enough to realize that Goblins would quickly outnumber and outvote them and force them into the cultural decline Elves are suffering. And, Humans get to write morality, so they default to the "Good Guys", while the goblins are Bad.


Lastly, if we consider the ecological implications of D&D ecosystems wherein countless predators have little trouble surviving and thriving, goblins should have little to no trouble surviving by hunting and foraging, even if they lack the wherewithal to farm. Societies in the real world survive quite well without resorting to raiding despite living in marginal environments.Not very well, looking at warlord-wracked territories and human history. Also, hunting and foraging lead to marginalized populations, especially if they're also voracious (Unlike elves, who CAN get along on minimal foraging and hunting).


The "Your mind is nothing but a chain of chemical reactions" school of thought is missing the forest for the trees.
It's like saying a tornado is just a bit of wind, or a computer nothing but a bit of wires and electrons, or matter is nothing but a bunch of protons, electrons, and neutrons.Eh. A tornado is nothing more than a dangerous natural weather phenomenon, not something worth respecting (for its own sake) or revering.
A computer is just an electrical device and tool - nothing worth revering or respecting.
Matter is nothing but Stuff, not something to be inherently revered.
What makes the chemical reactions of assorted hydrocarbons, protiens, etc. so magical and special?


Yes.
Being a sociopath doesn't make it okay to go around hurting and killing other people, after all.It would be if the sociopaths were the ones writing morality..


The sentient carnivore not recognizing property rights doesn't change the fact that the farmer worked to acquire the food the sentient carnivore's taking, and thus that the sentient carnivore has effectively robbed the farmer of that time he spent working towards that chicken's growth and development. Because the sentient carnivore is capable of recognizing this belief, even if it doesn't share it, it is morally wrong for it to steal the chicken.This is all human morality and rationalization.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-24, 01:05 PM
if we consider the ecological implications of D&D ecosystems wherein countless predators have little trouble surviving and thriving, goblins should have little to no trouble surviving by hunting and foraging, even if they lack the wherewithal to farm.

I think that's munchkin D&D, where every door opens to a barren 20'x20' room containing a beholder or a dragon turtle. They survive because they've apparently been in suspended animation since the dungeon was constructed. They're also invariably guarding a chest with a poison needle lock containing 4,000 electrum pieces and a +2 dagger.


Societies in the real world survive quite well without resorting to raiding despite living in marginal environments.

We're not talking about whole societies, we're talking about extended family groups of 10 - 200 individuals. They lack specialized roles that would allow for exploitation of stable and predictable resources, scarce though they may be. And every time they run into anti-goblin racist neighbors they're forced to move to new, unknown territory and start all over figuring out where to get food.


The sentient carnivore not recognizing property rights doesn't change the fact that the farmer worked to acquire the food the sentient carnivore's taking, and thus that the sentient carnivore has effectively robbed the farmer of that time he spent working towards that chicken's growth and development. Because the sentient carnivore is capable of recognizing this belief, even if it doesn't share it, it is morally wrong for it to steal the chicken.

Growing up in a communal society, where everyone has rights to anything owned by the tribe, how would you know it's wrong? The hunters procure the food and bring it back to the cave where everyone partakes.

If Good humans were truly committed to brotherhood with goblins, they would let cultural misunderstandings like this slide. Instead, they call out the men-at-arms every time some pig or a chicken goes missing.

DodgerH2O
2015-05-24, 02:42 PM
Dangit... that's not the comic I was hoping it was. There's another that deals with aliens deciding humans aren't 'sapient' because they lack a mental quality the aliens don't.

Yeah, the one you're thinking of is better to illustrate the point. My googlemancy skills failed at the time but I have since tracked it down. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2867


The "Your mind is nothing but a chain of chemical reactions" school of thought is missing the forest for the trees.

The biochemical nature of human brain activity isn't what I was going for, so much as the idea that we use humanity as the standard for judging, which is natural being that's what we know best. Even within our species though there is a wide spectrum of capacity for cognition and metacognition. It's possible to imagine a species with a greater capacity for these things seeing how "primitive" our species is and judging our minds and lives as less relevant than we judge them ourselves.

In D&D worlds where Alignment is a thing, these other species can actually exist, though each person has their own take on what exactly "Goblin consciousness" or "Illithid consciousness" means, there's no reason to assume that they match what we know of our species 100%.

Gritmonger
2015-05-24, 02:55 PM
It isn't in D&D. Your mental stats go up as you age, not down.

Well, accordingly - in D&D, infants are around Int 1, so in light of that I have a modest proposal...

Elderand
2015-05-24, 03:46 PM
Well, accordingly - in D&D, infants are around Int 1, so in light of that I have a modest proposal...

No ! I refuse to eat infants on the basis that they have animal level inteligence ! that's just wrong


It's only fun if you consider them people.

VoxRationis
2015-05-25, 02:49 PM
Are you sure they aren't marginalized because they act like little bastards?


I'm glad someone's finally brought this up; there's a chicken-or-egg thing here, but there is a distressing tendency I've seen recently to assume entirely that it's the fault of the PC races, and that universally, kobolds/goblins/orcs are being unfairly persecuted. Everyone's so eager to question or deconstruct the moral frameworks of the past that they've become the self-hating character described in The Mikado, who thinks every country superior to his own.



Yes.
Being a sociopath doesn't make it okay to go around hurting and killing other people, after all. The sentient carnivore not recognizing property rights doesn't change the fact that the farmer worked to acquire the food the sentient carnivore's taking, and thus that the sentient carnivore has effectively robbed the farmer of that time he spent working towards that chicken's growth and development. Because the sentient carnivore is capable of recognizing this belief, even if it doesn't share it, it is morally wrong for it to steal the chicken.

Or is it morally wrong to have a concept of property rights, preventing others from helping themselves to resources when you have a surplus?

As for my own response to the original question: No.
Survival causes harm to others.
This is a fact of ecology. Whether one is a heterotroph and is doomed to steal the fixed energy from other organisms via predation or parasitism, or one is an autotroph and competes with and crowds out others in the never-ending struggle to absorb incoming energy, one's continued existence comes at the expense of other organisms. Some organisms might form symbiotic relationships, but they still act against the interests of organisms not in those relationships: the plant that provides oxygen for us still tries to starve out its neighbor, and the cleaner fish that helps the grouper feeds on the flesh of its parasites.
A morality which does not allow for survival at the expense of others is self-destructive to all who embrace it, and is fundamentally useless for application to a continued existence. Survival is an amoral struggle.