How does a good-aligned Lizardfolk act?

[Luccan]

I just started reading Volo's Guide and was thinking about how Lizardfolk don't have the same regard for things as "softskins". How they are described as being biologically wired implies that, at best, a Lizardfolk values people not as other, thinking beings, but as being not-a-threat and nonhostile. There is no value placed on the concept of life as a whole, because their brains don't process that way. For all intents and purposes, the best you'll get from a Lizardfolk is "You are useful to me or will be. So I will provide something for you so you do so for me." But since it isn't against the rules, what would make a good-aligned Lizardfolk good?

Edit: Maybe some better questions would be "How could a Lizardfolk be good, if their brains don't let them meet D&D's standards for more than neutral?"

[mgshamster]

I've been playing my lizardfolk as, "These fellows are my temporary tribe, and I will protect them as I do any tribe member."

His wierdness and alien thought process comes out in different ways. Like cutting up and cooking the meat of the slain zombies to serve as a meal. Meat is meat, right?

[Sariel Vailo]

so far so good

[RickAllison]

Here is one chain of logic I would use for a Good lizardfolk:

"Tenet 1: Lizardfolk fight to survive, just like any other creature. Nothing matters beyond survival. Survival carries our brood to become the next generation, and the next, and the next. But just as a single scale does not easily repel the fang of a kothar, a single broodmother cannot always repel enemies. But we form tribes. We become the scaly hide protecting the vulnerable organs necessary for growth. And we survive better.

"Tenet 2: A hunter does not rely on scale and fang alone. We take the best parts of creatures we can kill and use those to fashion shields, weapons, and pelts to remain active despite the winds bringing cold air and snow. The strongest defeat our foes, but others take the spoils and create new use. They are not scales, but the eyes that find our prey, the ears that detect those who would make us prey, and the fingers to create new use. The strong protect, but the weak empower the strong further. This is why we keep the weak of the tribe, they still provide use for the benefit of all.

"Tenet 3: A warrior surrounded by wolves is food; a dragon surrounded by warriors is food. When tribes have broken with others and stood alone, they are surrounded by foes. The tribe slays one, yet four more tear at its tendons. To survive, a tribe must be able to hunt and defend against a single enemy lest others take advantage. With peace, each tribe may be concerned with the predators of the swamp and not each other. Create stronger ties, become as one tribe with the rest, and you may fight endless opponents. And when some are defeated, you may concentrate the hunt against those who would normally be too strong. To survive, a tribe must make peace. To thrive, a tribe must make allies.

"Tenet 4: No matter the shape of one's frill, they may make a tribe. The lessons of the first three tenets are not restricted to the lizardfolk alone. We know that all strive to survive, and so the Soft Ones must be capable of doing so. We know that the weak may make the strong even more powerful, so joining with the Soft Ones must add to our strength. And we know that eliminating enemies is good, but creating new allies to defeat new enemies is better. Thus we join hands with the often-strange Soft Ones that we may all survive together. With all our forces combined, even the gods of the mighty darastrix cannot end us."

A good lizardfolk could protect others because doing so increases the chances of survival for the group as a whole.

[SharkForce]

presumably, not every lizardman thinks exactly the same. just like not every single elf, dwarf, human, halfling, dragonborn, etc will think exactly the same. the guide has what, a few pages at most to tell you about lizardmen? so it gives you a general idea of what lizardmen are usually like. a good-aligned lizardman will likely value life more highly than a more typical one.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Here is one chain of logic I would use for a Good lizardfolk:

snip
.

This, also nice use of Draconic.

[Luccan]

Rick, I like your take on it, especially since I feel like I can form permutations based on it.


presumably, not every lizardman thinks exactly the same. just like not every single elf, dwarf, human, halfling, dragonborn, etc will think exactly the same. the guide has what, a few pages at most to tell you about lizardmen? so it gives you a general idea of what lizardmen are usually like. a good-aligned lizardman will likely value life more highly than a more typical one.

I suppose my issue comes from the fact that the language used implies lizardfolk can't think in a D&D "good" way, their actions are almost entirely pragmatic, but in D&D, good beings are at least somewhat altruistic. The implication is that lizardfolk evolved without most emotions, which makes it hard to beget true empathy. But them being good is still rules legal.

[RickAllison]

Rick, I like your take on it, especially since I feel like I can form permutations based on it.



I suppose my issue comes from the fact that the language used implies lizardfolk can't think in a D&D "good" way, their actions are almost entirely pragmatic, but in D&D, good beings are at least somewhat altruistic. The implication is that lizardfolk evolved without most emotions, which makes it hard to beget true empathy. But them being good is still rules legal.

The lizardfolk are pretty fixated on survival, but there are some things you can play off of.


Pleasurable people and things make life easier for
lizardfolk. Pleasurable things should be preserved and
protected, sometimes at the cost of the lizardfolk's own
safety. The most pleasurable creatures and things are
ones that allow lizardfolk to assess more situations as
benign rather than fearsome.

This makes me think that while lizardfolk are obsessed about survival are preservation, it isn't always about the self. They seem to have at least some capacity for selflessness in putting the survival of others before oneself.

[Anderlith]

Just because you see threat/nonthreat binary, doesn't mean you can't want to see all threats to non threats removed. Village is non threat. It is save & good. Orcs are threat. They threaten village. I like village becuase it is non threat & safe. Therefore i will destroy threat, to create more safe.

[Sigreid]

I think you could play a good lizard man as one that has recognized that the mammalian races are thriving, even though they are soft and weak. So, while he doesn't quite get the social structures that bind them together and cause them to help and sacrifice for each other, he's trying them out so he can learn and bring it to his people.

For those who have played fallout 4 you could play it similar to Strong's search for the "Milk of Human Kindness" which he doesn't understand but believes is the secret to human dominance.

[Herobizkit]

Alignment can be a learned way of life.

If most lizardfolk are neutral, someone or some force outside of their tribe is the most likely catalyst for any kind of change in behavior/alignment.

Who or what that might be...?

[Malifice]

By butchering and eating children and engaging in mass genocide.

As long as you can justify to the DM as being 'for the greater good' everything is cool.

Brutally torture bad guys for the win.

[Unoriginal]

Rick, I like your take on it, especially since I feel like I can form permutations based on it.



I suppose my issue comes from the fact that the language used implies lizardfolk can't think in a D&D "good" way, their actions are almost entirely pragmatic, but in D&D, good beings are at least somewhat altruistic. The implication is that lizardfolk evolved without most emotions, which makes it hard to beget true empathy. But them being good is still rules legal.

You can be pragmatic and utterly benevolent. You can also be good without having empathy as we know it.

A robot could see sapient beings as "things", yet still respect their value and fight for them, for exemple.


A Lizardfolk could help a dying beggar, not out of self-interest or because the Lizardfolk feel bad for them (as they don't have that kind of emotion) but simply because they recognize that the beggar is an individual and that individual in need of help should be allowed to live when it can be done.

Same way that a Lizardfolk could track down and kill an Oathbreaker Paladin who slaughtered a village, not out of anger or desire of revenge, but because the Lizardfolk has recognized the Oathbreaker as a threat for the lives of others and a senseless destructor who will only bring more troubles into the country if allowed to, and so should be stopped.

[Addaran]

Here is one chain of logic I would use for a Good lizardfolk:

"Tenet 1: Lizardfolk fight to survive, just like any other creature. Nothing matters beyond survival. Survival carries our brood to become the next generation, and the next, and the next. But just as a single scale does not easily repel the fang of a kothar, a single broodmother cannot always repel enemies. But we form tribes. We become the scaly hide protecting the vulnerable organs necessary for growth. And we survive better.

"Tenet 2: A hunter does not rely on scale and fang alone. We take the best parts of creatures we can kill and use those to fashion shields, weapons, and pelts to remain active despite the winds bringing cold air and snow. The strongest defeat our foes, but others take the spoils and create new use. They are not scales, but the eyes that find our prey, the ears that detect those who would make us prey, and the fingers to create new use. The strong protect, but the weak empower the strong further. This is why we keep the weak of the tribe, they still provide use for the benefit of all.

"Tenet 3: A warrior surrounded by wolves is food; a dragon surrounded by warriors is food. When tribes have broken with others and stood alone, they are surrounded by foes. The tribe slays one, yet four more tear at its tendons. To survive, a tribe must be able to hunt and defend against a single enemy lest others take advantage. With peace, each tribe may be concerned with the predators of the swamp and not each other. Create stronger ties, become as one tribe with the rest, and you may fight endless opponents. And when some are defeated, you may concentrate the hunt against those who would normally be too strong. To survive, a tribe must make peace. To thrive, a tribe must make allies.

"Tenet 4: No matter the shape of one's frill, they may make a tribe. The lessons of the first three tenets are not restricted to the lizardfolk alone. We know that all strive to survive, and so the Soft Ones must be capable of doing so. We know that the weak may make the strong even more powerful, so joining with the Soft Ones must add to our strength. And we know that eliminating enemies is good, but creating new allies to defeat new enemies is better. Thus we join hands with the often-strange Soft Ones that we may all survive together. With all our forces combined, even the gods of the mighty darastrix cannot end us."

A good lizardfolk could protect others because doing so increases the chances of survival for the group as a whole.

Oath of the Scales paladin! :smallcool:
That's a really well done good-lizardfolk concept. Love that's it is even written in-character.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

Survival without selfishness, the wellbeing of the many outweighs the self. Pragmatically altruistic?

Also I think they actually see things on an axis, not binary: threat - neutral - benefit
Perhaps look up "blue/orange morality"

[Tanarii]

A good lizardfolk could protect others because doing so increases the chances of survival for the group as a whole.Sounds like a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral lizard folk to me. Might work for NG even. Definitely would be hard for a CG one to live by those, it'd be a conflict between them and his natural behavior. (Kinda like a CG Devotion Pally)

[twas_Brillig]

A lot of these sounds a hell of a lot like "Spock, but with a weirder diet" which I would honestly really love to play.

[Malifice]

I just started reading Volo's Guide and was thinking about how Lizardfolk don't have the same regard for things as "softskins". How they are described as being biologically wired implies that, at best, a Lizardfolk values people not as other, thinking beings, but as being not-a-threat and nonhostile. There is no value placed on the concept of life as a whole, because their brains don't process that way. For all intents and purposes, the best you'll get from a Lizardfolk is "You are useful to me or will be. So I will provide something for you so you do so for me." But since it isn't against the rules, what would make a good-aligned Lizardfolk good?

Edit: Maybe some better questions would be "How could a Lizardfolk be good, if their brains don't let them meet D&D's standards for more than neutral?"

In all honesty, perhaps the Lizardfolk comes to see (and appreciate) the value in being good (helping others, avoiding harming others, and self sacrifice). For all societies and peoples (and lizards).

If a chaotic and evil society would be destructive and harmful to all (including itself), perhaps he sees a lawful and good society being for the benefit of all.

It does seem to imply in the text that they lack empathy (making them effectively sociopaths), so true altruism would be hard to explain.

Unless of course that lack of empathy and pragmatic thinking is more of a cultural norm than a biological reality for them.

[Unoriginal]

A lot of these sounds a hell of a lot like "Spock, but with a weirder diet" which I would honestly really love to play.

Well, the difference is that Spock and other Vulcans do have emotions, they just suppress them


So it'd be more like playing Data, but with a weirder diet

[Malifice]

Well, the difference is that Spock and other Vulcans do have emotions, they just suppress them


So it'd be more like playing Data, but with a weirder diet

And Data is pretty unambiguously good aligned.

Or is he just programmed that way...

[Unoriginal]

And Data is pretty unambiguously good aligned.

Or is he just programmed that way...

Everyone's programmed, in a way, by biology and education.

Data has ethical protocols. It doesn't mean he was unable to do anything but good, nor that the way he choose to do good was not under his control.

[twas_Brillig]

Well, the difference is that Spock and other Vulcans do have emotions, they just suppress them


So it'd be more like playing Data, but with a weirder diet
That's a fair cop.


And Data is pretty unambiguously good aligned.

Exactly! Both clearly attempt to represent logical, pragmatic characters without the same motivations as the human cast. They decide something is worth pursuing (knowledge, their civilizations, etc.), and understand that helping and being accepted by their human allies is valuable. So, kind of hilariously, Vulcan's might actually look up to a society of good-aligned lizardfolk if they arrived at a society of self-sacrifice and mutual betterment out of pure pragmatism. That could be kind of a fun plot point, if you swapped in a group of Snooty Good elves for the Vulcans.

[Malifice]

That's a fair cop.



Exactly! Both clearly attempt to represent logical, pragmatic characters without the same motivations as the human cast. They decide something is worth pursuing (knowledge, their civilizations, etc.), and understand that helping and being accepted by their human allies is valuable. So, kind of hilariously, Vulcan's might actually look up to a society of good-aligned lizardfolk if they arrived at a society of self-sacrifice and mutual betterment out of pure pragmatism. That could be kind of a fun plot point, if you swapped in a group of Snooty Good elves for the Vulcans.

On a completely tangental note.

Vulcans. LN or LG? Arguments can be made for each, but I lean towards LN. With good tendencies.

[Unoriginal]

Vulcans. LN or LG? Arguments can be made for each, but I lean towards LN. With good tendencies.


In general?

LN with good tendencies is pretty accurate. Vulcan philosophy is meant to be benevolent, but sometime get interpreted as heartless utilitarianism, and the individuals can be big jerks or even casually villainous. Vulcans have flaws, too, they're just trying very, very hard to control their extra-strong emotions.

[Socratov]

Sounds like a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral lizard folk to me. Might work for NG even. Definitely would be hard for a CG one to live by those, it'd be a conflict between them and his natural behavior. (Kinda like a CG Devotion Pally)

Personally I could see CG one of the easier aspects for a lizardfolk: while a lawful lizardfolk might adhere to tribal structure, the CG lizardfolk might be the solitairy hunter who, while part of the tribe, mostly acts alone and judges for himself what course of action might be most beneficial to him and his tribe. That does not mean that he will die for his tribe out there, no sir, he will save himself when his life is in danger. he will not risk death to bring home a carcass to eat, but will return empty handed instead. The bottom line stays survival. The difference in this regard is how far you are willing to go for the needs of the many.

[Sigreid]

In all honesty, perhaps the Lizardfolk comes to see (and appreciate) the value in being good (helping others, avoiding harming others, and self sacrifice). For all societies and peoples (and lizards).

If a chaotic and evil society would be destructive and harmful to all (including itself), perhaps he sees a lawful and good society being for the benefit of all.

It does seem to imply in the text that they lack empathy (making them effectively sociopaths), so true altruism would be hard to explain.

Unless of course that lack of empathy and pragmatic thinking is more of a cultural norm than a biological reality for them.

I think a better comparison would be Autistic. They can think and logic their way just fine, but have trouble with emotion.

[Spellbreaker26]

I think a better comparison would be Autistic. They can think and logic their way just fine, but have trouble with emotion.

Autistic isn't quite right, since autistic isn't so much lacking emotion as having difficulty with communication. If anything, I'd say Kenku are a dead-ringer for autism, with their repetitive habits and trouble with communication.

[Malifice]

I think a better comparison would be Autistic. They can think and logic their way just fine, but have trouble with emotion.

Autism is a very different spectrum to Antisocial personality disorders. Sociopaths (and at the upper end of that spectrum, Psychopaths) literally don't feel emotions, and lack empathy.

There is a large concentration of Sociopaths (and Psychopaths) in the Corporate CEO and in particular Banking professions. True story; google it.

Interestingly you see a lot of behaviors in PCs in RPGs that would be classed as Psychopathy and Sociopathy. The reason being that it is hard to show empathy when dealing with a fictional third party.

That NPC you captured? Torture and kill him (without caring). In the real world of course, most people couldnt bring themselves to do such an act, and would be deeply disturbed afterwards. PCs engage in it all the time due to our disconnection from our characters, and the fictional status of other people we interact with in game. Its next to impossible to demonstrate genuine empathy and emotion for an imaginary fictional person; so most PCs are (knowingly or not) depicted as psychopaths.

Autistic spectrum disorders OTOH do have emotions and do have empathy, but they miss social queues, and have difficulty reading, reacting and expressing those emotions At the lower end this makes them awkward; at the higher end of the spectrum it can be debilitating.

Autistic people feel emotions just fine; they have difficulty expressing them properly, reading them when others express them, or dealing appropriately when others show them. This can lead them to be awkward at the lower end of the spectrum, to at the upper end of the spectrum to explosive and unpredictable behavior, or total withdrawal.

[Sigreid]

Autism is a very different spectrum to Antisocial personality disorders. Sociopaths (and at the upper end of that spectrum, Psychopaths) literally don't feel emotions, and lack empathy.

There is a large concentration of Sociopaths (and Psychopaths) in the Corporate CEO and in particular Banking professions. True story; google it.

Interestingly you see a lot of behaviors in PCs in RPGs that would be classed as Psychopathy and Sociopathy. The reason being that it is hard to show empathy when dealing with a fictional third party.

That NPC you captured? Torture and kill him (without caring). In the real world of course, most people couldnt bring themselves to do such an act, and would be deeply disturbed afterwards. PCs engage in it all the time due to our disconnection from our characters, and the fictional status of other people we interact with in game. Its next to impossible to demonstrate genuine empathy and emotion for an imaginary fictional person; so most PCs are (knowingly or not) depicted as psychopaths.

Autistic spectrum disorders OTOH do have emotions and do have empathy, but they miss social queues, and have difficulty reading, reacting and expressing those emotions At the lower end this makes them awkward; at the higher end of the spectrum it can be debilitating.

Autistic people feel emotions just fine; they have difficulty expressing them properly, reading them when others express them, or dealing appropriately when others show them. This can lead them to be awkward at the lower end of the spectrum, to at the upper end of the spectrum to explosive and unpredictable behavior, or total withdrawal.

This whole thing is accurate and well thought out. I still think Autism is a better model for the lizard folk not because they are autistic, but that's the way they would come across to others. Yes, psychologically speaking they would bey sociopaths, but the difference is most sociopaths are able to understand emotion well enough to fake it and are well document to do this as a means of manipulating people. Dealing with emotions of others from a confused and awkward stance sounds more right for lizard folk to me because they don't understand it and can't fake the appropriate emotional responses. What I was getting at was they would seem autistic because they just get all the social queues around emotions wrong.

[Malifice]

This whole thing is accurate and well thought out. I still think Autism is a better model for the lizard folk not because they are autistic, but that's the way they would come across to others. Yes, psychologically speaking they would bey sociopaths, but the difference is most sociopaths are able to understand emotion well enough to fake it and are well document to do this as a means of manipulating people. Dealing with emotions of others from a confused and awkward stance sounds more right for lizard folk to me because they don't understand it and can't fake the appropriate emotional responses. What I was getting at was they would seem autistic because they just get all the social queues around emotions wrong.

I wouldnt think Lizard folk would be socially awkward; more just cold, measured, matter of fact and emotionless.

Awkwardness would come from misreading a social queue. Laughing at a moment of sadness, or responding to affection with avoidance or withdrawal, or continuing to talk when its your time to listen (all common traits in autistic spectrum disorders).

A Lizard folk (IMO) would just stand there totally non-impassioned, and be matter of fact about things, cold black eyes staring at you unblinking.

Personally I wouldnt think they would be emotionless. Just it would take more to move one or provoke an emotional response than it would mammalian species. Lizards arent exactly social animals (unlike monkeys, which we descend from, and canines) so they lack the evolutionary emotional/ empathy/ social hardwiring that those species have.

Humans have a higher degree of empathy due to the social structuring of our ancestors, and the fact we have always functioned in groups. Its why we get along so well with dogs and canines (they do the exact same thing in their packs). Even to the point dogs and humans have been co-existing so long, dogs have evolved to actually read human emotions and social queues.

Lizard folk must have emotions. Emotions are important evolutionary tools imperative to the two biological drives of 'reproduce and survive' inherent in all living species.

Fear and anger compel us to fight harder, avoid things that harm us, and run away faster (or fight better) when they do. Hate, love, jealousy, joy and compassion compel us to mate and to procreate even though there is no logical reason to do so.

Its just lacking an advanced social structure, lizard folk dont feel them as strong as humans because they havent needed to. The fact they live in social structures (and are biologically alive), indicates to me that they must possess empathy and emotions to some degree.

[Unoriginal]

Lizard folk must have emotions. Emotions are important evolutionary tools imperative to the two biological drives of 'reproduce and survive' inherent in all living species.

Fear and anger compel us to fight harder, avoid things that harm us, and run away faster (or fight better) when they do. Hate, love, jealousy, joy and compassion compel us to mate and to procreate even though there is no logical reason to do so.

Its just lacking an advanced social structure, lizard folk dont feel them as strong as humans because they havent needed to. The fact they live in social structures (and are biologically alive), indicates to me that they must possess empathy and emotions to some degree.

There is nothing saying that they "must" have emotions, or at least that they must have emotions like humans. Emotions is how our brain translate chemicals and neurological reactions in order to motivate survival, but it doesn't mean that all living beings must be like that.

Fear and anger are good motivators, but they're just how our brains react to the "warning, this is dangerous, you have to avoid it" and "warning, this situation is harmful to you, you should fight to correct it" signals. Joy, pleasure and happiness are how our brains reward us for doing something that seems beneficial, but it's ultimately nothing more than a "mission accomplished, good job" signal. As for love and desire for sex, it is again how the complexe human brains handle what is originally an instinct to procreate, which is then modified quite a lot. Meanwhile, empathy is one of many regulators of agressivity to allow cooperation that are present in the animal kingdom, when other species use other methods.

So, do Lizardfolks need to be capable of agressivity? Sure. Does it means they have to feel anger? No. Their brains could very well be telling them "this is a threat, deal with it accordingly" without resorting to anger like humans do.

[Malifice]

There is nothing saying that they "must" have emotions, or at least that they must have emotions like humans. Emotions is how our brain translate chemicals and neurological reactions in order to motivate survival, but it doesn't mean that all living beings must be like that.

Fear and anger are good motivators, but they're just how our brains react to the "warning, this is dangerous, you have to avoid it" and "warning, this situation is harmful to you, you should fight to correct it" signals. Joy, pleasure and happiness are how our brains reward us for doing something that seems beneficial, but it's ultimately nothing more than a "mission accomplished, good job" signal. As for love and desire for sex, it is again how the complexe human brains handle what is originally an instinct to procreate, which is then modified quite a lot. Meanwhile, empathy is one of many regulators of agressivity to allow cooperation that are present in the animal kingdom, when other species use other methods.

So, do Lizardfolks need to be capable of agressivity? Sure. Does it means they have to feel anger? No. Their brains could very well be telling them "this is a threat, deal with it accordingly" without resorting to anger like humans do.

Are you telling me animals don't feel fear, anger, joy, pleasure, compassion etc?

You can literally watch them experience it (or fake it pretty convincingly). Ive seen an angry animal, a happy animal, a content animal, an animal showing compassion and kindness, a scared animal etc.

We cant know for sure of course, but come on. You're expressing a very anthropocentric idea here.

[Unoriginal]

Are you telling me animals don't feel fear, anger, joy, pleasure, compassion etc?

No, I am not. Some animals can feel things. I'm saying that it is not a *must*. Not all animals have the capacity for all emotions.

For exemple, a turkey mother is so agressive while guarding her eggs that she'd literally kill her hatchlings unless she can hear the chick's song that cancel said agressivity. And would feel nothing bad about it.


You can literally watch them experience it (or fake it pretty convincingly). Ive seen an angry animal, a happy animal, a content animal, an animal showing compassion and kindness, a scared animal etc.

Yes, a good number of animals can be angry, scrared, content or happy. Mammals in particular tend to have the kind of reactions we attribute to emotions similar to ours, due to the relative closeness between them and us.

Can't say I've ever seen anything not human showing compassion, though.



We cant know for sure of course

Yes, we humans tend to anthropomorphise animals to some extent, which can cause us to misinterpret some behaviors. It's reasonable to think that a wolf showing agressivity is angry, for exemple, but it will not be the same anger than an human would feel.


You're expressing a very anthropocentric idea here.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that not all sapient species have to have human-like minds. Those who says that the Lizardfolks must experience emotions just because we humans do are the ones being anthropocentric.