We haven't had any alignment questions recently....

[SangoProduction]

So, let's buck the trend of balancing casters (charisma-based acrobatics check DC 404), and ask about alignments again. Those were fun.

So, we've got a creature that's fueled by suffering/torment/pain that sorta stuff. Obviously, it's nature is Evil. But those are details, and I am only concerned with the actions.

It offers payment to anyone willing to endure a night with it. This creature only feasts off of the suffering of those who willingly submit, foolishly thinking that nothing could be so bad as to not be worth *that* much money (especially for a commoner who struggles to pay for food). It is worse than could be imagined, such that even Dark Souls players would weep bloody tears of agony.

But at the end of the term, the subject is healed of all damage/disease, and programmed amnesia/mindrape/whatever'd in to not remembering any of the pain (hell, they might leave in a better condition than they came in), and take the money. They may even return multiple times as the sudden inundation of wealth leads to unwise spending practices, and they think it's an exceptionally favorable deal, not remembering the pain of the moment...or...night as the case may be.

This creature then goes off adventuring, using the power earned from the night to earn money to pay for future...appointments, which helps to ensure the safety of the area.

So, about the alignment?

I'd definitely say it's at least lawful, as they only (intentionally) feed off of the willing submitters (and perhaps those adventure-targets, since it's wasteful to 'just' kill something). But...I would be hard-pressed to call these actions "Evil". Definitely sadistic. Maybe even more than necessary, in the same way eating an entire cow is generally unnecessary for curbing hunger. But, people leave happy and healthy from their sessions.

[Uncle Pine]

The example provided sounds awfully similar in practice to an animated table with spikes and maiming objects of pleasure of various types included in its design, with self-resetting Heal and Programmed Amnesia/Mindrape/whatever traps added for extra benefit. I'd rule the thing as True Neutral, or Neutral Evil if spells with the [Evil] descriptor like Mindrape are included in the creature's "routine".

[theblasblas]

Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good depending on its other actions and reasons for doing so. It is following a contract, so it's definitely lawful... but why did it term the contract as such? Is it because despite being fueled by pain he doesn't "want" people to be hurt, but needs to do so to survive? Then it's Lawful Good. Or is it because it's the method that leads to more "return customers" so to speak? If so, then its Lawful Neutral.

[Karl Aegis]

I see one of those I kill it. So it's evil.

[Nifft]

Soul-crushing torment in trade for money -- isn't that just having a job?

The table is nice enough to erase the soul-crushing torment, too, which is probably better than two weeks of vacation.

[DeTess]

Yeah, this really depends on its motivations. Is it feeding of misery to do good (LG)? To survive ( LN)? Does he do it because he enjoys it, and adventuring us the only way to earn enough money (LE)?

[Ignimortis]

The creature in question has found one of the most charitable ways to control and sate their hunger for pain. As long as it only deals with willing adults, it cannot really be evil, since it does its' best to both reimburse its' victims the suffering and erase any sign of it for everyone involved, so it's not actually doing lasting harm to anyone.

Therefore...it's definitely Lawful, as it follows the contracts made. It can be of any position on the Good-Evil axis, but I'd say that I'd peg it as Lawful Neutral with a tendency towards Good or Evil depending on why it does all of this.

[Pleh]

I don't buy arguments for good alignment and I'm skeptical of neutral.

It derives power from indiscriminant torture.

Any player at my table trying to defend it as anything but abhorrent evil will have to explain to me how it is better that the monster do this rather than seeking to obtain power through a more conventionally good method.

Have they tried praying for cleric spells?

If the answer is, "they can't, they're a demon" then there's your answer: extraplanar beings *made of evil*. If somehow a demon is trying to use evil to do good instead of doing good to prevent itself from being hunted and butchered, I would insist this to be a breach of demon description in the setting. At best, such a creature could be half demon.

Bottom line, it derives power through suffering not related to any form of justice. That makes the action ping evil.

What it intends to do with the power is no defense if it has any ability to seek sufficient power to do good by any non evil means.

If we're in the special case that this is simply the best that the creature can do by its own physical limitations, it pings neutral at best. It's an evil creature trying to make the best of its circumstances. If it wanted to be actually good alignment, it would refuse to do the deplorable torture of others and accept whatever personal weakness it had to endure as a result. Maybe with sufficient humility and piety, a deity might have mercy and use a miracle to make it no longer require such methods to survive.

[theblasblas]

@Pleh

He described the creature as being "fueled" by suffering. I take this to mean that suffering is like food it needs to survive. Are you suggesting that the only way a being comprised of evil can be good is to commit suicide? This is explicitly not the case in DnD as there IS such a thing as a Paladin Succubus, and the MM clarifies that "Always Evil" still leaves the possibility for unique or extremely rare cases of having a different alignment.

I'd say the mere act of developing a way for your kind to be able to survive without causing any permanent harm to others is something that would warrant giving that individual a "good" alignment if the reason for doing so is one born out of empathy and kindness. However, I think as per the definition of outsiders, they will still "ping" as evil in a Detect Evil spell, regardless of their alignment.

[Spore]

If a creature feeds on torment, it should have the evil subtype. No matter how much care it offers for its victims afterwards.

[Pleh]

@Pleh

He described the creature as being "fueled" by suffering. I take this to mean that suffering is like food it needs to survive. Are you suggesting that the only way a being comprised of evil can be good is to commit suicide? This is explicitly not the case in DnD as there IS such a thing as a Paladin Succubus, and the MM clarifies that "Always Evil" still leaves the possibility for unique or extremely rare cases of having a different alignment.

Demons in D&D are often described as being "made of evil." I feel like this is contradicted by the idea that it could ever be of good alignment unless it ceases to be "made of evil."

A shadow creature doesn't get to simultaneously generate its own source of elemental daylight (having a spell cast on you doesn't make you the source of the light, but the target of a spell that generates light). They are just opposite effects that negate one another.

I say paladin succubus is a failing of a flawed moral system. Paladin Ex Succubus maybe, or Succubus Ex Paladin. You can change sides as much as you want, but ideas of being both in any way without just equaling out to be neutral is just a flimsy moral code created by a set of authors who had completely different ideas about how morality works. I mean, if a Succubus can satisfy the requirements to be lawful good without separating themselves from a natural essence of evil, then alignment is pretty meaningless.

"But RAW says..."

Never waste time with RAW interpretations of game morality. You will get into silly, twisted places really quick. Use common sense and extrapolate rationally.


I'd say the mere act of developing a way for your kind to be able to survive without causing any permanent harm to others is something that would warrant giving that individual a "good" alignment if the reason for doing so is one born out of empathy and kindness. However, I think as per the definition of outsiders, they will still "ping" as evil in a Detect Evil spell, regardless of their alignment.

Humans try to kill animals in a humane way to eat them. It isn't "good" just neutral.

Honestly, the whole argument reminds me of the "why is necromancy evil" debate. The answer depends on a few premises.

By causing the suffering, does this creature expose the material plane to tainted powers, thus increasing the amount of cosmic evil?

I notice you ignored my point about asking if the creature has even considered an alternative.

Is the creature intrinsically evil (more than likely due to the nature of its feeding)? If it can't not be evil, then yes, by definition the only good one is a dead one and killing itself in that case really is one of the few good actions it might be capable of. Don't blame me, it's a consequence of the premise that creatures can be frabricated from raw evil in a system of Cosmic Good and Cosmic Evil that fight over control of the planes.

I mean, if a creature made of evil stops being evil, in a way it HAS died, regardless of if it keeps existing in some other form.

Bottom line, Cosmic Evil is empowered by this suffering, Cosmic Good wants to eradicate it. If the creature that needs it is aligned with Cosmic Good, then they want to get rid of this need for suffering, because that's what Good wants. Maybe they want to be healed so they can live without it rather than just destroying themselves, but if they accept necessary evil for self preservation, they are neutral at best.

[hamishspence]

Demons in D&D are often described as being "made of evil." I feel like this is contradicted by the idea that it could ever be of good alignment unless it ceases to be "made of evil."


That's mostly hyperbole. Yes, they have a strong connection to Evil (represented by the Evil subtype), which is why they detect as evil - but that connection is not the be-all and end-all.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype


Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

So, yes, a fiend's alignment can change- it's specified in the MM. There is nothing stopping them from changing all the way to Lawful Good. Once good, they become eligible to take classes and PRCs that say "must be good aligned".

The alignment in a creature's statblock, represents its behaviour and attitude. An Alignment Subtype represents cosmic energy - good, evil, law, chaos, as "the forces that define the cosmos" - typically, it refers to the creature's home plane.

[theblasblas]

Never waste time with RAW interpretations of game morality. You will get into silly, twisted places really quick. Use common sense and extrapolate rationally.




Yet you yourself are invoking RAW in declaring demons as creatures of pure evil. In any case what's important is how we use raw, if we simply ignore it, then we're not even talking about DnD anymore and simply ethics in general, or ethics in a fantasy setting. In these discussions it is our role to explain the raw in a way that makes sense.

There really isn't any reason why a being made of pure evil cannot have a good alignment. A being changes as it experiences new things, if the change is significant enough it might cause a change in alignment, however this change in alignment does not necessarily mean a change in composition. This is because the "evil" in "made of pure evil" is not evil in morality's terms, but rather evil as an element, a tangible thing. If you read the lore on certain devils, some of them were once good outsiders cursed by the gods into becoming evil outsiders, note how the change into an evil outsider does not come as a result of their actions, but rather by the curse of the gods. One does not suddenly become an ex-succubus by turning celibate.

In a way, the problem is that you're interpreting the lore and definitions out of context by forcefully divorcing them from the RAW. One cannot use common sense definitions of words in a world where our common sense does not apply. The RAW is the common sense of the DND world.

[Pleh]

That's mostly hyperbole. Yes, they have a strong connection to Evil (represented by the Evil subtype), which is why they detect as evil - but that connection is not the be-all and end-all.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype



So, yes, a fiend's alignment can change- it's specified in the MM. There is nothing stopping them from changing all the way to Lawful Good. Once good, they become eligible to take classes and PRCs that say "must be good aligned".

The alignment in a creature's statblock, represents its behaviour and attitude. An Alignment Subtype represents cosmic energy - good, evil, law, chaos, as "the forces that define the cosmos" - typically, it refers to the creature's home plane.

Meh. My point still stands. A Paladin Succubus at my table will have to choose whether they're sucking people's souls out with a kiss and summoning demons or having paladin powers. They're not gonna get to benefit from both simultaneously. Succubus probably has to Geas Mark of Justice atone for all she's done before her alignment change before she can even become a paladin to begin with.

Nothing else really makes sense. Like drowning yourself to save yourself from dying. Just RAW being incomprehensible again.


Yet you yourself are invoking RAW in declaring demons as creatures of pure evil. In any case what's important is how we use raw, if we simply ignore it, then we're not even talking about DnD anymore and simply ethics in general, or ethics in a fantasy setting. In these discussions it is our role to explain the raw in a way that makes sense.

Actually more important than RAW; I'm invoking Setting. The OP didn't ask what the RAW alignment of the action described should be, but what people think it should be.

RAW alignment rules are a joke. I began to realize that they were a joke back when being an assassin required an evil alignment (yeah, you can be Good aligned and feed from violent suffering if you wipe their mind after, but god forbid you be anything but EVIL if you make murder your profession like EVERY OTHER ADVENTURER EVER). These days, I just aim for a game that is self-consistent to within suspension of disbelief.

The only two ways I've seen that happen is that either Good and Evil are cosmic forces and this justifies the harsh, physical restrictions we see in RAW (which makes it important to make these distinctions consistently harsh), or it's best to remove the alignment system entirely.

Since removing all alignment from the equation makes the question and thread moot, I opted for the first option: alignment restrictions are harsh at the best of times and seek to follow the logic (as best as possible) of alignment guided by cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

Hence, a Succubus becoming a Paladin basically mandates that they stop being a Succubus in just about every way they are capable of doing. In a system like D&D, death isn't really such a big deal. You can find some friendly druids, have them Coup de Grace you, then reincarnate you as a regular mortal so you can totally burn the bridge to your demonic past (assuming you don't just poof back to hell because we're guessing you aren't just a summoned succubus, but actually traveled here). It's expensive, but Good alignment is its own reward, right? Now you can be a paladin without having to fight off a compulsion to suck people's souls out of them all the time.

Whether you *literally* stop being a succubus by actually dying or metaphorically stop being a succubus by abandoning everything that makes you a succubus (to whatever degree you are able), you have to first do that thing before you can become a paladin.

If a Succubus hungers for mortal souls and will die of starvation without Energy Draining through kisses and a Good Succubus has to choose between sparing the innocent and surviving, I would suggest their "connection to evil" is too strong to allow them to be actually good and they'll either be Neutral or soon stop existing and thus become irrelevant to the question.


In a way, the problem is that you're interpreting the lore and definitions out of context by forcefully divorcing them from the RAW. One cannot use common sense definitions of words in a world where our common sense does not apply. The RAW is the common sense of the DND world.

The RAW is not the common sense of the D&D world, that's why the DM is constantly arbitrating the game to protect the verisimilitude from broken RAW implications (I again cite the case of drowning yourself to save yourself from dying, which no DM should allow unless they WANT buggy game mechanics to be a feature of their setting, but EVEN IN THIS CASE, the RAW logic is being approved by the DM, who allows or disallows each and every game rule). The DM's judgement is the common sense of the D&D world, which means the answer to our question will depend on the DM (which is why the OP asked an open ended question to the wide array of DMs on the forum and why I keep referencing what I would do at my particular table).

Alignment really isn't defined well enough to simply derive the answer to this question, which is precisely why the OP asked the question rather than just calculating the answer on their own.

And it's not that the game "stops being D&D" because it has a specific setting or even a few houserules. You have to make pretty substantial changes to the game to make it stop being D&D. Even chopping out the alignment system wholesale doesn't make the game stop being "D&D"

[Selene Sparks]

"But RAW says..."

Never waste time with RAW interpretations of game morality. You will get into silly, twisted places really quick. Use common sense and extrapolate rationally.I beg to differ. We can only use RAW for discussions of the morality system set forward by D&D, because that's the only thing that there is to the morality system set forward by D&D. That is the only shared framework we have.

Humans try to kill animals in a humane way to eat them. It isn't "good" just neutral.Is it though? You're killing a being with a mind, capable of experiencing pain and suffering. In fact, BoVD defines murder as "the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like." So, if you kill a chicken because you're hungry, that pretty much perfectly meets the definition of an evil act by the standards we have, as best I can tell.

By causing the suffering, does this creature expose the material plane to tainted powers, thus increasing the amount of cosmic evil?Since you're seeming to want to move into subjectivity-land and away from the one baseline I know we all have in common, you're going to need to provide a bit of support here. What is "cosmic evil," and why is it's increase bad, or even broadly evil? Heck, can it even be increased? The Great Wheel seems to indicate otherwise.

Bottom line, Cosmic Evil is empowered by this suffering, Cosmic Good wants to eradicate it. If the creature that needs it is aligned with Cosmic Good, then they want to get rid of this need for suffering, because that's what Good wants. Maybe they want to be healed so they can live without it rather than just destroying themselves, but if they accept necessary evil for self preservation, they are neutral at best.And a final question: If "Cosmic Good" is okay with wiping out whole types of beings for things they've had no control over, why would this be good? By what standard are you judging "good" that your idea of "Cosmic Good" matches, and how is it distinguished from your referenced "Cosmic Evil?"

Just RAW being incomprehensible again.I'm afraid you're in error here. RAW morality, while incredibly stupid, is, in fact, entirely comprehensible. It's remarkably clear and unambiguous given the way it was written and who it was written by.

Actually more important than RAW; I'm invoking Setting. The OP didn't ask what the RAW alignment of the action described should be, but what people think it should be.

RAW alignment rules are a joke. I began to realize that they were a joke back when being an assassin required an evil alignment (yeah, you can be Good aligned and feed from violent suffering if you wipe their mind after, but god forbid you be anything but EVIL if you make murder your profession like EVERY OTHER ADVENTURER EVER). These days, I just aim for a game that is self-consistent to within suspension of disbelief.

The only two ways I've seen that happen is that either Good and Evil are cosmic forces and this justifies the harsh, physical restrictions we see in RAW (which makes it important to make these distinctions consistently harsh), or it's best to remove the alignment system entirely.

Since removing all alignment from the equation makes the question and thread moot, I opted for the first option: alignment restrictions are harsh at the best of times and seek to follow the logic (as best as possible) of alignment guided by cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

Hence, a Succubus becoming a Paladin basically mandates that they stop being a Succubus in just about every way they are capable of doing. In a system like D&D, death isn't really such a big deal. You can find some friendly druids, have them Coup de Grace you, then reincarnate you as a regular mortal so you can totally burn the bridge to your demonic past (assuming you don't just poof back to hell because we're guessing you aren't just a summoned succubus, but actually traveled here). It's expensive, but Good alignment is its own reward, right? Now you can be a paladin without having to fight off a compulsion to suck people's souls out of them all the time.

Whether you *literally* stop being a succubus by actually dying or metaphorically stop being a succubus by abandoning everything that makes you a succubus (to whatever degree you are able), you have to first do that thing before you can become a paladin.

If a Succubus hungers for mortal souls and will die of starvation without Energy Draining through kisses and a Good Succubus has to choose between sparing the innocent and surviving, I would suggest their "connection to evil" is too strong to allow them to be actually good and they'll either be Neutral or soon stop existing and thus become irrelevant to the question.So, can you actually cite some of your claims here(Succubi starving to death or being affected by a spell outsiders can't be affected by, innate logic to alignment, good alignment being a reward, and so on), or are you just making things up? We need to understand the framework from which you're arguing if we're to have any kind of meaningful discussion.

OP: Based on what you've said, given no other information, there is no written reason I can locate for the actions taken to qualify as good or evil, unless the creature is a fiend or capable of casting Plane Shift. If it is, then it's super evil for different reasons.

[Pleh]

I beg to differ. We can only use RAW for discussions of the morality system set forward by D&D, because that's the only thing that there is to the morality system set forward by D&D. That is the only shared framework we have.

Nope, because we also have game experience independent of RAW. It'll be subjective, but that isn't outside the scope of the OP who didn't specify RAW.

My other problem with using RAW is that it's clear the authors never considered this scenario, so extrapolating the data is always going to be subjective regardless, even if you use only RAW, because what you're really using is the interpretation of RAW that fits your own bias (we all do it).


Is it though? You're killing a being with a mind, capable of experiencing pain and suffering. In fact, BoVD defines murder as "the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like." So, if you kill a chicken because you're hungry, that pretty much perfectly meets the definition of an evil act by the standards we have, as best I can tell.

Thank you for giving me an even better example of how RAW morality doesn't make sense.

Animal type monsters [RAW] kill other animals to eat all the time and they are defined as always neutral, not evil. Human commoners take it a step further and actually enslave animals only to slaughter them for food more conveniently. More basic neutrality according to RAW. How is a culture built on constant evil actions maintaining its neutrality? Is the town cleric using a mass Atonement spell after every meal? Once a day? Every other week? Once a year? Nowhere in RAW is it suggested that this is even necessary or that eating animals is a "sin."

To be fair to RAW, though, I think you've stretch BoVD too far here. I doubt that they really intended "personal gain" to include "eating to continue existing" or for animals to count as "intelligent creatures." That particular portion seems to be describing interactions and an Int 3+ level. Not that cruelty to animals isn't possible in D&D, but I really doubt that's what they were trying to imply here.


Since you're seeming to want to move into subjectivity-land and away from the one baseline I know we all have in common, you're going to need to provide a bit of support here. What is "cosmic evil," and why is it's increase bad, or even broadly evil? Heck, can it even be increased? The Great Wheel seems to indicate otherwise.

Look closer: that part of my argument was drawing parallels to the "is necromancy evil" debates that routinely pass through d&d circles. In case you're not familiar, the argument typically goes that negative energy can be harmful to the material plane, so just the act of bringing more here from its native plane could be harming the material plane even if the energy used is used by a good character to do good things.

If using a neutral, but evil connected magical power source is in serious debate about its alignment, deliberately inflicting unimaginable suffering on another creature for Personal Gain of power seems to be pretty cut and dry in comparison. You are creating more suffering in the world as a magical property so you can use it. Seems pretty stinking evil by all accounts.

Healing, mind wiping, and compensating the victim really doesn't change anything for me. I mean, if I allow that to shift the scales, then what would be all that bad if we removed the element of consent? The creature now just attacks people at night, but uses the same procedure otherwise, including the payment. Not evil, I suppose, because the creature left no mark of its violence?

I ask because we know for fact that the creature's "employee" is going to attempt to revoke their consent to stop the pain before the night is over. No mortal creature can endure that kind of pain and not break. There is no way for them to stop the process, so they are slaves for the night, despite receiving compensation thereafter. So what is so different about cutting out the middleman and foregoing the contract to operate the same way?


And a final question: If "Cosmic Good" is okay with wiping out whole types of beings for things they've had no control over, why would this be good?

Because that's how RAW defines it. Killing a creature with an evil subtype is an intrinsically Good Act and that rule doesn't really have any exceptions. Keep in mind that part of my argument was going along with a strict reading of alignment rules, which produces silly results.


By what standard are you judging "good" that your idea of "Cosmic Good" matches, and how is it distinguished from your referenced "Cosmic Evil?"

RAW good and evil have tremendously little in common with real world morality.


So, can you actually cite some of your claims here(Succubi starving to death or being affected by a spell outsiders can't be affected by, innate logic to alignment, good alignment being a reward, and so on), or are you just making things up? We need to understand the framework from which you're arguing if we're to have any kind of meaningful discussion.

Well, are you really asking or just making a rhetorical question with a condescending tone to make yourself feel superior?

D&D morality intentionally leaves mad lib blank spaces for DMs to fill in with specific setting details. I'm offering some examples for how these blanks get filled with setting info.

The answer to the OP won't clearly be answered by RAW, rather more by individual settings that fill in the blanks. The Great Wheel cosmology is more of a recommended default than a canon mythology. More useful to list some examples to demonstrate the moral principles at play than beat our heads against the vain RAW system.

[Der_DWSage]

...Moving on from the Succubi discussion that's going on, I'm going to strongly lean on Lawful Neutral for our monster. (Which I now have to picture as a menacing Torture Table, possibly going on adventures with the Dread Gazebo and the Psionic Sandwich. Any divine possibilities I'm forgetting here, or is it just a generic Statue of Asmodeus that completes the fearsome foursome?)

The Lawful portion is without question, in my mind. It makes contracts, it doesn't seem to be erratic in actions, and I'm assuming there aren't many nights where this torture table foregoes the mindwipe 'Just to see what happens.' At worst, he's Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, and even that would take a bit of convincing in my mind.

I can't say he's Good-this is partly in the motivations. He's adventuring and protecting people, not because he believes in their inherent goodness or anything, but more because he's the equivalent of a pain-farmer keeping an eye on his torture-cattle. And Table doesn't seem to have any motivation to break out of his rut or to put his gifts to use for the greater good, so there's really no inclination towards Good here.

I won't quite say he's evil, but there could easily be a detail or tidbit that would convince me otherwise. If Table takes a little too much glee in torturing his victims, or if he actually starts slipping into acts of wanton slaughter when he goes murdering, that would easily push him over the edge.

Actually, that seems like a good way of putting it altogether. Lawful Neutral, but with the slightest push, goes to Lawful Evil. Not necessarily a bad spot to be, Red Fel would approve of it. I guess there could be similar details to push him to Lawful Good, but from the framework of what we've been given, that seems unlikely.

[Mechalich]

This monster is a perpetual motion machine of pain and suffering. It inflicts damage, much it obtains energy from that not only sufficient to completely heal the damage, but all to power it up so it can go expend energy to kill things, which also has the side effect of supplying it with considerable wealth. If this creature could be guaranteed to do good deeds, you'd have a golem fueled by martyrdom. Whether or not the thing is good or evil, as the setup stands, volunteering for this treatment is clearly good - sacrificing yourself to the golem that protects the town - and you'd probably have paladins lined up out the door to undergo the process.

In any case, the creature in question seems likely to be lawful neutral. In fact this sort of scenario is exactly the sort of thing one can imagine an Inevitable setting up - the only difference is that instead of being fueled by pain it would be fueled by curiosity at trying to understand pain. An actually evil creature would not be content with this scenario and would constantly be seeking to subvert the terms. However, this scenario is also the sort of thing a sufficiently powerful wizard could bind a devil into doing.

[Calthropstu]

Accepting as a given:
Feeding is a must.
Pain is its food source.
He gains power from feeding.
He then uses that power for the benefit of others.
I see good tendencies using evil acts.
This is contractual in nature, but such a contract would be generally viewed as unlawful. I see neutral.
The adventuring is questionable and where it tips the balance. At the moment I place him strongly in true neutral. The adventuring, and the reasons for it could tip him in any direction. Is the the adventuring contractual in nature? Lawful. Does he hear of bandits and take it on themselves to murder them? Chaotic. Does he help people without thought of reward or take all they have because he feels it's his due for helping.
Does he kill or capture? And in killing, does he enjoy it?
The adventuring is what will push him either way, as is he's true neutral in my eyes.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It does what he have to do in order to survive - N

It make people feel pain - E/N

It make people not feel pain - N/G

It make the area safe in order to survive - N

It follows a set of rules - L

It make the area safe and the life of the people better - G/N

Some of them can be G or E but we need to know why he do some things.

It can be:
LN if it just want to live.
LE if it do it for himself and in order to make the people feel pain.
LG if it try to make the area and the life of the people better.

[denthor]

Anybody else remember a star trek episode where Riker is stung by a plant. He is forced to be happy so the venom can kill him. The plant in theory would have the victim there to continue the poisoning and eat the dead decaying corpse. Plant is Nuetral.

Start there.

This is the opposite this thing has a brain and higher reasoning. I am less concerned with what it does when surrounded by people what happens on journey without people to willing feed on?

It leaves victims better off by repression of memories that they imagine happened or if they have true sadness they relive those events?

I am under the impression that Neutral evil is more the true nature of this thing. Where does it get its gold? This has learned that a contract is better. Mind rape is an acceptable use this is an evil spell.


Just so I am clear on a scale of 1-10 neutral 8 lawful 4 Evil 6

[Psyren]

These kinds of ideal scenarios aren't very conducive to determining alignment in my opinion. How it behaves when things aren't ideal is the real question (as denthor asked.) In other words, what happens when it has no willing sapients to torture - what does it do then?

As an analogy - imagine you have a royal executioner. This guy is very dutiful at his job; kills are quick and clean, no undue pain or suffering etc. The guy also loves his job on an emotional level - he happens to basically have serial killer tendencies. But that's fine because there are lots of heads that need chopping - maybe when the King took office, he busted up a huge organized crime ring that had been running roughshod over his country for years, or there were a lot of prisoners left over from the previous war and sorting through all their crimes to find the handful of innocents takes time.

But eventually, the legal heads dry up. Either there are no more criminals getting that sentence out of the batch, or the previous leader gets ousted and replaced with someone considerably more merciful. What does the executioner do then? Hang up his axe completely? Try to join the military in the hopes that he can continue killing there? Or turn his blade on unsanctioned targets? To me, that would inform his alignment much better than how he behaved when circumstances lined up with his outlook perfectly.

[theblasblas]

These kinds of ideal scenarios aren't very conducive to determining alignment in my opinion. How it behaves when things aren't ideal is the real question (as denthor asked.) In other words, what happens when it has no willing sapients to torture - what does it do then?

I'd caution against pushing for the "ideal" unideal scenario as well. As the old adage goes, "everyone has a price". Is the Paladin actually evil if under very extreme circumstances it would choose to do evil to save a love one? Rather we should look into the context of the being, we can infer that it is normal for their kind to simply cause suffering to whomever without caring for anyone's welfare and that it could easily do so, however it chooses to instead take only willing "victims" and then taking care of their welfare afterwards through healing and payment. The sheer fact that they were able to overcome the evil tendencies of their nature warrants them to be Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral.



This is contractual in nature, but such a contract would be generally viewed as unlawful.

Hmm, why would it be viewed as unlawful? Is contractual slavery not generally under the purview of Lawful Evil? Regardless of what its alignment is in the moral axis, I'd say that it is undeniably lawful.

[SangoProduction]

This monster is a perpetual motion machine of pain and suffering. It inflicts damage, much it obtains energy from that not only sufficient to completely heal the damage, but all to power it up so it can go expend energy to kill things, which also has the side effect of supplying it with considerable wealth. If this creature could be guaranteed to do good deeds, you'd have a golem fueled by martyrdom. Whether or not the thing is good or evil, as the setup stands, volunteering for this treatment is clearly good - sacrificing yourself to the golem that protects the town - and you'd probably have paladins lined up out the door to undergo the process.

In any case, the creature in question seems likely to be lawful neutral. In fact this sort of scenario is exactly the sort of thing one can imagine an Inevitable setting up - the only difference is that instead of being fueled by pain it would be fueled by curiosity at trying to understand pain. An actually evil creature would not be content with this scenario and would constantly be seeking to subvert the terms. However, this scenario is also the sort of thing a sufficiently powerful wizard could bind a devil into doing.

I like how you looked to another side of this question. Quite interesting.

[SangoProduction]

But eventually, the legal heads dry up. Either there are no more criminals getting that sentence out of the batch, or the previous leader gets ousted and replaced with someone considerably more merciful. What does the executioner do then? Hang up his axe completely? Try to join the military in the hopes that he can continue killing there? Or turn his blade on unsanctioned targets? To me, that would inform his alignment much better than how he behaved when circumstances lined up with his outlook perfectly.

Do consider that otherwise normal and sane people, when pushed to absolute desperation and starvation have been known to kill and eat each other. I believe there was an incident relatively recently where 13 or so people started on a lifeboat, and like 3-5 were still alive by the time they were found.

These would not have been people with an evil alignment. They simply had a sense of self-preservation. And likely, when they had access to food again, they went back to eating that instead of people.

Now, one would expect a paragon of Good to instead be a martyr, and let others eat them, rather than try to feed off of others. A Paladin would certainly fall for trying to kill and eat a sentient being (3+ int). However, to ask that of an average person would be to ask too much. Thus, I'd argue that in such a situation - one that's effectively forced upon them, by circumstance or otherwise - they aren't truly culpable for their actions. Especially if they don't revert to such actions when given the choice not to. (A choice of 'otherwise you die' is not an actual choice, as most would agree.)

So, back to the scenario at hand. If truly no one accepts the offer, and there are no 'adventuring targets' they can abuse, nor are there criminals who ostensibly would deserve it, or any other suitable unwilling target, and the creature would die if it did not feed: It would have to feed upon someone who it simply shouldn't, and probably wouldn't want to.

This would definitely not be a Good action, nor lawful, but as mentioned, it can eliminate the memory and evidence of the suffering it caused. So, any actual damage is minimized, and life continues on, especially compared to when humans who are forced to starvation.

[Calthropstu]

I'd caution against pushing for the "ideal" unideal scenario as well. As the old adage goes, "everyone has a price". Is the Paladin actually evil if under very extreme circumstances it would choose to do evil to save a love one? Rather we should look into the context of the being, we can infer that it is normal for their kind to simply cause suffering to whomever without caring for anyone's welfare and that it could easily do so, however it chooses to instead take only willing "victims" and then taking care of their welfare afterwards through healing and payment. The sheer fact that they were able to overcome the evil tendencies of their nature warrants them to be Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral.



Hmm, why would it be viewed as unlawful? Is contractual slavery not generally under the purview of Lawful Evil? Regardless of what its alignment is in the moral axis, I'd say that it is undeniably lawful.

True enough I suppose. But even in societies that allow/alliwed slavery, torture was still illegal.

[Nifft]

Do consider that otherwise normal and sane people, when pushed to absolute desperation and starvation have been known to kill and eat each other. I believe there was an incident relatively recently where 13 or so people started on a lifeboat, and like 3-5 were still alive by the time they were found. In my mind, cannibalism isn't always evil.

Murdering people and eating them? That's evil. But it would have been evil even without the eating part, which is bonus evil.

Eating people who died of natural causes when no other food source exists? That's horrible and sickening, but not necessarily evil.

Eating people who died of natural causes as part of your cultural funerary rights? Weird and unsettling but not evil. Might become evil if you are from a culture with inherently evil funerary rights, like you're sending off grandma's soul to Belial and summoning a pit fiend as you snack on her leathery flesh, but that's not the default in my mind.


True enough I suppose. But even in societies that allow/alliwed slavery, torture was still illegal.

You're not talking about real life, that's for sure.

What setting do you mean?

[Falontani]

True enough I suppose. But even in societies that allow/alliwed slavery, torture was still illegal.

(I do not agree with my following statement)

Well with slavery the creature is considered owned. (In my mind slavery is much different than a pet) However would there be "committees" out there to tell people what is too far, what is considered "torture" or what is considered acceptable treatment of a slave?
Would Illithids with their mind slaves tell another illithid that they are treating their slave too poorly and should stop otherwise the Elder Brain is going to punish them? Or would the illithids just chuckle at a comment like that and go back to whatever they were doing, perhaps with more.. gusto?
Is this table truly evil do to the fact that it tortures a creature for their pain, or is it evil due to the fact that the creature is effectively purchasing the creature for the night.

I personally say that the creature should be Lawful Neutral, going solely off information readily available. My question is, deprived of willing food but given the choice between harming a sentient creature, and a lesser meal, like a rat, would it choose a filling meal of the sentient creature, or would it consume the rat? Can this creature obtain a familiar and torture it's familiar (feeling every aspect through an empathic link) as an alternative source of nourishment?

[SangoProduction]

I personally say that the creature should be Lawful Neutral, going solely off information readily available. My question is, deprived of willing food but given the choice between harming a sentient creature, and a lesser meal, like a rat, would it choose a filling meal of the sentient creature, or would it consume the rat? Can this creature obtain a familiar and torture it's familiar (feeling every aspect through an empathic link) as an alternative source of nourishment?

I'd presume that any non-mindless creature that's not immune to pain effects would work, in principle. Going off the typical fantasy tropes, humanoid pain is much more substantial than animal though. But go ahead and tell that to PETA.