PDA

View Full Version : Do fiends consider themselves evil?



Anymage
2018-07-14, 09:38 AM
In the thread about evil gods, there's some dispute as to whether or not people in fantasy worlds with objective alignments know roughly where they stand in alignment-space.

In the real world, meanwhile, real people have embraced some incredibly horrible philosophies. I'm sure you can think of many from history. One that pops immediately to mind for me (without getting uncomfortably close to board forbidden topics) is "the strong should embrace their will to power and live up to their fullest potential, and not limit themselves on account of the weak". That's a point that the Abyss could get behind.

So what's your take? Would fiends embrace their spot on the cosmic alignment wheel and use "For Evil!" As a battle cry, or would they embrace philosophies that claim some higher moral standing?

Haldir
2018-07-14, 09:54 AM
I think it depends on whether you source delivish/demonic power off of evil acts. If they are literally driven by the worship of sin like gods are powered by prayees, then absolutely.

If its like the Dark Souls metaverse and Demons are simply born of a different place withdifferent rules and ideals- probably not.

Zombimode
2018-07-14, 10:04 AM
So what's your take? Would fiends embrace their spot on the cosmic alignment wheel and use "For Evil!" As a battle cry, or would they embrace philosophies that claim some higher moral standing?

Well, this question ties into the larger question of how do you see the planar exemplar races in general. Do you see them as persons?


Personally, I don't view the exemplar races like devils, angels etc. as persons, and definately not as moral agents. They are outcroppings of cosmic forces shaped by the combined believes of the inhabitants of the nearest prime material world.

Questions if a devil "justifies" it's actions or if it considers itself "good" or "evil" or whatnot are pretty much meaningless under this perspective.

legomaster00156
2018-07-14, 10:35 AM
It very much depends on the setting in question and how it treats outsiders in general. Do they have free will and free thought? Can they even comprehend the concept of an opposite alignment? Does evil think good is ultimately better?

Tanarii
2018-07-14, 10:41 AM
Rephrase it as "do they think they're a bad person/creature?" and I think you'll get a more accurate picture of how many outer planar Evil D&D creatures think of themselves.

"Am I evil?" will probably be followed by some justification or moralization or attempt to claim such labeling is pointless.

"Am I bad?" will have a much better shot of "Yes, of course I am." They'll probably be very proud of it.

AceOfFools
2018-07-14, 02:54 PM
Rephrase it as "do they think they're a bad person/creature?" and I think you'll get a more accurate picture of how many outer planar Evil D&D creatures think of themselves.

"Am I evil?" will probably be followed by some justification or moralization or attempt to claim such labeling is pointless.

"Am I bad?" will have a much better shot of "Yes, of course I am." They'll probably be very proud of it.

The opposite, really.

Evil is an objective measurable force in DnD. And fiends are defined by being made of it, at least in the variations I'm familar with.

"Am I evil?" has an objective answer, and it is overwhelmingly (esp. once over 10+ HD :smalltongue:).

Now, ask a fiend "Is it better to be Evil, Neutral or Good?", and I'm sure they will genuine believe that their nature makes them better than creatures with a different nature. They'll have reasons or arguments as to why, even if it's not a valid reason in any sane ethical framework.

Tanarii
2018-07-14, 03:36 PM
The opposite, really.
People generally get quite twisted at the idea they might be Evil. Not so with being bad.

Of course, we are talking Fiends here. They aren't necessarily following the same psychology as people. :smallamused:

War_lord
2018-07-14, 04:06 PM
People generally get quite twisted at the idea they might be Evil. Not so with being bad.

Of course, we are talking Fiends here. They aren't necessarily following the same psychology as people. :smallamused:

That's by the standards of real world "evil is a subjective category defined within a given belief system". In D&D "Evil" is an objective category. Highly Intelligent creatures of inherent evil would know this. Such a creature would probably justify its behavior by claiming Evil is a more beneficial attitude then good. Asmodeus knows he's evil, but that doesn't preclude the idea that he believes his universal tyranny would leave the multiverse in a better state then the "free will" the good gods push.

TheStranger
2018-07-14, 04:12 PM
The opposite, really.

Evil is an objective measurable force in DnD. And fiends are defined by being made of it, at least in the variations I'm familar with.

"Am I evil?" has an objective answer, and it is overwhelmingly (esp. once over 10+ HD :smalltongue:).

Now, ask a fiend "Is it better to be Evil, Neutral or Good?", and I'm sure they will genuine believe that their nature makes them better than creatures with a different nature. They'll have reasons or arguments as to why, even if it's not a valid reason in any sane ethical framework.

I like this take on it, and it might actually apply to Evil mortals as well. Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D - any cleric can cast a spell and tell you whether you're Good or Evil. But, because Good and Evil are objective, they're also distinct from human conceptions about how one should live their life. It's not necessarily better to be Good than Evil, and it's possible that a person could acknowledge themselves as Evil as the universe defines such things, but not think they're evil in the sense of being a bad person.

Without objective morality, we take the way we think a person should live and label it Good (and because people have different ideas about how to live, they have different definitions of Good). In a world with objective morality, Good, Neutral, and Evil are just labels to categorize different worldviews, and those labels aren't determined by the people who hold those worldviews. It's entirely possible to acknowledge a worldview as objectively Good without agreeing that it's *right* in the sense of being the way people should actually live, or to acknowledge a worldview as Evil without thinking it's a bad thing for people to live that way.

Tanarii
2018-07-14, 04:25 PM
That's by the standards of real world "evil is a subjective category defined within a given belief system". In D&D "Evil" is an objective category. Highly Intelligent creatures of inherent evil would know this.
Yeah, it's likely that out-planar creatures probably understand Alignment is objective, if it is. Of course, not all D&D editions (or settings) clearly state Alignment is objective.

Xuc Xac
2018-07-14, 05:48 PM
The terms "good" and "evil" have value judgments attached. It's like asking "Are you a civilized intellectual or a barbaric hillbilly?" instead of "Do you live in an urban or rural area?"

To fiends, "evil" is a term for strength used by the weak. So, a fiend might agree that they are on the team with the black hats, but they wouldn't agree that they are on the "wrong" side.

War_lord
2018-07-14, 05:51 PM
The terms "good" and "evil" have value judgments attached.

In our world, where values are subjective beliefs. That's not the case in D&D. Acts are objectively good or objectively evil in modern D&D.

Deophaun
2018-07-14, 05:55 PM
Ask a fiend if it's evil, and you'll just get a hot poker to the face.

Course, you were getting the hot poker to the face anyway. Fiends don't care about your questions. Just your screams.

Xuc Xac
2018-07-14, 06:14 PM
In our world, where values are subjective beliefs. That's not the case in D&D. Acts are objectively good or objectively evil in modern D&D.

That doesn't change the fact that the terms have value judgments. Foods in the real world can be objectively defined as animal, vegetable, or mineral. That doesn't mean everyone agrees that "meat is murder", "pork is unclean", or "bacon is delicious". Chemists describe ions as positively or negatively charged, but it's not because the positive ions are the good ones and electrons are evil.

TheStranger
2018-07-14, 06:24 PM
The terms "good" and "evil" have value judgments attached. It's like asking "Are you a civilized intellectual or a barbaric hillbilly?" instead of "Do you live in an urban or rural area?"

To fiends, "evil" is a term for strength used by the weak. So, a fiend might agree that they are on the team with the black hats, but they wouldn't agree that they are on the "wrong" side.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself with the second part of that. The fiends aren't saying "I'm a barbaric hillbilly," they're saying "'good' and 'evil' have about as much significance as 'urban' and 'rural.'"

Which is more or less the point that some of us are making. When "good" and "evil" are objectively defined by the multiverse, the value judgments aren't as clear-cut. You can have a group of beings with a value system that they believe is the correct way to live, and which the multiverse has labeled as "evil." In that case, they would believe that the label was arbitrary, not a value judgment.

You don't have to do it that way, of course. You can have a D&D setting with all the real-world value judgments attached to the terms "good" and "evil," and that's probably the default. You'd have to re-fluff things quite a bit, and maybe even re-crunch some stuff as well, in order to strip the value judgments off those terms. But it might be interesting to do it.

Amaril
2018-07-14, 06:34 PM
In a typical D&D cosmology, there are four cosmic forces that govern the universe. One is associated with acts of charity, compassion, and selflessness; another with acts of greed and sadism. Mortals in this world usually label the former force as Good and the latter as Evil, but these names are constructs of biased perspective. The forces exist objectively, and have certain inherent characteristics, but labeling them as Good and Evil is still a value judgment. It just so happens that most mortals consider charity, compassion, and selflessness desirable and therefore good, and greed and sadism undesirable and therefore evil. Someone who believes the opposite wouldn't deny that the relevant cosmic forces exist, nor the way such acts tie into them--they would simply label them differently in their language. In the language of demons, the word for what most mortals call Evil translates as "good"--it still refers to torture, mutilation, and violence committed solely for pleasure, and the cosmic force associated with such, but its connotation is wholly positive, because that's what demons think is good (not Good).

When people talk about D&D cosmologies where Evil is just as valid a choice as Good, objectively speaking, they're not taking into account that while alignment in such a world is objective, the languages used to refer to it are not. Just because the cosmic force of what we call Good exists doesn't mean everyone calls it Good or looks at it in the same positive light we do. It's like how in real life, the word for gravity is different in every language, but it refers to the same thing.

Xuc Xac
2018-07-14, 06:51 PM
It's like how in real life, the word for gravity is different in every language, but it refers to the same thing.

In Common, paladins who commit evil acts are said to be "fallen" because they have moved away from the ideals of the "upper" planes and begun following the path of the "lower" planes.

In Fiendish, paladins who commit evil acts are said to be "free" because they have broken free from the hobbling restrictions of the "weaker" planes and begun following the correct path of the "stronger" planes.

TheStranger
2018-07-14, 06:59 PM
In a typical D&D cosmology, there are four cosmic forces that govern the universe. One is associated with acts of charity, compassion, and selflessness; another with acts of greed and sadism. Mortals in this world usually label the former force as Good and the latter as Evil, but these names are constructs of biased perspective. The forces exist objectively, and have certain inherent characteristics, but labeling them as Good and Evil is still a value judgment. It just so happens that most mortals consider charity, compassion, and selflessness desirable and therefore good, and greed and sadism undesirable and therefore evil. Someone who believes the opposite wouldn't deny that the relevant cosmic forces exist, nor the way such acts tie into them--they would simply label them differently in their language. In the language of demons, the word for what most mortals call Evil translates as "good"--it still refers to torture, mutilation, and violence committed solely for pleasure, and the cosmic force associated with such, but its connotation is wholly positive, because that's what demons think is good (not Good).

When people talk about D&D cosmologies where Evil is just as valid a choice as Good, objectively speaking, they're not taking into account that while alignment in such a world is objective, the languages used to refer to it are not. Just because the cosmic force of what we call Good exists doesn't mean everyone calls it Good or looks at it in the same positive light we do. It's like how in real life, the word for gravity is different in every language, but it refers to the same thing.

That's another a good way of putting it. If you truly wanted to make "Good" and "Evil" equally valid, you could say that those terms are just used for the convenience of the *players* and that the in-universe terms used to represent those cosmic forces don't have the same value judgments attached. Or rather, that they're value-laden terms, but ambiguously so - both sides view themselves as the more virtuous side.

Malimar
2018-07-14, 07:08 PM
Fiends are made out of Evil like humans are made out of matter. This analogy only goes so far, because matter isn't in a war with anti-matter or whatnot (or maybe matter has decisively won the war). And the answer to the analogous question: "do humans consider themselves material?" is probably different -- humans would say "yes, but it's not really important to me", whereas fiends would say to the title question, "yes, and it's extremely important to me".

Although you could consider the Blood War in D&D, and recognize that demons and devils don't consider themselves as having any common ground at all, and they hate each other more than either hates Good, so maybe Evil isn't necessarily actually maximally important to them.

But it's important to note that fiends don't conflate Evil with bad like we do. But they wouldn't necessarily say "Evil is the superior way to be", either, any more than a human would say "material is the superior way to be". Fiends don't justify being Evil to themselves any more than humans put any thought into justifying being made of matter. Any justification for being Evil made by the more clever fiends is just an attempt to lure mortals to Evil.

NichG
2018-07-14, 07:23 PM
The Yugoloths canonically perform experiments trying to refine and perfect the concept of evil, trying different variants on the core philosophies and material forms it takes and then integrating what they consider the best results into themselves (experiments which, by some readings, were connected to the origins of the Baatezu and Tanar'ri and the very reason for the existence of the Blood War). But at the same time, I think something like a battlecry of 'for Evil!' wouldn't really capture that philosophy. It wouldn't be loyalty to a cosmic concept that would drive the loths to this sort of thing, but rather that the concept is so deeply and intrinsically embraced that advancing it to its nadir is going to be automatic and obvious. Just like someone practicing to be a world-class athlete would necessarily be dedicated to pursuing their sport, but wouldn't necessarily take up their sport as a rallying cry - they're not practicing skiing because skiing deserves to be venerated, but rather because they themselves want to be the best skier. Similarly, I don't tend to think of the Yugoloths venerating evil so much as simply wanting to extract as much from that concept as it is possible to pull.

Nifft
2018-07-14, 08:10 PM
I think something like a battlecry of 'for Evil!' wouldn't really capture that philosophy. It wouldn't be loyalty to a cosmic concept that would drive the loths to this sort of thing, but rather that the concept is so deeply and intrinsically embraced that advancing it to its nadir is going to be automatic and obvious.

Yeah.

It's like how IRL our mathematical proofs are judged in part on elegance.

We humans value some ineffable traits -- beauty, grace, elegance, simplicity -- in addition to easily effable traits like power and utility.


I bet fiends feel like that, but for evil instead.

"How evilegant."

Amaril
2018-07-14, 08:22 PM
I have seen one example of fiends in fiction who openly, proudly admit to being evil that I think makes some sense: the God Hand of Berserk.

For anyone who doesn't know, the God Hand are the rulers of demonkind. The Berserk setting features an astral world shaped by humanity's collective beliefs and desires. The God Hand serve a being of the astral called the Idea of Evil, which explains its existence thus: in a world where the fate of humanity is to suffer, people will naturally look for a reason for their suffering, someone or something to blame for their lives being horrible. The Idea of Evil was born from that desire, and believes that its purpose is to be the reason humanity wishes for, by commanding its followers to be as evil as possible and spread pain and suffering among mortals, because since they're going to be miserable either way, it's better that they at least have someone to blame. It's a good example of a wholly alien system of logic that makes a certain kind of sense but is still horrifying to contemplate.

Darth Ultron
2018-07-14, 11:15 PM
In D&D fiends 'consider' themselves evil.

Though, in most D&D fiends are the pure physical embodiment of EVIL. They are literally creatures made of evil.

Evil IS the highest moral standard, to a fiend(or evil person).

Lord Raziere
2018-07-15, 01:30 AM
I dunno lets ask:

Lawful Evil: "Yes I am "evil" for a certain definition of which is defined by certain speakers, but I am sure I can reveal to you a few other ways of looking at it that you might find interesting to your own situation...."

Neutral Evil: "If I did, why would I tell you? Whats in it for me?"

Chaotic Evil: "YES! Do I care!? NOPE!" Goes off to kill people indiscriminately and burn their villages because they can.

Kaptin Keen
2018-07-15, 03:53 AM
I think the problem is that people try to personify fiends. Like, they're just sort of ordinary people who have ordinary lives besides all the eternal burning in the pits of hell thing that acts as their daytime jobs. Little fiends go to fiend school, and more elderly fiends play fiend golf.

Fiends are not people. They don't do things. They don't chose to start wars, and they don't yell war cries. They have some sliver of memory of who they were and what they did to end up in hell, and they either burn in a pit or are driven in vast hordes into battle against other vast hordes.

My personal take - should anyone care - is that what remains of their soul is in the aforementioned burning pit, while their 'body' is bullied around by larger fiends who suffer the exact same unattractive fate. There is no upside to being in hell - it's quite literally as biblically awful as it says on the package.

So giving them alignments is sort of ... wrong? They are what they are, they have no options open to them, they make no choices - except perhaps 'do I flay this guy first, or that other guy over there?'

Eh - alignments don't work for me at all, that's propably the most obvious conclusion to all of this =D

Darth Ultron
2018-07-15, 05:35 PM
I think the problem is that people try to personify fiends. Like, they're just sort of ordinary people who have ordinary lives besides all the eternal burning in the pits of hell thing that acts as their daytime jobs. Little fiends go to fiend school, and more elderly fiends play fiend golf.


The problem is some wacky good people do this for everyone. They will say everyone is a saint and angel..they just need a hug (and tons of money and special treatment, wink wink).

But the Ancient Story of the Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Lord Raziere
2018-07-15, 05:43 PM
The problem is some wacky good people do this for everyone. They will say everyone is a saint and angel..they just need a hug (and tons of money and special treatment, wink wink).

But the Ancient Story of the Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

good thing anyone who tells this story and thinks it applies to people can safely be identified as a scorpion and dealt with accordingly.

Mr Beer
2018-07-15, 06:42 PM
The opposite, really.

Evil is an objective measurable force in DnD. And fiends are defined by being made of it, at least in the variations I'm familar with.

"Am I evil?" has an objective answer, and it is overwhelmingly (esp. once over 10+ HD :smalltongue:).

This is my understanding of the D&D alignment system. Evil is an objective, known fact.

Mr Beer
2018-07-15, 06:44 PM
The problem is some wacky good people do this for everyone. They will say everyone is a saint and angel..they just need a hug (and tons of money and special treatment, wink wink).

But the Ancient Story of the Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.


good thing anyone who tells this story and thinks it applies to people can safely be identified as a scorpion and dealt with accordingly.

Some people are self-destructive ***** though so it kind of does apply to some people. I think the lesson is to avoid those people or at least don't place your joint survival in their hands (or pincers).

Lord Raziere
2018-07-15, 06:52 PM
Some people are self-destructive ***** though so it kind of does apply to some people. I think the lesson is to avoid those people or at least don't place your joint survival in their hands (or pincers).

A more reasonable interpretation than "evil" yes. so I'll change it to that.

Psyren
2018-07-15, 10:44 PM
I think there's a difference between "considering yourself Evil" (as in, possessing/radiating whatever cosmic energy fiends and undead have that uses that label), and "considering yourself to be wrong/immoral." The former is objective fact - if you scan a fiend with Detect Evil or smack one with Smite Evil, they will be affected. The latter I think is what the OP is trying to get at, and essentially means "Do fiends think they're doing the wrong thing?" The answer to which is obviously no, they don't.

Anymage
2018-07-15, 11:36 PM
Yeah. I was seeing some people think that Evil generally went for the evulz, some who thought that it just didn't care, and some who thought that it would try to justify itself. I wanted people's thoughts on which they thought was more likely from an evil creature.

Kaptin Keen
2018-07-16, 12:45 AM
The problem is some wacky good people do this for everyone. They will say everyone is a saint and angel..they just need a hug (and tons of money and special treatment, wink wink).

But the Ancient Story of the Scorpion and the Frog: A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

I do this for everyone. More or less - I work with criminals (among others), and some of those criminals aren't just ... there are sex offenders among them too. Not all crimes are forgivable.

But all the ones who just did something ordinarily horrible, I'll give them a hug, and help them find a job and build a life for themselves.

However, fiends aren't people =)

NichG
2018-07-16, 01:01 AM
Well to flesh it out a bit more, lets think about what it means for something to be a 'virtue'. Among other things, it's a description of which attributes or behaviors are inherently admirable, laudable, or respectable.

Generally I think of Good as focusing on those things which are virtues with respect to the community - behaviors which, if everyone were to engage in them, might not benefit the individual in every case but would collectively benefit everyone. Self-sacrifice, respect, duty, humility, empathy, etc are all things which may come at some cost to the person exhibiting them but in the end, if everyone shares those values, everyone prospers more than they sacrifice (on average).

On the other hand, Evil could be said to focus on those things which are virtues with respect to the immanent self. Dominance, greed, destructive lusts, rage, etc. All of those things which consist of some form of abandon with respect to considerations of others - either the community, or even future or abstract elements of one's self. The particulars of how these virtues are seen would vary across the Law/Chaos axis if we're doing that kind of thing, with the Lawful take on them focusing on in some sense proving superiority or worth via the ability to succeed in the degradation of others, and the Chaotic take focusing on escaping the weakness of self-doubt or becoming trapped within a web of unnecessary, self-inflicted obligations.

So a Tanar'ri who raids the material plane and murders a civilization while feasting upon its ashes is re-affirming a virtue of Evil - they're showing that all of the structures and preparations and considerations are as nothing before pure undiluted willful fulfillment of immediate urges. The fact that the entity was powerful enough to succeed in that becomes interpreted not as a precondition, but rather as an indication that such virtues are right and correct - beings of Good would be too weak to succeed in that, not because they happen to be running a chassis that operates at a different power level but because even if they could have such power, they would fritter it away on pointless considerations of others - they would weaken themselves to the point of irrelevance. In the philosophy of Chaotic Evil, at least.

Similarly, a Baatezu who finds the flaws in a mortal legal system and uses it to make the mortals self-destruct is demonstrating the virtue of Dominance or Supremacy - the mortals and the devil both had the same set of rules to work within, but the devil came out victorious because it did not hobble itself with such petty considerations of morality, the spirit of the law, etc (and of course not because it's had thousands of years of practice in a never-ending game of lawyer deathmatch with supernaturally intelligent competitors, while the mortals assumed things like the existence of trust or common causes when crafting their legal system). It won because of the virtues of Evil, in the philosophy of Lawful Evil at least.

From the point of view of a cosmically Evil being, the virtues of Evil are simply and self-evidently better than the virtues of Good (which are, in its eyes, generally anti-virtues where their successes are mere flukes). In an extreme take on it, I would say that they're even categorically incapable of perceiving the causal relationships when a virtue of Good leads to success - they literally cannot contain the thoughts that would be needed to understand how it might be categorically beneficial even to themselves to adopt those values. From the point of view of a cosmically Good being, you get the reverse - where the actions and philosophies of Evil are simply incomprehensible, with a blind spot as to understanding situations in which they lead to a beneficial outcome for those involved as anything other than just a random fluke.

Dr paradox
2018-07-16, 02:14 AM
I've been reading through Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, and I've been pretty interested in the reasoning given for Asmodeus and the fiend's conviction that they're in the right.

As written, they think any evil they commit is negligible compared to the horrors that would be brought to the cosmos if they shouldn't contain the forces of the Abyss. They think of anything they do as a necessary, lesser evil, and they think their acts of discipline, self sacrifice, and duty to be no less admirable than those of the angels who look down on them. In fact, they take their continued sacrifices in the blood war as justification for why they should be the rulers of the planes - if they're the ones sacrificing to protect reality from the tides of true evil, doesn't that entitle them to a place of power and respect?

It's a pretty good case for fiends who think they're the good guys. As far as they're concerned, they've sullied themselves with the stain of "objective" evil in the name of a higher calling. And frankly, in 5e, the idea of "objective" morality is pretty nebulous. The spells and abilities that reference it only apply to specific types of creatures, so it'd be pretty easy for fiends to shrug it off as "Well, sure the humans CALL us evil, that's just their narrow minded upbringing. So they've got a spell that detects us, demons, and undead - what does that really prove?"

CharonsHelper
2018-07-16, 06:48 AM
In our world, where values are subjective beliefs. That's not the case in D&D. Acts are objectively good or objectively evil in modern D&D.

I'd argue that our world also has objective morality - it's just that our knowledge of it is imperfect. Though in many ways, the day-to-day effect is the same.

But - I won't take that any further as that's a whole can of worms.

War_lord
2018-07-16, 07:31 AM
I'd argue that our world also has objective morality

That's not even close to being true, morality is culturally defined. Even something as simple as attitudes to swearing vary wildly based on where in the world you are and who you're talking to.

Lord Raziere
2018-07-16, 07:39 AM
That's not even close to being true, morality is culturally defined. Even something as simple as attitudes to swearing vary wildly based on where in the world you are and who you're talking to.

Who said culture knows anything? culture is the system of ignorance through tradition, nothing more. it wouldn't know morality if it got hit in the head with it. you only start thinking right when you start thinking outside all culture. it varies in what it says therefore you shouldn't listen to any of it.

Jay R
2018-07-16, 08:04 AM
Getting back to the subject:

Fiends know that they are identified by Detect Evil spells. They know that they are blocked by Protection from Evil.

So, yes, they know that they are Evil.

But remember that the D&D alignment of Evil does not act like what the English word "evil" means in our wold. There is a lot of overlap, but they are very different. Most importantly for this discussion, most rules mechanics for Evil (like the two I listed above) are different from how our evil works.

The real question is this: what does "Evil", the quality that affects Detect Evil and Protection from Evil spells, mean in the mind of a Fiend? Does it have any meaning to them other than limits to their power?

War_lord
2018-07-16, 08:29 AM
Who said culture knows anything? culture is the system of ignorance through tradition, nothing more. it wouldn't know morality if it got hit in the head with it. you only start thinking right when you start thinking outside all culture.

Everyone is influenced by the culture they're brought up in. You can't "think outside of" something that governs the way you think, the way you see the world and the way you think of your self. It's not a conscious action. Ones sense of right and wrong comes entirely from the culture they grow up in. Can they change their beliefs? Yes, but it's a long process, it's not a matter of just saying "I'm beyond this now".


it varies in what it says therefore you shouldn't listen to any of it.

Great, so we shouldn't listen to Medical professionals, Scientists, Historians or Psychologists then? After all, there are issues in all the fields of human progress that currently lack absolute consensus.

Kami2awa
2018-07-16, 11:11 AM
I think there's a couple of ways to look at this:

1) Yes, they do. Fiends are quite aware they are evil, but are the living embodiment of it. This mindset is pretty alien from the point of view of mortals, which is in my view a good thing - these beings are not mortals so they don't think in the same way.

2) No, they don't. They create a justification for their behaviour (The Greater Good, The Strong Should Rule, Cruel To Be Kind, the Master Race, Do As Thou Wilt, Evil Must Exist For Good To Be Seen, The Good Guys Are Just As Bad* etc.) and are just living by a different moral code. That they radiate "evil" is not important - someone, somewhere saw that radiation and labelled it "evil", but that's just their word for it.

*Actually, given some of the stuff in BoED, they have a point there.

Telonius
2018-07-16, 11:59 AM
I'd say they think they're heroes, and that the Good people are the villains. They'd mostly be aware that they're Evil, and think that acting in an Evil way is what they ought to do. There would be no sense of guilt to go along with Evil actions (though they can certainly fake it if that would somehow benefit them).

EDIT: I suppose there would be some varying philosophies about how "best" to go about being Evil, so there would be room for moral disagreement among fiends.

Cazero
2018-07-16, 12:40 PM
That's not even close to being true, morality is culturally defined. Even something as simple as attitudes to swearing vary wildly based on where in the world you are and who you're talking to.
An objective morality is not incompatible with different cultures establishing different moral rules. You just need for most (probably all) of those culturaly biased perspectives of morality to be flawed.

Telonius
2018-07-16, 02:15 PM
I would think that swearing, as well as most of the things to do with "good manners" and local customs, would be more on the Law/Chaos axis than on the Good/Evil axis. Not completely one or the other; it's certainly possible to degrade a particular person's rights and dignity by what you say to them. But if it's just a matter of offending sensibilities and acting outside of civilized discourse, that's more Chaotic than Evil.

Segev
2018-07-16, 02:56 PM
"Bad is good, and Good is bad, Sacred is Profane." - Fiendish philosophy from the perspective of generally good-aligned cultures.

"Evil" means "strength," "determination," and "will to succeed." "Good" means "weakness," "sucker," and "cowardice." Empathy is a vice; do not indulge it, for it costs you opportunities. This is the worldview of the Evil beings of an objective morality system such as D&D's.

The paradigm view of the cosmically Evil is skewed from that of the cosmically (and colloquially) Good. They are the ultimate edgelords. Of course they're Evil; they know it. No, this isn't some "rejecting labels" or, despite the opening quote I gave, pretending that Evil is somehow actually nice and for the betterment of all.

No, Evil is about the self, and one's own needs, wants, and desires. Evil only has "shoulds" in the sense of things that will help the evil person, or things that get in his way. He should pursue his goals. He should not let anything stop him. At least, not anything over which he has power, such as his personal choices or that hideously inconvenient empathy or conscience.

Fiends shamelessly proclaim this. They scoff at the notion of "Good" being in any way beneficial. Oh, sure, it benefits OTHERS, but why should they care about that? The "greater good" is even sillier; the only "good" they care about is "what's good for me?" If they value clarity, they'll even phrase it, "What benefits me most?" Being Good is, at BEST, a temporary coincidence because it benefits them, personally. More often, it's just being stupid, weak, or cowardly.

Devils might speak of what's good for their organization, clan, or other units. This is because what's good for the organization is good for the devil, himself.

Demons would even scoff at that. The notion of giving even for the organization without immediate recompense or clear reason to expect it will pay off (remember, they wouldn't trust anybody to give them something just because it's "owed") is anathema to them.

The answer, from a Fiend, to "Why are you Evil" would be something along the lines of, "Because I'm smart."

noob
2018-07-16, 03:25 PM
Devils and demons are super ultra holy exalted final good of niceness and kindness and empathy when compared with true neutral people.
The existence of true neutral people makes everything that is not true neutral infinitely good by comparison.

Segev
2018-07-16, 03:35 PM
Devils and demons are super ultra holy exalted final good of niceness and kindness and empathy when compared with true neutral people.
The existence of true neutral people makes everything that is not true neutral infinitely good by comparison.

What an unusual position. Care to elaborate as to why?

noob
2018-07-16, 04:36 PM
True neutral people will commit atrocities not because they like that nor for a good reason but for "balance" doing things like killing everything it meets no matter what.
They can also randomly destroy cities or grab someone and tell him "build a city here"(and other similar behaviours not necessarily with cities) supposedly for balance while it will not balance anything and other similar stupid things that are probably going to make stuff less balanced(or yet stab the people who helps them again for balance).
And if someone true neutral is not behaving in either of those ways then if he dies latter without atoning from his true neutrality(for example by doing enough evil deeds for selfish reasons or doing enough good deeds for selfless reasons or being enough chaotic or enough loyal) he will become an outsider behaving in one of the mentioned ways if he dies(therefore by not trying to change of alignment they are going to cause a lot of harm)
Demons and devils by trying to make people evil or eating souls are reducing the number of souls going to the true neutral planes therefore making the multiverse a better place.

Segev
2018-07-16, 04:45 PM
True neutral people will commit atrocities not because they like that nor for a good reason but for "balance" doing things like killing everything it meets no matter what.While such sometimes does get described, that is, at most, one portrayal. And it's no worse than the atrocities willfully and consistently committed by Evil beings, so, no, by definition, not worse than Evil.


They can also randomly destroy cities or grab someone and tell him "build a city here"(and other similar behaviours not necessarily with cities) supposedly for balance while it will not balance anything and other similar stupid things that are probably going to make stuff less balanced(or yet stab the people who helps them again for balance).That's Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil, not "True Neutral." :smallconfused:

And if someone true neutral is not behaving in either of those ways then if he dies latter without atoning from his true neutrality(for example by doing enough evil deeds for selfish reasons or doing enough good deeds for selfless reasons or being enough chaotic or enough loyal) he will become an outsider behaving in one of the mentioned ways if he dies(therefore by not trying to change of alignment they are going to cause a lot of harm)Actually, he'll probably become a resident of the outlands. I don't know that there are higher-level outsiders associated with it.

Demons and devils by trying to make people evil or eating souls are reducing the number of souls going to the true neutral planes therefore making the multiverse a better place.I think you have a very skewed vision of what True Neutral really is. Likely painted by poor portrayals.

noob
2018-07-16, 04:49 PM
While such sometimes does get described, that is, at most, one portrayal. And it's no worse than the atrocities willfully and consistently committed by Evil beings, so, no, by definition, not worse than Evil.

That's Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil, not "True Neutral." :smallconfused:
Actually, he'll probably become a resident of the outlands. I don't know that there are higher-level outsiders associated with it.
I think you have a very skewed vision of what True Neutral really is. Likely painted by poor portrayals.

That poor portrayal is aeons from pathfinder who are the true neutral outsiders.
It is possible that it is just that the pathfinder developers who made aeons just forgot to think or to make anything coherent.
Now the thing is that a demon is a creature you can interact with in meaningful ways.
For example if you are way stronger than the demon it is probably going to respect you.
Or if you have a deal that benefits you and the demon it could accept that deal.
A demon is interested in what makes it stronger or gives him a better position or allows him to make people suffer and thus is a creature with real motivations.
A devil is interested by what damns people to his plane and other stuff like that and stories of dealing with devils are common. When you meet a devil it is unlikely to be going to be "stab each other until death or hope the other is not going to randomly decide to kill you".
While Aeons are truly bizarre outsiders who "works for balance" but which does not promote that in any meaningful way due to being badly written.

Nifft
2018-07-16, 05:46 PM
"Bad is good, and Good is bad, Sacred is Profane." - Fiendish philosophy from the perspective of generally good-aligned cultures.

"Evil" means "strength," "determination," and "will to succeed." "Good" means "weakness," "sucker," and "cowardice." Empathy is a vice; do not indulge it, for it costs you opportunities. This is the worldview of the Evil beings of an objective morality system such as D&D's.

The paradigm view of the cosmically Evil is skewed from that of the cosmically (and colloquially) Good. They are the ultimate edgelords. Of course they're Evil; they know it. No, this isn't some "rejecting labels" or, despite the opening quote I gave, pretending that Evil is somehow actually nice and for the betterment of all.

No, Evil is about the self, and one's own needs, wants, and desires. Evil only has "shoulds" in the sense of things that will help the evil person, or things that get in his way. He should pursue his goals. He should not let anything stop him. At least, not anything over which he has power, such as his personal choices or that hideously inconvenient empathy or conscience.

Fiends shamelessly proclaim this. They scoff at the notion of "Good" being in any way beneficial. Oh, sure, it benefits OTHERS, but why should they care about that? The "greater good" is even sillier; the only "good" they care about is "what's good for me?" If they value clarity, they'll even phrase it, "What benefits me most?" Being Good is, at BEST, a temporary coincidence because it benefits them, personally. More often, it's just being stupid, weak, or cowardly.

Devils might speak of what's good for their organization, clan, or other units. This is because what's good for the organization is good for the devil, himself.

Demons would even scoff at that. The notion of giving even for the organization without immediate recompense or clear reason to expect it will pay off (remember, they wouldn't trust anybody to give them something just because it's "owed") is anathema to them.

The answer, from a Fiend, to "Why are you Evil" would be something along the lines of, "Because I'm smart."

Yeah, this is quite likely how some of the "smart" fiends double-think themselves into self-righteousness.

This kind of thinking probably works on some humans, too.

Jay R
2018-07-16, 09:33 PM
As long as people equate the D&D Alignment known as Evil with what evil means in our world, we will keep making statements that others think are absurd.

Fiends obvious know that they are tD&DAkaE*. That has no bearing on whether they think that they are wemiow**. I'm not even sure that wemiow can exist as a concept in a world in which tD&DAkaE exists. tD&DAkaE includes, and is perhaps defined by, an aura that can be detected by Detect Evil and stopped by Protection from Evil. wemiow is an undetectable quality. We don't even know if people can be wemiow, separate from their specific current actions.

Somebody who is tD&DAkaE is Evil, even when they are asleep. That simply does not match wemiow as described in any moral philosophy I've heard of.

*tD&DAkaE: the D&D Alignment known as Evil

**wemiow: what evil means in our world

Darth Ultron
2018-07-16, 11:08 PM
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.



As long as people equate the D&D Alignment known as Evil with what evil means in our world, we will keep making statements that others think are absurd.


It makes more sense if we don't use words like Good and Evil that have such ''Deep" meaning to people.

Fiends, like each planuar race that embodies a concept, think one conceptual philosophy.

Fiends: They have the willingness to consistently put oneself ahead of others, to ignore any possible harm done to innocents, callous disregard for life, and total unconcern about dignity. In short, hey do nothing to help anyone except themselves, unless forced to. . Fiends do not, in general, describe their behavior as "right"; they use words like "practical" or "necessary". They will gleefully sacrifice anything that will bring them personal gain.

Just say the above is ''nefarious'', and not ''evil'', and it just IS the way Fiends are.

Segev
2018-07-17, 12:25 AM
Yeah, this is quite likely how some of the "smart" fiends double-think themselves into self-righteousness.

This kind of thinking probably works on some humans, too.

No, no, you're missing the point. Sure, humans and other mortals might feel a need to justify themselves. To be self-righteous and to convince themselves they're not doing anything wrong.

Fiends don't care about that. Now, don't get me wrong, they're not into it for the transgressive feel. They just literally do. not. care. that "evil" is considered a bad thing by others. They laugh at that. Evil is what they are, and it works for them. Why should they care if Evil is "wrong?" It sure isn't wrong for them. They're loving it.

They aren't justifying anything. If you tell them it's wrong, they'll say, "So what?" if they bother doing more than laughing while rubbing your face in it for the joy of seeing you discomfited.

Fiends are Evil. They know it. They like it that way. They may or may not be "cartoony" about it. But they certainly see no reason to make any bones about it. Not unless it's useful to tempt others, who seem to think being Evil is something they don't or shouldn't want to be, into acting in the evil fiend's best interests.

Psyren
2018-07-17, 12:58 AM
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn't tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

Hmm... I take it you're not a fan of the succubus paladin then? (Not saying I am.)

Anymage
2018-07-17, 01:27 AM
5e explicitly says that a demon who stops being CE stops being a demon. Always literally means always.

3e said that, as far as sentient creatures were concerned, Always did allow for rare exceptions.

IIRC, a 2e planescape book said that demons would occasionally embrace their rebellious, chaotic nature by experimenting with Good. (Rarely if they're established, and rarely for long, but it was common enough to be a known phase.)

So whether through deliberate changes across editions or simply different authors not reading everything that had ever been written before, there is no one absolute truth written in the books. Which is one of the reasons I find people's personal thoughts/tastes more interesting.

NichG
2018-07-17, 01:31 AM
For risen fiends/fallen angels/etc, my headcanon is that they discovered contradicting axioms underlying the moral philosophy of their cosmic alignment, and have as a result lost the connection between their goals and actions and that philosophy - much like how all statements can be proven simultaneously true and false in a mathematical framework containing contradictory axioms.

As a result, their behavior becomes essentially impossible to explain or understand from an alignment point of view, even if their alignment (or subtype) remains unchanged.

From a broader perspective, the formation of such anomalies would be a precursor phenomenon to rearrangements of the Great Wheel or other cosmic shifts - reflecting underlying systematic changes in the beliefs of mortal species as a whole.

The closest canon support for that might be the spate of rogue modrons created in the wake of Orcus killing Primus and taking his place (thus threatening the very concept of Law at cosmic scale). Less clearly, the way that Yugoloths can play a very very long game and the behavior of affably evil fiends like A'kin sort of suggests it to me: "Needing to be Evil is an artificial limit, therefore a weakness. As a selfishly Evil being I will put my own will above it, oh hey look I can do whatever now..." Also that celestial arms dealer who has convinced themself that perpetuating the Blood War serves an infinitely greater Good in protecting the Upper Planes than any suffering caused as a result.

The intentional creation and exploitation of belief-release from alignment paradoxes is a common BBEG theme for me when I run Planescape.

noob
2018-07-17, 04:33 AM
For risen fiends/fallen angels/etc, my headcanon is that they discovered contradicting axioms underlying the moral philosophy of their cosmic alignment, and have as a result lost the connection between their goals and actions and that philosophy - much like how all statements can be proven simultaneously true and false in a mathematical framework containing contradictory axioms.

As a result, their behavior becomes essentially impossible to explain or understand from an alignment point of view, even if their alignment (or subtype) remains unchanged.

From a broader perspective, the formation of such anomalies would be a precursor phenomenon to rearrangements of the Great Wheel or other cosmic shifts - reflecting underlying systematic changes in the beliefs of mortal species as a whole.

The closest canon support for that might be the spate of rogue modrons created in the wake of Orcus killing Primus and taking his place (thus threatening the very concept of Law at cosmic scale). Less clearly, the way that Yugoloths can play a very very long game and the behavior of affably evil fiends like A'kin sort of suggests it to me: "Needing to be Evil is an artificial limit, therefore a weakness. As a selfishly Evil being I will put my own will above it, oh hey look I can do whatever now..." Also that celestial arms dealer who has convinced themself that perpetuating the Blood War serves an infinitely greater Good in protecting the Upper Planes than any suffering caused as a result.

The intentional creation and exploitation of belief-release from alignment paradoxes is a common BBEG theme for me when I run Planescape.
Anyway in planescape someone saving his village is a bbeg since due to the rules of that setting any good action cause an equally evil action to be done and reciprocally.

Florian
2018-07-17, 04:37 AM
That poor portrayal is aeons from pathfinder who are the true neutral outsiders.
It is possible that it is just that the pathfinder developers who made aeons just forgot to think or to make anything coherent.

While Aeons are truly bizarre outsiders who "works for balance" but which does not promote that in any meaningful way due to being badly written.

Aons do make sense. But you have to look at how the N-axis changed from the Great Wheel to the Great Beyond. Axis and the Maelstrom are very different from Mechanus and the Limbo, with the Bonyard having an entirely different function than the Outlands. Check out where you're actually going to find Aeons: Astral Plane and Axis.

Now why is that? Aeons count amongst the non-soul-based outsider races and don't embody an alignment or outer plane.

Since they don't embody TN, what then? They embody twinned concepts. Birth/Death, Creation/Destruction, so on.


Hmm... I take it you're not a fan of the succubus paladin then? (Not saying I am.)

The whole "ascendend fiend"/"fallen angel" stuff is trash on so many levels. It´s a common trope, alright, but it doesn't fit within the objective morality system.

@Topic:

I think the whole thing is easier to understand and discuss when switching terms. Instead of Alignment: LG, use Alignment: Heaven or Alignment: Iomedae, because that's what we're actually talking about and helps to not confuse "Good" with "good", or come to such ridiculous conclusions that things on the C-axis are so random, they could result in anything (The Abyss will never result in anything that's not tied to CE).

That said, the major outsider races are paragons of their homeplane and will act accordingly, because their body and soul are literally one. They will not doubt or even question their homeplane, their alignment nor their actions, because all three of those are the same.

hamishspence
2018-07-17, 04:43 AM
The whole "ascendend fiend"/"fallen angel" stuff is trash on so many levels. It´s a common trope, alright, but it doesn't fit within the objective morality system.



Fallen angels have a long history within D&D though.

Nifft
2018-07-17, 05:34 AM
Fallen angels have a long history within D&D though.

Yeah. Plenty of Fallen amongst the ranks of the Damned.

I like 'em because they're relateable, and also scary -- they've got history and baggage, including at least one emotional mine-field which sparked the whole eternal-damnation thing. Makes for an interesting antagonist, I find.


No, no, you're missing the point. Sure, humans and other mortals might feel a need to justify themselves. To be self-righteous and to convince themselves they're not doing anything wrong.

The Fallen are one type of the rationalizing evil that I was talking about. Guess you don't use that trope in your games?

hamishspence
2018-07-17, 05:38 AM
5e explicitly says that a demon who stops being CE stops being a demon.

Exactly. So a demon can stop being CE - and in the process, they undergo a metamorphosis into Something Else.

Florian
2018-07-17, 06:27 AM
Fallen angels have a long history within D&D though.

D&D has a long history of two things:

A) Importing real world myths and tropes.

B) Running their own planar models and alignment system face first against the wall. (Personally, I find the Books of Vile Darkness and Fluffy Brightness the worst offenders.)



The Fallen are one type of the rationalizing evil that I was talking about. Guess you don't use that trope in your games?

Not in a game with objective alignment as cosmic forces, no.

But I also use the Great Beyond, which is an updated an more streamlined version of the Great Wheel and which clarified a lot of the old problems and inconsistencies. For example, a Petitioner will not persist forever. It will either be absorbed by the plane/deific realm or ascent to outsider form, but with the difference that an outside is made up out of many souls and planar matter. Barring exceptional circumstances, it can´t "fall". On the other hand, the outer planes are less strict about alignment - there NG Petitioners hanging out in LG Heaven because they worshipped an LG deity, while the "Angel" outsider type is shared by all three good alignments, so on.

Segev
2018-07-17, 08:32 AM
Yeah. Plenty of Fallen amongst the ranks of the Damned.

I like 'em because they're relateable, and also scary -- they've got history and baggage, including at least one emotional mine-field which sparked the whole eternal-damnation thing. Makes for an interesting antagonist, I find.



The Fallen are one type of the rationalizing evil that I was talking about. Guess you don't use that trope in your games?
“There exist an exception that is explicitly exceptional that does not fit the general statement you made in response to a general question. Clearly, your general statement is always incorrect.”

Can we please use some measure of intellectual integrity in this discussion? It feels like you’re trying to score points more than discuss this honestly, and this is a tricky subject to be clear on because of its nature, already.

I would have Fallen Celestials either be exceptions, or be literally mad. If they retain their [good] subtype, it’s the latter. If they do not, they may “justify” their fall, but they will tend to do so in the manner of the disillusioned, not of the self-deluding. “Good is a lie to keep you weak, and could not handle me/held me back,” rather than “I am still Good.”

Those who are literally insane and retain their [good] subtype would be destroying themselves, much the way an alcoholic or drug addict who swears he has it under control is destroying himself.




Also, what is this “Great Beyond” that people are discussing as an alternative to the Great Wheel?

Nifft
2018-07-17, 08:51 AM
Not in a game with objective alignment as cosmic forces, no. There's no contradiction between having an objective alignment system and being able to fall from grace, so I guess you're just expressing your personal taste.

Clearly, my taste differs.



“There exist an exception that is explicitly exceptional that does not fit the general statement you made in response to a general question. Clearly, your general statement is always incorrect.”

Can we please use some measure of intellectual integrity in this discussion? It feels like you’re trying to score points more than discuss this honestly, and this is a tricky subject to be clear on because of its nature, already.

Holy crap dude.

I tried to agree with you, and you hit me with "No, you don't get it."

I laid out a few more details, hopefully demonstrating that in fact I did get it, and now you're trying to hit me with ... intellectual dishonesty?

Yeah we're done here.

Florian
2018-07-17, 09:41 AM
[QUOTE=Segev;23227254Also, what is this “Great Beyond” that people are discussing as an alternative to the Great Wheel?[/QUOTE]

Short version: WotC outsourced Dungeon and Dragon under the Umbrella of PAIZO.
With D&D 4E, that dal died, PAIZO went on to create PF, aka D&D 3.75 and overhauled the whole background, independent of the whole history TSR/WotC had build up there.

Simply speaking, the Great Beyond is the Great Wheel without 30 years of clutter and inconsistencies.

Segev
2018-07-17, 09:49 AM
Holy crap dude.

I tried to agree with you, and you hit me with "No, you don't get it."

I laid out a few more details, hopefully demonstrating that in fact I did get it, and now you're trying to hit me with ... intellectual dishonesty?

Yeah we're done here.

My apologies for the accusation, then. I did not see agreement there. I clearly misunderstood what you meant, and I get why my response would be hurtful. So, again, I am sorry.

noob
2018-07-17, 12:44 PM
Aons do make sense. But you have to look at how the N-axis changed from the Great Wheel to the Great Beyond. Axis and the Maelstrom are very different from Mechanus and the Limbo, with the Bonyard having an entirely different function than the Outlands. Check out where you're actually going to find Aeons: Astral Plane and Axis.

Now why is that? Aeons count amongst the non-soul-based outsider races and don't embody an alignment or outer plane.

Since they don't embody TN, what then? They embody twinned concepts. Birth/Death, Creation/Destruction, so on.


from https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/petitioner-cr-1

Purgatory (Neutral): The “dead” appear as animated skeletons but are not Undead—in time, they can earn the right to become aeons. They gain DR 10/bludgeoning and immunity to cold.
and from https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/aeon
Insists they are about balance.
so aeons are soul based unlike what you said and there are about keeping balance which is classically a true neutral concept(which I deem lawful evil if you are doing it correctly and chaotic evil if you do it the way it is written they do).

Psyren
2018-07-17, 12:59 PM
As I see it, the disconnect is that there are two primary philosophical approaches to TN. The first is active (balancing two or more diametrically opposing concepts against each other perfectly, like life/death.) The second is passive, and focuses on the most neutral / least discriminatory force in the cosmos - namely death, which is anchored in the metaphysical center of the universe, the Boneyard.

Aeons embody the former philosophy. They're all about balancing opposites, and basically get involved when they see that balance threatened (on a cosmic level anyway) and can end up helping whatever side they feel is being overly quashed. They mostly work for Nethys, and like him, they drift around the Beyond to multiple realms, fitting their philosophy of "active neutrality" by experiencing all of it equally (at least as a collective.)

The latter would be the other TN Outsider race, i.e. Psychopomps. Their job is to ferry souls to whatever afterlife awaits them, without pity and remorse, cruelty or joy at the prospect - they just do it. They get involved when people try to unbalance this flow, either by sending too many souls through before their time or by trying to interfere with death and stop it up. They exclusively work for Pharasma and as such, are pretty tied to her Boneyard in the center of the Beyond-Wheel, and tending to the River that feeds it.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 01:26 PM
Except that I've never seen "balance" True Neutral ever be "neutral". Sorry but if Good is defeating Evil and you sabotage it in the name of status quo, that's an evil act in my mind. It worked with Moorcock's "Law and Chaos" axis because a balance between those concepts is self evidently desirable. Total Law would be a dictatorship, total Chaos would be anarchy. I'm yet to see an argument for why an absence of evil would be a negative thing.

Psyren
2018-07-17, 01:58 PM
Except that I've never seen "balance" True Neutral ever be "neutral". Sorry but if Good is defeating Evil and you sabotage it in the name of status quo, that's an evil act in my mind. It worked with Moorcock's "Law and Chaos" axis because a balance between those concepts is self evidently desirable. Total Law would be a dictatorship, total Chaos would be anarchy. I'm yet to see an argument for why an absence of evil would be a negative thing.

I think most settings sidestep this by simply pointing out that it never comes up. Demons are infinite, Rovagug keeps stirring, entropy is winning, good is hanging on by a fingernail, and heroes are needed - that sort of thing. All of that is even with the Aeons pitching in I'd say.

There's also something to be said for shortsightedness. Consider what would have happened to the setting had Asmodeus been eradicated before he could craft Rovagug's key for example - all life would be extinguished. Sometimes the greater good might mean letting the lesser evil live a while longer, at least until X prophecy is fulfilled. ("Even the very Wise cannot see all ends" as a doddering wizard once said.)

Florian
2018-07-17, 02:00 PM
@noob:

I don't really care what some 3rd party site says, when I have the 1st party source (Planar Adventures in hand, knowing fully well that written text will never be part of any free online SRD, especially not the one you use as a source. When it comes to setting and fluff, _never_ use d20pfsrd as an argument, you will always lose.

@war_lord:

The case we talk about, Aeons, actually drift towards LN (Axis) because of that and they know and readily admit it.
The Great Beyond model also uses three major blocks, instead of nine equal blocks, with a rather broad upper - middle - lower classification.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 02:08 PM
I think most settings sidestep this by simply pointing out that it never comes up. Demons are infinite, Rovagug keeps stirring, entropy is winning, good is hanging on by a fingernail, and heroes are needed - that sort of thing. All of that is even with the Aeons pitching in I'd say.

There's also something to be said for shortsightedness. Consider what would have happened to the setting had Asmodeus been eradicated before he could craft Rovagug's key for example - all life would be extinguished. Sometimes the greater good might mean letting the lesser evil live a while longer, at least until X prophecy is fulfilled. ("Even the very Wise cannot see all ends" as a doddering wizard once said.)

First of all, I don't know anything lore wise or care about anything to do with, Pathfinder. It's an evolutionary dead end in the evolution of D&D and is mechanically designed to emphasize some of the worst elements in the hobby.

Sorry, but "cosmic balance neutrality" involves committed acts of evil, either directly or through omission. And any game that tries to engineer a situation (because, after all, any created world acts only on the logic its creator wishes) where evil in necessary is sending a socio-political message that shouldn't be endorsed by anyone.

Psyren
2018-07-17, 02:36 PM
First of all, I don't know anything lore wise or care about anything to do with, Pathfinder. It's an evolutionary dead end in the evolution of D&D and is mechanically designed to emphasize some of the worst elements in the hobby.

Sorry, but "cosmic balance neutrality" involves committed acts of evil, either directly or through omission. And any game that tries to engineer a situation (because, after all, any created world acts only on the logic its creator wishes) where evil in necessary is sending a socio-political message that shouldn't be endorsed by anyone.

1) You were asking about Aeons specifically though, so Pathfinder was relevant for that reason. Their D&D equivalent are called Rilmani, and behave pretty much the same way for the same reasons. So even if you reject PF, you're not able to get away from this concept unless you also reject D&D itself. But this thread is based on the evil gods thread, which was specific to D&D. There may be other games more to your liking.

2) You're absolutely right - Aeons who support evil are committing evil acts. That's the whole point, they aren't good, they are neutral. I was just pointing out that the ones who find themselves needing to do that (by their own drives) are likely to be very rare in practice, because evil usually doesn't need any help.

3) I wasn't saying anything about whether this philosophy of neutrality is "necessary." Evil itself isn't necessary - it just exists. The cosmology of a gaming setting is very rarely a perfect or finished place, otherwise it would have no need for adventurers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1032.html), you know?

(Hmm - I might end up adding Lien's quote there to my sig.)

noob
2018-07-17, 03:08 PM
@noob:

I don't really care what some 3rd party site says, when I have the 1st party source (Planar Adventures in hand, knowing fully well that written text will never be part of any free online SRD, especially not the one you use as a source. When it comes to setting and fluff, _never_ use d20pfsrd as an argument, you will always lose.

@war_lord:

The case we talk about, Aeons, actually drift towards LN (Axis) because of that and they know and readily admit it.
The Great Beyond model also uses three major blocks, instead of nine equal blocks, with a rather broad upper - middle - lower classification.

Try reading the petitioner template in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 04:09 PM
1)Their D&D equivalent are called Rilmani,

Who don't exist in 5e, nice try. In fact, they apparently haven't existed since AD&D, which had a drastically different understanding of alignment then 5e does.

Psyren
2018-07-17, 04:13 PM
Who don't exist in 5e, nice try.

This isn't the 5e forum, nice try.


Try reading the petitioner template in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2.

As noted in my previous post, both Aeons and Psychopomps embody TN, just different versions of it.

Segev
2018-07-17, 04:15 PM
Who don't exist in 5e, nice try. In fact, they apparently haven't existed since AD&D, which had a drastically different understanding of alignment then 5e does.

You can find the Rilmani in the 3e Fiend Folio, actually.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 04:19 PM
This isn't the 5e forum, nice try.

"you're not able to get away from this concept unless you also reject D&D itself."

I didn't realize one monster from one edition of the game (the same edition noted for exceptionally poorly thought out alignment) was all of D&D now? Lore changes from edition to edition, and in your case the lore you're relying on to tie this to D&D hasn't been current since the mid 90's.


You can find the Rilmani in the 3e Fiend Folio, actually.

Adjusting it to "in the last 18 years" doesn't really devalue my statement. Particularly given 5e's taste for retcons of bad material. So I'm rejecting one AD&D setting, and 3.0 (which I've already rejected). That's not "D&D itself".

Psyren
2018-07-17, 04:39 PM
I didn't realize one monster from one edition of the game (the same edition noted for exceptionally poorly thought out alignment) was all of D&D now? Lore changes from edition to edition, and in your case the lore you're relying on to tie this to D&D hasn't been current since the mid 90's.

They haven't reprinted it yet to sell more Monster Manuals != it doesn't exist. To say nothing of the fact that "Outsider race for each alignment" is not a radical concept either. Why you're choosing this particular hill to die on is odd to me.


You can find the Rilmani in the 3e Fiend Folio, actually.

Yep. As for 5e, give it time, they'll stripmine the prior editions for nostalgia dollars soon enough.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 04:58 PM
They haven't reprinted it yet to sell more Monster Manuals != it doesn't exist. To say nothing of the fact that "Outsider race for each alignment" is not a radical concept either. Why you're choosing this particular hill to die on is odd to me.

It's not that ""Outsider race for each alignment" is radical. It's that the proposed exemplars of true neutral are actually Lawful Evil. Also that everyone agrees that "preserve the cosmic balance" characters make for terrible play and are "that guy" heaven so it's beyond me why anyone wants to revive the concept.

Anymage
2018-07-17, 05:17 PM
It's not that ""Outsider race for each alignment" is radical. It's that the proposed exemplars of true neutral are actually Lawful Evil. Also that everyone agrees that "preserve the cosmic balance" characters make for terrible play and are "that guy" heaven so it's beyond me why anyone wants to revive the concept.

What would you have the exemplars of neutrality be, then? That spot in the middle of alignment space is begging for something to fill it. And while an unaligned, "meh" view on alignment is a popular alternative for character types, it doesn't really lend itself to outsiders who are the embodiment of a particular worldview.

Just keep a few things in mind here. Gamers love grid filling (try to remember how many martial controllers were proposed back in 4e), and they tend to fanboy hard about maintaining canon continuity (again, witness 4e). So having the plane of neutrality without something there will have loads of people asking for official word about the denizens. And asking for a moral system that doesn't leave a space between Good and Evil is also going to receive a fair amount of pushback.

Nifft
2018-07-17, 05:23 PM
That's an artifact of the alignment system. You can either have balance fetishist true neutrals, or "meh" unaligneds. I'm personally fond of the latter for most characters because balance fetishists are pretty much insane, but entities composed entirely of meh are pretty dull as outsiders. The idea that somebody would think that we need to focus equally on saving orphaned puppies vs. squishing them is silly outside of a world with wheel-based morality.

In sufficiently old ye olde editions, Alignment was more about Law vs. Chaos, and both of those extremes could be considered to be life-destroying horrors.

The idea of balance as a value does make sense in the context of the Law <--> Chaos axis.


Later, the idea of a Good <--> Evil axis was added, and yet the idea of "balance fetishism" was preserved because D&D is a hoarder, even though idealizing balance on the Good <--> Evil axis doesn't really make sense.

War_lord
2018-07-17, 05:28 PM
I dunno, I like the idea of having entities of "I don't care about anything" be that either exemplars that are functionally animals or entities of pure apathy. The problem with "active balance" is that you end up with a being that acts in a way that's functionally indistinguishable from insanity, and defends the forced symmetry for reasons to amount to "because it has to be symmetrical" which is more lawful then anything.And that's without getting into the fact that you can't occasionally aid fiends without ending up responsible for the acts you aided them in.

So to answer the direct question, for me a true neutral being is either some sort of intelligent animal or a manifestation of total apathy. Option 1 probably makes more RPG sense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk1dd1D2Kts

Anymage
2018-07-17, 05:34 PM
Nifft covered it well. Early on in the fantasy that preceded D&D, you had Law as a stand-in for Good and Chaos as a stand-in for Evil. Then you had people realizing that those two didn't quite match up as they wanted, called both extremed crazy, and put in active balance between the two as a sane option.

Then later on while D&D was still being experimented with, somebody added a Good/Evil axis to try and support a "you're good, you wouldn't be such a jerk" standard. (With decades of hindsight we can see how that doesn't work out well, but early D&D tried lots of things that feel intuitive just because nobody had any experience with anything of the sort.) But still kept the idea of an active middle for some sort of reasons.

I'm personally a fan of chucking alignment wholesale. But it's understandable why the developers wouldn't want to do that to something so deeply embedded with the idea of the game.

Nifft
2018-07-17, 06:15 PM
Nifft covered it well. Early on in the fantasy that preceded D&D, you had Law as a stand-in for Good and Chaos as a stand-in for Evil. Then you had people realizing that those two didn't quite match up as they wanted, called both extremed crazy, and put in active balance between the two as a sane option.

At least some sources from which D&D drew inspiration did NOT do that particular stand-in.

Personally, I like the idea that both extreme Law and extreme Chaos are life-destroying evils -- well, not Evil as such, but fundamentally incompatible with humanity & mortality in general. As an added bonus, that seems more in line with the Sword & Sorcery tropes from which D&D took the original ideas about Law vs. Chaos, so I can claim grognard points for that preference.

Florian
2018-07-17, 06:31 PM
Boring. For a time, fantasy explored why the "truth" as hailed by some of our major religions and the concept of "peace in our time" don't mesh.

NichG
2018-07-17, 10:17 PM
Neutral outsiders could be:

- We dispassionately record the history of the multiverse, interfering only as much as necessary to complete our records.

- We are the resolvers of paradox and discontinuity. When the cosmos itself becomes confused about what should happen, a thinking mind is needed to intervene and decide the outcome, as no answers exist in either natural law, or spreading chaos.

- There is a status quo, a cosmic pattern. All extreme alignments hold the desire to overwrite that pattern with their own dominance - one belief, everywhere. We wield the ineffable power of destiny to ensure that all such plans have a weakness, and may be undone. We are the choosers of heroes, and of villains - yet ultimately it is they who choose through their actions whether now the multiverse dissolves back into primordial essence.

- We are the crucible from which new beliefs are born. The alignments have not always been as they are now - once, long ago, some of us changed and became what is now Good and Evil. Now the factions play their philosophical wars amidst the planes, and we prepare to give form to the beliefs of the winners.

Florian
2018-07-18, 05:47 AM
Also, what is this “Great Beyond” that people are discussing as an alternative to the Great Wheel?

Got some time at hand, so long version this time:

The Great Beyond is the Pathfinder/Golarion revamp of the Great Wheel. You will know that Paizo had to deal with a lot of intellectual property rights, so instead of simple replacing stuff they couldn't use, they opted to rebuild the whole thing from the ground up, creating a version that is internally way more consistent.

You still have the core components:
- Outer Planes: Nine alignment planes, each with one exemplar outsider race.
- Inner Planes: Six elemental planes, including positive and negative.
- Transitive Planes: Astral and Ethereal, as usual.

What has changed:
- There's only one Prima Material Plane which covers the whole universe/Milky Way. It exists on the canvas of the so-called Dark Tapestry, which is basically the former Far Realm.
- The First World and the Plane of Shadow are complete alternate Primes, just "closer" to to positive or negative energy plane.
- Planar "Depth": Planes will contain sub-planes, as well as deific realms. That means that they're not absolute and can contain any variation of their "theme".
- Planar "Grouping" and "Conflicts": Ok, this one is harder to explain in some very short sentences. The "classic" 3x3 alignments grid is misleading because it suggests closeness or opposition based on shared alignment components, or lack thereof, like LG being more opposed to CE than CG would be (or that stupid thing with the Blood War between LE and CE). That is pretty much gone. The Upper and Lower planes represent the whole G vs. E conflict, while the Middle planes represent the whole C vs. L conflict.
- No Sigil, no Outlands and no Lady of Pain: The "ground" is the LN city of Axis, from which grows the Spire which hosts the N Boneyard, while the "sky" is the eternal CN Maelstrom.

What is new:
- The core concept is centered on the "River of Souls", the basic principle function of the multiverse that connects everything.
- True divinities work very differently than in some D&D editions. They are true manifestations of the concept they represent. In a sense, divinities stand above alignment, their realms in the Outer Planes being open to all followers, regardless of the soul would fit or not.

Florian
2018-07-18, 06:07 AM
Try reading the petitioner template in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary 2.

Do your homework first, look up the actual material and see how the "generic" version differs from that.

You will notice that the generic version refers to a "Purgatory" that doesn't exist in the full version and doesn't mention Psychopomps, which are the exemplar TN race, nor does it mention the Boneyard.

Please, you're fighting a senseless uphill battle based on the free access version, while even the Golarion Wiki could provide you with more insights.

noob
2018-07-18, 07:12 AM
Do your homework first, look up the actual material and see how the "generic" version differs from that.

You will notice that the generic version refers to a "Purgatory" that doesn't exist in the full version and doesn't mention Psychopomps, which are the exemplar TN race, nor does it mention the Boneyard.

Please, you're fighting a senseless uphill battle based on the free access version, while even the Golarion Wiki could provide you with more insights.

You understand: the pathfinder I play is not the one you play.
I play the free pathfinder therefore all you say about the non free pathfinder does not applies to the pathfinder I play.
There is a pathfinder in which Aeons are nonsense and which cause neutrality to be horrible and it is the one people can read for free.
That pathfinder due to ease of access is more important than the paying one.
I am sorry the the moment you started talking about a pathfinder other than the one I was using it was equivalent of speaking of adnd to someone speaking of pathfinder: we simply are not speaking of the same setting.
I started a discussion about a setting which is the pfsrd and you brought up an irrelevant setting(the paying pathfinder setting) you could as well have started talking about shadowrun it would have been equally relevant.

Of course what I say about afterlife in the free pathfinder does not apply to shadowrun

Florian
2018-07-18, 08:22 AM
I don´t have anything against the free version of PF, but it only covers the rules and not the fluff.
I do, however, have something about user of the free version criticizing the fluff when that is what you actually pay for.
You, noob, are aware of the difference and what you should do is ask whether your version is the correct one, before going all yada-yada.

Segev
2018-07-18, 10:14 AM
Florian, thanks for the rundown of the Great Beyond. I'm not sure whether I like it more than the Great Wheel (as I am a particular fan of Planescape, Sigil, and the Lady of Pain), but it is interesting. I will have to look for more information on it and see if what I like from the Great Wheel could be ported over in a way that satisfies me.


As for noob's position, I think we can agree that, in his "free version of Pathfinder," the Aeons are nonsensical. That doesn't mean that the rest of us, who aren't playing his "free version of Pathfinder," need be bothered by this nonsensical creature type. It also means we can commiserate: "Yes, that's pretty awful of those Neutral entities." We can then suggest, "So, perhaps you shouldn't use that stupid version of them, since there's a better-written version available."

Florian
2018-07-18, 03:07 PM
@Segev:

Grab the two Salim Ghadafar novels (by James L. Sutter), Death´s Heretic and The Redemption Engine. I promise you, this will be the best Planescape novels you've ever read.

Segev
2018-07-18, 04:04 PM
@Segev:

Grab the two Salim Ghadafar novels (by James L. Sutter), Death´s Heretic and The Redemption Engine. I promise you, this will be the best Planescape novels you've ever read.

THanks for the recommendations. I'll add them to my reading list. ^_^

Psyren
2018-07-18, 05:23 PM
Eh, the Aeon entry in Bestiary 2 made perfect sense to me, as does their alignment. By all means, houserule them out of your campaigns if you don't like them, but I for one find them compelling and am glad they were created.

JBPuffin
2018-07-19, 01:20 AM
An objective morality is not incompatible with different cultures establishing different moral rules. You just need for most (probably all) of those culturaly biased perspectives of morality to be flawed.

I just want to throw this out there - it is 100% possible for every last code of ethics to be objectively flawed in some manner, large or small. Not arguing that’s it’s necessarily true, but definitely possible. After all, we’re still not sure if gravity 100% follows Einstein’s theorems - we just know it follows them closely enough that we can fly spaceships and measure time distortion using those theories, so unless/until something more accurate makes itself known, we use Einstein’s work. Very well could be that morality is objective and every last person on Earth is mistaken in some way, shape or form, but those instances may be so trivial and functionally, it’s irrelevant...just not identical.

NichG
2018-07-19, 03:17 AM
I just want to throw this out there - it is 100% possible for every last code of ethics to be objectively flawed in some manner, large or small. Not arguing that’s it’s necessarily true, but definitely possible. After all, we’re still not sure if gravity 100% follows Einstein’s theorems - we just know it follows them closely enough that we can fly spaceships and measure time distortion using those theories, so unless/until something more accurate makes itself known, we use Einstein’s work. Very well could be that morality is objective and every last person on Earth is mistaken in some way, shape or form, but those instances may be so trivial and functionally, it’s irrelevant...just not identical.

This is an error of type. With respect to the theory of gravity, we have a precise definition on what that theory must do in order to be correct - for all experiments/observations one could perform, there cannot be an experiment where the prediction of the theory disagrees with the outcome of the experiment. Morality isn't a predictive theory but is rather a framework for making decisions, so it doesn't have the same standards of evidence.

The difficult thing with objective morality is that first you have to come to agreement as to what the point of the exercise is - e.g. what values it should advance. And as long as there is disagreement there, differences in moral systems do not necessarily correspond to truth or falsehood but rather can correspond to underlying differences in goals. In which case the very concept of 'mistaken' doesn't really work.

Even D&D's 'objective' morality suffers from this: while it defines nine distinct ways to be, the choice of which way one wants to be is still left open (to mortals at least).

Florian
2018-07-19, 04:20 AM
The difficult thing with objective morality is that first you have to come to agreement as to what the point of the exercise is - e.g. what values it should advance. And as long as there is disagreement there, differences in moral systems do not necessarily correspond to truth or falsehood but rather can correspond to underlying differences in goals. In which case the very concept of 'mistaken' doesn't really work.

Even D&D's 'objective' morality suffers from this: while it defines nine distinct ways to be, the choice of which way one wants to be is still left open (to mortals at least).

Ah, see, that's a common misconception about the alignment planes. They are formed as a reaction to the Prime and they keep changing in accordance to how the Prime develops.

GungHo
2018-07-23, 10:11 AM
For big "F" Fiends like Daemons, Demons, Devils, etc.. in my games they know. They are acutely aware of it. They're made of it.

Small "f" fiends like bad humans, orcs, etc... they may not be so aware of it unless they're specifically entreating the Fiends, but they may not have any idea what it is that they're really doing until they're in pretty deep.

NorthernPhoenix
2018-07-30, 04:38 PM
They probably do consider themselves evil, and i don't think they have entirely alien minds that exist to square some kind of moral circle for themselves either. They know they're evil. They don't see a problem with it. To them, this is fine. They're right and everyone else is wrong.

Throw in the one-in-a-billion "fiend with a moral dilemma" to spice things up though.

Segev
2018-07-30, 04:47 PM
They probably do consider themselves evil, and i don't think they have entirely alien minds that exist to square some kind of moral circle for themselves either. They know they're evil. They don't see a problem with it. To them, this is fine. They're right and everyone else is wrong.

Throw in the one-in-a-billion "fiend with a moral dilemma" to spice things up though.

Yep, this is how I see it, too. Evil is not "good," to them, but it is right and proper. They find "Good" as repugnant as good people find "Evil," just for different reasons. They lack - or have very stunted - empathy. Where it exists, it's only for those that are very close to them, personally. Otherwise, others' suffering is, at worst, boring to them. At best, it's exploitable for their benefit/pleasure. Why shouldn't it be? They are strong and smart and skilled at what they do. They're superior to those weak-minded Good types who simper and moan over how their helplessness makes them "good people." Helpless, mewling travesties that deserve what they get from the strong Evil types who exploit them.

Nifft
2018-08-01, 11:13 AM
They probably do consider themselves evil, and i don't think they have entirely alien minds that exist to square some kind of moral circle for themselves either. They know they're evil. They don't see a problem with it. To them, this is fine. They're right and everyone else is wrong.

Throw in the one-in-a-billion "fiend with a moral dilemma" to spice things up though. I do suspect that Fiends would tend to see themselves as justified in some way or another.

Possibilities include:

- "Everyone is evil. I'm just honest about it."

- "There is no good, there's just politics, and the other side is winning."

- "The only difference between me and a Celestial is luck."

- "The only reason the Celestial realms exist is because we Devils hold back the legions of the Abyss. Any mortals that I corrupt / deceive / torture for profit are justified because I do this dirty job."


Agree about the lack of alien morality -- it's just not necessary, and we've got humans willing to self-deceive all over the place.

It's possible that every Fiend self-justifies in a unique and interesting way. More fuel for social encounters that way, too.

hamishspence
2018-08-01, 11:21 AM
- "The only difference between me and a Celestial is luck."

- "The only reason the Celestial realms exist is because we Devils hold back the legions of the Abyss. Any mortals that I corrupt / deceive / torture for profit are justified because I do this dirty job."


Some fiends (Extraplanar Outsiders with the Evil subtype) come from the Far Realm rather than the Lower Planes, and may not care much about the Celestials.

Nifft
2018-08-01, 11:30 AM
Some fiends (Extraplanar Outsiders with the Evil subtype) come from the Far Realm rather than the Lower Planes, and may not care much about the Celestials.

Far Realms aliens seem like bad examples for Fiends -- technically included, rather than categorical exemplars.

They might be the alien mentality which the other post was talking about.

Segev
2018-08-01, 11:33 AM
I do suspect that Fiends would tend to see themselves as justified in some way or another.

Possibilities include:

- "Everyone is evil. I'm just honest about it."

- "There is no good, there's just politics, and the other side is winning."

- "The only difference between me and a Celestial is luck."

- "The only reason the Celestial realms exist is because we Devils hold back the legions of the Abyss. Any mortals that I corrupt / deceive / torture for profit are justified because I do this dirty job."


Agree about the lack of alien morality -- it's just not necessary, and we've got humans willing to self-deceive all over the place.

It's possible that every Fiend self-justifies in a unique and interesting way. More fuel for social encounters that way, too.

Nah, you're still looking at this from a Good-centric perspective, where being Evil is a bad thing.

Fiends wouldn't deny that Good exists, nor that they're Evil. They'd be as proud to proclaim their Evil nature as the most righteous of Angels would be to proclaim his Goodness. Prouder, perhaps, if you think of it as the kind of Pride that is sinful.


- "Everyone is evil. I'm just honest about it."No, not everyone is Evil. Just smart people who can live up to being that awesome. Evil is cool, you see.

Again, you need to abandon the idea that being Evil requires justification any more than being Good does. You don't hear people wondering if Celestials feel the need to justify their goodness.


- "The only difference between me and a Celestial is luck."They might say this...but they'd consider themselves the lucky ones. Who wants to be the mewling, weak-minded goody-two-shoes that has to be nice to people who don't deserve it?


- "The only reason the Celestial realms exist is because we Devils hold back the legions of the Abyss. Any mortals that I corrupt / deceive / torture for profit are justified because I do this dirty job."While they might say something like this, they wouldn't consider it a dirty job. Mortals they corrupt are just seeing the wisdom of Evil. Mortals they deceive are dupes who deserve it for being so stupid. Mortals they torture are fun. ...what? What do you mean they need to justify it? No they don't. They want to do it, and they can, so they do. Why shouldn't they? Because it's Evil? Well, they ARE Evil. And they like it that way.

It is a rather alien mindset. But it is crucial to understanding the notion of the objective morality of D&D. Evil is real. No question. No doubt that what some people do is Evil. Fiends don't generally lie to themselves about their alignment. They also don't see a reason to. Sure, Good may say, "Evil is wrong!" but what does Good know? Good's boring, annoying, and generally weak.

Nifft
2018-08-01, 11:54 AM
Nah, you're still looking at this from a Good-centric perspective, where being Evil is a bad thing.

Evil is a bad thing.

That really shouldn't be a point of contention.

Segev
2018-08-01, 12:45 PM
Evil is a bad thing.

That really shouldn't be a point of contention.

...from a real-world perspective, where we all more or less aspire to be Good? Absolutely.


From a Fiend's perspective in D&D, where alignments are objective? No, Evil is smart, fun, and cool (to the Fiends). They are not inclined to think of Good as desirable. They don't feel a need to justify being Evil. Evil justifies itself, to them, the same way Good justifies itself to you or I.

Don't think I'm advocating this as a healthy moral philosophy in the real world. I'm discussing D&D's cosmology and objective moral structure, and how Fiends view themselves and their alignment within it. You should find Fiends, and Evil, abhorrent. But that doesn't mean they do, or are in any way ashamed of their perfidy. They find Good behavior shameful, or at least embarrassing. It's showing weakness. It's wasting time. It's akin to being caught wearing a diaper and nothing else in public when it's not a day appropriate for "giant baby" costumes.