Resources discussing exemptions from "always X" alignment

[Saint-Just]

Good day. A lot of electrons has been spent on these forums discussing the ramifications of "usually Evil" statline for many intelligent creatures in D&D. I want to ask you about related concept: when creature that is "always X" (not necessary Evil) can be non-X?

Outsiders from Outer Planes are often described as being made out of Evil, Chaos, Good etc. But there is a plenty of other creatures which are always X - some outsiders from the Inner planes, undead, some fey, some aberrations, many others and most iconic of them all - true dragons.

Is there a good discussion threads on this forum or others (including reachable by the Web Archive) which discusses those concepts specifically, or any official articles anywhere. I know about wrongly aligned succubi do often mentioned, but I am less interested in examples and more in a general discussion, either in about "always X" in general or with focus or non-Outsiders (or at least not Outer Plane outsiders).

[OldTrees1]

A relevant quote from the Chapter 7 Glossary pg 305 of the 3.5 Monster Manual.

Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that they creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Or in other words: "Always X" does not mean always x.



But you also asked about general discussion:

Consider just the moral axis for a moment.

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."
If a being is a moral agent, they can't be literally inherently always x. A moral agent has the capacity for deciding. They may choose to be always x, but that is not an inherent limitation. Likewise it would be hard to argue that any being could be described in terms of good/evil without them being a moral agent. I know I am making intuitive leaps rather than fill in the gaps but, therefore no being can be described as inherently always x on the moral axis.

[Mechalich]

Likewise it would be hard to argue that any being could be described in terms of good/evil without them being a moral agent.

Really? I would think, in a (mostly) deontological moral structure like that of D&D it would be very easy for something to be described as good/evil without it being a moral agent; in fact it might even be easier. A Lemure, for example, is mindless but also 'always lawful evil.' It doesn't make decisions, it simply follows a set of internal programming and superior commands that happens to product a set of results affiliated with a particular alignment. So long as certain actions are themselves right or wrong as determined from a universal viewpoint, something can be morally aligned simply by taking appropriate actions without being aware at all. In fact, you can have morally aligned inanimate objects in such a system - like a Darkskull.

[zarionofarabel]

Nope. Never Ever. Not Ever. Never.

[MoiMagnus]

Really? I would think, in a (mostly) deontological moral structure like that of D&D it would be very easy for something to be described as good/evil without it being a moral agent; in fact it might even be easier. A Lemure, for example, is mindless but also 'always lawful evil.' It doesn't make decisions, it simply follows a set of internal programming and superior commands that happens to product a set of results affiliated with a particular alignment. So long as certain actions are themselves right or wrong as determined from a universal viewpoint, something can be morally aligned simply by taking appropriate actions without being aware at all. In fact, you can have morally aligned inanimate objects in such a system - like a Darkskull.

I'd love to agree, because denying full free will of angel/devil/etc solves a lot of worldbuilding problems, but D&D5e alignment put animals as "unaligned" under the justification that they are not sentient enough to be morally responsible for their acts, hence to have an alignment (and I think previous D&D editions put them as "true neutral" or something like that).

[OldTrees1]

Really? I would think, in a (mostly) deontological moral structure like that of D&D it would be very easy for something to be described as good/evil without it being a moral agent; in fact it might even be easier. A Lemure, for example, is mindless but also 'always lawful evil.' It doesn't make decisions, it simply follows a set of internal programming and superior commands that happens to product a set of results affiliated with a particular alignment. So long as certain actions are themselves right or wrong as determined from a universal viewpoint, something can be morally aligned simply by taking appropriate actions without being aware at all. In fact, you can have morally aligned inanimate objects in such a system - like a Darkskull.

I'd love to agree, because denying full free will of angel/devil/etc solves a lot of worldbuilding problems, but D&D5e alignment put animals as "unaligned" under the justification that they are not sentient enough to be morally responsible for their acts, hence to have an alignment (and I think previous D&D editions put them as "true neutral" or something like that).

That was more of a philosophical angle than a content based angle (see the 1st half for the content based angle).

In the field of ethics, moral agency is generally (basically universally) considered a necessary condition for having moral character. So if Angels (for example) are not moral agents, then they don't have a moral character. They might still have moral personhood, and they might still assist people that are trying to be moral, but they would not have a moral character. On the other hand if Angels are moral agents, then their moral character is not inherently always X.

[GravityEmblem]

In my games, it works on a scale, where strictness of alignment ranges from "Outsider" (Fiends, Celestials, etc. Being of pure alignment) to "Mortal" (Humanoids, or Sentients, as they're called. While certain cultures and societies are of certain alignments, alignment "pull" is based on nurture, not nature.)

For example, Drow culture is Chaotic Evil, but they aren't inherently Chaotic Evil.