What alignment is Oona?

[Metastachydium]

I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

Can a blue cause have a black effect?
Actions and their motivations are the two sides of the same coin, after all.

[Worldsong]

You were just arguing though that we cant make a moral judgement on the lizardfolk's behavior because theyre true neutral though, and that it was therefore judged to be non-evil.

The Monster Manual apparently judges the act of hunting humanoids within your territory for the sake of food as fitting behaviour for a Neutral culture, although there's probably the clause that you can't single humanoids out for that.

That doesn't mean that lizardfolk aren't judged, it means that the Monster Manual judges their behaviour to be fitting for Neutral characters. Which by extension means that hunting sapients is in itself not Evil enough to render a character Evil for doing it.

Can a blue cause have a black effect?
Actions and their motivations are the two sides of the same coin, after all.

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

[Keltest]

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

Its both.

At any rate, the flip side of the coin is that the Lizardfolk dont go out of their way to target sapients and don't needlessly hunt or kill if there isnt actually a need for food. Theyre not going to go after an elf over a crocodile because they really feel like having an elf steak tonight, theyll go for whichever one they can secure more reliably/sooner/whatever suits their immediate need.

Oona meanwhile was hunting for the sake of hunting. The MITD didnt need a human to eat, Oona just thought a treat might be nice to have. Different scenarios entirely.

[Metastachydium]

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

Not exactly. All I'm implying is that the action cannot be judged in itself, since the motivation which is its cause modifies its value.

[Worldsong]

Its both.

At any rate, the flip side of the coin is that the Lizardfolk dont go out of their way to target sapients and do needlessly hunt or kill if there isnt actually a need for food. Theyre not going to go after an elf over a crocodile because they really feel like having an elf steak tonight, theyll go for whichever one they can secure more reliably/sooner/whatever suits their immediate need.

Oona meanwhile was hunting for the sake of hunting. The MITD didnt need a human to eat, Oona just thought a treat might be nice to have. Different scenarios entirely.

Lizardfolk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.

Apparently they do have a preference for human flesh though. But yes I agree that lizardfolk would focus on which prey they can more reliably capture and which prey is more likely to provide sufficient nourishment.

Although going by this if they've got roughly equal chances between a human and a crocodile they'd pick the human.

That aside, Oona wasn't out there to hunt humanoids. She was exercising her flying mount, saw O-Chul and Lien, and went "Oh, hey, I know my friend likes those."

Also she called it a special dinner rather than a treat (#1037).

To me her behaviour matches that of how lizardfolk are described pretty well.

Not exactly. All I'm implying is that the action cannot be judged in itself, since the motivation which is its cause modifies its value.

Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.

[Keltest]

Apparently they do have a preference for human flesh though. But yes I agree that lizardfolk would focus on which prey they can more reliably capture and which prey is more likely to provide sufficient nourishment.

Although going by this if they've got roughly equal chances between a human and a crocodile they'd pick the human.

That aside, Oona wasn't out there to hunt humanoids. She was exercising her flying mount, saw O-Chul and Lien, and went "Oh, hey, I know my friend likes those."

Also she called it a special dinner rather than a treat (#1037).

To me her behaviour matches that of how lizardfolk are described pretty well.

Special dinner, treat, it amounts to the same thing. She was hunting the humans not because the MITD was going to go hungry that night without them, but because she wanted to feed him something tasty that night.

Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.

There is a certain threshold of "you could have reasonably predicted it would turn out this way" to it as well, but that is the gist of it. A paladin who shoots a fire arrow at an ice dragon and misses, hitting the orphanage and setting it ablaze didnt do anything evil (although stupid, maybe). The rogue who sneaks in and sets the all the flour on fire in the orphanage because he hates pancakes and orphans is absolutely doing something evil.

Theres no amount of motivation that can make deliberately setting an active orphanage on fire to be a non-evil act, but doing so accidentally reflects less poorly, and for different reasons.

[Metastachydium]

Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.

No. It does not „trump” action. But different motivations may confer different meanings to the same action.

[Worldsong]

Special dinner, treat, it amounts to the same thing. She was hunting the humans not because the MITD was going to go hungry that night without them, but because she wanted to feed him something tasty that night.

For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.

There is a certain threshold of "you could have reasonably predicted it would turn out this way" to it as well, but that is the gist of it. A paladin who shoots a fire arrow at an ice dragon and misses, hitting the orphanage and setting it ablaze didnt do anything evil (although stupid, maybe). The rogue who sneaks in and sets the all the flour on fire in the orphanage because he hates pancakes and orphans is absolutely doing something evil.

Theres no amount of motivation that can make deliberately setting an active orphanage on fire to be a non-evil act, but doing so accidentally reflects less poorly, and for different reasons.

No. It does not „trump” action. But different motivations may confer different meanings to the same action.
(Edit: Keltest beat me to it. Please refer to his example.)

Now I want to see a scenario where an ice dragon is threatening an orphanage for some reason.

That aside I do agree that both motivation and action matter for the morality, but overall I'd say that I don't agree with the assessment that what Oona did is sufficiently different from lizardfolk that it conclusively changes the alignment of her action.

Also what if you got the orphans out first and were planning to trap the ice dragon within the burning remains. Unless we're saying that an active orphanage must have orphans in it at the time of the burning.

That lizardfolk can be Neutral while hunting sapients doesn't mean that all instances of hunting sapients are Neutral but it does mean that we wouldn't be able to say "You hunted sapients, therefore you are Evil." We'd have to look at the motivations and the circumstances, and in the case of Oona my perspective is that it's within the region of lizardfolk behaviour, even if her stated motivation is that she knew (or thought) that MitD would like human flesh more than whatever else they'd serve him.

[Keltest]

For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.

So far as we can tell, the Bugbear tribe has sufficient food for its needs already from Monster Hollow. Heck, Oona's stated motivation for following Xykon and Redcloak into the dungeon is she wants to make sure they dont over-hunt it and cause problems for the bugbears (not that she could stop them exactly). So from that perspective, hunting sapients for food is evil. You have other non-sapient food readily available. We can amend the description of her actions to "you needlessly hunted sapients for food" if you prefer, just to make it clear where the problem is, but its still not the same situation.

[Conradine]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

[Metastachydium]

Now I want to see a scenario where an ice dragon is threatening an orphanage for some reason.

I suppose ice dragons do occasionally get hungry and do the Neutral thing about it.

For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.

That aside I do agree that both motivation and action matter for the morality, but overall I'd say that I don't agree with the assessment that what Oona did is sufficiently different from lizardfolk that it conclusively changes the alignment of her action.

That lizardfolk can be Neutral while hunting sapients doesn't mean that all instances of hunting sapients are Neutral but it does mean that we wouldn't be able to say "You hunted sapients, therefore you are Evil." We'd have to look at the motivations and the circumstances, and in the case of Oona my perspective is that it's within the region of lizardfolk behaviour, even if her stated motivation is that she knew (or thought) that MitD would like human flesh more than whatever else they'd serve him.

Y'see, hunting whatever you can get your hand on as a simple means to a simple end, pursued without much passion is one thing. What Oona does is another thing, however. Some people would tell you that slaughtering animals fro their meat is Evil. I'm not one of those folks. Nevertheless, if the person who does the slaughtering seems to feel a tad bit more joy about it than absolutely necessary… That can be creepy.

[understatement]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

Not hurting civilians isn't a qualifier for neutral. It just means that the person has a basic moral standard.

[Worldsong]

So far as we can tell, the Bugbear tribe has sufficient food for its needs already from Monster Hollow. Heck, Oona's stated motivation for following Xykon and Redcloak into the dungeon is she wants to make sure they dont over-hunt it and cause problems for the bugbears (not that she could stop them exactly). So from that perspective, hunting sapients for food is evil. You have other non-sapient food readily available. We can amend the description of her actions to "you needlessly hunted sapients for food" if you prefer, just to make it clear where the problem is, but its still not the same situation.

Personally I'm still on the idea that while the bugbears manage to get enough food from Kraagor's Tomb to get by the conversation in 1038 indicates that life is far from easy for them.

Okay, let's put it like this: if you are correct that the bugbears can reliably and safely obtain food from Kraagor's Tomb to the point that their food supplies are a non-issue I agree that Oona hunting the humans for no other reason than that MitD happens to like the taste (so far as she knows) would be Evil.

That said given that in medieval times even villages located in the middle of fertile land can suffer from famine I'd say I need a little more evidence that Oona's tribe is doing so well before I'm fully convinved.

I suppose ice dragons do occasionally get hungry and do the Neutral thing about it.

Okay that actually made me laugh.

For the record, just because I'd say that hunting sapients isn't automatically Evil doesn't mean I'd disagree with Good-aligned adventurers doing their best to put a stop to it.

Y'see, hunting whatever you can get your hand on as a simple means to a simple end, pursued without much passion is one thing. What Oona does is another thing, however. Some people would tell you that slaughtering animals fro their meat is Evil. I'm not one of those folks. Nevertheless, if the person who does the slaughtering seems to feel a tad bit more joy about it than absolutely necessary… That can be creepy.

I think part of the reason why we raise pigs and cows, aside from convenience, is because we like the taste of their flesh.

[Metastachydium]

Okay that actually made me laugh.

For the record, just because I'd say that hunting sapients isn't automatically Evil doesn't mean I'd disagree with Good-aligned adventurers doing their best to put a stop to it.

Glad to hear both.

I think part of the reason why we raise pigs and cows, aside from convenience, is because we like the taste of their flesh.

I suppose ”rich in fat and proteins” also figures into it, but sure thing. I never said it is wrong to kill and eat something just because one likes the taste of it. That wouln't be fair.
I think my reservations regarding the Neutrality of Oona's attempt to get those humans on the table boil down to my having the impression that she enjoys hurting others. (Also, there's the thing where I don't think that expecting a sapient being to be able to empathise with other sapient beings is asking too much, but hey. The blue causes for blue effects thing (i.e. not worse, just diffferent) is something I can accept.)

[Worldsong]

I suppose ”rich in fat and proteins” also figures into it, but sure thing. I never said it is wrong to kill and eat something just because one likes the taste of it. That wouln't be fair.
I think my reservations regarding the Neutrality of Oona's attempt to get those humans on the table boil down to my having the impression that she enjoys hurting others. (Also, there's the thing where I don't think that expecting a sapient being to be able to empathise with other sapient beings is asking too much, but hey. The blue causes for blue effects thing (i.e. not worse, just diffferent) is something I can accept.)

Hmmm... I didn't really get the feeling of her enjoying hurting people, but I understand that that'd be less acceptable behaviour even for a Neutral character. Moreso I figured that she's just in general cheerful and upbeat and enjoys fighting itself more so than the actual hurting.

Also I'd say that it's less about whether you have any empathy with the prey at all, or whether that empathy is greater than your desire/need to eat.

[Metastachydium]

Hmmm... I didn't really get the feeling of her enjoying hurting people, but I understand that that'd be less acceptable behaviour even for a Neutral character. Moreso I figured that she's just in general cheerful and upbeat and enjoys fighting itself more so than the actual hurting.

We are not talking about, say, combat sports, though. She enjoys getting into fights where people are supposed to get killed despite having no stake in these fights.

Also I'd say that it's less about whether you have any empathy with the prey at all, or whether that empathy is greater than your desire/need to eat.

I'm pretty sure that does not apply here. If the predator feels empathy, it takes a little more than „they walked close enough to my territory and I know a monster who should be kind of hungry by now” to overcome it or at any rate it ought to.
A situation where the predator has empathy and thus believes the prey is a creature just like the predator, with similar feelings and thoughts and therefore, say, projects its mindset on the prey figuring the prey will understand and accept predation as the natural order of things just as the predator does… Now, that would be different, and decidedly not Evil.

[Worldsong]

We are not talking about, say, combat sports, though. She enjoys getting into fights where people are supposed to get killed despite having no stake in these fights.

I believe that falls under the Blood Knight trope which is considered to be a valid trait for a character of any alignment to have. Granted Good-aligned Blood Knights tend to at least make sure the fight they're getting into has a just cause even if they do genuinely enjoy the fighting itself.

I'm pretty sure that does not apply here. If the predator feels empathy, it takes a little more than „they walked close enough to my territory and I know a monster who should be kind of hungry by now” to overcome it or at any rate it ought to.
A situation where the predator has empathy and thus believes the prey is a creature just like the predator, with similar feelings and thoughts and therefore, say, projects its mindset on the prey figuring the prey will understand and accept predation as the natural order of things just as the predator does… Now, that would be different, and decidedly not Evil.

Honestly that does sound like a mindset that lizardfolk could have.

[Metastachydium]

I believe that falls under the Blood Knight trope which is considered to be a valid trait for a character of any alignment to have. Granted Good-aligned Blood Knights tend to at least make sure the fight they're getting into has a just cause even if they do genuinely enjoy the fighting itself.

Hence my emphasis on stakes. Enjoying conflict for its own sake is distasteful at best.

Honestly that does sound like a mindset that lizardfolk could have.

I mean, if humans may get to be anthropocentric, I believe reptiles have the right to have their own herpetocentric worldview.

[Bunny Commando]

Okay, let's put it like this: if you are correct that the bugbears can reliably and safely obtain food from Kraagor's Tomb to the point that their food supplies are a non-issue I agree that Oona hunting the humans for no other reason than that MitD happens to like the taste (so far as she knows) would be Evil.

Kraagor's Tomb may be not the sole source of food for the tribe. In 1039 Oona states the tribe has a Cleric capable of casting Divination spells. If by "asking and helping" she means the Cleric can cast Commune food may be a non-issue since a 9th level Cleric could provide food for at least 81 people thanks to Create Food and Water.

In 1041 Oona states that the Cleric has the Craft Wondrous Item feat and that she would like to have a magic belt. IIRC, the minimum caster level required to craft a magic belt is 5, thus giving the Cleric of the tribe the capability of providing food through magic for at least 15 people - not enough that the tribe doesn't have to worry but certainly enough to make a difference, especially if the Cleric also uses her allotment of orisons to cast Purify Food and Drink and extend the "shelf life" of the food.

[mjasghar]

Let’s muddy the waters
Officially slaad are CN
Yet they are known for eating sentient beings and for using them as hosts
And they are not of animal intelligence
Fomorians often do dodgy stuff and yet are LN - somehow their abiding by Law doesn’t extend to invading lands for expansion of territory
Modrons ditto
Back on the chaotic side - most barbarian cultures are CN specifically the Horde from the Forgotten Realms. Yet their actions are often evil.
So we can go round and round this argument and I doubt we’ll convince each other.

[Jason]

One particular trait or cultural practice isn't enough to make an individual or race evil, especially if it is balanced by traits or actions of the opposite alignment.
Slaads are Chaotic Neutral because chaos and unpredictable behavior is pretty much their overriding trait. Lizard men are neutral not because eating people is not an evil act, but because other parts of their culture balance out that occasional evil practice.
Oona has some good traits, such as her politeness and willingness to be helpful to allies, and her kindness to her pets. But being willing to kill people she knows nothing about who aren't a threat to her pretty much puts her in the evil category.

[Dr.Zero]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

I'm quite sure that all the food we eat (or give to our pets) doesn't belong to any military organization and never declared war on us.

[Mightymosy]

This thread kinda explains why D&D and similar games get a bad rep at times. Jesus

[Lemarc]

The neutrality of lizardfolk is presented as the neutrality of a crocodile. Their divine creed:

Semuanya is the unemotional and amoral reptilian ideal. Neither good nor evil, neither chaotic nor lawful, Semuanya merely exists and existence is its purpose. Live long, reproduce, ensure the safety of yourself and the race; this is the entire creed of Semuanya. Nothing else is of real importance, unless it bears directly on survival and propagation.

Slaad are presented as having "nightmarish prison camps" that they use to gestate their chestburster spawn in sentient beings. There are numerous neutral, intelligent monsters who eat people. The alignment tag isn't a moral judgment of the species and all its acts in toto, it's an indicator to the DM of their general behaviour, to aid play. Whether the description of the creature "fits" the alignment is irrelevant, that's not what it's there for. I think hunting and eating people is evil, but if lizardfolk were tagged as evil that would send a different message about how to portray them than tagging them as neutral.

[Worldsong]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

[dancrilis]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Chaos is random like that.

[Keltest]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Its not like they can just change their biology, or whatever the outsider equivalent is. They didnt collectively wake up one day and all decide to start reproducing like that.

[Metastachydium]

(Hey, Worldsong. Interesting fact I stumbled upon by accident: it would seem that Stickverse canon's kind of on your side here. Gannji and Enor are officially True Neutral, and the latter tried human heart before, and the only reason why he wouldn't go for more is that they are not really good.)

[Worldsong]

Chaos is random like that.

Its not like they can just change their biology, or whatever the outsider equivalent is. They didnt collectively wake up one day and all decide to start reproducing like that.

It's more the prison camp part which has me like "I was expecting this from the Lawful side of the axis."

(Hey, Worldsong. Interesting fact I stumbled upon by accident: it would seem that Stickverse canon's kind of on your side here. Gannji and Enor are officially True Neutral, and the latter tried human heart before, and the only reason why he wouldn't go for more is that they are not really good.)

Victory is mine!

[dancrilis]

It's more the prison camp part which has me like "I was expecting this from the Lawful side of the axis."

My statement covers that - or to put it a different way: Chaos doesn't need to follow your expectations, it does what it wants.

Edit: Although prison camps and the like would likely suit LN also.