Alignment. In-World, is it subjective? Are Illithids truly evil?

[WitchyKitty]

Hi there! So.. I've never really posted here and mostly just lurked as a whole, un-logged in, and after talking with my SO in Discord about some stuff, I got curious.

In-World, whether Golarion, D&D, etcetera, is morality completely subjective based on one's In-character beliefs? And if so are 'evil' spells only seen as such because of what they do according to the victim?
If it's objective, is morality an actual force or power on its own? Is morality, i.e. evil, good, chaotic/neutral, etcetera, how does that interlace with the concept of 'Good' and 'evil' magic, or otherwise, parts of the universe that are affected by it?
---------
Following this question, my next question may seem oddball.

Are Illithids actually, truly evil? Is their 'evil' solely because of the way other sentient races are prey to them, i.e. based on perception?

Because, well... I've not found all too much lore on the Illithids/ Mindflayers, but from what I've heard... they don't exactly seem... Evil, as themselves? From what I've seen they just seem to emphasize the development of themselves as a power, developing their culture, and propagating their race- which, yes, has unsavoury implications for the other sentient race, but it's no different than elves trying to develop their race and culture.


... I have no idea if I'm making sense. I hope that I am, and I hope also that my message/ idea is getting across.

[No brains]

Even if you go with the argument that illithids are just trying to survive by eating sentient creatures, what makes them evil is that they have no appreciation for the collateral damage caused by their expansion. A top example is that the 3.5 book Lords of Madness detailed that one of their goals is to extinguish the sun. That's going to cause way more problems than are strictly necessary for illithids trying to survive.

Now for the idea of them being inherently evil, that's another topic. In Book of Exalted Deeds, there was a mind flayer that got a ring of sustenance and thereby mellowed out on needing to kill people, so they aren't entirely irredeemable. If the magically adept illithid society were really just trying to survive, they would probably invest in alternate food sources rather than eating sentient brains.

Also, welcome to the forum.

[zarionofarabel]

I believe that I am in the minority, but I believe that DnD Alignment should be objective, "set in stone" by the gods themselves, or some such.

{{scrubbed}}

In a fantasy world where the gods are real and interact with humanity on a regular basis morality (alignment) MUST be objective. Want to know if something is Good or Evil, just ask the gods. In fact, in most fantasy, it is quite easy to tell the good gods from the bad, they advertise!

[Zhorn]

There's a few different brands of evil.
Depending on your setting, some apply to more than they do for others
Wanting the destruction of things as a goal, that's you generic demon brand of evil
Delighting in the pain and suffering of others, that's your hag brand of evil.
Seeing other races as just a means to an end, be it slave labor, food sources, or hosts, this is the Illithid's brand of evil.

Unlike the other two, pain and destruction isn't a goal, so there isn't an inherent malevolence motivating them. And to an illithid, what they are doing is not 'evil', it's just about survival and prosperity. What is evil is how they don't consider what they are doing to other races as being morally objectionable. They don't have a need to try and ethically source their food, or labour, or hosts.
As No brains covered (nice post btw), if the biological needs for killing are removed, there are examples of illithids not going out of their way to inflict terrible acts on other races, but as such methods are achievable but not pursued demonstrates an uncaring form of evil as a core component of their phycology.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

zarionofarabel said it best but there is some leeway to be given for magic users of a non-divine sense. A necromancer who summons undead spirits in a fantasy world is considered by default as evil. Yet have him be a part of some culture that has a holiday like Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) then they aren't as evil as all their doing is just chatting with long past relatives.

In most fantasy based around morality and magics, you will find much like the real world western themed countries do have the strict sense of evil and good in pretty much everything. Yet go to an Asian themed areas like Kara-Tur in the Forgotten Realms setting then the lines become blurred a bit. But even in that there still a strict division for the divine.

[KillianHawkeye]

I believe that I am in the minority, but I believe that DnD Alignment should be objective

I'm pretty sure you're not in the minority at all on that one. Alignment being objective is pretty explicit in all the editions of D&D.

If alignment was subjective, you couldn't detect for it or use it as a basis for targeting other spells.

[OldTrees1]

1) In-World, whether Golarion, D&D, etcetera, is morality completely subjective based on one's In-character beliefs? And if so are 'evil' spells only seen as such because of what they do according to the victim?
2) If it's objective, is morality an actual force or power on its own? Is morality, i.e. evil, good, chaotic/neutral, etcetera, how does that interlace with the concept of 'Good' and 'evil' magic, or otherwise, parts of the universe that are affected by it?
3) Are Illithids actually, truly evil? Is their 'evil' solely because of the way other sentient races are prey to them, i.e. based on perception?

1) I suggest using an objective morality. While it is true that people's beliefs about morality are subjective, there are no coherent claims about reality one can make if you presume subjective morality. Moral Relativism, unlike cultural relativism, disproves itself.
2) Objective morality is not an actual force. It just means that something is moral/immoral independent of your subjective beliefs about morality. If it were moral to slaughter indiscriminately, then my belief that such slaughter is immoral would not change that.

But now to the meat of the issue. Pun foreshadowed.

3) Illithids are obligate carnivores with the capacity to make choices that are moral/immoral. Aka they are moral agents that must kill other animals in order to live. They can, but usually don't, limit themselves to rothe (underdark sheep) brains rather than the more intelligent life. However they must kill or die.

Unfortunately, this question is less fantastical than it might first appear. Some IRL humans can't survive without eating meat.

So can one's continued existence be inherently immoral? Well, perhaps. It may seem unfair, but life does not need to be fair.

So, perhaps Illithids are doomed, or maybe eating roathe is morally permissible. It is hard to say.


That said, the Illithid empire is clearly evil at all 3 major points in history:
Distant future: Vast empire with a large foundation of slaves. But something went wrong.
Distant past: Vast spacefaring empire that enslaved a species call the Gith. But something went wrong and the Gith rebelled.
Distant present: Forced planetside and hiding deep inside the planet, the Illithids form small compounds where they collect slaves and plot their future empire.

[Alcore]

To the common man it is subjective. The average commoner might not believe that good and evil are tangible forces. Without someone to detect it a man might live a long wholesome life on a farm while being Evil with a capital E.

In-World, whether Golarion, D&D, etcetera, is morality completely subjective based on one's In-character beliefs? And if so are 'evil' spells only seen as such because of what they do according to the victim?
If it's objective, is morality an actual force or power on its own? Is morality, i.e. evil, good, chaotic/neutral, etcetera, how does that interlace with the concept of 'Good' and 'evil' magic, or otherwise, parts of the universe that are affected by it?

Yes, No (a spell with alignment descriptors are always made with part of that alignment force). Yes (example; every outsider). The spell descriptions and setting information tells us how it is interlaced or leave it nebulous for us to figure out before game play...

[Mastikator]

Mind Flayers treat humans the way humans treat animals. For the exact same reason too: "they're lower beings". Farm them for food, hunt them for food, hunt them for sport, work them for labor. Most humans don't think humans are evil for what we do to animals, some humans do think humans are evil.
The consequences are the same too: entire species wiped out or turned into chattel, massive ecological and climatological damage, potential global disaster. Mass extinction.

[Kaptin Keen]

I believe Mindflayers are a pretty good attempt at making the most completely, inherently evil race imaginable. They do everything we abhor - theirs is a culture based on slavery, mind control, and keeping sentients as livestock. They experiment on their slaves, boil them down to a paste with which to feed them, and rebuild creatures to suit their whims (at least, in my games they do).

They have a perfectly tailored ecological base, where every living thing slots neatly into what Mindflayer society needs.

[Elbeyon]

I believe that I am in the minority, but I believe that DnD Alignment should be objective, "set in stone" by the gods themselves, or some such.

Morality in the real world is subjective because we can't ask God or Vishnu or Muhammad directly.

In a fantasy world where the gods are real and interact with humanity on a regular basis morality (alignment) MUST be objective. Want to know if something is Good or Evil, just ask the gods. In fact, in most fantasy, it is quite easy to tell the good gods from the bad, they advertise!

Even if the gods set alignment, alignment can still be subjective. Gods change, die, and new ones are born. The rules of good and evil can change with them. The gods can change their answer after a mortal asks.

[Pleh]

In D&D style worlds, Good and Evil can be cosmic forces of the multiverse. For example, Fire isn't just a chemical reaction anymore, because all fire is somehow related to the elemental Plane of Fire. So making fires increases the Plane of Fire's influence on the material plane.

Thus doing evil isn't just subjective based on whom it affects, there are literally evil actions that give Planes of Evil more power and influence in the world (if your setting subscribes to Cosmic Evil as a force). To take it further, denizens of the Plane of Evil will be "made of evil" to the same extent that denizens of the Plane of Fire are made of fire. Demons in this multiverse are at least partially Evil Elementals.

But if you set up your world as having a more grounded form of morality, then it becomes more likely that Illithids are merely culturally corrupt and any given Illithid may be more or less evil than the next.

I don't think there's much room to debate them not being evil in their canon depictions, which involve a society built on enslaving sentient humanoids as chattel for labor, consumption, and using them to create more mindflayers. Did you know the only way for a baby mindflayer to become a fully fledged, humanoid mindflayer is they have to stick the baby mindflayer into a living host, where it eats their brain and takes over the body, basically using the skull as a driver seat?

Oh yes, this plays some intricate moral implications about, "how can they be evil if they have no choice?"

But I think the intent their creators had is that they prey on sentient humanoids because illithids crave power, and the more intelligent a brain is, the more power they gain for consuming it. Basically, they never "had to" do these terrible things to people. It was just the optimal choice for giving themselves more power and they didn't give a lick about what terrible things that meant for other creatures. They see themselves as far above humans as humans see themselves above cattle.

[RedMage125]

Hi there! So.. I've never really posted here and mostly just lurked as a whole, un-logged in, and after talking with my SO in Discord about some stuff, I got curious.

In-World, whether Golarion, D&D, etcetera, is morality completely subjective based on one's In-character beliefs? And if so are 'evil' spells only seen as such because of what they do according to the victim?
If it's objective, is morality an actual force or power on its own? Is morality, i.e. evil, good, chaotic/neutral, etcetera, how does that interlace with the concept of 'Good' and 'evil' magic, or otherwise, parts of the universe that are affected by it?

As someone who is a major proponent of alignment and alignment mechanics, I have an answer for you.

Ok, the "correct" answer to your question is that every DM has the right to determine for their game how alignment and morality are determined.

HOWEVER, the Rules As Written (RAW) do give us a default answer that is how most D&D worlds are set up. Some editions (like 3.xe, PF1) had more hard-coded mechanics that were impacted by this answer, while others (4e, 5e) had very few.

The default answer is that each individual may perceive their actions to be good or evil according to their own beliefs, but their actual alignment is judged objectively by completely dispassionate cosmic forces which are not swayed by semantics or self-justification. Even the gods are beholden to these forces (case in point, Cyric's dogma teaches that Mystra and Kelemvor are treacherous liars, and he is a heroic figure, but his is a CE god, and they are both Good and Neutral, respectively).

So Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are bodiless, dispassionate, objective forces that shape the cosmos. None of these forces have goals or agendas. They can be measured, objectively ("Detect X" spells in 3.P), they can take physical form (outsiders with alignment subtypes are made of the physical manifestation of that kind of energy), and they can impact the physical world when they interact with it (Planar effects of being on an alignment plane, as well as Holy/Unholy/Lawful/Chaos spells).

These same energies are present in mortals, but in smaller amounts. Observe that a Detect Evil spell will detect only Moderate Evil in an 11-HD evil fighter, or a 3 HD demon. This plays into your question about magic. Some spells channel these energies directly (Holy smite, Chaos Hammer, etc), other spells get the alignment tag because they contact planes with these energies, and bring those energies here (hence why summoning a fiendish creature gives the spell the [Evil] tag). Others, because they only do Evil things. In 3.x, for example, Creation of Undead is one of those Always Evil actions. The justification is that it is a crime against nature to create a mockery of life, and we can tell from circumstantial evidence that the soul of the person whose body it was is affected in some way (i.e. if someone turned your corpse into a zombie, even True Resurrection cannot bring you back until the zombie is destroyed). So while Negative Energy by itself is not an "evil" energy, it is being used as a battery for an Evil act (making undead). Same way Fireball is not evil, but casting Fireball into an orphanage would be. So spells that ONLY make undead have the [Evil] tag as well, because the only thing those spells do is a Always Evil act. The "victim" of this act is, by the RAW, nature/"the universe". That is why the RAW makes it work that way. This ties into Detection spells because ALL undead in 3.x detect as Evil under a "Detect Evil" spell, because of the evil energies that animate their bodies, even if they are not evil themselves. So even though a zombie is mindless (and otherwise incapable of moral agency), there are Evil energies animating it. And same for a CG vampire holding onto her morality and sanity...she still will register as Evil to someone using Detect Evil.

My favorite example to highlight this is to imagine a prophecy that says that during a conjunction of moons (due to occur in 7 years), an orphan in his second decade of life will release Demogorgon into the world. So a zealous demon hunter, trying to prevent this apocalypse, starts killing every orphan between the ages of 4 and 14 that he comes across. He genuinely believes what he is doing serves "the greater good". Even if he commits no other acts of evil, the constant, repeated, and, above all unrepentant murder of hundreds of innocent children means his alignment is Evil. He would be quite surprised to find that he takes damage from a Holy Smite spell. His own perceptions color his ideals and his beliefs, but no manner of justification will change how his overall alignment is determined.

---------
Following this question, my next question may seem oddball.

Are Illithids actually, truly evil? Is their 'evil' solely because of the way other sentient races are prey to them, i.e. based on perception?

Because, well... I've not found all too much lore on the Illithids/ Mindflayers, but from what I've heard... they don't exactly seem... Evil, as themselves? From what I've seen they just seem to emphasize the development of themselves as a power, developing their culture, and propagating their race- which, yes, has unsavoury implications for the other sentient race, but it's no different than elves trying to develop their race and culture.


... I have no idea if I'm making sense. I hope that I am, and I hope also that my message/ idea is getting across.

Ok, I actually have an answer for this as well. At least, continuing to use 3.xe alignment mechanics and mores (because that was the last edition with the most mechanics related to this).

Mind Flayers are aberrations. Like many aberrations, their mindset is completely alien. Some aberrations come from the Far Realm, or completely different realities altogether. It's entirely possible that in the reality they are from, they are not considered "Evil". The thing is, when they are here (meaning the D&D world), they are now in a reality where their outlooks, beliefs, and, above all, their actions will determine their alignment. Keep in mind, that 3.xe defines "murder" as "killing a sentient creature for selfish or nefarious purposes". Mind flayers can survive off ANY kind of brain. But they prefer the brains of thinking, sentient creatures, don't they? Killing sentient creatures because they taste better than animals is a "selfish purpose", isn't it?

So, you are correct that one COULD empathize with the mind flayers, and, from a certain subjective view, they don't seem "evil" in the same way demons are. BUT, the "official" (read as: the answer you will get from reading what is written in the books) answer is that Mind Flayers' perceptions of themselves are still judged by the objective, cosmic forces of THIS reality (which is where they are now), and thus they are Evil.

I know that was long-winded, but I hope it helps.

[Democratus]

Illithids generally fall into two categories in the campaigns I've seen

1) A force of pure evil.

- Slavers, cannibals, and destroyers of souls.

2) A force from the Far-Realms - beyond the concepts of good and evil.

- Totally alien beings who's actions have terrible effect on other sentient cultures

[Anonymouswizard]

I believe that I am in the minority, but I believe that DnD Alignment should be objective, "set in stone" by the gods themselves, or some such.

Morality in the real world is subjective because we can't ask God or Vishnu or Muhammad directly.

In a fantasy world where the gods are real and interact with humanity on a regular basis morality (alignment) MUST be objective. Want to know if something is Good or Evil, just ask the gods. In fact, in most fantasy, it is quite easy to tell the good gods from the bad, they advertise!

I definitely agree for alignment, although I don't agree for morality or ethics.

Alignment is your stance and place in the Great Universal Conflict between the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. Now the forces of Good are normally good, and the forces of Evil are generally evil. But these don't completely match to what the organisations, nations, and people on the Material Plane view as good or evil, and different Good or Evil gods promote different, potentially mutually exclusive moralities.

Or at least that's how I see it as working. You know what's endorsed by the Good gods, but you still need to work out what's good for yourself (tip: probably involves giving soup to orphans).

[OldTrees1]

I believe that I am in the minority, but I believe that DnD Alignment should be objective, "set in stone" by the gods themselves, or some such.

Morality in the real world is subjective because we can't ask God or Vishnu or Muhammad directly.

In a fantasy world where the gods are real and interact with humanity on a regular basis morality (alignment) MUST be objective. Want to know if something is Good or Evil, just ask the gods. In fact, in most fantasy, it is quite easy to tell the good gods from the bad, they advertise!

That is not what subjective morality means.

1. Morality permits of two distinct perspectives of assessment.
2. A first, “objective”, perspective assesses the moral quality of
actions in a way that is not sensitive to agents’ epistemic circumstances.
3. A second, “subjective”, perspective assesses the moral quality
of actions in a way that is sensitive to agents’ epistemic circumstances.
4. Objective moral assessment is explanatorily prior to subjective moral assessment.

Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1e...cdd685bd89.pdf

Objective morality means something is moral or immoral regardless of my belief about it being moral or immoral.
Subjective morality means my moral beliefs affect whether something is moral or immoral.

If slaughtering the innocents is immoral, is it only immoral because I believe it is immoral, or would it still be immoral even if I believed something else?

Sources:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1e...cdd685bd89.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[Tanarii]

D&D alignment in all the default settings is, as far as I know, in-universe objective.

In-universe characters belief about their morality can be subjective. Depends on the edition and how easy it is to "prove" alignment.

Out of character, at the player (and depending on edition, DM) level, is always subjective. Determining what qualifies as what alignment (Specific actions, typical broad behavior), how exactly it works (proscriptive, descriptive, motivational, etc) varies from edition to edition, and within those definitions varies wildly from player to player (and DM to DM if they are involved). Alignment is a fictional construct, morality and ethics IRL are fictional constructs, and when you put that together the result must be subjective.

----------

Yes, Mind Flayers are evil. Because they have an evil alignment, or vice versa.

What does that mean? It means it's okay to kill the without worrying about it. That's why Team Evil exists in the first place. Orcs & Mind Flayers ... they're there to be enemies to sneak around, repel invasions from, and if necessary implacably massacre. They are the Them in Us vs Them.

---------

Objective morality means something is moral or immoral regardless of my belief about it being moral or immoral.
Subjective morality means my moral beliefs affect whether something is moral or immoral.

When you can't test something empirically, it's time to fall back on "common sense" (or if you're an intellectual, "logic"). And we all know how well that works.

[gijoemike]

One must remember that in D&D angels are made up of the particles of the upper planes which are aligned to GOOD. The devils are aligned with the lower plains and are made up of EVIL. If one walks around for too long in the hells they become evil due to cross contamination. These particles of good and evil directly affect ones moral compass.

This means that no matter what an angel does, no matter what alignment they are, they will always detect as good. The reverse is true for demons/devils. No matter how much they try they will always be considered evil for the purpose of smite evil, holy word, detect spells.

There are also cursed items that change a persons moral compass instantly if encountered. An item can switch you from being a vile murdering rapist into a saint in a split second or turn a saint into a remorseless kidnapping pillager.

Does any of this make any sense? No not really. Half the time evil in D&D is like the dark side and is corrupting. But the alignment system in D&D is very odd to begin with. It is objective because it is 100% deterministic and unlike Schrodinger's cat we can pinpoint its exact location and state at any given time using a handful of spells.

[LibraryOgre]

In a fantasy world where the gods are real and interact with humanity on a regular basis morality (alignment) MUST be objective. Want to know if something is Good or Evil, just ask the gods. In fact, in most fantasy, it is quite easy to tell the good gods from the bad, they advertise!

I don't think this is necessarily true... I can certainly see a setting where the Gods are real and individuals, and good and evil remain subjective. Babylon 5, for example, the Vorlons and the Shadows weren't quite gods, but both believed that their methodology was correct. While Shadows were presented as evil, that was arguably a matter of point of view, and we saw, in the course of the series, that the Vorlons were also quite willing to be monstrous.

However, I don't think that's really possible with the standard cosmology for D&D, where Good and Evil wind up objectively affecting real estate.... if your town in the Plane of Concordant Opposition winds up becoming too Lawful and Good, you slide to Arcadia or the Seven Heavens.

[Jason]

There are real game effects that are tied to a being's alignment, and they work according to objective rules. Therefore yes, alignment is objective in-game. It's simply how the universe operates.

That doesn't mean there won't be characters in-game who believe good and evil are subjective..

[EggKookoo]

I think the main problem with the objective/subjective thing is simply in the terminology. "Good" can have a moral meaning and a qualitative meaning. "It's good to be bad," for example.

I would hope in future editions of D&D, they come up with better words for the good/evil spectrum. Compassionate/Cruel or something like that (maybe something less bulky).

[OldTrees1]

When you can't test something empirically, it's time to fall back on "common sense" (or if you're an intellectual, "logic"). And we all know how well that works.

Heh, yup. There are limits to how far logic can answer a question if you can't get empirical evidence. Despite standing on the shoulders of giants, the most humans can validly conclude is "The answer to morality would not be a self contradicting answer". That is not very satisfying, so most make some invalid leaps of intuition and start building from there, completely ignoring their own skyhook.

I don't think this is necessarily true... I can certainly see a setting where the Gods are real and individuals, and good and evil remain subjective. Babylon 5, for example, the Vorlons and the Shadows weren't quite gods, but both believed that their methodology was correct. While Shadows were presented as evil, that was arguably a matter of point of view, and we saw, in the course of the series, that the Vorlons were also quite willing to be monstrous.

Babylon 5 is not an example of subjective morality.

Subjective morality is when your beliefs about morality affect whether something is immoral or not. When the Vorlons did something monstrous, was it simultaneously moral (because Kosh felt it was moral) and immoral (because Kosh felt it was immoral)? OR would the moral character of that monstrous act be independent of the beliefs of the observers? In short "Subjective Morality" is better known as "Moral Relativism".

Objective morality on the other hand says the moral character of an action is independent on what the observers believe the moral character of the action is. Sort of like how my stove, when on, is hot even if I were foolish enough to believe it was cold. Observers having differing opinions about morality does not mean it is not objective morality. Objective vs Subjective here is asking whether those beliefs control reality.

More reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#MorRel

Babylon 5 is an example of nuanced circumstances and without the audience being explicitly informed about what was moral/immoral, but it does not claim to be Moral Relativism. It does not say Londo's actions are both moral (because he believed they were moral) and immoral (because Gkar found them immoral).

That said, yes you could have a setting that is based on Moral Relativism. It might be a bit messy (eating Pasta is simultaneously Immoral, Moral, and Amoral) but it is possible. Most settings that are not perfectly coherent.

I think the main problem with the objective/subjective thing is simply in the terminology. "Good" can have a moral meaning and a qualitative meaning. "It's good to be bad," for example.

I would hope in future editions of D&D, they come up with better words for the good/evil spectrum. Compassionate/Cruel or something like that (maybe something less bulky).

Well assuming we are talking about the moral/immoral axis (as in an Immoral Angel is not Good), then the words "Moral, Amoral, & Immoral" become useful. This includes terms like Morally Supererogatory and Morally Permissible.

[EggKookoo]

It does not say Londo's actions are both moral (because he believed they were moral) and immoral (because Gkar found them immoral).

That was how it was presented with the Vorlons and Shadows, though, no? Each thought the other's values were immoral and their own were moral. The narrative never comes down on one side or the other in any objective way, although there's some sleight of hand to make us pre-judge the Vorlons as good.

Spoiler: Sheridan eventually...

Show

...simply rejects both of them equally, declaring that humanity (and allies) need to work out their own values.

One could make the argument that it applied to Londo and G'Kar as well. Londo certainly starts off the series believing or at least promoting his people's history as morally justified. He gets jaded as the series progresses but I don't recall him ever saying that he's reversed that position. More along the lines that he didn't realize how high the price would be. And yes, he developed a personal friendship with G'Kar, but that's not really the same thing as changing morality. More like, he came to terms with the idea that not everyone would see things his way and he learned to live with it (well, for as long as he could).

[Darth Credence]

Even with in game effects that specify good and evil, that doesn't mean it has to be objective. It is easy enough to decide that "evil" beings believe that they are right and "good" is wrong. An effect that detects evil is detecting what people colloquially think of as "evil", but that is just baked into the spell.

Let's say that a particular setting makes its divide more along natural world vs civilization. The sapient beings who live in civilization have decided that civilization is the force for "good" and progress, while the natural world is brutal and "evil". So when they create a spell to detect good and evil, they are simply detecting whether something is more natural or more the product of civilization. The Gods of "good" are just Gods that support making cities and growing populations, while the Gods of "evil" are those that would push for a return of all species to simple living off the land. But if everyone who matters - which is likely to be the massive numbers that live in cities and drive the culture of the world - agrees that that is what defines the terms, then that is what would show up as good and evil in a spell. The "evil" Gods might hate this, as they see their viewpoint as how things should be and thus good.

If, somehow, the gods of "evil" wage a long campaign and win, and nomadic societies and hunter gatherers become the primary societies, they may decide to take the mantle of good. Those people who band together in filthy conditions with people living on top of one another are evil, because they spread disease and attempt to break the natural laws. Someone developing a detect good and evil spell will apply that version, and city builders are now evil while druids are paragons of good.

This doesn't mean that a campaign can't have well defined, objective good and evil. If that's how someone wants to play it, great.

[OldTrees1]

That was how it was presented with the Vorlons and Shadows, though, no? Each thought the other's values were immoral and their own were moral. The narrative never comes down on one side or the other in any objective way, although there's some sleight of hand to make us pre-judge the Vorlons as good.

Spoiler: Sheridan eventually...

Show

...simply rejects both of them equally, declaring that humanity (and allies) need to work out their own values.

One could make the argument that it applied to Londo and G'Kar as well. Londo certainly starts off the series believing or at least promoting his people's history as morally justified. He gets jaded as the series progresses but I don't recall him ever saying that he's reversed that position. More along the lines that he didn't realize how high the price would be. And yes, he developed a personal friendship with G'Kar, but that's not really the same thing as changing morality. More like, he came to terms with the idea that not everyone would see things his way and he learned to live with it (well, for as long as he could).

No.
It was presented that different characters had different beliefs about whether those events were immoral.
It was not claimed that those different beliefs determine whether the event was moral or immoral.

This is an important distinction. People can disagree about reality, but is reality dictated by those beliefs? My stove, when on, is hot regardless of my belief that it is cold.

Babylon 5 presents us with the fact that different people can have different perspectives. That is normal.
Subjective Morality (aka Moral Relativism) says "well since people disagree, there is no independant truth".
Objective Morally rebutes with "different people can have different beliefs, but beliefs can be wrong".

In fact I suspect a common reading of the Vorlons vs Shadows is that both were doing immoral actions regardless of their differing beliefs about whether those actions were moral. Their beliefs about the moral character of their actions do not dictate the moral character of their actions. However the show does not explicitly state this either. The show is silent on Objective Morality vs Moral Relativism.

[EggKookoo]

No.
It was presented that different characters had different beliefs about whether those events were immoral.
It was not claimed that those different beliefs determine whether the event was moral or immoral.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference?

If Person A thinks a thing is moral and Person B thinks that thing is immoral, it can't actually be moral or immoral independently of those two people (as representatives of others perhaps).

[OldTrees1]

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference?

If Person A thinks a thing is moral and Person B thinks that thing is immoral, it can't actually be moral or immoral independently of those two people (as representatives of others perhaps).

My stove can be hot independant of your belief about it being on or off. Our beliefs do not dictate that reality.

Why would morality be any different? If I ask the question "Is it morally permissible for me to eat spaghetti in this context?" I expect that question to have an answer that is separate from my beliefs or your beliefs about what that answer is. Notice we have beliefs about that answer, that answer is therefore separate from our beliefs about that answer.

Objective Morality vs Moral Relativism is a debate between beliefs about our beliefs about that answer. Both agree that moral truth is separate from moral beliefs but one side says our beliefs do not control reality and the other side says our beliefs control reality.

In other words if I make a claim about X is moral/immoral, can I be wrong? If I can be wrong then my belief does not dictate reality. If I can't be wrong...

[KillianHawkeye]

This seems like the least useful hill to die on when it comes to a discussion about subjective morality.

What's important in a discussion is the practical application of morality, not whether or not our beliefs affect some abstract level of reality. The real question is not about if believing something is morally right makes it so, but whether or not acting in a way which you believe to be morally right should be acceptable to those who may disagree with you (or society at large).

IRL many people believe it's okay to eat animal meat, but most people agree it's not okay to eat human meat. The relevant questions become whether vegans should accept the practices of meat eaters, and whether society at large should accept the behaviors of the small number of cultures who practice cannibalism? Recognize that the answer may often have to do more with respecting different cultures and/or the freedom of individuals than with an unknowable objective moral truth.

D&D makes things a bit easier by giving us explicit guidelines for objective moral truths that we lack true consensus on IRL. Everyone believes their own morals are truth, but in D&D they actually know what's what.

[EggKookoo]

My stove can be hot independant of your belief about it being on or off. Our beliefs do not dictate that reality.

Why would morality be any different? If I ask the question "Is it morally permissible for me to eat spaghetti in this context?" I expect that question to have an answer that is separate from my beliefs or your beliefs about what that answer is. Notice we have beliefs about that answer, that answer is therefore separate from our beliefs about that answer.

Objective Morality vs Moral Relativism is a debate between beliefs about our beliefs about that answer. Both agree that moral truth is separate from moral beliefs but one side says our beliefs do not control reality and the other side says our beliefs control reality.

In other words if I make a claim about X is moral/immoral, can I be wrong? If I can be wrong then my belief does not dictate reality. If I can't be wrong...

I genuinely get perplexed in conversations like this. Let me see if I'm getting this right.

Case #1: One of us is right about the stove and one of us is wrong (it is either "hot" or "not hot"). If I think it's not hot, I'm objectively wrong. It's possible to know if the stove his hot, which means it's possible for me to know I'm wrong. This sounds like pretty clear-cut objective morality to me, to the degree that we can even know that it's objective morality.

Case #2: Similar to #1, except that neither of us can really know if it's hot or not. It is hot or not hot, objectively, but we don't have access to that information and have to infer it. Still sounds more or less like objective morality, except you and I can't really know it's objective. So it might incorrectly look like subjective morality to us.

Case #3: The heat of the stove has no perceptible relevance to anything. Except that we believe it does. You think the stove is hot, I think it's not. This belief may cause us to perceive the stove differently, but it's still just an effect of perception. We behave as though the stove is hot/not, and that behavior causes certain results which may be seen as confirming that belief. The heat (or lack thereof) of the stove is a strong motivator for each of us, and each of us is certain we're perceiving it correctly, so we think the other is perceiving it incorrectly (otherwise how could this be?). This, as I understand it, is pretty clearly subjective morality. It's how I interpret most of the morality presented in B5.

Case #4: Going out on a limb here because I'm trying to parse what you're saying. In this case, the stove is hot because you believe/perceive it to be so. Your belief causes the heat in the stove. I'm not sure where this leaves me. Is the stove hot because your belief is stronger? Is the stove cold to me because I believe it to be so (mirroring #3)? Does the stove get caught up in a loop of logic and cease to exist?

[LibraryOgre]

In fact I suspect a common reading of the Vorlons vs Shadows is that both were doing immoral actions regardless of their differing beliefs about whether those actions were moral. Their beliefs about the moral character of their actions do not dictate the moral character of their actions. However the show does not explicitly state this either. The show is silent on Objective Morality vs Moral Relativism.

We certainly perceive those actions as immoral, but that's because we have objections to genocide. The Vorlons and the Shadows do not have moral objections to genocide; they view it as a consequence of embracing the "wrong" ethos.

So, while humans (and Minbari) might view those actions as immoral, the Vorlons did not view the destruction of Arcata VII as immoral. If we'd been able to get straight answers out of the Vorlons, they'd no doubt say something along the lines of morality being determined by adherence to one's place in the Universe ("Who are you" being their question), and that the Arcatan's divergence from this, by allying with the Shadows, allied them with evil, as the Vorlons understood it.

Likewise, the Shadows would tell you that morality flowed from pursuit of goals ("What do you want" being their question), and that, by allying with the Vorlons, the people of Zander Prime forfeited their claim to moral behavior.

Both of these are at odds with more human conceptions of morality, which generally revolve around care and protection of sentient beings. Because of the human conception of moral behavior, the destruction of Arcata VII and Zander Prime *were* simultaneously moral (from a Vorlon/Shadow perspective) and immoral (from a human perspective), and remain so, barring a method of measuring their morality which would be the same across species (which might, perhaps, be Lorien), the actions are subjectively moral or immoral. Strangely, the Vorlons and Shadows might view each other's actions as moral... the Shadows being true to what they are, so being moral by Vorlon perspectives, and the Vorlons proceeding in pursuit of their goals, so being moral from Shadow perspectives. Absent some degree of objective measure, however, everyone is left to judge the morality of actions from their own perspective... which may change as they become informed about other ways of looking at things; q.v. Vir Cotto, whose attempts to free Narns from Centauri occupation would certainly be seen as immoral by Cartagia, but whose actions were viewed as moral by human and Minbari observers. Neither the humans nor Minbari, however, were objective... they were simply two related schema for viewing actions, who were observing from the outside.

But, still, we wrap this back to D&D, where Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos, which, arguably, the Vorlons and the Shadows embody) are objectively determined, and acts can be assessed as points on a coordinate grid, once all the factors are considered. Stealing might be a chaotic act; stealing to feed starving people would still be Chaotic, but it would be Chaotic and Good. Stealing the last loaf of bread from a starving family would be Chaotic and Evil, though it might skew slightly more neutral if you were using it to preserve someone else's life. The mean of where these points land is what determines a person's alignment, but it does so in an object manner. You can say "Bob's alignment put him at 2,3 on the alignment coordinate grid, so he's neutral, trending chaotic good." "Tina has a -10, -12 alignment coordinates, which means she is strongly lawful evil."

So, mind flayers are evil. They may not view being evil as particularly wrong, however; there's the old saw that many anti-heroes are simply "pragmatic" as they break someone's arm for a stolen loaf of bread. Their own language might not even consider questions of right and wrong, and certainly not in the way humans do. But, that does not change that they are objectively evil... and we know this because D&D morality is a science, and there's a meter stick one can compare actions to, and plot them on a coordinate grid that looks remarkably like a Great Wheel.