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

[Elbeyon]

It's pretty clear in most versions of D&D alignment that eating meat is not universally judged as Evil, so eating non-sapient animals must be Neutral. Anthrophagy - eating of humans and demihumans - correlates pretty well with being Evil, but not perfectly: for example, lizardmen in AD&D were notorious for eating those fallen in battle, both their own and those of their enemies'. But they were Neutral. There might be other examples that I do not remember right now.

The lizardfolk are still very well known for eating people and being neutral in 3.5e and 5e as well. I think they get a pass because they do it purely for survival and they are dumb as a box of rocks. Seriously, lizardfolk have 7 int (orcs too) and apes have 6 int in 5e.

[Sharur]

Regarding lizardfolk "anthrophagy", there is also the question of the intersection of alignment and culture.

For example, during the conflict between the British and the Zulus, the former held that "proper treatment of the dead" included burying the dead along with the majority of their possessions, while the latter held (IIRC) that one should slit the belly of the deceased, and take and display "trophies" of garments, etc., from the slain.

Now a satisfying answer that I have found to this is that what matters is the "function" of what you are trying to do, rather than the "implementation". E.g. in our above example, both groups are trying to "honor the dead", but guided by their cultures, do so in opposing ways; also compare mummification vs cremation.

Although, in a D&D world, one must consider as a consideration "keeping the dead down", as well. Something like the lizardfolk eating the dead would prevent the creation of zombies (and if they broke if not ate the bones while eating, this might prevent the raising of skeletons as well).

[Luccan]

The lizardfolk are still very well known for eating people and being neutral in 3.5e and 5e as well. I think they get a pass because they do it purely for survival and they are dumb as a box of rocks. Seriously, lizardfolk have 7 int (orcs too) and apes have 6 int in 5e.

5e, at least, seems to have dropped the "Intelligence is a real-world intelligence measurement" thing. However, I would say that the fact they don't specifically and purposefully hunt sapient prey is probably connected to their neutrality. Also, a severe lack of slavery, humanoid experimentation, and torture.

We can make comparisons to human treatment of animals, but for one thing there's no evidence the cognitive gap is anywhere near as large and for another most humans don't torture animals. Meanwhile Mind-Flayers are basically all about treating "lesser" creatures as poorly as possible.

[Vahnavoi]

The lizardfolk are still very well known for eating people and being neutral in 3.5e and 5e as well. I think they get a pass because they do it purely for survival and they are dumb as a box of rocks. Seriously, lizardfolk have 7 int (orcs too) and apes have 6 int in 5e.

Probably. In AD&D, it was described as an instinctive impulse that they have to actively resist - they were more likely to fall into that sort of behavior when demoralized and panicked.

This implies that eating people because you are or feel hungry, or because you're scared out of your wits, is Neutral. The corollary to that would be that in order for anthrophagy to be Evil, it has to be a reasoned, malicious decision. This falls in line with what OldTrees1 said: Illithids aren't Evil because they have to eat people; they're Evil because they choose to eat people because, I dunno, existential terror makes brains more delicious.

[Keltest]

Probably. In AD&D, it was described as an instinctive impulse that they have to actively resist - they were more likely to fall into that sort of behavior when demoralized and panicked.

This implies that eating people because you are or feel hungry, or because you're scared out of your wits, is Neutral. The corollary to that would be that in order for anthrophagy to be Evil, it has to be a reasoned, malicious decision. This falls in line with what OldTrees1 said: Illithids aren't Evil because they have to eat people; they're Evil because they choose to eat people because, I dunno, existential terror makes brains more delicious.

That's actually canon in, at least, the forgotten Realms. Illithids like the taste of fear and helplessness. Lizardfolk meanwhile eat what they have because they live in a hostile environment where food is unreliable at best. If it shows up, you dont waste it.

[Duff]

I think most of us use objective alignment in actual D&D play. The Giant clearly does - See Miko's fall, she thought she was doing good but was wrong, hence loss of Paladin privileges.

You could use subjective alignment, but it would have a very different feel. The paladin murdering all the halflings because she was convinced they were evil will still be a good paladin. The mage summoning demons "for the greater good" still pings as good. Maybe the demons themselves ping as good because they are doing what they are supposed to.

The existence of objective evil makes it much easier to play the sort of heroic game that is traditional in D&D

[Quertus]

Are Illithids evil?

"Yes, we know you lesser species like to think yourselves 'sentient', and, to some extent, that is true. Your minds are certainly more developed than those of apes or rothe. We alone are in a position to judge such things, as only we Illithids possess the capacity to consume and experience the minds of others. Both you and the rothe are sentient, self aware, capable of experiencing delicious fear. We have master artists, capable of performance eating, who can share these experiences with the rest of the colony, so we all know first hand the truth of this. Similarly, we are uniquely positioned to tell you that you are so far beneath us that our consumption of you must inherently be more ethical than your consumption of your food animals.

'But wait,' you say, 'could not Illithids live off the brains of rothe, or utilize Rings of Sustinance?' An excellent question - or several excellent questions, really. Allow me to answer your questions with questions of my own. Could you not live off the gruel created by Create Food and Water, or survive as vegetarians? How, then, do you justify your slaughter and consumption of sentient beings capable of thoughts and emotions to continue your own existence?

No, you lack the faculties to be true moral agents, lack the perspective to understand the truth of the universe as we do. We technically could survive off such bland sustenance, but we could not truly live. Just as your artists require inspiration, so, too, do our great minds demand the ongoing influx of external experiences - the more rich the experiences, the better.

You claim that we do 'evil' acts, like 'enslave' or 'murder'. Tell me, do you enslave your work horses? Do you murder your veal cattle?

The gods have set the rules of the universe to call our actions 'evil'. It is no surprise that they have done so - many of them are no smarter than you lot. Of course they would want to continue the lie that their feeble brains are worth designating as 'sentient'.

Fear not. Some day, we will succeed in blotting out the accursed day star, wiping out the bulk of you lesser life forms. This will result in the old gods losing their power, and, with our rise to prominence, Ilsensine will reset the universe to true morality, where you lesser beings are counted as the mere tools you are."

How's that for an answer from their PoV?

I did not miss that part. I ignored it because it is not required. I was focusing on the inherent condition of the illithid.
1) Need to consume brain matter.
2) Do not need to experience ceremorphosis in their lifecycle.
3) Arguably not moral agents at the time of the ceremorphosis.
4) Lions, tigers, and bears are not moral agents.

So before we can get to the question of "is eating still living rothe immoral?" we first would have to address "is killing rothe immoral?". I don't expect that question to be addressed, let alone solved, today. However, the possibility of continued existence being morally questionable is one of the reasons I find illithids interesting. Since that is a rare situation, I thought it worth mentioning.

Illithids do not need to experience ceremorphosis?

[OldTrees1]

How's that for an answer from their PoV?

That is a lovely response from their PoV.

Illithids do not need to experience ceremorphosis?

Indeed, although this is a taboo topic for the Illithids. The post ceremorphosis adult form is but 1 of 2 adult forms of the Illithid. The other form is the Neothelid. However these are rare because the post ceremorphosis adult form strongly promotes more ceremorphosis and the Elder Brain loves eating the Illithid larva. So a would be Neothelid has to survive an entire Illithid society, which usually requires that society to have collapsed.

[WitchyKitty]

Are Illithids evil?

<polite snip>

If that's a quote of an actual mindflayer from somewhere, that actually does give some perspective. To me at least, it sounds like they're...
Not evil? But not good either. More that they are such an... alien intelligence on their own, that their non-understandable machinations are such that our only accurate way to describe them as evil from our moral perspective as 'lesser beings'.

[hamishspence]

That is a lovely response from their PoV.

Yup - and textbook "evil creature's rationalisation of its own actions". The dimmest gods statted in Deities & Demigods and Faiths & Pantheons are all Int 24 or higher - definitely in "mind-flayer Intelligence territory".

So their sneering at the gods as "mostly no smarter than you lot" is illithid arrogance, rather than an accurate perspective.

[Talakeal]

Yup - and textbook "evil creature's rationalisation of its own actions". The dimmest gods statted in Deities & Demigods and Faiths & Pantheons are all Int 24 or higher - definitely in "mind-flayer Intelligence territory".

So their sneering at the gods as "mostly no smarter than you lot" is illithid arrogance, rather than an accurate perspective.

Also unnecessary, as the gods aren’t the ones who decide what is good or not in D&D.

[Vahnavoi]

By D&D rules, that's textbook example of Lawful Evil: we the better people can do whatever we want to you inferior people, because it lets us reach our ends. There is nothing alien about it - it's fundamentally how many humans approach animals, or even other groups of humans. Don't let the details obfuscate that.

[Jason]

Also unnecessary, as the gods aren’t the ones who decide what is good or not in D&D.

More accurately, there is one god who decides what is good and what is evil in D&D, and he sits on the other side of the DM's screen from the players.
His decisions are sometimes open to appeals.

[Enixon]

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.

I always found it interesting how the Succubus Paladin from that one 3.5 module would actualy register on all four of Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Law, and Detect Chaos becasue of that fact. Both their actual alignment and the one they're "made of" count for their subtypes so she was labeled as having [Good] [Law] [Evil] AND [Chaos]. I think she also needed to wear specially enchanted gauntlets to hold her own Holy Sword without getting burnt by it too, but I might be misremembering it. It's a shame she's barely in her own module, it was made becasue "Succubus Paladin" won a "weird monster" poll but she's essentially just something in between a Mcguffin and a damsel in distress.

[RedMage125]

I always found it interesting how the Succubus Paladin from that one 3.5 module would actualy register on all four of Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Law, and Detect Chaos becasue of that fact. Both their actual alignment and the one they're "made of" count for their subtypes so she was labeled as having [Good] [Law] [Evil] AND [Chaos]. I think she also needed to wear specially enchanted gauntlets to hold her own Holy Sword without getting burnt by it too, but I might be misremembering it. It's a shame she's barely in her own module, it was made becasue "Succubus Paladin" won a "weird monster" poll but she's essentially just something in between a Mcguffin and a damsel in distress.

The worst part is, since she;s an outsider with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, if and when she dies, her energies will return to the Abyss and make a whole new succubus, who will likely be Chaotic Evil.

Unless she undergoes the rituals in Savage Species to remove her subtypes, and perhaps gain the Good and Lawful subtypes. Then she would no longer register on Detect Evil/Chaos, no longer take damage from Holy Word/Dictum and so on.

[KillianHawkeye]

I always found it interesting how the Succubus Paladin from that one 3.5 module would actualy register on all four of Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Law, and Detect Chaos becasue of that fact. Both their actual alignment and the one they're "made of" count for their subtypes so she was labeled as having [Good] [Law] [Evil] AND [Chaos]. I think she also needed to wear specially enchanted gauntlets to hold her own Holy Sword without getting burnt by it too, but I might be misremembering it. It's a shame she's barely in her own module, it was made becasue "Succubus Paladin" won a "weird monster" poll but she's essentially just something in between a Mcguffin and a damsel in distress.

I believe she was taking the negative levels for wielding a holy weapon, but she wouldn't take any damage from it.

[JusticeZero]

My approach to alignment is that it is objective, not subjective, and also rigid—even if it makes no sense. Usually it makes sense. When it doesn't, it's some Cold Equations stuff.

[Kaerou]

I believe Mindflayers are a pretty good attempt at making the most completely, inherently evil race imaginable.

Even better, I believe in one of the 3rd editon splatbooks it as established that they dont even need to eat humanoids brains to survive: they do it purely because they *taste good*. They could eat animals brain or even sustain themselves on normal food and learn a simple psionic trick to absorb latent psionic energy that occurs naturally around sentient life.

They *choose* to commit this evil act. They dont even need to. All the suffering and death is purely for their equivalent of adding sugar to their coffee. Its excellently villainous.

[OldTrees1]

Even better, I believe in one of the 3rd editon splatbooks it as established that they dont even need to eat humanoids brains to survive: they do it purely because they *taste good*. They could eat animals brain or even sustain themselves on normal food and learn a simple psionic trick to absorb latent psionic energy that occurs naturally around sentient life.

They *choose* to commit this evil act. They dont even need to. All the suffering and death is purely for their equivalent of adding sugar to their coffee. Its excellently villainous.

Yes, that was confirmed in a few places in 3E and in literature including illithids. They farm the livestock rothe to have extra brains and to feed their mind controlled slaves.

This is also one reason I think they are not inherently evil. They choose this evil action, which means they are evil by choice rather than by some intrinsic quality inherent in their nature.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I will say in rime of the frostmaiden in 5e, there are gnome illithids who can be of any alignment this is because gnome brains are weird. This distinction however, implies that other illithids don't have a choice..

[OldTrees1]

I will say in rime of the frostmaiden in 5e, there are gnome illithids who can be of any alignment this is because gnome brains are weird. This distinction however, implies that other illithids don't have a choice..

Thanks for mentioning this. Upon further research:
The gnome ceremorphs retain partial memory / personality of the gnome. Other Illithids still have a choice, but the gone ceremorphs are likely to inherit the gnome's cultural norms, and it is well known that gnomes are squeamish about eating the brains of other people.

[hamishspence]

Yes, that was confirmed in a few places in 3E and in literature including illithids.

There's an element of "they do need brains in general, and free brains in particular rather than thrall brains" in Lords of Madness.

"The process of ceremorphosis creates something closer to parasite than brain. That parasite becomes an indispensable part of the body. Its great weakness is that it does not produce the critical enzymes, hormones, or psychic energy that the body needs to survive and function. Those components must come from consumed brains."

"Illithids are known for consuming brains, but they eat other foods as well, most of which contain various amounts of these needed enzymes and hormones. Internal organs are good sources, and they rank high on illithid menus. Brains are ripe with all three and are the only source of psychic energy."

"A mind flayer must have a minimum of one fresh brain per month. Any less than that and it suffers physical debilitation, becoming so weak that it could die."

And it suggests that thrall brains are insufficiently nourishing, rather than just "not tasty".

"A thrall has few true experiences to remember, and even fewer emotions, which are the "meat and potatoes" of a nourishing, fulfilling mind".

They could eat animals brain or even sustain themselves on normal food and learn a simple psionic trick to absorb latent psionic energy that occurs naturally around sentient life.

I don't remember anything about this "simple trick" in Lords of Madness.

[RedMage125]

Even better, I believe in one of the 3rd editon splatbooks it as established that they dont even need to eat humanoids brains to survive: they do it purely because they *taste good*. They could eat animals brain or even sustain themselves on normal food and learn a simple psionic trick to absorb latent psionic energy that occurs naturally around sentient life.

They *choose* to commit this evil act. They dont even need to. All the suffering and death is purely for their equivalent of adding sugar to their coffee. Its excellently villainous.

A bunch of back and forth on this, but I said it WAY back on page 1 (post #13):

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.

[NigelWalmsley]

The inherent morality of mind flayers (much like that of ghouls or vampires or anything else that "eats people") depends on two questions (three in the general case, but Mind Flayers pretty clearly can't feed non-lethally). First: do they need to eat people? Second: do they need to eat living people? If they don't need to eat people, them choosing to do so is immoral, but there's nothing in principle stopping them from opting to live off of sheep brains. If they don't need to eat living people, and can get their brains from people who've died of natural causes, they're effectively afflicted with a chronic medical condition that requires frequent (and gross) organ transplants. There is the potential for perverse incentives, but it's not quite as strong as you might think, since in the long run the number of brains per person is 1, regardless of whether you let them die of natural causes or kill them for their delicious grey matter. But if mind flayers need living human (or elf or orc) brains, that's pretty much a non-starter in terms of compatibility with humanoid society.

[Quertus]

if mind flayers need living human (or elf or orc) brains, that's pretty much a non-starter in terms of compatibility with humanoid society.

Could they live off communally eating the brain of a single Illithid Savant who had eaten a Tarrasque brain for regeneration?

[SandyAndy]

So, I know I'm late to the party here and I'm not trying to be mean but does anyone actually use alignment anymore? Most games that I've played in acknowledged that morality is largely subjective. Is it really good to uphold the laws of a bad king? How does a lawful character handle it when the laws of the land differ from the laws of their faith? Its really much more effective to decide what ideals a character subscribes to and let that determine how they do things. The alignment chart was always super restrictive and less useful than it was intended.

[OldTrees1]

So, I know I'm late to the party here and I'm not trying to be mean but does anyone actually use alignment anymore? Most games that I've played in acknowledged that morality is largely subjective.

Yes, I use alignment because, in my campaigns, Morality is objective and Alignment is descriptive.

Morality is complex and nuanced, but I do not believe it is subjective*, so my campaigns use objective morality.

*Beliefs about morality are subjective, but morality is probably objective if it exists. Theories of subjective morality run into contradictions.

If you are already using an objective morality, then you are already using half of a descriptive alignment system.

Is it really good to uphold the laws of a bad king? How does a lawful character handle it when the laws of the land differ from the laws of their faith? It's really much more effective to decide what ideals a character subscribes to and let that determine how they do things. The alignment chart was always super restrictive and less useful than it was intended.

Have you considered using a descriptive alignment system instead of a prescriptive alignment system? Consider "Jane Doe does all these things, therefore they are good" instead of "Jane Doe is good, therefore they do all these things". If you accept alignment is descriptive instead of prescriptive, then the alignment chart is not "super restrictive".

[JusticeZero]

I consider Alignment to be objective, and Morality to be a subjective, slippery mess. Things that affect alignment are mostly good for tagging necromancers, healers, and the like, when not being used against outsiders who are made of alignment. Characters have an alignment, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how they behave morally.
This is an active design decision on my part. I don't like spells reliably telling people how characters will behave, and I've been in positions as a human being where I was declared 'Evil' for doing morally neutral or positive actions far too often already.

[NigelWalmsley]

Could they live off communally eating the brain of a single Illithid Savant who had eaten a Tarrasque brain for regeneration?

Possibly. You might also be able to get away with popping of True Resurrections on people after eating them. Advanced healing magic has strange effects on moral decision-making.

[Jason]

The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment.

Alignment has always been intended as descriptive for player characters. That is, if they have a Lawful Good alignment it is because they do mostly Lawful Good things. If they do mostly Chatic Evil things then they are Chaotic Evil.

Is alignment subjective? After a basic statement of the ethos of each alignment, the DMG has this to say:

Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasonings are completely subjective according to the acculturation of the individual. You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil.

In other words, yes what any given character thinks of alignment and what actions should fall into what alignment is subjective and at least in part a result of their cultural views, but the DM determines what alignment their actions actually are categorized as, and therefore the objective alignment of the character.

It is of importance to keep track of player character behavior with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions, and each activity of a player character should reflect his or her alignment. If a professed lawful evil character is consistently seeking to be helpful and is respecting the lesser creatures, he or she is certainly tending towards good, while if he or she ignores regulations and consistent behavior the trend is towards chaotic alignment (see PLAYERS HANDBOOK, APPENDIX III, CHARACTER ALIGNMENT GRAPH). Such drift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment (see CHANGING ALIGNMENT). It is quite possible for a character to drift around in an alignment area, making only small shifts due to behavior. However, any major action which is out of alignment character will cause a major shift to the alignment which is directly in line with the action, i.e., if a lawful evil character defies the law in order to aid the cause (express or implied) of chaotic good, he or she will be either lawful neutral or chaotic neutral, depending on the factors involved in the action.

The DMG goes on to say that tracking PC alignment is especially important for clerics and paladins, and that good-aligned characters shouldn't be allowed to "look the other way" while their less savory party members do evil stuff.

You could argue that alignment is still actually subjective because it's the DM's perspective and culture that ultimately determines a character's alignment, but the DM's rulings are the closest any RPG ever gets to objective reality anyway.