Wild Mass Guessing on Saving The World

[KorvinStarmast]

For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I heavily disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature. It can be valuable in its own right without needing to apply to anything in the real world.

Indeed. RB's observation there is quite self serving.

[WanderingMist]

So do I, but if we're discussing a work of fiction written by the Giant, then his opinion on it is pretty damned relevant. :smallwink:

A great (=P) man once said:
"I am the author! You are the audience! I outrank you!" -Franz Liebkind

Spoiler

Show

I subscribe pretty firmly to "death of the author".

[Peelee]

A great (=P) man once said:
"I am the author! You are the audience! I outrank you!" -Franz Liebkind

Spoiler

Show

I subscribe pretty firmly to "death of the author".

Regardless of one's thoughts on death of the author, if an author explicitly says he is writing a message into his story, and even says wnat that message is, and how he wishes to reinforce that message as best he can with the story, that assuming the ending of the story will undo the message he is trying to convey is probably not a bet with good odds.

[The ShadowVerse]

For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I heavily disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature. It can be valuable in its own right without needing to apply to anything in the real world. So often people look down on escapism as something cowardly.

Or fantasy games. I enjoy the storyline and appreciate the parable about real world people, but it doesn't make for a fun gaming experience. For example, from now on is it a bad thing for the OotS party to kill random no-name goblins, now it's been established they are fighting for recognition and equality? I play ttrpgs to turn off my brain and encounter problems that can be solved with violence, and read fantasy novels to indulge my sense of wonderment and power fantasies.

Regardless of one's thoughts on death of the author, if an author explicitly says he is writing a message into his story, and even says wnat that message is, and how he wishes to reinforce that message as best he can with the story, that assuming the ending of the story will undo the message he is trying to convey is probably not a bet with good odds.

That said, Peelee speaks wisdom, and this work of literature is likely going to have an ending more befitting of Aesop than Graham McNeill. Though I would be entertained to see the clown pantheon returning, I would only take odds for it being in service of comic relief.

[Beni-Kujaku]

That said, Peelee speaks wisdom, and this work of literature is likely going to have an ending more befitting of Aesop than Graham McNeill. Though I would be entertained to see the clown pantheon returning, I would only take odds for it being in service of comic relief.

I could see one of the last panels, during the happy ending, showing Elan preaching to thousands of people in front of giant carnival puppets of Banjo and Giggles. And as he finishes his sermon, the frame zooms in on Banjo, and for one single panel, a teal spark crackles around the puppet. Then we cut to Belkar's grave, mourned by his best friend Redcloak for bringing him what he lacked all along: the spirit of sacrifice and the courage to put himself in front of redeemed Xykon to protect him from the MitD hypnotized by the water in the rifts reflecting Aphrodite's power after she was eaten (but not destroyed) by the Snarl.

What? The thread is named "Mass Guessing" wasn't it? I can mass guess very effectively, if not accurately.

[Metastachydium]

Then we cut to Belkar's grave, mourned by his best friend Redcloak

Surely, you meant her uncle there?

[littlebum2002]

To slightly add more to the point above - to assume that this would resolve without the Dark One's help is to miss the entire point of this story.

If we skip over the first book that was mostly rule jokes, everything since then had a clear and cut motif about how monsters are also "people" in a sense and the whole part about how we never think of them as beings who have lives or feelings is a terrible one.

You don't have to skip over the first book to find that motif.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

: Sure. Why did you think we were down here?
: Well I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures just 'cause they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.

[Metastachydium]

You don't have to skip over the first book to find that motif.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

: Sure. Why did you think we were down here?
: Well I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures just 'cause they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.

DCF… Is still DCF at the end of the day, nonetheless. Let's not forget Durkon killing a goblin with the power of his hatred!

[littlebum2002]

DCF… Is still DCF at the end of the day, nonetheless. Let's not forget Durkon killing a goblin with the power of his hatred!

They did that same joke much later, in DStP. The only difference was that the cleric took longer to do to the math than Durkon did.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0486.html

[Snails]

I know it was a joke, but methinks the Death of the Author perspective might not apply when the topic on hand is what the living author is going to write for the ending of the tale in the near future.

I narrowly agree the Giant, insofar as it is too common in the fantasy gaming genre to be sloppy and callous about whether these monsters are moral beings. He is right to bring this up and offer his perspective.

That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it. Odysseus, Beowulf, Roland, Arthur, Robin Hood, LotR, Star Wars, etc. are certainly not inherently poor choices to try to emulate in this respect.

[Fyraltari]

That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it. Odysseus, Beowulf, Roland, Arthur, Robin Hood, LotR, Star Wars, etc. are certainly not inherently poor choices to try to emulate in this respect.

This is a very confusing list of examples, I gotta say.

[Jasdoif]

That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it.

That's what the Giant said, too.

When it comes to creatures that are magical, that come from other planes of existence, that are living embodiments of concepts, or are descendants of gods, I do not see the point in forbidding others in taking the creative license to give such creatures highly negative or positive traits as a category (with various levels of how common those traits are).

I generally have a much more lenient position on explicitly magical beings like demons. Even though I still choose to treat them with human feelings and drives, I am less critical of works that don't. Simply because, as you say, there could be some utility in that, at least theoretically.

[Snails]

This is a very confusing list of examples, I gotta say.

I thought about clarifying, but perhaps being a confusing mess makes the point better.

That's what the Giant said, too.

Yes and no. I would include "orcs as used by Tolkien" as effectively demons. My belief is that the Giant and I may not be on the same page there (though I do not claim certainty about the details of Rich's thoughts).

My understanding is Tolkien himself was not entirely comfortable with own treatment of orcs. Not that he necessarily regretted how he employed them in LotR, but that these corrupted once-elves being (apparently) far beyond the reach of redemption fit inelegantly within the larger moral framework Tolkien imagined for his world.

[Fyraltari]

I thought about clarifying, but perhaps being a confusing mess makes the point better.

I really doubt "several of the examples of my point are actually not examples of it" make the point.

My understanding is Tolkien himself was not entirely comfortable with own treatment of orcs. Not that he necessarily regretted how he employed them in LotR, but that these corrupted once-elves being (apparently) far beyond the reach of redemption fit inelegantly within the larger moral framework Tolkien imagined for his world.

His own moral framework, rather. The orcs' origin wasn't the issue, the notion of a people being born doomed to Evil was.

As to the Giant's own views on "demons", as you put it:

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

[littlebum2002]

As to the Giant's own views on "demons", as you put it:

This is a really interesting quote, I have never read it before. As passionate as he is about this issue, it makes me wonder if it will come into play in the story. Well, other than the good teenage orcs from DCF. I'm thinking maybe Qarr or one of the IFCC makes a face turn at the end of the story.

[Tzardok]

I do not think that quote is talking about demons. It says "creatures with only cosmetic differences". Demons aren't that. Demons are, even in the context of OOTS, embodiments of Evil.

[Fyraltari]

I do not think that quote is talking about demons. It says "creatures with only cosmetic differences". Demons aren't that. Demons are, even in the context of OOTS, embodiments of Evil.

Yes, which is what Snails, the person I was replying to, means by "demons".

[Metastachydium]

His own moral framework, rather. The orcs' origin wasn't the issue, the notion of a people being born doomed to Evil was.

Yes, which is what Snails, the person I was replying to, means by "demons".

Agreed. Still, what do you think of Balrogs? Balrogs kind of are demons, and they became irredeemably Evil by way of exercising their free will, khm, poorly.

[Fyraltari]

Agreed. Still, what do you think of Balrogs? Balrogs kind of are demons, and they became irredeemably Evil by way of exercising their free will, khm, poorly.

Balrogs (and Sauron and Morgoth) are literally demons, being fallen angelic beings. I don't really see how they matter to this discussion since, like you said, they chose the side of evil by themselves rather than being born into it.

The orcs are much more relevant to this discussion and, yeah, it's not great.

[RobertaME]

Ever since Peelee quoted that thread from back in 2012 that I'd never read, I spent days reading over the whole thing and all the threads linked from it. Very interesting reading.

I love OotS. It's not just funny jokes about D&D and gaming in general, (which as an "old-timer" in the TTRPG crowd I really appreciate) it's a well-constructed plot with drama, straight (non-gaming) humor, angst, joy, sorrow, and no little amount of thought-provoking commentary on gaming (and life) in general. I've been enjoying it for years and expect to continue until Mr. Burlew retires the strip.

However... (yes, I know... big praise followed by a caveat... predictable? Absolutely... but it works)

I have to take issue with his contention that assigning Alignments to monsters constitutes tacit racism, either on the part of the game designers or players that play it straight. It can only be seen that way if you see any creature with an INT score greater than 2 as equally capable of self-determination between right and wrong or between lawfulness and chaos. It's all too easy to see any mind capable of self-awareness as equally capable of making the same decisions as our own perspective... however it's actually the height of ego to assume that.

Spoiler: Extra rambling, not necessary to my point

Show

Humans in D&D have no "preassigned alignment propensity"... but in effect that just makes their default Alignment Neutral since the assumed average of all humans would be right about in the middle. So by assigning no alignment to humans, the game designers effectively did so anyway. In effect this gives a baseline against which to compare all other creatures in the system.

Let's examine this line of thought. If humans are effectively considered Neutral then all other measures of all other creatures are simply relative to human standards. From a meta point of view this alo works: the game designers created the Alignment system to place creatures in to determine their moral guideposts... but the extremes are those measured by the designers themselves who are all human. Therefore the entire scale is, and can only ever be, scaled relative to human standards.

Lets now examine the case subject of Goblins being "Usually Neutral Evil" in this light. That wording suggests that the "center point" of goblin morally is where humans would consider to be Neutral Evil. Since only humans play the game, this is the only measure that matters. Yes, this implies that goblins are inherently more evil compared to humans... but that's only an issue if you consider goblins to be "humans with green skin and tusks", which I consider to be a non-starter for an argument. The very fact that their moral center is "Usually Neutral Evil" tells me that they in fact are NOT like humans in their culture, instincts, thoughts, etc. If they were, they wouldn't be Usually Neutral Evil to begin with. In essence, the various species of monsters in D&D are no different than aliens with the only difference being the lack of technology. (the old "interbreeding" argument saying that they must be close to humans in order for there to be half-orcs or half-elves is just silly... fictional creatures don't have DNA... they have plot... they don't have to obey ANY physical laws of our universe, even if they obey MOST of them)

Why are humans able to be anywhere on the Alignment spectrum? Because of our culture? Hardly. Some cultures throughout history have not only been objectively Lawful Evil, some could be considered Chaotic Evil... while others could be considered Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, etc. So while culture may influence our Alignment, it doesn't restrict it. Our instincts drive our behavior, even to the current day. We may call them "feelings", but they're just how our conscious minds interpret our instincts. Over time we develop moral guides based on how we are taught... but even someone born into a very egalitarian society with excellent education, strong moral upbringing, and all the advantages of living in a 1st World nation can be a psychopath... and someone from a brutal regime with no education, raised on the streets, and living in squalor can be a saint.

Spoiler: Rambling example of a Neutral Evil species

Show

Let's assume we meet an alien race of felidae descended from Pantherinae the same way we descended from Hominidae. They're intelligent enough to achieve space flight (which is how we meet them) and develop a (mostly) unified society, but they see all non-felidae species to be "prey" animals. Why? Because that's their instinct. Despite millions of years of evolution, they're still essentially slaves to emotion... their instincts. Instinct can be overcome, but only through training. (i.e. education in more advanced creatures) But you first have to know that it should be overcome to even try.

On meeting these technologically superior aliens, they don't even consider our "monkey gibbering" to be a "true language" and all our technology to be no more than simple tools, quickly conquer us, and start rounding up people into corrals for food processing. Would we as humans not consider them "Evil" for their inability to see another sapient species as worthy of more than just being a food source? Within their own society strength and cunning are equally as important as obedience to what's best for the species, so they have only a very loose set of "laws" that govern them. Now what if a few of them, their scientists, start making inroads into understanding our language and seeing that we are in fact "intelligent" and even go so far as to try and stop the wholesale slaughter of humans for food. Would we not consider those exceptions of their species to be "Good"?

Could we not then, in d20 terms, classify that entire species as "Usually Neutral Evil"? It's not simply their culture that makes them so, it's their instinctual outlook on overall morality as compared to human standards that makes them so. Even if you took a few of them in isolation and left them to their own devices they would still end up with the same general attitude... not because of opportunity or environment, but simply because they inherently see all other animals as prey... baked right into their DNA through millions of years of evolution.

Boiling all this down, why must one assume that all sapient species are equally capable of choosing Good or Evil (or Law vs Chaos) as humans? Cannot some species be driven by their instincts to be naturally more Good than the human norm? Say... a form of herbivoric Hominidae with pointed ears and smaller stature that, as a species, have less of a propensity toward violence and also less of a desire to enforce codified laws on everyone? Could not that species be classified as "Usually Chaotic Good"... not based on their culture... but on who they are as a species?

This really boils down to an argument of "Nature vs. Nurture", but in fiction there's no reason to apply human standards of that age-old argument to what are essentially alien species that are not human. Can't the human condition be explored equally as well through such a species description as by assuming they're just "vegetarian humans with pointy ears"? Is there anything inherently racist about such a setting? This is where I have to disagree with Mr. Burlew. Yes, he can feel free to craft his world however he sees fit... and in Stickworld goblins are just "green people with tusks"... and that's perfectly fine. My disagreement is his assertion that failing to see them this way is somehow "latent racism". It strikes far too close to the "moral panic" of D&D in the 80s, but in the opposite direction. It's the same argument that says video games make kids violent. (which is not as cut and dry as some would say based on this study www sciencedaily com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.htm sorry... can't post the actual link since I don't have enough posts here yet)

My major concern though is that, in an effort to use his art to do good in highlighting sociological issues in the real world, Mr. Burlew may inadvertently damage the reputation of TTRPGs in general (and D&D in particular) by implying that they're inherently racist... even if that's not his intention. (which I'm pretty sure it isn't) The law of unintended consequences cannot be ignored here since OotS is one of the most well-known web-comics of our shared hobby. It would be a travesty for his effort to harm the very game that spawned it.

Anyway... back to my point from ten days ago...

I cannot find a way to reconcile the "puppets will save the world" proposed ending with his stated purpose behind writing the story.

I don't seriously think so, either... which is why I said, "I'm still not (totally) convinced that it won't end that way." I'm mostly convinced it won't end that way, but this comic has also taught me never to assume anything is totally off the table! :^)

I do think that, at some point, the Clown Pantheon may have some role yet to play in how it all plays out, even if they aren't part of "the big finish" itself. It just seems like so much work to build it all up and then do nothing with it. OotS has throughout its run focused on narrative as an intrinsic part of the universe. Tarquin even says (comic 821) that Bards "with their mastery of narrative structure" should be the most powerful people in existence. Narrative is everything in Stickworld. It can essentially bend reality more powerfully than magic. It can make the impossible not only likely, but inevitable. Why would Banjo even still be a thing after nearly 20 years of comics if it wasn't relevant? The very laws of narrative structure all but demand that they have some part to play that has yet to be revealed. Just what that is we will have to wait and see... but I can't see it all going nowhere after all that's gone into it. (of course, I can be wrong... it's Mr. Burlew's comic after all... not mine... he's free to let things just drop if he feels like it and it's still going to be awesome!)

YMMV. :^)

PS: I guess nobody thought much of my own Wild Guessing... so it really can't be considered "Wild Mass Guessing" I guess. (since a guess of one can't hardly be considered "mass" anything) ::sigh:: Oh well. I gave it a shot!

[Metastachydium]

Balrogs (and Sauron and Morgoth) are literally demons, being fallen angelic beings. I don't really see how they matter to this discussion since, like you said, they chose the side of evil by themselves rather than being born into it.

I know. I just like splitting hairs too much not to point out that LotR does belong to Snails list insofar as it contains a class of creatures that are irredeemably Evil and impossible to negotiate with, just not in the way Snails reasoned that it does.

The orcs are much more relevant to this discussion and, yeah, it's not great.

Hence the bit with "agreed".

I have to take issue with his contention that assigning Alignments to monsters constitutes tacit racism, either on the part of the game designers or players that play it straight. It can only be seen that way if you see any creature with an INT score greater than 2 as equally capable of self-determination between right and wrong or between lawfulness and chaos. It's all too easy to see any mind capable of self-awareness as equally capable of making the same decisions as our own perspective... however it's actually the height of ego to assume that.

It's the height of ego to assume that human sense of morality is not somehow superior?

Lets now examine the case subject of Goblins being "Usually Neutral Evil" in this light. That wording suggests that the "center point" of goblin morally is where humans would consider to be Neutral Evil. Since only humans play the game, this is the only measure that matters. Yes, this implies that goblins are inherently more evil compared to humans... but that's only an issue if you consider goblins to be "humans with green skin and tusks", which I consider to be a non-starter for an argument. The very fact that their moral center is "Usually Neutral Evil" tells me that they in fact are NOT like humans in their culture, instincts, thoughts, etc. If they were, they wouldn't be Usually Neutral Evil to begin with.

The idea of species-wide monocultures is stupid, and the argument that "the goblins are labeled as Neutral Evil because they are Neutral Evil, nothing to look at here" might not be as strong an argument as you'd seem to have it.

Why are humans able to be anywhere on the Alignment spectrum? Because of our culture? Hardly. Some cultures throughout history have not only been objectively Lawful Evil, some could be considered Chaotic Evil... while others could be considered Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, etc.

Um, what?

Let's assume we meet an alien race of felidae descended from Pantherinae the same way we descended from Hominidae.

(They either descend from an Earth-exclusive clade or they are spacefaring aliens from elsewhere. Just saying.)

They're intelligent enough to achieve space flight (which is how we meet them) and develop a (mostly) unified society,

Not having a global species-wide monoculture is not a sign of impaired intelligence.

but they see all non-felidae species to be "prey" animals. Why? Because that's their instinct. Despite millions of years of evolution, they're still essentially slaves to emotion... their instincts. Instinct can be overcome, but only through training. (i.e. education in more advanced creatures) But you first have to know that it should be overcome to even try.

Debatable.

On meeting these technologically superior aliens, they don't even consider our "monkey gibbering" to be a "true language" and all our technology to be no more than simple tools, quickly conquer us, and start rounding up people into corrals for food processing. Would we as humans not consider them "Evil" for their inability to see another sapient species as worthy of more than just being a food source? Within their own society strength and cunning are equally as important as obedience to what's best for the species, so they have only a very loose set of "laws" that govern them. Now what if a few of them, their scientists, start making inroads into understanding our language and seeing that we are in fact "intelligent" and even go so far as to try and stop the wholesale slaughter of humans for food. Would we not consider those exceptions of their species to be "Good"?

This whole thought experiment is beside the point, since you are making it clear that your aliens don't recognize humans as sapient beings due to technological superiority and an inability to communicate. Insofar as that is the case, they are no more or no less Evil than you'd be if you started eating wasps or ants from your garden.

Fantasy humans and fantasy "born Evil" non-humans don't normally display a comparable gap in technological advancement and they are mutually aware of each other's sapience. This is true for all D&D settings that I know of as well, making your argument fall flat.

Boiling all this down, why must one assume that all sapient species are equally capable of choosing Good or Evil (or Law vs Chaos) as humans?

That's difficult to maintain if we assume free will, i.e. moral agency.

Cannot some species be driven by their instincts to be naturally more Good than the human norm? Say... a form of herbivoric

You think you're real funny, don't you?

as a species

And here does the issue lie. Why would you imagine that humans are born with an instinctual, complex understanding of morality, while mostly all other species (though, in the case of D&D, they are equally capable of grasping the same concepts and learning the same things – which is mechanically codified (no skills and few classes have race restrictions)) are constrained to a lesser state of moral agency and form monocultures on that basis?

I do think that, at some point, the Clown Pantheon may have some role yet to play in how it all plays out, even if they aren't part of "the big finish" itself. It just seems like so much work to build it all up

It's been an inconsequential running gag from the get-go; the most that's been achieved through it was the peaceful resolution of a side episode of a subarc that ultimately had no lasting impact on anything (the Azurites would have survived the few days it took Darth V to teleport the fleet away afterwards). I don't see that "so much work", honestly.

Why would Banjo even still be a thing after nearly 20 years of comics if it wasn't relevant? The very laws of narrative structure all but demand that they have some part to play that has yet to be revealed.

The Giant believes that the conservation of detail is overrated. I'll look up the quote for you.

[Jasdoif]

The Giant believes that the conservation of detail is overrated. I'll look up the quote for you.

This one (referring to #571)?

The lizardfolk details are world-building, not foreshadowing. It's the first clue that in part of this world (the part that the Oracle hails from), lizardfolk can be civilized businesspeople engaged in long-term contracts, as opposed to most D&D worlds where they run around in swamps with crude spears. It's a sneak peak at what the Western Continent will look like when we get there: half human, half reptilian. That's it.

The Oracle says, "Say hello to your boss for me," because it's small talk, and he's being friendly. Given that the Oracle is usually a jackass, this in turn reveals something about his personality: He is friendly and jovial to fellow reptilians, but not to mammals.

In other words, Conservation of Detail is overrated.

[Metastachydium]

This one (referring to #571)?

Correct, of course & thank you!

[Fyraltari]

I know. I just like splitting hairs too much not to point out that LotR does belong to Snails list insofar as it contains a class of creatures that are irredeemably Evil and impossible to negotiate with, just not in the way Snails reasoned that it does.

I mean, strictly speaking there's no reason to assume the Balrogs are irredeemable. Ossë was a fellow Maia in service to Morgoth, during which time he probably looked like an aquatic Balrog, but genuinely repented.

Tolkien toyed several times with the notion of a character who had sided with the Shadow redeeming themselves, most visibly Gollum and Grima, but even Sauron himself, briefly, with several characters stating their belief that it is never too late to do so, but always stopped shy of actually portraying it. Something of a shame, in my opinion.


Also, I can't muster the will to have this conversation yet again but I wanted to say that I agree with the rest of your post.

[hroþila]

Funny thing about Beowulf, Grendel's mom retaliated against Hroðgar with remarkable restraint by following blood feud etiquette to the letter: Hroþgar had her son killed, she killed one (1) of his retainers. And then she left, leaving everyone else untouched. No need for further escalation.

Like read the poem, Zemeckis.

"But Hroþila, what about all the people Grendel had killed before that". What about them

[Metastachydium]

I mean, strictly speaking there's no reason to assume the Balrogs are irredeemable. Ossë was a fellow Maia in service to Morgoth, during which time he probably looked like an aquatic Balrog, but genuinely repented.

Fair enough.

Tolkien toyed several times with the notion of a character who had sided with the Shadow redeeming themselves, most visibly Gollum and Grima, but even Sauron himself, briefly, with several characters stating their belief that it is never too late to do so, but always stopped shy of actually portraying it. Something of a shame, in my opinion.

That too. Although with Gollum, it was always going to be a stretch. He (a limited, mortal being) acquired the Ring (the ultimate dark artifact of temptation of control) under somewhat traumatic circumstances and he spent most of his life alone with it as it chewed on his mind. And then it abandoned him. That he succeeded in staying helpful to the heir of the Thief for as long as he did is pretty darn impressive in itself.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Oracle says, "Say hello to your boss for me," because it's small talk, and he's being friendly. Given that the Oracle is usually a jackass, this in turn reveals something about his personality: He is friendly and jovial to fellow reptilians, but not to mammals.

Put into GitPspeak, the Oracle is a racist and/or speciest, depending on which term feels more suitable to you.

Spoiler: why do I think that Tiamat is the Oracle's boss?

Show

Taking the above thought further, I get the idea that Tiamat is his boss, which suggest to me that organizational culture may inform his attitudes ...

[Metastachydium]

Put into GitPspeak, the Oracle is a racist and/or speciest, depending on which term feels more suitable to you.

Technically, confusing as it would be to term his attitude as such, he is a "classist" given that Mammalia and Reptilia are both classes.

[SPOILER=why do I think that Tiamat is the Oracle's boss?]Taking the above thought further, I get the idea that Tiamat is his boss,

Um, we know that he serves Tiamat; his visions explicitly come from her and he gives preferential treatment to her favoured. Further, I think it is safer to assume that while the two lizards likely work for her church as well, the boss he has greeted through them is just a scaly, mortal someone higher up within the organization rather than Tiamat herself.

[gbaji]

I don't agree with the overall thrust of RobertaME's argument (specifically as regarding The Giant's opinions on D&D racial alignments), but there are some points of merit there.

It's the height of ego to assume that human sense of morality is not somehow superior?

Yes? Is this even a question? Of course it's egotistical for a human, a member of a species who have never actually encountered, much less communicated with, another sentient species, to assume that all sentient species that have ever existed or may ever exist must develop the exact same moral and ethical rules or even concepts that humans have.

It's literally the definition of ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.. Just taken to a species level.

The idea of species-wide monocultures is stupid, and the argument that "the goblins are labeled as Neutral Evil because they are Neutral Evil, nothing to look at here" might not be as strong an argument as you'd seem to have it.

It does not require a "monculture" to speculate about a sentient species that simply thinks differently than we do, and maybe has a completely different set of moral rules than we do. So that's a bit of a false deilmma there.

Now, to be fair (and to flip to the other side of the coin), the way D&D tends to present non-human species *is* about some sort of monoculture concept, and the species *are* in fact just "humans with different physical attributes". I happen to agree 100% with Rich on this subject. Every species in D&D is made up of individuals and each individual may exhibit any alignment they wish, just like humans. But that is because other species are more or less human in their basic structure. Which, again to be fair, is by design to make them easier to run/play in a game designed to be run and played by humans. So yeah, the racial alignments are problematic because of this.

This whole thought experiment is beside the point, since you are making it clear that your aliens don't recognize humans as sapient beings due to technological superiority and an inability to communicate. Insofar as that is the case, they are no more or no less Evil than you'd be if you started eating wasps or ants from your garden.

Yeah. Poor example because it hinged on the whole "we don't recognize them as sentient". But what if they did? And they still didn't think anything of killing others, much less because it was somehow "morally wrong". Isn't that possible? I think it is.

Larry Niven's Kzin don't have any issue recognizing Humans as intelligent, and capable, and certainly sentient, but still hunt them for sport. Are they "evil"? By our moral standards (well, the D&D imposed alignment standards anyway), yes. And they're far less discriminating about it than the Predator species in the films, too. They'd certainly fall squarely into the "mostly Neutral Evil" camp. Over the series of stories and books, they only become more manageable as a species because Humans literally killed off all of the most aggressively violent of them over time. Which mostly left the smarter ones, who thought farther ahead and planned things out better. Whether they're still "not-evil" at that point, or just "smarter and better at hiding it while they bide their time", is left mostly unknown.

And other fantasy species would arguably be "far more evil" than they.

And here does the issue lie. Why would you imagine that humans are born with an instinctual, complex understanding of morality, while mostly all other species (though, in the case of D&D, they are equally capable of grasping the same concepts and learning the same things – which is mechanically codified (no skills and few classes have race restrictions)) are constrained to a lesser state of moral agency and form monocultures on that basis?

If we're talking about races in D&D? You have a point. If we're talking in general fiction? Not so much. The failing is to project human understanding and development of ethics and morals onto other species. I'm fairly certain the Zerg don't view things the way we do. Or Lovecrafts various elder races. Some species may simply be so "alien" that they think completely differently. Again. This is not an argument for D&D racial alignment. Quite the opposite. Just suggesting that your broad claims about human morality and how it may apply to other sentient species is not at all universal.

Honestly we can probably blame a lot of this on various game designers deciding to make more of these races playable. Once that happens, they have to be able to "fit" into human norms for morals/ethics/alignment. You can't have truely alien species, or "things" that just don't think like us, or behave like us, or whatever and actually be able to play them as characters. Well, you could, but you'd likely end up with some pretty serious in-party problems. And yeah, the moment you want to play a Kzin character in a game (yes, I've played the Ringworld RPG, go figure), magically we tend to handwave away the books, and they also become "not always evil" (although that game didn't have an alignment system, so there was no real problem anyway).

[Metastachydium]

Yes? Is this even a question? Of course it's egotistical for a human, a member of a species who have never actually encountered, much less communicated with, another sentient species, to assume that all sentient species that have ever existed or may ever exist must develop the exact same moral and ethical rules or even concepts that humans have.

It's literally the definition of ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.. Just taken to a species level.

Different realities experienced come with different concepts formed, I don't disagree with that. But the idea that it is arrogant to assume that it's not only humans that are capable of making moral choices and therefore assuming that with a few exceptions all others will be locked into a single, much less flexible outlook shows a greater humility? Yeah, no.

It does not require a "monoculture" to speculate about a sentient species that simply thinks differently than we do, and maybe has a completely different set of moral rules than we do.

Of course. A human activist, a little flower creature and an obligate carnivore will probably never quite see eye to eye regarding the morality of veganism, and that's alright. The problem is, Roberta posited (or so I understood) that morality derives from instinctual drives and humans as a species somehow have an instinctual drive to practice their moral agency while all other species somehow don't share this capacity and therefore it is perfectly normal to assume that their morals are far more simplistic and hardly ever vary at all regardless of the size of a population.

Yeah. Poor example because it hinged on the whole "we don't recognize them as sentient". But what if they did? And they still didn't think anything of killing others, much less because it was somehow "morally wrong". Isn't that possible? I think it is.

Larry Niven's Kzin don't have any issue recognizing Humans as intelligent, and capable, and certainly sentient, but still hunt them for sport. Are they "evil"? By our moral standards (well, the D&D imposed alignment standards anyway), yes. And they're far less discriminating about it than the Predator species in the films, too. They'd certainly fall squarely into the "mostly Neutral Evil" camp. Over the series of stories and books, they only become more manageable as a species because Humans literally killed off all of the most aggressively violent of them over time. Which mostly left the smarter ones, who thought farther ahead and planned things out better. Whether they're still "not-evil" at that point, or just "smarter and better at hiding it while they bide their time", is left mostly unknown.

And other fantasy species would arguably be "far more evil" than they.

"They are capable of recognizing that what they do is wanton and stupid but they will kill sapients for the evulz anyway unless genocided"? That makes them Always Stupid Evil by any sane metric and I can't quite see how that's a good thing.

If we're talking about races in D&D? You have a point. If we're talking in general fiction? Not so much. The failing is to project human understanding and development of ethics and morals onto other species. I'm fairly certain the Zerg don't view things the way we do. Or Lovecrafts various elder races. Some species may simply be so "alien" that they think completely differently. Again. This is not an argument for D&D racial alignment. Quite the opposite. Just suggesting that your broad claims about human morality and how it may apply to other sentient species is not at all universal.

Honestly we can probably blame a lot of this on various game designers deciding to make more of these races playable. Once that happens, they have to be able to "fit" into human norms for morals/ethics/alignment. You can't have truely alien species, or "things" that just don't think like us, or behave like us, or whatever and actually be able to play them as characters. Well, you could, but you'd likely end up with some pretty serious in-party problems. And yeah, the moment you want to play a Kzin character in a game (yes, I've played the Ringworld RPG, go figure), magically we tend to handwave away the books, and they also become "not always evil" (although that game didn't have an alignment system, so there was no real problem anyway).

Well, sci-fi tends to be even worse than fantasy in this regard; in place of "the Elven Forest Realm" monocultures you'll usually get the good old Planet of Hats and I refuse to view that as a good thing. At best, it's lazy writing with weird implications and in any medium where moral/ethical categories are factual realities (e.g. cosmic principles or the like)…

As for Blue and Orange Morality, it's an interesting concept in theory, but in my experience, it tends to go one of two ways:
1. it's either a cop-out; we never get anything remotely resembling an insight into its workings because it's SO eldritch;
2. or it's a lame excuse; if we do get said insight, the explanation generally ends up unsatisfactory, silly or outright stupid. No, "but it kills and eats babies cackling like a maniac because it has a TOTALLY different moral system where it is the best thing ever" is not deep, nor does it make a lick of sense.