Pocket Plane Group
BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: Imrahil on September 02, 2005, 10:03:58 PM
-
(or "Why I've never installed the Virtue MOD")
I've never installed Virtue. There. I said it. Been strangely averse to admitting it before. Not sure why. I think it comes down to a difference in the definition/perception of who (or what) is Inherently Evil & justifies a good killin'.
Fer instance... are Drow inherently Evil? Probably not. Sahuagin? Probably so. Why? Because there are literary examples of non-Evil Drow but not of non-Evil Sahuagin? Maybe. Just plain not sure (plus, there's that Scribe-who-wrote-the-note-you-find-in-The-City-of-Caverns).
So, can *any* races be said to be Inherently Evil & thus deserving of death down to the last man, woman, & child, in the interest of protecting the "Good" races? Is it a Good thing to wipe out the Sahuagin? The Drow? The Kuo-Toa? Chromatic Dragons? Duergar? Djinn? Rakshasa? Doppelganger? (note that I didn't mention Beholders or Mind Flayers, on purpose, so as not to derail this into Topics That Have Gone Before)
I'm not sure, which is the purpose of this post. You get a major Virtue hit for contaminating the Kuo-Toa pools (the recent bump was the actual impetus of this question), but not for slaughtering an entire Drow city (just because there's no option to slaughter the children?).
One Red Dragon death gets you a Drop while another is the essense of being a Paladin. The death of one Cowled Wizard is Bad, while another is An Important Plot Point. Why are you allowed to bargain with some Djinn but killing another is irrevocably Evil (even in the un-MOD'ed game)? Why must you allow Unger to live to remain pure when your only (valid, if you want to do what Sarles asks) response at one point references his entire race's evil nature?
Anyway, I'm curious as to other people's thoughts on whether or not a given race (pick one) or even subgroup within a race is Inherently Evil & thus the slaughter (to the man-woman-child level) of said race could be seen as a Good act.
- Imrahil
-
The subject is very complex and people can always discuss what is and what is not inherently evel. It's ethic we are speaking about and there is not one single truth. Your point of view can be shared but in this case, you need to discuss, and refuse it as consequence, the whole ethical mechanism that Baldur's Gate is built on. You are asked to choose an alignment when you create a character. You are asked to live and see the world according to nine different angles and automatically you accept this once you start playing.
Questions about each single actions might arise and open several "philosophical" doors but what Virtue does, and it does it very well, is to refine the pre-existing system introduced by Bioware. It does not, and it could not because it's simply impossible, give the definite answer to what is right or what is wrong. It cannot judge what is ineherently good or evil. There is not such judge among mortals. But what it does it's to expand a chosen system to make it certainly more appropriate and consistent. Virtue works in the direction that the game is meant to go to. We might always question the ethical choices that we take playing the game but if you can accept to follow a path (that is however often - always ? - the most logical), then Virtue improves one's gaming experience, without any doubt.
The only problem is, like I addressed in another topic, the lack of one of the two axis: with Virtue there is no possibility to move from Chaotic to Lawful and viceversa. This would make it complete but I realize it's difficult and complex.
In short, don't delude yourself to be able to have a wider range of solutions without Virtue. The Reputation system that the vanilla game offers to you, keeps you imprisoned in a much smaller cage. :pirate
-
The more magical the creature the more its alignment is a part of its being. Beholders are prime examples as they are born fully grown. They are evil because each beholder that came before them was as such.
Mind Flayers are so alien and have no reguard for other beings. They are almost entirly Inherently Evil, the devouring brains of other humanoids puts them in the Inherently Evil catagory. However there is a story of a Mind Flayer who was converted to the side of good. That may have been a hicup in the cosmos.
Dragons embody there alignment. They are the children of there respective gods. Some such as Red and Gold Dragons are born smarter then most people. You can't raise a dragon to be a different alignment. Even the "stupidest" of them the White Dragon is to smart at the point of hatching.
I wouldn't say that a Sahuagin is born evil. There shark god is evil no doubt but they are born with out knowldge just like humanoid beings.
A creature born intelligent will like have inherent alignment. There minds have devloped before birth and thus they are set in there ways.
It is humans who have the greatest choice in alignment. Even the other demi-humans have a racial preference in alignment.
Also if players can't have some expectations on a creatures alignment, the game gets seriously bogged down. Questioning what is evil is hard enough in real life. I don’t want it i my D&D games.
Also what fun is meeting the miracle good red dragon or other such evil race if its not a remarkable exception.
-
Dragons embody there alignment. They are the children of there respective gods. Some such as Red and Gold Dragons are born smarter then most people. You can't raise a dragon to be a different alignment. Even the "stupidest" of them the White Dragon is to smart at the point of hatching.
Also if players can't have some expectations on a creatures alignment, the game gets seriously bogged down. Questioning what is evil is hard enough in real life. I don’t want it i my D&D games.
Also what fun is meeting the miracle good red dragon or other such evil race if its not a remarkable exception.
Actually, you've got a couple things mistaken there. Quoteing from the Draconomicron (2nd edition resource book about dragons)
Rogues
As with humans, demihumans, and humanoids, the alignment of dragons reflects not instinctive behavior but an intelligent choice about how the creatures respond to the world. Certainly, dragons raised in a society with a strong alignment are probably going to share that alignment, but there's no law of nature that prevents a dragon from changing its alignment. (In fact, the consequences of changing alignment are considerably less for a dragon than they are for a human or demihuman. Dragons progress in power depending on their age, so they suffer no direct ill effects from a voluntary alignment change.)
Dragons that voluntarily change their alignments are referred to as "rogues," and they're very rare indeed. Rogues have decided for reasons of their own that they don't go along with the world-view common to dragons of their species.
So, Dragons aren't tied by their alignment. The alignment is just a guideline for what you would typically run into. By and large, when you look at most intelligent creatures in the AD&D world, it is the society that shapes the creature, not an inherrant, instinctive behaviour. However, certain practices by a particular species or a lack of empathy with outside species can cause the species to be viewed as evil by others. For example, most people don't think twice about swatting a mosquito, or eating beef (vegetarians excepted of course). In the case of a species like the Mind Flayers, what seems to be the case from all the descriptions is that they believe that very few others are at their level, and just like how most don't have any qualms about eating beef, Mind Flayers don't have any qualms about eating brains of intelligent species. Its a case of viewing themselves as being so superior they can't perceive others being worthy. This of course makes them a menace.
Beholders are xenophobes. They hate that which is different. This seems to be a racially inborn trait, and any who are born differently don't survive very long in such a xenophobic society.
-
Who or what you kill is of far less importance than why you kill them, and even how you kill them. A good aligned character is perfectly justified in killing a hostile good aligned creature, as long as he has an acceptable reason (e.g. self defense, or the protection of another good aligned character), and he tried to reason with his attacker first. On the other hand, attacking a non-hostile evil aligned creature is murder, plain and simple. Similarly, poisoning a well, planting a bomb, etc in a village of evil aligned creatures is an evil act.
-
My Draconomicon unfortantly does not appear to have any mention of rouges at all. I simply say you BOOK IS WRONG. I disagree with its statement. My draconomicon mentions ideas of having dragons be the champions of thier alignments instead of outsiders. And I can't find its passage on rouges.
When I talk about how smart a creature is I talk about how smart it is at birth. I mention a Red Dragon because its born smarter and with more knowldge then the average human. Something that begins life with such a level of thinking as a dragon must have some inherreted alignment.
Mind flayers see themselves as superior so they have no quaims about there brain eating habbits. Thus they are EVIL. If an evil being didn't see himself has superior to others he wouldn't be that evil. Evil is the disreguard for the lives of other intelligent beings. Mind Flayers embody that. They see themselves as superior doesn't make them anyless evil.
Creatures I place in the inherently evil ben,
Chromatic Dragons
Mind Flayers
Beholders
Vampires (D&D IS NOT Vampire the Masquerade so don't bring it up and don't bring up Angel or Buffy either)
Undead such as ghouls, wraiths and shadows and many others but not all.
And of course the whole class of demon's and devils
Inherently Evil only means that it starts evil. If you want to be a exact it about it. So while a red dragon will in almost every known case execpt for the rare cosmic shift be born evil. It can go rouge. A Red Dragon may still be Inherently Evil but still go rouge later in life.
Also Most evil dragons aren't even raised
Why is an important reason for why you slay it. The "pride" test is all about that.
-
Not that I mind this discussion again, but it is quite deja vu. Use the search sometimes if you feel like it.
Hating other species is not evil in our world IMHO.
-
Not that I mind this discussion again, but it is quite deja vu. Use the search sometimes if you feel like it.
Several species have been discussed at length (Mind Flayers, Beholders, Dragons, etc.), but I'm curious as to whether there is a species everyone thinks is Pure Evil. I haven't seen much discussion on doppelgangers, xvarts, sahuagin, (Tusken Raiders :) ), duergar, goblins, githyanki, etc., etc. Is there a species that a Good character could be expected to kill on sight, down to the last man, woman, & child?
- Imrahil
-
Such a thing would be an evil act, regardless of the victims' alignments, especially if the children can't even defend themselves.
-
Is there a species that a Good character could be expected to kill on sight, down to the last man, woman, & child?
Chavs?
-
While it can be explained that prey never loves its predator it is not evil per se to kill your prey. Mindflayers may be awkward, if they feed on humans, but like sharks they are not evil just for this act. You could exterminate them just as well, but you won't get a feel good bonus for it.
Considering the lifespan and abilities of dragons I can see why they would at most consider elves to be worthy of conversation. Even if you like mice as pets you would never consider them equals.
and so on....
-
Mind Flayers don't HAVE to eat human brains, they do it to gather knowldge and power. THUS THEY ARE EVIL. IT doesn't matter that they think they are above other beings. ALL EVIL beings thing there better then those they cause suffering. By that standard you can't have evil. These are also guys who inslave other races in mass. (including the ancestors of the Githyanki and Githzerei.
Also Mind Flayers eat brains for power, not to surrive. They don't need humanoid brains to live.
Sharks swim eat and make little sharks, there animals. They eat because it is there nature.
Now if you say its a Mind Flayers nature to eat humanoid brains you could easily say. The act is evil, when a intelligent creature does it.
doppelgangers, xvarts, sahuagin, duergar, goblins, githyanki. None of these creatures are Inherently evil. Dopplegangers are actually usually neutral. duergar are about as evil as Drow.
The evil creatures that you can expect to kill on site, don't exactly have children. I don't want to think about Mind Flayer reproduction. as far as I know they are spawned off of an elder brain. Beholders are born adults and thus your never killing a child.
Lets look at the other side of the coin for a moment.
A Unicorn is Inherently Good. Does anyone have a problem with that statement.
There are the Black Blooded Unicorns. Unicorns infused with demon blood. But thats not a Unicorn thats been altered by magic.
As a rule of thumb if the race has a child form you shouldn't be slaughtering them. Dragons don't actually have a child form
Here is the list of kill on sight.
Demons or Devils,
some evil outsiders of note are also
Hellfire Wyrms
Abyssial Drakes
Beholders {Execpt for Spectral who are usually neutral}
Vampires and any undead that feeds on the living.
Any mindless undead can be killed on site.
In general before Dragon hunting you should research the Dragon so you don't DIE. Thus you can be sure that this Red Dragon is just like 99.9% of all other Red Dragons.
FACT of the world of D&D evil exists it has substance.
Jester is something is Inherently Evil, its obvious it will commit evil acts.
In terms of pure evil only undead, outsiders and deties can be pure evil
-
My Draconomicon unfortantly does not appear to have any mention of rouges at all. I simply say you BOOK IS WRONG. I disagree with its statement. My draconomicon mentions ideas of having dragons be the champions of thier alignments instead of outsiders. And I can't find its passage on rouges.
When I talk about how smart a creature is I talk about how smart it is at birth. I mention a Red Dragon because its born smarter and with more knowldge then the average human. Something that begins life with such a level of thinking as a dragon must have some inherreted alignment.
Page 42 of TSR 9297 Draconomicron
-
When I said my draconomicon I ment my editon of Draconomicon.
I only have a few 2nd edition books, and I still don't agree with the 2nd edition' statment on rouges. Everything else denotes Dragons having a fixed alignment.
I don't see peoples problem with Inherently evil existing in a FANTASY WORLD.
In the real world good and evil are points of view.
In the fantasy of D&D evil exists it can be weighed it can be measured. It has subtance, as evil tangible in D&D why can't come creatures be inherently evil.
In D&D evil is NOT a point of view. if you kill helpless people for your own gain reguardless if you think your above them because they are human and your a dragon/mind flayer/beholder YOUR STILL EVIL!.
That passage on rouges in the old (2nd edition?) draconomicon contradicts every other source on Dragons in D&D. From 1st to 3.5.
The other material says they are born into there alignment. None of the sources say its impossible to change but just very hard. INHERENTLY EVIL means they inhereted evil.
Saladrax in watchers keep is a full grown evil red dragon. He may be in a reasonible mood. But he wouldn't have maintained the evil aura if he didn't do evil. He's not a rouge.
Like it or not, Inherently Evil creatures are a part of D&D, they are still quite rare. Limited to Dragons and outsiders and some types of undead. To a lesser extent Mind Flayers and Beholders.
If the players stop every enconter to question wait are they really evil? gets really boring really quickly. You can't shock players with the noble mind flayer, the kindly Eye Tyrannt. Or the fun loving red dragon. If they don't come to expect those creatures to be wholy evil.
The execption to the rule isn't any fun with out the rule. Playing a good drow isn't any fun if 95% of all other Drow aren't evil.
-
Saladrax in watchers keep is a full grown evil red dragon. He may be in a reasonible mood. But he wouldn't have maintained the evil aura if he didn't do evil. He's not a rouge.
As has been said before, Virtue pre-assumes that you have Oversight installed, and with Oversight installed, Saladrex is NOT EVIL. Kish went through the game and altered certain alignments based on what is known about the characters: Saladrex is indeed a Red Dragon, but never attacks or even threatens you, nor does he seem to be a danger to anyone outside his lair. This air of pacifism is inconsistent with an Evil Dragon. Joluv, on the other hand, remains Evil because he has apparently stolen many artifact-level items from his homeland and is now selling them for his own gain, vacationing in much warmer climes as a result.
But I'm in full agreement with you about the "Evil aura;" If a creature detects as Evil, then that person either has done enough Evil deeds to bring them out of Neutral ground, or they intend to do those deeds. Such creatures most probably deserve death--although that does not in and of itself mean that YOU should kill them. Take Viconia: The townsfolk have no real charge against her, she has done nothing to harm them, but a Detect Evil shows that even if the people of Athkatla aren't justified in killing her, somebody almost certainly is. Rescuing Viconia is actually a Lawful Evil action, and letting her die is Chaotic Good. (Well, it's Good because nobody else on the map, not even the Fanatics of Beshaba, show up as Evil. If they did, letting her die would be Chaotic Neutral.)
-
The Fanatics showed up as evil to me when I did a "Know Alignment" on them.
-
Being nice and polite doesn't mean Saladrax isn't evil. Some of the worst people in history were poilte and always said please and thank you.
I see Saladrax as a Red Dragon who like any would rather gather his horde and age with out having to worry about heroes coming to slay him. He's polite be cause he's lazy. Just because a dragon is evil doesn't mean he can't be reasonible.
Saladrax aside, we can still debate attacking him first because even if he is evil. He can't escape watchers keep unless you slay demogorgon (who you wouldn't know about yet) So lets forget about that dragon a moment.
His kind is still born evil. Dispite what the 2nd edition Draconomicon manuel says. All other sources say chromantic and metalic dragons are born into there alignment.
Saladrax may be one of those rare execptions he might not.
Back to the subject of Inherently Evil or of any alignment. In the world of D&D it is a FACT some creatures are born evil while some are born good. Its easy to list demons and celestials as being born into an alignment.
The demi-humans simply have strong social structures. So most elves are chaotic good. Most dwarves are lawful. Most Drow are evil.
Dragon are born into there alignment, thats why it says always {thisalignment} under the monsters stats. The nature of a Mind Flayer or Beholder allows them a greater degree for alignment. But its hard for a Mind Flayer to be anything other then evil. Same is true with a beholder.
Also in Baldur's Gate it can take a LONG time to build up experince. Clearing out those 3 monster lairs in the underdark is a great source of such experince. Keep the game simple, there is nothing evil about clearing a lair of evil monsters.
-
His kind is still born evil. Dispite what the 2nd edition Draconomicon manuel says. All other sources say chromantic and metalic dragons are born into there alignment.
You've got me interested in this now. If you don't mind, could you let me know what "all other sources" are that say dragons are born into their alignment, and says they have a fixed alignment? I checked my council of Wyrms accessory, and that followed a similar pattern to the draconomicon, saying that dragons can change alignment, though this tends to be rarish. Looking at the 2nd edition monster manual, it doesn't state that their alignments are fixed, or that they are not fixed. It just gives norms for the various species. Ie: a typical red dragon would be like ...., a typical gold dragon would be like ....
-
the older monster manuel's simply stated a creatures alignment. There wasn't much room for changing stuff. Well the old
Both Draconomicon and council of Wyrms say that a dragon outside the nomarl alignment is rare.
3rd edition lists dragons having an alignment of always. Red's are listed as Always Chaotic Evil. As a rule this means that execpt for a VERY rare execption a red dragon will be chaotic evil. It also in the case of an always alignment creature they are born in such a fashion.
The later edition of Draconomicon doesn't even mention rouges and I've looked up and down it trying to find the passage. They do mention using dragons as the champions of thier alignment.
The old draconomicon and the council of wyrms do mention a dragon can change thier alignment but its rare. Now Inherently Evil does not mean always evil. It just means the race almost always starts that way. Saladrax may drift to neutrality by virtue of being lazy.
There are 10 basic types of dragons.
5 Metallic and 5 Chromatic.
Metallic are the good dragons and Chromatic are the evil ones. Its quite a simple system. If you keep to this rule, the execption is far better. the vampire Angel isn't so special if his kind had a choice in being evil. Saladrax if he is indeed non-evil. Isn't special if Red Dragons normally have a choice.
Drizzt is special because the Drow are normally denied their choice to be good.
Dragons only stayy with thier parents for a fraction of there lives before striking out alone. In the case of most chromatic they don't even meet them.
I dont' have many old 2nd editon books sadly there hard to come by now a days and I don't trust ebay.
What I am saying is dragons have an Inherent alignment. Somehow managing to change it later is another matter. I've encountered a Good Red Dragon during a campaign once. But if all red dragons could choose to be good. It wouldn't have been special. It just would have been another guy we met and talked to.
The trouble with these debates is different people writing books for different editions. I like to keep my games more simple in the good vs evil contex.
I'd also point out the goddess of chromatic dragons is evil. Titimat. She has five heads one for each type of Chromatic Dragon.
A creature such as a dragon is born far too intelligent to not have Inherited an alignment. They can survive on their own from birth much like an animal. But there far smarter then animals at birth. Some are smarter then most humans. So does a dragon simply chose at birth? while its still in the egg?. An elf or a human or a dwarf would develop their *first* alignment during their early childhood as they learn right from wrong.
A dragon is so intelligent at birth compared to other creatures it must have inherented knowldge. Otherwise they wouldn't be so smart. You can't be smarter then the average human at birth with out having inherented some knowldge.
Now as dragons are capible of surriving on thier own after hatching. They must have inherented some kind of alignment to guide thier actions. Otherwise they'd be as helpless as a normal child.
If dragons don't have an inherent alignmnet, why is it that Red Dragons who don't normally care for there young turn out to be chaotic evil. Shouldn't it be any alignment or any evil. How do the evil colored dragons stick to there alignment in most cases if they are so often left to thier own devices as wyrmlings.
Left to thier own devices they shouldn't be inclined to a givin alignment. Perhaps inclinded to evil for being abandon but nothing on the law vs chaos scale.
So I say the old draconomicon is wrong because it just doesn't mesh to well with a dragons young life.
-
There are 10 basic types of dragons.
5 Metallic and 5 Chromatic.
Only in 3rd Edition. In 2nd Edition, there are 23 basic (that is, listed in the Monster Manual) types, five being the neutral aligned gem dragons (amethyst, crystal, emerald, sapphire, and topaz), and the others being brown, cloud, deep, mercury, mist, shadow, steel, and yellow
-
In a way, this is simply proof that the dragons recieve their alignment form nurutre ratehr than nature. If they are born, and immediately forced to fend for themselves, this is forcing them to take an every-creature-for-itself attitude, not even giving the dragon a chance to learn of good. By the time they do know good alignemnts, they would be so firmly entrenched in their alignment they would be difficult to change. Of course so unsually ciscumstances would cause a different alignment to be taken.
-
In a way, this is simply proof that the dragons recieve their alignment form nuture rather than nature. If they are born, and immediately forced to fend for themselves, this is forcing them to take an every-creature-for-itself attitude, not even giving the dragon a chance to learn of good. By the time they do know good alignemnts, they would be so firmly entrenched in their alignment they would be difficult to change. Of course so unsually ciscumstances would cause a different alignment to be taken.
ah but its not proof. whether or not Red Dragons are inherently chaotic evil. They still prefer that alignment. Why do they prefer chaotic evil and not neutral evil or lawful evil? If left to fend for them selves cause them to be evil it should be a random evil there shouldn't be a preference. Or a fend for yourself should result in a more neutral outlook.
Yet they still at the very lest prefer the alignment chaotic evil. If they don't inherent a trait that pushs them to that alignment and they usualy don't have parents to raise them as such. How could there typical alignment be chaotic evil?
This is why I see them as inherenting the evil trait. If they could be raised to be good. Metalic Dragons could simply adobt young wyrmling chromantics and raise them all to be good. If that was possible I think the good dragons would do as such. They are kind and caring after all. The answer I see it. Is because they know it won't work.
-
Mind Flayers don't HAVE to eat human brains, they do it to gather knowldge and power. THUS THEY ARE EVIL. IT doesn't matter that they think they are above other beings. ALL EVIL beings thing there better then those they cause suffering. By that standard you can't have evil. These are also guys who inslave other races in mass.
You agree with me, then, that modern humans are inherently evil and should all be slaughtered? Let us see:
- We don't HAVE to use animals in medical research, we only do it to gain knowledge and, in a way, power (power over the diseases that afflict us).
- We (many of us, at least) think we are above those we cause suffering
- We enslave every creature we can find a use for, whether agricultural or scientific.
Shall I start the righteous slaughtering?
-
rreinier,
the difference, I believe, is that every and each Mind Flayer acts following some rules which are gladly accepted by the whole society and that we would classify as "evil".
In truth, not all humans believe that it's fair to use living animals in medical research. Not all humans think they are above those we cause suffering and not all humans enslave every creature they can find a use for.
When we classify a whole race as Evil (like the Mind Flayers), we do a strong generalization which can exist only in order to create a scenario that needs to set in a quite straight manner what is Good and what is Evil. Exceptions to these rules must be kept such. Among Humans we find the Evil and the Good. But not among the Mind Flayers. This is just my two cents...
-
You agree with me, then, that modern humans are inherently evil and should all be slaughtered? Let us see:
- We don't HAVE to use animals in medical research, we only do it to gain knowledge and, in a way, power (power over the diseases that afflict us).
The ethicial issues of testing on animals are a matter of opinion.
- We (many of us, at least) think we are above those we cause suffering
Of course people think they are above those they cause suffering to. If they didn't feel above them they'd feel bad about it.
- We enslave every creature we can find a use for, whether agricultural or scientific.
Once again its a matter of opinion as to what is the right way to treat an animal.
From an animals point of view humans may indeed be evil. (assuming good and evil aren't human concepts)
Good and evil are only a point of view in real life.
People can argue for hours on the ethics on scientific reasearch on animals. The main factor is simply the value placed on an animals life.
However in D&D good and evil are not a points of view. They are tangible forces.
Mind Flayers, Beholders and Chromatic Dragons ARE FICTIONAL creatures. What the HELL is wrong with saying they are born evil? They can't get offended.
Should there be groups in the world of D&D waving these signs?
"Vampires are people to"
"Just because they eat our brains doesn't
mean we shouldn't treat them right"
"Sauron should have stood trial" (for those who forget Sauron forged the one ring)
"Don't deny a demons right to exest"
"Its our right to sacrifice our babies to bhaal"
While those kind of protesters would be quite funny in D&D. IT wouldn't be a part of any serious campaign.
Accept the fact that some creatures in the fantasy world are inherently evil. Or go read non-fiction.
-
The ethicial issues of testing on animals are a matter of opinion.
The entire question of virtue (and I do mean virtue, not just Virtue) is a matter of opinion. Most "evil" acts are designated as "evil" because they cause harm and do not benefit the general welfare. But as long as they cause some good to somebody, they are not wholly wrong. I'm not attempting to justify these actions, just playing devil's advocate to illustrate a point.
"Vampires are people to"
I agree. While I do not deny that such things as Good Drow or Evil Gold Dragons might exist, I also do not feel any obligation to suspend my (or my character's) knowledge of the alignment typical for a species. If my Paladin encounters a Mind Flayer, that Paladin is certainly going to his damnedest to kill the Mind Flayer, no matter who attacks first. If the Mind Flayer should happen to be some freakish rebel who has turned Good and abandoned his kin, then he knows damn well what members of other species are going to think of him. Thus, the responsibility of pointing out that he is Good rests solely on the Mind Flayer's shoulders, not the Paladin's. If he fails to reveal his true nature and the Paladin whacks him simply for being a Mind Flayer, that's the Flayer's own damn fault. The Paladin was just doing what Paladins do, and incidentally suffers no Virtue hit.
-
I agree with 6oS on this one.
-
Accept the fact that some creatures in the fantasy world are inherently evil.
Depending, entirely, on how you see alignment. Is it a summation of your actions, or a guide for your actions? The concept behind Virtue, atleast, seems to favour the latter (by the former, to go against your alignment couldn't cause that alignment to change). And if an alignment is changeable meta-data (that is, not strictly visible to the characters), then it isn't possible to be born with any alignment other than True Neutral (or possibly without alignment) since you haven't done anything. It is then possible that, for some reason, a given creature is more prone toward certain alignments (illithid => evil), but then it is still possible for random, individual, mutations.
Ofcourse, there are obvious exceptions to this if we go out into the planes - eg, a good aligned demon can't exist, because should an individual become good-aligned, they are no longer a demon. But this can infact be shown to *strengthen* the argument that this can happen, because otherwise how could the concept of 'falling' exist? If a demon falls, it is more a matter of being more distanced from others of their race.
As for the example protestors, a couple of those aren't so much examples of Good vs. Evil, but rather Law. vs Chaos - whether Sauron should have stood trial is a matter of the written laws of the time and also how they differ from the social conscience; sacrificing babies is similar - and is also a conflict between two different sets of laws ('it is our duty to sacrifice our babies' vs. 'that is murder'); "don't deny a demon's right to exist" depends entirely on "does a demon, by our law, *have* a right to exist?" - if they do, it is chaotic to kill them; if they don't, it may be chaotic to let them live. The vampire and illithid remarks can also be characterised as self-defense, and thus again becomes a question of who's rights are more important.
I admit that there is an underlying implication then of "is it right to force our laws on others?", but there again that can be seen as a question of social conscience, something which cannot be generalised to always lean to good or evil - and so, none of those protests can realy have any absolute meaning relative to good or evil (which is why questions like 'is it right to eat meat' are murky).
Oh, and:
Mind Flayers don't HAVE to eat human brains, they do it to gather knowldge and power. THUS THEY ARE EVIL.
Mind flayers ... require the brains of sentient creatures as part of their diet. (source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_flayer))
EDIT: HTML doesn't work, links nested in quotes don't work... I knew there was a reason I like mailing lists...
-
If my Paladin encounters a Mind Flayer, that Paladin is certainly going to his damnedest to kill the Mind Flayer, no matter who attacks first.
Your paladin, perhaps, but what about a Cleric? Surely then it would depend on the specific teachings of their god. Some gods would not want their followers to attack a mind flayer but in self-defense, others might not allow self-defense, others might specifically require their followers to kill it, even if it shows itself to be good.
EDIT:
Just to clarify, what I'm trying to say is that it depends more on your character, than on the mind flayer's alignment.
-
It is both a summation and a guide of your actions. Someone who is lawful good has done good in the past and will likely do good in the future. An alignment that changes drastically and quickly is normally the result of insanity, or poor role-playing.
I never said that an inherently evil creature can’t change its alignment, Actually I said an inherently evil creature can still change its alignment its just a lot harder then it is for a human or a dwarf.
The demi-humans start life as infants, they have a very simple level of intelligence that grows rapidly as they age. A Dragon is born with a level of intelligence and knowledge which on average is the same level as an adult human. Might be a little below might be a little above.
A new born dragon can speak the dragon tongue from birth. Some such as Red Dragons and Gold Dragons may be able to speak multiple languages from birth.
EDIT: Only one god is an ally of mind flayers and that is the god of mind flayers.
Obviously such a creature must have inherited knowledge from its parent. And if a creature can inherit knowledge it can also inherit an alignment.
The majority of chromatic dragons orphan their young. As orphans while you could argue they’d tend towards evil because they’d do anything to survive. I’d argue if that was the case then you would have metallic dragons who raise their young adopt orphan chromatic dragons in order to raise them good. If their alignment wasn’t inherited then it shouldn’t be that hard should it?
We should remember some creatures are inherently good, a unicorn is inherently good. Before you mention what about the dark unicorn, those are unicorns that have been infused with demon blood.
Fantasy books are filled with creatures that are inherently evil, from tolken to harry potter. I don’t know about you but I think a dementor’s nature makes them inherently evil. A creature that is required to do evil to survive is inherently evil.
-
I execute my necromantic powers....
So Lord Kain, you seem like an annoying person to me.... I mean, you just keep stating the same thing over and over again, whether its Paladins are good with no room for any other, to, these creatures are inherently evil because, basically, they don't have a sympathetic outlook for humans...
In order to define evil we have to explore from whence it originates. Evil is a human concept, often exploited by men of power to achieve a goal. "This or that nation is evil ect, so we must put an end to their blasphemy!," is a common theme throughout human history. Was that nation in question evil? Perhaps. But perhaps their views, ideologies, and morals didn't coincide with ouirs.
Now i think evil has a better chance, in all honesty, of being applied to real life, where humans are basically the only contenders on the "power chain," than in a wildly concieved fantasy world where humans are quite a bit lower. Elves, Drow, Mindflayers, Githyanki, and the list goes on, ALL have superior faculties to a human...
and YET.... definitions of good and evil are still interpreted through a human perspective?!? I find that illogical to say the least, but hey, at least it keeps in theme with the human race's peerless arrogance regarding other species or even towards the cosmic order of things....
To sum up... If I were a Red Dragon and you were annoying me with similar diatribes of narrow-minded, monochromatic, stiffnecked, and, quite frankly, stupidly repetitive arguments, I would crush you flat with one lazy, idle, claw.
Would that be inherently evil? Or.... just disposing of a self-important pest?
Don't bother answering.
-
Don't bother answering.
Err, then why bother posting your thoughts? It is such a waste of space to just post an opinion without any intention to defend/support it.
-
If my Paladin encounters a Mind Flayer, that Paladin is certainly going to his damnedest to kill the Mind Flayer, no matter who attacks first.
Your paladin should know the Mindflayers alignement as part of his class abilities surely? Does he still attack?
Paladins should follow their own alignment instead of behaving as though their actions are dictated by the alignment of the creatures they meet. If I was playing the Paladin above I would not attack unless attacked.
-
If your paladin is standing 10 feet away from a potentially hostile mindflayer I doubt he is going to waste a round casting detect evil. That sounds like a good way to get killed.
-
If your paladin is standing 10 ft away from a potentially hostile anyone and the anyone is just standing there, the paladin should attack first in case he is attacked in turn? Just because the opponent is of a species that generally attacks on sight? A poor paladin I would be if I attacked every race and never gave a thought to the possibility of good triumphing over evil even in the minds of normally evil creatures, no? You paladin is a paladin right?
-
Potentially hostile=looks like he's about to attack. He might hesitate with a priest of ilmater, but a hostile looking illithid is kind of another matter.
-
sigh I had hoped this topic could just remain dead, but as Gabriel has decided to personally insult me. D&D already defines evil for the games purposes. As we are human we can only define evil as we would see it.
The game its self puts out a good guide line to define good vs evil.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of SENTIENT BEINGS. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
So near as I can tell good and evil in D&D is defined around all sentient beings and there respect for the lives of each other. Now before someone brings human treatment of animals into the debate. Remember in real life
The evil creatures not only lack a sympathetic out look towards humans they don't have one towards each other.
A Red Dragon may put the life of another Red Dragon above that of any other race, but if one Red Dragon enters another Red's territory it can expect a fight to the death if one of them doesn't leave.
Mind Flayers may be one of the more united evil races, but they plot and scheme each others downfall. In the end older mind flayers are sacrificed to the Elder Brain. Some because of there fanatic devotion, others are sacrificed because the other Mind Flayers are fanatically devoted.
Why is a mind flayer evil? well eating the brains and insulating the races such as humans, elves, dwarves etc.
Second is how they are born. A Mind Flayer starts life has a tadpole hatch from an egg. These tadpoles spend about ten years in the briny pools feeding on fatty mash of brain material and other organs prepared by adult mind flayers.
Now Mind Flayers do not grow there own bodies. A mature tadpole is taken and inserted into the ear, nostril or eye of a helpless humanoid captive. Over the next several days the tadpole borrows into the host brain consuming gray matter and growing very quickly. The bloated tadpole assumes control of the brain stem. The victim is killed irrevocably.
Over the next week the tadpole mutates the body of the host into the form of a mind flayer.
Have you ever heard the story of the frog and the scorpion? I’m sure you have but maybe not this version.
So you have Mr. Frog siting next to the river. Along comes Mr Scorpion and he says.
“Mr Frog could you carry me across the river please”
The Frog blinks and looks down at Mr Scorpion.
“No way you’ll sting me”
The Scorpion snaps his claws a few times in the air.
“Nonsense, if I did that we’d both drowned”
The Frog thought for a moment.
“Alright then hope on my back”
About halfway across the river the Frog felt a painful jab into his back.
As Mr Frog slowly sank into the water he gasped.
“Why did you do that now we’ll both drowned”
The Scorpion laughed and said.
“Silly Mr Frog I know how to swim,”
Lets look at the bhaalspawn. They are actually an example of usually evil. The dark taint of bhaal drives his spawn to murder. Thats part of the games story, the struggle againts the taint of bhaal. But the PC and his siblings aren't all bhaal its only a portion of there entire being. Imoen has her talks about here own struggle againts her taint. Balthazar says that he himself had to struggle againts it.
For other creatures the taint is much stronger because is a far larger part of there being. Chromatic Dragons are decedent from Timat. Beholders are decended from the Great Mother. The good races don't remain unaffected either. Dwarves tend to be lawful, The prefered alignment of elves is chaotic good.
The races are either inherrently an alignment or drawn towards it because of the god that created them.
I don't know of many races other then human in D&D with an Any under there alignment. Actually I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Now the question of total extinction of an evil race is another matter. It can remain a gray area in D&D.
Demons and Devils are born from the souls of the dead evil beings sent to the abyss or hell. Killing a conclave of Mind Flayers that are currently and activily inslaving and eating people (like the one in the Underdark) is a bit different then genociding the entire race.
The typical Moon/High Elf might have few problems with killing drow on sight. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a problem with the entire race being destoryed.
Red Dragons and Gold Dragons hate each other with a passion. But they hate anyone who dares to use one of the dragon orbs. So the race as a whole has a untied pride.
(there are ten dragon orbs, five chromatic orbs and five metalic orbs. They each have power over the aligned type of dragon)
-
Now Mind Flayers do not grow there own bodies. A mature tadpole is taken and inserted into the ear, nostril or eye of a helpless humanoid captive. Over the next several days the tadpole borrows into the host brain consuming gray matter and growing very quickly. The bloated tadpole assumes control of the brain stem. The victim is killed irrevocably.
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, during the period when the tadpole is consuming the central nervous system of its host, is it of sufficient intelligence to know that it is destroying a sentiant being, with its own throughts and emotions? I'm assuming that the answer is Yes, but there's a chance that it's still operating on instinct.
-
While it is likely the tadpole operates on instinct as it takes it a full 20 years after attaining a humanoid body to fully mature its powers it should be remembered how it lived to that point.
From the moment of its birth it lives off the brain matter of sentient creatures such as elves, dwarves and humans.
Then of course the only emotions a mind flayer feels are anger, fear, envy, hate, sham, indignation, contempt, pride, and anxiety. The closest feeling to joy is the experience they feel when devouring a brain.
My current information on Mind Flayers, Beholders, Aboleths and your other underdark aberration favorites comes from Lord of Madness. The book for people who actually want to see the internal anatomy creatures such as a beholder.
As well as the 3rd edition stats for the varents such as Ulitharids, and Elder Orbs
Its the draconomicon of Abberations. Why anyone needs to know psychology of abberations I don't know
(http://img1.yoxio.com/img/223592.jpg) (http://img1.yoxio.com/view/223592.htm)
-
While it is likely the tadpole operates on instinct as it takes it a full 20 years after attaining a humanoid body to fully mature its powers it should be remembered how it lived to that point.
From the moment of its birth it lives off the brain matter of sentient creatures such as elves, dwarves and humans.
While I would be foolish to claim that the tadpole's diet (and especially its method of attaining a skeleton) is anything other than abhorrent, I think it's a foregone conclusion that evil actions require evil intent. A being operating solely on instinct cannot be Evil. True Evilness can only arrive when the mature Mind Flayer thinks back to how it destroyed a sentient intelligence to acquire a body, and how it's been feeding off the brain matter of intelligent beings its entire life, and then it evaluates that as being a perfectly viable and acceptable choice of lifestyle. That's Evil.
-
True Evilness can only arrive when the mature Mind Flayer thinks back to how it destroyed a sentient intelligence to acquire a body, and how it's been feeding off the meat of intelligent beings its entire life, and then it evaluates that as being a perfectly viable and acceptable choice of lifestyle. That's Evil.
Why am I smack in the PETA thread again? :P
-
Ultimately i think that the only way you can decide upon whether or not a creature is evil is through your own cultural context and not through a defined universal sense of what is or isn't inherently evil. Mindflayers for example are raised in an isolated collective where they all share thoughts, experiences and opinions more powerfully with each other that they can with any other sentient race. Understandably they percieve themselves as superior to other races, and as such probably view the devouring of other sentient being's brains as somethin akin to the butchering of animals for sustenance. In their view they would see themselves as good and view people who oppose that viewpoint and deny them access to that sustenance as denying them a fundamental right.
There are numerous examples in Forgotten Realms lore where mindflayers have afforded a healthy respect to beings of other races, particulary psionists, who they can relate to in a manner similar to their own race.
True Evilness can only arrive when the mature Mind Flayer thinks back to how it destroyed a sentient intelligence to acquire a body, and how it's been feeding off the meat of intelligent beings its entire life, and then it evaluates that as being a perfectly viable and acceptable choice of lifestyle. That's Evil.
That would be just like a human that had a stint as a vego...
They are clearly deserving of noble wrath. :P
As such mindflayers are not inherently evil, but merely of a differing opinion, as a product of their upbringing and social connections.
Were beings to be inherently evil however, would it not be best to consider CHARNAME? I doubt that their can be anything much more evil than the God of Murder, whose purpose of existence is solely to condone assassination and immoral killing. If anything could be considered inherently evil than it should be CHARNAME him/her-self as they are born into the domain of the go dof murder. Creatures like Sahaugin have no irrevocably evil ancestor, that is solely served by destruction of everything else, whether they are in opposition or not, or shameless self advancement beyond thought for others. The Sahaugin show that concern at least for their race, and the survival of loyal members of their species. This differs greatly from the God of Murder. Yet CHARNAME can become a paladin and get a reputation of 20 and hot virtue scores...
So therefore a creature cannot be judged as inherently evil, however the CHARNAME's actions in killing the various creatures of the Forgotten Realms, and in completing quests can be judged according the precepts of the larger populous of the surface communities of Amn (in particular humans, and humanoids). Their view that each particular monster is/isn't worthy od death is what has been attempted to be implemented in the Infinity Engine...
(Breathe) :o
-oswald
EDIT>>>>>SORRY....i think i repeated some stuff
-
It's all just a game construct, and one I've never personally cared for, having come from the alignment-free background of RuneQuest. And sometimes I feel like BG shouldn't even allow CHARNAME the option of an evil alignment when his/her career basically forces goodness on him/her.
In the real world, as pointed out, things are more shade-of-greyish. Evil Aztecs crushed by horrified Spaniards, or evil Spaniards crushing an Aztec society needing heart-sacrifice to keep the world in existence? Or evil all around?