D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Lyxen]

Evil and Good don't exist in real life as objective concept. In some RPGs, they can exist as a scientifically testable concept (I cast "Detect Evil" on him. Does he flash red?) and be objective.

In such a concept, I don't see our real life conceit that we can't be "evil" or "good" without the ability to choose being applicable. Of course, we'll put murderers in jail and we won't kill their children to spite them, but that's not necessarily something generally applicable, it's just a legal concept (and maybe even only a Western legal concept).

Let's imagine a setting in which "Good" is "what the good gods decreed to be good" and "Evil" is "what is forbidden by the good gods". There is not necessarily an overlap between what we deem good around the table and what the good gods would think. If you're playing in say, Biblical Egypt, you're supposed to think it's "Good" to threaten to kill the first-born of those who wouldn't smear blood on their door, even if the first-born is a little baby without ability to make moral choice (or have any say in what is smeared on the family's door). In such a setting, the infant in his cradle would register as Evil when a detection spell is cast upon him. If you're playing in an Aztec setting, you're expected to consider that it's OK to sacrifice your foes to ensure the continuing existence of the Sun, which would be labelled as good, despite our moden views being more nuanced on these practices. It might not be for everyone (not all settings are equally palatable), but after all, part of the roleplaying appeal is imagining how a character would think, not how we would fare if we were put in the characters' shoes.

Yes, but fortunately D&D provides an objective definition of evil in the game, which was necessary, especially in previous editions since actual mechanics depended on this. Now, it's mostly gone anyway.

 

[ninjayeti]

I don't think it is hard to imagine a sentient fantasy species that was incapable of experiencing empathy or comprehending human morality, or even one that experienced pleasure (endorphins or the magical equivalent) from inflicting suffering. Whether or not that that makes them "inherently evil" or not really depends on your definitions.

For example, a chromatic dragon is raised from an egg by adventurers who feed it well and let it nest in their collected treasure pile. It doesn't eat them because it benefits from the relationship and genuinely enjoys their company. It doesn't kill random townspeople because that would make its friends mad, and the local noble would hire other adventurers to come kill it. But it would enjoy killing people - they are delicious and their screams would give it pleasure. However it refrains from killing people for pragmatic reasons, rather than because killing is wrong. The party bard reads the dragon moral philosophy textbooks every day (a la Chidi from the Good Place) but it is total nonsense as far is the dragon is concerned.

Now you could say the dragon was inherently evil. You could also argue that it never committed an evil act, and even if it did eat people that can't be considered evil because didn't understand the difference between right and wrong, or was just following its biological instincts.

So instead of a vague pronouncement like "inherently evil" I think you should have a more specific idea in mind. Do they have an alien mentality (thri-kreen)? Do they have urges to do evil which they may or may not resist (vampires)? Are they just incapable of empathy or anything beyond a "might makes right" reasoning? But just saying "inherently evil" is just going to open up a philosophical discussion about what that means.

 

[Lyxen]

Interesting, I come it from the complete opposite.

I guessed that from your definition.

An act, can be lawful, or chaotic, or good, or evil, and be the same act.

The intent behind it, in my view on the systems/concepts is what determines its nature or alignment.

Hell is paved with good intentions (I know that this saying and the way is applied is debatable), but for me hurting others is still an evil act even if the intent is to save/protect others.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn’t.

This is the way.

 

[Voadam]

Take real world cats as a base, responsible for causing lots and lots of species to go extinct, that torture other animals for fun and training (playing cat and mouse), and use that as a base and turn them into people. Could be a basis for Melnibonean type where it is more inherent than cultural evil.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yes, but fortunately D&D provides an objective definition of evil in the game, which was necessary, especially in previous editions since actual mechanics depended on this. Now, it's mostly gone anyway.

The definition is fluider than you think in 5e. Loyal Good is "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society". It can be read as "our" society, but it can also be read as "the society they are from". So blood-on-door and sun sacrifices are expected and Good. "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs." So, they sacrifice a few evil prisonners to ensure the continued existence of the many? The objective definition wasn't that objective in the first place. Assuming it's our society's values would lead to strange results. As an example, you pointed out that in your values, hurting other, even with the noblest intent, is an evil act. So, as most Western Europeans, you'd see the death penalty as an evil act. Even if it's often not explicitely documented, many fantasy kingdoms practices the death penalty... Is the King of Breland evil by D&D terms, for you? He isn't doing "what is expected by OUR society" but certain "what is expected by BRELISH society". Would you say the same thing if you were heading from a culture where death penalty is still practiced?

 

[Professor Murder]

There is already a clear example of this in DnD: Illithids. Illithid reproduction and basic nutrition require them to kill sentient beings. Could an illithid individual or community find moral means to fulfill both of this most basic, biological needs? Possibly. But such exceptions would matter from a narrative perspective precisely because they stand in stark contrast to the larger illithid societal norms.

 

[Professor Murder]

I'd also warn against falling into the discourse trap of assigning DnD alignments to real world cultures or nations.

 

[Voadam]

The definition is fluider than you think. Loyal Good is "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society". It can be read as "our" society, but it can also be read as "the society they are from". So blood-on-door and sun sacrifices are expected and Good. "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs." So, they sacrifice a few evil prisonners to ensure the continued existence of the many? The objective definition wasn't that objective in the first place. Assuming it's our society's values would lead to strange results. As an example, you pointed out that in your values, hurting other, even with the noblest intent, is an evil act. So, as most Western Europeans, you'd see the death penalty as an evil act. Even if it's often not explicitely documented, many fantasy kingdoms practices the death penalty... Is the King of Breland evil by D&D terms, for you? He isn't doing "what is expected by OUR society" but certain "what is expected by BRELISH society". Would you say the same thing if you were heading from a culture where death penalty is still practiced?

The specific society they are from interpretation has a significant problematic issue in a world with some objectively evil societies.

It seems consistent to say hurting and killing is evil and so the death penalty is a necessary or if not necessary a recognized evil instead of killing prisoners is just something we do so it is good in our society.

 

[MoonSong]

If I might offer an idea, @jgsugden?

Make them brutal. Not just violent toward outsiders. But internally brutal. A lot of people talk about "Alpha Wolves" as if it were a positive and natural thing, which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, but apply that to your Gnolls.

Instead of reproducing through mating, have them reproduce through cannibalistic acts, like 5e's corrupted hyena followers. And have every individual Gnoll recognize no other gnoll as "Family" because they -aren't- family by any stretch of the imagination. So an enforce hierarchy relies on constant brutal violence. Have practically every gnoll covered in vicious scars, even open wounds. Missing limbs or eyes or ears from being torn up by higher ups in the pack. Go to extremes on the levels of violence they aim at each other, and out into the world as soon as they have a target that isn't themselves.

Yeah, they're slavers who take prisoners to do the work for them. But they're also just as likely to kill and eat a slave when they think they can get away with it.

Petty Tyrants, the lot of them, abusing whatever power they have over literally anyone under them, outraged that they're not able to be the pack alpha.

It wouldn't reflect any specific society that's ever existed... but would reflect the worst aspects of almost every society that has ever existed.

I did something similar for a creature on my world. It doesn't feature what we call classic fantasy races, so I needed an antagonistic intelligent creature. They aren't humans by any sense of the world. They share ancestors with humans, but descend from some Neanderthal groups that instead of trading with, intermarrying with and eventually getting subsumed by humanity decided to reject everything that humanity stands for. This is a species that has actively bred out empathy out of their gene pool -because the most empathetic joined humanity and each cub that is born "weak" and needy is promptly devoured by its littermates if not its "mother" -. They aren't exactly antisocial as much as lacking any semblance of society. They are loners that only tolerate each other to mate every once on a blue moon or when intimidated by a bigger and stronger member of their species. Even their young get weaned off early and are quickly abandoned upon reaching certain age. There are times when they can form small temporary groups, but such alliances are weak and fleeting, usually spurred by the presence of a dominant "alpha". They don't even have a language of their own.

I'm not sure how well done the idea is. I'm still trying to iron the kinks out.