Vaalingrade
Legend
Gonna be honest here:
A big part of my objection of 'inherently evil' creatures is the fact that this label is used as a justification for killing/harming them.
Which historically is the point of calling any group inherently evil.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General Inherently Evil?
- Thread starter Iry
- Start date
A big part of my objection of 'inherently evil' creatures is the fact that this label is used as a justification for killing/harming them.
Which historically is the point of calling any group inherently evil.
Humans eating Demons would be cannibalism.
While I recognize a lot of people try to keep it "Own Species" that would make humans eating elves "Acceptable". It would also reduce the wickedness of specific creatures, like Thri-Kreen or Gnolls, favoring Elf-Flesh over all others if eating elves is only bad if you're an elf.
Scribe
Legend
So we are talking anything that is sapient eating anything that is sapient becomes cannibalism?
I'm suddenly reminded of yet one more thing I hated in Baldur's Gate 3, you can eat a 'roast dwarf', in combat no less, to regain hit points.
As any race.
AtomicPope
Hero
The failure of most DMs and players is their inability to accept that their moral view has no bearing on the fantasy elements of D&D and if anything they serve as a hindrance to understanding D&D. When we talk about good and evil in D&D we're talking about living forces in the multiverse, just as real as the four elements. In the Prime Material plane pure good or pure evil is extremely rare as say a floating ball of pure fire that burns eternally. Fire burning without end or source is natural in the Elemental Plane of Fire. In the Prime Material it's alien, a supernatural wonder that could inspire awe or invoke terror. Everything in the Prime Material is a mixture of the ideal nature of existence. The more concrete ideals exist in the inner planes. The more abstract exist in the Outer Planes. In the Outer Planes the abstract becomes concrete, and all too real. Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, in the outer planes these abstract ideas exist as salient, living forces, as real as a bonfire or lake. They're Angels, Devils, Demons, Modrons, and Yugoloths. They're the Sorrowsworn, the living embodiment of wicked emotions.
Of course there are inherently evil races in D&D, Yuan-it for example who chose to devote themselves to an evil, tyrannical snake god and now their destiny is naturally aligned with that god (alignment). The Yuan-ti were once human. After aligning themselves with an evil snake god their nature and existence was forever changed. This is no different than Genasi who are aligned with elemental forces. Having an opinion about fire is one thing, but it's irrelevant to the existence and nature of fire. Free will is irrelevant. Lots of people who are short have free will. It doesn't make them taller. Lots of weak people have free will. It doesn't make them strong. In D&D even the abstract exists as a fundamental building block of the multiverse, as real and imposing as a mountain and as vast and deep as the ocean. In D&D if you don't believe in good or evil, that's fine. It's just as sane as not believing in the ocean.
If you're going to create an evil race for D&D, or a good race, then you need to understand the nature of good and evil in D&D first, and go from there. What or who made/makes them evil? Who is in control? What is the community like? Who is living on the outside? All of those questions will give answers to the players and their PCs, and how they interact with the evil race.
Of course there are inherently evil races in D&D, Yuan-it for example who chose to devote themselves to an evil, tyrannical snake god and now their destiny is naturally aligned with that god (alignment). The Yuan-ti were once human. After aligning themselves with an evil snake god their nature and existence was forever changed. This is no different than Genasi who are aligned with elemental forces. Having an opinion about fire is one thing, but it's irrelevant to the existence and nature of fire. Free will is irrelevant. Lots of people who are short have free will. It doesn't make them taller. Lots of weak people have free will. It doesn't make them strong. In D&D even the abstract exists as a fundamental building block of the multiverse, as real and imposing as a mountain and as vast and deep as the ocean. In D&D if you don't believe in good or evil, that's fine. It's just as sane as not believing in the ocean.
If you're going to create an evil race for D&D, or a good race, then you need to understand the nature of good and evil in D&D first, and go from there. What or who made/makes them evil? Who is in control? What is the community like? Who is living on the outside? All of those questions will give answers to the players and their PCs, and how they interact with the evil race.
Redwizard007
Adventurer
Biological evil? The only way I've seen that done well is when sentient beings are their preferred or exclusive food source. Vampires, illithids, stuff like that.
Culturally evil is so much easier. Just ingraine an imperative to conquer/raid/enslave, add some enjoyment of brutality, and wah-la, evil in a can.
Culturally evil is so much easier. Just ingraine an imperative to conquer/raid/enslave, add some enjoyment of brutality, and wah-la, evil in a can.
Argyle King
Legend
True. I agree with the last piece of what you've said here.
However, the real world doesn't (to my knowledge) have some objective standard of universal evil -such as an evil cosmic being or demonic plane of existence.
Personally, I prefer more nuanced morality. I play other games which don't use the D&D alignment system.
Though, D&D contains game mechanics (in the form of items, spells, and etc) which are related to alignment.
Hypothetically, if robots were programmed to perform evil acts, would spells which detect evil beings work on them?
I see that as being a similar situation to creatures genetically programmed to be evil by a deity.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Can we kill them for land? Nope. That's historically a reason for killing people.
Can we kill them for resources? Nope. That's historically a reason for killing people.
Can we kill them for their gold and gems? Nope. That's historically a reason for killing people.
Can we kill them for their magic items? Nope. Relics were historically a reason for killing people.
Or else we can understand that in a game like D&D, killing a race that really is inherently evil is not the same as calling a group of real humans evil in order to kill them.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
You can't expand what cannibalism is just because you want Thri-kreen or gnolls to be more wicked. Humans eating demons would be gross, and possibly lethal(I can't imagine eating bits of the abyss embodied into living form is good for you), but it's not cannibalism.
Non-deterministic is not necessarily the same as not-predeterminedSo, my degree is in philosophy, and you're doing a ton of assuming here.
Firstly, the universe is not deterministic and we've known that for at least 100 years. At least not in the sense that all process are completely and totally deterministic. Most recently the 2015 Bell Tests have been called the final and ultimate nail in the idea of laplacian determinism.
Second, knowing what I just said, your statement that "in the exact configuration it is currently in because that is the only configuration it -could- be in based on it's initial trajectory during the Big Bang" is objectively, and not even controversially, false. While we can invoke the PSR to say that reality had to have some foundation from which all other existence springs, that does not mean that the initial condition determined all future states of the universe. Again, this isn't new, this is from the 1920s.
Thirdly, libertarian free will has been my area of study for the last decade and I'd be happy to go into length on any of these issues. While a determinist universe can be argued for, as a matter of academic responsibility I cannot allow you to just assert it's truth unchallenged, especially when it is an increasingly minority opinion.
See:
Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres - Nature
A Bell experiment that is ‘loophole’ free—leaving no room for explanations based on experimental imperfections—reveals a statistically significant conflict with local realismwww.nature.com
(PDF) What’s wrong with the consequence argument: In defence of compatibilist libertarianism
PDF | The most prominent argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism is Peter van Inwagen’s consequence argument. I offer a new... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGatewww.researchgate.net
Norton's dome - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The universe can be seen as a static four-dimensional object. Eternal and unchanging. The past is still there and the future already exists.
And in any case, the pilot-wave and many-worlds interpretations are both deterministic regardless
What about demons made from dead humans?
