D&D General Inherently Evil?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean, sure we can. Language is a tool, we use it to perform a function (communicate).

"Cannibalism," as a term with a history, came into being in a world where there was only one sapient species: us. Historically, what the word actually meant was "Carib people." It comes from caníbal, a variant of caribal) because of the mistaken (and, generally, pretty racist) idea that the indigenous people of the Lesser Antilles consumed human flesh. But in any world where you only have one sapient species, the distinction between "person who eats members of their own kind" and "person who eats other sapient creatures" vanishes: all people who eat sapient creatures necessarily eat members of their own kind and vice-versa. It's a degenerate case.

We have no word in English, or indeed in any language to the best of my knowledge, for "eats other sapient creatures," because there's never been a need for one. We generally understand that that part--eating other sapient beings--is the morally relevant problem of cannibalism. That is, while there are other non-moral reasons not to engage in cannibalism (e.g. Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease), the primary problem of cannibalism is that it means eating a person, and (usually) the implication is that the cannibal killed that person specifically so they could eat them. It's sort of like how if you want to refer to a person as failing to show even a shred of compassion for other creatures, the word is "inhuman," which in a strict definition would not apply to elves or dragonborn (because they are, by definition, not human), yet words like this (calling an elf "humane," speaking of a robot's "humanity") are used quite frequently because, again, we've never needed to make a distinction between "any sapient creature showing due compassion for the suffering of other creatures" and "specifically human creatures showing due compassion for the suffering of other creatures."

Under those lights, while it may be a colloquial usage, the very word itself comes from a colloquial usage, so making some kind of hard absolute stance of "this word means THIS thing and absolutely nothing else" is a bit specious. "Cannibal" is the closest term, both in terms of the physical act, and in terms of the moral ramifications of the act. Yes, a new word could be invented, and if it became important enough, I'm pretty sure people would try. Consider, for example, that there was no word at all in Latin for what we now call "cannibal," yet we know that they had a very strong taboo about not eating people! (To the best of my knowledge, the best you could do is a circumlocutive phrase, or simply borrow the Greek word anthropophagos, very literally "man-eater.")

Ironically, Old English did have a native word for "cannibal," but if we were going to follow your linguistic prescriptivism, that word would be wrongly used. Because that word was surprisingly readable to us today: selfæta, which very literally meant "self-eater." But a cannibal doesn't eat himself, he eats creatures like him. It is that sense of "likeness" that this looser meaning of "cannibalism" refers to. Not literally eating creatures of one's same species, but eating creatures of one's same moral kind, that is, sapient ones.

 

[Ace]

As annoying as it is, you need a good grasp of metaphysics and religious teaching in your game before doing this, since you have to define evil in your campaign first. After that you can develop a rationale for why this species behaves in that fashion .

To note also , both creators of D&D Gygax and Arneson were devout Christians and that was the default world view view of almost everyone in the US at the time so when the when the nine alignment axis originally developed (as vs law, chaos neutrality) for D&D it likely used a somewhat Christian world view to represent good and evil.

You world may not and non Abrahamic cultures especially those with no connection to the West may have very different world views. Make sure everyone is on the same page if you try say reconstructed Mesoamercan or Yanamoma or something. Settings like Empire of the Petal Throne are great but they can be very hard to play for many players and note everyone , actually very few people have much buy in to a setting that is described as Mesoamerica/Islamic with pulp aliens

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"Cannibalism," as a term with a history, came into being in a world where there was only one sapient species: us. Historically, what the word actually meant was "Carib people." It comes from caníbal, a variant of caribal) because of the mistaken (and, generally, pretty racist) idea that the indigenous people of the Lesser Antilles consumed human flesh. But in any world where you only have one sapient species, the distinction between "person who eats members of their own kind" and "person who eats other sapient creatures" vanishes: all people who eat sapient creatures necessarily eat members of their own kind and vice-versa. It's a degenerate case.

What's the moral problem with cannibalism? I can see the taboo originating because of health concern and the contamination from the assumption that the cannibal kills an innocent to eat him (and the taboo against desecrating a corpse), but by itself, is there something morally wrong to eat sentient flesh? Using body parts of the deceased carries no moral value in itself: it's socially accepted with organ transplant. We don't see it as an evil necessity to save a life but as a thing that is morally neutral. I am pretty sure that if there were another sentient species, we'd readily eat them, much like we eat pork, whale, squids, dogs and monkeys, unless we had granted them the same rights as humans ; and then we wouldn't eat them not because it's morally wrong but because body part would presumably be as difficult to find as human ones are in the real world. Much like very few countries have actual laws against eating legally acquired human flesh ; it's just that it's impossible to find the required product. There is, for example, no legal problem with making human cheese (Breast Milk... Cheese? You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers). It's absolutely gross to me, but I think it results from the social taboo, not any moral explanation I can imagine against it, not different from the taboo I have against eating insects (which are a delicacy in many parts of the world).

So while your stance on cannibalism is that it's a moral wrong to eat sentient species and it was called man-eating because there was no other sentient species, my stance is that the taboo originated specifically from eating Homo sapiens after killing/desecrating it, not as a general taboo against eating sentient beings. It also depends on how alien you make your sentient species. If they are humans with pointy ears and darkvision and you consider orcs, humans and elves as six sexes of the same species, I can see a general taboo against sentient-eating emerging, as the taboo against "eating self" would apply. On the other hand, if you have a perfectly sentient species evolving with say, praying mantises like the thri-kreen, and praying mantis practice sexual cannibalism, would they evolve a taboo against eating humans?


In a fantasy world, I guess it would be a strongly contested practice and induce horror and be used as an excuse to go to war (these humans are hunting elfs like us! they say we taste like chicken!) and even within human communities the debate would be strong, but I don't see a published setting adressing it (they are eschewing a lot of things like gender inequalities, racism and slavery, I don't see them trying to include dietary habits of sentient species in a poly sentient species world ; especially if it's to have "it's OK to eat elves, but dwarf eating is gross!" and I can't really see it coming up a lot in a typical game anyway...). I'd also see a taboo against destroying corpses being much more prevalent, since it can block Raise Dead, so cremation would be seen as an evil thing to do to an opponent, even more than killing him, since you kill him and make his return more difficult.

The OP asked about an "inherently evil" biological species, the illithid came to mind, but I think their inherent evilness comes from other trait than their dietary and reproductive habits.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't have a problem with pallys casting Smite Evil at each other.

"You're evil!"
"No, YOU are evil!"
"No, YOU!"

Personally, I like my games slightly more mature than this, which is something that is actually easier to achieve when things are not relative to culture when good/evil have a technical effect on the game, because you don't have to describe all the things which are good and evil for a given culture to decide what the technical effects would be. I'm not saying that it's not doable, but it takes a huge amount of effort to do for no real benefit, which is the real flaw of the 2e design.

Note that even in 2e, it was not really played that way in further publications, and in particular in Planescape, things are clear-cut and not cultural, despite the fact that it was designed under 2e.

I think it's a feature illlustrated that alignment isn't that a straightjacket. Conflicting views of what is evil, even among gods, sounds an interesting world to play in.

There are worlds and games made for that, and they are interesting, but D&D is a bit of a special beast in term of game, and one that has been interesting with a different type of conflict, see for example Planescape.

5e, being even more permissive, allows you to play that way if you want.

The rest isn't helping that much.

Actually, it is, because none of the others are pointing in the direction of cultural alignment, and there is more below in the "alignment in the Multiverse" that goes to show that there are "good-aligned gods" and "evil deities" and that it's a cosmic choice and not a cultural one.

Note that in 2e, they had the special problem of the satanical "thingie" to deal with, meaning that they could not have devils and demons, but in 5e there are clear embodiments of evil and these transcend culture again.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"You're evil!"
"No, YOU are evil!"
"No, YOU!"

Personally, I like my games slightly more mature than this,

I guess maturity comes from how you handle the situation. Yours is a possibility, but the real-life Crusades are also an example of it, with both sides claiming to be god-supported fighters for the greater good, and I think it was more mature than that... (or at least, the people involved thought it was more serious than a kindergarden conflict like you depict). It's not impossible to have crusade-like events in a D&D setting, even with moral absolutes being part of the universe, if those absolutes come from the gods and not the gods emerging from the absolute (so they'd embody it and the situation would never arise as all good gods would point in the same direction and avoid intra-good-supporter wars in the first place).

Actually, it is, because none of the others are pointing in the direction of cultural alignment, and there is more below in the "alignment in the Multiverse" that goes to show that there are "good-aligned gods" and "evil deities" and that it's a cosmic choice and not a cultural one.

To me, evoking "traditions" is a clear mention of cultural alignment, but each to his own. With regard to moral absolute existing, they can exist and yet be culturally diverse. You can be cosmically LN if you follow the tenets of your neutral god, whether he asks you to not kill people withouht cause or eat your eggs by the small end, and have your soul ending up in the same afterlife plane...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

Especially since I don't recall situations in published campaigns where the PCs are tasked to go out and kill evil. Usually, they are reacting to actions made by NPCs, who might be from evil races. But the starting point is reacting to aggression, while the real-life name-calling "they are evil" is used to prompt unwarranted agression against a country or minority. I don't think a politician saying "These people are evil" when his country is invaded, his cities are burned to the ground and its population killed wholesale would be enacting the same thought process as one calling "evil" a tribe of peaceful people sitting on a gold mine they want to appropriate.

 

[Lyxen]

I guess maturity comes from how you handle the situation. Yours is a possibility, but the real-life Crusades are also an example of it, with both sides claiming to be god-supported fighters for the greater good, and I think it was more mature than that... (or at least, the people involved thought it was more serious than a kindergarden conflict like you depict).

And none of the sides, and in particular the crusaders behaved in a good fashion. Remember that the definition of good and evil in D&D are modern ones and for a good reason, because it allows them to be absolute and understandable by all. And in that light, things like the sack of Constantinople by the 4th crusade show that they clearly did evil.

It's not impossible to have crusade-like events in a D&D setting, even with moral absolutes being part of the universe, if those absolutes come from the gods and not the gods emerging from the absolute (so they'd embody it and the situation would never arise as all good gods would point in the same direction and avoid intra-good-supporter wars in the first place).

Even at their spirit, the crusades were not good in the D&D sense, at the very best neutral.

To me, evoking "traditions" is a clear mention of cultural alignment, but each to his own.

Once more, the "Alignment in the Multiverse" does not mention tradition or culture, there are good gods and evil gods, and they are clearly categorised as such, and there are absolutes of good and evil with the celestials and fiends. These are not relative to culture. Although, again, you can create your own relative cosmology if you want, it's going to be really difficult if the demons of one are the angels of the others and vice versa, all in the same outer planes...

With regard to moral absolute existing, they can exist and yet be culturally diverse. You can be cosmically LN if you follow the tenets of your neutral god, whether he asks you to not kill people withouht cause or eat your eggs by the small end, and have your soul ending up in the same afterlife plane...

We are talking about good and evil, law and chaos are something else entirely even if you use them as cosmic principles, and in a sense much easier to rule.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And none of the sides, and in particular the crusaders behaved in a good fashion. Remember that the definition of good and evil in D&D are modern ones and for a good reason, because it allows them to be absolute and understandable by all.

I don't think "modern one" is something shared by everyone, either. It varies so much by culture within the real world ; it could only be coherent within a gaming group, at most, where presumably all players come from the same social group and share cultural values. I mean, and without devolving into politics, debates over social questions like abortion, death penalty and religious freedom can be divisive even inside a single country and are often backed by moral arguments on both sides. I don't think there is an objective "modern criterion" of what is evil or good (or philosophers would be out of work ;-) )

 

[Lyxen]

Especially since I don't recall situations in published campaigns where the PCs are tasked to go out and kill evil. Usually, they are reacting to actions made by NPCs, who might be from evil races. But the starting point is reacting to aggression, while the real-life name-calling "they are evil" is used to prompt unwarranted agression against a country or minority. I don't think a politician saying "These people are evil" when his country is invaded, his cities are burned to the ground and its population killed wholesale would be enacting the same thought process as one calling "evil" a tribe of peaceful people sitting on a gold mine they want to appropriate.

I completely agree. Once more (as with the "straightjacket" argument), this comes from people who dislike the alignment system but who use their own views of it rather than the published ones to demonise it. Even according to Gygax and in AD&D which was probably the edition in which alignment had the strongest presence, it was only a record of the actions of the PC, not a straightjacket. It had consequences when you behaved a certain way, for sure, but it did not restrict the action. And neither was it used as a justification for killing in the publications themselves.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't think "modern one" is something shared by everyone, either.

I know, but the trend is obvious in all the editions and share by most even if there are variations in understandings.

It varies so much by culture within the real world ; it could only be coherent within a gaming group, at most, where presumably all players come from the same social group and share cultural values. I mean, and without devolving into politics, debates over social questions like abortion, death penalty and religious freedom can be divisive even inside a single country and are often backed by moral arguments on both sides. I don't think there is an objective "modern criterion" of what is evil or good (or philosophers would be out of work ;-) )

I absolutely agree (your examples above are for sure divisive about good and evil even in a modern view), which is why alignment remains a simple gaming concept helpful in simulating (high) fantasy worlds, and one that will not suit absolutely everyone even in these conditions.