D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Vaalingrade]

If you're the one being mauled, does it matter?

That's the point, isn't it? There's not point to enforcing good and evil as long as there's conflict.

 

[Maxperson]

Is the hungry tiger that mauls a human evil?

I've used neutral mindflayers to great effect in my campaigns. Of course those campaigns were also set in Eberron, where alignment is handled fairly differently in general.

A tiger has no knowledge of right or wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the point, isn't it? There's not point to enforcing good and evil as long as there's conflict.

Enforcing good and evil misses the point. Alignment hasn't been a thing to be "enforced" in at least 13 years.

 

[CleverNickName]

I define "evil" as "understanding the difference between right and wrong, and choosing wrong."

So a tiger isn't evil, but a mind flayer is.

I think @Vaalingrade and @Maxperson are both right: alignment exists to drive conflict in the story, it's not a "rule" to be "enforced."

 

[Faolyn]

Is the hungry tiger that mauls a human evil?

I've used neutral mindflayers to great effect in my campaigns. Of course those campaigns were also set in Eberron, where alignment is handled fairly differently in general.

Tigers aren't fully sentient beings in the way that mind flayers are.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's the point, isn't it? There's not point to enforcing good and evil as long as there's conflict.

Yep, exactly. So agonising over whether mind flayers are evil is pointless. As long as they want to eat my brain and I'd rather keep it, an amicable compromise is rather unlikely.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tigers aren't fully sentient beings in the way that mind flayers are.

Yes they are. They might not be equally sapient though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I define "evil" as "understanding the difference between right and wrong, and choosing wrong."

So a tiger isn't evil, but a mind flayer is.

But many humans also eat creatures they deem to be intellectually inferior to them. So what's the difference between humans eating pigs, which we know to be intelligent sentient creatures and mind flayers doing the same to humans?

I think @Vaalingrade and @Maxperson are both right: alignment exists to drive conflict in the story, it's not a "rule" to be "enforced."

Alignment drives conflict alright! Mainly on message boards though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I define "evil" as "understanding the difference between right and wrong, and choosing wrong."

So a tiger isn't evil, but a mind flayer is.

Is not wanting to starve to death wrong though?

Like is it a choice on the part of the mindflayers that they were designed stupidly to prey exclusively on animals that whine about being eaten?

Vampires who can live on animal blood but don't make sense to call out; they've made an individual choice and they choose to be monsters about it. A mindflayer who is an obligate sapient hunter doesn't. They're a threat, an antagonist, but they're just trying not to starve -- like the tiger.

There's a discussion to be had about that brain fungus, but one has to wonder how widespread that knowledge is and how feasible it is to cultivate.

 

[Gradine]

So then the question become; is the only non-evil mindflayer one that willingly starves themselves to death?