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

[Maxperson]

The point is that this does not (or need not, or should not) reflect every individual mind flayer

That has never been the case, though. Even back in AD&D there were individual exceptions to even races like demons and devils, the quintessential evils. Even the "always" alignments didn't apply to 100% of the race.

 

[Faolyn]

If a mind-flayer is not evil for being an obligate sapient carnivore, then it should reason there would be no objections to a group of mind-flayers opening a farm where they breed and raise thier own sapient beings in pens until subtlety intelligent and then turning into food to sustain themselves on. If all they require is the brain, perhaps they could even sell of the excess meat to other carnivores like ogres. Waste not!

Surely no one finds such a farm objectionable, right?

Of course people are going to find that objectionable. But there's a difference between evil and Evil and even EVIL. You just have decide which ones are important for the gameworld.

 

[CleverNickName]

...there's a difference between evil and Evil and even EVIL. You just have decide which ones are important for the gameworld.

This is the way.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Right. So that's just like their opinion.


Do you think pigs want to be killed? Do you actually have reasonable doubt about this? You simply have arbitrarily demanded that they communicate this desire via means you know them to be incapable of. Similarly mind flayers can deem any communication not done via telephatic hive-mind pointless mooing.


I'm sure they would object. And they would object just the same if mind flayers weren't objectively evil, and just hungry. There is conflict of interests, but alignment is just a distraction.

The thing that I find most amusing about this whole exchange is that illithids - who are obligate brain eaters - are somehow deemed more unethical than humans, who are not obligate carnivores, but who eat meat regardless of its ethical and environmental consequences because it tastes good.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course people are going to find that objectionable. But there's a difference between evil and Evil and even EVIL. You just have decide which ones are important for the gameworld.

 

[Cadence]

The thing that I find most amusing about this whole exchange is that illithids - who are obligate brain eaters - are somehow deemed more unethical than humans, who are not obligate carnivores, but who eat meat regardless of its ethical and environmental consequences because it tastes good.

From the ethical side, we can probably string together something an Illithid might have about their being no higher calling then enabling creatures to fulfill their place in the universe (insert various religious text and the relevant video from the movie babe) just to be snarky if nothing else.

I have no come back on the environmental part. Holy heck sugar is apparently bad for that. And I'm wondering how water shortages in some areas will affect views of some very water guzzling plants.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no come back on the environmental part. Holy heck sugar is apparently bad for that. And I'm wondering how water shortages in some areas will affect views of some very water guzzling plants.

If the California droughts and its almond farms are any example, views won't really shift much.

 

[Faolyn]

That has never been the case, though. Even back in AD&D there were individual exceptions to even races like demons and devils, the quintessential evils. Even the "always" alignments didn't apply to 100% of the race.

OK, while there were possibly some exceptions, have you ever actually read the 1e descriptions for the various monsters? Or read the 1e Dragon magazine articles about them? Because while there may have been an individual or two that were different, the way the monsters were actually and consistently presented is more important, and more telling, than a single Not Written Alignment individual. Show, not tell.

Also, ever hear the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"?

 

[Maxperson]

OK, while there were possibly some exceptions, have you ever actually read the 1e descriptions for the various monsters? Or read the 1e Dragon magazine articles about them? Because while there may have been an individual or two that were different, the way the monsters were actually and consistently presented is more important, and more telling, than a single Not Written Alignment individual. Show, not tell.

The 1e MM is supposed to be used to challenge and fight PCs, so of course they will be written that way. That's their intended function within the game. They are not some sort of dissertation on the societies of said monsters outside of that context.

Also, ever hear the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"?

Yep. Doesn't apply to arguments that say, "Why aren't there any exceptions in individuals?" or "Why is it that X monster CANNOT be a different alignment?" The exceptions in those cases neatly counter the arguments being used.

 

[Cadence]

The 1e MM is supposed to be used to challenge and fight PCs, so of course they will be written that way. That's their intended function within the game, not some sort of dissertation on their societies.

"Characteristic bent" even (in the 1e MM)...

This seems a light more open than the Moldvay basic ones...

The infamous Gygax quote on mercy seems more inline with Moldvay than the 1e MM.


But I do have issue with the only purpose of the MM to be to challenge and fight PCs. There are a number of good creatures as well.