D&D General Is This Evil? D&D Morality.

[Faolyn]

In this scenario there's other sentient beings who might depend o those resources or like their way of life based on those resources.

Sentient rocks might be solar powered and use the land to bask in the sun humans want to turn it into farm.

Each rock is a level 12 Druid.

They're intelligent and sentient they are likely able to recognize the same in humans.

See, in a case like that, there's an easy compromise--rocks doesn't need all the land, and farms don't need all the land. They can share. If the rocks refuse to and think killing all the humans is the best way for them to be able to feed on sunlight, even though they're 12th-level druids with access to plenty of magic that would make the sharing possible and profitable for both--then the rocks are evil.

Yes, I realize that this scenario is likely just made up and you aren't planning a setting with 1-2 billion 12th-level druid-rocks, but my point is still valid. Unless this world has next to no land, then there should be plenty of space for these rocks. Do the rocks care about the weather? If not, then they have tons of space in the desert and at the poles (migrating between north and south) where farmers can't go. Depending on how big they are, they could even just hang around in regular human spaces soaking up the sunlight and not bothering anyone. We have tons of room for even big rocks everywhere.

If they choose not to, if they choose to still kill the humans when they really don't need to, then they're evil.

However complete alien mindset they may or may not have morality as humans see it. Eg humans may be a viable food source or seen as an invasive/destructive species eg sentient locusts.

I don't think the locusts comparison is apt, because your scenario seems to have the idea that the aliens are coming to the humans, not the other way around. So the aliens would be the locusts.

If the aliens are intelligent, then no matter how alien they are, they should have at least some ability to understand that humans don't want to be eaten. Even if their own biology or culture tells them that it's OK to eat sentient beings, if they understand that humans are sentient and saying "no," then they should be intelligent enough to respect that.

(Question: is this some sort of roundabout way to get everyone to convert to vegetarianism?)

What humans see as good the other species sees as bad and/or a threat to their existence. They may or may not be right in that belief mostly for the sake of discussion. Wh they may have experienced the result of human expansion in previous ages or they can see the future.

Or they may just want to eat all humans regardless. More interested in people's thoughts of various scenarios on who is right or wrong.

If it's because humans are tasty, then this would make them evil. If it's because humans are literally the only food they could eat... well, why are you, as a GM, using this scenario? And by D&D standards, that makes them evil.

So e scenarios I can think of.

1. Humans are a direct threat to their existence.

All humans? Like every last man, woman, NB person, and child is a direct threat to this species? If so, how? I'm sure you could come up with a reason for it--it's a fantasy world, maybe there's only so many souls/animating forces to go around, humans and alien rocks have to get their souls from the same source for whatever reason, but humans breed so much faster that the rocks are literally no longer being born right or at all because of humans. But it kind of didn't sound like you were going for that. So if it's not something magical like that, how is every human a direct threat to them.

If only some humans are a threat, then it's evil to kill all humans.

2. Humans are percieved to be a direct threat to their existence.

Then it's evil, because the rocks aren't getting the full story; they're basing their beliefs on superstition or bigotry.

3. Competition for resources may the strongest win.

4. Percieved competition for resources.

As I said before, this is unlikely the case. All humans are literally in competition with each other for the same food and there's tons of food to go around (the problem is in distributing it fairly and affordably). Even if medieval fantasy world got a couple of billion aliens who could eat human foods, then there would be starvation due to the relatively low-tech farming techniques of the time period... but then these aliens should able able to contribute their own knowledge of farming to improve such a thing.

5. Long term threat not clear to most in present time.

6. Long term threat they percieve as real. Eg if on earth they can forsee climate change via human action. Or humans did cause immense destruction in the past.

Then it would still be evil, because if they have the ability to kill off all humans, then they likely have the ability to fix climate change. Or are those 1-2 billion 12th-level druid-rocks all talk and no carbon scrubber, hmm?

7. Very alien mindset. They know humans are intelligent they just don't care or see them as a self aware food source.

Then, evil.

Hell maybe they do everything humans do but are better at it eg expand faster consume faster.

Then, evil.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, in a case like that, there's an easy compromise--rocks doesn't need all the land, and farms don't need all the land. They can share. If the rocks refuse to and think killing all the humans is the best way for them to be able to feed on sunlight, even though they're 12th-level druids with access to plenty of magic that would make the sharing possible and profitable for both--then the rocks are evil.

Yes, I realize that this scenario is likely just made up and you aren't planning a setting with 1-2 billion 12th-level druid-rocks, but my point is still valid. Unless this world has next to no land, then there should be plenty of space for these rocks. Do the rocks care about the weather? If not, then they have tons of space in the desert and at the poles (migrating between north and south) where farmers can't go. Depending on how big they are, they could even just hang around in regular human spaces soaking up the sunlight and not bothering anyone. We have tons of room for even big rocks everywhere.

If they choose not to, if they choose to still kill the humans when they really don't need to, then they're evil.


I don't think the locusts comparison is apt, because your scenario seems to have the idea that the aliens are coming to the humans, not the other way around. So the aliens would be the locusts.

If the aliens are intelligent, then no matter how alien they are, they should have at least some ability to understand that humans don't want to be eaten. Even if their own biology or culture tells them that it's OK to eat sentient beings, if they understand that humans are sentient and saying "no," then they should be intelligent enough to respect that.

(Question: is this some sort of roundabout way to get everyone to convert to vegetarianism?)


If it's because humans are tasty, then this would make them evil. If it's because humans are literally the only food they could eat... well, why are you, as a GM, using this scenario? And by D&D standards, that makes them evil.


All humans? Like every last man, woman, NB person, and child is a direct threat to this species? If so, how? I'm sure you could come up with a reason for it--it's a fantasy world, maybe there's only so many souls/animating forces to go around, humans and alien rocks have to get their souls from the same source for whatever reason, but humans breed so much faster that the rocks are literally no longer being born right or at all because of humans. But it kind of didn't sound like you were going for that. So if it's not something magical like that, how is every human a direct threat to them.

If only some humans are a threat, then it's evil to kill all humans.


Then it's evil, because the rocks aren't getting the full story; they're basing their beliefs on superstition or bigotry.


As I said before, this is unlikely the case. All humans are literally in competition with each other for the same food and there's tons of food to go around (the problem is in distributing it fairly and affordably). Even if medieval fantasy world got a couple of billion aliens who could eat human foods, then there would be starvation due to the relatively low-tech farming techniques of the time period... but then these aliens should able able to contribute their own knowledge of farming to improve such a thing.


Then it would still be evil, because if they have the ability to kill off all humans, then they likely have the ability to fix climate change. Or are those 1-2 billion 12th-level druid-rocks all talk and no carbon scrubber, hmm?


Then, evil.


Then, evil.

No I'm not attempting to convert people to vegetarian.

I used some modern examples so people can relate. Pre industrial society had a lot smaller populations I just phrased it that way.

I'm trying to get people to think about if another species judged us by our own actions.

Say if aliens turned up tomorrow an announced "your species is destroying the planet as judgement we're culling you down to XYZ.

Our mere existence has driven other species to extinction. We ate them all or destroyed the environment.

One thought I had the other species has precognition they see humans as a threat attack but lose and their precognition caused their downfall.

I'm saying that argueably our expansion and consumption is unsustainable another species might do something about it. Alien mindset or something like extreme Druidism was what came to mind first beyond "eat now".

Eat now was what I thought of with insectoid species or hivemind.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends on what ethical framework we’re using. For example, if we’re talking pure utilitarianism, whether or not they’re evil really depends on whether or not it’s true that humans’ continued existence creates more suffering than their extermination would. If we’re talking rule utilitarianism, they’re probably evil, because exterminating sapient species that one believes to be causing net harm as a rule would probably cause more suffering than it alleviates. But since this is the D&D forum, I imagine we’re probably talking about alignments as described in D&D.

Does this species methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order? Do they do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms? Do they act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, they’re evil by D&D 5e’s standards. Otherwise, they probably aren’t.

 

[Zardnaar]

It depends on what ethical framework we’re using. For example, if we’re talking pure utilitarianism, whether or not they’re evil really depends on whether or not it’s true that humans’ continued existence creates more suffering than their extermination would. If we’re talking rule utilitarianism, they’re probably evil, because exterminating sapient species that one believes to be causing net harm as a rule would probably cause more suffering than it alleviates. But since this is the D&D forum, I imagine we’re probably talking about alignments as described in D&D.

Does this species methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order? Do they do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms? Do they act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, they’re evil but D&D 5e’s standards. Otherwise, they probably aren’t.

I didn't want cookie cutter evil. We're gonna wipe humans out because we're evil hahaha.

First rule of evil imho is it doesn't see itself as evil aka the justification.

Why I went with completely alien mindset is they don't care about any squabble we would (politics, religion etc). They might care about the environment to the extent our impact on it is detrimental to their well being.

And they're powerful enough to do something about it.

That's the basic idea

 

[Yaarel]

And evolving from gatherers.

For humans, hunter-gatherer is a package deal.

Two humans in competition for limited resources is not evil, it is survival.

Now, one human killing another when it is understood there are sufficient resources for both, is evil.

There are ethical altruistic ways to agree to how best use a limited resource.

Violence against other humans over a limited resource is inherently evil.

 

[Yaarel]

In this scenario there's other sentient beings who might depend o those resources or like their way of life based on those resources.

Sentient rocks might be solar powered and use the land to bask in the sun humans want to turn it into farm.

Each rock is a level 12 Druid.

If a setting defines rocks as "persons", then the way humans treat these other persons has ethical implications.

 

[Zardnaar]

If a setting defines rocks as "persons", then the way humans treat these other persons has ethical implications.

I used rocks as I can play lithoids in Stellaris.

Main point was the rocks might need a field to be happy/exist and the human desire to plow that field is detrimental to their existence.

Or existence can be detrimental even if we're not directly purging, crusading, imperialism etc.

 

[Yaarel]

I used rocks as I can play lithoids in Stellaris.

Main point was the rocks might need a field to be happy/exist and the human desire to plow that field is detrimental to their existence.

Humans are well-accustomed to negotiate the needs of a limited resource.

Humans can negotiate ethically with lithoids (sapient earth elementals) similar to negotiating with other humans.

 

[Charlaquin]

I didn't want cookie cutter evil. We're gonna wipe humans out because we're evil hahaha.

Then it’s not evil by D&D 5e’s standards. I quoted the Player’s Handbook directly.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

That’s it. If it’s more complex than that, then it doesn’t fit the definitions of any of the three evil alignments in D&D 5e.

First rule of evil imho is it doesn't see itself as evil aka the justification.

That’s often true under some ethical frameworks, but not necessarily so under D&D’s alignment system. You could probably argue that there’s room for Lawful Evil creatures to think they’re not evil. And some Neutral Evil creatures may behave that way because they don’t believe in good and evil, or at least don’t think they really matter. Chaotic Evil though leaves basically no room for anything more nuanced than pure, willful malevolence.

Why I went with completely alien mindset is they don't care about any squabble we would (politics, religion etc). They might care about the environment to the extent our impact on it is detrimental to their well being.

And they're powerful enough to do something about it.

That's the basic idea

I got the basic idea, what I’m saying is that we need to define what ethical framework we’re using to determine if these beings are evil, because some frameworks will define them as evil and others will not. If we aren’t on the same page about what framework we’re using to evaluate their evilness, then we’ll all just be arguing from different assumed frameworks, which can only lead to talking past each other at best, or devolving into political and/or religious debates at worst. So, since this is the D&D forum, I propose we use the framework presented in the rulebooks, which I cited in the excerpt above. Under that framework, it seems pretty open and shut. These beings are not any of the three evil alignments as defined in the rules of the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then it’s not evil by D&D 5e’s standards. I quoted the Player’s Handbook directly.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

That’s it. If it’s more complex than that, then it doesn’t fit the definitions of any of the three evil alignments in D&D 5e.


That’s often true under some ethical frameworks, but not necessarily so under D&D’s alignment system. You could probably argue that there’s room for Lawful Evil creatures to think they’re not evil. And some Neutral Evil creatures may behave that way because they don’t believe in good and evil, or at least don’t think they really matter. Chaotic Evil though leaves basically no room for anything more nuanced than pure, willful malevolence.


I got the basic idea, what I’m saying is that we need to define what ethical framework we’re using to determine if these beings are evil, because some frameworks will define them as evil and others will not. If we aren’t on the same page about what framework we’re using to evaluate their evilness, then we’ll all just be arguing from different assumed frameworks, which can only lead to talking past each other at best, or devolving into political and/or religious debates at worst. So, since this is the D&D forum, I propose we use the framework presented in the rulebooks, which I cited in the excerpt above. Under that framework, it seems pretty open and shut. These beings are not any of the three evil alignments as defined in the rules of the game.

Also trying to be not to graphic . We want you gone/reduced because reasons.

MCU kinds did it with the Eternals and Thanos for example. Thanos actions slows down the emergence of a new Celestial which is an extinction level event but without the actions of the celestials humans don't exist in the first place.