Evil Monster Ancestries - Yay or Nay?

[GMMichael]

From the very beginning, I decided to root Cresthaven RPG in the classic heroic fantasy tradition. For me, this meant creating a world where heroes were clearly good and monsters were inherently evil.

That's a fair decision, but with (from what I hear) record numbers of people not attending church / not identifying with a religion, do good and evil mean the same thing now as they did back in the classic fantasy tradition? Do players see good and evil the same way now?

I worried that introducing playable evil monstrous ancestries could disrupt the established narrative.

As long as your monster PCs play as evil beings, I don't see a lot of narrative disruption.

Would you allow monster ancestries in your game? How would you handle the social and mechanical challenges they present?

My PCs can have whatever ancestries they want. How factual they are is subject to GM adjudication. I generally don't go for PCs playing monsters, though. It makes for a whimsical feel that I don't enjoy in my medieval fantasy.

 

[CleverNickName]

Meh. I like to keep alignment and biology separate.

The Cultists of Tiamat are an evil faction in my game world, and they have plenty of human, elf, and halfling members in addition to kobolds and dragons. It has nothing to do with DNA, and everything to do with zealotry.

Evil is a choice, not a birthmark.

 

[ichabod]

Evil is a choice, not a birthmark.

That could be a campaign, though. Someone is born with an evil rune as a birthmark, and becomes a pawn in a power struggle between evil cults and knights trying to prevent the apocalypse.

 

[Celebrim]

Meh. I like to keep alignment and biology separate.

I get what you are saying. I think you are saying something like, "I prefer to have all biological species be fundamentally similar in temperament and emotional framework to humans so as to avoid demonizing any sentient thing, because here back in the real world where we only have one sentient thing we've seen so much evil come out of people demonizing one another that I don't want to potentially be a part of that." And yes, I can totally understand that and that's a perfectly valid choice and go with it.

But on the other hand, ironically alignment and biology are definitely not things you can keep separate. I mean you probably can ignore biology's impact with anything that more or less shares a common origin and common level of being with humanity. If they are very humanlike in their biology and their creation, you can probably safely assume that they are just humans with a few differences and so their alignment or morality is likely to be similar.

But the more you get away from that, the more difficult that is to sustain. For example, suppose you have some evil Tony Stark who happens to be super misogynist (not that farfetched for Tony) and one day he decides to encode in a machine a copy of himself as a machine, sentient, aware, but hardcoded in the firmware with the fundamental belief that all women must be exterminated. And Evil Tony dies and this race of self-replicating living machines starts killing anything it identifies as female, living out the beliefs of its insane and malevolent creator. They can't be reasoned with. They can't be bargained with. They can only be stopped. You could possibly argue that they are just forces of nature without moral identify of their own, but they've inherited the belief system and moral identity of their creator. In that case, you can't keep biology and alignment separate. And the fact that they are "machines" to me doesn't make a big difference, because well we are ourselves carbon/water machines.

I don't think you can get around that scenario in some form. The one I give is distasteful and far-fetched, but well it's the nature of evil to be distasteful. Demons are distasteful in ways that are worse. It's reasonable to describe the above unwavering misogynist machine as a created silicon demon. It is defined by its behavior but behavior is defined by biology - where in a speculative fiction setting you are often required to have a very broad definition of biology because you have a very broad definition of life.

In a fantasy you will have all sorts of inhuman biologies which won't necessarily have choice and capacity for good or evil as a defining feature.

everything to do with zealotry

Ahh... the good old True Neutral alignment. Nothing is itself evil except that zealotry doth make it so, and the virtue of right conduct is balance and moderation. Very popular view of the world; so popular in fact that it's the reason I stat out human inspired fantasy races as "Usually Neutral".

 

[velkymx]

I think I've come to some clarity about why this turns me off in the context of the game world. The very idea of good vs evil has been thrown into question. No longer is the game about defeating a great evil, but rather about the players doing whatever they want and still having it be D&D. The lore is mostly ignored in favor of individual ego. This can be seen all over the internet as people declare that THEY are more important than the greater good - and are very vocal in doing so. Evil beings, such as Goblins, are driven by their evil gods. This is not subjective, but a fact. The fact that it has become subjective goes against the lore that the game is built on. I'm not saying don't play monsters, you do you, I'm just pointing out how I imagine it could work in the context of a more realistic and accurate representation of a world like the one in D&D. For example, Drizzt, is a super rare exception to Drow. Drow are renowned for their pillaging, plunder, slavery, etc etc. Currently, I am bouncing around an idea of reputation to tackle this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get what you are saying. I think you are saying something like, "I prefer to have all biological species be fundamentally similar in temperament and emotional framework to humans so as to avoid demonizing any sentient thing, because here back in the real world where we only have one sentient thing we've seen so much evil come out of people demonizing one another that I don't want to potentially be a part of that." And yes, I can totally understand that and that's a perfectly valid choice and go with it.

Different species can have different temperaments just fine without anyone needing to be "inherently evil" or something like that. And law and chaos axis of the alignment isn't a coherent concept in the first place, so we can forget that as well.

But on the other hand, ironically alignment and biology are definitely not things you can keep separate. I mean you probably can ignore biology's impact with anything that more or less shares a common origin and common level of being with humanity. If they are very humanlike in their biology and their creation, you can probably safely assume that they are just humans with a few differences and so their alignment or morality is likely to be similar.

But the more you get away from that, the more difficult that is to sustain. For example, suppose you have some evil Tony Stark who happens to be super misogynist (not that farfetched for Tony) and one day he decides to encode in a machine a copy of himself as a machine, sentient, aware, but hardcoded in the firmware with the fundamental belief that all women must be exterminated. And Evil Tony dies and this race of self-replicating living machines starts killing anything it identifies as female, living out the beliefs of its insane and malevolent creator. They can't be reasoned with. They can't be bargained with. They can only be stopped. You could possibly argue that they are just forces of nature without moral identify of their own, but they've inherited the belief system and moral identity of their creator. In that case, you can't keep biology and alignment separate. And the fact that they are "machines" to me doesn't make a big difference, because well we are ourselves carbon/water machines.

I don't think you can get around that scenario in some form. The one I give is distasteful and far-fetched, but well it's the nature of evil to be distasteful. Demons are distasteful in ways that are worse. It's reasonable to describe the above unwavering misogynist machine as a created silicon demon. It is defined by its behavior but behavior is defined by biology - where in a speculative fiction setting you are often required to have a very broad definition of biology because you have a very broad definition of life.

In a fantasy you will have all sorts of inhuman biologies which won't necessarily have choice and capacity for good or evil as a defining feature.

First, it is the authors choice to create such thing, which they don't need to do. Secondly, I'd argue that a creature that is not capable of making moral choices cannot be a moral actor, so cannot really be "good" or "evil" any more than a hurricane can.

 

[Celebrim]

I think I've come to some clarity about why this turns me off in the context of the game world.

I think they will soon be coming at you with pitchforks and torches for questioning the teachings of the mother church. The inquisitors are picking up their hot irons and thumbscrew to gently correct you back to the right path.

 

[Celebrim]

Different species can have different temperaments just fine without anyone needing to be "inherently evil" or something like that.

Sounds like semantics to me.

And law and chaos axis of the alignment isn't a coherent concept in the first place, so we can forget that as well.

That definitely sounds like an opinion.

First, it is the authors choice to create such thing, which they don't need to do.

Aha.

Secondly, I'd argue that a creature that is not capable of making moral choices cannot be a moral actor, so cannot really be "good" or "evil" any more than a hurricane can.

Convenient. So a demon, which by its very nature as the embodiment of evil, being unable to make moral choices is also by its nature not evil?
If an intelligent actor is capable of choice, but all it's reasoning always leads it to similar conclusions, is not making moral choices or is just not making the ones you think it ought to make? Have you just redefined evil as "What I don't like?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sounds like semantics to me.

It is not. Predisposition towards curiosity, or being cautious and countless other mental characteristics does not impact one's "evilness."

That definitely sounds like an opinion.

I have seen countless of these alignment threads. People can never agree on what law and chaos mean. It is meaningless.

Aha.

Yes. It is choice to create bad fiction. I rather wouldn't.

Convenient. So a demon, which by its very nature as the embodiment of evil, being unable to make moral choices is also by its nature not evil?

Yes, which shows that "inherent evil" is an incoherent concept.

If an intelligent actor is capable of choice, but all it's reasoning always leads it to similar conclusions, is not making moral choices or is just not making the ones you think it ought to make? Have you just redefined evil as "What I don't like?"

I did not define it at all.

 

[Celebrim]

Predisposition towards curiosity, or being cautious and countless other mental characteristics does not impact one's "evilness."

I can agree without harming my claim. We can pick a lot of predispositions that have no moral virtue in and of themselves at all. This isn't surprising. I wouldn't be too surprised to find any predisposition that didn't predispose the creature to destructiveness had no impact on it's "evilness".

People can never agree on what law and chaos mean. It is meaningless.

That claim isn't logical. There are lots of things people don't agree on. Mere disagreement doesn't result in lack of meaning. As Einstein said, "Why does it matter if 100 people think I'm wrong. If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (paraphrasing from memory)

Yes. It is choice to create bad fiction.

That sounds subjective to me. The basis of that subjectiveness is interesting. You seem to be claiming that good and evil are subjective and also that if your subjective morality is violated in a work of fiction that that is objectively bad.

Yes, which shows that "inherent evil" is an incoherent concept.

No, it only shows your definition is incoherent.

I did not define it at all.

For something you claim not to define you are sure making a lot of statements about its nature.