D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Crimson Longinus]

Unlike killing(which is never good), cannibalism isn't something that is sometimes not evil.

Do you actually have any logical argument for this, instead 'because I say so?'

If the lizard people have tradition that they honour a deceased member of the tribe by consuming their heart in a mourning ritual and all of them are cool with this, who is harmed? What makes it evil?

 

[Faolyn]

Depends.

Depends. There's not enough there to go on.

Depends. Again, there's not enough there to go on.

Depends on what?

Unlike killing(which is never good), cannibalism isn't something that is sometimes not evil.

Prove it. Support this claim.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Maybe the most useful advantage of anchoring cosmic Good and Evil as magically aligning to the table's definition of what is good and evil IRL is that it allows for questions like that to be answered easily.

DM: "Does anybody around the table thinks cannibalism is cool?"
Player: "..."
DM: OK, cannibalism is evil and lizardfolk or hyenafolk are evil.

No need for justification, a local consensus can be adopted even if it's not after a long debate on morality.

Jane, a player: "sorry everyone, I can't make it for next Friday's game."
DM: "drat! on the other hand, that will free a seat for Dave, who was looking forward to discover TTRPGs"
Dave: "Actually, I find that cannibalism can sometime be justified on the basis of tradition"
DM: "OK, it's neutral, then".
Kelemvor: "Please listen, souls, we got a cosmic update, if you engaged in eating sapient species, DO NOT follow the line marked "Gehenna" or "Baator" as you were in fact neutral, instead follow the line marked "Mechanus" and "Arcadia" respectively. I repeat..."

 

[Lyxen]

Maybe the most useful advantage of anchoring cosmic Good and Evil as magically aligning to the table's definition of what is good and evil IRL is that it allows for questions like that to be answered easily.

DM: "Does anybody around the table thinks cannibalism is cool?"
Player: "..."
DM: OK, cannibalism is evil and lizardfolk or hyenafolk are evil.

No need for justification, a local consensus can be adopted even if it's not after a long debate on morality.

That's actually the best point in a long while. D&D is not there to solve difficult philosophical issues, it's just a game, and everyone needs to be comfortable playing it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cthulhu is biological and inherently evil… isn’t he?

If Cthulhu is inherently evil, that would make any human who treads on an ant inherently evil.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's actually the best point in a long while. D&D is not there to solve difficult philosophical issues, it's just a game, and everyone needs to be comfortable playing it.

I'm pretty sure that my group would all agree that killing people because they have a different system of morality is "inherently evil".

 

[Lyxen]

If Cthulhu is inherently evil, that would make any human who treads on an ant inherently evil.

 

[d24454_modern]

If Cthulhu is inherently evil, that would make any human who treads on an ant inherently evil.

That sounds like an excuse which are typically evil.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What about people who don't feel comfortable with an elf game encouraging their friends to morally judge how they play their characters?

 

[Oofta]

What about people who don't feel comfortable with an elf game encouraging their friends to morally judge how they play their characters?

What about ... a game where every table including DM and players need to have open discussions about what kind of game they want to run? Are you going to play murder hobos? Classical heroes fighting against the darkness? Working as agents of the crown or Robin Hood? Something else?

Every table should talk about this kind of stuff, expectations and what they want out of the game. It doesn't really have anything to do with D&D's alignment system.