D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Faolyn]

Okay, but again this has never been the case in any edition of D&D. Demons have always been capable of evil, neutral and good acts. As well as chaotic, neutral and lawful acts. Alignment has never been a straightjacket.

Not disputing this. However, the question is, are demons capable of neutral and good motivations? A demon may very well perform a good act but never consider doing so unless it has an evil or at least selfish motivation for doing so.

 

[Remathilis]

So this is how my thinking has moved and evolved, to the point I'm comfortable with now.

"Evil" can be used to describe tendencies in certain beings, innately or circumstantially. A few examples of what I mean:

"Cultural Evil" (goblins, orcs, drow, etc) Creatures that, for reasons usually pertaining the specific cultures they are raised in, end up evil. This can be due to societal traits, influence of extraplanar entities, or deities, or simply victims of circumstance (if we cannot inspire love, we will inspire fear). It is completely possible for individuals and groups to either rebel against such factors or be raised outside of them and end up with alignments that wouldn't be viewed as evil. There is nothing innate about their evilness.

"Malevolent Evil" (fiends, undead, fey) are born or created with evil intent. They are beings that are either created by evil forces (like fiends), evil magic (necromancy) or strong negative emotion (evil fey). While occasionally one of these beings does change from its innate programming, they are rare beings and exceptions that prove the rule.

"Amoral Evil" (dragons, aberrations, some monstrosities) are creatures that don't work on the same morality scale as humanoids, be it they view themselves superior to such concepts (dragons) or it is utterly alien to them. They act evil in the eyes of others, but it's because their morality scales don't see problems with the same things you or I would.

"Unaligned" is for beings that are not capable of sentient thought. Beasts, Plants, or Constructs are don't think it terms of morals, only following orders or acting on instinct.

It is completely possible to have drow slavers attack a town and still not make all drow evil, a good-aligned succubus existing doesn't mean demons are going to be your friend, and mind flayers cannot understand why you can't raise humans in pens to be bred and used for food.

 

[Maxperson]

Not disputing this. However, the question is, are demons capable of neutral and good motivations? A demon may very well perform a good act but never consider doing so unless it has an evil or at least selfish motivation for doing so.

Selfishness is behind every act. We do things, because it makes us feel good, stops pain, etc. Altruism happens because it makes the person performing it feel better than not doing it would. He may get genuine joy in helping others, but he's still at the core doing it for himself.

And yes, a demon might do a good act without an evil motivation. It might just feel like helping that mortal this time, instead of ripping the mortal's guts out.

 

[Mecheon]

Not disputing this. However, the question is, are demons capable of neutral and good motivations? A demon may very well perform a good act but never consider doing so unless it has an evil or at least selfish motivation for doing so.

If an angel can fall, a demon or devil can rise. May require very specific situations, but can happen.

 

[Shiroiken]

All intelligent (i.e. free willed) mortal creatures can be of any alignment, but they can also have some ingrained biological trait that pushes them towards a particular alignment. Elves have an innate desire for personal freedom, leading themselves towards being chaotic. Dwarves feel a tight-nit bond with the clan, which leads them to being lawful. Orcs are filled with a boiling rage, leading them to kill wantonly, leading towards evil. These traits can be overcome, but the overall majority of creatures fit the presumed mold. Note, this can also be considered for backgrounds and class/subclasses, as earlier editions were wont to do, not just for race/lineage.

Another thing that I feel, is that outerplanar creatures are near absolutes. Demons are inherently chaotic and evil, driven by the supernatural forces of the Abyss. Same for devils, angels, modrons, and even slaadi. Exceptions can occur, but they're extraordinarily rare, and they eventually lead to the creature changing to another type (such as a fallen angel).

It all comes down to personal preference. Some people view that no intelligent thinking creature can be inherently anything.

Others think it's possible, due to "forces", like fiends, fey, etc.

And others don't want their fantasy games to be morally complex or to have any deeper philosophical quandaries, and just want evil monsters for their heroes to battle.

I don't think any approach is wrong.

Thoughts like this stifle discussion and ruin the internet!

This is how more people should really view it. People bring real world baggage into what's supposed to be a fun activity. Others fight tooth and nail against any change, no matter how beneficial it might be (that'd be me). Like most of the other difference people have with "the community," what really matters is what happens at your table. If your group is having fun, then forget about everyone else.

 

[GreyLord]

How would you design a biological race that is Inherently Evil? I think the main way would have to be through some supernatural imperative.

Maybe a race of goblins that are so biologically territorial that they fly into murderous rages whenever someone trespasses on what they believe to be their territory? They might not be necessarily evil when left alone, but default to behavior considered to be evil at the slightest attempt at interaction (barring magical sending spells, etc).

Perhaps a race of elves that look like withered and wretched hags, but gain extraordinary beauty and vitality when they sacrifice someone? This doesn't seem quite inherently evil, but strongly incentivizes evil behavior through biological means (as opposed to cultural means).

A race of dwarves engineered in a wizard's laboratory to breed true, and who experience incredible pleasure when they betray and trample on others, or violent nausea when they act in an altruistic manner? This is similar to the incentive above, and comes from a biological source, but would it still be cultural? Since it's a series of positive and negative reinforcements that guides their behavior towards evil acts?

How would you do it?

Fire Ants.

I make a race of Fire Ants.

If you've ever had to deal with them...you know what I mean...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I, Tyrant made beholders inherently evil. They are so xenophobic they should share notes with the Daleks.

If you raise a baby beholder (which is really cute) it will eventually murder you for not being a beholder. In fact, it will murder other beholders that are even slightly different.

For many races like vampires and mind flayers, with their horrendous feeding restrictions, it is very difficult to avoid being evil. Especially mind flayers. At least vampires might be able to drink cows. Mind flayers must consume sapient brains. I suppose a neutral-aligned vigilante could work, only eating the brains of the evil. (And now I've just created a cool new NPC!)

 

[Slit518]

I, Tyrant made beholders inherently evil. They are so xenophobic they should share notes with the Daleks.

If you raise a baby beholder (which is really cute) it will eventually murder you for not being a beholder. In fact, it will murder other beholders that are even slightly different.

For many races like vampires and mind flayers, with their horrendous feeding restrictions, it is very difficult to avoid being evil. Especially mind flayers. At least vampires might be able to drink cows. Mind flayers must consume sapient brains. I suppose a neutral-aligned vigilante could work, only eating the brains of the evil. (And now I've just created a cool new NPC!)

I have an NPC Paladin whom was also a Paladin. He only drank the blood of evil and hated himself for what he was. He was a complex character.

 

[Oofta]

And yet for half of the gme's history Paladins, Clerics, Bards and Barbarians aren't capable of having a full range of morality.

Because it's still a straightjacket.

It was a straightjacket if you decided to play it that way. We never did and it is explicitly no longer.

 

[Maxperson]

I have an NPC Paladin whom was also a Paladin. He only drank the blood of evil and hated himself for what he was. He was a complex character.

I hear that's going around.

I assume you meant one of those to be vampire.