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

[Yaarel]

Iirc there was a Polynesian island that could only support around 1200 people. Think it was in Jared Diamonds Collapse book.

Once they hit the maximum population old people set off on a canoe theoretically to figure nd new land or settle elsewhere. Realistically probably a death sentence.

Their culture valued the rights of the many over the individual. Almost a real life Logan's Run although they didn't murder the old at best it was exile.

Their choice was starve or do that.

The island was tiny and they couldn't really relocate as any other island capable f supporting humans was already inhabited.

If people risk or sacrifice their own lives for the sake of their loved ones, that is altruism. Altruism is Good.

 

[Zardnaar]

If people risk or sacrifice their own lives for the sake of their loved ones, that is altruism. Altruism is Good.

Not sure how voluntarily it was. I don't judge but they practiced population control based on available resources.

Polynesians lacked the grains and animals Eurasia had for the most part.

And very small island.

On Pitcairn the settlements failed.

 

[Flamestrike]

So here's the scenario. There's another species with a very alien mindset and completely different world view. Perhaps they're an insect hivemind or perhaps they're militant conservationists and live in tune with nature.

Essentially our mere existence they see as a threat due to consumption, reproduction etc. Whatever the reason. Maybe they're just Vulcans that logically see humans as a threat to every other species merely by existing.

In any event they either want to drive humans to extinction or at best limited to an island or something similar. Extinction might be in the traditional way or just banning humans from reproducing in some way.

NE. They're genocidal monsters that would exterminate children in gas chambers.

Their reason or motivation is irrelevant.

 

[Krachek]

What? What the players think is vital.

The DM has no control on how the players will react or evaluate the Insectoid society.
Giving an alignment is not so useful. players will befriend or fight the monster despite any alignment the DM evaluate for it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

The DM has no control on how the players will react or evaluate the Insectoid society.
Giving an alignment is not so useful. players will befriend or fight the monster despite any alignment the DM evaluate for it.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

If the Insectoids are simply labeled as Evil, and their actions do not motivate the PCs to move against them, then yes the label is irrelevant. If the Insectoid's actions are indicative of Evil, as defined by the table, that also does not intrinsically mean that the PCs will be driven into violent conflict. It is possible that some kind of reform or addressing of what makes the Insectoids Evil could occur.

Alignment has its uses, but in today's gaming as a guide for personal morals and ethics I think it's outdated.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Honestly the things he is describing are starting to sound like Mind Flayers who are alien and evil.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Honestly the things he is describing are starting to sound like Mind Flayers who are alien and evil.

that is a tautology.

 

[Zardnaar]

Honestly the things he is describing are starting to sound like Mind Flayers who are alien and evil.

Well here a more coherent thought. I'll use earth as an example but apply the same thoughts to a fantasy world.

Go back 100000 years there is another sapient species on earth.

They have prescience/foresight and know about humans impact on climate change.

Our existence will result in their extinction. They use foresight to look at several outcomes but every path has the same result the only difference is when. Eg they teach humans environmentalism early but it only buys them time.

Note human have wiped out dangerous species and still will kill animals for attacking humans.

Basically we are the locusts destroying crops.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well here a more coherent thought. I'll use earth as an example but apply the same thoughts to a fantasy world.

Go back 100000 years there is another sapient species on earth.

They have prescience/foresight and know about humans impact on climate change.

Our existence will result in their extinction. They use foresight to look at several outcomes but every path has the same result the only difference is when. Eg they teach humans environmentalism early but it only buys them time.

Note human have wiped out dangerous species and still will kill animals for attacking humans.

Basically we are the locusts destroying crops.

then they will kill us it is not a question of morality but survival.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well here a more coherent thought. I'll use earth as an example but apply the same thoughts to a fantasy world.

Go back 100000 years there is another sapient species on earth.

They have prescience/foresight and know about humans impact on climate change.

Our existence will result in their extinction. They use foresight to look at several outcomes but every path has the same result the only difference is when. Eg they teach humans environmentalism early but it only buys them time.

Note human have wiped out dangerous species and still will kill animals for attacking humans.

Basically we are the locusts destroying crops.

I find the rationale suspect. There is truly no future that doesn't involve them going extinct? And humanity is the only reason this occurs? That's incredibly suspicious. That more or less means that humanity cannot even in principle change its ways. At that point, you've posited a purely deterministic universe where free will is an illusion anyway, so the vast majority of things one would call morality or ethics go out the window to begin with. You've framed the situation so hard you've pushed the morality out of it entirely; it's not just that this species isn't evil, it's that no one and nothing is evil, because it was all predestined anyway.

then they will kill us it is not a question of morality but survival.

I reject this analysis. You have, essentially, said that morality is always conditional on survival. No moral system worthy of the name would include that--to do so would be to gut it before you even articulated its first rule. Because there wouldn't be rules. There would only be "as long as it's convenient..."

A fundamental tenet of the idea that there can be "moral" behavior is that there are some things more valuable than survival.