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

[EzekielRaiden]

I see. It certainly is convenient for us species of speaking animals to define standard of greater moral protection by capability to verbalise moral thoughts. A lot of non-human animals are capable of empathy, why this doesn't qualify them as moral actors, why they need to be able to verbalise it?

I didn't say they had to be able to verbalize it.

Also, empathy is quite a bit different from the question I asked there. Empathy simply means feeling for other beings. The question there requires quite a bit more than just empathy.

I also feel it is rather logically questionable that this greater moral protection is granted by the level of species rather than individuals.

Are you thus advocating that we treat the mentally disabled with less moral worth than those without?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say they had to be able to verbalize it.

Also, empathy is quite a bit different from the question I asked there. Empathy simply means feeling for other beings. The question there requires quite a bit more than just empathy.

Right. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but whatever it is, why are you setting the bar there? What is the actual logic?

Are you thus advocating that we treat the mentally disabled with less moral worth than those without?

Or alternatively we perhaps should consider why we are willing to treat non-human animals that have similar mental capabilities than some humans as exploitable lesser creatures?

It certainly is very natural to care about creatures perceived to be part of one's "group" more than of those that are not considered to be part of that "group", but I'm not sure that such thinking is actually somehow inherently moral.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

Are the players playing the aliens or the humans?

Evil is whatever the DM decides, and must be clearly communicated during a Session Zero. In any case, any kind of evil should be extra-planar (demonic) or existential in nature (mind flayers - which I'm guessing you're riffing off of). These days, alignment is your cosmic side; any personal or character level assignment should be avoided. Otherwise you get incessant arguments whenever someone wants to be stubborn or expedient.

 

[Krachek]

In term of DnD, evil or not human will react to survive.
War, Truce, repetitive conflict, for sure both races will fight to survive.
Some cleric will depict the insectoid as evil, pragmatic king and generals will simply call them the enemy. More crazy thinker or cleric will even see the insectoid as better than us and will try to rally or help them.
What we think as players don’t matter much.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What we think as players don’t matter much.

What? What the players think is vital.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or alternatively we perhaps should consider why we are willing to treat non-human animals that have similar mental capabilities than some humans as exploitable lesser creatures?

Mod Note:

”Alternatively” in this context would seem…rather poor rhetoric. The rest of it doesn’t fare that well, either. You might wish to rephrase. Or if you don’t wish to answer the question asked, politely disengage.

 

[Argyle King]

Slightly off-topic, but I believe Mindflayer reproduction would fit into an alien mindset which is harmful to humans.

Their method of reproduction requires violation of body autonomy. While I suppose that could be solved by only taking willing volunteers, I'm inclined to believe that the majority of human beings aren't okay with having a brain-eating parasite.

Their life cycle requires actions which are deadly to others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Alternatively" as in I was trying to explain what I actually meant. But yes, I could and should have been clearer. The point was that we do not value humans differently depending on their capability to understand ethics, so I questioned why would we do that with non-humans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Reallife N*zi racists made the above argument precisely: "survival of the fittest (strongest, most intelligent)", etcetera.

Rather, the survival-of-the-fittest ideology is evil.

It is wrong to apply such an argument to fellow humans.

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.

 

[Seramus]

Good and Evil are determined by "outside forces" that place judgement on your actions. Your intentions probably play some moderate role in determining if your actions are good or evil, because those outside forces are theoretically capable of rolling insight against you, but there is no way to know how much. This is somewhat tyrannical in the minds of many sapient creatures, but that's just how it works.

Realistically, the DM also decides what those outside forces think of your actions, so it ultimately comes down to DM preference as always.