Those evil slaad.
- Thread starter Lord Pendragon
- Start date
Klaus
First Post
Slaad are not Evil... They're just not OGC!
Ogdoad, on the other hand, are OGC!
http://www.fierydragon.com/CCGold_Ogdoad_Web_Enhancement.pdf
And they're not Evil, they're just utterly alien to our reality, which needs at least _some_ Lawfulness in order to work.
Ogdoad, on the other hand, are OGC!
http://www.fierydragon.com/CCGold_Ogdoad_Web_Enhancement.pdf
And they're not Evil, they're just utterly alien to our reality, which needs at least _some_ Lawfulness in order to work.
Trickstergod
First Post
Selfishness tends to be one of the typically ascribed evil traits, contrasting with the good that is selflessness. Neutrality typically lies somewhere in between - need for ones own survival very strong, but including a capacity to sacrifice and suffer for family and loved ones while letting everyone else rot at your expense. All right, perhaps not rot, but generally not going out of ones way for strangers and outsiders.
Incenjucar
Legend
Selfishness is neutral. Selfishness at the detriment of others is what's evil.
Most of us are quite selfish. We spend money on D&D books and time on these boards instead of helping the homeless or the sick. That's pretty bloody selfish.
Most of us are quite selfish. We spend money on D&D books and time on these boards instead of helping the homeless or the sick. That's pretty bloody selfish.
I would say that killing someone counts as acting in their detriment.
Personally, although I hate to to the Iconic Movie Character thing, I've always thought of Han Solo (at least at the beginning of Star Wars) as being a good example of chaotic neutral. He's a smuggler (thus working outside the legal economy) and values personal freedom, so I'd consider him chaotic. As far as the good/evil axis is concerned, he's clearly motivated by self-interest; he leaves the rebel fleet as soon as he gets his money, so I would say he's not good. On the other hand, he never tries to take advantage of anyone for profit and expresses some amount of concern for the well-being of the people around him. Chaotic neutral.
Personally, although I hate to to the Iconic Movie Character thing, I've always thought of Han Solo (at least at the beginning of Star Wars) as being a good example of chaotic neutral. He's a smuggler (thus working outside the legal economy) and values personal freedom, so I'd consider him chaotic. As far as the good/evil axis is concerned, he's clearly motivated by self-interest; he leaves the rebel fleet as soon as he gets his money, so I would say he's not good. On the other hand, he never tries to take advantage of anyone for profit and expresses some amount of concern for the well-being of the people around him. Chaotic neutral.
d20SRD said:
See, I've always had a problem with "good" and "evil" with regards to "I'm evil because I'm higher than you on the food chain." Take, for example, your average Ogre. It speaks giant, not common. So when it bashes in the head of a human commoner to make a nice meal, the human commoner is speaking in common (not giant) and is therefore completely non-understandable to the Ogre. Ogre doesn't know that it's done something especially wrong, just especially belly-filling. It won't be around when the family is lamenting that the commoner didn't have life insurace.
Compare to a human warrior who goes out and kills an entire generation of Orc males, but leaves the women and children untouched because they're "innocent", but also leaves them to grow up in a decimated society knowing that their civilization was brought to what it was by the humans. It'd be wildly abnormal for the "innocent" children to not start hating the humans for what the humans had done to them which, oddly enough, will cause them to be evil, not just neutral like the humans. But the humans, having created this evil are now evil, too. It's a bit of a downward spiral which only a purely defensive society can avoid getting into -- and very few adventurers are purely defensive.
Now what does this have to do with the Slaadi? Simple. Point the first: if they're doing what comes naturally to them (implantation and such), then they're acting with regards to their own wants and needs and not the needs of others without taking any moral action outside of their animal nature -- chaotic neutral. Praying mantises still mate even though the males should know better, you know... Point the second: being outsiders, they probably consider our society pretty screwed up with regards to morals and goals. Likewise, the humans who are afraid of Ogres and Trolls and other such creatures that are higher on the food chain and not generally bright enough to be sympathetic to needs of lesser creatures probably don't have a full understanding of what the Slaads are up to, but realizes that not quite every encounter ends in somebody being dead, and therefore consider them to be Chaotic Neutral. But, point the third, if you consider the downstream impacts from an action like the implantation and such and how it impacts the society that will be surviving the consequences, then many more civilizations are going to be considered evil than either "good" or "neutral". Thus, it's important to figure out how much responsibility you're going to be holding your PCs and NPCs to with their decision-making and regards to their alignment. More in-depth decision making also makes for a richer, fuller storyline, but also tends to make lots of people evil.
::Kaze (should probably look into the alignment-less system Monte came up with, but he's too lazy at the moment)
Incenjucar
Legend
Survival is neutral. Slaadi have to eat SOMETHING (and there's only so many cows wandering around Limbo), and slaadi have to use SOMETHING to breed in (Again, with the cows).
Now, if they had a nice widespread choice, and were capable of comprehending that choice, and picked on paladins instead of murderers, then things get in to the moral region.
Now, if they had a nice widespread choice, and were capable of comprehending that choice, and picked on paladins instead of murderers, then things get in to the moral region.
I don't think that the example of an ogre not understanding a commoner holds water. Ogres don't speak the language of humans, but humans still display the signs of intelligence in their tools, clothes, and buildings so it's laughable to think that an ogre would not see any difference between a human and a sheep, even ignoring the likelihood that ogres and humans have been in proximity for a long time and that, at some point, some giant would have learned to speak common (or vice versa) and explained to each race that the other was, in fact, intelligent. If I go to Nicaragua and become a cannibal, am I in fact not evil because I can't understand what my victims are saying? The first time a European ship landed in Africa and started enslaving people, were they neutral because they couldn't understand what the locals were saying? I'm not buying it.
You mentioned the 'animal nature' of slaads and compare them to praying mantises. However, slaads are not animals (or vermin, as a praying mantis is), they are outsiders. D&D doesn't give a pass to a creature for doing what comes naturally to them, or then demons and celestials would both be neutral, since evil and good come naturally to them, respectively.
As far as the food chain is concerned, D&D gives animals a different status from intelligent life forms. It cuts both ways; creatures with an Int score of 2 are less are absolved from alignment, but also don't seem to factor heavily into the alignments of others. That is to say, being a butcher doesn't make you evil.
As far as "not quite every encounter ends in somebody being dead", I don't see how that argues for neutrality at all. "They prey on intelligent life forms, and sometimes they don't" has a net evilness to it - 'prey on intelligent life forms' is evil, and 'not doing anything with respect to intelligent life forms' is neutral. You might have an argument if the slaad sometimes acted as the benefactors for other life forms, perhaps working as guardians in exchange for tribute in the form of human sacrifice.
As far as your last point about long-term consequences, I agree that it's good to consider the long-reaching implications of your actions, both for PCs and NPCs.
You mentioned the 'animal nature' of slaads and compare them to praying mantises. However, slaads are not animals (or vermin, as a praying mantis is), they are outsiders. D&D doesn't give a pass to a creature for doing what comes naturally to them, or then demons and celestials would both be neutral, since evil and good come naturally to them, respectively.
As far as the food chain is concerned, D&D gives animals a different status from intelligent life forms. It cuts both ways; creatures with an Int score of 2 are less are absolved from alignment, but also don't seem to factor heavily into the alignments of others. That is to say, being a butcher doesn't make you evil.
As far as "not quite every encounter ends in somebody being dead", I don't see how that argues for neutrality at all. "They prey on intelligent life forms, and sometimes they don't" has a net evilness to it - 'prey on intelligent life forms' is evil, and 'not doing anything with respect to intelligent life forms' is neutral. You might have an argument if the slaad sometimes acted as the benefactors for other life forms, perhaps working as guardians in exchange for tribute in the form of human sacrifice.
As far as your last point about long-term consequences, I agree that it's good to consider the long-reaching implications of your actions, both for PCs and NPCs.
Similar Threads
