The literary merits of Alien Intelligence

[Liliet]

The point of fiction can't be to create things separate from reality, because that's not how human brain works. Readers treat book settings as separate independent realities, use words like "world" and "universe", because human brain is wired to percieve everything it emotionally responds to as "real". What we see in fiction has real impact on our real lifes, that's why books are such a powerful ideological tool. You write a book implying some statement, and if enough people from the same group like the book, they will be much more inclined to agree with the statement as applied to real life. That's how it works.

Our moral compass is defined by stories we hear in the childhood and later; we can't always tell whether these stories are true or not (look in your history books - are you sure you can fully trust them? I know I can't trust mine), but they have an impact regardless of this. We learn that a hero who goes off to save the princess from a villain is a good guy, and that a greedy merchant who tries to rob him on the way is a bad guy; that we should follow in the steps of a hero and try to not be like that merchant. What we learn our morality from can be a true story about WW2 or our neighbours, or it can be a fairy tale. It works the same way for our brain.


Of course, there is value in creating just "monsters" to be killed for a story. They are an obstacle to be overcome, something that teaches heroes to protect themselves and their loved ones.

But the key word here is "protect". You kill those monsters, and define them as monsters, because they threaten. And not in a sense "they are here and can eventually decide to do some harm", but in a sense "they are attacking, either they die or someone dear to me does". There's a reason why heroes are reactive.

If someone goes around just attacking people unprovoked (or provoked by something not viewed as provocation by said people, although this is already a borderline case), it's normal to view them as a monster (even if they are a PC or a protagonist of the story). It is not normal, however, to view their family as monsters too despite them never having done such things merely because they look the same way.

Big problem with DnD alignment labels taken too literally is that they allow (and are often used in such a way) to portray monsters in their natural environment, without any relation to people, and label them as monsters just because some of their kind, probably even in the other setting, really were monsters. This is just so wrong. They live there, they don't threaten anyone, why are they monsters? Because they have green skin and fangs? You need to provide a base for statements like "they are monsters" or you come off as a monster yourself.

Many works of fiction create "irredeemably evil monsters" without complicating things with moral dilemmas and deep characterisation. However, to establish them as monsters they still use individual characterisation tools: villains kick puppies, murder loved ones, bring Apocalypse, engage in mind control; try to conquer Earth, use humans as slaves, engage in dehumanization themselves; just plain attack and kill people, use them for food... There are many ways to establish a monster as a monster, thing is, to have a good story you have to use these tools. It is necessary.


And portraying "designated bad guys" as not-really-that-bad and presenting moral dilemmas creates better, not worse experience even in the game. I speak from experience, as I've already tried myself as a DM, and I know that had I portrayed definitely evil cannibal kobolds, goblins and hobgoblins as not-truly-sentient existing-purely-to-be-killed creatures (rather than a "local political force" to negotiate with and try to use for completing the quest), our sessions would be much, much less fun. I'm telling ya. Perhaps such portrayal needs too much enthusiasm and imagination from a DM/storyteller, more than they are willing to provide; there are lots of shortcuts "they do this horrible thing -> they are monsters and should be killed", but they still should be taken. "They look like this -> they are monsters and should be killed" is not valid and does not work for people who like giving fiction at least some thought.

Of course for some people pure suspension of disbelief is enough to conclude "if we are told that they are Evil and should be attacked on sight, they must have been doing something really Evil and are already established as monsters, no need to go in details", they will just trust the DM. But this sort of logic leads to danger, danger of forgetting that the villain characterisation was supposed to be there first, and it is the job of other fiction to remind us of that. When you start getting irritated by complex characterisations and prefer simply "they are enemies - kill them", it might be a sign that something's wrong with your moral compass.