Do you have an "Evil" race in your world?

[veti]

The fact that we find such things objectionable from time to time even when it doesn't affect us at all should remind you that the glass isn't completely empty, though.

No, of course not. I didn't mean to say that humans are particularly evil. Merely that they're as evil as you need them to be.

I think what I"m trying to say is, I don't really see the point in having alignments attached to races at all. You can get all the evil you could reasonably need just from the PCs' own races.

[Frozen_Feet]

True -- just about any "mortal race" that is inherently evil is going to be a story-device reflection of purely human evil from the real world.

Nah. There are plenty of animal evils and natural evils in the world that you can turn into evil fantasy species. Such as hurricanes or ducks.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nah. There are plenty of animal evils and natural evils in the world that you can turn into evil fantasy species. Such as hurricanes or ducks.

There's no will, no intent, no possible moral awareness, in a hurricane. It has no capacity for evil, or good, or anything of the sort. It's no more evil than gravity or light or a rock.

[Frozen_Feet]

So?

Take a wikipedia refresher course on "natural evil" and realize you're adding nothing to the discussion.

[Max_Killjoy]

So?

Take a wikipedia refresher course on "natural evil" and realize you're adding nothing to the discussion.

Really? Nice attitude you have there.

/plonk

Meanwhile, we'll get back to discussing things that don't involve theological gobbledygook.

[mikeejimbo]

Ducks, however. You gotta admit he has a point about ducks.

[Cluedrew]

No, of course not. I didn't mean to say that humans are particularly evil. Merely that they're as evil as you need them to be.

You can do a lot with humans. In many fantasy & sci-fi stories the total variation across the races is less than the variation you can find in humans. In most fantasy (because it is slightly more consistent) you have a 2-3 human cultures, 1-2 elven cultures, 1 dwarf culture and then maybe an undetailed barbaric culture for the villain race if there is one. I can find that many different "cultures" in a big city here on earth.

Now, that is hardly all stories, but the point is... yeah, you can easily get away with just using humans if you want.

[LudicSavant]

So?

Take a wikipedia refresher course on "natural evil" and realize you're adding nothing to the discussion.

The problem with bringing up "natural evils" is that D&D pretty clearly doesn't acknowledge this philosophy. A lack of intelligence is their existing rationale for why animals such as ducks (*shudders*) aren't Evil, for instance. Protection from Evil doesn't block out hurricanes or ducks. Either way you slice it (agency-based or natural evils), the way D&D is handling alignment is broken.

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem with bringing up "natural evils" is that D&D pretty clearly doesn't acknowledge this philosophy. A lack of intelligence is their existing rationale for why animals such as ducks (*shudders*) aren't Evil, for instance. Either way you slice it (agency-based or natural evils), the way D&D is handling alignment is broken.

I think the problem is that "evil" in D&D is not based on any philosophical starting point, but simply as "evil because we said so" and "evil things are evil".

See also, "detect evil".

[LudicSavant]

I think the problem is that "evil" in D&D is not based on any philosophical starting point.

I don't think that's the case, so much as that I think different authors had different philosophical starting points, and even with individual authors their starting points were often muddled or poorly thought out.

[Frozen_Feet]

The problem with bringing up "natural evils" is that D&D pretty clearly doesn't acknowledge this philosophy. A lack of intelligence is their existing rationale for why animals such as ducks (*shudders*) aren't Evil, for instance. Protection from Evil doesn't block out hurricanes or ducks. Either way you slice it (agency-based or natural evils), the way D&D is handling alignment is broken.

And?

The peculiarities of one iteration of the alignment system is immaterial to the truth value of my statement.

[Grey Watcher]

I noticed evil outsiders mentioned above. Do undead count? I much prefer them to be all evil, with the occasional innocent ghost exception. And even with them, the goal is to make them die.

The orcs in my 3.5 campaign are pretty nasty. Warlike, brutish, selfish, and even sadistic. But they're not inherently evil, more like culturally problematic and pushed in a certain direction by sinister forces who want to use them. So I don't suppose they count. But they come close enough that the PCs attack and kill them without a shred of remorse or any holding back. That's a good thing, narrative-wise. Faceless mooks you can mow down to show how badass you are; they are a trope for good reason.
When I want something more ambiguous, I go to hobgoblins. They're smarter, more disciplined, and more mysterious.

Y'see, I read something like this and my mind instantly goes to subverting the whole "evil mortal race" thing. Like, the PCs have been killing Orcs remorselessly all along, only to eventually uncover the Horrible Truth^TM about what's driving the orcs and have a big What Have I Done Moment^TM. (Assuming your PCs are inclined to such things; many might just shrug and say "Oh well, sucks for them.")

TI once introduced in my short campaign an orc family that's opened up a portable restaurant on the streets. The family consists of the father, the mother, two grown-up children, and two small children. The wife is stronger than the husband in terms of authority, mainly because of her fierce temper - the husband seems a bit afraid of his wife, and the small children try to cheer him up, while the grown-up children just shake their heads.

The family sells grilled meat, hunted fresh in the morning. Stab them with sticks, and sells them to the travellers and adventurers. They also sell potions and medicine crafted from plants that they harvested in their path.

The family carries the old orc ways of travelling and hunting in the wild, but in their case they do it as a favor for the villages which they come across. They may hunt down a Bulette that's been plaguing the lands... and grill it. They may slay the Owlbear that's been a problem for the farmers... and grill it. They know how to live in the wild, including how to cook these bizzare monsters without getting your stomach hurt, and they're making the most out of their knowledge.

The adventurers bought some grilled Bulette from them (soaked in beer and wrapped up in special herb-leaves before grilling to soften the hard meat and add it flavor), as well as some herb ointment (HP recovery) and antidote.

Mechanic-wise, they weren't much more than a normal "potion seller", but the players absolutely loved this family of orcs. After the campaign ended, told me they were their favorite NPCs - an opinion I shared with them. These sorts of stuff can be really fun if done right.

I love this family too. I want an Orc Food Truck in my next campaign.

[LudicSavant]

I love this family too. I want an Orc Food Truck in my next campaign.

+1. Itinerant monster slayer cooks are awesome.

[nrg89]

I think the problem is that "evil" in D&D is not based on any philosophical starting point, but simply as "evil because we said so" and "evil things are evil".

See also, "detect evil".

It's not perfect but a vast impovement is the color wheel from Magic The Gathering that Lord Gareth wrote a good post on. In this case, you would find ducks with "detect green" and classic D&D demons with either "detect black" or "detect red". My rakshasa are completely black, for example, but the vast majority of people have color combinations and maybe one dominant.

[OldTrees1]

It's not perfect but a vast impovement is the color wheel from Magic The Gathering that Lord Gareth wrote a good post on. In this case, you would find ducks with "detect green" and classic D&D demons with either "detect black" or "detect red". My rakshasa are completely black, for example, but the vast majority of people have color combinations and maybe one dominant.

Uh?

The MtG color wheel is, for the most part, consistent in its writing. So if you were using it as an example of consistency then that is a fair point. The color wheel is more consistent than WotC's writing of the alignment system.

However the MtG color wheel is a projection of a 5 axis system onto a 2D image. The colors themselves are the result of the projection and are not part of the axis system itself. To demonstrate this, if I flip White around the Y axis I will sunder Red and Black and get 2 new colors (Amoral+Impulse & Chaos+Parasitism). So to reach completeness one has to step back from the color wheel and look at the 5D system.

However that degree of incompleteness is fine for an allegiance system, albeit not for a value system. The color wheel being an Amoral system should go without saying, so if you want to have the system cover morality then the 5D system is insufficient.

[Coidzor]

No, of course not. I didn't mean to say that humans are particularly evil. Merely that they're as evil as you need them to be.

I think what I"m trying to say is, I don't really see the point in having alignments attached to races at all. You can get all the evil you could reasonably need just from the PCs' own races.

Oh, then yes, I agree completely.

I like a nice horde of demonically infused barbarians that sold their souls for a shot at conquest or a conspiracy of alien entities that should not be able to exist seeking to make all intelligent life into the chattel so they can force their lost timeline back into existence, deleting the one that currently exists every now and then, though, because it's just more obviously fantastical than a bunch of corrupt businessmen and politicians that abuse their power and can't be touched by conventional law enforcement or an ordinary military threat that half-competent governments would be able to deal with to some extent.

[nrg89]

However the MtG color wheel is a projection of a 5 axis system onto a 2D image. The colors themselves are the result of the projection and are not part of the axis system itself. To demonstrate this, if I flip White around the Y axis I will sunder Red and Black and get 2 new colors (Amoral+Impulse & Chaos+Parasitism). So to reach completeness one has to step back from the color wheel and look at the 5D system.

However that degree of incompleteness is fine for an allegiance system, albeit not for a value system.

It's not meant to be a scale, as in more or less black, but rather "which of these set of values do you pick the most values from". That's why you have combinations, wanting the state to have a monopoly on violence is white but total freedom of speech is red.
WotC admits that these philosophies have many internal conflicts (why would two white planeswalkers duel if not?) and that they shouldn't be a scale.

For gameplay purposes I think it's fine for a value system if the alternative is the nine alignments in D&D. It's very hard for me to envision a conflict between paladins, unless one of them falls for temptation, when both are lawful good. If they're both white, one could be a straight up fascist and the other could be a missionary.

[Satinavian]

I have no problems with conflicts between paladins at all. Let them be bound to (mostly lawful) orders/churches/kingdoms waging war for example. There also needs to be no clear side in the wrong but that is most often the case.

I can see use of the color wheel.

[OldTrees1]

It's not meant to be a scale, as in more or less black, but rather "which of these set of values do you pick the most values from".That's why you have combinations, wanting the state to have a monopoly on violence is white but total freedom of speech is red.
WotC admits that these philosophies have many internal conflicts (why would two white planeswalkers duel if not?) and that they shouldn't be a scale.

For gameplay purposes I think it's fine for a value system if the alternative is the nine alignments in D&D. It's very hard for me to envision a conflict between paladins, unless one of them falls for temptation, when both are lawful good. If they're both white, one could be a straight up fascist and the other could be a missionary.

A) Colors vs Values
As I detailed, the 5 colors are merely an illusion resulting from the projection of the 5 value axes onto a 2D ring. As such the MtG system can either be used as a color scale, or as a 5D value system. Your specific example takes the Order vs Chaos axis and then chooses to adopt portions of each extreme. I suppose that is an area where even the 5D model is incomplete.

B) Internal Conflicts
You can see the internal conflicts within White (fascist vs missionary). Would it surprise you if I said I can see such internal conflicts under both the MtG system and the nine alignment system? Paladin threads are surprisingly great places to see all sorts of different virtues being championed and how those prime virtues both shape the Paladins and put them into internal conflict.

c) Amoral
If you look at the detailed color wheel(the one with the visible 10 values) you will see that White and Black fall on the Moral vs Amoral value axis. This axis is not about who is right, but rather about how they see the world. Those that side with Moral believe in good & evil and seek to be good. Those that side with Amoral don't believe in good & evil. As a result there is nothing in the color wheel to address morality. Honestly this was a great choice for creating an allegiance system, however if one is looking for a system to describe moral judgements then it is not a good fit.


The Color Wheel is a great system, that does not work for everything.

[nrg89]

I have no problems with conflicts between paladins at all. Let them be bound to (mostly lawful) orders/churches/kingdoms waging war for example.

Sure, that works, but how would you for example explain internal conflicts? That's what I have a lot of problems with under the nine alignments (not saying it's impossible) but if both are white, no problem. A color is only a collection of values, just like an ideology, but there is a lot of debate within the ideologies of which values win when they come into conflict. The old "does the ends justify the means" argument for example, but also what's practical and who to cooperate with. Orzhov is no doubt white, even though they are also black.

A) Colors vs Values
As I detailed, the 5 colors are merely an illusion resulting from the projection of the 5 value axes onto a 2D ring. As such the MtG system can either be used as a color scale, or as a 5D value system. Your specific example takes the Order vs Chaos axis and then chooses to adopt portions of each extreme. I suppose that is an area where even the 5D model is incomplete.

There can be some scales within the colors, such as "how free speech are we really?" and "how much control are we really comfortable giving to our government?" but the directions are somewhat consistent. Never said it was perfect, I only compare it to the nine alignments.

B) Internal Conflicts
You can see the internal conflicts within White (fascist vs missionary). Would it surprise you if I said I can see such internal conflicts under both the MtG system and the nine alignment system? Paladin threads are surprisingly great places to see all sorts of different virtues being championed and how those prime virtues both shape the Paladins and put them into internal conflict.

Sure, but they're far less flexible. A paladin who's good aligned authority issues a new law that goes against, for example, the missionary mindset will be enforced without much questioning by a missionary paladin. It depends a lot on how much flexibility you allow, the color wheel assumes flexibility and even combinations.

c) Amoral
If you look at the detailed color wheel(the one with the visible 10 values) you will see that White and Black fall on the Moral vs Amoral value axis. This axis is not about who is right, but rather about how they see the world.

Exactly, and that's why I like it. A lawful good paladin of Pelor would fight a lawful evil cleric of Nerull but they are both fanatics, in my honest opinion. The difference is which boss they're taking orders from. "I was just following orders" have been said to humble oneself when called a hero but also to excuse genocide. What's morally right though is up to the players, not the color wheel, it makes the assumption that there is no one arbiter of morality. So...

Those that side with Moral believe in good & evil and seek to be good. Those that side with Amoral don't believe in good & evil. As a result there is nothing in the color wheel to address morality. Honestly this was a great choice for creating an allegiance system, however if one is looking for a system to describe moral judgements then it is not a good fit.

This is not what I'm advocating the color wheel for. It describes outlook, not morals.

The Color Wheel is a great system, that does not work for everything.

Completely agree.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Nah, that sounds too simple/boring for me. I like my races to have complex relationships with room for historical emnities but also unlikely alliances, periods of truce, peaceful migrations, etc. For example, you might have one orc tribe in a given region allied with some local human farmers, acting as their protectors against other orc tribes in exchange for a regular tribute of livestock and produce, or orc exiles acting as mercenaries in a big city. You might have human arms merchants selling weapons to various competing orc tribes, or an exiled elven sorcerer joining with a tribe of orcs for protection while acting as an adviser/walking artillery platform for their chief. I don't really worry about alignment in my games unless it comes up as I find it simplifies things too much for my liking.

[TheYell]

Orca dolphins kill baby whales for sport. Only eat the tongue and leave the rest to rot. I think they know what they're doing.

[hamishspence]

That's an overstatement - they eat the tongue first, because it is the softest exposed part. That doesn't mean they never eat other parts, or that "sport" is the entire motivation. Or, that they only eat baby whales - the mammal-eating orca variant (transients) eat sick adult whales as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's an overstatement - they eat the tongue first, because it is the softest exposed part. That doesn't mean they never eat other parts, or that "sport" is the entire motivation. Or, that they only eat baby whales - the mammal-eating orca variant (transients) eat sick adult whales as while.

Wait, it's the transient orcas that hunt other cetaceans?

...

So they're orca murder-hobos?

[OldTrees1]

Sure, that works, but how would you for example explain internal conflicts? That's what I have a lot of problems with under the nine alignments (not saying it's impossible) but if both are white, no problem. A color is only a collection of values, just like an ideology, but there is a lot of debate within the ideologies of which values win when they come into conflict. The old "does the ends justify the means" argument for example, but also what's practical and who to cooperate with. Orzhov is no doubt white, even though they are also black.

Sure, but they're far less flexible. A paladin who's good aligned authority issues a new law that goes against, for example, the missionary mindset will be enforced without much questioning by a missionary paladin. It depends a lot on how much flexibility you allow, the color wheel assumes flexibility and even combinations.

Wait, why wouldn't the Missionary Paladin object to the seemingly erroneous law passed by a fallible superior? What about if the seemingly erroneous law was passed by someone not above the Paladin? I have seen LG Paladins have conflict over what objective was important, it seems trivial to imagine conflicts between valid means of achieving an objective.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think the lack of flexibility might be on your end.

There can be some scales within the colors, such as "how free speech are we really?" and "how much control are we really comfortable giving to our government?" but the directions are somewhat consistent. Never said it was perfect, I only compare it to the nine alignments.

I am not sure if I got my message across. Take the color wheel:

Spoiler: image

Show

Now look at that outer wheel. Notice that it is 5 pairs of opposites in the shape of a 5 pointed star?
(Order-Chaos, Impulse-Logic, Technology-Instinct, Interdependence-Parasitism, Amorality-Morality)
What would happen if those 5 lines were arranged differently in another 5 pointed star? This is what I meant when I said the Color Wheel is a projection of a 5D object onto a 2D surface.

However your are responding with pointing out even further detail within one of those 5 axes.

Completely agree.

:)

[nrg89]

Wait, why wouldn't the Missionary Paladin object to the seemingly erroneous law passed by a fallible superior?

It admittedly depends on what's prioritized the highest for this paladin; law or good. D&D acts like they are two orthogonal axis, but they're not, and once that's apparent you scratch your head wondering what happens. Whatever action the person takes has to be decided upon as a lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral action because it mechanically matters. Someone might throw down a "holy word" after many of these decisions have been made, and then it's up to the DM to judge you.
The color wheel offers more player empowerment because it's more consistent and it assumes inner conflicts and pragmatism to some degree, and combinations.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think the lack of flexibility might be on your end.

And that's the problem; how flexible am I, the DM with these alignments and what's my basis for them? If I think respecting personal property is the most important virtue Robin Hood is a villain.

Now look at that outer wheel. Notice that it is 5 pairs of opposites in the shape of a 5 pointed star?
(Order-Chaos, Impulse-Logic, Technology-Instinct, Interdependence-Parasitism, Amorality-Morality)
What would happen if those 5 lines were arranged differently in another 5 pointed star? This is what I meant when I said the Color Wheel is a projection of a 5D object onto a 2D surface.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. They have significant overlap which is the reason why blue and black work together while white and blue work together. If they were meant to navigate a space with 5 completely orthogonal axis I would say you have a point, but I see them as a groups of values commonly shared within the respective ideologies. Some can be modeled as a scale, but I argue that overall they work more like sets and you would be described with the color (or color combination) that you have the largest intersection with. For example, wether or not morality exists is a binary opinion, however when it actually applies is the issue. If someone is playing within the rules of chess, is there such a thing as an immoral move? I would say "no", and that's not really a scale.

[Raimun]

Why is this topic discussed all the time?

I'm pretty sure that with the amount of discussion this topic has generated, it has been already sorted out. Once and for all.

[OldTrees1]

It admittedly depends on what's prioritized the highest for this paladin; law or good. D&D acts like they are two orthogonal axis, but they're not, and once that's apparent you scratch your head wondering what happens. Whatever action the person takes has to be decided upon as a lawful, chaotic, good, evil or neutral action because it mechanically matters. Someone might throw down a "holy word" after many of these decisions have been made, and then it's up to the DM to judge you.
The color wheel offers more player empowerment because it's more consistent and it assumes inner conflicts and pragmatism to some degree, and combinations.

Which good? Two Paladins that prioritize Good over Law do not necessarily agree on how to rank the virtues. One might consider it more important to shield the weak than to nurture the goodwill within and another paladin might disagree. However this may be a moot point (see below).

And that's the problem; how flexible am I, the DM with these alignments and what's my basis for them? If I think respecting personal property is the most important virtue Robin Hood is a villain.

Ah. I did not know you were making a personal criticism. I thought you were making an universal criticism. While I can provide counterexamples to the universal criticism, it would be the epitome of foolishness to try to tell you that your were wrong about your own thoughts (and thus not something I would do).

While I can easily see internal conflicts in both systems, the systems you can see internal conflicts in are the systems you can see internal conflicts in.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

Ah, then we are at an impasse because we are talking about different things when we talk about the color wheel.

Why is this topic discussed all the time?

I'm pretty sure that with the amount of discussion this topic has generated, it has been already sorted out. Once and for all.

Perhaps both the Memetic lifecycle and Signaling would explain the longevity of this topic?

[nrg89]

Which good? Two Paladins that prioritize Good over Law do not necessarily agree on how to rank the virtues. One might consider it more important to shield the weak than to nurture the goodwill within and another paladin might disagree. However this may be a moot point (see below).

Absolutely, but which virtues encompass "good" is not without debate and that's the problem. The nine alignments mechanically relies on consensus about what's good among the players and the DM. Now, is there always a consensus about what's logical? Nope, but it's a far more well defined concept for discussion.

Ah. I did not know you were making a personal criticism. I thought you were making an universal criticism. While I can provide counterexamples to the universal criticism, it would be the epitome of foolishness to try to tell you that your were wrong about your own thoughts (and thus not something I would do).

My statements are:
1. The nine alignments rely more on DM fiat than the color wheel because "good" is a much more vague concept.
2. The color wheel represents mostly sets, not orthogonsl axis mapping a 5D space, and the reasons I provide for that is the overlap, the mutual exclusion, the peaceful coexistence and the binary nature of some of the stances within the colors. Some of the stances are scales but far from all of them.
3. When the alignments are a component of the game mechanics I argue that a clearer, more predictable system empowers the players.

I don't see how you can't challenge these statements through reasoning.

While I can easily see internal conflicts in both systems, the systems you can see internal conflicts in are the systems you can see internal conflicts in.

And that's my point; if I'm DMing, I have my view of what's good. It's very hard (not impossible, I've never said that) to see my own morals clash. It happens, all the time, but then I reconsider them and either decide on compromises or change them.
I have to decide which one of two characters, both equally respectful of their authorities and dogmatic, is evil and which one's good. And sure, some DMs allow players to weigh in or ask around rather than deciding what's good or evil by themselves, but this is a game, not a philosophy classroom. The rulings cannot be perfect, but they can be better and easier to reach.

Ah, then we are at an impasse because we are talking about different things when we talk about the color wheel.

Your argument is "doesn't the color wheel look like five axes projected on a 2D space?" and my argument is "it looks like a nice graphic, but some of those stances have significant overlap, aren't really scalable, are mutually exclusive or can cooperate peacefully so I think sets are a better model than a 5-space". Provide a better argument and I might see things better from your perspective.

[OldTrees1]

Absolutely, but which virtues encompass "good" is not without debate and that's the problem. The nine alignments mechanically relies on consensus about what's good among the players and the DM. Now, is there always a consensus about what's logical? Nope, but it's a far more well defined concept for discussion.

Okay, so it sounds like you agree that the nine alignments have internal conflict. I think that closes this part.

My statements are:
1. The nine alignments rely more on DM fiat than the color wheel because "good" is a much more vague concept.
2. The color wheel represents mostly sets, not orthogonsl axis mapping a 5D space, and the reasons I provide for that is the overlap, the mutual exclusion, the peaceful coexistence and the binary nature of some of the stances within the colors. Some of the stances are scales but far from all of them.
3. When the alignments are a component of the game mechanics I argue that a clearer, more predictable system empowers the players.

I don't see how you can't challenge these statements through reasoning.

The statement I was addressing in this first half dealt with (poorly paraphrased) "White has internal conflict by LG does not". I think that part is closed.

As far as the 5D space argument, I think our initial positions are to distant for me to feel comfortable with the amount of derailing I would have to do to address that distance. That is what I meant by impasse.

As such we return to the statement we both agreed on:
The Color Wheel is a great system, that does not work for everything.