Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[woweedd]

How so? I don't recall Durkula making any overtly hostile move toward the Order before the Godsmoot?

The V/familicide analogy isn't really apt, I think, because there's nothing about being a black dragon which intrinsically required pinning V's children to a tree. She was just a jerk. Same thing with goblins and beholders and so forth- a lot of them might be jerks in practice, but in theory they could go around being goblins and beholders and secure all the necessities of life and never hurt a soul.

That's not true in the same way for mind flayers. Some very nasty behaviours are baked into them biologically, such that the most you can hope for is that they do very nasty things only to people who well and truly deserve it. And they're wicked smart and can spread like wildfire and can turn your head inside out with a look, and even if they give every appearance of being harmless for extended periods you can never be entirely sure it's not part of a larger ruse.

They were judging it as it if were just an Evil version of Durkon, not on its own merits.

[Kish]

I don't see how judging Greg on his own merits would have led them to the conclusion that he was an enemy. The first thing he did as a free-willed entity was come to their aid against the Linear Guild.

We've only seen two free-willed vampires, Greg and Malack. Both of them are worshippers of gods that represent cosmic evil, and are themselves beings whose hunger for blood drives them to make use of other sentient beings.

These are the kind of people you get when you make a "personification of their worst day."

That is what I said with more words. Assuming goblins are evil because they're goblins? Bad. Assuming black dragons are evil because they're black dragons? Bad. Assuming vampires are evil because they're vampires? A-OK.

People posted various justifications for goblins and dragons being automatically evil too; the only difference with vampires is that Rich is on board with the vampire ones (as far as what's presented in the comic; I know what he's posted on the forum is different).

[hamishspence]

People posted various justifications for goblins and dragons being automatically evil too; the only difference with vampires is that Rich is on board with the vampire ones (as far as what's presented in the comic; I know what he's posted on the forum is different).

Hard to say what Rich's exact opinion is on vampires and "fiends" as opposed to everything else.

Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

Malack had free will. He was an Evil person, in the same way that Redcloak is an Evil person. If he was slavishly loyal to Nergal, that was because he was a cleric, not because he was a vampire. He chose to be devoted to something larger than himself when he could have just rampaged around the continent draining people. Everything he did, every action you saw him take, was his own decision. Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything.

The only real argument being put forth is that goblins were originally designed to be evil, so they should be evil. Except, vampires were also originally designed to be evil, and (one's thoughts on Stephanie Meyers aside) I think we can all agree that there are hundreds of works with morally conflicted or even outright heroic vampires, maybe even more than with purely evil ones now.

Things change. Tradition does not matter. We can revise our views on these monsters as many times as we want until they reflect the story we want to be told, because they do not exist. You cannot say that these ideas do not apply to the world of D&D because the world of D&D is not REAL. We made it up, and we made it up less than 40 years ago. Just change what it is! Write a new story where it's not like that!

Oh wait—I am!

I would suggest though - that, combining them all - vampires, fiends, etc might have "inborn starting alignment" - but as beings with free will, are capable of changing it.

[zimmerwald1915]

I would suggest though - that, combining them all - vampires, fiends, etc might have "inborn starting alignment" - but as beings with free will, are capable of changing it.

The question is, though, does being a supernatural creature with an inborn starting alignment change the statement "this being is Evil" from illegitimate racism to a legitimate, though rebuttable, presumption?

[Kish]

My question is, rather:

If you look at just the comic, and don't mix in Rich's words, does it point to, "Well, I guess these two just happen to be bad people"--or does it point to "vampires=automatically and irredeemably evil, like Lord Drayakir keeps asserting all listed-evil creatures are"?

I am aware that Rich's words paint a somewhat different picture--and I am aware that D&D indicates clearly that no race, "natural" or not, is guaranteed to be any alignment. Those don't relate to what I'm saying.

[hroþila]

My question is, rather:

If you look at just the comic, and don't mix in Rich's words, does it point to, "Well, I guess these two just happen to be bad people"--or does it point to "vampires=automatically and irredeemably evil, like Lord Drayakir keeps asserting all listed-evil creatures are"?

I am aware that Rich's words paint a somewhat different picture--and I am aware that D&D indicates clearly that no race, "natural" or not, is guaranteed to be any alignment. Those don't relate to what I'm saying.

I think that depends on how likely you were to make sweeping generalizations from a very limited sample to begin with.

[Lacuna Caster]

Oh, I'm fairly sure Lacuna Caster is trying to use a genocide example to highlight the logistics of the situation, not advocating genocide on its own "merits".

How exactly do you envision this working? In particular, what can a superpredator of these types do that will prove they are non-Evil?

I'm not sure. It might not be possible, depending on the circumstances, and it would certainly require extraordinary effort on the part of the predator. But 'benefit of the doubt' has a pretty high cost from the perspective of the prey, so you have to gauge which policy is likely to do more harm.

I've used the Xenomorphs from Aliens as the most straightforward example of a species- a highly intelligent, adaptable, and social species at that- where I'm finding it hard to muster a rational defence against genocide. They're just too damned dangerous to leave even a single specimen alive. Now the mind flayers aren't a perfect one-to-one mapping with that, and it's possible no D&D species is, but it would be strange to say that there wasn't a legitimate artistic purpose to telling stories about them.

[Kish]

I know the Aliens movies are popular horror/action movies, but I've never heard them described as artistic, nor have I ever seen anyone claim to take a lesson from them that isn't either the very basic ("a woman can be badass") or, perennially, the one offered here: that an intelligent race can be irredeemably evil.

[Lacuna Caster]

I know the Aliens movies are popular horror/action movies, but I've never heard them described as artistic, nor have I ever seen anyone claim to take a lesson from them that isn't either the very basic ("a woman can be badass") or, perennially, the one offered here: that an intelligent race can be irredeemably evil.

The sequel is generally considered more of an action/thriller flick, but pretty much everyone talks about the art design and sexual symbolism of Alien. It's not entirely trivial that Ripley is the hero there either, because the alien is basically r-style reproduction run amok, whereas Ripley is the 'tiger mom' investing heavily in her surrogate offspring. So there's a good thematic reflection there.

[theNater]

I'm not sure. It might not be possible, depending on the circumstances, and it would certainly require extraordinary effort on the part of the predator.

On it's face, this seems unreasonable. But you've got that "depending on the circumstances" in there, so let's put in some circumstances and see what we can see.

Suppose I'm an Illithid who has decided to give up on Evil and join a humanoid community. I've got no desire to reproduce and I've got my food situation all sorted out so I can eat without hurting anybody. The community I wish to join is a reasonably-sized city with a variety of D&D humanoids living in it. How do I demonstrate to the people of the city that there is no need to murder me for their own good?

[Jasdoif]

I've used the Xenomorphs from Aliens as the most straightforward example of a species- a highly intelligent, adaptable, and social species at that- where I'm finding it hard to muster a rational defence against genocide. They're just too damned dangerous to leave even a single specimen alive.

Hmm. Taking steps to make yourself an unyielding threat to every "single specimen" of a species that you identify as a superpredator...sounds a lot like giving hypothetical Good members a reason to oppose the speciesists, and then using the opposition to convince yourself there can't actually be Good members.

Also like deliberately provoking a wide spectrum of superpredators. If considering or working towards the benefits of unified organization is utterly unthinkable for whatever reason, zimmerwald's "accept domestication" approach is a less suicidal choice.

[Fyraltari]

Nergal is the god of death and destruction and Malack (cleric of Nergal) planned to perform a desert-wide holocaust in his name.

I'm pretty comfortable with my assumption that Nergal is on evil's side.

Death and destruction are, in and of themselves, neutral concepts, and we have no confirmatiion that Nergal ordered or even approved Malack's plan. I don't think we have enough informations to speculate.

I don't see how judging Greg on his own merits would have led them to the conclusion that he was an enemy. The first thing he did as a free-willed entity was come to their aid against the Linear Guild.

That's the problem isn't it? In the end anyone tou know could be deceiving you as part of a larger con you don't even have enough information to suspect.

That is what I said with more words. Assuming goblins are evil because they're goblins? Bad. Assuming black dragons are evil because they're black dragons? Bad. Assuming vampires are evil because they're vampires? A-OK.

People posted various justifications for goblins and dragons being automatically evil too; the only difference with vampires is that Rich is on board with the vampire ones (as far as what's presented in the comic; I know what he's posted on the forum is different).

Well there still the point made by Roy and the (at the time) HPoH that he's doing all this of his own personnal choice.
I think the solution to this apparent conundrum is that vampires necessarily start evil but can change over time. However since it's been only a few days since Durkon's death and if any of them survives the upcoming fight they won't be the focus of the story we won't see it.

[Doug Lampert]

I don't see how judging Greg on his own merits would have led them to the conclusion that he was an enemy. The first thing he did as a free-willed entity was come to their aid against the Linear Guild.

That is what I said with more words. Assuming goblins are evil because they're goblins? Bad. Assuming black dragons are evil because they're black dragons? Bad. Assuming vampires are evil because they're vampires? A-OK.

People posted various justifications for goblins and dragons being automatically evil too; the only difference with vampires is that Rich is on board with the vampire ones (as far as what's presented in the comic; I know what he's posted on the forum is different).

At the time when we'd only seen a couple of black dragons on screen, the on screen evidence that they could be non-evil was? Similar question for goblins.

I don't consider the fact that all vampires observed are evil to be decisive based on a very small number of observations, all but one very young, and the one elder vampire was a cleric of a death god. Especially now when we know that in both the Comic and in D&D all vampires START as evil.

I'm just not seeing the justification for making declarations about the entire group here. Malak is a single data point.

You should never draw conclusions about a group from one data point beyond the conclusion that "this is a possible result".

The question is, though, does being a supernatural creature with an inborn starting alignment change the statement "this being is Evil" from illegitimate racism to a legitimate, though rebuttable, presumption?

I'm actually perfectly willing to go with legitimate, though rebuttable, presumption. At some point profiling becomes justifiable.

But note that you don't usually get to execute someone on a presumption that they're evil, heck, you don't get to execute someone just because you KNOW that they are EVIL. You should need an actual crime.

My question is, rather:

If you look at just the comic, and don't mix in Rich's words, does it point to, "Well, I guess these two just happen to be bad people"--or does it point to "vampires=automatically and irredeemably evil, like Lord Drayakir keeps asserting all listed-evil creatures are"?

I am aware that Rich's words paint a somewhat different picture--and I am aware that D&D indicates clearly that no race, "natural" or not, is guaranteed to be any alignment. Those don't relate to what I'm saying.

As I said above, I think the Comic comes back with a solid, INSUFFICIENT DATA.

If you ASSUME vampires are evil, then confirmation bias + the comic will indicate EVIL, but then once I'm allowed outside sources I'm also allowed D&D rules and Rich's words, both of which indicate, "good vampire is possible but very rare".

[Lacuna Caster]

Suppose I'm an Illithid who has decided to give up on Evil and join a humanoid community. I've got no desire to reproduce and I've got my food situation all sorted out so I can eat without hurting anybody. The community I wish to join is a reasonably-sized city with a variety of D&D humanoids living in it. How do I demonstrate to the people of the city that there is no need to murder me for their own good?

Hard to say. Uh... maybe scry on them for a while to see if there's some resource or service they desperately require, then provide that anonymously for a while? Try and locate a potentially sympathetic soul or two within the town, then use sending spells or other messages to gradual broach the subject of your species identity, while providing proof you were responsible for earlier or ongoing aid? Widen the circle of initial contacts, possibly while staying in an isolated location outside the village/town/city for a time, and reminding them you could have eaten their brains by now if you'd wanted? Run for a 'Mystara's got talent' competition? Profit?

Hmm. Taking steps to make yourself an unyielding threat to every "single specimen" of a species that you identify as a superpredator...sounds a lot like giving hypothetical Good members a reason to oppose the speciesists, and then using the opposition to convince yourself there can't actually be Good members.

It's a hypothetical scenario, sure. There's also a hypothetical scenario where you, e.g, fail to contain an explosive epidemic of intelligent soul-draining undead, because you missed juuuust one. You have to weight the pros and cons of both approaches.

[HalfTangible]

Death and destruction are, in and of themselves, neutral concepts,

"His fiery rage brings the end of all things".

and we have no confirmatiion that Nergal ordered or even approved Malack's plan. I don't think we have enough informations to speculate.

Malack was a slavishly loyal cleric, which tends to imply a fair bit of loyalty to your god. It's also been established in oots that when a cleric refreshes their spells, they can tell if their god approves of their work.

[Jasdoif]

It's a hypothetical scenario, sure. There's also a hypothetical scenario where you, e.g, fail to contain an explosive epidemic of intelligent soul-draining undead, because you missed juuuust one. You have to weight the pros and cons of both approaches.

There's also the hypothetical scenario where you cause "an explosive epidemic of intelligent soul-draining undead", because they had no interest in bothering you before you tried to wipe them all out and they responded in kind...or because you nearly wiped them out but missed juuuust one, and now the one's desire for vengeance is what drives it and its progeny.

Really, we can hypothetical all day long. At the end of the day, I think the point is to keep an eye open for options that actually improve your situation, not just expend resources to violently maintain the status quo (and that's if it works). Such options may not exist, or may not be viable in the time any particular situation grants; but when you start with genocide in mind, you're not even going to look for alternatives.

[theNater]

Hard to say. Uh... maybe scry on them for a while to see if there's some resource or service they desperately require, then provide that anonymously for a while? Try and locate a potentially sympathetic soul or two within the town, then use sending spells or other messages to gradual broach the subject of your species identity, while providing proof you were responsible for earlier or ongoing aid? Widen the circle of initial contacts, possibly while staying in an isolated location outside the village/town/city for a time, and reminding them you could have eaten their brains by now if you'd wanted? Run for a 'Mystara's got talent' competition? Profit?

Yeah...no. I've seen this game before. If I try giving clandestine aid, people following your philosophy will say "If you weren't nefarious, you'd have revealed your identity right away" and kill me. And if I reveal my identity right away, they'll assume I'm up to no good just because I'm an Illithid and kill me. And in either case you'll say "Well, I did say maybe, and I guess that wasn't the right approach for this city".

But the truth is that there is no right way. Your philosophy will see me dead regardless, and the argument that it was my responsibility to prove my non-Evilness when there was no actual way to do that is an attempt to avoid the blame for my death.

[Keltest]

Yeah...no. I've seen this game before. If I try giving clandestine aid, people following your philosophy will say "If you weren't nefarious, you'd have revealed your identity right away" and kill me. And if I reveal my identity right away, they'll assume I'm up to no good just because I'm an Illithid and kill me. And in either case you'll say "Well, I did say maybe, and I guess that wasn't the right approach for this city".

But the truth is that there is no right way. Your philosophy will see me dead regardless, and the argument that it was my responsibility to prove my non-Evilness when there was no actual way to do that is an attempt to avoid the blame for my death.

If you aren't willing to take that risk and put in the work, then you should pick a more realistic goal. Drizzt didn't hang around Waterdeep bemoaning the fact that humans are so racist and judgmental, he kept looking until he found somewhere he could live safely, and worked upward from there.

[Fyraltari]

Hard to say. Uh... maybe scry on them for a while to see if there's some resource or service they desperately require, then provide that anonymously for a while? Try and locate a potentially sympathetic soul or two within the town, then use sending spells or other messages to gradual broach the subject of your species identity, while providing proof you were responsible for earlier or ongoing aid? Widen the circle of initial contacts, possibly while staying in an isolated location outside the village/town/city for a time, and reminding them you could have eaten their brains by now if you'd wanted? Run for a 'Mystara's got talent' competition? Profit?

I suggest befriending a blind man, it worked so well in Frankenstein, or the modern prometheus.

"His fiery rage brings the end of all things".

I mean, that's said of half the gods of real world religions, too.

Malack was a slavishly loyal cleric, which tends to imply a fair bit of loyalty to your god. It's also been established in oots that when a cleric refreshes their spells, they can tell if their god approves of their work.

Yeah but he hadn't started his daily literal holocaust yet. If Nergal is LN, he could se the rule of of an oppressive empire as a reasonnable price to pay for peace in the Western Continent, no?

[Keltest]

I suggest befriending a blind man, it worked so well in Frankenstein, or the modern prometheus.


I mean, that's said of half the gods of real world religions, too.


Yeah but he hadn't started his daily literal holocaust yet. If Nergal is LN, he could se the rule of of an oppressive empire as a reasonnable price to pay for peace in the Western Continent, no?

As High Priest of his god, I think we can safely conclude that Malack was at least moderately aware of what would and would not please Nergal.

[zimmerwald1915]

As High Priest of his god, I think we can safely conclude that Malack was at least moderately aware of what would and would not please Nergal.

Malack's high-ness was within the hierarchy of the Empire of Blood, not the Church of Nergal. Tarquin calls him a "high priest," but he was speaking colloquially.

[Lacuna Caster]

There's also the hypothetical scenario where you cause "an explosive epidemic of intelligent soul-draining undead", because they had no interest in bothering you before you tried to wipe them all out and they responded in kind...

Jasdoif, we're not talking about tragic victims of oppression here. Wights do not tenderly nurture their newly-raised spawn and bitterly mourn their passing. We're talking about engines of black hatred that exist for no other function than to consume the living. Or at least there is nothing to stop a fictional universe from defining the word 'wight' in this manner- which is to say, in a manner that pits the living in an existential struggle against an implacable enemy. And you can tell perfectly good stories that way.

I swear to Gods, I could specify that the heroes are fighting literal flesh-reaving hellspawn, and someone at the back would pipe up and say 'this promote negative stereotypes of flesh-reaving hellspawn!'

[zimmerwald1915]

I swear to Gods, I could specify that the heroes are fighting literal flesh-reaving hellspawn, and someone at the back would pipe up and say 'this promote negative stereotypes of flesh-reaving hellspawn!'

Well it does. Or it makes it easier to conceptualize foreigners or wrong-thinkers as flesh-reaving Hellspawn, anyway.

[Keltest]

Well it does. Or it makes it easier to conceptualize foreigners or wrong-thinkers as flesh-reaving Hellspawn, anyway.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not every monster needs to be analogous to real life.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well it does. Or it makes it easier to conceptualize foreigners or wrong-thinkers as flesh-reaving Hellspawn, anyway.

The only explicit identification of 'wrong-thinkers' with the walking dead I'm aware of is with american consumer culture.

[Kish]

Jasdoif, we're not talking about tragic victims of oppression here. Wights do not tenderly nurture their newly-raised spawn and bitterly mourn their passing. We're talking about engines of black hatred that exist for no other function than to consume the living. Or at least there is nothing to stop a fictional universe from defining the word 'wight' in this manner- which is to say, in a manner that pits the living in an existential struggle against an implacable enemy. And you can tell perfectly good stories that way.

I swear to Gods, I could specify that the heroes are fighting literal flesh-reaving hellspawn, and someone at the back would pipe up and say 'this promote negative stereotypes of flesh-reaving hellspawn!'

See, the sentence in bold is what you seem to be under the misapprehension everyone agrees on but other people are strangely ignoring.

From my perspective, while I won't rule out the theoretical possibility that someone might sometime come up with an example that was a decent story, my experience is that the premise "these sapient beings are nothing but walking targets" has, in every case I can think of, slotted a story into one of two categories.
10% chance: It's tolerable, as long as I don't feel like exercising my higher brain functions. Or maybe it's good for something completely unrelated to the plot--worth consuming for the action scenes, if one's into that sort of thing, for example.
90% chance: Festering rubbish that leaves me wishing I could get the time I'd invested in consuming it back.

[Fyraltari]

Well it does. Or it makes it easier to conceptualize foreigners or wrong-thinkers as flesh-reaving Hellspawn, anyway.

Exactly this.

Jasdoif, we're not talking about tragic victims of oppression here. Wights do not tenderly nurture their newly-raised spawn and bitterly mourn their passing. We're talking about engines of black hatred that exist for no other function than to consume the living. Or at least there is nothing to stop a fictional universe from defining the word 'wight' in this manner- which is to say, in a manner that pits the living in an existential struggle against an implacable enemy. And you can tell perfectly good stories that way.

I swear to Gods, I could specify that the heroes are fighting literal flesh-reaving hellspawn, and someone at the back would pipe up and say 'this promote negative stereotypes of flesh-reaving hellspawn!'

The only explicit identification of 'wrong-thinkers' with the walking dead I'm aware of is with american consumer culture.

Hey wait a minute, we were talking intelligent autonomous, free-willed beings. That's different.

If you write a story that says belonging to certain group by birth makes you worthy of murder (which has been done a lot), I will have a bone to pick with you.
The zombie genre generally presents the zombies are akin to rabid beasts in term of intellect and individuality, not humans. And often posits that the humans are more dangerous than the zombie anyways.

[Jasdoif]

I swear to Gods, I could specify that the heroes are fighting literal flesh-reaving hellspawn, and someone at the back would pipe up and say 'this promote negative stereotypes of flesh-reaving hellspawn!'

Are they fighting these hellspawn because they do reave the flesh of the innocent, or because they could reave the flesh of the innocent?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Jasdoif, we're not talking about tragic victims of oppression here. Wights do not tenderly nurture their newly-raised spawn and bitterly mourn their passing. We're talking about engines of black hatred that exist for no other function than to consume the living.

Don't move the goal posts from free-willed to non-free-willed undead.

We are not talking about tragic victims of oppression, but we are talking about creatures with free will, and we have in fact seen Malack tenderly nurture their newly-raised spawn and bitterly mourn their passing.

GW

[Shulk]

Aren't we supposed to be discussing gobbotopia?