Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - A biological reason for opponents
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    A biological reason for opponents
    Author Message
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 15, 2006
    Posts: 13
    From: Seattle

    Send private message
    Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:00 pm  
    A biological reason for opponents

    Some years ago I ran a group through G1 - G3.

    I had some inspiration from a Star Trek episode where several characters were imprisoned together, including Picard, that also included a member of an intelligent but carnivorous race that couldn't eat the jell-o food that the rest could eat and sooner or later he was going to have to eat someone to survive. Anyone remember that one?

    Well, the idea got me thinking. I've never been keen on the idea that any intelligent race is inherently of a particular alignment. Certainly the Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic thing is great for individuals, particularly player characters for role-play, but what could actually cause an entire intelligent race to adhere to a belief system that was inherently self-destructive?

    Instead, I thought what if it were a biological imperative? What if Orcs can't derive enough nutrition from plants to survive, like big cats or other predators, and were simply carnivores?

    The end result was that once the hill giants of G1 were killed and the orc slaves were freed the Steading turned into Orc Town and became a great place for role playing. Justice was based on trial by combat. It made for some tension as the players had to deal with orc politics, where during adventures new leaders got instated and characters continually had to prove themselves.

    What do you all think of this replacement for racial alignment?
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:31 am  

    I love it. Alignment, to me, has always been a rule that is best used when you do not feel like coming up with something better.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 06, 2003
    Posts: 85
    From: Torrance, Calif.

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:53 am  

    Trial by combat is indicative of a LE society, maybe even CE. It is simply rule by the strongest!

    I really enjoy the 1E alignment descriptions in the DMG. I don't have it in front of me, so I will paraphrase what CE is: Individuality and choice are important, but they are only important to another if they can preserve it. In other words, strength is important to CE people. They can be characterized as bullies who respect only strength. Someone who can't stand up for themselves has no rights in their eyes.

    Many people throughout history can be said to have this perspective, or outlook, in how they deal/dealt with others.

    Anyways. I think a more 'role playing based' expression of alignment like you have created, versus a game-mechanic derived expression of actions and values is great. Keep it up!

    The Grey Mouser
    'I drank what?' - Socrates
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:15 am  

    I don't think "mortal" races like elves or orcs (as opposed to angels and demons and the like) are inherently any alignment; their given alignments are simply the social values that are most common. There's no reason there couldn't be tribes of neutral or even good orcs isolated from the others (and it seems like something Carl Sargent wrote added some to Greyhawk, in fact).

    The book Dark Folk from Mayfair Games' RoleAids had an essay (by Robert Asprin!) for why orcs are a militant, conquering pain in everyone's asses that was similar to yours, though. Basically: chronic overpopulation, a carnivorous nature, and the fact that orc meat tastes really, really terrible.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:48 pm  

    I like the explaination of rasgon but I would add this addendum. The suggested alignment is merely the most common of social values of the race.

    After all, alignment of mortals are changeable due to choice therefore alignment is suppose to be the original basic fundamental values of the character.

    I have always disliked the the idea of an alignment language and the know alignment spell. Both I believe were intended for players to uncover the "bad guys" however the excessive use merely pigeon holes the players into simple friend vs foe columns.

    Also as GH evovled issues arise as the use of the alignment within the societies. By rights each throne room should posses a know alignment test of some sort if alignment identifies evil nature rather then mere intent. Of course most players and DMs seem to forget that so-called evil individuals can benefit their societies to preserve their role within it. While even so-called good people can cause tremendous harm in spite of intensions.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:59 am  

    Alignment is a simple morality meter- a measure of what is acceptable within a society, and I do like alignment as a general indicator of what is normal/acceptable within a society.

    Things that are classed as Evil are either inherently evil(i.e. demons, devils, and similar things) or are generally accepting of acts that would be considered evil, such as slavery, the off-hand killing of a creature, living sacrifice, worshiping gods that represent any of these things, eating higher sentient creatures by choice("Please don't eat me Mr. Monster!" "Oi! Shut your hole and get back in the stew pot you! Bwahaha!", revel in the needless suffering of others, etc.

    If a society mostly means well to its members, but has a few instances where questionable moral behavior is acceptable(like torturing people *suspected* of of being a witch perhaps, a distinct lack of equal rights among the society's members, etc.) then it is roughly Neutral.

    A Good society has few or no moral quandaries, and even when there are morally questionable issues they are usually a light shade of gray.

    So, you look at what a group of creatures tolerates as normal and classify them accordingly. Drow worship demons, practice blood/soul sacrifice, practice slavery, extol the virtues of the greater over the lesser within their society, consider murder a viable solution to problems, and view as acceptable pretty much every other morally questionable practice. So, Drow are Evil, but they are also Chaotic because, even though they have laws it is okay to break them(so long as you don't get caught). Though there are laws, it is anybody's guess as to who will actually follow them.

    CBorg's example is not really a good basis for defining alignment. It is simply a moral conundrum; in this instance, what is one willing to do to survive? That there is an issue at all tells you that there is a tough choice to be made. The creature is not evil because it is a carnivore, and it is not really evil if it needs to resort to eating meat to survive and the only meat that there is is another sentient creature. Now, I don't recall if this alien chooses to eat sentient creatures out of preference for them because they, somehow, found out that they taste good and so eat them even though they are sentient(which would be rather evil). This is likely a forced decision, not a decision where there is a choice. For example, orcs eat humans and demi-humans when they could instead eat cattle, sheep, whatever. The point is that they don't have to be forced to eat humans and demi-humans. They will do it gladly. A human might eat human or demi-human flesh, but only if they are forced to do so(usually). Big difference in what is morally acceptable, which is why orcs are Evil and humans and demi-humans generally are not.

    Alignment is very sensible if viewed in this light.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2008
    Posts: 222
    From: Modena, Italy

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:38 am  

    rasgon wrote:
    I don't think "mortal" races like elves or orcs (as opposed to angels and demons and the like) are inherently any alignment;

    I don't know but when I started playing D&D, I figured elves as something more than a race. Something more like a celestial, immortal progeny, and therefore I found them to fall to the extremes of alignments, either extremely evil or extremely good (or extremely neutral in a naturalistic way).
    After a good handfuls of years of play I tended to forget about this concept but lately I decided to go back to the basics of the game, picking up things I liked when I was a kid, and got back with this idea. I still have a hard time figuring immortal elves working as tailors or cobblers or harvesting crops, just like one has a hard time figuring a Valkyrie cooking dinner, but I'll manage some way to stick to the concept (maybe magical servants or small fey are hired to do the menial work). Sounds not very Greyhawkish maybe, but I felt like sharing this thought.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: On a Cape on the East Coast

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:04 am  
    Biological alignment impossibility

    On the topic of the OP ... without getting into my opinions about the alignment system itself:

    The carnivorous description doesn't work well. There are plenty of creatures that do precisely that and have no alignment issues. Because it is a fact of nature. Tigers, for example, eat people or cattle with little distinction between the two when they need to have food. ... and they are nuetral. The whole point about whether it's an alignment issue, is whether they choose to do so. Which they don't. They lack the sentience to make that choice. It's merely a fact of nature that they understand that it's meat.

    Another example, in a converse point, is vampires. There is a contemporary stock in fantasy that vampires can choose not to take human blood. (Although don't get me started on touchy-feely, sparkly, drama-queen vampires.) The choice that they are making is against a moral/alignment issue. Despite their biological need, they make a conscious choice to not take the blood they need, and instead have the blood of non-sentient rats, or what have you.

    Thus, to me, a biological explanation of alignment doesn't bear up under scrutiny. With an intelligent creature that is free-willed and sentient, they can make a choice whether to inflict suffering. And when that choice is to harm other sentient beings as part of their culture or way of life, it defines them, inherently, as evil.

    Icarus
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 951
    From: Neck Deep in the Viscounty of Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:30 pm  

    I have to agree with Icarus' view - I just can't see labeling any creature as "evil" because of simple biology.

    In my view, there are two factors that govern the alignment system more than any others.

    The first is that the alignment system is specifically humanocentric (and, you could argue, demihumanocentric). In other words, orcs are evil because humans (and perhaps demihumans) view them as such according to the human moral code. Thus, the orcs may not view themselves as evil or even have any concept of it, but it's still what they are. This gives rise to the second factor, which is far more problematic.

    To say that humans (in general) consider any other creature to be evil is to suggest that there is an objective definition of the word. This denies the common misconception that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. Or, to put it another way, if virtually every human on Oerth considers orcs to be evil, then there must be some definition of evil that most humans accept. This does not deny that some humans may feel otherwise, nor does it suggest that all humans are in unanimous agreement with every facet of the definition; it simply suggests that most generally agree on what constitutes good and evil.

    For many players neither of these factors is a problem. However, if your group includes players of differing opinions - or if you're not sure of your own moral code - it becomes a very big problem indeed. Consider, for example, the multitudinous discussions concerning paladins that are splayed across so many messageboards - ask any five posters whether a given paladin's actions are "good" or not, and you're sure to get at least six answers!

    It is for this reason that I always discuss alignment issues with new players before I allow them to join my long-standing campaign. I feel it is necessary that they understand how I (as DM) will interpret good and evil before they try to live up to the standard. I highly recommend that all DMs give careful consideration to their own definitions of "good" and "evil" before trying to adjudicate situations involving the alignment system. You might be surprised how many full-grown adults are unable to even loosely define those terms, in spite of the fact that every one of them will argue heatedly that they are quite capable of telling right from wrong.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:46 pm  

    Wow! I think this is one of the most interesting/difficult questions in roleplaying.... is the universe moral or is it not. Is the universe good or evil?
    I have visited it many times personally, and come up with different answers, mainly because my playing group at the time demands different answers. I personally think thee alignment system is one of the things I dislike most consistently about the D&D system (all editions (except 4th)).

    I often thought of removing it except for highly religious characters whose power is dependent upon it somehow. Or one who exemplifies a deity who holds to an alignment in some way. But my players, love it or hate it, but they expect it some how.

    Example: my current group of players is generally harried business people. They generally want to play characters as an escape from high pressure and busy lives. Rarely do they want to play evil characters, but they want the assurance that when they kill evil characters that there is no moral ambiguity. When I suggested eliminating alignment and having a more morally ambiguous game, they all objected.

    I think the arguments against a biological alignment are interesting, but for me, they are irrelevant. My players dont want to look in the mirror to find the bad guy.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 15, 2006
    Posts: 13
    From: Seattle

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:12 pm  

    Anced_Math wrote:
    ...My players don't want to look in the mirror to find the bad guy.


    In younger days I saw many players dabble with that dark side, playing evil characters, and maybe it was personal exploration.

    I recently played the Reverse Dungeon as a goblin, and it was great fun. I didn't play the character as evil, but rather chaotic neutral. I may have been the only one at the table who didn't play as evil, but I also didn't have any uncomfortable silent moments as I considered how the character would react.

    I'm with you Anced about heavy doses of morality within an otherwise light-hearted evening of gaming.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2002
    Posts: 1049
    From: Sky Island, So Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:22 pm  

    Crag wrote:
    The suggested alignment is merely the most common of social values of the race.


    http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html

    Haley: "Hey wait a minute. Aren't dark elves evil?"

    Nale: "Oh, my, no. Not since they became a player race. Now the whole species consists of nothing but Chaotic Good rebels, yearning to throw off the reputation of their evil kin."

    Haley: "Evil kin? Didn't you just say they were all Chaotic Good?"
    _________________
    My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer.&nbsp; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:19 pm  

    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Leave it to Kirt. Evil Grin

    Nice, Kirt, really good. Wink
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 07, 2008
    Posts: 409


    Send private message
    Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:12 pm  
    "Monsters"

    The term "monsters" doesn't just mean "not a PC" and "not an NPC" but means all the meanies that the good guy is supposed to save the innocents from in the story-book-pre-D&D sense too. So to address any moral delima that a player may be having because they're used to seeing things in real-life terms and not in fantasy or farie-tale terms, maybe you should make sure the players' characters are mostly undead which need to be killed to ensure their souls/spirits go to rest. Killing undead shouldn't have any moral ambiguity for people like my dad that say, "Hey, killing is bad why would my character want to kill that orc/goblin/whatever and his wife and kids?" I bet most of you players were wiping out whole lairs in the Caves of Chaos without any thought as teenagers. But bam, throw in a couple of parents into the game and one of them starts thinking like the monster doesn't represent the boogie man but another sentient creature with human rights.

    Undead sound like the trick to me. You might want to check out:

    http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/ra/undead.htm

    I thought there was another good aid called Caldera of Death but I can't find it in any searches.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 01, 2005
    Posts: 53
    From: Sacramento, CA

    Send private message
    Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:30 pm  

    The problem with everyone's explaination for alignment is it falls into the same postmodern relativistic tripe without ever bothering to address supernatural qualities of alignment.

    If alignment is "societal values" then how do magically aligned weapons determine said "values"?

    If alignment is "free will" then how to magically aligned weapons determine said "free will"?

    A magic weapon will smite a being of a certain alignment. Why? How? If what is suggested on this thread is used to describe alignment then a weapon can smite a person on a whim. The DM could determine willy-nilly who is smote and who is not. A holy weapon could smite a Paladin. Why not? Cultural values right? Yay relativism!

    Of course, all of these explainations are absurd. In D&D alignment takes on a metaphysical quality that is being patently ignored. Some creatures have "dark souls" or "auras" which account for the quality of evil. A demon is evil because it's a demon, not because it "values" evil. Evil is it's nature. It's composed of evil. For silly examples we could look at end of "Time Bandits" where the dwarves have to collect "concentrated evil." Does the Supreme Being really mean "concentrated values"?

    Orcs are evil because they were created with foulcraft. They come from Tolkien's fantasies. Biology is just as absurd in a fantasy game where Balrogs have hearts of fire and smoke.

    People don't understand alignment because they're forgetting it's part of D&D, and not part of a pop-psyche class.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 07, 2003
    Posts: 636


    Send private message
    Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:15 am  

    So... are humans who CHOOSE to kill and eat whales, dolphins, and porpoises neutral evil?
    Forum Moderator

    Joined: Feb 26, 2004
    Posts: 2590
    From: Ullinois

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:58 am  

    AtomicPope brings up an excellent line of reasoning. I've always found it strange about D&D that a bulk of alignment considerations involve clerics, paladins and other divine things like angels, cleric spells and holy weapons. In a practical sense, they are the only aspects of the game that require alignment rules to play properly. A thief or fighter however are free to be as morally ambiguous as they want but apparently can still be picked out by a smiting effect? Very curious!

    Paul: I dunno, but in 1e, whales are Neutral with Low intelligence and Dolphins are Lawful Good with very good intelligence!
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 01, 2005
    Posts: 53
    From: Sacramento, CA

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:51 am  

    PaulN6 wrote:
    So... are humans who CHOOSE to kill and eat whales, dolphins, and porpoises neutral evil?

    Why should they be?

    Name one Holy or Bane weapon that you would allow in a game that smote PCs solely on the basis of diet.

    Smite diet?
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 951
    From: Neck Deep in the Viscounty of Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:03 am  

    AtomicPope wrote:
    The problem with everyone's explaination for alignment is it falls into the same postmodern relativistic tripe without ever bothering to address supernatural qualities of alignment...and some other stuff


    Brilliant points, pope. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I failed to consider the subject adequately (though in my defense I did make some attempt, albeit poorly, to establish the existence of objective good and evil, which is more or less in line with your own comments). I guess that just proves yet again that if one fails to establish a premise adequately then all arguments based upon it become moot.

    But anyway...

    You have a definite point that alignment is a game concept that should not be confused with its real-world counterpart. Unfortunately, it becomes confused when certain in-game factors are put in play. For example, it works perfectly well to rule that orcs are objectively evil by their very nature. However, if a given DM's game includes the possibility of good orcs, then how should they be explained? By what means has their innate evil been counteracted? And if their evil can be counteracted by a simple choice to change (or something similar), then isn't declaring they are innately evil self-contradictory since they apparently have the capacity to act as free moral agents?

    Personally, I feel that the best way to handle such considerations is to establish an objective standard for good and evil that precedes and overrides all other in-game considerations (hence my earlier post). However, I recognize that many players and DMs may have a hard time doing so, and so I'm willing to entertain other possibilities.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:33 am  

    AtomicPope wrote:
    The problem with everyone's explaination for alignment is it falls into the same postmodern relativistic tripe without ever bothering to address supernatural qualities of alignment.


    Read again:

    Cebrion wrote:
    Things that are classed as Evil are either inherently evil(i.e. demons, devils, and similar things) or are generally accepting of acts that would be considered evil, such as slavery, the off-hand killing of a creature, living sacrifice, worshiping gods that represent any of these things, eating higher sentient creatures by choice("Please don't eat me Mr. Monster!" "Oi! Shut your hole and get back in the stew pot! Bwahaha!"), revel in the needless suffering of others, etc.


    Emphasis mine. I just didn't go into too many details on super-natural things, seeing the point of doing so as a "Duh!" thing. Laughing

    As to diet and alignment, there is a big difference between...

    Not evil: "I eat humans because they sustain my life and are the only food around."

    ...and...

    Evil: "I eat humans because they scream so much more deliciously when I slowly roast them, or simply carve them up alive and eat them while they are still wriggling. And I simply cannot ignore the enjoyment that I get from the looks and cries of horror from the other 'courses' as they watch me eat their friends and family. Sure, I could live perfectly well on mutton, but where's the fun in that?"

    It is not the item on the menu that makes the diner evil, but the reason for eating that item. I think it is generally be considered evil to butcher and eat something that you can carry on a conversation with, rather than eat something else.

    Either Aquaman is a really sadistic bastard, or he only eats kelp. Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 01, 2005
    Posts: 53
    From: Sacramento, CA

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:09 am  

    Cebrion wrote:
    AtomicPope wrote:
    The problem with everyone's explaination for alignment is it falls into the same postmodern relativistic tripe without ever bothering to address supernatural qualities of alignment.


    Read again:

    Cebrion wrote:
    Things that are classed as Evil are either inherently evil(i.e. demons, devils, and similar things) or are generally accepting of acts that would be considered evil, such as slavery, the off-hand killing of a creature, living sacrifice, worshiping gods that represent any of these things, eating higher sentient creatures by choice("Please don't eat me Mr. Monster!" "Oi! Shut your hole and get back in the stew pot! Bwahaha!"), revel in the needless suffering of others, etc.


    Emphasis mine. I just didn't go into too many details on super-natural things, seeing the point of doing so as a "Duh!" thing. Laughing


    I'll take this moment to point out that your definition doesn't match your explanation. In short, your functional understanding of alignment is in contradiction with the definition you provided.

    Cebrion wrote:
    Alignment is a simple morality meter- a measure of what is acceptable within a society, and I do like alignment as a general indicator of what is normal/acceptable within a society.

    That is your definition. Then you contradict that utterly within your examples.

    Having read your post the "Duh!" thing that's missing is missing from your definition. Your examples only serve to disprove your definition, not strengthen it. If Alignment is a simple moral meter, an indicator of what is normal/acceptable within a society then Demons, Drows, and Devils cannot be evil because they HAVE a society. At a minimum standard, your definition should apply but clearly your examples disagree.

    So when I say "relativism" I mean it. Thank you for bringing up your post. It's an excellent example of relativism at work.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:52 pm  

    Yeah, I screwed up my definition. In my mind I was envisioning the alignment map with symbols for each land, ans what the presented. Totally off on a tangent. Here is a better general definition for alignment itself:

    Alignment is a moral meter using orderliness and the golden rule as a baseline. The more drastically something(a creature, a society, whatever) diverges from orderliness and/or following the golden rule, the more chaotic and/or evil it is.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.44 Seconds