Evil Monster Ancestries - Yay or Nay?

[Celebrim]

I think alignment is an incoherent concept

A position philosophically associated with neutrality or perhaps chaotic neutrality.

and the alignment wheel in particular makes no sense. Good and evil are not objective things, they are subjective value statements.

So in other words you are Chaotic Neutral in your philosophy?

For example, Gary Gygax saw lawful good as compatible with actions that I personal consider abhorrent.

I mean as a Chaotic Neutral I'd fully expect you to perceive the beliefs and actions of a Lawful Good character as being abhorrent, including his belief that Good and Evil were objective things and not subjective value statements.

You aren't arguing against alignment. You are just positioning yourself on the wheel and then declaring your position is the absolute objective truth - just exactly like creatures in the D&D universe. Do you know objectively that good and evil are subjective value statements? Is that a matter of objective fact? Chaotic Neutral to the extent they believe anything is objective believe that is objectively true.

In part I'm just teasing you here and not fully serious. I don't for example ascribe to the alignment wheel as existing in real life or as fully descriptive of people's intellectual, philosophical, and moral outlooks. I do think it's silly that you are such a moral absolutist that by your own account you can't even explore any philosophical ground that doesn't agree with your take on good and evil. I don't even really need to argue what you seem to want to argue, which is whether your absolutist take is correct and coherent. The problem I mostly see is that it's so absolutely limiting. The fact that you are incoherent when you write something like "there's no such thing as "evil" monsters or species" and yet also "then there are creatures whose existence is basically an automatic problem for others" is merely a curiosity, since it seems to me like within your own framework you could define evil as "things whose existence is objectively basically an automatic problem for others" (which is precisely what most people mean when they say "evil") and be in like 99% agreement with the alignment wheel.

 

[ichabod]

Would you allow monster ancestries in your game? How would you handle the social and mechanical challenges they present?

The social challenges of including orcs and goblins as PC species are something you construct for yourself. If you create a world where they have free will to be good or evil, there are no social challenges to handle.

Mechanical issues for powerful monstrous races is another issue. I liked the way Savage Species handled it. In my current 5e game I just don't allow species that can't be fit into the power level of the standard ones.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The fact that you are incoherent when you write something like "there's no such thing as "evil" monsters or species" and yet also "then there are creatures whose existence is basically an automatic problem for others" is merely a curiosity, since it seems to me like within your own framework you could define evil as "things whose existence is objectively basically an automatic problem for others" (which is precisely what most people mean when they say "evil") and be in like 99% agreement with the alignment wheel.

So as the existence of humans is a problem to most other animals on Earth, humans are evil?

 

[kenada]

Would you allow monster ancestries in your game? How would you handle the social and mechanical challenges they present?

The setting for my homebrew system effectively treats all ancestries as monsters. You will encounter various peoples (and creatures such as dragons) pursuing their interests, and you will have to decide how to interact with them. There are a number of different playable ancestries, but there are no alignment mechanics. Pcs are not assumed to be heroes. If you want to be a hero, you have to do something heroic.

I am considering some revisions to the setting. Two possible changes are reducing (or eliminating) the non-playable peoples or expanding the list of playable ancestries to include them. Most likely, I’ll do a bit of both. Having too many strains the credulity of the setting, but I want to avoid having a dominant culture (i.e., not be humanocentric).

 

[Celebrim]

So as the existence of humans is a problem to most other animals on Earth, humans are evil?

Sure. Maybe. We can definitely see lots of the evidence of evil in humanity, though we'd probably quibble over the strongest evidence of that. But arguing over what is the best way to describe the real moral philosophy of the real world I think largely misses the point. The real problem is not so much whether you believe humans are inherently evil or not, but the fact that I'm baffled by people so absolutist in their beliefs and so terrified by anything that contradicts them that they can't even hold up alternatives as a mental toy to play with. What it reminds me of most are those people who refuse to play D&D because it has fantasy magic in it and even fantasy magic is too much like what they consider to be evil to treat it as a topic of exploration.

My major point to the original poster was, "Given how evil and unheroic most humans are and in particular how much like murder hobos most player characters come off in their portrayal, what do you really have against a goblin hero anyway?" So not really sure how you think that "humans as evil" represents a major contradiction of my position. And to the extent that this is an opening act of "What's reality really like anyway?", that doesn't go anywhere I can explore as fully as I would like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The real problem is not so much whether you believe humans are inherently evil or not, but the fact that I'm baffled by people so absolutist in their beliefs and so terrified by anything that contradicts them that they can't even hold up alternatives as a mental toy to play with.

Not terrified. Bored perhaps. I just don't think absolute morals tend to go into interesting places, and at worst it goes into offensive places like Gygax himself has demonstrated.

Not saying that it could never work, but it requires very specific setup and as such I think it is not a good starting point for most games.

 

[Celebrim]

I just don't think absolute morals tend to go into interesting places, and at worst it goes into offensive places like Gygax himself has demonstrated.

Again, I don't actually have to disagree with that. Leaving aside the character of any real person, of course lawfuls can be villains. It's the idea that chaotics can't go to offensive places or that somehow they are less likely to do so that find... amusing? Baffling? Is moral relativism some safeguard from evil? Someone says "Well that's my truth" or "That's what I believe" and then well it's OK then?

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't personally like playable monster races like Drow, Orcs and Goblins. In most campaign settings such races would not be seen as favourable or even neutral. If goblins or drow wandered into town, they would probably be run out of down or slain. They are seen as evil or as monsters by the majority of the population, That obviously depends on the setting in question though.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure. Maybe. We can definitely see lots of the evidence of evil in humanity, though we'd probably quibble over the strongest evidence of that. But arguing over what is the best way to describe the real moral philosophy of the real world I think largely misses the point. The real problem is not so much whether you believe humans are inherently evil or not, but the fact that I'm baffled by people so absolutist in their beliefs and so terrified by anything that contradicts them that they can't even hold up alternatives as a mental toy to play with. What it reminds me of most are those people who refuse to play D&D because it has fantasy magic in it and even fantasy magic is too much like what they consider to be evil to treat it as a topic of exploration.

Okay, so now you're just being insulting. Also, you don't seem to understand the words you are using to do so, such as "moral absolutist," given that what I described is the exact opposite, as a first year philosophy student could tell you. Have a good day.

 

[Celebrim]

Okay, so now you're just being insulting. Also, you don't seem to understand the words you are using, such as "absolutist." Have a good day.

Absolutist: the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters.

You have a good day too.