Alignment is a "color coding" abstraction.  Them over there are LE, we're LG.  Let's go harvest some XP.  Orcs don't pause to debate humans morality when they're descending from the hills to rape and slaughter, conversely neither do adventurers when going for retribution.

Is there that one-in-a-million orc, goblin, gnoll, etc. who would stop and consider the implications of what they do in a broader moral framework?  Perhaps.  But they'd get their head knocked in by the tribal shaman/witch-doctor for questioning the will of Grummsh/Maglubiyet/Kurltumak/Hextor/Orcus/etc. and disposed of.  

It merits mentioning that there are just such types of outcasts in D3 Vault of the Drow who were True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral (I can't recall as there were any Chaotic Good, I'll go look later) who "[saw] no value in their society" and consequently weren't wholly evil or amoral.

I personally like what Gary said on the subject, if you get a bunch of monsters who surrender and want to convert to good, baptise 'em and then whack 'em on the head with a flail and send them to the higher planes in a state of grace so they don't have a chance to backslide in to evil!  

Interesting thread.

Personally I rationalize evil societies by looking at historical equivalents. And I think that while the alignments are somewhat antiquated they still serve some purpose as a general baseline. You really don't have to look too hard to find examples of groups that "good" characters would come into conflict with in "kill or be killed" scenarios.

Some of the recent articles regarding Stone Age violence and warfare paint a grim picture of tribes attacking a village, capturing the young women and killing everyone else. According to one professor, Stone Age Southern California saw proportionally more carnage than WWII. Kill them and take their stuff, seems like staple RPG behavior. The carnage on Easter Island is another possible example of this.

The sort of apocalyptic wars practiced by the Assyrians and others in biblical times show societies that go to great lengths to completely eradicate an enemy from the face of the earth. They will show up, wipe out your population, salt your fields, take your "god", etc. Over 1000 years later the Mongols would still be using these tactics as they obliterated Baghdad so thoroughly that they filled in all their canals.

The Scythians as described by Herodotus were drinking out of skulls and crafted their gear out of human skin.

My point is that you can rationalize evil societies in many ways. Maybe the tribe/society is barely evolved and simply does not have the social constructs other societies have. Maybe their behavior is decided due to a lack of resources. Maybe their society places all merit on the amount of men their people have killed. Heading into the modern age, you are mostly left with political and religious ideologies, but many games are not set in modern times.

Seems to me if you can having living gods manipulating the world, evil races/societies isn't exactly a far leap.

Quote from: Spinachcat;949364When do we get pudding?

THIS. Is a good question.

To the OP, why rationalize them? Do you need a story thread to hash out the motivations of your evil bad guy? Does this have anything to do with the characters' backgrounds or builds? What would be fun?

I get that some of the old guard liked putting together ultra detailed settings and in fact I've been enamored with many of them. And having cultures with some details can be fun. But I've not seen a lot of justification or rationalization of evil societies in the seminal works like Forgotten Realms (also Mystara or your favorite detailed OSR setting...), or Eberron or Greyhawk or Scarred Lands. I mean, there are plenty of examples of evil societies in there. Some are described as being more "this is how we see things, we're not evil." to "our gods demand our depravity and we're glad to serve them" to "CHAOS I HAVE NO IDEA" to "Might makes right, now get on your knees!".

In the end not as much of that detail gets used in an average campaign as those authors may have hoped.

When I read things like this I wonder if maybe as a hobby we are doing this backwards? I would start with the "what does this look like in the session" or "what do I want to see as the end result" and then work backwards from there. What would be fun for the players? So, it seems weird that these evil demons are organized somehow, so what would be a cool reason for them being organized?

Rationalization sounds so boring. It's like un-fun. If you're writing a novel, sure dig in, but this is a game and games are about the players and players might ASK you what gives, but they don't have to KNOW what gives. Just ask them "what are you doing?".

Quote from: san dee jota;949581It does beg the question though: in a setting where axiomatic beings are active, would that be enough to make a functional evil civilization?

No but there will be cults. If it is control of a civilization it will be temporary situation caused by other factors. Although temporary in this case could be decades maybe even a century if we are talking human lifespans here.

This reminds of the discussions where a GM wonders how such-and-such postapocalyptic society could come about. I answer: how will the players go about finding out?

Does it need to be rationalised? Are the players sociologists? In fact it's better if it's irrational, then the players don't have to feel bad when they butcher everyone horribly.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;949617Seems to me if you can having living gods manipulating the world, evil races/societies isn't exactly a far leap.

It would be a metropole peripheries situation where the metropole are the living gods oppressing the peripheries (the lands under their control). For example Assyrians and Mitanni.  Sub a evil dragon headed god and demons oppressing Mitanni, Babylonia, Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc, etc. We seen this situation play out before countless time in history where one culture oppressing. Except in this case the culture doing the domination is a supernatural power with a few individual having the power that an ancient nation-state population possesses.

Given we are talking about supernatural forces embodying a moral position it not likely they will change over a few human generation. So likely individuals in an oppressed area will be seeking a external power to help them.

As for the Drow example let me poise this question. How are the Drow Chaotic Evil to each other? There is no doubt they are hard on each other but do they treat each other beyond what we see historical culture do. If they don't then a referee can look to history to see how other oppressing powers treated cultures and pick what he likes.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;949640This reminds of the discussions where a GM wonders how such-and-such postapocalyptic society could come about. I answer: how will the players go about finding out?

In my opinion the best way to handle this is in how the NPCs are roleplaying. What a detailed history amounts to in terms of a tabletop rpg campaign is a foundation on which to come up with way to roleplay NPCs. It how our history manifests itself. Multiple chains of events create the ideals culture, family, religion, politics, etc, etc. Ideals that serve as the foundation for why people act the way to do. There is variation on due to personality but variation within a theme based one's civilization and history.

A player that care about this stuff would pick up on elements due to the way that the NPCs act and start to piece things together.

Quote from: estar;949639No but there will be cults. If it is control of a civilization it will be temporary situation caused by other factors. Although temporary in this case could be decades maybe even a century if we are talking human lifespans here.

Can you elaborate?

There was an interesting take in the Midnight RPG: in it, there was only one god, and that was the god of evil/destruction.  All the other gods were disconnected from their followers, and couldn't give clerics spells.  Want some magical healing?  Better make sure Izrador's priests like you*.  So the evil society went around curb stomping everyone into the ground, growing in power.  Partly because people could either serve them or die, partly because Izrador was the only source of miracles around (and his forces were actively crushing other magic, having already cornered the market on divine spells).  Now, the forces of evil -were- beginning to realize "holy crap, after we wipe out the dwarves and elves, that'll just leave us for our god of total destruction to focus on.  Uh... maybe we should slow down on that genocide a tad?"

I suppose in another setting, with more balance between good and evil gods and such, an evil society might rely on its demonic and devilish and daemonic patrons to provide it with support.  The forces of evil hope to some day rise up and crush all the good guys, but in the mean time they cultivate orcs and goblins** and such, encouraging them to engage in destruction and evil as an easy means to an end.  That orc shows promise in pillaging?  Orc gods heal him and give him magical weapons, reinforcing the cultural mores of orc kind.  That orc takes a break from pillaging, to appreciate a painting?  How the ^&*% is that honoring old One Eye?!?!  No healing for that orc!  And thanks to clerics (and magic users), there's no need for -anyone- to explore medicine or sciences, beyond perhaps "how do we get a cleric here faster?"  To some extent, evil societies probably function in similar ways to good ones, with gods handing miracles to reinforce how they want people to behave, while simultaneously filling (and creating?) gaps in innovation and technology the society would otherwise need to thrive.  

(*"why would a god of destruction grant his followers magical healing?"  Because Izarador was evil and destructive, but he wasn't monomaniaclly -stupid-.  He wanted his forces healthy and hale to destroy the world for him... and only -then- would he destroy them too.)
(**honestly, "meat robots" seems somewhat fitting for goblins to me.  Then again, I've come to think of Pathfinder goblins as the only goblins that matter, so my judgement is clouded.)

Quote from: trechriron;949626THIS. Is a good question.

To the OP, why rationalize them? Do you need a story thread to hash out the motivations of your evil bad guy? Does this have anything to do with the characters' backgrounds or builds? What would be fun?

Great questions!

If I am simply trying to have fun, then things work according to Saturday morning cartoon logic and shy away from showing any real evil stuff.

If I am running a deeply serious setting and including real world atrocity, like half-orc backstories that aren't consensual, then I have to give entire societies devoted to that complex motivations for doing so because real societies do not do evil things in a vacuum. Real life is full of complex socio-political-economic factors and I expect a deeply serious setting to be no different.

I find half-measures deeply unsatisfying.

Quote from: san dee jota;949581It does beg the question though: in a setting where axiomatic beings are active, would that be enough to make a functional evil civilization?

This is *generally* not relevant for most bog-standard games. But I agree there are games where it is a very legitimate question, Planescape immediately jumps to mind. As a general consideration of social behavior it's fairly challenging for most GM's to work through the ideological nuances that would underpin an entire society that operated from such positions and pull it off *well* without it becoming tiresome for the players.

Quote from: san dee jota;949581Take the drow.  They're presented as chaotic evil, but their society is lawful evil.  How?  Because Lolth will fuck up a drow, that's how!  Seriously though, she has demons, supernatural minions, magical mutations to bless/curse with, and ages of cultural shaping and manipulation to call upon.  The drow aren't evil in a vacuum; they were actively made that way, and given the tools to function despite their nature.  And if they break the party line, they get zapped into some half-spider abomination.  Meanwhile, Lolth actively encourages her drow to be this weird Lawful/Chaotic hybridization, because it helps -her-.

Or not.  I dunno'.

Well see, this is where the details matter. I agree - the Drow could not exist as they're portrayed and be called Chaotic Evil. I actually feel they're closer to Neutral Evil (generally) because Lolth perpetuates House warfare to keep everyone on their toes. The real issue is how does this status-quo translate down to the lowest common denominator? The way I play it is, "in Drow society nothing is ever certain, I better get mine when I can." That means as a social norm people will turn on one another when the benefit vs. penalty leans in varying degrees in either direction. Within that context you can have all sorts of evil (and even pragmatic faux altruism) take place. The social structure itself dictates the tone of the populace. But each individual approaches it as the GM/Players see fit.

Alignment is good for a general signpost in this regard. But if you're talking outplanar stuff where those ideological motives are tied atomically to those beings - that's a different proposition to me.

Quote from: san dee jota;949581I do however feel that any discussion of how an evil (or good) society could work -has- to consider the outside influence of massively powerful forces that transcend mortality.  Plus... to be blunt... if we're talking about D&D, we're talking about a setting with magic, gods, and undead.  Functioning, measurable, objective morality is just one more fantastic element you have to buy into.

I agree. But the corollary of that is that in the bog-standard D&D settings, the races are the races. They have different cultural mores, but whatever alignment differences that exist are purely cultural (the vast majority of the time), not mandated by cosmic law. As a PC you get to interact with those elements that are objectively skewed towards an actual alignment by those mandates. i.e. Undead are probably evil. Devas and Planetars are good. Demons and Devils are evil. etc.

At no point do I see the need to use the "alignment system" to portray those elements when I consider them already assumed until proven otherwise. It alleviates a lot of useless arguing and bickering (usually). I actually had a player lose his shit with me when his PC didn't register on another PC's "Detect Good" ability. He insisted his character was NG. I mentioned that two session's ago he hired one of the most dangerous assassins in the world to "deal" with his political rival (subsequently that rival and his children and grandchildren all mysteriously disappeared). And he tried to rationalize that because his PC didn't know what happened specifically, he doesn't know for certain they were dead. That's when I told him "The fact you're trying to rationalize it? That's why you're not registering as Good."

Quote from: san dee jota;949774Can you elaborate?

Quote from: san dee jota;949774Can you elaborate?

What we are talking about are Malthestic societies where the people know that the powers that be (mundane or divine) are out to get them.  The basic idea is that over the long run people don't like to deal with bullshit in their lives and eventually do what it takes to get rid of it. It may not be as dramatic as revolution or war but it will change so people can get on with their lives.

This is why Maltheistic societies are few and far between in our history. There are certainly cultures that are repugnant to their neighbors and vice versa but generally most long term culture develop a morality of how people treat each other in that culture. And if a culture started that way it generally evolves over the generation in a more tolerable for its members.

In several cases (for example the Soviet Union) this will manifest as rampant corruption. Civil Wars can result for example the late Roman Empire. This malaise leave the civilization vulnerable to outside pressure and eventually collapse after several generations.

An example from today that has yet to be played out is North Korea. How long can it last before corruption and the associated cynicism causes large scale change on the country? It may last beyond the current ruler life span it could be next year. But it will come as people grow tired of the shit foisted on them.

Finally understand that what I say it a very concise summary. The real world is far more complex and there are dozens of factors operating. My goal here is present something that of use by one person managing a tabletop rpg campaign. I recommend keeping the number of relevant factors under a half dozen (6). Otherwise it get lost as background noise for you and your players.

Quote from: san dee jota;949776There was an interesting take in the Midnight RPG: in it, there was only one god, and that was the god of evil/destruction.  All the other gods were disconnected from their followers, and couldn't give clerics spells.  Want some magical healing?  Better make sure Izrador's priests like you*.

That world is fucked in my opinion unless they can get somebody/something from another reality to help or Izrador gets bored quits being an active presence. Or if they real lucky there is a macguffin that can destory Izrador or negate his power. The races in that setting are like regular ants compared to a person. The power difference is so ridiculous that there is nothing they can do but bare it.

Corruption will surge from time to time but with Izrador actively involved that will get curb stomped within enough time. Even if corruption did get out of hand Izrador will just rinse and repeat what he did the first time.

I realize that I sound negative but that the fundmental issue with supernatural entities unless you supply an explicit out their rule will last forever from a human point of view.

Quote from: Marleycat;949140No, the question is would there be are there more leaders after meeting another leader with just as big balls and an agenda opposite of their's.
See us European types in the 1500-1700's defined slavery much differently then 1500-1700's Africans.

Right, Europeans eventually decided to abolish it whereas Africa never has.