Quote from: tenbones;950361It's hard to have the discussion of "society" without talking about the scale of that society. There are requirements that, assuming we're talking about mere-mortals, that societies demand at different scales. Generally speaking the larger you go, the more rules you need (and the more "lawful" you have to be). You can probably get away with "Neutral" - but that's debatable.

Aztecs while not strictly an absolute "empire", but had most of the functions of one was actually very lawful in the sense their code of laws covered pretty much everything you saw in European empires. They had appeal processes etc. But they were also heavily influenced by their religion. With the Imperial cult being that of their war-god, yeah they had some bloody practices. That alone doesn't necessarily mean they were Chaotic Evil (which is how most people in the west perceive them), they were a very lawful in practice. But yeah, probably evil. heh

What? The Aztecs did not sacrifice people to appease a war god. They sacrificed loads of things because they believed that their sacrifices were sustaining the world (an extreme version of the circle of life) or cleansing themselves and others of sin and evil forces (note the parallels to the crucifixion of Jesus in Christianity).

Saying the Aztecs were evil for sacrificing people is like saying Christianity is evil for exterminating indigenous cultures or that the communists were evil for exterminating Christians and Taoists. They thought they were doing good even if they were just superstitious ninnies.

Huitzilopochtli, the Aztecs' patron deity, was god of the sun and war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli

Everyone's the good guy in his own life story, and every civilization regards its own activities as moral, so I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with that argument. Charles Manson thought he was doing the right thing by brutally murdering Sharon Tate; that doesn't make it stupid to call that an evil act.

Quote from: estar;950357And my original point remains, unless imposed no human culture is going to pick Evil as D&D defines. Otherwise they not acting like human beings. While it fantasy, fantasy still operates with the premise that people act like people. Otherwise it hard to relate too.

I think you're universalising the experience of the Christian West in the wake of the Enlightenment. The AD&D DMG defines good as:

QuoteBasically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of ADBD, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom,  and the  prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.

That's straight-up cribbed from Thomas Jefferson, and it most certainly is not a universal human value. Jefferson thought it was, but he was wrong.

QuoteAnother counterpoint as depicted in the various modules and supplement even the "evil cultures" have a norm that their members believe is right and just. As depicted in D3, the Drow are consider an "evil" culture but when you look at how they are depicted, the majority of evil is directed at other races. The Drow themselves form an elite with a hierarchy and they have specific ways they interact with each other. To me it obvious that the Drow view their setup as the right way to go for them.

Whether or not a culture has a morality they think is correct is not what makes it "Good" or "Evil" in D&D. It's whether or not that norm has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind...I mean, uh, demihumankind...as the foundation of its morality. Drow society doesn't, that's why it's Evil.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;950463What? The Aztecs did not sacrifice people to appease a war god. They sacrificed loads of things because they believed that their sacrifices were sustaining the world (an extreme version of the circle of life) or cleansing themselves and others of sin and evil forces (note the parallels to the crucifixion of Jesus in Christianity).

If you read my post, all I said was that they had bloody practices. I made precisely *zero* claims as what/why/who these bloody practices applied to.

Having said that - I'm not a moral relativist. If you believe that "good" and "evil" are relative in the regards of what people believe vs. the acts they perpetrate in the name of those beliefs - then there is probably nothing we can discuss further.

Also, Jesus wasn't crucified to sustain the world. He was crucified (if you believe the NT) as a legal measure for varying reasons which are still debated. It's the later Christians themselves that would make the attribution of predestination and cosmic reason for his punishment. I'm not so sure that these are quite as parallel with the Aztecs beyond the surface-level.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;950463Saying the Aztecs were evil for sacrificing people is like saying Christianity is evil for exterminating indigenous cultures or that the communists were evil for exterminating Christians and Taoists. They thought they were doing good even if they were just superstitious ninnies.

Although I did not expressly say that. I can say the people that did those things as a matter of state principle were probably evil. Yes I have no problem with that. You realize you're having the "Alignment Argument" with someone that doesn't even use alignment *precisely* for this reason?

So if it makes you feel better: YES I'm sure there was a Good-Aligned Aztec somewhere. Much like there are Good Nazis, and Good Devils in someone's snowflake campaigns. But what standards are you applying as a moral-relativist? They're neutral? They're good because they believed they're good? I know a lot of societies that thought they were doing "Good"... I won't name them. You already know who they are.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;950477Whether or not a culture has a morality they think is correct is not what makes it "Good" or "Evil" in D&D. It's whether or not that norm has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind...I mean, uh, demihumankind...as the foundation of its morality. Drow society doesn't, that's why it's Evil.

To summarize you are claiming that in AD&D 1st edition Gary Gygax defines evil as opposite of classical liberalism as represented by the founding fathers of the United States.

Let's start at the beginning. OD&D has been released and the among the other questions that TSR was being bombarded with, there questions about the relationship about Law and Chaos in regards with good and evil. It appears that most gamers considered Law the good guys and Chaos the bad guys which is how it was in the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaign.

In Vol 2 Issue #1 of the Strategic Review Gygax address this issue.

QuoteMany questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time

The rest of the articles is about his adding a good evil axis to the alignment system and how it impacts the game. This article marks the first appearance of Good and Evil for D&D. Due to the wording it was five alignments (LG, LE, N, CG, CE) not the nine of the PHB.

In this article Gygax said this about Good vs. Evil in D&D.

QuoteAlso, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

So Gygax advises that you need some frame of reference to judge what is good and evil. However for what he rights he uses what he considers good and evil. He doesn't get into that much but you do have these lists.

GOOD
Harmless
Friendly
Honest
Sincere
Helpful
Beneficial
Pure

EVIL
Unfit
Mischievous
Dishonest
Bad
Injurious
Wicked
Corrupt

Before going onto the PHB and DMG of 1st edition AD&D. I will state again that to postulate civilizations where the ordinary everyday interactions of HUMANs are characterized as unfit, mischievous, dishonest, bad, injurious, wicked, and corrupt is not only unrealistic and more important unrelatable to the ordinary game.

Now an elite group within a civilization could have a relationship with another group within the same civilization that exhibits the above. The Helots and Spartans are a good example of that kind of thing. The Aztecs and their tributary states were another. But within their own groups the Spartan and Aztects had standards that they held it other. To do otherwise means that their civilization could not function. And while we are talking about Fantasy, the idea that a civilization where it elite treat each other is way out in left field when it comes to be relatable.

Does Gygax thoughts change in AD&D ? Well he does expand his thought what each of nine alignments both in the PHB and the DMG. But in the PHB Gygax goes on to say.

QuoteNaturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment.

The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its “true” neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

In the DMG you have correctly quoted this section.

Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.

But it also states

QuoteAlignment describes the broad ethos of thinking, reasoning creatures

And this

QuoteThis is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just as the latter would make common cause against the lawful good men.

So per RAW it legitimate to say that despite being CE, the Drow follow social rules among each other that makes their society or civilization something other than the Dog eat Dog world that the Chaotic Evil description paints. And that if a referee paints the interactions between all members of a civilization as Chaotic Evil it is a legitimate comment to say that it is unrealistic even by D&D's standards.

Finally this assumes there is no supernatural or magical factor exerting some type of mind control or personality change.

... again, this is why Alignment is not very useful unless your campaign has conceits in it demanding some axiomatic mechanics.

If an RPG has to be the determining factor in defining what is "good" and "evil", it's small wonder why there so many jackasses in this hobby. I fully admit that there is a strong likelyhood that I might have been/am one of them, but not for this reason.

Well, it seems one issue here is we're both thinking of different thing. You're thinking of OD&D, which I honestly am not much familiar with, and I'm thinking of AD&D. It looks to me like the latter codifies Law and Good differently than the former. Since in AD&D, you have planes associated with the alignments, alignment languages, alignment-restricted items and the like, it's safe to say they're "objective" from the reference point of creatures within the implied setting. In other words, a Lawful Good-restricted sword is not going to be usable by a character who considers it to be a noble deed harvesting orphans from the streets in order to feed his goblin army, which he has mustered for the purpose of exterminating all halflings due to his dislike of their textile workmanship, even though he's a good rule-follower by his own standards. And, germane to the OP, there are and have been societies whose broad morality was most certainly not "Good" in AD&D terms.

Of course, now we're navigating the gray areas. The fact is that the definitions of "Lawful" and "Good" have changed from edition to edition. For example, at some point, maybe 3rd edition, "Lawful" came to mean "always tells the truth and follows the rules of the society they're in," which kind of results in absurd contradictions even within your own adventure if you take that too literally. For my part, I've been running with the AD&D version, and I use it as a rule of thumb anyway. So a CE society in my setting is one with unstable hierarchies, an economy based largely on raiding out-groups, frequently violent dispute resolution, and an overall low level of social trust. Plenty of real examples of that.  Of course, such a society in my setting isn't going to be developing advanced cities or produce complex trade goods, just as in the real world.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;950491Well, it seems one issue here is we're both thinking of different thing. You're thinking of OD&D, which I honestly am not much familiar with, and I'm thinking of AD&D. It looks to me like the latter codifies Law and Good differently than the former. Since in AD&D, you have planes associated with the alignments, alignment languages, alignment-restricted items and the like, it's safe to say they're "objective" from the reference point of creatures within the implied setting.

Aside from the Strategic Review article all my quotes are draw from AD&D. OD&D only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;950491And, germane to the OP, there are and have been societies whose broad morality was most certainly not "Good" in AD&D terms.

That where we disagree. Your thesis is true when it comes to one culture dealing with another culture or subgroups within the culture. But for the privileged interacting with each other that not the case in history.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;950491For my part, I've been running with the AD&D version, and I use it as a rule of thumb anyway. So a CE society in my setting is one with unstable hierarchies, an economy based largely on raiding out-groups, frequently violent dispute resolution, and an overall low level of social trust. Plenty of real examples of that.  Of course, such a society in my setting isn't going to be developing advanced cities or produce complex trade goods, just as in the real world.

That works and many people done that. In essence you are taking advantage of the advice that Gygax give about alignment being a generalization. That specifics will depend on other factors. But doing it that way is not what the OP is talking about which are civilizations whose members consider themselves to be evil.

Quote from: tenbones;950489... again, this is why Alignment is not very useful unless your campaign has conceits in it demanding some axiomatic mechanics.

And this is exactly why I don't use alignment. I use specific tenets, codes, and philosophies.
 
The closest I come is the fact that Demons are a supernatural evil and there nothing heroic (anti or otherwise) about who they are and what they do. That invariably what they do leads to corruption, sin, and despair. Outside of that it more nuanced even among the gods themselves several of which advocate "unpleasant" philosophies.

Another side effect is that none of the civilizations of the Wilderlands with a partial exception of one consider themselves evil. This includes orcs, goblins, lizard men, etc. The exception is the City State of the World Emperor which was founded by a minor race of demons, Viridians, who escaped the Abyss. Even there the centuries of contact with mortals tempered their outlook. Mainly because most of them wound up killing each over millenia so the race experienced a slow population decline to point where there only a dozen full Viridians living in the present. To keep the power they enjoyed their subjects (humans, goblins, etc) took a larger role in running the empire. That meant they couldn't be as bat shit crazy in treating other cultures as they were when they first appeared.

The first empire of Viridstan was basically organized as a series of latifundas with villas controlled by a powerful Viridian and his lackeys. They landed in the middle of Wilderness so were isolated from the civilizations that existed then. Their slaves came from the goblin and human tribes they enslaved.

But demons remained demons and feuds and vendettas were rampant. The only time they worked together is after they came into contact other civilizations. But their population was already declining by then.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;950473Huitzilopochtli, the Aztecs' patron deity, was god of the sun and war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli

Everyone's the good guy in his own life story, and every civilization regards its own activities as moral, so I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with that argument. Charles Manson thought he was doing the right thing by brutally murdering Sharon Tate; that doesn't make it stupid to call that an evil act.

I think you misunderstood me. I never said nor did I mean to imply the Aztecs were not evil for doing what they did. I apologize for the misunderstanding. They didn't sacrifice to appease specifically, but to help their gods keep the world running. "Appease" implies a protection racket, which this was not.

Quote from: tenbones;950482If you read my post, all I said was that they had bloody practices. I made precisely *zero* claims as what/why/who these bloody practices applied to.

Having said that - I'm not a moral relativist. If you believe that "good" and "evil" are relative in the regards of what people believe vs. the acts they perpetrate in the name of those beliefs - then there is probably nothing we can discuss further.

Also, Jesus wasn't crucified to sustain the world. He was crucified (if you believe the NT) as a legal measure for varying reasons which are still debated. It's the later Christians themselves that would make the attribution of predestination and cosmic reason for his punishment. I'm not so sure that these are quite as parallel with the Aztecs beyond the surface-level.



Although I did not expressly say that. I can say the people that did those things as a matter of state principle were probably evil. Yes I have no problem with that. You realize you're having the "Alignment Argument" with someone that doesn't even use alignment *precisely* for this reason?

So if it makes you feel better: YES I'm sure there was a Good-Aligned Aztec somewhere. Much like there are Good Nazis, and Good Devils in someone's snowflake campaigns. But what standards are you applying as a moral-relativist? They're neutral? They're good because they believed they're good? I know a lot of societies that thought they were doing "Good"... I won't name them. You already know who they are.

I am and I am not a moral relativist. I know rationally that morality is inherently arbitrary and self-contradictory nonsense that evolved to keep communities stable, but that does not stop me from believing emotionally that my 21st century American values are the one true way.

I know that the Aztecs were superstitious ninnies because their fears of the world ending proved false; I would try to de-convert them if given the chance. If they were right about metaphysics, then they are good by virtue of keeping the world from ending; in that case, I would convert and sacrifice if given the chance.

We are getting off topic. My original argument was that the evil society I proposed is qualitatively different from "evil" societies in Earth's past because they believe that publicly causing suffering for its own sake without any desire for reward is an act of compassion that dissuades the malevolent creator gods from killing or torturing everyone forever. This is a grotesque hybrid of Aztec and Gnostic beliefs that never existed on Earth, but does exist in some fiction.

Orcs may not consider themselves Evil, but they also don't consider themselves Good, the words are meaningless to them.  There is only the Strong and the Weak.  There are no Innate Rights to any being, anyone wants something, they must take it from another.  Orcs kill all other races because that is the will of Gruumsh, and Orcs follow Gruumsh because his Witch Doctors make Orcs strong, and his curses and displeasure kill.  So it has always been, so it will always be.

Does an Orc have a soul?  Is it destined to always be Evil?  Are Orcs souls controlled by/owned by Gruumsh?  Who knows, but if an orc possesses instinctive genetic memory to make it always take through force and violence, and simply does not think like a human, then isn't the result the same?

People laugh and dismiss the idea of AD&D alignments, I call into question your imagination in being able to think of a neurology/psychology that is not 100% human.  

When your only frame of reference for analyzing an alien society is human history - you fail before you even begin.
When your only frame of reference for analyzing a fantasy cosmology/religion is human religion - you fail before you even begin.

Imagine a human mind without the capability for cognitive dissonance - now tell me how that species works.
Imagine a human mind without the right brain and left brain working together under the hood to present rationalizations for behavior - now tell me how that species works.

Very interesting points.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;950508Very interesting points.

Yes. Though a lot of relativism going on too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;950506People laugh and dismiss the idea of AD&D alignments, I call into question your imagination in being able to think of a neurology/psychology that is not 100% human.  

When your only frame of reference for analyzing an alien society is human history - you fail before you even begin.
When your only frame of reference for analyzing a fantasy cosmology/religion is human religion - you fail before you even begin.

Imagine a human mind without the capability for cognitive dissonance - now tell me how that species works.
Imagine a human mind without the right brain and left brain working together under the hood to present rationalizations for behavior - now tell me how that species works.

As you wish, here is an article doing just that.

I think the problem is that orcs/goblins/savage humanoids are not a homogenous group and we are defining them differently without recognizing our disagreements. There are basically two different kinds: ones that can get along with humans (or at least adopt humans into their culture) and ones that cannot due to basic biological differences.

The humanoids that can get along with humans are either funny looking humans or have distinct biological differences that are not extreme enough to prevent constructive fraternization with humans. Most conflict would be due to resources or ideology. For example, klingons (which are naturally more aggressive and durable than humans, but they still have equally competent scientists), warcraft orcs (who were enslaved and debased by foreign powers), or even Tolkien orcs (who Tolkien believed capable of redemption, and he did give them the ability to create art albeit ugly art).

Those that cannot get along have psychology (and usually biology) that is utterly alien. For example, warhammer orcs (talking plants engineered for perpetual warfare) or 13th age orcs (which are personifications of strife literally birthed by mountains). They don't create art or civilization. They fight and die, pointlessly and forever.

Depending on the needs of the adventure, I should like to use all of these in the same campaign. For example, a barbarian (orc) village hires the party to clear out a horde of the (orc) chimpanzees as pest control and a sacrifice to the demiurge, then a visit to the shining city of the (orc) paladins to offload loot. Have your cake and eat it too, ya know?

I always think of orcs being more like disaffected angry youth who shoplift and smoke and get into fights.  They think they're evil, they're trying to be evil, but they lack the perspective and depth to be truly and effectively evil.  In the end they are always pawns for smarter and more experienced people.