Are drow inherently evil? And other D&D racial restrictions that have been loosened over the years

[Sarathiour]

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting him here, james.

 

[JamesDixon]

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting him here, james.

I'm not and if I did then it's a him problem for making a terrible argument.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Zed Duke of Banville and other people who enjoy D&D mechanics and lore

What do you think? Surly if you become a vampire your alignment would change?

In AD&D 1st edition, vampires are defined to be chaotic evil, and those who are drained by a vampire of life energy become vampires under the control of the slaying vampire. These controlled vampires are explicitly stated to be chaotic evil in alignment but also to become "free-willed monsters" in the event the controlling vampire is killed. The last part might imply that a vampire thus freed would revert to the original alignment, though any such non-evil vampires would undoubtedly search for a means to restore themselves to the living. This perhaps would not be the case for lawful evil or neutral evil vampires; it's not clear to me why Gygax defined vampires as chaotic evil, while certain other undead such as wights are lawful evil. The AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium repeated Gygax's language, so again any new vampire is chaotic evil under the "complete control" of the slaying vampire but becomes "self-willed" if the controller is slain.

The Ravenloft accessory RR3 Van Richten's Guide to Vampires from 1991 stated that a Dungeon Master could decide arbitrarily that a new vampire would retain some portion of attitudes or beliefs in undeath. If a rule was desired by the DM, this book proposed an ability score check of 8d6 against wisdom, which would make it exceedingly unlikely for this event to occur. Despite discussing relations between master and servant vampires, as well as what transpires if the master is killed, the book is silent about whether a newly-freed vampire would revert to its living personality. Of course, by this point the first Ravenloft novel had been published, which itself described a vampire of good alignment.

The shadow elves from Mystara are the closest thing the setting have to drows and they're not inherently evil. They tried some kind of realistic approach on an elven underground civilization which is why they have Morlock white skin and big ears even for elves. In Forgotten Realms the only reason drows are evil is because they follow Lolth which isn't a genetic trait.

The Hollow World Box Set from 1990 introduced the Schattenalfen, an offshoot of the Shadow Elves, that are essentially drow without the matriarchy and worshipping the D&D immortal Aztanteotl rather than the AD&D deity Lolth. The shadow elves themselves were described thoroughly in gazetteer 13, also from 1990, as an interesting take on an underground elven civilization, but of course they quite definitely are not the drow of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Been reading this thread, and it seems that maybe it might be good to start by examining whether D&D's morality makes sense first, before we can know if Drow are evil.

It really doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. The rules are the rules. And we're trying to determine the Drow's status within those rules. Why use a 20-sided dice for X or Y? Because we do.

If you want to make up a new game, or new lore, go ahead. WotC certainly has seemed to often enough. But it won't change the rules that already exist - which is the one good thing about AD&D being virtually abandoned, since it exists no matter what Pathfinder or WotC do.

D&D's morality is interpreted in all sorts of ways these days, some of which seem trite, as if evil is just a 'lifestyle', rather than existential poison to all living beings. I think to some extent separating 'lawful' from 'good' is wrong, as 'natural law' is synonymous with 'good'.

You basically just ignored what James wrote and made up your own definition about "natural law" being good.

Good =/= selfless
Evil =/= selfish
Lawful =/= organization
Chaos =/= individuality
Neutral =/= squarely in the middle of either extremes

This is a fair definition of the alignments in D&D. You claim to want to discuss the merits of it, but you ignore the actual system.

If D&D 'good' means valiantly fighting for life, hope, light and heat, against death, despair, darkness and degeneracy, then it makes sense to me, but some argument in favour of evil as a alternate 'way of life' can't be made, because it is ultimatly antithetical to our very being. Any virtue that a villain has, such as "martial courage" is a 'good', without which said villain is just pure zero; incapable of living.

There is no morality to courage in this system in itself, as I understand it. A coward is most often selfish, but so is a strong man who selfishly attacks others, either from a lust for violence, or from wanting to rob them. Either way, it's harming others to benefit yourself, and therefore selfish. The act and its context matter more than the emotions that spurred it. Khalid is a coward in BG1, for example, yet he's Neutral Good.

You're also confusing moral good with simple positivity. Were you never taught right from wrong as a child?

Well selflessness isn't always a virtue, for example selflessness serving an abusive family member to the point it kills a healthy soul (rendering another person unable to perform the good), or selflessly taking in immigrants from a hostile group (rendering another nation unable to perform the good), so to me it sounds like D&D is not morally sound to begin with, and we shouldn't play it expecting satisfactory coherency. Natural law entails compassion and skillful means, and there is nothing skillful or virtous in wasting a life that can be better spent elsewhere.

Now you're getting into psychoanalytical minutiae. The reason people are codependent to the point that they harm others is rarely selflessness. It's usually a selfish desire to win or keep the other person's affections for whatever reason.

Not many D&D quests about codependent relationships regardless. If you have to go to such lengths to try to find some flaw in an alignment system that's probably older than you are, maybe it works just fine as it is.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

In AD&D 1st edition, vampires are defined to be chaotic evil, and those who are drained by a vampire of life energy become vampires under the control of the slaying vampire. These controlled vampires are explicitly stated to be chaotic evil in alignment but also to become "free-willed monsters" in the event the controlling vampire is killed. The last part might imply that a vampire thus freed would revert to the original alignment, though any such non-evil vampires would undoubtedly search for a means to restore themselves to the living. This perhaps would not be the case for lawful evil or neutral evil vampires; it's not clear to me why Gygax defined vampires as chaotic evil, while certain other undead such as wights are lawful evil. The AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium repeated Gygax's language, so again any new vampire is chaotic evil under the "complete control" of the slaying vampire but becomes "self-willed" if the controller is slain.

The Ravenloft accessory RR3 Van Richten's Guide to Vampires from 1991 stated that a Dungeon Master could decide arbitrarily that a new vampire would retain some portion of attitudes or beliefs in undeath. If a rule was desired by the DM, this book proposed an ability score check of 8d6 against wisdom, which would make it exceedingly unlikely for this event to occur. Despite discussing relations between master and servant vampires, as well as what transpires if the master is killed, the book is silent about whether a newly-freed vampire would revert to its living personality. Of course, by this point the first Ravenloft novel had been published, which itself described a vampire of good alignment.

If alignment did revert, I suppose it would depend on the person.

If you enjoyed killing people with vampire powers, then maybe you would continue to do so. Even if you weren't CE before, you would have the choice to murder people at that point. And in the context of Vampires in Lords of Darkness, that would seem to be what at least one of the brothers did.

However, it doesn't answer the question about the brother whose alignment was changed to LG by the helm. He was never a vampire thrall, but was transformed by a succubus' kiss, an ability effect I haven't found outside of this accessory. He was a "greater vampire" from the start, and under his own power.

If his alignment never changed, then he was always Chaotic Evil. That or he made the choice to become CE over time. If it did change simply because he was a vampire, then it stands to reason that his brother's alignment would have as well.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

If alignment did revert, I suppose it would depend on the person.

If you enjoyed killing people with vampire powers, then maybe you would continue to do so. Even if you weren't CE before, you would have the choice to murder people at that point. And in the context of Vampires in Lords of Darkness, that would seem to be what at least one of the brothers did.

For controlled vampires, an argument could be made that the conversion to undeath itself, followed by mind control in which the servant would presumably engage in various despicable actions, would have a corrupting effect that might well leave a newly freed vampire at chaotic evil regardless of the initial, pre-death alignment. Still, Gygax's description from the 1977 Monster Manual leaves open the possibility, even if unlikely, of the original personality reasserting itself after the death of the master, which was eagerly seized upon by Christie Golden, the writer of that first Ravenloft novel, Vampire of the Mists.

 

[NecroLord]

Zed Duke of Banville
I can't remember,but what was the fabulous Gman Gygax's stance on undead and alignment? The way I see it,even if they were not evil in their lives,they have been forcefully reanimated by the dark powers of Necromancy,which is an Evil act. The huge majority of Necromancy spells dealing with reanimating corpses and creating undead are [Evil],so...

 

[NecroLord]

You redeem Viconia through the healing powers of SEX.

Anyway,Chaotic Evil does fit vampires,since they are creatures of dark passion and decadence. Not to mention the whole bloodsucking thing and preference for seduction.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Zed Duke of Banville
I can't remember,but what was the fabulous Gman Gygax's stance on undead and alignment? The way I see it,even if they were not evil in their lives,they have been forcefully reanimated by the dark powers of Necromancy,which is an Evil act. The huge majority of Necromancy spells dealing with reanimating corpses and creating undead are [Evil],so...

Skeletons and zombies are both true neutral in the AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual, presumably because they are non-intelligent, merely following the commands of their evil reanimators. IIRC, all other undead are evil, sometimes associated with the negative material plane, and always destructive of life. I'm not clear about the distinction between the chaotic evil and lawful evil undead, though.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

All undead are evil, your alignment wouldn't revert.

 

[JamesDixon]

Zed Duke of Banville
I can't remember,but what was the fabulous Gman Gygax's stance on undead and alignment? The way I see it,even if they were not evil in their lives,they have been forcefully reanimated by the dark powers of Necromancy,which is an Evil act. The huge majority of Necromancy spells dealing with reanimating corpses and creating undead are [Evil],so...

Skeletons and zombies are both true neutral in the AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual, presumably because they are non-intelligent, merely following the commands of their evil reanimators. IIRC, all other undead are evil, sometimes associated with the negative material plane, and always destructive of life. I'm not clear about the distinction between the chaotic evil and lawful evil undead, though.

In AD&D 2E skeletons are also True Neutral. Zombies are a bit more complicated. Common and Monster Skeletons are True Neutral. Ju-ju and Zombie Lords are Neutral Evil while Sea Zombies are Chaotic Evil.

As for the distinction, LE and CE is a matter of viewing laws or individuality. Some undead are truly social and believe in laws. /shrug

 

[NecroLord]

Most Liches strike me as Lawful Evil. Of course,a Lich is one of the most powerful types of undead. The alignment also depends on their former lives. The rituals needed to become a Lich,however,are incredibly evil and foul,so if a Neutral Wizard becomes a Lich,he will definitely shift to Evil alignment.

Chaotic Evil undead act more on impulses and urges(hunger for flesh and blood) in a definite callous and brutal manner.
Lawful Evil undead are thoughtful and organized in their malice,with a preference for schemes and plans.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Most Liches strike me as Lawful Evil. Of course,a Lich is one of the most powerful types of undead. The alignment also depends on their former lives. The rituals needed to become a Lich,however,are incredibly evil and foul,so if a Neutral Wizard becomes a Lich,he will definitely shift to Evil alignment.

Liches are basically beyond alignment. They appear evil because of their actions, but considerations of good and evil mean little to them.

Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand it, the creature will do whatever it must to further its own causes. Since it feels that the living are of little importance, the lich is often viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare cases, liches of a most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment.

You'd still be safe assuming they're evil aligned in most cases though, yeah.

 

[JamesDixon]

Most Liches strike me as Lawful Evil. Of course,a Lich is one of the most powerful types of undead. The alignment also depends on their former lives. The rituals needed to become a Lich,however,are incredibly evil and foul,so if a Neutral Wizard becomes a Lich,he will definitely shift to Evil alignment.

Liches are basically beyond alignment. They appear evil because of their actions, but considerations of good and evil mean little to them.

Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand it, the creature will do whatever it must to further its own causes. Since it feels that the living are of little importance, the lich is often viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare cases, liches of a most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment.

You'd still be safe assuming they're evil aligned in most cases though, yeah.

According to AD&D 2E Monstrous Manuel, liches are evil because they are selfish. It says on page 222 paragraph 4 under Habitat/Society, "Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand it, the creature will do whatever it must to futher its own causes. Since it feels that the living are of little importance, the lich is often viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare, cases, liches of a most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment."

Most liches are evil due to being selfish. Good is selfless and evil is selfish. There can be liches that are selfless and helpful to humanity, but they're rare.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

According to AD&D 2E Monstrous Manuel, liches are evil because they are selfish. It says on page 222 paragraph 4 under Habitat/Society, "Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand it, the creature will do whatever it must to futher its own causes. Since it feels that the living are of little importance, the lich is often viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare, cases, liches of a most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment."

I quoted that in my post, yes.

But yes, most can be viewed as evil due to selfishness - though they don't consider such things the same way we do.

The manual says "any evil alignment" in their description. However, they are beyond the consideration of good and evil and it says that some can be found that are of any alignment.

And if you read under the Archlich entry:

From time to time, sages have heard rumor of liches having alignments other than evil, and even lawful good liches apparently have existed. There have even been reports of priests who, in extreme circumstances, have become liches. These reports have recently been verified, but the archlich is as rare as Roc’s teeth.

Now, if you want to go further, you need the Spelljammer book Lost Ships, which covered them more in-depth.

Spoiler

 

[JamesDixon]

But yes, most can be viewed as evil due to selfishness - though they don't consider such things the same way we do.

The manual says "any evil alignment" in their description. However, they are beyond the consideration of good and evil and it says that some can be found that are of any alignment.

The keyword here bud is "they". This isn't a matter of them judging themselves, but rather the immutable laws of the universe stating where these individuals stand. Alignment is an objective standard not a subjective one that allows for the interpretations of the individual/society in question.

The other key part is, "how we understand it..." We as in the sentient races who view things as being selfish/selfless. Liches really are beyond lust, greed, murder, etc... for the simplest of reasons/normal sentient race reasons. They are after pure power which does require them to still perform evil actions if we're talking about an evil lich. The scope of the evil that they must commit merely increases to be beyond a sentient races' understanding.

A good historical example of a lich would be Elizabeth Bathory. She murdered, tortured, and bathed in the blood of hundreds of young girls to maintain her beauty. Her crimes were so horrific that people to this day do not understand the reasons why she did it or the depths she plumbed to commit the evil. The Hungarian Empire's only way to deal with her was to imprison her in a tower until she died of natural causes.

Whatever the reasons why an evil lich does something is purely for selfish reasons. Good liches are the opposite in that they work to maintain and improve the society they belonged to when alive. Their entire reasoning for becoming liches is not for personal power, but rather to help the people around them as the lich lives their undead life. Most good people would rather die peacefully or in combat to protect their society then to seek out the methods to live as an undead. That's why there are few good liches out there.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The keyword here bud is "they". This isn't a matter of them judging themselves, but rather the immutable laws of the universe stating where these individuals stand. Alignment is an objective standard not a subjective one that allows for the interpretations of the individual/society in question.

In the case where they are evil, sure. In the case where they aren't, they aren't.

They are after pure power which does require them to still perform evil actions if we're talking about an evil lich. The scope of the evil that they must commit merely increases to be beyond a sentient races' understanding.

Sure, but it also refers to how alien their minds have become. They've forgotten what it means to be human, and their goals may be to pursue power, but not in the same way a human would. I mean, I don't think there's the same human emotion driving it.

Monster Manual 2e:

The lich can exist for centuries without change. Its will drives it onward to master new magics and harness mystical powers not available to it in its previous life. So obsessed does the monster become with its quest for power that it often forgets its former existence utterly. Few liches call themselves by their old names when the years have drained the last vestiges of their humanity from them.

Can a being so devoted to research, that lacks flesh, blood, or even potentially a proper sense of self even be selfish as we understand it?

Their actions and their alignment are clear, yes, I agree with you. But the fact that they ride the very edges of the classification due to their completely warped and unnatural existence is my point.

A good historical example of a lich would be Elizabeth Bathory. She murdered, tortured, and bathed in the blood of hundreds of young girls to maintain her beauty. Her crimes were so horrific that people to this day do not understand the reasons why she did it or the depths she plumbed to commit the evil. The Hungarian Empire's only way to deal with her was to imprison her in a tower until she died of natural causes.

Well, she's often thought of as a vampire, but it is similar, yes.

Whatever the reasons why an evil lich does something is purely for selfish reasons. Good liches are the opposite in that they work to maintain and improve the society they belonged to when alive. Their entire reasoning for becoming liches is not for personal power, but rather to help the people around them as the lich lives their undead life. Most good people would rather die peacefully or in combat to protect their society then to seek out the methods live as an undead. That's why there are few good liches out there.

Right. Because the truly selfless would rarely want to extend their lives unless they felt it was for the benefit of others.

 

[NecroLord]

Even if a Lich was good during his life,the rituals and actions necessary to become a Lich are Evil with a capital E. Hence,I never understood the concept of a Good Lich.

 

[JamesDixon]

Even if a Lich was good during his life,the rituals and actions necessary to become a Lich are Evil with a capital E. Hence,I never understood the concept of a Good Lich.

Me neither since looking at the spells required a fair good few of them are evil like animate dead.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Even if a Lich was good during his life,the rituals and actions necessary to become a Lich are Evil with a capital E. Hence,I never understood the concept of a Good Lich.

Because you bought into the idea that there's only one kind of lich, or one way to become a lich and that it was through one of the meme methods where they kill babies, like in Blueprint for a Lich, which was really just a Dragon Magazine article. (#26, printed in 1979).

Look up Ravenloft - Van Richten's Guide to the Lich. About the most evil requirement in that guide is a heart, "preferably from a sentient creature".

Also, as to the spells, technically, an Archlich doesn't need to actually cast any of the spells to become a lich, since another is allowed to cast them for him. He only needs to take an active part in the construction of his magic item (which is an archlich's phylactery equivalent).

There were also the Baelnorn, an elven lich equivalent that were Lawful Good. Most of them used phylacteries just like a lich would - though I think they didn't degenerate to the point a normal lich would, either in mind or body. Being LG, I would assume they didn't need to do any evil to achieve their lichdom equivalent - especially if they were one of the few whom the Seldarine transformed into Baelnorn themselves, negating a need for a phylactery.

 

[Alex]

Zed Duke of Banville
I can't remember,but what was the fabulous Gman Gygax's stance on undead and alignment? The way I see it,even if they were not evil in their lives,they have been forcefully reanimated by the dark powers of Necromancy,which is an Evil act. The huge majority of Necromancy spells dealing with reanimating corpses and creating undead are [Evil],so...

Skeletons and zombies are both true neutral in the AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual, presumably because they are non-intelligent, merely following the commands of their evil reanimators. IIRC, all other undead are evil, sometimes associated with the negative material plane, and always destructive of life. I'm not clear about the distinction between the chaotic evil and lawful evil undead, though.

It would probably have been better to give them a "none" alignment instead. It is kinda annoying that neutral can stand both as a kind of alignment on its own and as the absence of it.

All undead are evil, your alignment wouldn't revert.

At least as early as 2nd Edition AD&D there were good undead beings om the form of archliches. Even if they are supposed to be rare, it goes against the idea that undead are evil. Not that I disagree with you, undead should be evil, but still...

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Skeletons and zombies are both true neutral in the AD&D 1st edition Monster Manual, presumably because they are non-intelligent, merely following the commands of their evil reanimators. IIRC, all other undead are evil, sometimes associated with the negative material plane, and always destructive of life. I'm not clear about the distinction between the chaotic evil and lawful evil undead, though.

It would probably have been better to give them a "none" alignment instead. It is kinda annoying that neutral can stand both as a kind of alignment on its own and as the absence of it.

Since no spell effects, AFAIK, were targeted against neutrality itself, assigning true neutral alignment to a low-intelligence or unintelligent creature simply meant they would not be affected by any magical effects concerning good, evil, law or chaos, whether harmful or beneficial. As I've written before, I think the fundamental failing is that Gygax treated True Neutral alignment as three different interpretations, and even leaned in the direction of ascribing a specific ethos to each of the nine alignments, whereas True Neutral should be understood as not having any pronounced tendency to either good, evil, law, or chaos. Once the erroneous meanings of True Neutral are abandoned, then the only purpose of a "none" alignment would be to separate out unintelligent creatures from the others in the True Neutral category, but the lack of intelligence is already understood, especially since it is written into the Monster Manual itself as part of the stat blocks.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I think it's fitting that True Neutral should be filled with centrists, hippies and other mindless zombies.

 

[NecroLord]

True Neutral - The NPC alignment.

Can this alignment be salvaged or was it doomed from the start?

 

[Sarathiour]

True Neutral - The NPC alignment.

Can this alignment be salvaged or was it doomed from the start?

the only purpose of a "none" alignment would be to separate out unintelligent creatures from the others

You already knew the solution