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

[JamesDixon]

True Neutral - The NPC alignment.

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

I never viewed TN as the you have to root for the underdog. My view was always that they were Switzerland and we don't give a flip about your problems.

 

[NecroLord]

I think only a really high level adventurer or philosopher can truly justify True Neutral. One who has seen all the alignments in action,all their merits but also their flaws,and rejects them as limiting towards the path of enlightenment.
But the typical True Neutral NPC is a pretentious wanker or an indifferent bystander. The kind of guy who watches someone collapse on the street and does not even bother to check or do something.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I never viewed TN as the you have to root for the underdog. My view was always that they were Switzerland and we don't give a flip about your problems.

Well, the Swiss have a long history of being a recognized buffer zone of neutrality, and they took deliberate efforts to remain that way. More like philosophical TN than simply not caring.

A war might not be the best example though, since it's not necessarily good or evil to choose either side, depending on the circumstances. People don't normally hover around the center of a moral or philosophical issue, however, let alone EVERY issue.

It represents either a truly indecisive, uninterested person, a philosopher or a brainless drone. Either you're making a real effort not to fall into another alignment, or you're just not thinking much about anything.

The druids are probably the main group I can see as being believable as True Neutral. Too many deer in a forest and they hunt the deer. Too many wolves and they hunt the wolves. It's not about underdogs, but ecological and now moral balance.

I could also see a player who hasn't yet figured out his alignment start as True Neutral and later make a shift, like TNO in Planescape. But I'd be really surprised if they were able to remain Neutral without deliberately trying.

But the typical True Neutral NPC is a pretentious wanker or an indifferent bystander. The kind of guy who watches someone collapse on the street and does not even bother to check or do something.

Can you imagine a player like this? Every other event they just say "Hmm, this doesn't involve me." and walk off.

 

[JamesDixon]

Well, the Swiss have a long history of being a recognized buffer zone of neutrality, and they took deliberate efforts to remain that way. More like philosophical TN than simply not caring.

By being neutral they are stating that they do not care about your problems.

It represents either a truly indecisive, uninterested person, a philosopher or a brainless drone. Either you're making a real effort not to fall into another alignment, or you're just not thinking much about anything.

I'll quote AD&D 2E PHB page 64 for the next bit of responses.

Those espousing neutrality tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is lawfulness, there is chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces remain in balance with each other. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric of reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the universe would become a barren wasteland.

Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all sentient life), the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of neutrality become seriously concerned.

So by this definition, neutrals are unconcerned with the struggles between law/chaos and good/evil. They will parlay and whatnot with both sides equally as they are neutral in the grand scheme of things. By taking any sort of action that can be interpreted as being for law/chaos and good/evil shows that they are not neutral in the slightest and would shift in alignment. Thus, neutrals are pragmatists that rely upon cold, hard impartial reason to guide them and their actions. They are Ayn Randian Objectivists.

The druids are probably the main group I can see as being believable as True Neutral. Too many deer in a forest and they hunt the deer. Too many wolves and they hunt the wolves. It's not about underdogs, but ecological and now moral balance.

Due to the universe being self regulating, the druid actually doesn't have to do anything. Too many deer means that too much vegetation is eaten which in turn leads to the starvation of the herd back to manageable numbers. When the excess deer die off the vegetation comes back. The same is true for wolves. Wolves will overhunt an area if their population gets too high then the excess are driven from the pack or are killed for food by the pack. The only time, a druid would get involved is if there is an external force that is unnaturally causing the change in the universe's self regulation like a fighter that is using animal husbandry to grow the pack of local wolves far beyond what nature can control. He then uses said pack to attack the local people and travelers.

True neutral alignment is one of the toughest alignments to play because of this.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

By being neutral they are stating that they do not care about your problems.

The Swiss traded with both sides and took in refugees. They didn't simply turn their backs. They cared to some degree, they just didn't want to fight either side.

So by this definition, neutrals are unconcerned with the struggles between law/chaos and good/evil.

Depends on which TN you're talking about though. That's one definition, but it's clearly not the only one.

So by this definition, neutrals are unconcerned with the struggles between law/chaos and good/evil.

They are concerned though. They simply refuse to favor one over the other.

Their philosophy acknowledges both sides, but would prefer neither to have the advantage. In that way, they actually care a great deal for both.

Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite).

By this definition, they acknowledge and care for both good and evil, and seek to preserve both.

Also PHB 2e:

Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgment on anything. They do not classify people, things, or events as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases, this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make a moral judgment (animals fall into this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill because they are hungry or threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not worry about the moral consequences of their actions—their actions are instinctive.

And by this definition, they refuse to acknowledge either good or evil, whether because they make a conscious effort not to or they lack the ability to.

Due to the universe being self regulating, the druid actually doesn't have to do anything. Too many deer means that too much vegetation is eaten which in turn leads to the starvation of the herd back to manageable numbers. When the excess deer die off the vegetation comes back. The same is true for wolves. Wolves will overhunt an area if their population gets too high then the excess are driven from the pack or are killed for food by the pack. The only time, a druid would get involved is if there is an external force that is unnaturally causing the change in the universe's self regulation like a fighter that is using animal husbandry to grow the pack of local wolves far beyond what nature can control. He then uses said pack to attack the local people and travelers.

*Doesn't USUALLY have to do anything. If it really worked like this all the time, there would be no natural extinction of species, and even an invasive species would not matter.

If you see literally everything as part of the natural order, then you don't need to do anything. But if your druid doesn't see humans slash and burning their forests to make more farmland as a part of the balance, you might have an issue.

As your quote says:

Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of neutrality become seriously concerned.

And that "almost never" seems to happen a lot when it comes to D&D adventures.

 

[JamesDixon]

Depends on which TN you're talking about though. That's one definition, but it's clearly not the only one.

You are free to use the definition you like. I like mine.

They are concerned though. They simply refuse to favor one over the other.

They don't care since they refuse to favor one side or the other. There is no possibility for concern.

And by definition, they refuse to acknowledge either good or evil, whether because they make a conscious effort not to or they lack the ability to.

I cited the neutrality for law/chaos not the one for good/evil. However, with the good/evil it clearly supports my statement that true neutrals do not care about others. They have no morality on the moral scale. This only reinforces my statement that they are adherents to Objectivism. All that matters is their cold, hard rationalism and reason.

*Doesn't USUALLY have to do anything. If it really worked like this all the time, there would be no natural extinction of species, and even an invasive species would not matter.

Extinction is a natural process though. I find it funny that you bring up invasive species. That's an area where man interfered with nature to introduce something that does not belong in that area. In that case, yes, a druid would go out of their way to destroy the invasive species.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

You are free to use the definition you like. I like mine.

I just mean per the rules. They talk about TN as a philosophy that acknowledges both G&E, a refusal to see or judge them, and an inability to comprehend them.

These views aren't really compatible, so they're really separate definitions ftmp. Unless you think that all druids are unreasoning animals.

They don't care since they refuse to favor one side or the other. There is no possibility for concern.

When you don't want a side to cease to exist and will even fight for them to stay alive, it can only be described as concern.

I cited the neutrality for law/chaos not the one for good/evil. However, with the good/evil it clearly supports my statement that true neutrals do not care about others. They have no morality on the moral scale. This only reinforces my statement that they are adherents to Objectivism.

What you cited also applies in general. The philosophy of opposites existing is universal, and requires one to both care about it and have the capacity to do so. See the PHB definition for TN I will post later in this post.

All that matters is their cold, hard rationalism and reason.

Animals don't have reason. They have instinct. And it's precisely the refusal to reason about good or evil that makes one TN under this definition, but it conflicts with this one:

Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite).

This definition presupposes all opposites, whether good or evil, law or chaos.

You can't fight to preserve two sides if you refuse to acknowledge their existence or reason between the two of them, and you can't really do anything other than survive and eat if you're an animal with no reasoning at all.

Again PHB:

True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention.

So this philosophical approach applies both to the Good and Evil definition, as well as the Law and Chaos one.

PHB example:

True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser
becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.

I think only a philosopher type of TN could act like this. The one who doesn't care about good or evil probably wouldn't want to be involved at all, and an animal would obviously not be fighting on anyone's side either. Only the druid or similar philosopher cares about the balance of forces here.

For this reason, I believe the definitions are not really one, but three, even if that isn't explicitly spelled out, and if the main definition tries to combine them to a degree.

 

[JamesDixon]

Animals don't have reason.

Thus the great invalid comparison logically fallacy begins. We weren't talking about animals. We were talking about people. If you wanted to talk about animals then it should have been approached in a different manner. Animals are true neutral because they lack the ability to think for themselves and cannot effectively choose a side in the overall fight for law/chaos and good/evil. Humans and other sentient beings can. Thus, you presented an invalid comparison.

We'll never see eye to eye on TN, so I'm going to agree to disagree. Have a wonderful evening.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Thus the great invalid comparison logically fallacy begins. We weren't talking about animals. We were talking about people.

The same definition mentions both. They're clearly talking about separate things in the same definition. That's my point.

You can't be a human and an unreasoning animal at the same time, jokes aside. You even agree with this, so what's the issue?

Thus, you presented an invalid comparison.

How is it invalid to point out differences? You did it yourself in your preceding sentence.

We'll never see eye to eye on TN

Especially if you snip out one sentence of my post and skip over the rest. I spoke about humans at length, but you're talking as if I was only speaking about animals.

 

[JamesDixon]

You can't be a human and an unreasoning animal at the same time, jokes aside. You even agree with this, so what's the issue?

I never made the claim that you can be both. I pointed out that you compared two unlike things to draw the same conclusion.

How is it invalid to point out differences?

The invalid part is where you compared two unlike things to make an argument.

I spoke about humans at length, but you're talking as if I was only speaking about animals.

You were speaking about humans up until the last reply. That's when you compared humans to an animal.

Especially if you snip out one sentence of my post and skip over the rest.

You mean like you've done to me repeatedly? If I quote something that someone writes to the exclusion of everything else you can be rest assured that I most likely agree with you. In fact, during this entire exchange I have rated you with respect and never got anything in return from you.

Now to recap and to ensure you understand where I stand exactly.

True Neutrals do not use emotional reasoning to form the basis of their thinking. That's for other alignments to do. Thus, they appear uncaring and unconcerned about the plight of others. They refuse to pick a side because once they do they are no longer neutral.

With that, I'm exiting this conversation with you. Take it however you want, but this is my final reply to you on True Neutrals. At least be respectful of that.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

True neutral was a mistake.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The invalid part is where you compared two unlike things to make an argument.

Except the argument was that they are not alike. And I compared more than those two things.

You mean like you've done to me repeatedly?

I think I've covered all of the points you've made in your posts, regardless of what I've snipped out.

There's a difference between disagreeing with one sentence I've said and ignoring the rest of the post, and clipping out a sentence in a multi-part argument, clearly responding to it and then clipping out other sentences and covering those too.

If I quote something that someone writes to the exclusion of everything else you can be rest assured that I most likely agree with you.

I see. I suppose what confused me was that you had told me you disagreed with me on True Neutral in general in that same post.

Ok, then. No harm no foul.

In fact, during this entire exchange I have rated you with respect and never got anything in return from you.

Huh? The rating buttons, you mean? I just didn't rate your posts, dude. I've told you I mostly agree with you. Just because I don't click the button doesn't mean I don't respect you.

True Neutrals do not use emotional reasoning to form the basis of their thinking. That's for other alignments to do. Thus, they appear uncaring and unconcerned about the plight of others. They refuse to pick a side because once they do they are no longer neutral.

I mean, this is fair, since you say they appear uncaring. They actually do care (or at least, I think it can be assumed they do to some degree), but from the outside it probably seems that they don't. Fair enough.

With that, I'm exiting this conversation with you. Take it however you want, but this is my final reply to you on True Neutrals. At least be respectful of that.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

True neutral was a mistake.

After thinking about it this much, you may be right.

Simply "Unaligned" would have been clearer.

 

[Nikanuur]

nefarious ways

But what are these ways btw? What ugly things did she do that player is aware of. And the answer is we know shit. The only story BG2 could have come up with is about her ‘befriending’ a fucking farmer and get ‘raped’ by him and his son, and she basically is and always was a victim. Rejected by surface dwellers poor black person bitter about cruel world. That love arc is retarded tier teenage writing with some heavy woke aspects in it.

tldr: Branwen>>>>>>>Viconia

She speaks like you. Therein lies the crux of the matter.

 

[NecroLord]

But what about the TN adventurer?
Does he tend to adventure with both evil and good parties in equal measure? Perhaps a TN in a good party might be influenced by the paladin,for example. He might be biased towards Good,because it is far less disruptive than Evil.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

But what about the TN adventurer?
Does he tend to adventure with both evil and good parties in equal measure? Perhaps a TN in a good party might be influenced by the paladin,for example. He might be biased towards Good,because it is far less disruptive than Evil.

I'm guessing that he'd be a fellow traveler, letting the rest of the party decide for itself how to deal with various situations unless it affects the common goal for which he decided to tag along.

 

[Silva]

Daily reminder that alignment is silly and you're all a bunch of retards.






P.S: but Planescape is cool.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Daily reminder that alignment is silly and you're all a bunch of retards.






P.S: but Planescape is cool.

>.t Chaotic Neutral

 

[JamesDixon]

Yes, you are a retard and unable to actually form a coherent argument. Planescape is shit for people with shitty tastes.

 

[Nikanuur]

I believe the D&D explicitly states that Drows (former Ilythiiri) were cursed "so that sun hated them" because they chose to stand with the banished Araushnee who planned on killing Corellon, and who later renamed herself Lolth.
It's pretty ironic that loyalty led them to their current state where they disdain any kind of graciousness.

Anyway, the Ilythiiri were not exactly nice in the first place and being banished surely must've helped with tastes for vengefulness, sadism, treachery etc., but that does not equal being born with a brain devoid of the ability to love or to be kind.
Heck, just knowing what cruelty is means you understand what kindness and happiness are, and that deep down, most living things wish for them.

So, I daresay it's rather a question of society's rules and the choice of the individual to either go with the flow or rebel.
Drow society is mostly about power, cruelty, malice, and treachery.
Therefore a simple answer; be evil and non-trusting like others, or get exploited and killed for showing "softness".
Wanna be an outcast? Good luck; you're one against many in a society where honing intelligence, dexterity, and wisdom is rampant. You're not gonna make it, unless you are something like another Drizzt.

As for what would've caused the Drow society to become so super-malicious, well, try to be born into a bunch of bitter, unforgiven individuals who remember how it was cool in the Overworld but stayed, hating profoundly, a couple of hundred years in the Underdark. Voila, you are an evil Drow yourself before you know it.

 

[NecroLord]

Since Lolth more or less controls the destiny of the Drow,I think that a possible redemption and reforming of the Drow is impossible. Lolth is a very powerful goddess. Sure,there might be Drow that are not Evil,but the chances of a good Drow of successfully escaping from her clutches and those of the Matron Mothers are slim.

 

[Nikanuur]

Since Lolth more or less controls the destiny of the Drow,I think that a possible redemption and reforming of the Drow is impossible. Lolth is a very powerful goddess. Sure,there might be Drow that are not Evil,but the chances of a good Drow of successfully escaping from her clutches and those of the Matron Mothers are slim.

I pretty much agree.

What do you think of these heretical ideas though ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/72cmqu/have_you_ever_realized_that_drizzt_dourden_is_the/

 

[NecroLord]

Interesting...
I never liked Drizzt all that much. Never read Salvatore's books,as my main interest lies in Greyhawk.
I think he is definitely a Mary Sue. He does absolutely insane and damn near impossible stuff on a regular basis.

 

[RangerBoo]

And the entertainment industry is wondering why they are getting their asses handed to them by indie creators.

 

[JamesDixon]

And the entertainment industry is wondering why they are getting their asses handed to them by indie creators.

That just only reaffirms me calling this DANDINO once Wizards of the Woke took over.