Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Grynn 12-10-03, 09:30 AM	Hey, I have a question about the alignments of low intelligence and nonintelligent monsters. Why do they even have alignments. It seems to me that it's impossible for a dog to even have a neutral alignment. They lack the knowledge of good and evil, so they can't be neutral. Neutral implies that someone either doesn't make a choice or specifically chooses to take the center position. Also, why do skeletons and zombies have NE alignments? If they can't think, they can't be hateful and evil.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 12-10-03, 12:01 PM	They are classed as neutral because they dont favour good or evil or law or chaos, these are lost concepts to them. They simply a too stupid to understand taking a side. Since they dont take any side, they are neutral. IMO alignment isnt always a concious decision, it can be instinct. As for the skellies and zombies, its a much debated topic. I think the reason they have these alignments is not because they actually are evil, but because they are risen by evil magic, and so carry the taint of evil. Basically this allows them to be affected by spells that affect evil, such as holy word.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 12-10-03, 03:36 PM	For creatures with animal intelligence, while they may not be fully self-aware there can still be some instinctual drive to help or hinder, and there is a possibility for a drive to be free or to follow some code, although all natural animals have no such special drives some creatures of animal intelligence on other planes might. As for the mindless undead, I think it was just a houserule that got implemented in 3.5. In the case of mindless aligned outsiders (such as the LE lemure) the creatures very bodies are incarnations of these ideals so they are such for all intensive purposes. The change for mindless undead seems like an unnecisary violation of a basic rule, especially considering how all undead already have an evil aura of twice their hd for a detect evil spell.
lukelightning 12-10-03, 03:46 PM	I think mindless undead should be evil. There are plenty of things in D&D that are not intelligent but have alignments: spells, magic items, etc, entire planes of existance, etc.
SharsDarkestMinion 12-11-03, 11:16 AM	Originally posted by Grynn Hey, I have a question about the alignments of low intelligence and nonintelligent monsters. Why do they even have alignments. It seems to me that it's impossible for a dog to even have a neutral alignment. They lack the knowledge of good and evil, so they can't be neutral. i see how a dog can't be good or evil, but dogs are just about the most lawful creatures on the planet. their pack hunters and loyal. nothing too random about them...exactly why werewolves are chaotic evil...?:confused:
lukelightning 12-11-03, 11:39 AM	Well, the law and chaos for animals can be debatable. I guess there is a strong argument for communal animals like ants and bees and naked mole rats being lawful, and solitary animals like orang-utans, whale sharks and crested grebes being chaotic. I wouldn't bother, though. And werewolves are chaotic evil because they are not animals...they are horrendous bloodthirsty murderers who revel in killing. Originally posted by SharsDarkestMinion i see how a dog can't be good or evil, but dogs are just about the most lawful creatures on the planet. their pack hunters and loyal. nothing too random about them...exactly why werewolves are chaotic evil...?:confused:
bitnine 12-11-03, 11:45 AM	I think the general reasoning was this: Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
kinem 12-11-03, 06:40 PM	Recently I ran across something in the SRD that may shed some new light on this old debate. Nonabilities: Intelligence: Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. So apparently "mindless automaton" does not mean mindless automaton. Yet another case of shamefully horrendous wording on the WoTC authors' part. Given that, it is possible that zombies have the instinct to hurt others.
Adrez Nesnsid 12-12-03, 06:24 PM	I think that low-intelligence, and non-intelligent monsters should be able to have Lawful of Chaotic alignments because you don't really need to understand anything to live your life in a consistent and orderly, or inconsistent and disorderly manner, and that's all that being lawful or chaotic consists of.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 12-12-03, 06:39 PM	Originally posted by kinem Recently I ran across something in the SRD that may shed some new light on this old debate. Nonabilities: Intelligence: Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. So apparently "mindless automaton" does not mean mindless automaton. Yet another case of shamefully horrendous wording on the WoTC authors' part. Given that, it is possible that zombies have the instinct to hurt others. That is simple instincts or programmed instructions. The description and mechanics of mindless undead clearly indicate that the latter is a case, especially the part about "taking no initiative of their own". I, personally, think that charisma also plays a role in the instinct vs. programmed issue and in the alignment, since charisma is strength of personality and spiritual essence, entities lacking a certain amount of minimal charisma are not aligned, and creatures with cha1 are devoid of souls or basic drives, either operating by a set of basic survival rules in the case of oozes run gelatinous_cube.exe begin hunger:=1-food supply; if hunger>fatgue then hungry:=true and check(food_near) if food_near then attack(food) else while food_near do roam.exe or slavishley following the commands of its master (in the case of a zombie or a stone golem).
Joe Gold 12-12-03, 07:32 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. run gelatinous_cube.exe begin hunger:=1-food supply; if hunger>fatgue then hungry:=true and check(food_near) if food_near then attack(food) else while food_near do roam.exe :rofl:
Ahnehnois 12-12-03, 07:34 PM	What your instincts are has no impact on alignment. The PHB tells us that neutral characters "do whatever seems like a good idea at the time." If your instinct is to kill, that does not make you evil. Good, evil, law, and chaos require a conscious choice on the part of someone who understands them. If you are virtuous, you are not so because you were born that way (barring celestial parentage or other unusual complications). You are so because you learned a code of behavior and for whatever reason chose to follow it, often defying your base instincts. Thus, something that cannot learn or remember has no alignment. Neutral, among other things, includes that category of things that have no alignment.
kinem 12-12-03, 08:08 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. That is simple instincts or programmed instructions. The description and mechanics of mindless undead clearly indicate that the latter is a case, especially the part about "taking no initiative of their own". It doesn't say "exclusive or" and there's no evidence that was meant. You seem to be missing the point: the wording can't be taken literally since it directly contradicts itself, since something that acts on instincts isn't quite mindless. Also a zombie obviously remembers things like its instructions. Anyway if you read the alignment description in the SRD: "“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice." I think it is clear that a zombie with the instinct to hurt others would be defined as evil.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 12-12-03, 09:35 PM	I'm saying they're as mindless as a computer program just, If Elf_in_room Then attack elf until elf ceases movement. They literally follow them. Anyway, my point is that if they have malevolent instincts it must be stated so, for there is nothing in their description characterizing them as inherently hateful of living things or with otherwise evil intent. They are simply discribed as being thoughtless automotons obeying their dark masters, their actions based soley on commands. There is no indication of how an uncontrolled zombie or skeleton behaves, so unless otherwise indicated they should be always true neutral.
bitnine 12-12-03, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. Anyway, my point is that if they have malevolent instincts it must be stated so, for there is nothing in their description characterizing them as inherently hateful of living things or with otherwise evil intent. Indeed. It seems like that they are making what amount to indirect assertions. That there are direct statements that are left unmade, yet form the basis for much of their description and depiction of those mindless entities. If I wanted to include something in there to base that on, I might posit that, say, mindless undead have a natural reflex to kill beings powered by positive energy, instinctively sensing said lifeforce as a threat to their own, their natural antithesis. They naturally oppose all life, and are more natural tools of evil, a frozen yet controllable incarnation of malevolence. Now, folk might not necessarily agree with the paragraph above and its particulars (which is okay, it's an example), but it would at least form something of a more substantive basis for basing things like alignment and other descriptors of said mindless creatures.
kinem 12-13-03, 02:43 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. Anyway, my point is that if they have malevolent instincts it must be stated so, for there is nothing in their description characterizing them as inherently hateful of living things or with otherwise evil intent. They are simply discribed as being thoughtless automotons obeying their dark masters, their actions based soley on commands. There is no indication of how an uncontrolled zombie or skeleton behaves, so unless otherwise indicated they should be always true neutral. Doesn't the stat block count as part of the description? I'd say that uncontrolled 3.5 zombies would attack, while uncontrolled 3.0 zombies wouldn't.
Rotipher 12-14-03, 01:40 PM	"Mindless" implies a lack of ability to reflect upon courses of action and weigh the various options. It doesn't imply a lack of any mental processes whatsoever. An ant has a (tiny) brain, but that brain performs only pre-programmed/instinctive functions, so an ant is "mindless" in that it doesn't think: "I could knock off work for a few minutes because nobody's watching me right now, *but* if another ant comes along I'll get in trouble, so I'd better get on with this next job." Its brain just calculates: "Task to do. Do it. Done. [crude wave of satisfaction] Next task to do. Do it. Done. [crude wave of satisfaction]", ad infinitum. A "mindless" undead would function in accordance with a similar chain of calculations: "Hated living creature detected. Orders not incompatible with destroying hated living creature. Destroy hated living creature. [crude wave of satisfaction] Hated living creature detected...."
bitnine 12-14-03, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Rotipher A "mindless" undead would function in accordance with a similar chain of calculations: "Hated living creature detected. Orders not incompatible with destroying hated living creature. Destroy hated living creature. [crude wave of satisfaction] Hated living creature detected...." That's just the sense I got from much of the undead mentions here and there, and particularly since I read the zombie block first. However, others have pointed out that that sort of figuring does somewhat conflict with the statements: "A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative."
Rotipher 12-17-03, 10:45 AM	"Draw no conclusions" means it can't make decisions based on observations or circumstances. There's no need to draw any conclusion to respond to stimuli. Likewise "take no initiative" means only that it can't initiate actions unless its orders trigger them, or remain inactive if its orders say to act for that matter. None of that is incompatible with a simple, ant-like mentality of stimulus/response, or with intuitive/instinctive satisfaction in pre-programmed accomplishments.