| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| JulesCARV04-09-07, 09:08 PM | I'm just curious. I've seen two common portrayals of humans in D&D: 1) The D&D default: humans are all over the map. Humanity has saintly paragons of benevolence, vile, unspeakable villains, and everything in between. Humans are highly individualistic, and they can be anything from pacifistic teachers to brutal warlords, from rationalistic, non-theistic engineers to mystics who constantly hear the voice of the gods, etc. 2) A common homebrew variant: humans are typically shortsighted, destructive, bigotted imperialists, who drove the elves from most their land, kill orcs on sight and rape female orcs regardless of whether the orcs are hostile or not, establish gold-grubbing slavery empires, ravage nature, oppress the majority of their own race, in addition to other races, etc. I'm wondering, does anyone portray humans as usually good guys? It certainly seems just as possible as portraying them as evil imperialists, although perhaps not as balanced as the D&D default portrayal as a mix of all types. |
| Disciple_of_Juiblex04-09-07, 09:21 PM | Honestly .... No As a human, knowing human nature (just look on these boards :P ), i cannot ever say that ive or any of my groups have made them a "good" race. The closes they ever came to being "good" (they werent warlike but defended their boarders from gnolls and orcs) was in one of my campain worlds where they where denied the use of magic after an ancient spell... after nearly dominating all other races and taking over the world. Sooo ummm, yah. |
| Azar_of_Faerun04-09-07, 09:23 PM | Nice subtle jab at religion. I'm impressed! :) |
| Return of the Flumph04-09-07, 09:32 PM | I think humans SHOULD be all over the board; their fluff and crunch in the Player's Handbook both support individualism and polyculturalism. |
| AMGriffin04-09-07, 09:32 PM | I'd say it's impossible to portray humans as anything, considering there are so many different human civilizations. In my campaign there are five major human civilizations. Only one is (lawful) evil, and only one is (Neutral) good. The other ones are lawful, true, or chaotic neutral. |
| Lode04-09-07, 09:36 PM | Humans in my CS are driven almost solely by their respective religious dogmas. Since they don't have a set pantheon like the other races and are a short-lived, ambitious people, human worship is up for grabs and the gods use humans as pawns in their wars against other gods (which are actually proxy wars that are waged against other humans). Hence, even the most good-aligned deity will rally the faithful in a campaign against some other, and not always evil, deity in an effort to expand his base of worship or at least hurt his competitors. Human society reflects this, as most human PC classes are clerics, crusaders, and champions (paladin variant) which lead the true believers in battle without end against the unbeliever/infidel/kuffar. I think this is a fairly accurate representation of humans in general. |
| swallowyersoul04-09-07, 09:48 PM | most campaigns have humans are mostly good. there are individual bad guys, but in general the pcs get a fair shake from the humans, elves, gnomes, etc.... |
| MagusBlack04-09-07, 09:51 PM | While giving any credit to those long-eared demons, if have to admit on one thing: Humans are too short-sighted and think too much in the hear and now to possess the wisdom that being 'Good' requires...not that elves are generally 'good' either, but at least they see things a little farthure down the road. Frankly the idea of a "Good" human race is about as laughable as Exalted Demons (please dont comment on that). |
| Khan the Destroyer04-09-07, 09:55 PM | In the games I play in, it doesn't matter. The DM's NPC's are always nasty, powerful braggarts that dismiss our power with a wave of their hand and seem totally disinterested in anything we have to say. Also, the paragons of good usually tend to be the beautifaul, god-like elves in their majestic hidden edens. :mad: |
| The Ubbergeek04-09-07, 10:03 PM | Elves are generaly good, like every common basic player races. Good=/=always nice, though. Good peoples can be holier than thou jerks, haughty, greedy, ect... Nobody's perfect - even elves or dwarves, just that the good side win more. Eberron is built on teh principes that, like in Planescape, Shadowrun and such, things are not always cut black and white, or so evident or like they appears... And so its a part of how I see humans. Myself, I follow the Dragonlance example - most are by default neutral, we are cursed/blessed to be unique and to have all of us our own destiny. |
| JulesCARV04-09-07, 10:06 PM | Nice subtle jab at religion. I'm impressed! :) Wow. So subtle I didn't even realize I was making it at the time, although reading it now I see how it can easily be read that way :). |
| theotherdraxen04-09-07, 10:42 PM | Sure; I do. Humans can be both good or evil, but I portray them as generally good. The average human will act friendly towards a good cause, and will offer limited help to people if they appear to need it. |
| MagusBlack04-09-07, 10:47 PM | Where do you live?? I have never seen the 'average' person do anything that would be labeled as "good" more along the lines of "self-serving". And your statment has more to do with Neutral in the regards of: "Helping people you want to help." Were "good" is: "Helping people that need help." |
| Trevhippy04-09-07, 10:56 PM | "Helping people you want to help." Were "good" is: "Helping people that need help." I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive at all. Simply because something benefits you doesn't mean it's not a good act. Volunteering at a homeless shelter may make me feel good and it's helping people who need it. The fact that that there is no truly selfless act doesn't taint good acts in any way. --Trev |
| CCS04-09-07, 11:10 PM | I'm wondering, does anyone portray humans as usually good guys? . Well, sort of. Mostly though I just don't portray them as the bad guys overall. Most of the humans encountered in my games tend to be the common people. Merchants, villagers, etc. And these people for the most part simply want to go on about their fairly neutral bussiness. Thus they need the PCs to go out and slay the monsters that are threatening them, drive off dragons, fight wars, save the world/multi-verse, etc. The same goes for the everyday elves, dwarves, 1/2lings etc in my games. And the extremes represented by the more powerfull NPCs? They're just that. The extremes. As are the players. |
| retillin04-09-07, 11:12 PM | I dont tend to put all humas as "good". In my homebrewed There are two major human kingdoms. One is a set of pally kings who rule lightly but well and the other is a Romeish type of empire where humans believe themselves to be the best there is. The empire takes every other race as slaves. Were as the pally kings are the ying vs their yang. So I put them all over the board. |
| adgramaine04-09-07, 11:13 PM | ...Volunteering at a homeless shelter may make me feel good and it's helping people who need it. The fact that that there is no truly selfless act doesn't taint good acts in any way. --Trev Here here! Humans, in my general dictums of fantasy at least, are portrayed generally as being good for just this reason. Most people tend to want to help out, especially if they see a reason to. Be it pride on being a "good guy" or greed and "wanting something out of it", the end result is a good deed done. Granted, in my current campaign, after fighting illithids and aboleths, the players are in for a nasty surprise when they meet the BBEG, who happens to be a human... Point is, we are not doing ourselves a justice unless the species is portrayed as myriad in mind as we are in appearance. Elves are elves, and orcs be orcs, but what makes us (and our fantasy versions of 'us') us is our verisimilitude. You say "elf", we have an expectation. You say orc, we say "I'm rolling initiative...." But why, when the DM says "human", don't we wonder for a while where on the fence the fellow sits? It's an aspect of RP that I don't see enough. |
| MagusBlack04-09-07, 11:15 PM | Not everyone that works for homeless shelters are there to help, they may be there for an ego trip (they are, after all, higher on the social order than those they 'help'). Plus you pointed at a select group of people, a minority really (those that honestly are there to help out all they can), and they don’t really actually help solve the problem at all...just prolong the inevitable. Look at the world of today and the ideals of a 'higher morality' falls to pieces. |
| KillFrenzy04-09-07, 11:26 PM | is this gonna be one of those really super gay rants about humanity is evil that goths always **** on about? humanity has the potential to do amazing good and our greatest trait is that we destroy and use up everything and still survive and we can defeat any foe as long as we put our minds to it |
| Trevhippy04-09-07, 11:28 PM | Not everyone that works for homeless shelters are there to help, they may be there for an ego trip (they are, after all, higher on the social order than those they 'help'). Ok, what are you basing your opinon on? Anecdotally, I know several people who do volunteer work. None of them are there to get thier arrogance jollies out of it. Granted, anecdotal evidence can be flawed so please, trump it. Point me towards a peer reviewed empirical study proving that most people who do volunteer work do so to feel superior to others. Honestly - good luck. Plus you pointed at a select group of people, a minority really (those that honestly are there to help out all they can), and they don’t really actually help solve the problem at all...just prolong the inevitable. Look at the world of today and the ideals of a 'higher morality' falls to pieces. Haha! Oh boy, I think you should change your board name to "I <3 Vague Pessimistic Generalities". --Trev |
| Trevhippy04-09-07, 11:29 PM | is this gonna be one of those really super gay rants about humanity is evil that goths always **** on about? humanity has the potential to do amazing good and our greatest trait is that we destroy and use up everything and still survive and we can defeat any foe as long as we put our minds to it Do you not find it the least bit ironic that your defense of human goodness includes a ridiculously ignorant and bigoted remark? Maybe just a little? --Trev |
| chinoquezada04-09-07, 11:31 PM | In Faerun and Greyhawk: Humans are part of the "goodly" races. But their "short" life span makes them generally rash and incomprehensible. In Eberron: There are none goodly races. Everyone is evil and out to get you and stab you in the back. Spawns of Kyuss roam the land wildly and pirates and Liches and Mindflayers.... God I hate Eberron! |
| Tichondrus04-09-07, 11:32 PM | I still live in the good old times of 2E. Paladins could only be humans. Anti-Paladins could only be humans. Driuds needed to have human blood in their veins. Humans have every single kind of party, and if they mix a bit, they are usually gathered together by their likes. If you go to America and you are corrupt, that's the way to be, if you go to asia, and you are corrupt, though luck, you'll get owned.* The idea is that humans control half of the 'surface world', they are as good as evil, having the most benevolent heroes and the most cruel villians, after all, waht race is more extremistic than humans? There are stupidly good one, stupidly evil ones, and everything in between. So, yes, they are a really good race. *: Hypotetical example, take it as it is, no racial or harassing means intended. |
| MagusBlack04-09-07, 11:40 PM | Not really, but humanity has caused some of the vilest atrocities to date as well, hence why humans are as a whole are 'neutral', not 'good'. |
| JulesCARV04-09-07, 11:46 PM | I think that any portrayal of humanity as good would have to acknowledge that humans have the potential for evil as well. Maybe it'd be a bit like Star Trek -- in the current culture, polity, and society of humanity, goodness prevails, but there's still some evil here and there, and humanity could easily have gone down a different, darker path, as shown by the various "alternate universe" scenarios. |
| Trevhippy04-09-07, 11:49 PM | Not really, but humanity has caused some of the vilest atrocities to date as well, hence why humans are as a whole are 'neutral', not 'good'. It is a bit odd to hear you say "humans" caused some of the vilest atrocities to date...Compared to what? Ourselves, right? Thus, in order for something to be "vile" humans must have engendered something "pure/good" as well. The very fact that we can identify "atrocities" points towards some sort of moral scale, in which good edges out evil since wrong-doing is tabooed. This sure gets into a much larger debate, but I'd say we do edge toward lawful good. Most people are largely law abiding and the majority of laws promote things large tracts of the population agree are good. (Well, now if that's not a whopper of a generalization I don't know what is.) --Trev |
| MagusBlack04-10-07, 12:12 AM | Animals exist too you know, and while you might claim they lack the intelligence they are still here and for most part do not enforce any 'superiority' beyond the obvious traits (a strong predator is superior to a weak one, a fast prey is superior to a slow one. etc). The exception might be the cowbird...and just because people agree doesn’t mean its 'good' in the sense of philosophical alignment. |
| YellowKnight04-10-07, 12:41 AM | In my alternate "system" Witchcraft d20 I'm currently working on, I've removed one axis of the alignment system, and now only Good, Neutral, and Evil exist, with Law and Chaos being more relative terms. Most humanoids are generally good aligned in this system, while a lot of certain types of creatures (such as fey and neutral outsiders) have been moved to Evil (at least the majority). So yeah, though they can certainly still be evil (and generate some of the most evil beings), Humans are assumed to be generally Good-aligned in this case. |
| Jaxgaret04-10-07, 12:45 AM | If you go to America and you are corrupt, that's the way to be, if you go to asia, and you are corrupt, though luck, you'll get owned.* *: Hypothetical example, take it as it is, no racial or harassing means intended. Wait, what? I can't accurately decipher what you meant by these remarks, so please, help me out and clarify your position. |
| StruckingFuggle04-10-07, 12:47 AM | I think humans SHOULD be all over the board; their fluff and crunch in the Player's Handbook both support individualism and polyculturalism. Only because it's racist and prohuman and the only polycultural species on the world, the only one with any sort of officially-sponsored variety, is humanity. How.... boring. |
| Jaxgaret04-10-07, 12:49 AM | To the OP: it's a fantasy world. Does it matter if the Humans are the bad guys or the good guys in a D&D campaign? No, not one bit. They can be paragons of virtue in one campaign and the vilest of the vile in another campaign, and it makes not one whit of difference, because it is just a cosmetic choice by the DM. I call troll on this thread, even if you didn't mean to be one. |
| CryoSilver04-10-07, 12:56 AM | In my campaign setting, there is no alignment, but when designing cultures, I keep track of what the alighment WOULD BE if it existed. The three major human nations are Lawful Good (emphasis on lawful), Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil (again, emphasis on Lawful). MY CS is set 12 years after a massive global war, so the Lawful aspect refers to martial law in all three cases, not a racial tendency. |
| The Ubbergeek04-10-07, 07:53 AM | Only because it's racist and prohuman and the only polycultural species on the world, the only one with any sort of officially-sponsored variety, is humanity. How.... boring. First, in the regard that Eberron is all evil guys; its all GREY. Neutrality, complexity, flux, incertainity. It's more 'human condition', so to speak. And otehr races have cultural differences at times - again, reading at Aberron, the elves are not united. |
| gullas04-10-07, 07:58 AM | well in my campaign the humans can be found (almost) everywhere and they come in all shapes , sizes and in any alignment ,generally:rolleyes: |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 08:04 AM | Animals exist too you know, and while you might claim they lack the intelligence they are still here and for most part do not enforce any 'superiority' beyond the obvious traits (a strong predator is superior to a weak one, a fast prey is superior to a slow one. etc). Is this a serious arguement? I believe some saying is floating around concerning apples and oranges and the feasability of their comparison. To the OP: I've actually never had a campaign setting with humans (exclusively) portrayed as #2. Who would rape female orcs? --Trev |
| T_K04-10-07, 08:35 AM | I read Felipe Fernandez Armesto's excellent book Civilizations, which is an interesting take on world history. I believe it's also a must for any fantasy GM/DM, because it really helps to consider the background of an advanced culture. Anyways, the book's take on civilization is that the term shouldn't include value judgements. A civilized culture is defined as shaping its people and environment according to its (perceived) needs. If these needs extend well beyond the constraints of current ecosystems, geographic features and ethnicities, it has the potential to become imperial. Of all the races presented in D&D, humans have the most powerful imperial drive. Their opportunism, ambition and willingness to accept other races, cultures and religions in their society make them the natural choice for builders of rapidly expanding, dynamic states. As such, many existing powers see these short-lived usurpers as a real threat, possibly evil. However, since moral and cultural relativism don't exist in D&D, the elves and dwarves who think this way are usually wrong. In my view, the human influence is mainly positive, in that evil human rulers are inherently more self-destructive than the stable regimes built on a system of justice. When evil empires do arise, they never last for millennia like the Drow civilization or Baator's fiend states do. The most long-lived and influential human nations tend to be lawful good or neutral. btw, by Armesto's definition, elves would be fairly uncivilized. This works for them, though, because they often occupy environments opposed to civilizing efforts. Extensive exploitation could very well leave the race stranded with no resources and a burgeoning population. Also, since civilization involves the culture consciously changing itself, the elves could lose some of their most defining properties as a result. So no offense to elf fans. ;) |
| AMGriffin04-10-07, 08:46 AM | Eh, good and evil are only philosophical concepts. What's good to one person is evil to another and vice versa. In reality though, regardless of the alignment of humans in general, human societies (most of them anyway) would be "good" if only based purely on the morals they preach, the actual peoples run the gamut though. I'd think it would be the same way with dwarves, elves, gnomes etc. etc. etc. If you want to go purely by the definitions of good and evil and law and chaos in the PHB... I'm thinking the typical human is going to be true netural. Just based on the way they were raised, with a slight lean towards good. I don't think all humans are good as good implies pure altruism, yet lots of humans (though not all) are willing to help their fellow man if they are in danger. Sure, humans have tendencies towards being power hungry and maybe even self-serving, to say that humans are innately good is erroneous. Yet, humans never would have made it this far if they weren't willing to help eachother. |
| chucky04-10-07, 08:48 AM | Here is the way i see it. Most dwarves are lawfull good. Most elves are chaotic good. Most humans are neutral. They live their lives doing what they want when they want to and do. And do what they "need" to do when its convienient to do it. Being neutral they can do just as much evil as they can do good. I consider anything that can do evil just because its convenient, which is exactly what a neutral person would do, to be evil. To be safe allways consider all neutral critters, aka humans, to be evil until they prove otherwise. |
| T_K04-10-07, 09:27 AM | Eh, good and evil are only philosophical concepts. What's good to one person is evil to another and vice versa. But remember this is D&D we're discussing. :D Seriously, when a Paladin looks at the ambiguous "evil/not evil" you mentioned, what does he see? Moral relativism breaks the rules, sadly. |
| Wrong04-10-07, 09:30 AM | Please, when you compare "human conceptions", keep in mind that these conceptions in the real world are very different between countries. Just compare these countries : USA, France, Russia and Denmark. They have fewer points in common than you think. |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 11:55 AM | Just compare these countries : USA, France, Russia and Denmark. They have fewer points in common than you think. I could not disagree with you more. I've been to 3 out of 4 of those places, and know people from all of them, and each time I've been amazed at just how much we have in common. What, specifically, are you referring to when you assert how different we are? There are certain taboos that almost every culture has observed since civilization got started - this speaks to some basic in-born sense of morality. Now, where this morality comes from is entirely a different debate, one that's probably not a good match for a D & D board. The point stands, however, that there is a common thread, at a very basic level, in most human cultures when it comes to morality. None of this really matters in a campaign setting though. I would say that human cultures in D & D are basically good. What would a truly neutral society look like anyway? Is that even possible? I imagine it would be one that culls parts of the society to keep things evened out, and is largely marxist in it's political philosophy. Right? --Trev |
| Argo04-10-07, 12:03 PM | Point is, we are not doing ourselves a justice unless the species is portrayed as myriad in mind as we are in appearance. Elves are elves, and orcs be orcs, but what makes us (and our fantasy versions of 'us') us is our verisimilitude. I agree with adgramaine! What makes humans humans is our quality or state of having the appearance of truth! No, but seriously, if you change "verisimilitude" to "potential for variation," the dude makes a solid point. Humans have Mother Theresa (LG), Charles Manson (CE) and everyone in between. |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 12:36 PM | I agree with adgramaine! What makes humans humans is our quality or state of having the appearance of truth! No, but seriously, if you change "verisimilitude" to "potential for variation," the dude makes a solid point. Humans have Mother Theresa (LG), Charles Manson (CE) and everyone in between. The problem I keep running into is trying to confine human behaviour and ethics into the simplistic classification of D&D alignments. Surely there are more axises (I don't have a clue how to plularize this as a statement of protest against math - Axii?) necessary to define morality than lawful/chaotic/good/evil. At the very least you'd need an axis of agency - how certain you are that your morals should and can be used to influence the world around. I imagine far more people in the world aggree with and idolize Mother Theresa than they do with Charles Manson (which surely points to some basic goodness in most of humanity - true neutrality would imply that an equal number of people find both of their actions equally okay, which would simply be grossly untrue.) However, very few people act so completely upon their moral foundation and make their morality their life's work. --Trev |
| AMGriffin04-10-07, 12:44 PM | There are certain taboos that almost every culture has observed since civilization got started - this speaks to some basic in-born sense of morality. Now, where this morality comes from is entirely a different debate, one that's probably not a good match for a D & D board. The point stands, however, that there is a common thread, at a very basic level, in most human cultures when it comes to morality. These "very basic morals" (which are along the lines of don't lie, kill, cheat, etc. etc.) were instituted many years ago to keep order in society, in fact...a large portion of morality is just that, a way to keep things orderly. None of this really matters in a campaign setting though. I would say that human cultures in D & D are basically good. What would a truly neutral society look like anyway? Is that even possible? I imagine it would be one that culls parts of the society to keep things evened out, and is largely marxist in it's political philosophy. Right? A Marxist society could just as easily be treated as "good" because of the fact it means nobody gets left behind and everyone is equal. The ability for a society to be kept together depends way moreso on order and control then being good or bad. Hell, if law and order weren't a requirement for a civilization anarchy would be way more plausible then it is. |
| Argo04-10-07, 12:52 PM | A Marxist society could just as easily be treated as "good" because ... everyone is equal. So, by definition, woudn't that be neutral? And because this equality is enforced by the state, it would be Lawful Neutral. |
| AMGriffin04-10-07, 01:01 PM | You left out the part of that, which was "nobody is left behind." meaning, nobody goes without food or water or a place to live etc. etc. It'd be (in theory) for the greater good. Besides, it's not like people need a gross amount of money to live fulfilling lives. |
| AMGriffin04-10-07, 01:03 PM | Hate to double post, but forgot to mention that the "goodness or evilness" of a society really are determined moreso by the values and such they teach, not so much how things are run. Otherwise it'd be impossible for both dwarves and elves to be "good". |
| Dragonteuthis04-10-07, 01:16 PM | However, very few people act so completely upon their moral foundation and make their morality their life's work. From everything I've read about the alignment system, it would seem that those people who do not act on any specific moral code would be neutral. Only people who are a cut above the norm, the kind who tend to get noticed, can actually obtain an alignment. Other people may think they're good, but if they don't act on those thoughts, then they clearly aren't. Someone who volunteers at a animal shelter or soup kitchen would be good. They're sacrificing (though not much), because of their belief system (generally, they have a high respect and sympathy for life). Someone who thinks, "I should probably volunteer there...maybe next month..." isn't good (precluding substituting other good acts, of course). Doesn't make him evil, either. He's neutral. He thinks he cares about his fellow humans, but he cares more about himself. I think the viewpoint that most humans are neutral in D&D seems to be fairly well justified. To the Original Postah: I tend to use a modified #1 when I run my campaigns. Many nations, each one leaning towards a different alignment (some nations towards the same alignment). I usually try to pin down their culture first, actually, then let that decide their alignment. I've never seen #2. |
| Ocom04-10-07, 01:17 PM | Personally, i usually don't. But I have my own issues. All depends on the setting. btw dwarves are not Good and elves are... just slow. |
| Shinryouga04-10-07, 01:42 PM | I see humanity, both in game and out, as it is listed "often neutral". People range all over the board, but only a few really hit those extremes, like Mother Teresa and Manson and such. My own wife? NG. Anyone who knows her agrees. She can't hardly play neutral characters, its just... outside of her ability to mimic, even in play. She's just good. Me, more of a neutral neutral, with chaotic and good leanings, but not enough to register. Greater good is law. Societies that propose greater good are almost always lawful. Letting harm come to someone now for the greater good later is maintaining societal order, not doing good. Doing good is doing good here and now, it can't be a step removed and a week later. I can donate to charity, and thats nice and all, but if im donating, I probably have money to spare. There is no real act of sacrifice on my part. But if I took time off of work, took the resultant pay cut, and helped build low income houses for free for a month, that would be good because of what it's costing me that I'm not getting recompensated for, besides knowing I did it. |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 02:39 PM | From everything I've read about the alignment system, it would seem that those people who do not act on any specific moral code would be neutral. Only people who are a cut above the norm, the kind who tend to get noticed, can actually obtain an alignment. Other people may think they're good, but if they don't act on those thoughts, then they clearly aren't. So you're saying that the only thing that matters are actions? Intention means nothing concerning alignment? That sounds well and good, but can we say that the makers of trampolines are evil then? Trampolines injure and kill many many children every year. As a matter of fact, seat belts do too. I think you'd aggree that it would be silly to say that these things are evil, or even bad. Conversely, what if I fire a gun, intending to kill a busload of babies, and miss? Have I not committed a crime? Surely intention counts for something when it comes to ethics. These "very basic morals" (which are along the lines of don't lie, kill, cheat, etc. etc.) were instituted many years ago to keep order in society, in fact...a large portion of morality is just that, a way to keep things orderly. But doesn't that prove that the majority of people want these things? If these guidelines only existed in dictatorial socities you could say that the will of one lawful person was being impressed upon a large neutral population. With the rise of democracy, however, it's pretty obvious that democratic socities like this way of doing things - hence a tendency towards law and even good (don't murder, cheat, steal, harm). * * * The arguements about humanity being neutral falls flat for me. Some disqualifyhumans from being "good" because being good requires an active committment to doing good. Wouldn't Neutrality require an active committment to neutrality? How would that play out? Redistributing wealth would just be the start (and you can make an arguement that evenly redistributing wealth is not a good thing for everyone). What about balancing populations between old and young? An active and committed endorsement of both law and anarchy? Most people here aren't saying humans deserve a neutral alignment, but an apathetic one. They are two very different things. --Trev |
| AMGriffin04-10-07, 03:27 PM | But doesn't that prove that the majority of people want these things? Not really, it proves that those in charge of original human socities realized that this needed to be around for there to be order in society. If these guidelines only existed in dictatorial socities you could say that the will of one lawful person was being impressed upon a large neutral population. I never said they did. I do however, know that not wanting to kill somebody doesn't make you good. It makes you not evil. With the rise of democracy, however, it's pretty obvious that democratic socities like this way of doing things - hence a tendency towards law and even good (don't murder, cheat, steal, harm). Yeah, but like I said before. Those rules are around so that society doesn't crumble apart. Saying not to murder and steal etc. etc. doesn't necessarily make you good anyway, it makes you not evil. I've never said that humans are more prone to good or evil, I believe that humans are born pretty impartial to both. Yes, but consider the reasons why people vote for this. It isn't necessarily illegal because it's "wrong" simply because it needs to be there to keep society in order. PS: Democracy isn't a fair tool. |
| The Ubbergeek04-10-07, 03:38 PM | Personally, i usually don't. But I have my own issues. All depends on the setting. btw dwarves are not Good and elves are... just slow. Dwarves are typicaly lawfull good traditionaly, as the elves are chaotic good. And being longer lived than humans, those races can be more patient and long-ranged. Planing. Why rush things when you can wait years, decades to ensure your victory? |
| JulesCARV04-10-07, 03:45 PM | To the OP: I've actually never had a campaign setting with humans (exclusively) portrayed as #2. Who would rape female orcs? --Trev It doesn't appear in WotC's official materials much, if at all, but it seems to be a fairly common way of portraying humans in homebrew settings. (although maybe not raping orcs, but generally behaving in a manner comparable with that) |
| Argo04-10-07, 04:26 PM | So you're saying that the only thing that matters are actions? Intention means nothing concerning alignment? That sounds well and good, but can we say that the makers of trampolines are evil then? Trampolines injure and kill many many children every year. As a matter of fact, seat belts do too. I think you'd aggree that it would be silly to say that these things are evil, or even bad. Conversely, what if I fire a gun, intending to kill a busload of babies, and miss? Have I not committed a crime? Surely intention counts for something when it comes to ethics. But you did pull the trigger. Missing doesn't factor in. You pointed a gun at a busload of children and fired. The previous example was about someone saying "Oh, I'll help people next week," every week forever. The difference here is between true intent and self-deception. The person who intends to kill children with a rocket launcher and misses is evil. The person who says they intend to help but never does anything is not good. But the baby-nonkiller is at least true to himself, while the nonhelper is just a sniveling self-deceiver. |
| The_Shaman04-10-07, 06:14 PM | I consider humans an "average" race, by and large. In fact, I have the idea that the designers specifically meant them to be a "measuring stick" to which the other races were - well, measured - in their typical alignments. Hence, the average humans are TN, and they are the majority of many settlements - they like order too much to be chaotic but skim the rules too much to be lawful, they're too selfish to actually be good but they're not that bad to be evil, either. |
| The Ubbergeek04-10-07, 09:13 PM | It doesn't appear in WotC's official materials much, if at all, but it seems to be a fairly common way of portraying humans in homebrew settings. (although maybe not raping orcs, but generally behaving in a manner comparable with that) There is some fantasy (and related genres) settings where orcs and humans have honest to god relationships, like Shadowrun and Warcraft. And Eberron - where orcs are not as evil destroyers much, but where orcs are more a race of nomadic barbarians. |
| JulesCARV04-10-07, 09:15 PM | Eberron orcs aren't really nomadic. They're actually more pastoral. They mostly farm rice, I think. |
| Zyrusticae04-10-07, 09:48 PM | There are certain taboos that almost every culture has observed since civilization got started - this speaks to some basic in-born sense of morality. Exactly what taboos do you speak of? If it's things like 'don't lie, cheat, steal, murder', etc., those are just basic things that everybody knows not to do or else they'll receive those very same things in return. In other words, to keep society (and the human species) afloat. Hell, native American society didn't have a concept of 'property', so taking something that was just lying there was hardly 'stealing'. Nobody friggin' cared. Hardly a 'universal' concept in that respect. I find any argument of an 'in-born' sense of morality to be wishy-washy. More often than not, it's more of an in-born sense of self-preservation than anything else. Killing off members of your own species would be a foolhardy thing to do (seriously, who does this without a good reason? It's pretty rare for it to be a positive thing for the species, though it does happen, it definitely doesn't work for humankind.) Oh, and there's one thing America and much of Europe doesn't share: their views on sexuality vs. violence. (America = Sex is bad, violence OK! Europe = Sex is ok, violence is BAD! Funny world we live in, eh?). Oh, and a bare pair of breasts doesn't shake everybody up the way it does in America. (Worst. Societal. Taboo. Ever!) |
| The_Shaman04-10-07, 09:58 PM | I'd put the whole Europe vs America - or any human group vs any human group in RL - on a very relative base, though. We concentrate on the differences in order to make ourselves (in groups, if not personally) unique, but we share a lot of concerns with every sane human being on Earth, and quite a few insane ones, too. As for cheating/killing/robbing being taboos, good grief, they are broken on an hourly basis in some big towns. Back to a somewhat more relevant topic: please don't equate some form of morality with being good. D&D alignment is flexible enough that nearly any alignment could allow for "some" forms of "morality". Hobgoblins probably have some form of moral code, too. |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 11:07 PM | I find any argument of an 'in-born' sense of morality to be wishy-washy. But then you make one. If it's things like 'don't lie, cheat, steal, murder', etc., those are just basic things that everybody knows not to do or else they'll receive those very same things in return. In other words, to keep society (and the human species) afloat. There is a very foolish notion that good acts cannot benefit the person doing them. Altruism has been observed in many species and young infants. Just becuase it's evolutionaraly adaptive doesn't mean it's not good. The idea that good acts have to be large, inconvenient, and not generally enjoyable leads to ridiculously narrow definitions of good. The difference here is between true intent and self-deception. The person who intends to kill children with a rocket launcher and misses is evil. The person who says they intend to help but never does anything is not good. But the baby-nonkiller is at least true to himself, while the nonhelper is just a sniveling self-deceiver. I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not able to completely divorce intention from ethics - they're both important - it's the reason why the man who fired a rocket launcher at a group of babies and missed is a worse person than someone who accidently hits a bushel of infants with his SCUD missle. (These poor babies are getting massacred in these metaphors - this is why babies shouldn't be grouped in bushels!) Finally, just for the record, volunteer work isn't the only way to be good, and someone who intends to volunteer, doesn't, and then works hard to be a loving person towards friends and family and help people through their job, in whatever way, could still definately be considered good. (Though maybe not in a D&D sort of way - we're really talking about two different things now. Human Morality in general and human morality as classified by D&D). --Trev |
| Trevhippy04-10-07, 11:14 PM | I've never said that humans are more prone to good or evil, I believe that humans are born pretty impartial to both. I disagree with this, but I do understand what you're saying. What I would say is that humans are much more prone to reject "evil" (lying, cheating, murder) on a societal level than they are to reject good (compassion, mercy, charity). PS: Democracy isn't a fair tool. I don't disagree, there is no perfect system of government, but you have to admit that they do change (some times face-meltingly slowly) to societal pressure. --Trev |
| strife_00104-10-07, 11:36 PM | Where do you live?? I have never seen the 'average' person do anything that would be labeled as "good" more along the lines of "self-serving". And your statment has more to do with Neutral in the regards of: "Helping people you want to help." Were "good" is: "Helping people that need help." So if you feel that you want to help someone who needs help, simply because you want to help everyone who needs help, it isn't a good act to help them??? Wouldn't the fact that you want to help them in the first place be good? |
| UnrelentingHoror04-11-07, 02:09 AM | A Marxist society could just as easily be treated as "good" because of the fact it means nobody gets left behind and everyone is equal. The ability for a society to be kept together depends way moreso on order and control then being good or bad. Hell, if law and order weren't a requirement for a civilization anarchy would be way more plausible then it is. Yeah, Marx preached about a Free and classless society where everyone has mostly equal power, resources, and no one is oppressed. Not the communism people think he did, in fact in response to their beliefs hes been quoted as saying "I am not a Marxist", Sounds like a chaotic good government to me:P It's actually how I picture elven society. But as far as the OP's question, I'm in with the "Humans are all over the place" camp. Addressing the "Humans are bad eeevil people who ruin everything": Yeah we do some pretty heinous stuff at times, but for the most part when people do that its because their "going with the flow" so to speak. I mean we tend to go with however society and the current circumstances take us, sometimes its the horrible societies everyone likes to bring up (pol pot and nazi germany), but more often its a government that has some crap parts but for the most part is there to serve it's purpose: manageing society, keeping order, and trying to do well by it's populace. This doesn't always work out but theres a whole lot of variables that get in the way of that. But hey maybe someday we'll have that happy-shiny utopian society we all want. :D And lastly to KillFrenzy: Yeah I can understand you were trying to be funny and all and I can respect that, I mean I enjoy me a good joke every once in awhile ;), But I hope this helps alleviate some gross generalisations you may have about certain people's subcultures. |
| Wrong04-11-07, 09:36 AM | I could not disagree with you more. I've been to 3 out of 4 of those places, and know people from all of them, and each time I've been amazed at just how much we have in common. What, specifically, are you referring to when you assert how different we are? There are certain taboos that almost every culture has observed since civilization got started - this speaks to some basic in-born sense of morality. Now, where this morality comes from is entirely a different debate, one that's probably not a good match for a D & D board. The point stands, however, that there is a common thread, at a very basic level, in most human cultures when it comes to morality. None of this really matters in a campaign setting though. I would say that human cultures in D & D are basically good. What would a truly neutral society look like anyway? Is that even possible? I imagine it would be one that culls parts of the society to keep things evened out, and is largely marxist in it's political philosophy. Right? --Trev Of course we have much in common, that's why we are agree to keep the more different cultures under submission. I was pointing differences like views about selling guns to population, sentence of death, views about religion and faith (two different things), talking (or not) about politic in family reunions, and all these things that make we can think that our allies are silly or stupid when they are just making their choice by following their own experiences and histories. I personnally have more in common with cats than with most of humanity ! ;) |
| Wrong04-11-07, 10:39 AM | I disagree with this, but I do understand what you're saying. What I would say is that humans are much more prone to reject "evil" (lying, cheating, murder) on a societal level than they are to reject good (compassion, mercy, charity). Lying, cheating, murder… Ah, the political life ! These are tools for power, the (vast ? very vast ?) majority of people who has power has used one of this tool. Cheating and murder are evil by nature, but there is minor cheating that can't be considered evil, just as with minor robbery. Lying as being an evil act is very "american". In european cultures, it's considered as a fact that there are also good lies, and a lot. And there are "social" lies, like when you say you are OK this morning after only having be able to sleep two hours the night before. [Spoiler] Santa claus is a lie ! It's time to burn parents ! This mother says that she is OK instead of telling about her deadly disease, Just to "protect" her child for a short time. Is it evil ? She gained power upon her child and use it to hide a sad truth. A little girl cry to put a fault on an innocent little boy. She is too young to realise that what she is doing is "evil", she just know that she don't want to be punished. She uses her power to continue to live normally. During the "Bill Clinton Affair", european people were rolling on the floor laughing while it was considered very seriously in the USA. It was considered in Europe as a classic social lie, and the shame was considered being on the side of the ones who used this… private affair to gain power. People are not prone to reject evil. Racism is very present everywhere, and where is the compassion, mercy or charity in racism ? Children always choose a victim in their group or class, it's the same with adults. But there are racists who save lives and normal innocently cruel children who become helpful people and never again reject anyone. Most people act as animals and find complicated justifications. The need to survive force humans to be in the larger possible group and then moderate their freedom of action. This majority never go beyond this lifestyle and can be considered neutral (D&D terminology), and they follow the laws to not end their life in prison and to be socially accepted. People who strictly follow the laws and believe in the essence of the law are very rare, as rare as the ones who fully reject it. Most people consider that killing a very rare animal to save a baby is a good act and that letting the baby die to preserve a unique biodiversity is evil. The fact is that killing this animal is a short term good act and a long term evil act, when letting the baby die is a short term evil act and a long term good act. The human will choose to save the baby and justify it, but the truth is that's how human react as an animal in this situation. I agree that there are people who embrace the "good" by choice and after long and deep refexion about the nature of "good", and the same on the side of the "evil", but most of humanity can be considered as having the same alignment as animals. |
| Trevhippy04-11-07, 03:43 PM | Wrong, You missed the most important part of the sentence you quoted - "on a societal" level." All the examples you listed are excellent examples of why one shouldn't get attached to certain behaviors as indicators of "evil", and they're all on a personal level. Most of things you spoke of don't break the law, and the things you did list that did (Clinton) are pefect examples of why it's silly to legislate that type of morality. People are not prone to reject evil. Racism is very present everywhere, and where is the compassion, mercy or charity in racism ? Racism is a learned behavior and has nothing to do with innate morality. Humans innately have a tendency to group things - people, ideas, etc. for ease of processing. This can be exploited in crummy ways, and racism is an excellent example of that. Children always choose a victim in their group or class, it's the same with adults. But there are racists who save lives and normal innocently cruel children who become helpful people and never again reject anyone. Morality isn't cut and dry - I was talking, in terms of general trends, about societies as a whole. Most people act as animals and find complicated justifications. That's a big generalization. People do, absolutely, have a lot in common with animals. But you shoot yourself in the foot - humans "find complicated justifcations". If they're just animals, what are they justifying and to who? --Trev |
| Zyrusticae04-11-07, 04:19 PM | But then you make one. Well, naturally, arguing against it is indeed making an argument on the subject. I should be avoiding it, but my argumentative nature precludes the idea of setting it aside. :P There is a very foolish notion that good acts cannot benefit the person doing them. Altruism has been observed in many species and young infants. Just becuase it's evolutionaraly adaptive doesn't mean it's not good. The idea that good acts have to be large, inconvenient, and not generally enjoyable leads to ridiculously narrow definitions of good. --Trev And I would agree. Either way, since we have no other sapient species on Earth with which to compare besides the human race, I have absolutely no idea how 'good' we would act with respect to other sapient races - and neither does anyone else. General trends, however, would seem to indicate that we, as a species, would be more concerned for our own than for the well-being of the other races (barring the ridiculously human-like base races, that is. Elves and gnomes may as well just be extraordinary humans). If we act 'good' only to our own species, is that really 'good' in D&D terms? Heh, when I think of it this way, I can't help but think of the D&D alignment system to be rather flawed and incomplete. It's really difficult to justify such prejudices on a good/neutral/evil axis. I suppose it could be seen as 'good, but flawed' from the perspective of a human. A non-human, naturally, would see it as 'selectively evil', or just plain evil. But character viewpoints don't factor into the D&D alignment system, so the DM has to play god and figure out just where they stand on the axis of good and evil. Oh, geeze. Someone else can figure this out for me. Zyrusticae out. |
| Wrong04-11-07, 07:36 PM | Racism is a learned behavior and has nothing to do with innate morality. Humans innately have a tendency to group things - people, ideas, etc. for ease of processing. This can be exploited in crummy ways, and racism is an excellent example of that.Racism is based on fear of the difference, it's not learned, it's an animal behavior, children have to learn to manage their fears and accept the differences to be civilized humans. First contacts between europeans and foreign cultures or skin colors are an example of the innate morality of humans and their tendency to group things : genocides or slavery. That's a big generalization. People do, absolutely, have a lot in common with animals. But you shoot yourself in the foot - humans "find complicated justifcations". If they're just animals, what are they justifying and to who?I was pointing the fact that most humans waste their intelligence to justify why they act like animals instead of developing it for the advancement of the human race. Animals don't have problem to act as animals because they are part of a system where their acts contribute to a balance. It's not the case of humans who want to have the freedom of acting like animals and benefit from the advancement gained through superior intellect. The result is an overpopulated planet, a minority of people that concentrate power over others and using it for its personal advancement. When there's a chance for humans to balance things, they never choose to radically change their way of life to promote science research, birth control, repartition of wealth to preserve the world peace or educating people. They choose to go back in time, close their eyes and hears, hope to forget what's going wrong in case it's enough to make it disappear, choose small community organization instead of world diplomacy, limit education and act against birth control to promote a family model that was just ok in the past because at least half of children were dying before 12 years. If humans were good by nature, they would be farther from extinction than now. |