I’d submit that for a society to prosper as the Drow have done in the Underdark it would have to be Lawful Neutral at worst, and probably Good. Why? Simple, the society must be Lawful simply to keep from being destroyed piece by piece. They need a strong united identity which is only possible under Lawful terms.
The Drow would have to raise their children to be Lawful, productive members of Drow society. Every Drow must work for the good of all Drow, lest all Drow are destroyed. In the Underdark, a strong social conscience, a willingness to be one’s brother’s keeper, is a survival trait. Drow clan X must be willing to risk itself against the Beholders who want to attack Drow clan Y, because X knows that Drow clan Y controls the cavern through which the Mind Flayers could attack X.
That is not to say Drow would be a joyful sunshine and kittens sort of race – they would be grim, determined people, without much time for jollity, but they would not, could not be Evil. Rather as Londoners during the Blitz, they have a strong sense of community, and knowledge that their friends and neighbors are their greatest strength.
Meanwhile Gold dragons, indeed any shiny dragons, are always Good. Yet Dragons, are solitary creatures who live for a thousand years or more. Dragons are almost unmatched in power, and have very little in terms of guidance during their lives, so why do half of them turn out to be Good? Solitary creatures are more likely to prosper from an Evil alignment, taking what they wish, when they wish and yielding only to those stronger than they. Couple this with a Dragon’s immense power and long life and it becomes hard to see why any Dragon would be good. At this point that things move from merely ‘unlikely’ to ‘silly.’ Not only are half of all Dragons Good, but one can identify their alignment on sight. Dragons are colour coded for your convenience. This Dragon has shiny metallic scales, “Cool, she’s Good.” This Dragon is dull green, “Die fiend!”
I am not arguing against the existence of Good Dragons or Evil Drow, but I cannot stomach the idea of assigning an entire race an alignment. Alignment is, of course, a blunt instrument, but even so it has been very poorly used in the core and supplementary materials. I suggest the complete repudiation off all alignments listed in the Monster Manuals and other sources, instead, if DMs assigned alignments based on proper reasoning then the game would be far more interesting.
Solidarity doesn't foster evil. It may be easier for evil to get along when alone, since the evil being doesn't have to worry about being backstabbed. Your argument makes some sense in real life. But this is D&D, so I must disagree.
If a society can be Evil, can we say it can be Chaotic too? I've only read the first Trilogy of Drizzt, and from what I gathered there, it's clear that the drow society is much more chaotic than the Medieval Japan: a young drow is raised not to serve the drow society, but to be the best one in himself. Of course, there is a few rules: a male must obey a female, there is a council of the 8 most powerful houses. But beside that, a drow obeys his/her Matron Mother because she is stronger, a Matron Mother obey another one because she is stronger, and if there is a way to backstab your superior, then go for it! You can't be more Chaotic!
As for Gold Dragons, I think it depends on your perception of a dragon. If you see them as barely more than a winged dinosaur with stomach ache, then I agree with you. Personally, I see them as powerful magical beings, with innate intelligence and ideals. They are solitary, but whenever they meet a friend, their reaction is Lawful Good.
Simple, the society must be Lawful simply to keep from being destroyed piece by piece. They need a strong united identity which is only possible under Lawful terms.
This is wrong. Drow society is not held together by some national identity or sense of community. Drow society prospers under domination and subjugation of those weaker than oneself. The strongest individual with the most power subjugates the drow society to their whims. How does this individual maintain power? They are chosen by the goddess of the drow. In D&D individuals are given real power (magic - arcane and divine) with which they can subjugate those without that power. If all the drow worship the same goddess and that goddess gives the most 'power' to one individual, that individual rules society. Not because everyone thinks that person should be the ruler of the Drow, but because they have the real power to dominate the rest of Drow society.
Gaining favor to try and become the one with the most power also supports the drow remaining a chaotic evil society. Backbiting and assassination are the keys to moving up the totem pole. Not only because this can remove the people in higher positions but because the goddess rewards this devious behavior and seeks to promote only the must devious and wicked of her followers. Thus, the most wicked and devious of individuals will gain the must favor of the drow goddess.
So, when drow raiding parties roam through the Underdark, how do they seem so well organized? Simple, they work together because they must for whoever is their master. The team that comes back to report failure will be tortured and/or killed for their failure. They are not working together out of loyalty to their own kind so much as they are working together out of fear of failing their masters.
Again, rebellion is kept to a minimum, not out of good governance, but out of the real world power (magic) that exists in D&D worlds.
No, it's not scientific or logical or related to anything in our modern belief system. And it's not s'pose to.
Even though most every PC Drow one encounters is Chaotic Good, Drow society is Evil. This is what we are told at any rate. This is completely counterintuitive. These creatures live and work in close proximity to many others – yet we are supposed to believe that each individual is only out for what they can get, and that many of them are willing to turn the screws on their fellows simply for the devilment of it? One has to ask how an Evil race came to dominate the Underdark, a place renowned for harshness and the ease with which death may be bought.
One very much has to question the validity of your thesis. Are you honestly arguing that in order to prosper a society has to be good? Nazi Germany was a very strong society, and if they had not over extended themselves it is likely they would have lasted quite a long time. I doubt that one could argue that Nazi Germany was good of even neutrally aligned on the good-evil axis. The alignment of a society is not an expression of how cohesive it is, it is a tool to examine their moral/ethical outlook. The drow are murderers, slavers, and worshippers of evil gods. This fits the fantasy archetype of evil to a tee. There is no reason an evil society could not be unified- look at the Baatezu, or again, in Rl, Nazi Germany.
The issue of a chaotic society is much more debatable.
I’d submit that for a society to prosper as the Drow have done in the Underdark it would have to be Lawful Neutral at worst, and probably Good. Why? Simple, the society must be Lawful simply to keep from being destroyed piece by piece. They need a strong united identity which is only possible under Lawful terms.
The Drow would have to raise their children to be Lawful, productive members of Drow society. Every Drow must work for the good of all Drow, lest all Drow are destroyed. In the Underdark, a strong social conscience, a willingness to be one’s brother’s keeper, is a survival trait. Drow clan X must be willing to risk itself against the Beholders who want to attack Drow clan Y, because X knows that Drow clan Y controls the cavern through which the Mind Flayers could attack X.
That is not to say Drow would be a joyful sunshine and kittens sort of race – they would be grim, determined people, without much time for jollity, but they would not, could not be Evil. Rather as Londoners during the Blitz, they have a strong sense of community, and knowledge that their friends and neighbors are their greatest strength.
You make several good points here, but as I re-read your essay I reach a conclusion: you are confusing the "lawful" and "good" parts of alignment. Once again, there is nothing about evil that makes it innately less unified. Personality cults have grown up around a number of real world individuals who can only be described as evil. Again I'll use the example of Nazism, personified by Adolph Hitler. Hitler had an enormous personal following amongst the Nazis, and had many supporters so fanatical that they would lend themselves to torture and even certain death before betraying him. The German army was highly organised and efficient, and presented a strong, united, cohesive front to the world whilst butchering millions of Jew, Gays, and others who did not fit Hitler's **** ideal. Evil? obviously. Lawful and United? certainly.
The larger issue with drow as a race is the Chaotic aspect of their alignment. you have given several examples of the problems with the chaotic evil archetypical being in society. Your examples of lack of co-operation certainly stem from the Chaotic aspect of dorw society. I'd be willing to accept a thesis that Chaotic societies do not make sense, especially in the case of the drow. However, I still think that more evidence would be needed to support even that claim. Just because a society is internally chaotic doesn't mean that it cannot present a united front to the world, especially when facing greater threats. Look at the American society of today. There is deep, deep division in society. Arguments of religion, gay rights, abortion, taxes, social security, ethical warfare, etc... Democrats and Republicans often have a hard time remaining in the same room together without incivility breaking out. Splinter groups such as the KKK advocate the disenfranchisement or even death of other groups within society. In many ways, America is a chaotic society. however, I doubt that the soldiers of Saddam saw anything divided in America. All they saw was a monolithic, unified superpower coming to kill them. Same goes for the Taliban. America is able to unite to deal with other forces that Americans see as a threat. Likewise, the Drow are be a fractured society, with clans jockeying for supreme power (just like the political parties of the US), but when the mind flayers come a-knockin', look out! The clans are able to present a united front, dispense with the threat, and move on, going back to their subterfuges against each other. Similar is the case of the Tanar'ri. They are constantly fighting each other, but if a Baatezu wanders in, the Tanar'ri stop, eliminate the intruder, and go back to their business. Therefore we see that Chaotic society is a perfectly viable concept.
Now to your dragons...
Meanwhile Gold dragons, indeed any shiny dragons, are always Good. Yet Dragons, are solitary creatures who live for a thousand years or more. Dragons are almost unmatched in power, and have very little in terms of guidance during their lives, so why do half of them turn out to be Good? Solitary creatures are more likely to prosper from an Evil alignment, taking what they wish, when they wish and yielding only to those stronger than they. Couple this with a Dragon’s immense power and long life and it becomes hard to see why any Dragon would be good. At this point that things move from merely ‘unlikely’ to ‘silly.’ Not only are half of all Dragons Good, but one can identify their alignment on sight. Dragons are colour coded for your convenience. This Dragon has shiny metallic scales, “Cool, she’s Good.” This Dragon is dull green, “Die fiend!”
Interesting, but flawed. Dragons are not natural creatures, they are fantasy archetypes. A Gold dragon is good because it was born that way, and it is in the dragon's nature to be good. A Red dragon is evil for the same reason. As silly as the idea of innate alignment may seem when comparing to the real world, we must always keep in mind that D&D relies on different laws, natural and philosophical, then the real world. In D&D, some things ARE good. In real life, it is largely a judgment call.
I am not arguing against the existence of Good Dragons or Evil Drow, but I cannot stomach the idea of assigning an entire race an alignment. Alignment is, of course, a blunt instrument, but even so it has been very poorly used in the core and supplementary materials. I suggest the complete repudiation off all alignments listed in the Monster Manuals and other sources, instead, if DMs assigned alignments based on proper reasoning then the game would be far more interesting.
This depends on your definition of proper reasoning.
I believe I see what you're saying, but I disagree with you. Here is why.On the drow: Of course, lawful societies probably have an advantage over the chaotic ones. That doesn't mean that the chaotic ones cannot survive. Do you not think that the drow clan X would recognize that drow clan Y will shield them from the mind flayers, and consequently would ally with them, or at least would refrain from attacking them? Of course. Being chaotic evil does not mean that everyone's intelligence score drops below 10.
You should read the Salvatore books on Drizz't if you haven't done so, they quite realistically show how a chaotic drow society would live.
Also: you say that the drow dominate the Underdark... that can be the case in one or some worlds, but doesn't need to be so. If you're being world-specific, please state the world you are referring to. In my home-brew, drow do not control anything beyond a very small realm.
By the definition of alignment in the PHB, good and evil are forces that drive the world. These are not philosophical matters to discuss. You consequently have some societies that are driven by evil. And drow are among those according to the core materials and many others. Plus, they are presented as a usually selfish race. Thus, they are chaotic evil.
As for dragons... why is it that living thousands of years drives them towards evil? I do not see your rationale behind that statement. On the contrary, I would say that living for thousands of years should drive you towards goodness, as you become wiser and you have time to reflect on life. As for living alone: again, I do not see why this should thrust you into evilness. For example: there are many Buddhist monks in Tibet (among other places) that spend years and even decades, along in a small cave, to meditate, and they are what would be considered very, very good persons according to the D&D definition of "good". But again, both your argument and my own are beside the point, since they are philosophical questions that are beyond what alignment is meant to be in D&D: the driving forces of the universe.
As for the color-coded dragons: that's a question of taste. From my standpoint, I find that having black pudding and green slime and other types of jello-like creatures is ridiculous, so these creatures simply do not exist in my home-brew world. However, I like the idea of the evil-aligned and good-aligned chromatic and metallic dragons; I find it brings an interesting flavor to the game.
I find that your argument should not stop at the drow and dragons. Goblins, orcs, kobolds... they're usually evil, and "color-coded" too, since you can recognize them right away. There are tons of creatures that can be recognized immediately and that have a usual (if not systematic) alignment.
Furthermore, it can be argued for any of these creatures that they should not be of their alignment, but rather of another. Why should orcs be evil? Have they not also lived in society, have they not seen that the good elves and humans have thrived in their good ways? Why should they not evolve to all become good too over the generations?
That last question can again be answered with the same answer I brought before: in the GAME of D&D as it was designed initially and as it is presented in the core material, alignment is not a question of philosophy, they are the driving forces of the universe, and consequently your usual orc will be evil, as your black dragon, and you usual gold dragon will be good.
In summary, if you don't like the idea of alignment, you can do away with it and have all creatures be of any alignment, in your home-brew world. But the game was not designed like that at the outset. I think for most players, alignment is something that adds flavor to the game, but others do not like it - which is fine. If that is your case, simply disregard alignment and tweak the rules accordingly. But you cannot hope that this concept will change, as it is one of the basic concepts the game was built on.
Sky
p.s.: I do not apply alignment in my home-brew exactly as it was designed, but I believe I understand the reason why it was set out like it was initially and my changes were made according to my personal preferences. That's the wonder about this game, so much leeway.
Pfew, a few bold statements in there Azezel
That's sort of the point mate - I realise alignment is a tricky subject and I said what I said hoping to get a reaction. And I did. Cool.
In my homebrew world all the Orcs are dead, but when they were alive they were not Evil. In my world Races, societies and even deities do not have a good-evil axis to their alignment. They have Lawful/Chaotic alignments and good/evil is applied only to individuals.
I do realise why good and evil are more than mere philosophical labels in the DnD world - but I stand by what I said, they have been mis-applied. The way I see it, just because the leaders (or the god of) a race/church/country have evil in their alignment, doesn't make the populous evil. If your evil spider goddess tells you to kill someone or die, then does the act of killing make you evil? The DMG states the rules for how acts committed under compulsion effects are treated vis a vis alignment. Just because no magic is involved doesn't mean there is not a compulsion effect involved. Deprived of free will, by blackmail or magic, one's actions do not have alignment repercussions (or so I recall, haven’t got the book with me, page number someone?)
A person might commit the most ghastly acts of evil to his enemies (or those he believes to be his enemies) but then he goes home, kisses his wife, tickles the cat, signs a direct debit for save the dragon turtles. Is he good or evil? Neither, he is neutral, or so I think. That is the Drow, in my book - they see the world as black and white (no darkvision pun intended). (Incidentally, I've never read a Salvatore book, I've tried though, oh how I have tried - but never managed to finish, alas).
I never really expected anyone to support me (I don't even support me on some points), especially since removing a goblin's 'evil inside' sticker means that your Paladin is actually a genocidal murderer - but I hope I've given you a little food for thought. And dragon's really should be of any alignment on an individual basis, not colour coded. That I will stand by to the end.
Personally I have always had a problem with the idea of Drow "society" being CE. Instead I run them as either NE or TN (yup TN, but then I hold more to the BOVD idea of evil than the PHB one).
Moving on to the specifics of Drow society. Drow are marked as Chaotic Evil, and that is a completely apt description. They are fickle, and care only for themselves. They backstab, and do not trust one another Drow as far as they could throw them. This may not seem like the basis of a strong society. In general, it wouldn't be. The Drow society is different from the average Chaotic Evil society, in that the Drow are smart. They know exactly how far to go before they suffer severe repercussions from their peers, and they know how to manipulate them.
Drow work for themselves, and more importantly, anything that might reflect on them. A Drow cares about himself more than anything else, but he also cares about his house, his city, and his race, because they reflect on him. Drow will band together and face the threat to their house, city, or race, but only because it would be better for each individual than the alternative. Of course there will be backstabbing and betrayal all the while, but never enough to actually endanger the cause. I would suggest reading WotSQ. It offers some interesting insights into Drow society.
As to creatures with innate alignments, there is not that much that can be said besides that they were born that way. (I am not including outsiders in this because, as I said, they are embodiments of ideals rather than mortals.) You agree that some people are born naturally good and altruistic? Creatures with innate alignments are like that, except all of them are like that.
You might like the way Eberron handles innate alignments. They are more like guidelines, so most red dragons will be evil, you might find one that is a truly good being, and sacrifices himself for a worthy cause.
Usually is defined in the glossary as more than 50% of Drow share this alignment. Unless we consider a setting where clerics are very common I would take it therefore that Drow society is far more geared towards neutral evil. In fact it may have more than a few influential Lawful evil members. Let us not forget as well the clergy of a chaotic evil deity have a choice of three alignments.
Dungeons and Dragons however does have a chaotic evil society to study--Orcs. Here we see more of what you were predicting, but even here rule by the strong causes a form of society to emerge.
I also believe that truly lawful societies and governments are in more trouble than chaotic ones. A truly lawful society has reams of bureaucrats and politics that could often prevent anything getting done or in deed seen by those in position until it if far too late.
You think that no evil society could survive? Take, for example, Medieval Japan: it was obviously a Lawful Evil society. And it not only survived, it prospered hundreds of years. Why do I say it is a Lawful Evil society? I think the Lawful side is obvious, they had a rigid code of honor. And I say it's Evil because life in itself had no importance. If two clans began a war, each member of the beaten clan had to commit ritual suicide, from the proud samurai to the innocent women and children.
That sounds more like Lawful Neutral to me. From my understanding, if a clan lost, they would want to commit ritual suicide. It’s not liked they were forced to do it. But then I suppose it comes down point of view, because those that were forced to commit suicide would view it as lawful evil, whilst those that accepted it might consider it lawful neutral.
To address your issue with the "shiny" dragons, according to the information I have available to me (a large collection of the D&D reference books) dragons, regardless of shininess, were created by either Bahaumut or Tiamat. Since those beings are gods, I’m sure they were able to dictate how the dragons would act when they created the race, as would be the reasoning for each race that has a creator god.
For this reason, the initial "Vault of the Drow" conception of the race (hunkered down, holed up, personally involved with a demon lord and often rather powerful individually) makes more sense to me than the "populous masters of the underdark" version currently in style. My problem, then, isn't with Drow alignment (which is perfect, given their background), but with how common they seem to be.
That said, Drow are cool, and, what the hey, this is fantasy - so why NOT have 'em poppin' up like weeds? They're YOUR Drow now, and it doesn't bother me none...
One can make the case that magic can be used to fight off just about the anything. Assuming Lolth runs around imbuing every other drow with serious cleric power, and half of those remaining study harder than any surface race you may be able to fend off an assault from a group of beholders. Then again beholders are CR13, and pack wide dispersions of rather devastating rays, including charm monster, disintegrate, and finger of death. Notice how the eye rays are supernatural abilities and therefore ignore the drow's SR. In fact the only reason I can see why beholders haven't taken over the world is the massive genocidal infighting. They take their self-murder further than the drow do, but then again they don't have as much of a society (and having not read lords of madness, I cannot comment on their reproductive cycle).
I'm not saying one cannot have a functional, lasting, chaotic evil society. Look at the orcs: they have the sort of "rule by might" society suggested for the drow, and have a god (or pantheon) encouraging the "natural" order on them, but they are far more reasonable. An orc's hate and malevolence can only drive it to kill so many weaker orcs before age catches up with it and it finds itself on the sharp part of someone else's axe. Further, if there is a crushing defeat on some front (say Clan Q is decimated by a gold dragon), give it three decades and the surviving great grand children are starting to learn how to swing an axe with an eye on vengeance (or you know, the same stuff than drove clan Q to fight the dragon in the first place). And just as final thought, orc women's only purpose in society is to produce the next generation of the horde. They don't have plots that can be gravely inconvenienced by the burden of pregnancy and child rearing, (which is not an easy job today with assorted medical and scientific advances). That is the problem the matriarchal societies in fantasy settings: a father can do a lot more while their children are very young than a mother can (baring surrogate maternal units; as popular as Salvatore is, I guess he has some way to explain it).
The conclusion is that I myself made is that drow society (assuming they age like surface elves) is not realistic. This being a fantasy game you can let that bother you as much or as little as your taste would indicate. A person's homebrew could attempt to fix this by giving drow a strong racial identity, shorter time between birth and adulthood (but keep the long life for lots of children per mother), which is especially effective if combined with some sort of high fertility (such as always giving birth to twins); or a homebrew could say "It may seem unlikely but this is how fate has set it up." After all, there are some rather unlikely events that are historic fact (who would have thought a small group of colonies could challenge the most powerful empire in the world and win, even with international aid, then set up a government that would not only not degenerate into committing the exact same offensives that let to the first rebellion, and stay that way long enough to change the rest of the world over the next 200 years. Not something I would normally do when designing a world's history.)
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT: Characters may be morally good, neutral or evil, and civilly lawful, neutral or chaotic. A characters’ alignment (morality and civility) should be geared toward existing in human(oid) society, where goodness and rule of law are preferred by not required. Some characters will join a militia, a guild or a temple, and those organizations will help guide alignments and regulate behaviors. Each society will differ somewhat, and non-humans more so than humans. Humanoids will not radiate good or evil, only creatures from the Inner (Ethereal) and Outer (Astral) Planes, or magical effects tied to those planes.
CIVILITY: Civility [range: +10 (lawful) to –10 (chaotic)] is the measure of value placed on law and order as dictated by whatever authority exists, versus a less structured system based on loose guidelines rather than laws. A positive civility means that the individual values structured law and order. A negative civility means that the individual values personal freedom within a set of loose guidelines.
Civilly Lawful (+10 to +4)
Civilly Neutral (+3 to -3)
Civilly Chaotic (-4 to -10)
MORALITY: Morality [range: +10 (good) to –10 (evil)] is the measure of value placed on the common good of society (city, state, race, religion or guild) as a whole, versus the value placed on the benefit to yourself. A positive morality means that you value the greater good over your own personal gain. A negative morality means that you value your own personal gain over the greater good.
Morally Good (+10 to +4)
Morally Neutral (+3 to -3)
Morally Evil (-4 to -10)
LAWFUL-GOOD: You believe that adherence to a strict set of rules is the best way to achieve the greatest common good, and that illegal actions will lead to chaos and evil. You are a member of a society, and its rules must be followed for the greater good. The lawful good characters that I have encountered were like law enforcement officers, opposing those that didn’t have the best interest of the community at mind, or did not follow the rules to get things done.
CHAOTIC-GOOD: You believe that rules get in the way to achieve the greatest common good, and that good people need to bend the rules as the situation requires. You are a member of a society, and you live within the intent of its guidelines. The chaotic good characters that I have encountered were like vigilantes, trying to make things better for everyone by working outside the rules. They usually tried to distance themselves from the rules mongers rather than oppose them.
LAWFUL-EVIL: You want things done your way, by your rules, to get things done right. Of course doing things right may not be the best for everyone, but it will benefit you. You are a leader of some part of society, and your rules should be followed for the greater good and especially your benefit. The lawful evil characters that I have encountered mostly envisioned themselves as benevolent dictators. However their so-called benevolence was only toward those that propped them up, and were ruthless to those that didn’t.
CHAOTIC-EVIL: You really don’t care what gets done, or how it gets done, as long as the end result benefits you. You are a powerful individual, and you live within the guidelines of society to make it work for your benefit. To heck with others. The chaotic evil characters that I have encountered were like rogues who sought to enrich themselves regardless of the consequences to others. They did not actively seek to destroy society, but no rules stood in the way of aggressively obtaining their objectives.
NEUTRALITY: Neutrality in regard to morality and civility does not imply that the character seeks to preserve a balance. Some characters are indifferent toward good and evil, law and chaos, or have values that fall somewhere in between the extremes. The neutral characters that I have encountered were usually indifferent toward the extremes, and easily blended in with all four corners.
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT: Characters may be morally good, neutral or evil, and civilly lawful, neutral or chaotic. A characters’ alignment (morality and civility) should be geared toward existing in human(oid) society, where goodness and rule of law are preferred by not required. Some characters will join a militia, a guild or a temple, and those organizations will help guide alignments and regulate behaviors. Each society will differ somewhat, and non-humans more so than humans. Humanoids will not radiate good or evil, only creatures from the Inner (Ethereal) and Outer (Astral) Planes, or magical effects tied to those planes.
CIVILITY: Civility [range: +10 (lawful) to –10 (chaotic)] is the measure of value placed on law and order as dictated by whatever authority exists, versus a less structured system based on loose guidelines rather than laws. A positive civility means that the individual values structured law and order. A negative civility means that the individual values personal freedom within a set of loose guidelines.
Civilly Lawful (+10 to +4)
Civilly Neutral (+3 to -3)
Civilly Chaotic (-4 to -10)
MORALITY: Morality [range: +10 (good) to –10 (evil)] is the measure of value placed on the common good of society (city, state, race, religion or guild) as a whole, versus the value placed on the benefit to yourself. A positive morality means that you value the greater good over your own personal gain. A negative morality means that you value your own personal gain over the greater good.
Morally Good (+10 to +4)
Morally Neutral (+3 to -3)
Morally Evil (-4 to -10)
LAWFUL-GOOD: You believe that adherence to a strict set of rules is the best way to achieve the greatest common good, and that illegal actions will lead to chaos and evil. You are a member of a society, and its rules must be followed for the greater good. The lawful good characters that I have encountered were like law enforcement officers, opposing those that didn’t have the best interest of the community at mind, or did not follow the rules to get things done.
CHAOTIC-GOOD: You believe that rules get in the way to achieve the greatest common good, and that good people need to bend the rules as the situation requires. You are a member of a society, and you live within the intent of its guidelines. The chaotic good characters that I have encountered were like vigilantes, trying to make things better for everyone by working outside the rules. They usually tried to distance themselves from the rules mongers rather than oppose them.
LAWFUL-EVIL: You want things done your way, by your rules, to get things done right. Of course doing things right may not be the best for everyone, but it will benefit you. You are a leader of some part of society, and your rules should be followed for the greater good and especially your benefit. The lawful evil characters that I have encountered mostly envisioned themselves as benevolent dictators. However their so-called benevolence was only toward those that propped them up, and were ruthless to those that didn’t.
CHAOTIC-EVIL: You really don’t care what gets done, or how it gets done, as long as the end result benefits you. You are a powerful individual, and you live within the guidelines of society to make it work for your benefit. To heck with others. The chaotic evil characters that I have encountered were like rogues who sought to enrich themselves regardless of the consequences to others. They did not actively seek to destroy society, but no rules stood in the way of aggressively obtaining their objectives.
NEUTRALITY: Neutrality in regard to morality and civility does not imply that the character seeks to preserve a balance. Some characters are indifferent toward good and evil, law and chaos, or have values that fall somewhere in between the extremes. The neutral characters that I have encountered were usually indifferent toward the extremes, and easily blended in with all four corners.
First being evil alignment wise is a pattern of behavior not a well made precise map of behavior. First and foremost an evil entity can do a good deed, just to be doing a good deed or for likely selfish reason, (choose any politician). A good person can kill and still be good and evil person can save a life and still be evil. While Drow in general or on individual basis can do good things but be overall selfish and evil. Being evil doesn't mean necessarily to do harm unto others in so much as it means that one looks out for ones own needs and desires first and foremost. Which would mean even a room full of evil Drow are not plotting to stab each other in the back, especially if there is no need. If there is nothing gained for Drow A to kill Drow B, then why do it?
Second being evil doesn't mean being a nihilist, sadist or masochist. It just means that avenues construed as such is more likely a potential option to engage. Drow doubt want to necessarily destroy the world, but rule it as a race if not individually, though the death of several thousand surface elves would certainly sweeten such a deal. Being evil could be as simple as using less ethical/moral means to acquire what one wants, no necessarily destroy maim and/or kill whatever is in the way. A Drow could as humans do simple make sure an opponent or rival falls out of favor with whatever higher power both are posturing to.
Third Drow specifically as most races, (FR and RW), have a sort of racial pride. Plus from an biolology standpoint things of certain likeness gather in groups of that likeness first as a matter of survival, especially against powerful predators. Herds of wildbeast gather in large numbers to protect the over group against a pride a lion though individuals do fall prey. Drow would first have gathered in groups for survival, and have thrived against enemies, (duegar, mindflayers, etc), and predators because of it. Drow believe in their general overall superiority over other races. Even the DD believes this, he fears for any non Drow to meet another Drow other than him and fears what harm Drow could bring to the surface. No one worries about duergar coming out of the ground or even mindflayers that much?!? It is possible for a large entity such a race, nation, and/or organization to be compatriots of an ideal even if it's its own self. Drow society as a whole is prideful in themselves and united in their one racial goal, revenge against the surface elves and the Seldarine. Despite individual differences, taste, affiliations, etc. Drow are likely to unite if a convenient chance to screw over, slaughter, or whatever a particular surface elf, community or group of such. Just as a large contingent of good surface elves are likely to gather if they stood a chance of stamping out a 'drow' threat.
Fourth being chaotic evil doesn't mean chaotic stupid, or stupid evil. As a general goal Drow have a revenge drive, (in FR anyway), and desire to place their superiority over all others. Trickling down of course a Drow nation, city-state, city, house, and individuals all desire power, wealth, prosperity etc. Which depending on whatever scale you talking about means it has to compete with something else. Granted it invariably comes back to struggle of some form and while Drow aren't above wholesale slaughter, they also appreciate a skillful graceful maneuver over brute force. If one house can cause financial ruin over another house and do it gracefully then they'll do so, just so they can 'flaunt' over it. Which goes back to not killing if one doesn't have to. If the enemy falls and becomes desperate for survival, then making the enemy a slave, vassal, etc not only add insult to injury but means acquiring a useful resource, whether fodder for future endeavors or information or whatever can be judged individually.
Never mind most Drow worship a deity that espouses chaos. Lloth believes in survival of the fittest after a fashion and believes that one grow stronger only by overcoming adversity. She believes that strict rigid structures, ideals whatever, breeds complacency which is weakness. She wants her followers to pursue their desire and acquire it however they can, if they can do it with guile over force then so be it. Just thrive.
Read Machiavelli, the man wrote the book on modern political maneuvering to acquire the desired goal, which is pretty evil when you think about it. He even essentially says that one doesn't have to keep one's word if one has acquired what they wished and it advantageous for you to not keep your word. Or that after coup be harsh with opposition but peaceable afterwards to win over the loyalty of general populace. While having a book on how to be a political despot seems lawful, running such a campaign doesn't have to be neither does ruling.
I think I'm done.
I don't really know if I had any other point with this post, except to remind myself that I should remember that point myself, once my players enter the Underdark this upcoming summer.
What I will say is that in my opinion no society could EVER be considered 'chaotic' and survive for more than a few years. The very concept of Chaos, even as it is described in the Player's Handbook, is diametrically opposed to the very concept of 'society.' I.E. There absolutely cannot BE a chaotic society -- the very concept is contradictory.
Not only that, but every description I have ever read of Drow society, for example, is lawful. It's certainly evil. But it's also lawful. Strict social castes, rigid systems of 'justice' and forced respect -- these are the codified scriptures that a LAWFUL -Evil- society would live under.
I think, though, that it's important that individuals be separated from individual society. In truth, 90% of Drow could be Chaotic in alignment while the society itself is Lawful. As a matter of fact, I'd say that perfectly describes Drow society. A Lawful Evil society full of Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil citizens.
But in the end, I think alignment is a ridiculous concept and I much prefer the NUMEROUS variant d20 systems, as well as non-d20 games, that don't use it.
"Everyone should be free from interference by the government so long as his actions harm no one other than himself." When his actions do harm someone else, that's when the government steps in and regulates. That's a reasonable philosophical basis for a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral society.
Chaotic Evil societies would simply be made of fundamentally selfish people, seeking power for themselves (but recognizing that they still have to obey those more powerful than themselves if they want to continue living). I've worked with a corporation or two that I'd judge to be basically chaotic evil (usually because the founder was crazed and in charge of everything. Carl Icahn comes to mind as that type of CEO, abusive but disorganized enough to engender a lot of chaos in the ranks beneath him (but still requiring that those below him do what he says and pursue the goals he sets for them). Barry Sternlicht of Starwood Capital Group fires people seemingly at random...and then frequently rehires them a few days later...and he screams at everyone; and his management style of contemptuously kicking down at those beneath you pervades the upper management. Starwood is nonetheless a complex, high functioning and wealthy business entity. (Granted, they need a few lawful types in there at lower levels to keep records for them, but that kind of meticulousness is not the overall corporate culture of the business.)
For Drow, I'd not imagine that kids grow up in loving homes. I don't know that much about their society (I think RA Salvatore is a bad writer, so never read his Forgotten Realms books), but I imagine that marriages are often ones of convenience and that children are not generally well treated by their parents (if they are raised by their parents at all--and at the very least absentee parents using nannies or slaves to raise the kids seems likely to me). Imagine a society run by greedy children who were largely mistreated as children.
By the way I also feel that the alignment system may not be the best tool in the game, but there are plenty of other threads on that. ;)
The drow society aligns itself with chaotic evil magical forces. This tends to be reflected in their society, but there's no particular reason that a drow cannot be lawful neutral or chaotic good or whatever. There is simply a "taint" to the drow civilization in the established settings, due to their general practices.
On a personal level a single drow who happens to be CE might befriend you, and show up to your house to have drinks and eat cheesecake every other Saturday. The most important thing about alignment is that when a person looks in the mirror, they never see a monster. However, in D&D that CE drow is going to show up on a detect evil spell because that's the kind of magical forces that they have aligned themselves with either through their actions or by directly manipulating strongly aligned magical power (such as that energy that comes from the positive or negative energy planes).
How well or poorly a government or looser societal structure is run has almost nothing to do with what kind of forces they align themselves with.
You think that no evil society could survive? Take, for example, Medieval Japan: ...
If two clans began a war, each member of the beaten clan had to commit ritual suicide, from the proud samurai to the innocent women and children.
Absolutely false. Wrong wrong wrong. Seppuku was, and is, extremely rare. On the battlefields of Japan, nobody started cutting their belly for losing. That is a story -- a myth -- created in the Tokugawa era, when the wars were over and the Samurai had become bureaucrats more than fighters. They turned Bushido into an insane ideal, similar to what happened to Chivalry as knights became an unnecessary artifact of the past.
In both cases, the upper-class fighters became increasingly concerned with the philosophy of fighting, and from that grew idealism that their forebears would have laughed at. In their day, the samurai were as likely as any other fighting men to surrender when outnumbered, flee when beaten, and occasionally take bribes in exchange for leaving the battlefield. The "honorable samurai", like the chivalrous knight, is a story, and nothing more.
And in any case, nobody EVER said that innocents had to commit suicide for losing. Rarely, part of a peace agreement was that the daimyo (the local lord) had to commit seppuku, which generally ended all resistance. The most famous one of these was the suicide of Hojo Ujimasa in 1590, as part of the surrender to Toyotomi Hideyoshi (the daimyo who unified medieval Japan).
Other than that, seppuku was rarely used by a samurai, generally to avoid capture by enemies while still showing that he did not fear a painful death.
So stereotypical Drow are mostly NE in vanilla D&D, meaning they will work together to serve (and preserve) their self-interest, but have no compunctions about stepping on their ally in times of peace.
As to whether Japanese society was evil or not - evil has to be conscious. If you believe in honor or duty, forcing or coercing someone into committing 'suicide' is not evil. Evil has to be malicious, malevolent and intentional.
Finally, I challenge you to find a chaotic society in RL that has prospered as well as the drow have.
On the other hand, Adam Smith's theories, when combined, essentially say "humankind is selfish, but under the right conditions will be forced to cooperate and serve the good of the community". Perhaps the drow have a similar system.
In any case, I think actually that the reason the Drow are able to dominate the Underdark is actually as a result of their chaotic evil alignment society. All Drow are raised to believe in looking out for themselves above all others, and to not be afraid to betray even a close friend if it will raise their position. This results in a much stronger version of natural selection, in which any person who isn't smart enough, strong enough, or skillful enough... is killed of. The obvious result of this is that the Drow that remain are inherently powerful beings. The level adjustment on an individual Drow is not that high, but I think it appropriate to the way their society works that any NPC Drow a party would encounter is likely, by default, to be a very high level character.
You're right, of course, that the alignment system is a blunt instrument. And assigning an alignment to a whole race is kind of silly. All these people talking about Japan and Nazi Germany are guilty of hyperbole. The word "evil" doesn't belong in a discussion of real life. Things aren't that simple.
But allow me to offer this for your consideration. Magic. I don't know of any good races in the Underdark at all. Why? Maybe the magic of the place is such that people who stay down there become evil. That's why a good, social race hasn't come to dominate it. The Drow rule it through superior magic.
Mind flayers must not reproduce very quickly, or they'd be ruling the whole world not just the Underdark. That goes for beholders, aboleths, and cloakers too. The Drow must have a serious numbers advantage. What's funny about the Drow having numerical superiority to these aberrations is that you'd think that they have adequate command of magic and biology to control their rate of reproduction. Mind flayer clone tanks. Beholder hive mothers popping out eggs like a candy dispenser.
From the fiction, there certainly does seem to be a number of good Drow (one wonders how they survive in that society). And Drow behavior seems pretty lawful. They have a strict social hierarchy. Their individuals are specialized. They even have a caste system based on gender. Even their ruthlessness appears to operate as part of a code.
Dragons are just comically unrealistic. Living for more than a 1000 years, having children in clutches, no natural predators, insignificant mortality. Even if the average dragon only had 10 children in their lifetimes (an improbably small number for a large reptile), they'd not only rule the world, but they'd actually consume the entire biosphere, and probably would have done so before humans evolved. And why are dragons always old? Especially assuming that young dragons are more active and curious than older ones, with 100 years of childhood, you'd think that little dragons would running all over the world.
As to their alignments, well, we know that even good dragons are unsocialable and greedy. It's like Dirty Harry or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. They're only considered "good" because they fight things that are bad. The things that they fight are REALLY BAD.
On the question of a "chaotic society not survivable" I point you in the direction of the Mongol Empire. It spanned the entirety of middle Asia, from China all the way to Moscow, better than the Romans. And yet the Mongols all rallied behind Ghenghis and his son and granfdson, not because they figured he was the best man philosophically, but because they were all in for the idea of killing and subjugating innocents for the rights to have more of the things that they craved. Clerly chaotic, and clearly evil. The Empire lasted at least as long as Ghenghis' Grandson, Khublai, who invited Marco Polo to see his wonders. After a few generations, it crumbled by outside forces, rebellions, and other factors. So yes, a chaotic society is not exactly the most cohesive, but it can be just as compelling. By your logic, the High Elves should be at least Neutral Good, if not Lawful, because of the "incapability of a chaotic society to withstand crumbling to pieces". For another example, this time on the Good/Evil axis, look at the Roman Empire. At times it could be considered Lawful Good, but most of the time it was simply out for number one, clearly Neutral at best, Evil at worst. Throw in nutty Emperors like Caligula, Nero and more and you have a society that seems to shift from Lawful Neutral to Chaotic Evil all on the whim of the successor and his ideals.
As others above have pointed it out: If you want Drow to be Lawful, or even Good in your home-brewed realm, do so... just don't expect other people to htink it should be that way for everyone. Use the "usually" critters as fodder for the "I was raised by others, thus I'm not so bad" principle. I played a wonderful Neutral Good Lizardman Druid... he became a mighty Geomancer, defending the forests that the elf-parents who fostered him to love. Or even look at Minotaurs... as they're "usually Chaotic Evil", it makes it possible for an individual to be anywhere from Lawful Evil to Lawful Good, provided the nurture factors outweigh the Nature...
In the home-brew realm my Players liked best, Drow were not even in the Underdark at all, as there was none to begin with. In fact, humans weren't even the dominant life-form... Dinosaurs and bizarre lizardfolk held sway over a vastly neutral world, in which Good had been battered by Evil, who was licking its wounds and preparing to finish its rival off. The few Drow who were there formed clans of their normal chaotic evil society, and proved very effective in their tasks, but only while they had a strong leader.
You think that no evil society could survive? Take, for example, Medieval Japan: it was obviously a Lawful Evil society. And it not only survived, it prospered hundreds of years. Why do I say it is a Lawful Evil society? I think the Lawful side is obvious, they had a rigid code of honor. And I say it's Evil because life in itself had no importance. If two clans began a war, each member of the beaten clan had to commit ritual suicide, from the proud samurai to the innocent women and children.
Wow, it’s rare to see such a one sided view of a culture. If you look at cultures from your own view you will see most as evil or if they reflect your own values you will see them as good.
America, and England have long histories of genocide on less advanced cultures. Let us not judge other cultures because we do not understand them. But back to the drow culture, I would agree they are a lawful evil culture based on the rule system of D&D, now in our world what would they be judged by whom their allies where just like we judge everyone. As long as they were murdering, oppressive, and on the "right side" they would be good. Get out of line and your an axis of evil that needs to be destroyed. Many examples of this type of good vs evil system are present.
Lolthian society exists because the creators of this intriguing and yet obviously self destructive society say it does. It's simple as that.
For those who have seen the new King Kong were hopefully wondering how those freaky isolated cannibalistic natives could have possible survived in those conditions with that society and those run down abandoned buildings for hundreds of thousands of years! It just doesn’t make sense, neither does Lolthian society, but hey there's something in us that is fascinated by all things evil. And in other people there's something that wants to make all things evil, chaotic good.
But then again that's just my
Don't take my word for it ;)Nazi Germany was a very strong society, and if they had not over extended themselves it is likely they would have lasted quite a long time. I doubt that one could argue that Nazi Germany was good of even neutrally aligned on the good-evil axis. The alignment of a society is not an expression of how cohesive it is, it is a tool to examine their moral/ethical outlook. The drow are murderers, slavers, and worshippers of evil gods. This fits the fantasy archetype of evil to a tee. There is no reason an evil society could not be unified- look at the Baatezu, or again, in Rl, Nazi Germany.
Doing my History A-Levels on Nazi Germany, I must say that on the whole it was hardly evil, yes there was Himmler and such who organised the genocide, and that is what you are talking about, but the everyday person was fighting against the world for a number of reasons including:
- reuniting Germany, considering Prussia was separated to allow Poland access to the sea (meaning about 14 million German people were now in non-German land)
- Versailles treaty, which basically blamed Germany for WWI (and without wanting to get into a lengthy discussion, it was the archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria who was assassinated, and this was technically done by the "good" side)
- The Wall Street Crash, which crippled all of Germany, and left the country without any means to work as a society.
that said...
Drow society is run by "houses" (think, mafia crime families) who are 'united' in controlling a Drow City, and by united I mean they are the total governors, however beyond this there is little to be held back, considering your example, the drow would more likely watch the outcome, maneuver their forces into position, and take down the beholder once it's inflicted the most damage to clan Y, and then take over, yes it's now in the threat of the mind flayers, but it would be holding whatever profits clan Y once had, and has expanded quite nicely (if it went to help, then clan Y may well accept until the beholder dies, then mass the soldier sent by clan X, and as it outnumbers them in home ground, it will then have taken a big swipe outta clan X, leaving it open for domination.
On the matter of Dragons, after living for so long and being so powerful there are 2 general branches they may take (i say general as, each dragon is to his own), they may either consider themselves most powerful, and do what they want - evil - or they believe themselves as "shepherds" guiding the lesser folk on their journeys and protected them.
Alignment is based on how the race/person deals with morals and values, and in real life comparison, this is someone understanding that stealing is wrong, but doing it anyway (evil) someone who is stealing only to feed himself/family etc, and possibly leaving w/e wealth he has as payment (neutral) and refusing to steal even if detrimental to his own health (good) ofc if someone didn’t know that stealing is wrong, then they are not applicable in this comparison because they didn’t have any defining comparison. Yes, alignment would have just as big a part in this, from an lawful evil person not stealing because its against his 'code', and a chaotic good person stealing because the outcome is for the 'greater good.'
"Chaotic society" in D&D is a phrase that interpreted in accordance to perspective.
In the most blatant perspective, it is anarchy. In another it could be a nomadic society. In yet another, it could be a more primitive society that the empire that the PCs hail from happen to label "chaotic" for being different (like the Native Americans). In all cases named, if you put yourself in the societies' standpoint, it can all actually be quite lawful. After living in anarchy for so long, you get used to methods of survival; eat here, watch out for them, etc. Same old, same old. Nothing surprising here.
In the nomadic society, moving is simply a way of life, as is living in a technologically inferior manner for the primitive one.
One must always be sure of the perspective the books in question are speaking from before coming to a conclusion.
Good and Evil, too, depend on perspective, as they are societal inventions, words to define a template by which people in a certain society are to be measured against.
In D&D, Good and Evil ARE driving forces in the Universe, but only in the sense that the respective gods that represent them combat in the heavens and whatnot to provide cosmic conflict. That should not be an excuse to cut moral and ethical debate from the game, seeing as it does lend an extra dimension. Without SOME moral or ethical conflict, the game would not be called a "roleplaying game" but an "interactive storytelling session".
D&D is what the players would make of it; there is nothing besides the rules and the roleplaying that can be considered "basic concept".
You think that no evil society could survive? Take, for example, Medieval Japan: it was obviously a Lawful Evil society. And it not only survived, it prospered hundreds of years. Why do I say it is a Lawful Evil society? I think the Lawful side is obvious, they had a rigid code of honor. And I say it's Evil because life in itself had no importance. If two clans began a war, each member of the beaten clan had to commit ritual suicide, from the proud samurai to the innocent women and children.
Sure, if by "Medieval Japan" you actually mean "some fictional country that I just made up".
I'd suggest reading up on actual Japanese history sometime, and not just going by the fantasies and stereotypes that are presented in popular media. The claim that life had no importance in feudal Japan or that its citizenry adhered to a "rigid code of honor" is, to be blunt, completely absurd.
Furthermore, I would be extremely reluctant when it comes to trying to apply the alignments of D&D to real-life people and societies....
Laterz.
Society has a huge part in perception of good and evil. But a dark elf brought up in an "evil" society might judge is action to murder or steal as not evil, but survival. He furthermore might perceive a party of "good" surface-dwellers as evil, because 1. They’re invading into his turf, 2. They might be mysterious, and people tend to fear/hate things that they have no knowledge of.
While I think it's obvious that Drow society is Evil, it is not obvious that it is Chaotic, and in fact, I don't think it is.
I would say that individual Drow can be (and are) Chaotic, but on the whole, they are mostly Lawful, as is their society.
The books (both source books and novels) talk up the supposed Chaos of the Drow because in print and theory, it looks and sounds cool. But in application it simply is not practical and would make for very loosely-written material with almost no way to guide a controlled plot. (Though personally, I would prefer some flat-out chaos to the rather stagnant offerings of the past few years.)
Meanwhile, Drow society is the pinnacle of Lawful Evil, with everybody right where they are supposed to be, doing exactly what they are supposed to do, for fear of repercussions. Though individual Drow may plot and scheme and think up chaotic things to do, they mostly won't do those things and will continue to be wonderfully Lawful in how they keep appointments, carry out their duties, maintain a working, stable civilization, and follow orders strictly and to the letter. And Wizards' various authors will continue to spoon-feed us the notion that they are a Chaotic society, much like Lucas' worst Star Wars moments, where he tells us the plot, rather than showing us the plot.
But D&D is not real life. In the D&D world, sometimes evil overcomes good. Sometimes evil armies come out victorious in a battle against good armies. Sometimes the bad guy is the lawful good paladin who hunts down and slays drow, and the good guy is the chaotic evil drow who stops him.
Not all evil characters hate life and are strangers to love. Nobody said an evil character wants to be lonely. Could it be that the same drow who hires an assassin to kill his competition goes out that night and celebrates his victory with his friends? Evil can simply be someone who is willing to do anything to further his self-interest. But who's to say that what he's interested in isn't a loving family to support him as he grows in power? It must be tiring to constantly be looking over your shoulder and having a safe-haven...family, friends, even a whole clan...is something that an evil character would need as much as a good character would.
As far as a chaotic society goes, who's to say that law can't be born of chaos? In a chaotic society there may be no law that states "Thou shalt not kill" but a character living in a chaotic evil society would most likely be aware that killing his competition will result in his own untimely demise by the competition's backers. If the goal of a chaotic evil character is to take care of himself, he may not have any qualms about killing someone thousands of miles from his homeland, but he may think twice about killing his neighbor for fear of retribution by his neighbor's friends and family. All the more reason to be loyal to friends and family.
I think a better question would be is it possible that an entire society can have an alignment apart from that of its citizens. Can a society composed entirely of chaotic evil drow be considered lawful neutral?
I, too, have issues with large, over-arching Chaotic societies. But Chaotic societies can obviously exist. For flavor, what I usually do for them is break them in a small "sub-societies" that argue with each other often. I rationalize this as a Chaotic ruler's strength of rule being weak, and thus groups break off to attempt to form their own vision of society...perpetuating the chaos.
In my campaigns, Lawful societies tend to be larger, have a more recognizable authority figure (everyone knows the King of the Dwarves' name, but who's the Gnomish Monarch this week...?), and a more...predictable set of rules or code of ethics.
That's my take on it. If you want Lawful Good Drow ruling the Underdark with a firm but loving hand, then have fun with it. And pardon my eye twitch.