# Forum > Comics > The Order of the Stick >  Wild Mass Guessing on Saving The World

## zenfrodo

Fairly new reader here. I'm loving OOTS! (I just wish the Giant would issue the print books as ebooks). As I've been reading and rereading, I've noticed something, a possible hint as to how the whole tangled mess is going to resolve itself.


*Spoiler: Let the Wild Mass Guessing Begin!*
Show



So far, we've been told that the gods need The Dark One (via Redcloak) to cooperate with the other pantheons so they can either destroy the Snarl for good or lock it permanently away, right?  That the Dark One is the fourth color, replacing the quiddity of the extinct Northern gods, right? The OOTS were not only trying to get to the last Gate to stop Xykon, but also for Durkon to attempt to convince the Dark One to play nice in the sandbox, right? Yet Redcloak decisively gave the whole "cooperate" idea a massive F.U. due to his own selfish reasons and the Dark One is convinced that destroying the world is the best option for the goblin, right? So everything's doomed, unless the OOTS can somehow destroy the last Gate and/or keep it safe from Xykon & Redcloak's plans, right? 

But the Dark One isn't the only new color in the crayon box.  The OOTS have unwittingly brought the true resolution to the last Gate.

Elan...and *Banjo*.

So. There used to be four pantheons/colors: yellow for the Norse gods, blue for the Twelve, and red for Marduk's Clan, with the Eastern gods and their "green quiddity" having been destroyed by the Snarl before the OOTS world was created. (#1141).  Yet green quiddity has not vanished -- *Banjo is the reborn green.*

Remember Therkla? Remember as she was dying and Elan was trying to use his singing/bard magic to help her overcome the poison? "Your music is green...just like me." (#593) That's an odd thing for a dying person to say, and it seems kinda out of nowhere. Strangely foreshadowing, in fact...

Consider: Banjo has power, and Elan is Banjo's true Believer & Priest. We saw the power when Banjo was introduced -- Banjo smited Roy, at Elan's request (#80) Yes, it was a puny strike. Yes, Roy didn't even notice it. _But it still happened,_ and Elan wasn't casting any bardic magic at the time. Banjo is even part of a pantheon, thanks to Giggles, the god of slapstick, and they have an entire island of believers (#561). Hell, the orcs believe strongly enough in Banjo to not only worship him, but to chase Elan & company when Elan tried to escape with their god.  AND they believed Elan immediately when he presented the orcs with Banjo's fellow god, Giggles, and _still_ believed in Banjo strongly enough to think him a rival to Giggles.

Even Thor and Odin seemed to take Banjo seriously as a possible god, remember? (#137)

 And Elan's faith in Banjo has not wavered. If anything, it's gotten stronger with Elan's learning the cure spells, to the point that he's using Banjo as a focus for those spells (#949).  As Elan's gotten stronger, so has Banjo. And Elan knows about storytelling and tropes, and how to use the power of stories to change things for the better.  

For that matter, Tarquin (Elan's dad) seemed awfully insistent that Elan was somehow the hero of the story, beyond all observational evidence otherwise --_ what if he was right?_ 

The more I think about it, the more I keep seeing hints pointing to this possible outcome. Banjo's stuck around longer than a silly running gag should...unless there's a real reason that he has. Thoughts?

----------


## Fyraltari

> I just wish the Giant would issue the print books as ebooks


They are available as PDFs here.




> the Dark One is convinced that destroying the world is the best option for the goblin, right?


No? The Dark One's plan is still to negotiate from a position of force. flipping the table and starting over is still just a consolation prize. As far as we know. We have very little to go on when it comes to Big Purple.




> But the Dark One isn't the only new color in the crayon box.  The OOTS have unwittingly brought the true resolution to the last Gate.
> 
> Elan...and *Banjo*.


You are far from the first one to suggest this. You don't know, but ever since the gods started playing an important role in the plot, a great many people started bringing up Banjo as a potential solution. this is unlikely chiefly because, well... he's a puppet.
The author, and the comic itself (though, mainly int he side-books) has clearly stated that the goblins' basic grievances are real and the plot has moved in the direction of the heroes (namely Roy and Durkon so far) recognizing that they themselves have played a part in them. To side-step this witha "gotcha" twist solution involving an inanimate object would be an odd resolution to say the least, thematically speaking. Beating the "bad guy" isn't enough, the problem that created them must be addressed.





> For that matter, Tarquin (Elan's dad) seemed awfully insistent that Elan was somehow the hero of the story, beyond all observational evidence otherwise --_ what if he was right?_


Tarquin is a deluded narcissist. The entire point of the last third of BritF is that he is thouroughly mistaken about pretty much everything.




> The more I think about it, the more I keep seeing hints pointing to this possible outcome. Banjo's stuck around longer than a silly running gag should...unless there's a real reason that he has. Thoughts?


To contribute to Thor's ritual, The Dark One would need to provide enough divine essence to fuel a 9th-level spell. Neither Banjo nor Elan have ever demonstrated anything close to that level of power.

----------


## Peelee

> Remember Therkla? Remember as she was dying and Elan was trying to use his singing/bard magic to help her overcome the poison? "Your music is green...just like me." (#593) That's an odd thing for a dying person to say, and it seems kinda out of nowhere.


Fyraltari addressed most of the things I wanted to (Banjo is a puppet, not a diety; Tarquin being wrong was the point; Banjo saving everything renders the villain's complaints, which are quite valid, entirely moot with no resolution at all), but this is still one thing that went unsaid. Therkla mentions Elan's music is green because Elan's music _is_ green. It has been since the very beginning. Magic effects have color in Stickworld, which is unrelated to divine theoscopic particles, and the author has said that such colors are personal choice on the casters' part:


> Every spellcaster has their own color; it is not based on their alignment or type of magic or anything. It is mostly a matter of choice or personality, though most clerics tend to clump into the same general color if they worship the same gods because they tend to choose the same colors and/or have similar personalities.


Elan's dweomer is blue. Elan's music, which is magical, is green. Simple as that. Therkla happened to note that his music was green, like she is, because she was reaching as hard as she could for any connection to him because of her personal issues. Sure, it could theoretically be foreshadowing, but I doubt it.

Also, I don't want to make it seem like we're tamping down on your theory here. It's just that, as Fyraltari mentioned, that theory has been tossed out a _lot_, and after many, many discussions, it's become pretty easy to consolidate the major points against it.  :Small Wink:

----------


## Jasdoif

> Also, I don't want to make it seem like we're tamping down on your theory here. It's just that, as Fyraltari mentioned, that theory has been tossed out a _lot_, and after many, many discussions, it's become pretty easy to consolidate the major points against it.


Yeah; I could definitely see Elan and Banjo pushing a plan over the finish line, but _being_ the plan in their own right would be quite a stretch.  If nothing else, the "get Redcloak onboard" idea is Thor's, and Thor's aware of Elan and Banjo.

----------


## SlashDash

To slightly add more to the point above - to assume that this would resolve without the Dark One's help is to miss the entire point of this story.

If we skip over the first book that was mostly rule jokes, everything since then had a clear and cut motif about how monsters are also "people" in a sense and the whole part about how we never think of them as beings who have lives or feelings is a terrible one.

From the constant look at how the goblins are treated to even the party killing a black dragon knowing that it was a teenager but never thought how horrible that would be for his mother.

This particular strip is one of the better examples

And you can probably find dozens of other examples.
So it's fair to assume that however the story ends, it will have something to do with some form of peace between the goblins and the pc races.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Also, I don't want to make it seem like we're tamping down on your theory here. It's just that, as Fyraltari mentioned, that theory has been tossed out a _lot_, and after many, many discussions, it's become pretty easy to consolidate the major points against it.


Pretty much. And _not_ bringing up Giggles even earns some good points with me (as well as exemption from being subjected to my SCREAMING FURY).

----------


## Fyraltari

Also, music/color theory is new.

----------


## Metastachydium

True! And there's no mention of the Greenhilts being vessels for dead gods either!

(Still, much to my frustration, I've just noticed that my initial skim of the OP was blissfully superficial. _[Enters SCREAMING FURY mode.]_ *DIE, GIGGLES, DIE!!!!*)

----------


## Synesthesy

> Also, music/color theory is new.


A none, none said it was just a Synesthesia. It's in my name :P did you know that in real world there is people that can see the music just as our friend half orc? :)

Ok, I'm going OT.

----------


## Fyraltari

> A none, none said it was just a Synesthesia. It's in my name :P did you know that in real world there is people that can see the music just as our friend half orc? :)
> 
> Ok, I'm going OT.


Yes, yes, I did. Just like I know there are people who cannot make pictures inside their mind (that's aphantasia, if you're curious).

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

But what if _Banjo_ gets the Crimson Mantle?! That would... not actually solve anything, but picturing Redcloak's face almost would make it worth it.

"I don't know which is worse: That a puppet is replacing me or that it turns out he actually was better for my people."

----------


## Metastachydium

> But what if _Banjo_ gets the Crimson Mantle?! That would... not actually solve anything, but picturing Redcloak's face almost would make it worth it.
> 
> "I don't know which is worse: That a puppet is replacing me or that it turns out he actually was better for my people."


How exactly that damn thing would transition from "puppet with delusions of godhood projected onto it" to "trusted 17th level celric of Big Purple" is kind of beyond me, you know.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That the Dark One is the fourth color, replacing the quiddity of the extinct Northern gods, right?


No, the Eastern (Greek-ish) deities who were consumed by the Snarl when it first manifested.  



> Elan...and *Banjo*.


Nope. Banjo's a puppet. 



> "Your music is green...just like me."


And Roy's magic sword does green stuff versus undead. I raised that, some years ago, here along the lines of 'maybe that meteorite shard in Roy's sword brought with it traces of Green quiddity' and received explanations of "nope" that are well supported. 



> For that matter, Tarquin (Elan's dad) seemed awfully insistent that Elan was somehow the hero of the story, beyond all observational evidence otherwise --_ what if he was right?_


 Given that Elan knows Tarquin is wrong, and that the story has shown Tarquin to be wrong ... nope.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> How exactly that damn thing would transition from "puppet with delusions of godhood projected onto it" to "trusted 17th level celric of Big Purple" is kind of beyond me, you know.


I'm liking that out of the entire murderer's row of reasons my silly suggestion is definitely not going to work, this is the one you picked out as the biggest problem. Which means that the intentional silliness is now making me grin even more at the thought of the Dark One communing with Banjo rubbing his chin and saying, "Look, I don't mind granting you levels, but I'm just not sure if I _trust_ you yet."

----------


## Peelee

> I'm liking that out of the entire murderer's row of reasons my silly suggestion is definitely not going to work, this is the one you picked out as the biggest problem.


Well, it's a magic item so it resizes to fit, Redcloak would indeed have quite the reaction to a puppet donning a major artifact that he has had for decades, and Banjo has had notably less genocidal effect on the goblin people than Redcloak has.

So your suggestion is pretty reasonable, all things considered.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Well, it's a magic item so it resizes to fit, Redcloak would indeed have quite the reaction to a puppet donning a major artifact that he has had for decades, and Banjo has had notably less genocidal effect on the goblin people than Redcloak has.
> 
> So your suggestion is pretty reasonable, all things considered.


 :Redcloak: "Why is a human our high priest now?"
 :Elan: "Oh, I'm not the high priest, I'm his puppeteer. Your high priest is Banjo."
 :Redcloak: "Our high priest is a puppet?"
 :Belkar: "Your old one is a hat!"

And then Belkar dies of a heretofore undetected case of Plot Illness. He's got it right in the plot.

Roll curtains, the end, no moral!

----------


## Peelee

> "Why is a human our high priest now?"
> "Oh, I'm not the high priest, I'm his puppeteer. Your high priest is Banjo."
> "Our high priest is a puppet?"
> "Your old one is a hat!"
> 
> And then Belkar dies of a heretofore undetected case of Plot Illness. He's got it right in the plot.
> 
> Roll curtains, the end, no moral!


Oh, you didn't say anything about him being a high priest. You'd said nothing would have changed. If the puppet is high priest then yeah I gotta alter my position.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Oh, you didn't say anything about him being a high priest. You'd said nothing would have changed. If the puppet is high priest then yeah I gotta alter my position.


I said it wouldn't solve anything, not that nothing would change.

Although that might have been premature of me. If the mantle resizes to fit Banjo, it does solve something if the question you wanted solved was "will an artifact resize to fit Elan's puppet-god?" Which is an odd question to ask, but you live your truth.

----------


## RobertaME

I too have given a lot of thought to whether or not the Clown Pantheon (Banjo and Giggles) could be the big goofy ending of the story arc. I'm still not (totally) convinced that it won't end that way. (or at very least that The Clown Pantheon won't have _some_ effect on the outcome of the story)

I get it... a lot of people think it's silly and stupid... but this is a comic about _self-aware D&D stick figures_... not a college thesis on moral relativism. I mean, Belkar has the skill Craft: Disturbing Mental Image, (among a few thousand other gags) so it's not like this would be out of the normal bounds of ridiculousness OotS has shown to date. :^Þ

Seriously though, if this thread is open to anyone's Wild Mass Guessing... I have one... and it's a game-changer.

*Spoiler: My Wild Guess*
Show


Ever sense "The Crayons of Time" (comic 273-277) everyone has known that the Snarl destroyed the Eastern (Greek) gods...

...but just how do we know this? The Order of the Scribble learned it somehow, right? The only beings that have existed through all the many worlds since the Snarl was created are the Western, Southern, and Northern gods... so they're the only ones in a position to have imparted this information once the Scribbles began looking for ways to stop the rifts. Thor (comic 1141) confirmed the story with Durkon and Minrah... so that's pretty much confirmation that the gods themselves are the source of the story...

...but how do the gods know that the Eastern gods were destroyed at all? They didn't even know about the world(s) inside the rifts, so they're obviously not all-knowing. Thor himself admits (comic 1141 again) that the Snarl is more real than any of the gods... or even all of them combined. Who's to say that the Snarl destroyed the Eastern gods?

Maybe it just pulled them inside itself... _and that's where they still are_.

I mean, if the gods can't even tell that there are entire worlds inside the rifts, what _else_ don't they know about the Snarl and the rifts? It's been uncounted (billions?) of years since the Snarl was created and the Eastern gods were attacked by it. The Crayon drawings of dead Eastern gods torn asunder is the only "proof" we have of their death... and that was a story passed down by word of mouth for three generations as told by Shojo in his old age... and we have no idea if he was being honest about it all or not. (he was, after all, Chaotic)

I think its entirely possible that the Eastern gods were _not_ destroyed by the Snarl, but _consumed_ by it... and thereby they became a part of the Snarl. It's also possible that they've been world-building on their own through the Snarl, but eventually their world(s) collide with the worlds that the other three pantheons create and the rifts are formed where the worlds "poke through". Alternately, the Eastern gods are still trying to figure out a way to escape the Snarl and the rifts are the manifestations of these attempts.

So how can the world be saved if the Dark One won't help the other pantheons do it? The OotS finds some way of reaching out to the Eastern gods trapped in the Snarl and the same four pantheons that created it unmake it.

OK, it's thin... but this is supposed to be Wild Mass Guessing, right? :^Þ

Thoughts and refinements welcome.

----------


## Peelee

> I too have given a lot of thought to whether or not the Clown Pantheon (Banjo and Giggles) could be the big goofy ending of the story arc. I'm still not (totally) convinced that it won't end that way. (or at very least that The Clown Pantheon won't have _some_ effect on the outcome of the story)
> 
> I get it... a lot of people think it's silly and stupid... but this is a comic about _self-aware D&D stick figures_... not a college thesis on moral relativism.


In light of this statement by the author:



> But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.


I cannot find a way to reconcile the "puppets will save the world" proposed ending with his stated purpose behind writing the story.

----------


## Crimsonmantle

Evidently Banjo and Giggles are lesser deities in the purple pantheon and their role in completing the ritual will be rewarded when orcs as well as goblinoids get their fair share of the world.
Including all of the puppies.

----------


## Metastachydium

For the record, I counted the damn orcs. There's some four dozen of them appearing on-panel. Assuming that the tribe numbers in the low hundreds seems generous to me. The "vague land spirit" with the caves and reefs has a higher chance of having attained godhood than stupid Giggles will have had years _after_ the conclusion of the entire _story_.

----------


## Peelee

> For the record, I counted the damn orcs. There's some four dozen of them appearing on-panel. Assuming that the tribe numbers in the low hundreds seems generous to me. The "vague land spirit" with the caves and reefs has a higher chance of having attained godhood than stupid Giggles will have had years _after_ the conclusion of the entire _story_.


Dont forget the time the orcs ate their god! Everyone knows eating a god grants you it's power.

----------


## Fyraltari

Honestly, I think the most lokely thing to have happened, is that Banjo worship lasted like a week before the something else caught the tribe's fancy and they started worshippong that.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Dont forget the time the orcs ate their god! Everyone knows eating a god grants you it's power.


Considering said god's power seemed to be limited to being delicious with cheese slices on a hamburger bun, it remains ambiguous if the orcs would want to claim that power or advertise the possibility.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Considering said god's power seemed to be limited to being delicious with cheese slices on a hamburger bun, it remains ambiguous if the orcs would want to claim that power or advertise the possibility.


Spoken like someone who's never looked a bull in the eye.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Spoken like someone who's never looked a bull in the eye.


If "being a bull" had helped it at all it wouldn't have disappeared coinciding with those hamburger buns, would it?

----------


## WanderingMist

> In light of this statement by the author:
> 
> I cannot find a way to reconcile the "puppets will save the world" proposed ending with his stated purpose behind writing the story.


For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I _heavily_ disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature. It can be valuable in its own right without needing to apply to anything in the real world. So often people look down on escapism as something cowardly.

_"Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using escape in this way the critics have chosen the wrong word, and, what is more, they are confusing, not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter."_

-J.R.R. Tolkien

----------


## Peelee

> For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I _heavily_ disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature.


So do I, but if we're discussing a work of fiction written by the Giant, then his opinion on it is pretty damned relevant.  :Small Wink:

----------


## Metastachydium

> Spoken like someone who's never looked a bull in the eye.


Now, now. Bullseyes are for us to hit them!

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I _heavily_ disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature. It can be valuable in its own right without needing to apply to anything in the real world.


 Indeed. RB's observation there is quite self serving.

----------


## WanderingMist

> So do I, but if we're discussing a work of fiction written by the Giant, then his opinion on it is pretty damned relevant. :smallwink:



A great (=P) man once said:
"I am the author! You are the audience! I _outrank_ you!" -Franz Liebkind

*Spoiler*
Show

I subscribe pretty firmly to "death of the author".

----------


## Peelee

> A great (=P) man once said:
> "I am the author! You are the audience! I _outrank_ you!" -Franz Liebkind
> 
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> I subscribe pretty firmly to "death of the author".


Regardless of one's thoughts on death of the author, if an author explicitly says he is writing a message into his story, and even says wnat that message is, and how he wishes to reinforce that message as best he can with the story, that assuming the ending of the story will undo the message he is trying to convey is probably not a bet with good odds.

----------


## The ShadowVerse

> For what it's worth, while I enjoy the comic, I _heavily_ disagree with the Giant about reasons for fantasy literature. It can be valuable in its own right without needing to apply to anything in the real world. So often people look down on escapism as something cowardly.


Or fantasy games. I enjoy the storyline and appreciate the parable about real world people, but it doesn't make for a fun gaming experience. For example, from now on is it a bad thing for the OotS party to kill random no-name goblins, now it's been established they are fighting for recognition and equality? I play ttrpgs to turn off my brain and encounter problems that _can_ be solved with violence, and read fantasy novels to indulge my sense of wonderment and power fantasies. 




> Regardless of one's thoughts on death of the author, if an author explicitly says he is writing a message into his story, and even says wnat that message is, and how he wishes to reinforce that message as best he can with the story, that assuming the ending of the story will undo the message he is trying to convey is probably not a bet with good odds.


That said, Peelee speaks wisdom, and *this* work of literature is likely going to have an ending more befitting of Aesop than Graham McNeill. Though I would be entertained to see the clown pantheon returning, I would only take odds for it being in service of comic relief.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> That said, Peelee speaks wisdom, and *this* work of literature is likely going to have an ending more befitting of Aesop than Graham McNeill. Though I would be entertained to see the clown pantheon returning, I would only take odds for it being in service of comic relief.


I could see one of the last panels, during the happy ending, showing Elan preaching to thousands of people in front of giant carnival puppets of Banjo and Giggles. And as he finishes his sermon, the frame zooms in on Banjo, and for one single panel, a teal spark crackles around the puppet. Then we cut to Belkar's grave, mourned by his best friend Redcloak for bringing him what he lacked all along: the spirit of sacrifice and the courage to put himself in front of redeemed Xykon to protect him from the MitD hypnotized by the water in the rifts reflecting Aphrodite's power after she was eaten (but not destroyed) by the Snarl. 

What? The thread is named "Mass Guessing" wasn't it? I can mass guess very effectively, if not accurately.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Then we cut to Belkar's grave, mourned by *his best friend* Redcloak


Surely, you meant _her uncle_ there?

----------


## littlebum2002

> To slightly add more to the point above - to assume that this would resolve without the Dark One's help is to miss the entire point of this story.
> 
> If we skip over the first book that was mostly rule jokes, everything since then had a clear and cut motif about how monsters are also "people" in a sense and the whole part about how we never think of them as beings who have lives or feelings is a terrible one.


You don't have to skip over the first book to find that motif. 

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

 :Roy: : Sure. Why did you think we were down here?
 :Belkar: : Well I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures just 'cause they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.

----------


## Metastachydium

> You don't have to skip over the first book to find that motif. 
> 
> https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html
> 
> : Sure. Why did you think we were down here?
> : Well I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures just 'cause they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.


_DCF_ Is still _DCF_ at the end of the day, nonetheless. Let's not forget Durkon killing a goblin with the power of his hatred!

----------


## littlebum2002

> _DCF_ Is still _DCF_ at the end of the day, nonetheless. Let's not forget Durkon killing a goblin with the power of his hatred!


They did that same joke much later, in DStP. The only difference was that the cleric took longer to do to the math than Durkon did.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0486.html

----------


## Snails

I know it was a joke, but methinks the Death of the Author perspective might not apply when the topic on hand is what the living author is going to write for the ending of the tale in the near future.

I narrowly agree the Giant, insofar as it is too common in the fantasy gaming genre to be sloppy and callous about whether these monsters are moral beings.  He is right to bring this up and offer his perspective.

That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it.  Odysseus, Beowulf, Roland, Arthur, Robin Hood, LotR, Star Wars, etc. are certainly not inherently poor choices to try to emulate in this respect.

----------


## Fyraltari

> That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it.  Odysseus, Beowulf, Roland, Arthur, Robin Hood, LotR, Star Wars, etc. are certainly not inherently poor choices to try to emulate in this respect.


This is a very confusing list of examples, I gotta say.

----------


## Jasdoif

> That said, there is a place in this world for stories (and games) featuring "demons" -- enemies we understand as being impossible or impractical to attempt to negotiate with, and there is no point in dwelling on it.


That's what the Giant said, too.


> Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
> 
> 
> When it comes to creatures that are magical, that come from other planes of existence, that are living embodiments of concepts, or are descendants of gods, I do not see the point in forbidding others in taking the creative license to give such creatures highly negative or positive traits as a category (with various levels of how common those traits are).
> 
> 
> I generally have a much more lenient position on explicitly magical beings like demons. Even though I still choose to treat them with human feelings and drives, I am less critical of works that don't. Simply because, as you say, there could be some utility in that, at least theoretically.

----------


## Snails

> This is a very confusing list of examples, I gotta say.


I thought about clarifying, but perhaps being a confusing mess makes the point better.   :Small Wink: 




> That's what the Giant said, too.


Yes and no.  I would include "orcs as used by Tolkien" as _effectively_ demons.  My belief is that the Giant and I may not be on the same page there (though I do not claim certainty about the details of Rich's thoughts).

My understanding is Tolkien himself was not entirely comfortable with own treatment of orcs.  Not that he necessarily regretted how he employed them in LotR, but that these corrupted once-elves being (apparently) far beyond the reach of redemption fit inelegantly within the larger moral framework Tolkien imagined for his world.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I thought about clarifying, but perhaps being a confusing mess makes the point better.


I really doubt "several of the examples of my point are actually not examples of it" make the point.





> My understanding is Tolkien himself was not entirely comfortable with own treatment of orcs.  Not that he necessarily regretted how he employed them in LotR, but that these corrupted once-elves being (apparently) far beyond the reach of redemption fit inelegantly within the larger moral framework Tolkien imagined for his world.


His own moral framework, rather. The orcs' origin wasn't the issue, the notion of a people being born doomed to Evil was.

As to the Giant's own views on "demons", as you put it:



> Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

----------


## littlebum2002

> As to the Giant's own views on "demons", as you put it:


This is a really interesting quote, I have never read it before. As passionate as he is about this issue, it makes me wonder if it will come into play in the story. Well, other than the good teenage orcs from DCF. I'm thinking maybe Qarr or one of the IFCC makes a face turn at the end of the story.

----------


## Tzardok

I do not think that quote is talking about demons. It says "creatures with only cosmetic differences". Demons aren't that. Demons are, even in the context of OOTS, embodiments of Evil.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I do not think that quote is talking about demons. It says "creatures with only cosmetic differences". Demons aren't that. Demons are, even in the context of OOTS, embodiments of Evil.


Yes, which is what Snails, the person I was replying to, means by "demons".

----------


## Metastachydium

> His own moral framework, rather. The orcs' origin wasn't the issue, the notion of a people being born doomed to Evil was.





> Yes, which is what Snails, the person I was replying to, means by "demons".


Agreed. Still, what do you think of Balrogs? Balrogs kind of _are_ demons, and they became irredeemably Evil by way of exercising their free will, khm, _poorly_.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Agreed. Still, what do you think of Balrogs? Balrogs kind of _are_ demons, and they became irredeemably Evil by way of exercising their free will, khm, _poorly_.


Balrogs (and Sauron and Morgoth) are literally demons, being fallen angelic beings. I don't really see how they matter to this discussion since, like you said, they chose the side of evil by themselves rather than being born into it.

The orcs are much more relevant to this discussion and, yeah, it's not great.

----------


## RobertaME

Ever since Peelee quoted that thread from back in 2012 that I'd never read, I spent days reading over the whole thing and all the threads linked from it. Very interesting reading.

I love OotS. It's not just funny jokes about D&D and gaming in general, (which as an "old-timer" in the TTRPG crowd I really appreciate) it's a well-constructed plot with drama, straight (non-gaming) humor, angst, joy, sorrow, and no little amount of thought-provoking commentary on gaming (and life) in general. I've been enjoying it for years and expect to continue until Mr. Burlew retires the strip.

However... (yes, I know... big praise followed by a caveat... predictable? Absolutely... but it works)

I have to take issue with his contention that assigning Alignments to monsters constitutes tacit racism, either on the part of the game designers or players that play it straight. It can only be seen that way if you see any creature with an INT score greater than 2 as equally capable of self-determination between right and wrong or between lawfulness and chaos. It's all too easy to see any mind capable of self-awareness as equally capable of making the same decisions as our own perspective... however it's actually the height of ego to assume that.

*Spoiler: Extra rambling, not necessary to my point*
Show

Humans in D&D have no "preassigned alignment propensity"... but in effect that just makes their default Alignment Neutral since the assumed average of all humans would be right about in the middle. So by assigning no alignment to humans, the game designers effectively did so anyway. In effect this gives a baseline against which to compare all other creatures in the system.

Let's examine this line of thought. If humans are effectively considered Neutral then all other measures of all other creatures are simply relative to human standards. From a meta point of view this alo works: the game designers created the Alignment system to place creatures in to determine their moral guideposts... but the extremes are those measured by the designers themselves who are all human. Therefore the entire scale is, and can only ever be, scaled relative to human standards.

Lets now examine the case subject of Goblins being "Usually Neutral Evil" in this light. That wording suggests that the "center point" of goblin morally is where _humans_ would consider to be Neutral Evil. Since only humans play the game, this is the only measure that matters. Yes, this implies that goblins are inherently more evil compared to humans... but that's only an issue if you consider goblins to be "humans with green skin and tusks", which I consider to be a non-starter for an argument. The very fact that their moral center is "Usually Neutral Evil" tells me that they in fact are NOT like humans in their culture, instincts, thoughts, etc. If they were, they wouldn't be Usually Neutral Evil to begin with. In essence, the various species of monsters in D&D are no different than aliens with the only difference being the lack of technology. (the old "interbreeding" argument saying that they must be close to humans in order for there to be half-orcs or half-elves is just silly... fictional creatures don't have DNA... they have _plot_... they don't have to obey ANY physical laws of our universe, even if they obey MOST of them)


Why are humans able to be anywhere on the Alignment spectrum? Because of our culture? Hardly. Some cultures throughout history have not only been objectively Lawful Evil, some could be considered Chaotic Evil... while others could be considered Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, etc. So while culture may _influence_ our Alignment, it doesn't _restrict_ it. Our instincts drive our behavior, even to the current day. We may call them "feelings", but they're just how our conscious minds interpret our instincts. Over time we develop moral guides based on how we are taught... but even someone born into a very egalitarian society with excellent education, strong moral upbringing, and all the advantages of living in a 1st World nation can be a psychopath... and someone from a brutal regime with no education, raised on the streets, and living in squalor can be a saint.

*Spoiler: Rambling example of a Neutral Evil species*
Show

Let's assume we meet an alien race of felidae descended from Pantherinae the same way we descended from Hominidae. They're intelligent enough to achieve space flight (which is how we meet them) and develop a (mostly) unified society, but they see all non-felidae species to be "prey" animals. Why? Because that's their instinct. Despite millions of years of evolution, they're still essentially slaves to emotion... their _instincts_. Instinct _can_ be overcome, but only through training. (i.e. education in more advanced creatures) But you first have to know that it _should_ be overcome to even _try_.

On meeting these technologically superior aliens, they don't even consider our "monkey gibbering" to be a "true language" and all our technology to be no more than simple tools, quickly conquer us, and start rounding up people into corrals for food processing. Would we as humans not consider them "Evil" for their inability to see another sapient species as worthy of more than just being a food source? Within their own society strength and cunning are equally as important as obedience to what's best for the species, so they have only a very loose set of "laws" that govern them. Now what if a few of them, their scientists, start making inroads into understanding our language and seeing that we are in fact "intelligent" and even go so far as to try and stop the wholesale slaughter of humans for food. Would we not consider those exceptions of their species to be "Good"?

Could we not then, in d20 terms, classify that entire species as "Usually Neutral Evil"? It's not simply their culture that makes them so, it's their instinctual outlook on overall morality as compared to human standards that makes them so. Even if you took a few of them in isolation and left them to their own devices they would still end up with the same general attitude... not because of opportunity or environment, but simply because they inherently see all other animals as prey... baked right into their DNA through millions of years of evolution.


Boiling all this down, why must one assume that all sapient species are equally capable of choosing Good or Evil (or Law vs Chaos) as humans? Cannot some species be driven by their instincts to be naturally more Good than the human norm? Say... a form of herbivoric Hominidae with pointed ears and smaller stature that, as a species, have less of a propensity toward violence and also less of a desire to enforce codified laws on everyone? Could not that species be classified as "Usually Chaotic Good"... not based on their culture... but on who they are as a _species_?

This really boils down to an argument of "Nature vs. Nurture", but in fiction there's no reason to apply human standards of that age-old argument to what are essentially alien species that are _not human_. Can't the human condition be explored equally as well through such a species description as by assuming they're just "vegetarian humans with pointy ears"? Is there anything inherently racist about such a setting? This is where I have to disagree with Mr. Burlew. Yes, he can feel free to craft his world however he sees fit... and in Stickworld goblins are just "green people with tusks"... and that's _perfectly fine_. My disagreement is his assertion that failing to see them this way is somehow "latent racism". It strikes far too close to the "moral panic" of D&D in the 80s, but in the opposite direction. It's the same argument that says video games make kids violent. (which is not as cut and dry as some would say based on this study www sciencedaily com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.htm sorry... can't post the actual link since I don't have enough posts here yet)

My major concern though is that, in an effort to use his art to do good in highlighting sociological issues in the real world, Mr. Burlew may _inadvertently_ damage the reputation of TTRPGs in general (and D&D in particular) by implying that they're inherently racist... even if that's not his intention. (which I'm pretty sure it isn't) The law of unintended consequences cannot be ignored here since OotS is one of the most well-known web-comics of our shared hobby. It would be a travesty for his effort to harm the very game that spawned it.

Anyway... back to my point from ten days ago...




> I cannot find a way to reconcile the "puppets will save the world" proposed ending with his stated purpose behind writing the story.


I don't seriously think so, either... which is why I said, "I'm still not (totally) convinced that it won't end that way." I'm _mostly_ convinced it won't end that way, but this comic has also taught me never to assume _anything_ is totally off the table! :^)

I do think that, at some point, the Clown Pantheon _may_ have some role yet to play in how it all plays out, even if they aren't part of "the big finish" itself. It just seems like so much work to build it all up and then do nothing with it. OotS has throughout its run focused on narrative as an intrinsic part of the universe. Tarquin even says (comic 821) that Bards "with their mastery of narrative structure" should be the most powerful people in existence. Narrative is _everything_ in Stickworld. It can essentially bend reality more powerfully than magic. It can make the impossible not only likely, but _inevitable_. Why would Banjo even still be a thing after nearly 20 years of comics if it wasn't relevant? The very laws of narrative structure all but _demand_ that they have some part to play that has yet to be revealed. Just what that is we will have to wait and see... but I can't see it all going _nowhere_ after all that's gone into it. (of course, I can be wrong... it's Mr. Burlew's comic after all... not mine... he's free to let things just drop if he feels like it and it's still going to be awesome!)

YMMV. :^)

PS: I guess nobody thought much of my own Wild Guessing... so it really can't be considered "Wild Mass Guessing" I guess. (since a guess of one can't hardly be considered "mass" anything) ::sigh:: Oh well. I gave it a shot!

----------


## Metastachydium

> Balrogs (and Sauron and Morgoth) are literally demons, being fallen angelic beings. I don't really see how they matter to this discussion since, like you said, they chose the side of evil by themselves rather than being born into it.


I know. I just like splitting hairs too much _not_ to point out that _LotR_ does belong to Snails list insofar as it contains a class of creatures that are irredeemably Evil and impossible to negotiate with, just not in the way Snails reasoned that it does.




> The orcs are much more relevant to this discussion and, yeah, it's not great.


Hence the bit with "agreed".




> I have to take issue with his contention that assigning Alignments to monsters constitutes tacit racism, either on the part of the game designers or players that play it straight. It can only be seen that way if you see any creature with an INT score greater than 2 as equally capable of self-determination between right and wrong or between lawfulness and chaos. It's all too easy to see any mind capable of self-awareness as equally capable of making the same decisions as our own perspective... however it's actually the height of ego to assume that.


It's the height of ego to assume that human sense of morality is not somehow superior?




> Lets now examine the case subject of Goblins being "Usually Neutral Evil" in this light. That wording suggests that the "center point" of goblin morally is where _humans_ would consider to be Neutral Evil. Since only humans play the game, this is the only measure that matters. Yes, this implies that goblins are inherently more evil compared to humans... but that's only an issue if you consider goblins to be "humans with green skin and tusks", which I consider to be a non-starter for an argument. The very fact that their moral center is "Usually Neutral Evil" tells me that they in fact are NOT like humans in their culture, instincts, thoughts, etc. If they were, they wouldn't be Usually Neutral Evil to begin with.


The idea of species-wide monocultures is stupid, and the argument that "the goblins are labeled as Neutral Evil because they are Neutral Evil, nothing to look at here" might not be as strong an argument as you'd seem to have it.




> Why are humans able to be anywhere on the Alignment spectrum? Because of our culture? Hardly. Some cultures throughout history have not only been objectively Lawful Evil, some could be considered Chaotic Evil... while others could be considered Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, etc.


Um, _what?_




> Let's assume we meet an alien race of felidae descended from Pantherinae the same way we descended from Hominidae.


(They either descend from an Earth-exclusive clade or they are spacefaring aliens from elsewhere. Just saying.)




> They're intelligent enough to achieve space flight (which is how we meet them) and develop a (mostly) unified society,


Not having a global species-wide monoculture is not a sign of impaired intelligence.




> but they see all non-felidae species to be "prey" animals. Why? Because that's their instinct. Despite millions of years of evolution, they're still essentially slaves to emotion... their _instincts_. Instinct _can_ be overcome, but only through training. (i.e. education in more advanced creatures) But you first have to know that it _should_ be overcome to even _try_.


Debatable.




> On meeting these technologically superior aliens, they don't even consider our "monkey gibbering" to be a "true language" and all our technology to be no more than simple tools, quickly conquer us, and start rounding up people into corrals for food processing. Would we as humans not consider them "Evil" for their inability to see another sapient species as worthy of more than just being a food source? Within their own society strength and cunning are equally as important as obedience to what's best for the species, so they have only a very loose set of "laws" that govern them. Now what if a few of them, their scientists, start making inroads into understanding our language and seeing that we are in fact "intelligent" and even go so far as to try and stop the wholesale slaughter of humans for food. Would we not consider those exceptions of their species to be "Good"?


This whole thought experiment is beside the point, since you are making it clear that your aliens don't recognize humans as sapient beings due to technological superiority and an inability to communicate. Insofar as that is the case, they are no more or no less Evil than you'd be if you started eating wasps or ants from your garden.

Fantasy humans and fantasy "born Evil" non-humans don't normally display a comparable gap in technological advancement and they are mutually aware of each other's sapience. This is true for all D&D settings that I know of as well, making your argument fall flat.




> Boiling all this down, why must one assume that all sapient species are equally capable of choosing Good or Evil (or Law vs Chaos) as humans?


That's difficult to maintain if we assume free will, i.e. moral agency.




> Cannot some species be driven by their instincts to be naturally more Good than the human norm? Say... a form of herbivoric


You think you're real funny, don't you?




> as a species


And here does the issue lie. Why would you imagine that humans are born with an instinctual, complex understanding of morality, while mostly _all_  other species (though, in the case of D&D, they are equally capable of grasping the same concepts and learning the same things  which is mechanically codified (no skills and few classes have race restrictions)) are constrained to a lesser state of moral agency and form monocultures on that basis?




> I do think that, at some point, the Clown Pantheon _may_ have some role yet to play in how it all plays out, even if they aren't part of "the big finish" itself. It just seems like so much work to build it all up


It's been an inconsequential running gag from the get-go; the most that's been achieved through it was the peaceful resolution of a side episode of a subarc that ultimately had no lasting impact on anything (the Azurites would have survived the few days it took Darth V to teleport the fleet away afterwards). I don't see that "so much work", honestly.




> Why would Banjo even still be a thing after nearly 20 years of comics if it wasn't relevant? The very laws of narrative structure all but _demand_ that they have some part to play that has yet to be revealed.


The Giant believes that the conservation of detail is overrated. I'll look up the quote for you.

----------


## Jasdoif

> The Giant believes that the conservation of detail is overrated. I'll look up the quote for you.


This one (referring to #571)?


> The lizardfolk details are world-building, not foreshadowing. It's the first clue that in part of this world (the part that the Oracle hails from), lizardfolk can be civilized businesspeople engaged in long-term contracts, as opposed to most D&D worlds where they run around in swamps with crude spears. It's a sneak peak at what the Western Continent will look like when we get there: half human, half reptilian. That's it.
> 
> The Oracle says, "Say hello to your boss for me," because it's small talk, and he's being friendly. Given that the Oracle is usually a jackass, this in turn reveals something about his personality: He is friendly and jovial to fellow _reptilians_, but not to mammals.
> 
> In other words, Conservation of Detail is overrated.

----------


## Metastachydium

> This one (referring to #571)?


Correct, of course & thank you!

----------


## Fyraltari

> I know. I just like splitting hairs too much _not_ to point out that _LotR_ does belong to Snails list insofar as it contains a class of creatures that are irredeemably Evil and impossible to negotiate with, just not in the way Snails reasoned that it does.


I mean, strictly speaking there's no reason to assume the Balrogs are irredeemable. Ossë was a fellow Maia in service to Morgoth, during which time he probably looked like an aquatic Balrog, but genuinely repented.

Tolkien toyed several times with the notion of a character who had sided with the Shadow redeeming themselves, most visibly Gollum and Grima, but even Sauron himself, briefly, with several characters stating their belief that it is never too late to do so, but always stopped shy of actually portraying it. Something of a shame, in my opinion.


Also, I can't muster the will to have this conversation _yet again_ but I wanted to say that I agree with the rest of your post.

----------


## hroþila

Funny thing about _Beowulf_, Grendel's mom retaliated against Hroðgar with remarkable restraint by following blood feud etiquette to the letter: Hroþgar had her son killed, she killed one (1) of his retainers. And then she left, leaving everyone else untouched. No need for further escalation.

Like read the poem, Zemeckis.

"But Hroþila, what about all the people Grendel had killed before that". What _about_ them

----------


## Metastachydium

> I mean, strictly speaking there's no reason to assume the Balrogs are irredeemable. Ossë was a fellow Maia in service to Morgoth, during which time he probably looked like an aquatic Balrog, but genuinely repented.


Fair enough.




> Tolkien toyed several times with the notion of a character who had sided with the Shadow redeeming themselves, most visibly Gollum and Grima, but even Sauron himself, briefly, with several characters stating their belief that it is never too late to do so, but always stopped shy of actually portraying it. Something of a shame, in my opinion.


That too. Although with Gollum, it was always going to be a stretch. He (a limited, mortal being) acquired the Ring (_the_ ultimate dark artifact of temptation of control) under somewhat traumatic circumstances and he spent most of his life _alone with it as it chewed on his mind_. And _then_ it abandoned him. That he succeeded in staying helpful to the heir of the Thief for as long as he did is pretty darn impressive in itself.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The Oracle says, "Say hello to your boss for me," because it's small talk, and he's being friendly. Given that the Oracle is usually a jackass, this in turn reveals something about his personality: He is friendly and jovial to fellow reptilians, but not to mammals.


 Put into GitPspeak, the Oracle is a racist and/or speciest, depending on which term feels more suitable to you. 
*Spoiler: why do I think that Tiamat is the Oracle's boss?*
Show

Taking the above thought further, I get the idea that Tiamat is his boss, which suggest to me that organizational culture may inform his attitudes ...

----------


## Metastachydium

> Put into GitPspeak, the Oracle is a racist and/or speciest, depending on which term feels more suitable to you.


Technically, confusing as it would be to term his attitude as such, he is a "classist" given that _Mammalia_ and _Reptilia_ are both classes.




> [SPOILER=why do I think that Tiamat is the Oracle's boss?]Taking the above thought further, I get the idea that Tiamat is his boss,


Um, we _know_ that he serves Tiamat; his visions explicitly come from her and he gives preferential treatment to her favoured. Further, I think it is safer to assume that while the two lizards likely work for her church as well, the boss he has greeted through them is just a scaly, mortal someone higher up within the organization rather than Tiamat herself.

----------


## gbaji

I don't agree with the overall thrust of RobertaME's argument (specifically as regarding The Giant's opinions on D&D racial alignments), but there are some points of merit there.




> It's the height of ego to assume that human sense of morality is not somehow superior?


Yes? Is this even a question? Of course it's egotistical for a human, a member of a species who have never actually encountered, much less communicated with, another sentient species, to assume that all sentient species that have ever existed or may ever exist must develop the exact same moral and ethical rules or even concepts that humans have.

It's literally the definition of ego: _a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance._. Just taken to a species level.





> The idea of species-wide monocultures is stupid, and the argument that "the goblins are labeled as Neutral Evil because they are Neutral Evil, nothing to look at here" might not be as strong an argument as you'd seem to have it.


It does not require a "monculture" to speculate about a sentient species that simply thinks differently than we do, and maybe has a completely different set of moral rules than we do. So that's a bit of a false deilmma there.

Now, to be fair (and to flip to the other side of the coin), the way D&D tends to present non-human species *is* about some sort of monoculture concept, and the species *are* in fact just "humans with different physical attributes". I happen to agree 100% with Rich on this subject. Every species in D&D is made up of individuals and each individual may exhibit any alignment they wish, just like humans. But that is because other species are more or less human in their basic structure. Which, again to be fair, is by design to make them easier to run/play in a game designed to be run and played by humans. So yeah, the racial alignments are problematic because of this.




> This whole thought experiment is beside the point, since you are making it clear that your aliens don't recognize humans as sapient beings due to technological superiority and an inability to communicate. Insofar as that is the case, they are no more or no less Evil than you'd be if you started eating wasps or ants from your garden.


Yeah. Poor example because it hinged on the whole "we don't recognize them as sentient". But what if they did? And they still didn't think anything of killing others, much less because it was somehow "morally wrong". Isn't that possible? I think it is.

Larry Niven's Kzin don't have any issue recognizing Humans as intelligent, and capable, and certainly sentient, but still hunt them for sport. Are they "evil"? By our moral standards (well, the D&D imposed alignment standards anyway), yes. And they're far less discriminating about it than the Predator species in the films, too. They'd certainly fall squarely into the "mostly Neutral Evil" camp. Over the series of stories and books, they only become more manageable as a species because Humans literally killed off all of the most aggressively violent of them over time. Which mostly left the smarter ones, who thought farther ahead and planned things out better. Whether they're still "not-evil" at that point, or just "smarter and better at hiding it while they bide their time", is left mostly unknown.

And other fantasy species would arguably be "far more evil" than they.




> And here does the issue lie. Why would you imagine that humans are born with an instinctual, complex understanding of morality, while mostly _all_  other species (though, in the case of D&D, they are equally capable of grasping the same concepts and learning the same things  which is mechanically codified (no skills and few classes have race restrictions)) are constrained to a lesser state of moral agency and form monocultures on that basis?


If we're talking about races in D&D? You have a point. If we're talking in general fiction? Not so much. The failing is to project human understanding and development of ethics and morals onto other species. I'm fairly certain the Zerg don't view things the way we do. Or Lovecrafts various elder races. Some species may simply be so "alien" that they think completely differently. Again. This is not an argument for D&D racial alignment. Quite the opposite. Just suggesting that your broad claims about human morality and how it may apply to other sentient species is not at all universal.

Honestly we can probably blame a lot of this on various game designers deciding to make more of these races playable. Once that happens, they have to be able to "fit" into human norms for morals/ethics/alignment. You can't have truely alien species, or "things" that just don't think like us, or behave like us, or whatever and actually be able to play them as characters. Well, you could, but you'd likely end up with some pretty serious in-party problems. And yeah, the moment you want to play a Kzin character in a game (yes, I've played the Ringworld RPG, go figure), magically we tend to handwave away the books, and they also become "not always evil" (although that game didn't have an alignment system, so there was no real problem anyway).

----------


## Metastachydium

> Yes? Is this even a question? Of course it's egotistical for a human, a member of a species who have never actually encountered, much less communicated with, another sentient species, to assume that all sentient species that have ever existed or may ever exist must develop the exact same moral and ethical rules or even concepts that humans have.
> 
> It's literally the definition of ego: _a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance._. Just taken to a species level.


Different realities experienced come with different concepts formed, I don't disagree with _that_. But the idea that it is arrogant to assume that it's not only humans that are capable of making moral choices and therefore assuming that with a few exceptions all others will be locked into a single, much less flexible outlook shows a greater humility? Yeah, no.




> It does not require a "monoculture" to speculate about a sentient species that simply thinks differently than we do, and maybe has a completely different set of moral rules than we do.


Of course. A human activist, a little flower creature and an obligate carnivore will probably never quite see eye to eye regarding the morality of veganism, and that's alright. The problem is, Roberta posited (or so I understood) that morality derives from instinctual drives and humans as a species somehow have an instinctual drive to practice their moral agency while all other species somehow don't share this capacity and therefore it is perfectly normal to assume that their morals are far more simplistic and hardly ever vary at all regardless of the size of a population.




> Yeah. Poor example because it hinged on the whole "we don't recognize them as sentient". But what if they did? And they still didn't think anything of killing others, much less because it was somehow "morally wrong". Isn't that possible? I think it is.
> 
> Larry Niven's Kzin don't have any issue recognizing Humans as intelligent, and capable, and certainly sentient, but still hunt them for sport. Are they "evil"? By our moral standards (well, the D&D imposed alignment standards anyway), yes. And they're far less discriminating about it than the Predator species in the films, too. They'd certainly fall squarely into the "mostly Neutral Evil" camp. Over the series of stories and books, they only become more manageable as a species because Humans literally killed off all of the most aggressively violent of them over time. Which mostly left the smarter ones, who thought farther ahead and planned things out better. Whether they're still "not-evil" at that point, or just "smarter and better at hiding it while they bide their time", is left mostly unknown.
> 
> And other fantasy species would arguably be "far more evil" than they.


"They are capable of recognizing that what they do is wanton and stupid but they will kill sapients for the evulz anyway unless genocided"? That makes them Always Stupid Evil by any sane metric and I can't quite see how that's a good thing.




> If we're talking about races in D&D? You have a point. If we're talking in general fiction? Not so much. The failing is to project human understanding and development of ethics and morals onto other species. I'm fairly certain the Zerg don't view things the way we do. Or Lovecrafts various elder races. Some species may simply be so "alien" that they think completely differently. Again. This is not an argument for D&D racial alignment. Quite the opposite. Just suggesting that your broad claims about human morality and how it may apply to other sentient species is not at all universal.
> 
> Honestly we can probably blame a lot of this on various game designers deciding to make more of these races playable. Once that happens, they have to be able to "fit" into human norms for morals/ethics/alignment. You can't have truely alien species, or "things" that just don't think like us, or behave like us, or whatever and actually be able to play them as characters. Well, you could, but you'd likely end up with some pretty serious in-party problems. And yeah, the moment you want to play a Kzin character in a game (yes, I've played the Ringworld RPG, go figure), magically we tend to handwave away the books, and they also become "not always evil" (although that game didn't have an alignment system, so there was no real problem anyway).


Well, sci-fi tends to be even worse than fantasy in this regard; in place of "the Elven Forest Realm" monocultures you'll usually get the good old Planet of Hats and I refuse to view that as a good thing. At best, it's lazy writing with weird implications and in any medium where moral/ethical categories are factual realities (e.g. cosmic principles or the like)

As for Blue and Orange Morality, it's an interesting concept in theory, but in my experience, it tends to go one of two ways:
1. it's either a cop-out; we never get anything remotely resembling an insight into its workings because it's SO eldritch; 
2. or it's a lame excuse; if we _do_ get said insight, the explanation generally ends up unsatisfactory, silly or outright stupid. No, "but it kills and eats babies cackling like a maniac because it has a TOTALLY different moral system where it is the best thing ever" is not deep, nor does it make a lick of sense.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Technically, confusing as it would be to term his attitude as such, he is a "classist" given that _Mammalia_ and _Reptilia_ are both classes.


 Your taxonomic note is consumed with approval, and a wry grin. In D&D-speak 'races' of various 'humanoids' that include kobolds,  lizardfolk, humans, half elves, etc, we do not see adherence to the orthodox taxonomy which you refer to.   



> Um, we _know_ that he serves Tiamat; his visions explicitly come from her and he gives preferential treatment to her favoured. Further, I think it is safer to assume that while the two lizards likely work for her church as well, the boss he has greeted through them is just a scaly, mortal someone higher up within the organization rather than Tiamat herself.


OK.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Iwe do not see adherence to the orthodox taxonomy


_[Gasp.]_ HERESY!

----------


## Tzardok

If we don't follow an orthodox taxonomy, are we at least following a catholic taxonomy?  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Peelee

*The Mod on the Silver Mountain: let's move away from religious jokes.*

----------


## gbaji

> Different realities experienced come with different concepts formed, I don't disagree with _that_. But the idea that it is arrogant to assume that it's not only humans that are capable of making moral choices and therefore assuming that with a few exceptions all others will be locked into a single, much less flexible outlook shows a greater humility? Yeah, no.


It is egotistical (Let's stick to the original term) to assume that all other's must view things the same way we do. Obviously, other species *can* view things through the same moral lens we do (and probably should, if we're going to play members of those species in a RPG). But it's also possible that some other species may *not* do so. Right? I'm merely pointing out that it is possible and therefore should not be automaticaly rejected as a possiblity out of hand.

And it is absolutely silly to declare any depiction of such a species in such a way as somehow "racist" or "speciest". "Different than", is not the same as "less than". And yeah, some authors pull this off welll. Others... not so much. And again, where I agree with Rich completely is that, historically, how various D&D editions/sources have handled this with various races in the game in terms of "racial alignment" has been awful.




> Of course. A human activist, a little flower creature and an obligate carnivore will probably never quite see eye to eye regarding the morality of veganism, and that's alright. The problem is, Roberta posited (or so I understood) that morality derives from instinctual drives and *humans as a species somehow have an instinctual drive to practice their moral agency while all other species somehow don't share this capacity* and therefore it is perfectly normal to assume that their morals are far more simplistic and hardly ever vary at all regardless of the size of a population.


The bolded statement is wrong. Those other species absolutely have the same capacity. But it's the same capacity to "practice *their moral agency*". The key concept is that "their" moral agency may be different than human moral agency.

I'm not saying that their moral agency is "more simplistic", nor that they are capable of variation. That's an assumption you are making, not me. I'm merely saying that the "center of their axis" on some things may be in a different location than it is for humans. Unfortunately, many D&D writers have made this assumption (that it must be "more simplistic") as well, and that's presumably what Rich is talking about. But that does not need to be the case.





> "They are capable of recognizing that what they do is *wanton and stupid* but they will kill sapients for the evulz anyway unless genocided"? That makes them Always Stupid Evil by any sane metric and I can't quite see how that's a good thing.


Those are your words. They don't think what they are doing is "wanton and stupid" at all. That's the point you aren't getting. You are imposing your own moral judgement on another species and how they think. Can you consider the possibility that some other species might view our morality just as "wanton and stupid" as we may view theirs?

I think you're also mixing up "what works for humans" and assuming that's the only method that can work. But evolution only cares about success, not moral philosophy. Niven's Kzin were quite successful as a species. They had managed to advance technologically, and had conquered a number of other species prior to Humans encountering them (and were arguably more advanced than humans at the point of first contact). Humans actually had re-learn how to be violent in order to fight them successfully (it's a long story).

The point is that it's incredibly self-centered to just assume that our way is "the right way" and that no species can possibly be successful without adopting our way of doing things. Yes, it's probably a good thing to view other species in a RPG as "humans with different skin", but in the broader fiction world? Absolutely not necessary or realistic.





> As for Blue and Orange Morality, it's an interesting concept in theory, but in my experience, it tends to go one of two ways:
> 1. it's either a cop-out; we never get anything remotely resembling an insight into its workings because it's SO eldritch; 
> 2. or it's a lame excuse; if we _do_ get said insight, the explanation generally ends up unsatisfactory, silly or outright stupid. No, "but it kills and eats babies cackling like a maniac because it has a TOTALLY different moral system where it is the best thing ever" is not deep, nor does it make a lick of sense.


Eh. Or we're taking it to a bit of an extreme and losing sight of things along the way. "eating babies while cackling maniacally" is a bit extreme. How about something more simple like "doesn't view killing others to advance" to be wrong? Or, "burns people alive to ensure success on a venture". We could consider some of these things cultural though, which can be problematic. But what about physical, or genetic differences which could lead to different moral outcomes? We might consider a species in which children are born in litters, and each of them tries to devour the others, with the last one standing being the only to survive? How might this species evolve? Might members of this species consider killing (and eating) others to be the "morally correct" way to gain position and power (and perhaps the only way to survive themselves)? Perhaps they breed prodgiously, and there's just a constant stream of new "people" coming along, and you either eat or be eaten.

Why not? Why not consider a race (Niven was pretty good at this actually) like the Thrintun who had natural telepathic abilities to control other creatures (any who didn't have the power). They would naturally evolve to assume others are just there to be used to do things for them. They might command others to pick things up in the same way you would command your own arm and hand. And think nothing of any sort of moral implication for using others in this way. Were they "evil"? By our standards (and a D&D type alignment system), absolutely. Did they consider themselves to be so? Nope. They were just using their abilities naturally. And no, they knew the other species were sentient and intelligent (in fact, they counted on it), but that didn't matter to them because they had the power and these other species did not. So they used it to empower themselves and take over the whole galaxy (well, until things went horribly badly for them, but that's a whole story). Were there also variations within that species? Absolutely. Some of them actually cared about their slaves. But that's what passed for "good" in their society, which I suspect would not fit so welll into "good" on a human based alignment scale.

Once you step outside of the "aliens are just humans with prostetic foreheads" thinking, it honestly becomes a bit sillly to think that all (or even  most) real "different" species would think the same way humans do. It's actually lazy writing (to me anyway) that so many authors do write other species this way. 

So yeay. Potayto, potahto.

----------


## Metastachydium

> It is egotistical (Let's stick to the original term)


THe original term was "the height of ego"; I think _arrogance_ captures 'an exagerrated sense of self-importance quite well' (as per the Merriam-Webster), but given that you follow with




> to assume that all other's must view things the same way we do.


I think we understand the phrase preety much in the same vein.




> Obviously, other species *can* view things through the same moral lens we do (and probably should, if we're going to play members of those species in a RPG). But it's also possible that some other species may *not* do so. Right? I'm merely pointing out that it is possible and therefore should not be automaticaly rejected as a possiblity out of hand.


And I don't! V. my previous example with the difference between the perspective of an obligate carnivore, a little flower person and a herbivore(-by-choice) with regard to the morality of eating or not eating meat. I'm also extremely chill with the D&D (!) notion of lizardfolks eating their own dead and the bodies of their fallen enemies, regardless of sapience. I could likewise see how the philosophical tenet that procreation is abhorrent might appeal more to specimens of an effectively immortal species thatn to those of another who only live for five odd years on average. And so on, and so forth.




> And it is absolutely silly to declare any depiction of such a species in such a way as somehow "racist" or "speciest". "Different than", is not the same as "less than". And yeah, some authors pull this off welll. Others... not so much. And again, where I agree with Rich completely is that, historically, how various D&D editions/sources have handled this with various races in the game in terms of "racial alignment" has been awful.
> 
> The bolded statement is wrong. Those other species absolutely have the same capacity. But it's the same capacity to "practice *their moral agency*". The key concept is that "their" moral agency may be different than human moral agency.
> 
> I'm not saying that their moral agency is "more simplistic", nor that they are capable of variation. That's an assumption you are making, not me. I'm merely saying that the "center of their axis" on some things may be in a different location than it is for humans. Unfortunately, many D&D writers have made this assumption (that it must be "more simplistic") as well, and that's presumably what Rich is talking about. But that does not need to be the case.


What I take issue with is Roberta's defense of D&D alignment (rather than your views on alien morals) through positing that humans' "alignment: Any" reflects an instinctual core inherent and largely exclusive to humans, whereas it is reasonable to assume that much every other creature would somehow have an innate instinct that limits their moral agency in such ways that they are restrictied to tending towards positions on a much narrower spectrum. Worse yet, it seemed to me that Roberta thinks this postulate is valid even outside a D&D-like system.




> I think you're also mixing up "what works for humans" and assuming that's the only method that can work.


I'm a FLOWER.




> Those are your words. They don't think what they are doing is "wanton and stupid" at all. That's the point you aren't getting. You are imposing your own moral judgement on another species and how they think. Can you consider the possibility that some other species might view our morality just as "wanton and stupid" as we may view theirs?
> 
> (Â)
> 
> But evolution only cares about success, not moral philosophy. Niven's Kzin were quite successful as a species. They had managed to advance technologically, and had conquered a number of other species prior to Humans encountering them (and were arguably more advanced than humans at the point of first contact). Humans actually had re-learn how to be violent in order to fight them successfully (it's a long story).
> 
> The point is that it's incredibly self-centered to just assume that our way is "the right way" and that no species can possibly be successful without adopting our way of doing things. Yes, it's probably a good thing to view other species in a RPG as "humans with different skin", but in the broader fiction world? Absolutely not necessary or realistic.


That's beside the point, mostly. The bit with evolution and success, I mean. Unless, of course, you want to imply that morality derives from biology or is otherwise a cynical tool used and abused to become more efficient. As for these Kzin things, specifically, you said they hunt sapients _for sport_ (which I read as wanton: it has an end in itself) and they doggedly cling to that habit even in the face of genocide (which is not particularly bright, if you ask me).




> Eh. Or we're taking it to a bit of an extreme and losing sight of things along the way. "eating babies while cackling maniacally" is a bit extreme. How about something more simple like "doesn't view killing others to advance" to be wrong? Or, "burns people alive to ensure success on a venture". We could consider some of these things cultural though, which can be problematic. But what about physical, or genetic differences which could lead to different moral outcomes? We might consider a species in which children are born in litters, and each of them tries to devour the others, with the last one standing being the only to survive? How might this species evolve? Might members of this species consider killing (and eating) others to be the "morally correct" way to gain position and power (and perhaps the only way to survive themselves)? Perhaps they breed prodgiously, and there's just a constant stream of new "people" coming along, and you either eat or be eaten.
> 
> Why not? Why not consider a race (Niven was pretty good at this actually) like the Thrintun who had natural telepathic abilities to control other creatures (any who didn't have the power). They would naturally evolve to assume others are just there to be used to do things for them. They might command others to pick things up in the same way you would command your own arm and hand. And think nothing of any sort of moral implication for using others in this way. Were they "evil"? By our standards (and a D&D type alignment system), absolutely. Did they consider themselves to be so? Nope. They were just using their abilities naturally. And no, they knew the other species were sentient and intelligent (in fact, they counted on it), but that didn't matter to them because they had the power and these other species did not. So they used it to empower themselves and take over the whole galaxy (well, until things went horribly badly for them, but that's a whole story). Were there also variations within that species? Absolutely. Some of them actually cared about their slaves. But that's what passed for "good" in their society, which I suspect would not fit so welll into "good" on a human based alignment scale.


I was being hyperbolic with that example, but this is basically the same. "Yes, they mind rape sapients to enslaver them, but it's not Evil because they don't think it's Evil" Â yeah, not buying that. You see, slavery is not commonly the basis of economies these days among humans, but that's not because humans somehow evolved with an instinct that makes them abhorr slavery. Quite on the contrary, it was widely popular and considered perfectly fine for millenia, and it's yet to go away. Humans are likewise more than capable of bashing each other's head in, it just happens to be frowned upon in polite company, see what I mean?

Again, the thing boils down to this: I see no reason to accept that the basis of axiology is some kind of biological determinism. I mean, you're a human, right? Let me bring up an example you might find gross. I'm sure there are humans you could beat in a fight to eat their brain. So, why aren't you doing it? Brains are nutritious and even with your less than optimal teeth, you could easily eat it raw. What's stopping you, then? The menace of prion disease (so a biological issue) or something else?




> Once you step outside of the "aliens are just humans with prostetic foreheads" thinking, it honestly becomes a bit sillly to think that all (or even  most) real "different" species would think the same way humans do. It's actually lazy writing (to me anyway) that so many authors do write other species this way.


Yes and no, ultimately. Like I said, the more different the two species, the more differences in perspective will pop up. But assuming they don't have a choice in matters moral because of what they are biologically capable of? That, indeed, they can't form wildly different cultures within the same species? That these cultures can't have counter-intuitive beliefs from a purely biologizing point of view? That's just making Planets of Hats, the single biome planet of creature design.

----------


## gbaji

> What I take issue with is Roberta's defense of D&D alignment (rather than your views on alien morals) through positing that humans' "alignment: Any" reflects an instinctual core inherent and largely exclusive to humans, whereas it is reasonable to assume that much every other creature would somehow have an innate instinct that limits their moral agency in such ways that they are restrictied to tending towards positions on a much narrower spectrum. Worse yet, it seemed to me that Roberta thinks this postulate is valid even outside a D&D-like system.


Yeah. I think we have a similar position on D&D alignment in this regard. I was merely responding to other statements which seemed to suggest that this would or should exist in other media or formats as well. I strongly disagree with the concept of "racial/species alignment" as it's been presented in D&D. I don't disagree at all, however, with the concept that "other species" can have radically different views of good and evil as humans have. And it's that second point I'm talking about.





> That's beside the point, mostly. The bit with evolution and success, I mean. Unless, of course, you want to imply that morality derives from biology or is otherwise a cynical tool used and abused to become more efficient. As for these Kzin things, specifically, you said they hunt sapients _for sport_ (which I read as wanton: it has an end in itself) and they doggedly cling to that habit even in the face of genocide (which is not particularly bright, if you ask me).


Not exactly. They are biologically driven to hunt their prey and consider it weakness to achieve success in any other way. They behave this way towards eachother, and within their own species, this has resulted in the strongest of them achieving the greatest power, which in turn led to them becoming quite powerful and successful as a race. This manifests itself in their dealing with other races as they do explore out into the galaxy and encounter them.

And no, at no point do they face actual genocide (because humans aren't going to do that because they are, in their opinion, "soft monkey people"). But their wars with humanity does have an effect on them. It doesn't remove the biological drive, but makes them smarter about it. It's presumably an ebb and flow in their culture. When they are more powerful than those they are fighting against, the strongest and most agressive among them achieve the greatest power, have the most mates, and their traits (both nurture and nature) are passed along the most. When they run into something more dangerous and problematic, those traits tend to lead to failure, which reverses the trend. But they never lose their basic nature. It's just variations from a starting point. And that starting point is not at all what humans would call "neutral" on any alignment scale we would come up with.




> I was being hyperbolic with that example, but this is basically the same. "Yes, they mind rape sapients to enslaver them, but it's not Evil because they don't think it's Evil" Â yeah, not buying that.


Why not? Their perception of what is "good" and "evil" is not the same as humans. To a race for whom, their only evolutionary advantage wasn't smarts, or brawn, or even particularly great tool building, but that they could control other beings around them, their view on slavery (at least their form) would be very different than ours. It would not just be a moral question, but a literal matter of survival for them.




> You see, slavery is not commonly the basis of economies these days among humans, but that's not because humans somehow evolved with an instinct that makes them abhorr slavery. Quite on the contrary, it was widely popular and considered perfectly fine for millenia, and it's yet to go away. Humans are likewise more than capable of bashing each other's head in, it just happens to be frowned upon in polite company, see what I mean?


Discussing the particular whys and what's of human slavery practices isn't allowed here, but can we agree that a race like this, for whom controlling the actions of others is literally necessary for them to survive, would have very very different "particulars" involved?




> Again, the thing boils down to this: I see no reason to accept that the basis of axiology is some kind of biological determinism. I mean, you're a human, right? Let me bring up an example you might find gross. I'm sure there are humans you could beat in a fight to eat their brain. So, why aren't you doing it? Brains are nutritious and even with your less than optimal teeth, you could easily eat it raw. What's stopping you, then? The menace of prion disease (so a biological issue) or something else?


Because I'm a human and have no need to eat brains. Now, if I were a zombie and did need to, would I or my fellow Zombie friends, consider eating brains to be "evil"? Now imagine an entire species evolving with the absolute need to eat brains to survive or procreate. How would they view brain eating? Probably not the same as us humans do.






> Yes and no, ultimately. Like I said, the more different the two species, the more differences in perspective will pop up. But assuming they don't have a choice in matters moral because of what they are biologically capable of? That, indeed, they can't form wildly different cultures within the same species? That these cultures can't have counter-intuitive beliefs from a purely biologizing point of view? That's just making Planets of Hats, the single biome planet of creature design.


I didn't say they don't have a choice (although in some examples, they may not). The larger point is that different species, due to biological differences may view those choices differently than we do. Their "center" may be different than ours is all.

Would a truely alien race, if asked to write up an alignment system for a game they play like D&D, actually come up with the same one D&D has? And even if they did, would they ascribe the exact same behaviors for "good" and "evil" as we do (let's just set aside the law/chaos axis for now)? We ascribe to different things "good" and "evil" because that's what we ascribe to them. That's our human way of looking at things. But even within humanity, we can speculate different cultures having different rules and thus ascribing differently than our culture does.

I'm just suggesting that it's well within the realm of possiblity that a completely different species might universally have a different "tilt" or "center" to their alignment, which would not place the same behaviors or sets of behaviors in the same places we would. An alien species may think nothing of killing someone to get ahead, but insulting their mother is a capital offense or something. The very system we ascribe to is itself based on collective human history and knowledge. This would, presumably, not be the same for an alien species.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Yeah. I think we have a similar position on D&D alignment in this regard. I was merely responding to other statements which seemed to suggest that this would or should exist in other media or formats as well. I strongly disagree with the concept of "racial/species alignment" as it's been presented in D&D. I don't disagree at all, however, with the concept that "other species" can have radically different views of good and evil as humans have. And it's that second point I'm talking about.


Okay. Thank you for clarifying; talking past each other is the worst, especially if we agree in so many regards. Still, I think your examples push the whole moral relativism argument well past the point it is worth entertaining. E.g.:




> They are biologically driven to hunt their prey


How's this different from Roberta's instinct argument? Humans have been endurance hunters for a stupidly long time. Why would any sapient omnivore/carnivore be _biologically driven_ to hunt their (sapient) prey once they have a million other ways to feed themselves?




> and consider it weakness to achieve success in any other way. They behave this way towards eachother, and within their own species, this has resulted in the strongest of them achieving the greatest power, which in turn led to them becoming quite powerful and successful as a race. This manifests itself in their dealing with other races as they do explore out into the galaxy and encounter them.


That sounds very much like a biologizing bend on "Social Darwinism works"  dangerously so, even. And a specieswide moral imperative to hunt one's conspecifics as prey sounds like a better recipe for extinction than one for becoming powerful as a species.




> And no, at no point do they face actual genocide (because humans aren't going to do that because they are, in their opinion, "soft monkey people"). But their wars with humanity does have an effect on them. It doesn't remove the biological drive, but makes them smarter about it. It's presumably an ebb and flow in their culture.


So this is a Planet of Hat things, after all? A specieswide culture strictly deriving from some biological drive from before sapience that only large scale threats from outside the species can suppress _temporarily_?




> When they are more powerful than those they are fighting against, the strongest and most agressive among them achieve the greatest power, have the most mates, and their traits (both nurture and nature) are passed along the most. When they run into something more dangerous and problematic, those traits tend to lead to failure, which reverses the trend. But they never lose their basic nature. It's just variations from a starting point.


That sounds like that simplistic misrepresentation of biological evolution social darwinists will usually draw upon, only with an unhealthy dose of biological determinism mixed in, sorry. Imagine, if you will, a lion. It is a commonly observed pattern of behaviour among lions that when a male defeats another, it takes over the "wives" of its fallen opponent and has these, if they are mothers, kill their cubs. This is understood to be done for an instinctual desire to achieve what you described above. But here's the thing: this could be, in theory, true for quite the number of animals, including humans. Isn't a stronger human stronger than a weaker human, after all? And yet, this is not the norm. Such things had been done, historically, and they weren't always frowned upon, but the perceived evolutionary benefits never made it some kind of a specieswide basis for morals. I find this a rather tasteless oversimplification, in other words.




> Why not? Their perception of what is "good" and "evil" is not the same as humans. To a race for whom, their only evolutionary advantage wasn't smarts, or brawn, or even particularly great tool building,


Meh. Humans are weak, they spend a very long time early in their lives practically defenseless, especially compared to other animals, and for quite some time, their tools (often quite primitive) mostly just served to compensate for their various shortcomings somewhat.




> but that they could control other beings around them, their view on slavery (at least their form) would be very different than ours. It would not just be a moral question, but a literal matter of survival for them.


Are they made of glass and plasticine, too dumb to put together a stone axe or not dexterous enough to wield one? It seems to me that this is as much a matter of convenience, ultimately, as it was (or is) for humans. (At any rate, if a paraplegic human developed psychic powers, would that give this human a free pass on enslaving others? Is the Senator in _Shoot 'Em Up_ morally justified because he needs to do what he does?)




> Because I'm a human and have no need to eat brains.


But it's plentiful and its mass/worth ratio is very good!




> Now, if I were a zombie and did need to, would I or my fellow Zombie friends, consider eating brains to be "evil"?


Zombies usually don't _need_ to eat, are often mindless and always derive from other creatures. If anything, a zombie with its mind and memories intact _is_ something I'd hold to the standards of its parent species.




> Now imagine an entire species evolving with the absolute need to eat brains to survive or procreate. How would they view brain eating? Probably not the same as us humans do.


#JusticeForTheIllithids?




> (although in some examples, they may not)


Why? And how is that (i.e. a lack of moral agency) a good thing?




> The larger point is that different species, due to biological differences may view those choices differently than we do. Their "center" may be different than ours is all.


Of course. But biology is not all. Far from it, in fact. If human axiologies aren't based around biological needs, why would alien axiologies be? Like I said, I like D&D (!) lizardfolk being chill with ritual cannibalism and eating fallen foes. It might be strange and gross for a modern human, but it doesn't have to _not_ be.




> That's our human way of looking at things.


I'm a FLOWER.




> But even within humanity, we can speculate different cultures having different rules and thus ascribing differently than our culture does.


But that's half my point! Why can't any species develop any number of cultures with any number of individuals1 with any sort of morals, like humans, instead of reverting to something biologically determined _en masse_?

1After allowing for eusocial/hive mind people and the like, for whom, I'll give you that, We Have Reserves and What Measure Is a Mook would make a lot more sense as _the_ normal way of things.

----------


## Ruck

> Is the Senator in _Shoot 'Em Up_ morally justified because he needs to do what he does?)


I just wanted to say _Shoot 'Em Up_ rules and and everybody should see it.

----------


## Peelee

> I just wanted to say _Shoot 'Em Up_ rules and and everybody should see it.


Eat your vegetables.

----------


## gbaji

> How's this different from Roberta's instinct argument? Humans have been endurance hunters for a stupidly long time. Why would any sapient omnivore/carnivore be _biologically driven_ to hunt their (sapient) prey once they have a million other ways to feed themselves?


You assume that they only hunt for food. Humans hunt for sport still. And we're not really "hunting" animals. We're more pack animals who developed tool use over time. We're omnivores and eat our veggies pretty much to the degree that we can grow/find enough of them. Imagine a carnivorous species developing intelligence instead (basically large cat people in this case).

Why do people buy things they don't need to survive? We humans do this all the time. We accumulate "stuff" (or wear stuff, or make our selves up with stuff). None of it's needed to survive as an individual. We do it to attract mates. Now imagine a species where owning the biggest house, or the nicest car, or the coolest screen, or the fanciest clothes, wasn't what determined attractiveness for breeding, but being able to land the biggest prey animal with your bare hands was. My point is that we humans still do a lot of "unecessary" things out of some biological need that we're stlll really not totally aware of or sure about. Assuming this magically disappears in other species when it hasn't in our own is questionable IMO.





> That sounds very much like a biologizing bend on "Social Darwinism works"  dangerously so, even. And a specieswide moral imperative to hunt one's conspecifics as prey sounds like a better recipe for extinction than one for becoming powerful as a species.


And yet we humans also have the concept of "pecking order" *and* competition, and still manage to survive as a species. Why assume that every other possible sentient life that could possibly exist must evolve to have the exact same things that determine that pecking order?  And why assume that if a species does use something else, that it must fail to work?





> So this is a Planet of Hat things, after all? A specieswide culture strictly deriving from some biological drive from before sapience that only large scale threats from outside the species can suppress _temporarily_?


Again. You could be descrbing humanity too. We have a boat load of biological drives that make us far less efficient as a species than we could be (and arguably a lot of cultural ones as well). There's a reason why a common theme in sci fi is humans discovering life outside our own planet and this maybe requiring us to figure out how to stop wasting so many resources/time/energy on dumb stuff. I've lost count of the number of "If only we'd spent less time fighting amongs ourselves we might have been able to prevent being conquered/defeated/whatever by the aliens" stories I've read.




> Imagine, if you will, a lion. It is a commonly observed pattern of behaviour among lions that when a male defeats another, it takes over the "wives" of its fallen opponent and has these, if they are mothers, kill their cubs. This is understood to be done for an instinctual desire to achieve what you described above. But here's the thing: this could be, in theory, true for quite the number of animals, including humans. Isn't a stronger human stronger than a weaker human, after all? And yet, this is not the norm. Such things had been done, historically, and they weren't always frowned upon, but the perceived evolutionary benefits never made it some kind of a specieswide basis for morals. I find this a rather tasteless oversimplification, in other words.


Eh. Only because we developed a set of moral rules and decided as a species to live by them. There's no reason to assume a parallel identical _human_ species would undergo this exact same cultural change, much less a completely alien species. There is zero causative relationship between the development of those cultural changes/moral rules and the development of technology in our own human history. And frankly, there's nothhing that automatically ensures that we will even retain those rules and ideas in the future.

I think your argument assumes that "human nature" has actually changed, and that this change is some sort of necessary step for (well, clearly not just sentience, so...) advanced technology like space travel. I don't think it has. I think that, given the opportunity, there are a large number of people who would gladly return to the sorts of behaviors you seem to think we've outgrown right here on Earth, and absolutely no requirement that this would prohibit the continued development of technology including space travel. I think it's very naive to assume that "humanity has outgrown" <some behavior>. And it's certainly a mistake to blanketly assume that all other theoretical species would have to as well.

And honestly, this was the thrust of Niven's story as well. Taken to a bit of an extreme. In this phase of his Known Space universe (almost called it "future history", but Heinlein probably spins in his grave enough already), he had humanity "weed out" violence and crime by extensive psychological techniques, breeding restrictions, and pharmaceuticals for those "aberrant" humans who still had thoughts of violence. But no matter how hard they tried, they still couldn't get rid of it all. Which turned out to be a good thing when Humans encounter the Kzin and have to relearn how to fight things. Now maybe that was Niven pontificating his own ideas, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume some sort of universal moral/ethical standard based on what is really just a relvatively short window of time in human cultural evolution.


Don't get me wrong. I'd love for it to be the way you say, and the universe is chock full of enlightened beings just waiting for us to "grow up" or something. I'm just not willing to assume that is the case when we only have a sample size of one, and the votes still out on that one.





> Are they made of glass and plasticine, too dumb to put together a stone axe or not dexterous enough to wield one? It seems to me that this is as much a matter of convenience, ultimately, as it was (or is) for humans. (At any rate, if a paraplegic human developed psychic powers, would that give this human a free pass on enslaving others? Is the Senator in _Shoot 'Em Up_ morally justified because he needs to do what he does?)


You keep looping back to using human examples. What if the entire species was parapalegic and the only way to walk was to force some other species to carry them? What if they have been this way for their entire existence? There are a number of parasitic species right here on earth. Some of them are super creepy too. What moral rules do you think they would develop if they became sentient?

And to answer your question, I think that everything is a matter of convenience. We use tools specifically because they make our own lives easier. In this particular example, the species evolved on a planet where everything was strongly telepathic. Anything that didn't develop strong telepathy themselves, got told to stand still and be eaten by something else stronger. That's how they evolved. Now imagine they've advanced as far as hunter-gatherers and an alien spaceship lands. Aliens with no defence against them. They just take control. They force the aliens to do stuff for them. Then they force them to take them back to their home world and take control. It's how they do things. They don't know how the technology is made (but are smart enough to use it). They consider other species "intelligent" but not really "sentient" in this case because anything that isn't strongly telepathic isn't really sentient to them. Their entire evolution taught them that anything that couldn't resist/use "the power" was fodder for those who could. They catapulted from simple tool use, to controlling a galaxy spanning empire in short order. There was no possiblity for them to take the time and consider concepts of "human rights" or such silliness (from their perspective).

It's one thing to have one person who has power like that and abuses it. But when it's the entire species? Anyone who doesn't join in just gets left behind. The point is that this is an entire species we would clearly label as "evil" by our standards (and by default, since anyone who even tried to be "good" would be pushed down to the dregs of society and power by everyone else). That doesn't mean that they didn't have families, young, care about things, maybe even write poetry or something. And yeah, I suppose we could argue that this is societal, but that's pretty much just an academic distinction here. It's an entire species that doesn't consider others to be any more sentient than the computer I'm typing this up on right now. Should I be considered "evil" because I'm forcing my computer to do my bidding? From the computer's perspective, sure. From mine? No.

And that's my point. We can't assume our own frame of reference for alien species. Yeah. In D&D, the different races are basically humans with different skin and teeth, so we can (and should, since we humans are the ones playing them). But at a general concept? No. Alignment is not universal by any means IMO.





> But that's half my point! Why can't any species develop any number of cultures with any number of individuals with any sort of morals, like humans, instead of reverting to something biologically determined _en masse_?


Never said they wouldn't. Just that their "center" would not necessarily have to be where us humans put it. To assume otherwise is projecting our human viewpoint on others. Again.  You could be right. But you could also be wrong. I guess we wont know until we actually communicate with another intelligent species.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

Back in OD&D and AD&D days, there were a variety of monsters that most of us classified along the lines of 
_Alignment: hungry_.

This was a bit of a joke directed at the alignment system, but it was also an attempt to disassociate the simple drive of hunger (Great White Shark being but one example, or a pack of wolves) from any moral root, or the instinct to clean and consume among beings with, roughly, the sentience of an amoeba (gelatinous cube.

You may now return to your disagreement.  :Small Smile:

----------

