Of course, this is no excuse to start playing your goodie-two-shoes again! jk

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

1. Just cause it's there doesn't mean you have to. Say you're at a big party. Lots of booze, lots of premarital sex. Do you have to part-take in any of it? Absolutely not. Just grab a coke and stay chaste. Sort of the same thing here simply do not purchase slaves. You're not encouraging evil, nor are you necessarily disregarding a good/neutral alignment by not protesting it's existence. Observing that the area has it legal and following the Law is in fact Lawful. So a Paladin could totally go down there and not be expected to do anything. It's the Law. You are Lawful Good. No one down there is forcing you to commit an evil act or to purchase NPC's, and even then; you can purchase just to free them. The people behind the sales are evil, the people who acquire the NPC's are either evil or lawful neutral. The area itself isn't inherently evil, it's job is not to oppress as much as it is to buy and sell.

2. Alright. but that doesen't mean much to be honest. Races that are commonly seen as evil (Goblins etc) are not inherently evil and even if they were, that doesen't mean the place itself and it's purpose is wrong. There is no laws in underport that demand you commit an evil act.

3. Out in the port square? in front of everyone? Not in the privacy of their own home/own particular area of the underdark? I mean I haven't been in underport too many times but I've never seen them straight up kill someone and eat cause they were hungry on the spot. Also keep in mind Illithid can be redeemed towards good. Don't ask me how, don't care to explain it. I'll just cite a cannon example from Book of Exhalted deeds. It's like within the first 10-20 pages. They even have a picture for him. (Fun Fact Semi-off Topic: Monsters of Faerun book has a Good Aligned Lich. go figure.)

4. You don't have rights? are you certain of this? I had a character live down there momentarily. People were trying to break into his house and the Mindflayer's stopped them saying they were breaking the law. It seems to me as though I was protected by the law/law enforcement. Which would imply that I indeed do have rights, I can be protected down there.

Underport's purpose is literally a middle ground of a trade between the surface and underdark. Underdark has slaves, poisons, weapons, etc. Surface has things the underdark can not normally get like timber, surface food (Cause eating mushrooms all day sucks. I'll quote Gerald Edmund on that back when I was supplying him with food ), and more. It's a place to buy and sell things. If you behave yourself down there, don't cause trouble, and just get your business done. Then you'll be fine. The guys just want trade that's all. Sure the guys that want it are evil, doesen't mean the goal is evil.

Tarkuul being considered evil is due to the amounts of undead, evil temples, and the disregard of morality in regards to research. "Knowledge and power". Key thing here is knowledge, I remember being told that the city distributes food (Do correct me if I am wrong). That this is done because they want their citizens to not worry about the everyday stuff but rather further their studies and research. The entire goal of the place to me anyway is really geared towards uninhibited learning. Don't have to worry about day to day chores, specific labors, don't need to even worry about morality as long as you are following city laws, and not causing trouble you may live there, study the creation and use of undead, conduct experiments that could be inhuman, and worship evil deities without inhibitance. I haven't been to underport in awhile but if I remember clearly there are no formal Temples/Churches like they have in Tarkuul.

_________________

Uh... by that logic Paladins should get along with the Zhentarim. No, it's quite clear in paladin lore that they make a distinction for Tyrants and LE. So no, it's not acceptable to simply obey the law - the laws must be just, and slavery is clearly evil. Therefore it must be opposed. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" as it is said. You can't compare alcohol consumption and pre-marital sex to slavery. They are neutral/chaotic-leaning acts which harm no one (at least not immediately and directly, nor necessarily), whereas slavery has very obvious victims. Now, a paladin or even many paladins can't actually do anything to stop it from happening in this case (Underport is simply too powerful), but what they can do is refuse to trade there, as trade would help the economy that slavers use to keep their business running.



No one ever said BoED is canon. It's a sourcebook, and not even a Forgotten Realms sourcebook. And I've read of the example you're quoting - it actually doesn't make sense at all for the illithid to be good-aligned; it still has to eat brains. You'd think if they had a Good illithid they'd have developed some kind of dietary work around, but no... a Good illithid that eats people's brains.

As for whether they could be redeemed to good anyway, well that doesn't mean anything. Anything could theoretically be redeemed. But those in Underport are certainly not trading slaves out of the goodness of their hearts.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

It's not Canon but at least on the Amia forums, BoED has been granted some lease of consideration.

Outside of Tuomas' paradigm being based on that book's magics in concept, there was also a recent manifestation of Raziel and Domiel, two lords from the Celestial Hebdomad.

Also, yes, I do agree that you'd think an Illithid who's redeemed would've figure out a workaround. Why do you assume they haven't?

@Vinny

did you by chance read the thread? If so, you'd read DM ruling on this particular case. Everything you wrote is standing in the opposition to how the things actually are. In opposition to the facts. So what you're saying is simply untrue, because the DM said so. Read the thread before you reply.



And just as Serbiris said, even if this wasn't the case, your arguments are very flawed and have little to do with actual lore.

PS good aligned liches (they are called Archliches) are a type of creature that is inherently non-evil, just as an Illithid is inherently evil. Archlich and Lich are similar, but different undead, not just by alignment.



Goblins are absolutely inherently evil. And before you quote FR wiki and say "Though goblins have a poor reputation overall, not all goblins are dim-witted or evil. Some goblins have risen to become heroes, gaining enough renown to be accepted into the civilized world of other, more commonly good races." I'll tell you to google up Abigail and Brittany Hensel. Now don't tell me that just because they have two heads and one body, you could also say that human race is not inherently one-headed.

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

You woulda if I'd a hadda say.

Whatsamadda you!

Whatsamaddaaaa youuuuuuu!

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Goblins and other sentient creatures should be capable of good and/or evil in equal measures. Saying that certain creatures are always evil or always good works in pnp where those characters are used as fodder for guided adventures. It doesn't really work when you're dealing with persistent game worlds. Morality and alignment is as subjective in game as it is in real life unless you're dealing with evil or good incarnate in the form of celestials, demons, etc.

Hell the argument could even be made that the illithids aren't inherently evil for eating the brains of living creatures because that's what they have to do to survive. In that way they're as evil to 'good' races as the good races are evil to cows and other sentient creatures used for food and profit.

It's a complicated subject, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by painting creatures like goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc. with a broad brush that leaves no room for interpretation.

I've been reading something like that on another forum yesterday. And as always I'll toss in the fact that zombies and skeletons are mindless and therefore they cannot be evil. I may not like it, but at the moment it's a fact - they are evil. Whether that will change or not.. it is up to the DM team to say. And at the moment I think it was said goblins, orcs and generally monsters on Amia are evil.

Interpretation is something the players are not supposed to do when it comes to NPCs. Whether we like it or not.

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

Zombies and other mindless undead are 'evil' because they are infused with the evil magic that animates them. It's not so much that they do evil as that they react like evil does when exposed to magic or effects that react to evil things (Smite, Detect, Word of Faith, etc).

Now as to the basic reaction of other beings, say, a simply good character who sees a zombie isn't looking at a zombie, they're looking at the formerly living creature who just became an animated slave. "It's just a zombie" is like saying "It's just a casserole" when I make it out of your mother.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Yes, what Council says is the typical DnD (and by extension FR) logic behind the alignment of mindless undead. Individual perceptions may vary, but the universal, objective law states that. Kind of like dragons and their weirdly cosmic alignments that reject anything that would change them, making them creatures of absolute nature and no nurture.

There do exist some mechanics for non-evil undead that people can point to, though I consider most of them just expressions of Mary Sue desire. Pathfinder even has some mechanics for "redeemed" creatures, but I have only seen the template applied to planar evil alignments like devils and demons, not to undead.

I would say sentience would be required if you want any Undead to be abel to redeemable, really.

I wasn't really suggesting it as a real alternative. Mindless undead are just evil through no fault of their own. Consider them tragic figures.

As tragic as Yossarin's portrait!

Best. Line. Ever.

Not canon is still not canon - the DMs can take inspirations from a given sourcebook without endorsing every piece of text. You may like parts of it, you may think they are well-written, and you may have also overlooked the absolutely ridiculous entry in question (page 17). I went back and took a gander in case I was misremembering. There is no mention whatsoever in that entry, of any work-around be it magical or alchemical or monkish, for that illithid to avoid the need to consume brains. This would be a very important thing to mention because LoM states it as a severe problem for illithids that they would like to be able to solve. In fact to my knowledge, nowhere in the history of D&D is there any mention of the existence of a workaround, except one (from 2nd edition D&D The Adversary, a LE entity at that, who used special rituals even before he became an illithid to control the process). So why don't they explain the most important thing about what's going on? They only needed to drop a line into the paragraph describing her. Or at least put a Ring of Sustenance in her magic items (in a cheesy way that could work, although if I were a DM I'd say get right outta town, Ring can't simulate brainfood!) but no. Worse, it lists Vow of Nonviolence in her feats, and mentions Brain Extraction in the list of abilities. Someone was drunk or high when writing this.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

Actually I quoted the exact passage you're looking for in my April Fool's illithid request, if you're wondering. It's from LoM if memory serves, although I'm not at home right now to double check.



It doesn't say that they don't prefer brains, but since it does specify that they can get what they need from other sources it would therefore be possible for an Illithid who was down and out to come up with alternatives. All of the enzymes in the human brain are accessible outside of it as well, if you know where to look. It does mention that psychic energy is harvested from only sentient brains but I *believe* the creature mentioned in the BoED abstains from using them? or can't use them? Either way, that would make sense, since that would be what that psychic energy is for.

Coupled with the fact that most ascetics practice meditation to control their urges, as well as their bodily functions (including metabolism) and you've got a pretty strong case for what is, granted, a very weird idea.

BESIDES, this is Amia. Welcome to the land of the Mary Sue snowflakes.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

I actually remember that passage, although I interpreted it differently at the time - I read psychic energy as something that was necessary for sustenance, not merely the use of psychic powers. Though now that you point it out, it does look more like a "complete vs incomplete protein strand, so and so amino acids etc". Fair point. Although the jury's still out on whether or not they'd still have to eat sentient beings' eyeballs, livers and so forth.

Also, the illithid in that passage didn't receive nearly as much thought, and still possesses psychic powers. So nyah!

Edit: Blah you edited! Well I don't need to edit anyway, it seems we're more or less on the same page.
Edit 2: Except the part where I accidentally reference eyeballs with self-determination.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here...

A place in the world that is clearly evil, but the majority can't/won't do anything even with the means/power/people/etc... and we still have the outside ovaries to walk about the place like nothing's wrong.

That's ever fantasy story ever told.

That's also Florida.

We can't play without that "axis power for dummies", you know? We'd just wipe everything out of existence that could contend with "peace", and then we'd be frigging bored as all hell.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense that there's not the slightest bit of headway in the endless bout of Paladins versus Everything Evil (This Sunday on PPV!). But, to me, it's not supposed to make sense. Like Florida, it's a fantastic realm filled with ad infinitum contradictions that will probably never be resolved because "shut up, there's reasons".

Let's face it, without Panama City Beach in the equation, what's the point?

*puts on bathing suit, suntan oil, and wizards hat*

_________________
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Being just a brief drive west of PCB, I could not agree more about Florida. It's like if Cops met Game of Thrones.

I don't get the Florida reference, but I think I agree with what you're saying.

In the cases of some actual places with considerable forces of evil, they're allowed to exist simply because they mostly internalize their problems, and consequently it would take an army to wipe them out. Intervening often never fixes the problem because to that general populace, the people fixing the problem are the tyrants of evil themselves. It's all a matter of perspective.

Plus, people should keep in mind a more global approach to a problem. Your character has to know that there's more out there than you have access to. Amia is tiny in the grand scheme of things, so if some faction of evil set up somewhere, it's still a tiny dot on a small map of a bigger map. You have to also know as a "good" paladin that the blood is on your hands if you go out of your way to do something unnecessary to try and end them.

Sometimes it might be better to wait and let them figure things out for themselves. If they stick their neck out, then you act. It could create a very thick and cool political climate as well, if good vs evil's interaction was more indepth than KILL KILL KILL.

I actually tried something similar IC (several times) but this more recent example, involving my PC ordering citizens to be murdered in Kohlingen for each time she was attacked for no reason by a paladin. It got kind of ridiculous in the end because my PC never actually died, but a lot of innocent Kohlingen citizens did. Ironically enough, my PC didn't even want that outcome either. I just wish the paladins here would think a little bit more. But hey, that was a while ago, maybe the new paladins wouldn't fall down the same trap door of stupidity.

"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction." - Isaac Newton

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

If you're going to claim Underport is an "illithid town" (er...) you should probably actually make it look like one. As it is now, it's just a cave with a smattering of races in it, of which illithid are but one (not even the prevalent one, much less the dominant one). As represented it comes off as a crappy hodgepodge lawless land of convenience, no amount of DM retconning changes that when you see it, you have to build what you want to portray. There's no way in hell an elder brain is remotely near that place, there's nowhere near the amount of illithid presence (in aesthetics and npcs) necessary to make that believable, nor is there any sort of "man-power" necessary to portray it imo.

It looks like a low-rent Bartertown, sans Tina Turner.

There's about as much evil as going there to buy a sword as there is buying that sword off of Rashad, who will also sell anything to anyone so long as they have the gold.

Zombies and Skeletons are evil because they are /not/ mindless. If uncontrolled, they hate life and will do what they can to kill any life they detect, much like most low-level undead.

Since 1rst ed, the whole "illithid are evil because... monsters!" always annoyed the hell out of me. They eat sentient brains? Well, that's all they can eat, that's not a reason, that's survival. Even in their own society, they show zero signs of evil. They don't scheme against each other, they don't break their own cultural norms for power. They capture food and keep it til they're hungry. The worst thing they ever did to that race was giving it a voice and alignment. They should have always been portrayed as alien and unknowable and doing things for reasons no one ever understands (with a neutral, or more accurately, nil alignment to boot).

Most people wouldn't even care about this so long as they were dealing with illithid from a position of power (ie, so /they/ don't become food). On the other hand, most evils probably wouldn't want anything to do with Tarkuul as they don't want to cross the line of the undead taboo. (Not to mention I don't think there's a character alive who doesn't believe Tarkuul has an agenda they wouldn't like.) Most evil folks are just like any other kind of folks and don't want anything to do with the undead. Being seen with a necromancer is pretty much social death and some person who might not be averse to murdering to solve their problems probably enjoys being able to move about in polite society will want to keep their reputation intact, after all.

Evil is anything but a team and will largely fall in on itself at the first opportunity, even within the same faction if played properly.

Again though, I can't even understand why this is a thread. I mean, /who/ goes there and for what anyways, other than maybe pity-RP with the lone drow online at the time?

_________________
Rashad the Azure, Zakharan Merchant-lord Most Fair and Master of the Desert Wind
Loremaster Tukson Devers, Oghmanyte Wrestler of Knowledge and Child of the Passive Voice

(No tells for Rashad while I'm playing other characters please.)

Unless you can't see the entirety of Underport and are making an assumption based on what you can see. I do agree that it could be a little more obvious it's run by the illithids, rather than as it is now it just looks like they're responsible for the slave market run "over there".



Rashad has a menu with slaves on it? I don't know if this sort of admittance brings Underport's alignment up as much as it brings Rashad's down.



"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple. A skeleton attacks until destroyed.

~~~

Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple." - from the D20SRD

Yeah no, dude, zombies and skeletons have zero intelligence and only do what they're commanded to do. In the case of what you see on this server, that's because their creators told them to kill whatever they come across and left them there.



Illithids are capable of independent thought. The Elder Brain is their leader, and certainly is capable of assuming direct control (lol Mass Effects) with its awesome power, but it doesn't have to because it knows that individual Illithid are inclined to work toward the betterment of their civilization. They also would not react as quickly or come up with unique solutions without being allowed greater perspective through autonomy. Their society has cohesion, but that's not "good." It's not even an argument for neutrality. They work together for survival, but as a society their goals are the enslavement and consumption of sentient beings.

The point of all of this is that Illthids do actually have a choice. They could avoid doing the things that they do, but they won't, because they know it works. I have in this thread detailed how Illithids could manage to get by without consuming brains, quoting a source book, and all it would cost them is their inherent psychic power. Power they aren't willing to give up. You might not, but they like their alignment just fine.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

I mostly agree with you.. but I don't think eating the brains of sentient creatures, even if they could eat other things instead, makes illithids inherently evil. I think the objective morality used in D&D is a pretty big design flaw because it kills a lot of awesome story possibilities. Humans don't need to eat meat to survive, but the great majority of the humans on this planet slaughter and devour other creatures to survive. I don't think illithids choosing to eat the brains of sentient creatures rather than 'go vegetarian' makes them any more evil than humans are for eating cows. I don't hate cows.. but god do I love steak. I realize, even as I bite into steak, that I'm consuming what used to be the flesh of a living creature.. a living creature that was slaughtered so that I could pay too much for a chunk of its meat. I'm okay with that because..well.. it's a cow. Not that big a deal, right?

Humans, elves, etc. are seen as lesser races by illithids, so it makes sense from their point of view that they'd see nothing wrong with capturing, selling, and eating them in the same way that we capture, sell, and eat creatures that we consider 'lesser'.

Sure, most humans, elves, dwarves, etc. would consider illithids evil in the same way that cows and chickens probably consider us evil(if they're capable of that), but that's all a matter of perspective. You don't need an evil, baby-torturing, lackey-killing, life hating monster to make a villain... You just need a different, but valid, perspective. I think the illithids are a great example of that.

Good and evil are not subjective. Killing a sentient creature and eating its brains is not comparable to humans eating meat. You can say that it's a matter of perspective, but in D&D, it isn't. It's just not, and that's written clearly in the rules. Illithids are evil, and that's something that you can argue theoretically if you like, but the discussion isn't going to change the fact that Illithids are evil, full stop.

Also, doing something evil because you require it to survive does not make something not evil. An evil act remains evil, even if you would die as a result of abstaining from it. This is something that isn't up for debate in relation to D&D and Amia-specific alignments. If you perform an evil act for good reasons, it's still Evil. You can use the good reasons to justify it to yourself, but its still Evil. Thus, even if Illithids absolutely -had- to eat sentient brains to survive, doing so would still make them evil.

I know the rules say they're evil, but I think the rules are wrong. Good and evil should be subjective when you're not dealing with things like torture for entertainment, devils, demons, celestials, etc. I realize that having that discussion here won't change that, but it's an interesting discussion to have either way.

EDIT: Also... You'll have to tell the Indians and the Chinese that they're evil for eating monkey brains. <.<

And don't even get me started on Mexicans and their cow brains. Ew.

Not that I'm arguing about illithids, but I think this is dangerous hyperbole. Under that logic, every single soldier in a military becomes Evil, as does anyone who's ever slain in self-defense.

There is a distinct differentiation between murder and killing. Killing is a neutral action; murder is an evil one. The reason for killing makes it either an act of defense (neutral or good) or a murderous one (evil).

Does this agree with your real world vantage? Possibly not. Is this how Amia and D&D work? Absolutely.

_________________
"I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."

That distinction disappears when you're dealing with the argument Mana put forward. If you absolutely had to take a life or lose your own, you'd still be committing an evil act. Much like the illithids would still be evil if they absolutely had to eat sentient brains to survive.

That's why absolute, objective morality doesn't work. It's a flaw in the rules of D&D.

Performing one Evil act does not make you evil (Unless it's an incredibly evil act of course). It's the path of continually doing so that does that. And the distinction doesn't disappear. Killing in self defense is not inherently evil by the rules of D&D. Killing as murder -is- inherently evil. They are two different acts, one of which is an Evil act, and one of which isn't.

That would mean that a soldier who had to kill more than once to survive in battle would eventually become evil. So.. all veteran soldiers should be evil if that's the case.

Or even just characters that need to kill to defend themselves or other people outside of battle. Like the characters that have been involved in random battles against Amn's forces. If it's absolutely always an evil thing, then even feeling remorse about it later wouldn't keep them from becoming evil because remorse does nothing to lessen the act itself.


Edit: You edited! Darn you. I think the distinction does disappear because, going back to the illithids, they would have to kill to preserve their own life. Sure, the soldier isn't going to eat the enemy he slays..but he's still killing the guy.

Sorry, thought I edited fast enough that it wouldn't get noticed! The act by which the illithids consume the brains of their victims isn't the same as when they kill something though. It's a very specific method that is quite literally torturous to the individual.

The illithid grapples its target, placing its tentacles around the victim's head. Then, enzymes within the tips of the tentacles begin to dissolve the flesh of the victim, forcing the tentacles into the skull of the still-living and aware individual. The entire process is excruciating. Once the tentacles have pierced the skull, the brain is dissolved and consumed. It is, in itself, an evil act.

Sounds kind of like the way spiders eat.

Yep! The skull takes the place of the cocoon in this comparison. The point here is that to feed, the illithids don't just kill something, then remove the brain and eat it. They extract the brain from a living, still-aware individual in an act that is comparable to torture.

_________________
Abernathy Hearthart, Salandran Healer (similar to my avatar picture of the lovely Jordan Madley )
Azorgl da Mercenary, Cigar toting Ogre...hero?

I get the crux of your argument too, by the way, that if eating brains is what a creature has to do to survive, then maybe that act in and of itself is not particularly evil. If we look at it that way, you could definitely pose that argument.

Illithids do have a choice, they can opt not to eat brains to survive, but choose to do so willingly for power. Could this be a reflection on our own choice to eat other (arguably) sentient beings beneath us in the food chain? Of course. That debate has raged for decades. I don't think it's possible to solve it here, so we must set it aside and look at how else we can define the answer.

The context in this case is powerful. Let's compare a cow and a human, to a thrall and an Illithid. Both of them want those animals for sustenance. Both of them have the choice to seek sustenance elsewhere (and it is a direct correlation, since a vegetarian human and an Illithid without powers have the same psychic potential, intelligence/charisma score notwithstanding).

The natural environment for the cow is a field where it can grow and raise little cows and enjoy sunshine and all the food it can eat, very similar to the life it would have sought for itself in the wild. It is groomed and kept warm in the winter. The animal is cared for and respected, even loved.

The thrall's mind is completely wiped, rendering it incapable of wanting anything for itself and turning it into a docile animal, which is not its natural state and certainly not the fate it would have sought for itself 'in the wild.' It is forced into hard labor above and beyond its eventual fate, given task after task that do nothing to emulate a way of life that it would have had on its own. It is bred, and sometimes even fought against other slaves, and is expected to die defending its master from harm.

The farmer slaughters the cow in a quick procedure that is as painless as possible. The Illithid uses a secretion that melts through the skull before using powerful tendrils to grapple with and extract the thrall's brain in an agonizing, painful, horrifying way.

As you can see there are differences.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

By the same logic we can argue about thrall and a vampire. And we all know vampires are evil.

Just please don't start a discussion about vampires being actually good guys and victims. The point you lot seems to miss is very simple and already stated :



It's a game and every game has rules.

This was fun for a while, but I'm bored now, so I take my leave before people start an argument about Nightmares being just cuddly, misunderstood ponies

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

Guardian, I don't think you actually read what I said if you think I'm arguing for Illithids not being evil. I was indulging an opportunity to debate the devil's advocate position, but my final point was actually in agreement with yours. Not trying to be a butthead, but your comment is really ironic.

Besides, if you're tired of the conversation, you certainly don't have to keep coming back in.

EDIT: It could however be made more clear if I quoted the person to whom I was speaking more directly, which was Krin. This thread went without responses for a while and I started a reply that I didn't post for half an hour, during which time there were 10 new responses.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

My post was not aimed to you, actually. I was trying to say, in general, that no matter what arguments you bring and how many arguments you have, the core of the "problem" remains as simple as the solution - play by the rules.

You know I love you (secretly), not only because your posts are always constructive and helpful.

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

Aw man, now I feel like I just kung fu'd my own brother because I heard a drunk asshole crawling in the window in the middle of the night.

And yeah, I get where you're coming from too, but I'd rather come up with ways to explain why things are the way they are instead of having no explanation for it whatsoever, hence my post. Kinda kicks the idea of lore in the balls if all you know is how things are and never why. So I enjoy debating stuff like this.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

The lore part is valid. What I think, though, is that when you take whatever race you want, you will always find a way to defend it. And thus, you can take a subject of, I don't know... goblins (because I hate goblins) and discuss why they are evil and you always find someone who will stand up and say "Hell no, they're just misunderstood!". And quite often, these discussions go on and on and on.

The reason why I said I'm bored is because I'm out booze because it's exactly happening now. I don't say the discussion is bad and by no means I tried to offend anyone. It was an expression of my feelings. Because I, as a regular 8(-1) intelligence human being see Illithid as a horrendous, disgusting squidhead that wants to dig it's tentacles in my brain and suck it out. Which, in my book, is evil and the only solution is KILL IT WITH FIRE. Or run away

Now, as promised, I vanish!

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

You had me at tentacles.

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

>




If you walk into a den of lions, you will be killed as well. Do lions hate life?

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

Well no, they just don't like burglars. Lions out in the open don't kill everything with a pulse that they can find. Undead do.

_________________
Currently playing:
Aven Brinyflask
Safaya Dalai
Riyit
Chsera Hile

(Credits to Raua for the sprite, sauce -here-.)

Lions are predators, and operate surprisingly similarly to vampires. They stalk their prey and then kill them brutally. Make no mistake, a lion is a murderous creature. In my opinion, the two aren't different. The only reason the lion doesn't kill more than it does, is because it doesn't have an addiction/craving/need to sustain called negative energy. That addiction is just more demanding than getting a meal (in the lion's case) so it would appear as if it's the only thing they do. In some respects, I can argue that an undead is merely doing what it needs to so it can survive. This is especially the case with lesser undead, as they simply cannot function and eventually die (again) without negative energy. Further, with some undead, their death from lack of feeding is almost more excruciating than any living being considering that if they get unlucky enough they can live paralyzed for years (hundreds even sometimes) before properly being ended.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I could probably argue this forever because, from the illithids perspective, it's probably more humane to wipe a thrall's mind than it would be to keep them thinking and feeling through the entire experience. We'd probably brain-wipe cows if we could do it practically too. Life on the farm isn't all sunshine and rainbows up until the day they're hit in the head with a hammer/have a metal rod thrust into their brain/have their head electrified and are sliced open while they're unconscious but still alive. Even if it were sunshine and rainbows, respect and love don't diminish the act of hanging them up to bleed out as their organs are cut out. There is no such thing as humane slaughtering. Though.. if we could wipe their brains so they aren't aware of what's going on, it might be considered more humane and I'd probably support it because I've seen first hand the way cows in slaughter houses react when they see or smell the blood on the floor.

Does that make us evil? Nope. I don't think so. They're below us on the food chain, I don't understand their moo-sounds, and they're bred for that purpose. I feel only the slightest tinge of guilt when I bite into a delicious slice of bacon, devour the unborn children of chickens, or slice into a tender steak, but that doesn't keep me from enjoying it. In Spain, cows are bred to fight bull fighters for entertainment. All around the world, dogs and chickens are bred to fight other dogs and chickens for the entertainment of their human overlords.

If illithids were real, we'd be the cows. We'd be the big, stupid animals that only exist for their benefit. I consider illithid society evil because I'm on the outside and I don't like the thought of having my brains sucked out whether I'm aware or not when it happens. But like Guardian said.. almost anything can be justified if you look at it from the perspective of the 'monster' doing it.

So.. this could go on forever and I think we're losing the bigger discussion in the tentacles.

Objective morality/alignment is boring. I think saying that certain creatures are evil because they are and they always will be closes off a LOT of awesome story possibilities. I know that's the way it is in D&D, but we don't really follow a lot of D&D rules in Amia anyway.

If what Mana said is the way it is, all veteran soldiers, adventurers, heroic avengers, etc. would be evil because they've repeatedly taken life and taking life, even if not doing so meant they'd lose their lives, is an evil act.

EDIT: That isn't to say that I don't think some creatures should always be evil or good. Devils, demons, celestials, and the like are basically good/evil incarnate and they should be kept that way. But I think having other creatures that are ALWAYS good or evil without any room for interpretation lessens the idea that devils and celestials are supposed to be evil/good made flesh.

Krin, flayers don't mindwipe their thralls to spare them any anguish or suffering, they do that so they don't need to guard them while they do their slave labour untill it's their turn to be dinner.

I don't see anything redeeming about that.

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

I don't really get the mind-flayer apologists.

Illithid were intentionally created to be D&D versions of Lovecraftian monsters, and since when was any evil fish-headed race in any of the mythos anything but evil? They're flying around through the cosmos trying to blot out stars, their existence is antithetical to any other form of life, they want to destroy free-will, enslave every other race they encounter, and create an environment that is more pleasant for them to live in with zero regard for the environments they destroy to make it that way.

They're pretty much one of the single most evil races in the universe.

He doesn't seem so bad.