Let's be consistent here: stupid creatures and alignment

[Libertad]

The monster manual says that animals are neutral because they lack the reasoning skills and mental capacity to make informed moral judgments. 

Makes sense if you assume that intent matters as well as action.

The problem is that stupid Int -, 1, and 2 creatures have other alignments.  Zombies are Neutral Evil while Lemures are Lawful Evil.  In the Lemure's case, it is a sub-Devil, creatures forged from the essence of evil and law.

But this gets weird with creatures that aren't forged of the moral constructs of the multiverse.  In the Monster Manual V, the Malastor is an Int 2 Magical Beast that is Usually Chaotic Evil.  Basically the Malastor is a slumbering creature of destruction that ravages the countryside whenever it is roused from its sleep, much like the Tarrasque.  The Malastor was not created by demons, and the flavor text gives no connection to Evil stuff like worshiping dark gods and intentionally trying to bring misery unto others.

But the Tarrasque, albeit neutral, has an intelligence score of 3.  It is very stupid, but it is capable of grasping simple concepts that animals cannot understand.  You can probably teach it a very simplistic language if you somehow managed to pacify it.  Both creatures are similar in action: they don't think, they destroy.

I do not know if somebody managed to find a consistent explanation for Intelligence and alignment, but I think that we should stick to it one way or the other.

If lack of intelligence does not preclude Evil alignment, then this brings up the possibility of animals having alignments.  Is a lion who kills the babies of other fathers Evil?  What about the cat who tortures the mouse for fun?  Infanticide of defenseless young and sadistic torture are seen as evil actions, so why should animals get a free ride?

But if intelligence is required for alignment, then this means that zombies and lemures must also be neutral.  Both creatures are mindless and cannot fathom advanced concepts.  The lemure is a slave to other devils, and obeys their mental commands, making it a tool.  Otherwise it attacks anything that comes near it.

Which option is better, in your opinion?  Mindlessness trumps alignment, or alignment trumps mindlessness?

[Havok4]

I think that mindlessness overrides alignment. Being evil implies actual malice, not just unthinking violence.
On the issue of zombies and lemures, in all honesty they should probably be neutral with their types and subtypes causing all of the evil triggering effects. So a lemure is neutral but its lawful and evil subtypes causes it to be considered evil for all effects.

[LordBlades]

I've often wondered that myself, especially about mindless undead. IMHO they should be TN as they only do what their master commands them. Same goes for Int 1 and 2 creatures.

[snakeman830]

Lemure's I have to go with the official alignment on them.  They may not have any reasoning ability, but they are LE incarnate.
Retirvers are also mindless CE creatures, but these I again agree with their alignment since they are 100% created by demons.  Some part of their construction probably includes infusion of malice or something.  They are a bit more debateable than Lemures.

Skeletons and Zombies, however, are TN.  They only do what their creator commands and are animated by negative energy which, while harmful, is no more evil than fire or ice is.

[veekie]

Generally speaking, to have an alignment you would need to be one of the following:
-Sentient being with a preference for Evil modes of thought and action.
-Composed or constructed from aligned energies or effects. Most undead fall under this umbrella since the effects needed to create them are evil aligned, and needless to say evil outsiders and evil powered constructs apply the same. This has effects, especially on the low intellect or mindless, as their core programming and instincts inspire them to act in an evil manner.
-Malicious instincts. This one is hard to quantify, but at the lower range of intelligence, some creatures have instincts that predispose them to evil actions. Most likely, like the mindless entry above, they were created that way(most of the ones that fit here are magical beasts, and generally loony evil wizards make them anyway).

[RobbyPants]

There are ways to have evil unintelligent creatures. In Frank & K's Tome of Necromancy, they mention two ways to handle undead: one making them inherently evil and the other not. If you assume they're inherently evil, then they actually need to be restrained. So, an un-commanded skeleton would stand there and attack any life form that came near enough.

In theory, the skeleton could even wander to an extent, so long as if it survives the fight, it can sense another living creature. It would seem that only after it's killed everything it can find within it's current position that it would just stand there inert.

[Bozwevial]

There are ways to have evil unintelligent creatures. In Frank & K's Tome of Necromancy, they mention two ways to handle undead: one making them inherently evil and the other not. If you assume they're inherently evil, then they actually need to be restrained. So, an un-commanded skeleton would stand there and attack any life form that came near enough.

In theory, the skeleton could even wander to an extent, so long as if it survives the fight, it can sense another living creature. It would seem that only after it's killed everything it can find within it's current position that it would just stand there inert.

Which is dependent on whether negative energy is inherently bad or not. So under that model a skeleton is evil only because it's powered by something that is essentially distilled evil. If you had an unintelligent positive energy zombie, that would register as good and also confuse a great many villagers when it shambles up and starts giving backrubs or something.

[veekie]

Which is dependent on whether negative energy is inherently bad or not. So under that model a skeleton is evil only because it's powered by something that is essentially distilled evil. If you had an unintelligent positive energy zombie, that would register as good and also confuse a great many villagers when it shambles up and starts giving backrubs or something.

I went with "negative energy itself is neutral, but the SPELL that makes them is evil"(lacking PC necromancers anyway), so the basic programming is done by the spell, and they get evil inclinations from that. Presumably if Osiris came up with his Good descriptor animate dead spell you'd have backrubby skeletons.

[Bozwevial]

Which is dependent on whether negative energy is inherently bad or not. So under that model a skeleton is evil only because it's powered by something that is essentially distilled evil. If you had an unintelligent positive energy zombie, that would register as good and also confuse a great many villagers when it shambles up and starts giving backrubs or something.

I went with "negative energy itself is neutral, but the SPELL that makes them is evil"(lacking PC necromancers anyway), so the basic programming is done by the spell, and they get evil inclinations from that. Presumably if Osiris came up with his Good descriptor animate dead spell you'd have backrubby skeletons.

Or you could have the created undead take on the alignment traits of the caster?

[veekie]

Thats another option yeah.

[RobbyPants]

Which is dependent on whether negative energy is inherently bad or not. So under that model a skeleton is evil only because it's powered by something that is essentially distilled evil. If you had an unintelligent positive energy zombie, that would register as good and also confuse a great many villagers when it shambles up and starts giving backrubs or something.

Yeah, that's the rationale behind the decision. On a side note, I like the idea of altruistic zombies!

"That zombie is... building an orphanage."

"Well yeah. It's uncontrolled."

[Libertad]

I think that Eberron's different with the undead.

In Karrnath, the Blood of Vol is creepy and all to outsiders (plus it was founded with ill intent), but the majority of followers and undead people are non-evil.

The afterlife of Eberron is quite depressing: a big gray realm where nalfeshnee demons oversee the administration of departed souls.  Anyone who spends long enough time there stops caring about anything and everything.

Given that this realm can be accessed by 9th-level spellcasters, the existence of an afterlife can be proven.  And people turn to undeath to avoid going to this bleak realm.

[Sevash]

When you get down to it, the only reason that beings infused with negative energy are typically labelled as evil is because they are naturally inclined to eradicate those beings that are alive because of positive energy, which is the majority of sentient races on the Material Plane.  But place yourself in a fire elemental's shoes, now.  Water elementals are anathema to your kind; each of you stands in opposition to the other.  That water elemental is assuredly evil!

This is where we start getting bogged down with concepts of moral relativity.  Should a paladin be able to smite any undead because of the energy that drives them, because it is in opposition to their down driving force?  Should an azer not be able to smite undead all willy-nilly, but have the option to smite any being with the water or cold subtype regardless of alignment?

Applying something as patently unresolvable as moral philosophy to a hard ruleset can only create headaches.

[Libertad]

I don't think that unintelligent undead and fiends should be the only things of concern, although they are a major source of monsters.

I thought that the Tome of Necromancy's handling of undead had many good ideas.  I usually just have the state of undeath itself be separate from alignment, including negative energy.  You've got ghosts of any alignment in the Core Rules, Good liches and elven zombie tomb guardians in Faerun, Eberron has fluid creature alignments, and even in Planescape there's Neutral negative energy elementals (that's Xeg-yi)!

In fact, it's actually a lot less work to go down this route than making all things undead evil!

How do you take into concern unintelligent magical beasts with non-neutral alignments, like my Malastor examples?  Is a retcon in order?

Other concerns: if mindlessness trumps alignment, what happens when an Evil Outsider gets hit with a Feeblemind?  It's forged from the essence of alignment, but it's too stupid to take into account complex moral and ethical decisions.  Does it act like a computer, continuing to do what it's programmed to do?  Will a feebleminded Devil continue to attack Demons and punish "non-lawful" behavior?

[SolEiji]

Other concerns: if mindlessness trumps alignment, what happens when an Evil Outsider gets hit with a Feeblemind?  It's forged from the essence of alignment, but it's too stupid to take into account complex moral and ethical decisions.  Does it act like a computer, continuing to do what it's programmed to do?  Will a feebleminded Devil continue to attack Demons and punish "non-lawful" behavior?

I'd say mindlessless trumps alignment, but subtype trumps mindlessness.  Thus the evil outsider would continue to be an evil cuss, being made of solidified badwrong.  Do the same to an evil human, and he becomes true neutral instead, for the moment.

[Satori]

Since when was D&D ever Consistent? Not that I don't agree with much of what has been said, but, really...

[Libertad]

Since when was D&D ever Consistent? Not that I don't agree with much of what has been said, but, really...

The MST3K Mantra is all well and good, but some things just stick out.  If we can find a viable solution, then all is good.

I also like to see different people's take on things.  There's many ways to deal with alignment, and I like to find out how other gamers dealt with it.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Isn't it obvious? Animals might maul people but they don't seek out cities to destroy...

[Libertad]

Isn't it obvious? Animals might maul people but they don't seek out cities to destroy...

But animals do some pretty sick stuff.  Most ducks are born as the result of rape.  And male brown bears kill their own children so that they make the female go back into heat to reproduce.

If we accept the PHB and Monster Manual's explanation of animal alignment ("they're too dumb to have an alignment!"), then players and Dungeon Masters will ask why undead creatures, a variety of magical beasts, and outsiders are exempt.

Outsiders with subtypes are plausible explanation (forged from the essence of evil), but why is the Blood Golem of Hextor Lawful Evil.  It's a Construct and more stupid than most animals!

[veekie]

Again, its the programming, animals and vermin in general may inflict pain and suffering in the regular course of things, but the thing with Good/Evil is that the creature must be inclined to go out of its way to aid others or harm others for their purposes. For most animals this works out to self preservation and reproduction alone, which is the aegis of Neutrality.

Meanwhile the construct is powered by the cosmic concept of evil, and barring direct commands to the contrary, will act to cause harm and suffering to others, even if there is no profit in it.