Is it an evil act to attack an evil race, conquer and enslave it to ensure they won't attack other races anymore?

Genocide is never good, regardless of who it is targeting because the method of targeting is based on genetics and not deeds. So, yes, killing millions of evil people who have done evil things is "good" by DnD standards, targeting them because by they are of a certain race is not.

>slavery is more evil than murder

Fucking americucks

>Dnd Good and Evil are objective.
>Entire Race of people is Neutral Evil
>it is a Good act to destroy Evil
>Genocide of entire Evil race is Good.

Remember, kill ALL the Goblins.

>is based on genetics and not deeds
>race literally has genes making them assholes
Ebin.

Give me liberty or give me death.
etc etc etc

>Is it an evil act to attack an evil race, conquer and enslave it to ensure they won't attack other races anymore?

Yes, it's lawful evil.
If you wanted it to be "good", you'd only enslave/eat/rape the war criminals and get to work culturally indoctrinating/assimilating the survivors into your superior culture.

Genocide is Neutral Evil: as an animal, your instinct tells you to rape, kill, and eat the competition, but it's your sapience that gives you the drive to deliberately take it too far and completely remove them.

>Liberals flock back to document the poor innocent and peaceful Muslims of the Middle East before the Crusades came
>Get seized in Jerusalam because they're European
>Suffer endless tortures and suffering
>The few who survive manage to flee back to Christendom by way of Rome
>Word reaches the Pope of the sufferings these people have endured
>Pope calls for a great Crusade to liberate the Holy Lands

>Genocide is Neutral Evil
>Removing a race that is objectively evil, who only knows how to kill and rape and literally generates evil power from just their existence is evil because I said so

No.

It's the act, not the victim. There's something wrong if you judge the morality of your actions on who you do them to

Only in retrospect. Though it would be fair to say that even the crusaders would've found the idea of literally genociding all the muslims (rather than just destroying the religion itself) evil, but that's different from the question in the OP where muslims are still at the core human, just like the rest of us, hard as that may be to admit. Would be different for an objectively evil race, the murdering of which would be a good thing almost no matter what.

>It's the act
>killing is bad
>except when it's an evil bloodthirst monster tp spare lives, then it's good through
>killing a lot of evil monsters to spare lives is good too
>killing all evil monsters to spare lives is bad however
Yeah, no.

That's retarded. The act isn't what matters; it's why you do it. Otherwise... nothing would make sense. Like, taxing people to pay for only beneficial things that in the long run help absolutely everyone would be an EVIL act, because it's taking money from someone against their will under the pain of imprisonment or death. Or, euthanasia would be evil. You'd rather keep someone whose entire existence is immutable suffering alive than kill them to end their suffering, because killing is always an evil act. Or, giving birth (presumably?) is always a good act, so giving birth to, like, an army of super-powered demons whose all-encompassing need is purely to impose as much misery upon the rest of the existence as possible.

You'd have to be insanely stupid to think that makes sense.

Of course, it's a really EASY way to conceptualize the world, so I can see why it'd be appealing to said insanely stupid people.

Killing sapient creatures is bad outside of immediate self defence, don't pretend genocide is good because "they deserve it"

Give me a scenario in which genocide is unquestionably good

>killing a black or red dragon is bad if he isn't torching a city at the moment
Yeah, no. Take your bullshit subjective morality to your subjective settings.

Not him, but wiping all 5e gnolls.

>The few who survive manage to flee back to Christendom by way of Rome
>Get executed for being heretics and approving of homosexuality and general freedom
Fix'd.

Are gnolls in 5e "always evil" like demons? If the answer is "no", then genociding them is evil because they still have the capacity for good, even if said capacity is severely underutilized.

>The West generally considers the Crusades one of the Great Mistakes committed by their ancestors
Bullllllllllllll shit. No the West does not think that.

Self defense is fine. Preemptive self defense can also be fine if you can actually prove there is an imminent threat. Initiating force against beings capable of moral reasoning just because they could maybe do bad things at some point in the future is not fine.

Unless these monsters aren't sapient, or they are walking Evilbots who can't act in any way besides imposing their evil on others, there isn't a valid excuse for an unprovoked attack on them.

*xenociding, rather.

Hell, even the Wiggin knew what he did was evil, and it haunted him for decades, even though he was basically engaged in a war of extinction.

Killing a black dragon because you were tasked to do it is okay, because the quest is almost invariably given because the black dragon attacked and killed someone, or is destroying peoples' livelihood for selfish reasons.

Killing a black dragon because you entered its dungeon is less good, but still not BAD because it decided to kill you instead of demanding that you leave.

Yes, but even if not:

>wiping a 99,99% evil race is bad because the 0,01% could be good
Nope. You are completely justified in removing a race that is a danger to all others.

>attack
It's always evil to initiate a war.

>conquer
It's not evil to win a war.

>enslave
Pic related.

>there isn't a valid excuse to attack creatures who are always murdering others because they haven't done it yet
No.

Even if a black dragon demanded you to leave you would be justified in killing it, since it's an actual evil creature that produces evil karma.

>>Removing a race that is objectively evil, who only knows how to kill and rape and literally generates evil power from just their existence is evil because I said so

The factory setting for every living creature is "kill and rape", user.

>It's always evil to initiate a war.
Wrong. It's good to initiate a war for the right reasons, such as protecting innocents.

>there isn't a valid excuse to attack creatures who are always murdering others because they haven't done it yet
>No.

So they're walking Evilbots and not actually thinking beings then?

No. You are justified in removing the ones who are an active danger to goodly peoples. Tribes bordering civilization and whatnot, and only if they are an active danger. If they're just minding their own business and you decide to roll in and wipe them out because lol gnolls, that is evil.

The factory setting for every living creature is "do nothing unless hungry or threatened". Malice only comes in when you start to give it more complex instincts and wants.

>The factory setting for every living creature is "kill and rape", user.
Is this true to high elves?

They think but they think in doing evil, because their biology makes them evil.

How many times has Afghanistan been invaded?

>If they're just minding their own business and you decide to roll in and wipe them out because lol gnolls, that is evil.
>Because they still haven't raped and devoured a little kid, even through they would love to do so and didn't have the opportunity to do so
Lolno.

Your corrupt, history revising mongreloid college proffessors might claim that garbage, but everyone who's not a faggot knows the crusades were justified and should have been taken 100x as far.

> we wuz free

>They think but they think in doing evil, because their biology makes them evil.
That isn't how morality works. A being is either capable of moral reasoning or it isn't. If it is capable of moral reasoning then it's entitled to the same rights as every other morally responsible being on the planet.

Also horseshit, because wiping out a pest isn't evil. It's enivronmental maintenance.

>"always evil" like demons
the closest thing in the prime material to a demon, really. Goodness id literally a sickness.

Thought policing is an evil act. Only the gods can predict the future and, in most settings, even they are usually shit at it.

Suppose the orcs think the same way of humans? Then what would make the orcs any more wrong than us?

>A being is either capable of moral reasoning or it isn't. If it is capable of moral reasoning then it's entitled to the same rights as every other morally responsible being on the planet.
The being is capable of moral reasoning but prefers to biologically do the things that's is evil, because it feels joy in doing evil. Ergo no, it's not like every other being and thus doesn't deserve the same rights.

Lolyes.

What you're advocating is Orwellian Thought-Crime bullshit. If killing someone is ok because they had a badthink that you don't approve of, then I'm equally justified in killing you because I disapprove of your badthink about killing people who engage in badthink.

It wouldn't make them more wrong than us. Now, you're seeing my point. Morality does not factor. All that matters is survival in said instances of wars of genocide. Applying morality is how a species or sub-species commits suicide, which is what is currently happening to the west.

Tumblr becomes a full fledged culture

From the Book of Vile Darkness.

THE OBJECTIVE APPROACH
This is the straightforward approach taken in the D&D
game, and it is the one stressed in this book as well. From
this frame of reference, evil can be judged objectively. The
evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn’t relative to the
person observing it; it just is evil or it isn’t. This clear-cut
definition allows spells such as holy smiteto work.
Conversely, an objective definition of evil exists because
the detect evil spell works. Want to know what’s evil?
Don’t study a philosophy book, just watch who gets
hurt when the cleric casts holy smite. Those creatures
are evil. The things they do, generally speaking, are
evil acts. If your character still isn’t certain, he can
summon a celestial creature or cast a communespell
and simply ask, “Is this evil?” The higher powers are
right there, ready to communicate.
The Player’s Handbook says, “ ‘Evil’ implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and
kill without qualm if doing so is convenient.
Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or
out of duty to some evil deity or master.”
This objective approach to evil works well for
fantasy roleplaying games. Evil is a thing that a
hero can point at and know he must fight. An
objective concept of evil allows players (and
their characters) to avoid most ethical or moral
quandaries, particularly the kinds that can
derail a game session. If you run an adventure
about fighting gnolls, you don’t normally want
the entire session consumed by a philosophical
debate about whether killing gnolls is a good
thing or a bad thing.

>Thought policing is an evil act.
Genetic objective facts and literally oozing bad karma aren't through.

Also good gods approve the destruction of evil.

Where does it say this is the case?

I bet you think muslims are also biologically inclined to evil.

>I'm incapable of seeing the difference between a chaotic evil race and a neutral one
>having a clear and objective tendency to evil is just a badthink
Not how it works fag.

Most people who know anything about the crusades in the west know that they're an extremely varied set of cases. Christians had definite grievances but a lot of 'crusading' turned into invading and fucking up other Christian nations anyway, because Christendom was not monolithic.

t. people who know nothing about history, religion, or sociology.

Are you saying that dark elves don't enjoy doing evil? Go read your DnD books.

>Are you saying that dark elves don't enjoy doing evil?

No. Are you saying this is biological rather than cultural? If so, then what is Drizzt?

I'm not one of the /pol/fags so completely irrelevant.

t. A man who pretends to know and understand any of those subjects just to score brownie points with sjws and attempt to get laid by spewing what is classified as the "correct" answer.

Preference is not an act. You don't get to attack someone because of hypotheticals that exist only in their head. If they're actually attacking people or planning to attack people then sure, but just because they have an impulse to do so doesn't mean they have to act on that impulse.

> definitions of evil exist to not derail entire sessions

Yet here we are, going full autismo-9000

Drow are explicitly evil due to social and religious norms in their environment. If they weren't, they wouldn't be capable of changing - which they can, according to canon.

You're free to change this in your campaigns, of course.

well you see, I saw this evil guy.
so I attacked him, conquered him.
Then locked him up in my basement.
but you see, he's not attacking anyone any more.

as long as you don't mind when someone dose it to you for the same reasons

Typically it's within context of a game where gnolls are actively attacking and raiding and doing stuff, and you get to fight back and beat them up until they stop.

Generally speaking, most games will stop there rather than keep going until every single gnoll is dead. I suspect many in this thread would not agree.

>No. Are you saying this is biological rather than cultural?
If babies tick on detect evil.

>If so, then what is Drizzt?
A token character created to go against the previous concrete race persona, which would fall into the 0,01% figure I mentioned earlier.

Exactly how it works. If a thinking being is just minding it's own business it's morally wrong to attack it. As long as it has the capacity to choose not to do evil and is not engaging in evil, you don't get to preemptively fuck their shit up.

I know 100% for a fact that my neighbor would LIKE to punch me in the face, but that doesn't give me the right to go burn down his house because he's not currently doing it or planning to do it.

>Preference is not an act
Because there wasn't the chance.

>You don't get to attack someone because of hypotheticals that exist only in their head.
Except that those are very concrete hypotheticals on the setting.

If I were looking to score 'brownie points' with SJWs, I wouldn't say they were varied, but that they were bad in their totality. The truth of the crusades is, like most things in history, complicated. There were legitimate reasons for people to go to war, but there were also a lot of people that weren't exactly in it for those reasons.

The fact is, you're a complete retard if you think taking the crusades further would have been better. There'd have been more loss of life, more loss of learning and literature, etc. Not to mention, taking them further would likely have ruined the economies of most western nations involved.

If you're not prepared to look at history with a rational, objective eye, keep your opinions on it to yourself.

>Get seized in Jerusalem because they're European
Are you stupid? The Orientals couldn't care less about some (peaceful) Euros.

>If babies tick on detect evil.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence on this in any books anywhere, one way or the other. Feel free to draw your own interpretations.

>A token character created to go against the previous concrete race persona, which would fall into the 0,01% figure I mentioned earlier.

There are several others I could name in canon - Liriel (or something) Baenre, Solaufein, Zaknafein, possibly Jarlaxle.

They are evil because they were originally fallen elves.

It was changed later, and even so it's doesn't change they are still chaotic evil.

Only really in modern times because of the general masturbating of Muslims by mainstream politicians.

Daily reminder, Muslims attacked first.

>They are evil because they were originally fallen elves.

So? The fact that an elf can fall means a drow can rise.

Or are you saying it only works one way?

There's also Viconia, who can be changed from Neutral Evil to True Neutral through the power of godly dickings and dialogue tree aftercare.

>If a thinking being is just minding it's own business it's morally wrong to attack it.
Because you said so?

>As long as it has the capacity to choose not to do evil and is not engaging in evil, you don't get to preemptively fuck their shit up.
Except that no, people shouldn't be kept in fear because 'maybe that red dragon won't burn your village like his other 99% brethren'.

>I know 100% for a fact that my neighbor would LIKE to punch me in the face, but that doesn't give me the right to go burn down his house because he's not currently doing it or planning to do it.
Oh yeah that's exactly what it means to be chaotic evil.

Outliers do not dictate the norm.

It's enough to dictate it is not a biological urge.

>Except that those are very concrete hypotheticals on the setting.

So Gnolls are not thinking beings capable of making choices? Are they actually Evil elementals? Demons/Devils? Spiritual beings of some sort that are incapable of acting against their nature?

An Evil race descriptor on a biological race is merely an expression of a general trend. It does not turn them into unthinking automata that can't act in any way besides Evil, any more than nominally Good races/cultures are incapable of doing Neutral/Evil.

>Well, I haven't seen any evidence on this in any books anywhere, one way or the other.
Red dragon whelps are chaotic evil.

>There are several others I could name in canon
>Names compared to entire races
>riding the previous popular character
Yes, 0,01%. Thanks for agreeing.

In 5e, gnolls are exactly that.

But they do indicate that the species is not inherently evil. Because if they were, these individuals wouldn't exist.

If evil was literally in their DNA, it would be impossible for them to change alignment. But they do change alignment, and have done quite a few times in canon. So your entire argument can go fuck itself.

Here I'll make it easy for people

Take the Drow

We know for a fact because of Drizzt and the good surface Drow that often exist that they are capable of being the various kinds of Good

Genocide is Evil because as a part it you would kill the Drow who have done nothing but be born a Drow

Drow Paladin?

Dead

Drow baby who hasn't done any?

Doesnt matter their Dead!

Genocide is Evil simple as that

>So? The fact that an elf can fall means a drow can rise.
Cool. We are gonna wait until the drows choose to arise. That does seem smart.

>Or are you saying it only works one way?
Sure, they have the time to arise before the army comes to fuck them up. If they arise before them they no problem.

>/pol/acks think muslims and niggers are objectively and biologically evil
>now argue for this same fact in fantasy where it actually says so in the books

Why are you people bothering to engage them at all? Leave them to their own devices. Sage.

Gnolls live to murder and eat.
They reproduce through slaughter.
Literal demonspawn.
There is one Good Gnoll, and he is sorry for being so.
Poor Kurr
Yes.
It requires demonic mindbreaking to change it.

We're mixing up individualist philosophies with larger scale morality here.
As an individual, there is no inherent "Good" in killing an evil creature, the act is only "Good" if it stopped or prevented Evil acts, otherwise it's probably neutral. There are plenty of cases where creatures are evil by nature but are unlikely to commit significant Evil acts, and divine judgement does not always work as a copout. If this is unclear, consider the very simple example of taking your Paladin to a pocket dimension full of zombies chilling out. They're evil creatures no doubt, but they're locked in a pocket plane and threaten literally no one. They're incapable, in this case, of Evil acts. Killing them is simply neutral. This is a pretty cherry picked example but it should illustrate that even when morality is cosmically black and white, it isn't.
Now the question was about attacking an en entire evil race that presumably did hold some direct threat of Evil acts, bearing in mind that a civilization or army's alignment does not mean the same thing as an individual's. The OP suggests the race in question is common aggressors. It can probably be tipped by more factors, but the large scale war would be made of a lot of Good and Neutral, and perhaps a sprinkling of Evil actions. Slavery is evil mate. Genocide shifts everything further down that scale, and most likely is an overall Neutral act. Again, the individuals participating may get more of one act or another, and especially in the case of Genocide some of them probably did some evil things to take out "eviler" creatures, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.

>So Gnolls are not thinking beings capable of making choices?
What part of: I could choose to do good but I prefer evil because I enjoy evil did you miss?

>An Evil race descriptor on a biological race is merely an expression of a general trend.
Yes, this is why it was 'Always Chaotic Evil'.

Gnolls actually are like that in 5e. Which is why 5e gnolls are retarded.

But you're right in most other cases.

Addendum: such extremes, "I did what I had to do" etc., have always been evil according to the books.

>Because you said so?
Because reciprocal rights are the basis of ethics. If a moral agent is not violating your rights in some way, you don't get to attack it no matter how good of a reason you think you've cooked up.

>Except that no, people shouldn't be kept in fear because 'maybe that red dragon won't burn your village like his other 99% brethren'.
You can defend your village in ways besides preemptively initiating force against beings that have done nothing wrong.

>Oh yeah that's exactly what it means to be chaotic evil.
For a non-supernatural or supernaturally empowered being that's exactly what it means. Mortals have the capacity to choose, which means they have the capacity to act outside their alignment or even change their alignment.

Then that's an entirely different discussion. If that is true, then killing one is no different than killing an unthinking killer robot.

The premise of moral discussions is that both parties are capable of morality. If a being MUST act a certain way then it isn't capable of morality.

Wait, no.
Gnolls actively look and choose the most evil path.

>Genocide is Evil because as a part it you would kill the Drow who have done nothing but be born a Drow
Except that being born a drow already puts it as a huge threat to every other neutral and good natured race, we don't take actions based on exceptions we take actions based on the main problem. So it's a good action to remove it for the protection of other people.