D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Maxperson]

All human thought processes are based upon the start-state of the universe, according to science. Every atom and electron, every mote of energy, is flying across space-time in the exact configuration it is currently in because that is the only configuration it -could- be in based on it's initial trajectory during the Big Bang... 'Cause we live in a Deterministic Universe where Free Will is just an interesting idea.

Or not. Depending on what your belief system is. (Though in a Deterministic Universe that belief is also hard-wired into reality)

All that outta the way:

Biology affecting thought processes and such is all well and good, but morality isn't based on your thought processes. It's based on an external judgement of your actions and statements relative to the current moral baseline of your society. And even psychopaths, real world psychopaths not movie versions thereof, can learn to act in a manner which doesn't disturb the baseline. Regardless of what they might think or do not feel.

If you have an "Inherently Evil" creature that does not perform evil acts then you have a creature that isn't evil.

And if you've got an "Inherently Evil" creature that performs evil acts because it can't -not- perform evil acts (Like a Rabbit) you don't judge it as being evil 'cause it can't help the fact that it commits infanticide-cannibalism.

Not in D&D which is where this is taking place. Demons are evil and can act in a not evil manner if they wish. We can judge them morally, because morals are only about the action, not the reason behind the action. A demon killing a bunch of infants is still acting immorally, even if it had no choice in being an evil creature.

 

[Oofta]

I am still not convinced that you need free will to be "d&d evil" as much as you need it to be "real world evil". I don't find anything in the definition that eliminates it totally.



If most creates that lack rational thought do not have alignments, that mean that some of them are both lacking free will and have an alignment. If not, it would be written as "Creatures that lack the capacity... do not have alignment".

A wolf is a carnivore because the majority of what it eats has to be meat to survive. The fact that it has no choice does not make it any less of a carnivore. If a creature only has the capacity to commit evil, then it's still evil as far as the game is concerned. Alignment is just a descriptor of moral outlook and general behavior.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

All human thought processes are based upon the start-state of the universe, according to science. Every atom and electron, every mote of energy, is flying across space-time in the exact configuration it is currently in because that is the only configuration it -could- be in based on it's initial trajectory during the Big Bang... 'Cause we live in a Deterministic Universe where Free Will is just an interesting idea.

So, my degree is in philosophy, and you're doing a ton of assuming here.

Firstly, the universe is not deterministic and we've known that for at least 100 years. At least not in the sense that all process are completely and totally deterministic. Most recently the 2015 Bell Tests have been called the final and ultimate nail in the idea of laplacian determinism.

Second, knowing what I just said, your statement that "in the exact configuration it is currently in because that is the only configuration it -could- be in based on it's initial trajectory during the Big Bang" is objectively, and not even controversially, false. While we can invoke the PSR to say that reality had to have some foundation from which all other existence springs, that does not mean that the initial condition determined all future states of the universe. Again, this isn't new, this is from the 1920s.

Thirdly, libertarian free will has been my area of study for the last decade and I'd be happy to go into length on any of these issues. While a determinist universe can be argued for, as a matter of academic responsibility I cannot allow you to just assert it's truth unchallenged, especially when it is an increasingly minority opinion.

See:

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres - Nature

A Bell experiment that is ‘loophole’ free—leaving no room for explanations based on experimental imperfections—reveals a statistically significant conflict with local realism

www.nature.com

An introduction to real possibilities, indeterminism, and free will: three contingencies of the debate

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(PDF) What’s wrong with the consequence argument: In defence of compatibilist libertarianism

PDF | The most prominent argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism is Peter van Inwagen’s consequence argument. I offer a new... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Norton's dome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Steampunkette]

Not in D&D which is where this is taking place. Demons are evil and can act in a not evil manner if they wish. We can judge them morally, because morals are only about the action, not the reason behind the action. A demon killing a bunch of infants is still acting immorally, even if it had no choice in being an evil creature.

If a Demon exists in D&D who does Evil, then the Demon is Evil. If a Demon exists in D&D who does no Evil, then the Demon is not Evil.

You can say he's MADE of Evil, like a Fire Elemental is made of Fire. But as an individual, as a person, a demon that does no evil isn't inherently evil. That's the thrust, there. That it doesn't matter what you call the stuff it's made of, it isn't evil in a socially understood context of someone or something that makes decisions to perform evil actions.

Now if the Demon -cannot- take Good actions. CANNOT do good things, because it is INHERENTLY and IMMUTABLY evil, then the Demon does not have free will. And declaring them good or evil is pointless because they're not making a moral judgement. Like a rabbit eating her offspring.

So, my degree is in philosophy, and you're doing a ton of assuming here.

Firstly, the universe is not deterministic and we've known that for at least 100 years. At least not in the sense that all process are completely and totally deterministic. Most recently the 2015 Bell Tests have been called the final and ultimate nail in the idea of laplacian determinism.

Second, knowing what I just said, your statement that "in the exact configuration it is currently in because that is the only configuration it -could- be in based on it's initial trajectory during the Big Bang" is objectively, and not even controversially, false. While we can invoke the PSR to say that reality had to have some foundation from which all other existence springs, that does not mean that the initial condition determined all future states of the universe. Again, this isn't new, this is from the 1920s.

Thirdly, libertarian free will has been my area of study for the last decade and I'd be happy to go into length on any of these issues. While a determinist universe can be argued for, as a matter of academic responsibility I cannot allow you to just assert it's truth unchallenged, especially when it is an increasingly minority opinion.

See:

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres - Nature

A Bell experiment that is ‘loophole’ free—leaving no room for explanations based on experimental imperfections—reveals a statistically significant conflict with local realism

www.nature.com

An introduction to real possibilities, indeterminism, and free will: three contingencies of the debate

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(PDF) What’s wrong with the consequence argument: In defence of compatibilist libertarianism

PDF | The most prominent argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism is Peter van Inwagen’s consequence argument. I offer a new... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I have no degrees. I was basing those statements off what I've gleaned as a Layman. Good to know, though, that determinism has been debunked!

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I have no degrees. I was basing those statements off what I've gleaned as a Layman. Good to know, though, that determinism has been debunked!

It is deeply unsettling to see how casually and confidently you're speaking on an issue you don't have any formal education on. I've had several undergraduate students come to office hours in tears struggling with existential anxiety because of things they read on the internet from lay people.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In such a setting, the infant in his cradle would register as Evil when a detection spell is cast upon him.

No, they wouldn’t. They’d just be a “necessary” sacrifice. The people who failed to do the very simple thing that would have saved the kid, would maybe detect as evil, but the Old Testament isn’t modern day Christianity, the same rules don’t apply. They didn’t believe that people outside their faith went to hell.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is deeply unsettling to see how casually and confidently you're speaking on an issue you don't have any formal education on. I've had several undergraduate students come to office hours in tears struggling with existential anxiety because of things they read on the internet from lay people.

They should have been raised to question things more, then. That’s on thier parents, not internet laypeople talking about philosophical concepts.

There is no justification for discouraging “laypeople” from discussing these concepts.

 

[Oofta]

..
Now if the Demon -cannot- take Good actions. CANNOT do good things, because it is INHERENTLY and IMMUTABLY evil, then the Demon does not have free will. And declaring them good or evil is pointless because they're not making a moral judgement. ...

So I don't understand this, at least as it applies to D&D. It's right there in the intro to the monster manual "A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. "

Does the CE label provide a clue to the disposition and behavior of a demon that has no free will? I think it does; it's a useful game term.

Probably pointless label in real life, just like you and I don't have hit points. Doesn't mean it isn't meaningful and useful in the context of a game.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If a Demon exists in D&D who does Evil, then the Demon is Evil. If a Demon exists in D&D who does no Evil, then the Demon is not Evil.

Or the Demon is evil, can do some good on the side because being X doesn't mean "always doing X" [you can be LN and pet a puppy without reason, despite such act being NG], but can't become good. If a Demon exist in D&D who does no Evil, he's either still Evil (but taking a day off after millenia of evil-doing), or no longer a Demon (but a fallen demon). There are alternatives to the definition you give.

You can say he's MADE of Evil, like a Fire Elemental is made of Fire. But as an individual, as a person, a demon that does no evil isn't inherently evil. That's the thrust, there. That it doesn't matter what you call the stuff it's made of, it isn't evil in a socially understood context of someone or something that makes decisions to perform evil actions.

I think the D&D definition doesn't meet your "socially understood context" for outsiders. It's defined as such :

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

He's made of evil, and if he stops being evil, he is no longer a demon. His fundamental natures changes ; there is also a point to be made that his aligment won't necessarily change despite actions taken (immanent being being potentially unknowable... maybe the demon stopped the kindergarten murderer because said murderer left unchecked, 10 years down the line, would have killed a child that have the potential to become a very profitable lich. (Not all celestial being need to be unknowable, but that's certainly something a D&D setting can include).

Now if the Demon -cannot- take Good actions. CANNOT do good things, because it is INHERENTLY and IMMUTABLY evil, then the Demon does not have free will. And declaring them good or evil is pointless because they're not making a moral judgement. Like a rabbit eating her offspring.

He doesn't need free will to be aligned. He can't be morally judged, but he can bear the evil alignment nonetheless. There is very little point in trying to correlate real life goodness with alignment goodness. This way lies madness.

 

[Steampunkette]

It is deeply unsettling to see how casually and confidently you're speaking on an issue you don't have any formal education on. I've had several undergraduate students come to office hours in tears struggling with existential anxiety because of things they read on the internet from lay people.

Yeeeeah... so... lemme get this straight:

I'm not allowed to assert my current understanding of reality to be so in a confident and self-possessed manner unless I've got a formal education on that specific aspect of reality? Jeeze. I won't be allowed to discuss -anything-. Ever. On any topic. And neither will most people. Not unless I present myself as falsely meek.

Now I can understand you being unsettled if my ignorant self said "I don't trust your studies and experiments because they exist within a deterministic universe and thus they'll come out in a specific deterministic way". That would make sense... But instead I was like "Cool, I didn't know that. I acknowledge my ignorance and I'll adjust my worldview accordingly."

As far as your students coming to your office in tears from existential anxiety... that's really rough. I can't imagine ever being that close to the edge of that emotion that someone being wrong online would cast me into turmoil like that.