D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Maxperson]

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.

Okay, but again this has never been the case in any edition of D&D. Demons have always been capable of evil, neutral and good acts. As well as chaotic, neutral and lawful acts. Alignment has never been a straightjacket.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And yet for half of the gme's history Paladins, Clerics, Bards and Barbarians aren't capable of having a full range of morality.

Because it's still a straightjacket.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You know what, I completely agree, but my answer is "we are only human". If I look at myself critically, I know I should be doing more charity work than what I'm doing, and that I should cut on my personal fun and gaming to do this, it would be the nice thing to do. But still, I'm doing a bit and I hope it's better than doing nothing. And I know that I should not order as much as I do from Amazon, and not consume as much as what is produced by some countries which I really dislike. But again, "only human". It's easy to look down at what happened in Germany, but would I really have behaved any better ? It's easy to judge until you are being tested.

D&D is an oversimplification, not a real simulation, and if it simulates anything it's not real life anyway...

For me, the great thing about D&D (wrt ethics) is that you can play someone who gets to just say, “No, you move.” when the fantasy Nazis are grabbing for power, and have a chance to stop them.

 

[Lyxen]

That allows you to be called doctor, not shut down casual conversation.

I think the problem is that most of us, including myself, often have a much too strong stance concerning deep things with which we barely scratch the surface, but that is often due to the communication medium and the need to speak strongly on the internet.

That being said, while I don't support @Filthy Lucre 's tone, he is right about our universe, which does not make it necessarily right in a fantasy universe. Most of that theory is based on very fundamental physics which have no reason to exist (and which are actually contradicted by magic in some cases). Light in particular in the D&D universe is very hard to reconcile with photon (and even these are extremely complex things to understand anyway).

 

[Lyxen]

And yet for half of the gme's history Paladins, Clerics, Bards and Barbarians aren't capable of having a full range of morality.

Because it's still a straightjacket.

And it has been improved since then, which shows how you can carry a grudge when there is zero reason to, since you need to go back to previous editions to try (and fail) to make a point.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet for half of the gme's history Paladins, Clerics, Bards and Barbarians aren't capable of having a full range of morality.

Because it's still a straightjacket.

No. It had a pretty strong disincentive for a long time, but never have they been rendered incapable of acting in any manner the player chooses.

 

[Steampunkette]

Okay, but again this has never been the case in any edition of D&D. Demons have always been capable of evil, neutral and good acts. As well as chaotic, neutral and lawful acts. Alignment has never been a straightjacket.

Then the Demon isn't evil unless he chooses to take evil actions.

Alignment has to be one of three things:
Descriptive: Someone does evil so they are evil.
Proscriptive: Someone is evil so they may only do evil.
Idealistic: Someone strives to be evil.

In the first it makes perfect sense that a Demon could be good or evil. In the second a Demon cannot choose to be good or evil, and is thus unaligned. In the third the demon can strive to be evil and do evil things and thus be evil.

But a Demon is not evil if it doesn't do evil.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And that second interpretation is clearly proven wrong by all the other descriptions of the other alignments. I agree that taken on its own, it's ambiguous and it smack a bit of 2e (worst edition ever, for this point amongst others, although the settings were great) where you could theoretically have two lawful good paladins from opposite religions smiting each other because the other one was evil in their view.

I don't have a problem with pallys casting Smite Evil at each other. I think it's a feature illlustrated that alignment isn't that a straightjacket. Conflicting views of what is evil, even among gods, sounds an interesting world to play in.

But if you add the other definitions of good and evil it's obvious that it's not relative to the society, and it's therefore obviously wrong that only the lawful good one would be the only one to be relative.

The rest isn't helping that much.

LG : "I am doing what is expected by society". A relative definition, as you recognized.
NG : "do the best they can to help others according to their needs." Less clearly relative, but still. They'd do the whole human sacrifice as the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
CG : "act as their conscience directs..." that's the epitome of relative morality. They are not even refering to social norms but only "their conscience"... It's either totally personal but probably at least influenced by the culture he grew up in and his role models... Someone made an example about a child-caring torturer-by-trade upthread... he could fit the CG definition if he thought "I am torturing guilty people, never innocent ones!"
N : "many humans are neutral, they don't take side". So they'll let the sacrifices happen.
CN: "follow their whims". Same as CG, then, except they "hold their personal freedom above all": they do what they want, that's 100% not objective since only them can know what their current whim is.
LE : "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" So relative as well, because tradition and loyalty is certainly in setting... "the priest over there demand your heart, don't resist please..." They'd certainly try to get a payment for it, though, since it's just being greedy.
LN : "individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes." Another relative, since it's clearly not our laws...

Paradoxically, the only "clearly objective" descriptions are NG, NE "the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." and CE "creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

 

[Maxperson]

Then the Demon isn't evil unless he chooses to take evil actions.

No. It IS evil and does choose to take evil actions. With very rare exceptions(which have existed in all editions) it has to be. It just doesn't have to have every action be evil, and can choose to take non-evil actions.

Alignment has to be one of three things:
Descriptive: Someone does evil so they are evil.
Proscriptive: Someone is evil so they may only do evil.
Idealistic: Someone strives to be evil.

No. It can be more than one at once. A demon can, with very rare exceptions, be proscribed to be evil in alignment(which is not and never has been all actions). It can then be descriptively called evil because of the actions that they take. They can also strive to be evil, yet occasionally do some good. Nothing limits them to only one of those categories.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

No. It IS evil and does choose to take evil actions. With very rare exceptions(which have existed in all editions) it has to be. It just doesn't have to have every action be evil, and can choose to take non-evil actions.

No. It can be more than one at once. A demon can, with very rare exceptions, be proscribed to be evil in alignment(which is not and never has been all actions). It can then be descriptively called evil because of the actions that they take. They can also strive to be evil, yet occasionally do some good. Nothing limits them to only one of those categories.

You two are talking past each other. You're treating "evil" like a type or class to which things can be members regardless of their behavior.
@Steampunkette is saying that your morality is exclusively and exhaustively determined by your actions.

You think that good/evil is something that you are, but she thinks evil is something that you do.

"Alignment realism" is, in my opinion, untenable for exactly the reason you two are struggling to come to terms. You can be a moral realist without giving alignment some sort of real metaphysical weight. You can be forgiven though, since D&D has for a very long time enabled that assumption with spells like "detect good/evil". So your interpretation might be more supported by the rules and lore of D&D... but that does not make it the more rational of the perspectives.