D&D General I really LOVE Stomping Goblins

[Remathilis]

What does 'inherently evil' even mean? I don't think it is really a coherent concept to begin with.

I've seen the term used in two different contexts that are at odds with one another.

Meaning one is that though some circumstance of their origin, they are born evil and that cannot be changed except in extreme circumstances. A goblin is born evil and the only choice he has is how he plans to act out his evil urges. This is the Always Evil argument. Evil is Nature.

The second meaning is that creatures born in an evil society will reflect the evil society they come from and the vast majority will align with that alignment. A goblin born in a goblin tribe will most likely be Evil, but one born in an elf society could be Chaotic Good. Evil thus is the result of the evil society they come from, and while you could theoretically deprogram them to turn from evil, the for the vast majority it would be impossible at best (think how hard it is to talk someone into changing political ideology and you get an idea how hard it would be). In this case Evil is Nurture.

The two meanings can co-exist (demons as nature, goblins as nurture) but things get dicey when they are conflated (as 5e did in places) and recently the two meanings are being challenged by a "new" one: Evil is Choice where nobody is born evil and society doesn't make someone evil, evil is a choice made consciously or unconsciously. So even a drow born of a Noble House in Mezzobarazan is equally capable (if not likely) to be good or evil as a human cobbler in Silverymoon.

Evil is nature, evil is nurture, evil is choice. Those are the three models and one of them isn't compatible with it's others.

 

[HammerMan]

There are many different interpretations of Satan, and in many of them he is both evil and complex. You have staked this claim where you have defined "inherently evil" as "simple" and there it's nonsense.

do you have any recommended reading on this?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

What does 'inherently evil' even mean? I don't think it is really a coherent concept to begin with.

I think this means “evil” are species specific behaviors that are almost universally present in a species.

creatures can be trained so maybe to extent “inherently evil” creature can too but would enegage with evil again without much of a push.

I don’t overthink it—-I see goblins and hags as archetypes of the invader outside of the gates, the bump in the night.

its “how it is” but I know a lot of people enjoy crazy prankster goblins etc. which is fine too—-I just don’t lean into or worry about that.

as a result, stomping goblins is fun for me too

 

[Paul Farquhar]

do you have any recommended reading on this?

Matthew 4:1-11

 

[Cadence]

This doesn't seem to be the discussion board to discuss the historiography of Satan, unless you're trying to get the thread shut down.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've seen the term used in two different contexts that are at odds with one another.

Meaning one is that though some circumstance of their origin, they are born evil and that cannot be changed except in extreme circumstances. A goblin is born evil and the only choice he has is how he plans to act out his evil urges. This is the Always Evil argument. Evil is Nature.

The second meaning is that creatures born in an evil society will reflect the evil society they come from and the vast majority will align with that alignment. A goblin born in a goblin tribe will most likely be Evil, but one born in an elf society could be Chaotic Good. Evil thus is the result of the evil society they come from, and while you could theoretically deprogram them to turn from evil, the for the vast majority it would be impossible at best (think how hard it is to talk someone into changing political ideology and you get an idea how hard it would be). In this case Evil is Nurture.

The two meanings can co-exist (demons as nature, goblins as nurture) but things get dicey when they are conflated (as 5e did in places) and recently the two meanings are being challenged by a "new" one: Evil is Choice where nobody is born evil and society doesn't make someone evil, evil is a choice made consciously or unconsciously. So even a drow born of a Noble House in Mezzobarazan is equally capable (if not likely) to be good or evil as a human cobbler in Silverymoon.

Evil is nature, evil is nurture, evil is choice. Those are the three models and one of them isn't compatible with it's others.

Right. Too bad that ‘evil’ isn’t a coherent concept either.

 

[Oofta]

Right. Too bad that ‘evil’ isn’t a coherent concept either.

Maybe not for you. It is for a lot of people.

 

[HammerMan]

Matthew 4:1-11

that's the dessert test right? I don't see much nuance or character development there,

 

[Krachek]

I've seen the term used in two different contexts that are at odds with one another.

Meaning one is that though some circumstance of their origin, they are born evil and that cannot be changed except in extreme circumstances. A goblin is born evil and the only choice he has is how he plans to act out his evil urges. This is the Always Evil argument. Evil is Nature.

The second meaning is that creatures born in an evil society will reflect the evil society they come from and the vast majority will align with that alignment. A goblin born in a goblin tribe will most likely be Evil, but one born in an elf society could be Chaotic Good. Evil thus is the result of the evil society they come from, and while you could theoretically deprogram them to turn from evil, the for the vast majority it would be impossible at best (think how hard it is to talk someone into changing political ideology and you get an idea how hard it would be). In this case Evil is Nurture.

The two meanings can co-exist (demons as nature, goblins as nurture) but things get dicey when they are conflated (as 5e did in places) and recently the two meanings are being challenged by a "new" one: Evil is Choice where nobody is born evil and society doesn't make someone evil, evil is a choice made consciously or unconsciously. So even a drow born of a Noble House in Mezzobarazan is equally capable (if not likely) to be good or evil as a human cobbler in Silverymoon.

Evil is nature, evil is nurture, evil is choice. Those are the three models and one of them isn't compatible with it's others.

I have always seen the Drow in Mezzobarazan as the first victims of Lolth webs.
Evil communities or organization may look appealing from the outside, but a closer look reveal the hardness of such life. Drows may have choice but from their birth they are in a place that force them to use violence, plotting, treachery, just to survive. On top of that they got a sadistic god who push them more and more to struggle agains each other’s. Lolth prefer to torment free will being, rather than muppets.
There is no fun being there, and no way to escape! The system make sure to sustain itself.

On the other hand, orcs have been creating in LoTR by Morgoth to serve as weapons. We also see Sarouman do the same things with urukhai, and in such process we can imagine that those orcs have much less free will and spirit. But again, it may lead to surprising ending, replicant from Blade runner, are product, with programmed obedience, but finally evolve to the point of giving life by their own mean.

it depends on DM intent and needs to use those things to fit his game.
Hack and slash vs heavy role play don’t have the same concern on the free will of orcs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe not for you. It is for a lot of people.

Who do not agree with each other…