D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm with those that are saying "if it doesn't have free will, it can't be evil, and if it does, it's not 'inherently' any alignment".

Sure, Demons can be made of evil. They can be "Murder Elementals" as some have called them. However, that doesn't make them evil. It makes them like a predator. They exist to murder/eat, and it's essential to their existence. They're not evil, they're just made of it. I'm made up mostly of water, but that doesn't mean that I am water.

However, if there is anything close to "inherently evil", it's definitely wasps. Wasps are as close to evil incarnate that you can get.

 

[Maxperson]

It was a straightjacket if you decided to play it that way. We never did and it is explicitly no longer.

It was never one. As I said above, the alignment penalties for classes and alignment changes were a disincentive, but they didn't actually stop anyone of any alignment or class from acting how they wanted.

 

[Oofta]

It was never one. As I said above, the alignment penalties for classes and alignment changes were a disincentive, but they didn't actually stop anyone of any alignment or class from acting how they wanted.

True. Of course we never cared much as long as people didn't get too carried away.

 

[Oofta]

I'm with those that are saying "if it doesn't have free will, it can't be evil, and if it does, it's not 'inherently' any alignment".

Sure, Demons can be made of evil. They can be "Murder Elementals" as some have called them. However, that doesn't make them evil. It makes them like a predator. They exist to murder/eat, and it's essential to their existence. They're not evil, they're just made of it. I'm made up mostly of water, but that doesn't mean that I am water.

However, if there is anything close to "inherently evil", it's definitely wasps. Wasps are as close to evil incarnate that you can get.

But again, why does it matter? Alignment as used in the game is just a descriptor of their broad moral compass and how they are likely to respond. That's it. It's not a judgement call. It's not a philosophical debate. It's like saying that someone born and raised in Dallas is likely to have a Texan accent. A creature that is evil is likely to do evil things and to have evil motivations, it doesn't matter how you get there.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But again, why does it matter? Alignment as used in the game is just a descriptor of their broad moral compass and how they are likely to respond. That's it. It's not a judgement call. It's not a philosophical debate. It's like saying that someone born and raised in Dallas is likely to have a Texan accent. A creature that is evil is likely to do evil things and to have evil motivations, it doesn't matter how you get there.

Because it matters to how the creatures are played in the game and how people think of them. It matters.

Also, I highly subscribe to the idea that alignment (when I do use it, which is very rarely) is established based off of a creature's actions, not the other way around (that they act a certain way due to their alignment argument). If a Demon does some horrible thing, it's not because they're "evil", it's because that's what a demon is. They're murder elementals. They murder. That's their job in the game and in the D&D multiverse. A person that chooses to venerate demons and act like them is evil, because they have the agency to choose to not do that thing, but a demon can't choose to not murder the same way that we can't choose to not breathe. I think it's flawed terminology to call a demon "evil" the same way that I think it's flawed to call a polar bear or fire elemental evil. Polar Bears in D&D are unaligned, not evil, and Fire Elementals are neutral, so the terminology definitely matters in D&D.

Alignment is a descriptor of how someone acts and why, not the other way around. If a creature acts the other way around, they don't have an alignment, they're just made of evil or "elementals" of that concept.

 

[Oofta]

Because it matters to how the creatures are played in the game and how people think of them. It matters.

Also, I highly subscribe to the idea that alignment (when I do use it, which is very rarely) is established based off of a creature's actions, not the other way around (that they act a certain way due to their alignment argument). If a Demon does some horrible thing, it's not because they're "evil", it's because that's what a demon is. They're murder elementals. They murder. That's their job in the game and in the D&D multiverse. A person that chooses to venerate demons and act like them is evil, because they have the agency to choose to not do that thing, but a demon can't choose to not murder the same way that we can't choose to not breathe. I think it's flawed terminology to call a demon "evil" the same way that I think it's flawed to call a polar bear or fire elemental evil. Polar Bears in D&D are unaligned, not evil, and Fire Elementals are neutral, so the terminology definitely matters in D&D.

Alignment is a descriptor of how someone acts and why, not the other way around. If a creature acts the other way around, they don't have an alignment, they're just made of evil or "elementals" of that concept.

The only thing I can say is that I don't see the point. It's a game. Alignment is there for monsters and NPCs to give DMs an idea of how to run them. If the DM decides to change that behavior for whatever reason then they need to figure out what the new behavior and motivation will be.

That's all. It's not some big philosophical debate, it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If the demon killed billions of living beings, then took a millenia of paid leave sitting in a tavern and drinking (while paying dutifully for lodging and beer, without ever being inebriated), he's still evil? Nobody, even the local long-lived elves, have ever seen him doing something evil. Or has he changed enough, but just stopping to do evil things, that you'd made him change his alignment? And how would the paladin entering the tavern and killing him outright being judged? And after inaction, there is the overall balance... if he helps an old lady to cross a road, will he be forgiven for the billions innocents killed? Action-based morality is much more nuanced and less appropriate as a fantasy gaming concept than the metaphysically-enforced order of things (including times where it's metaphysically botched, like the warring paladins casting Smite Evil at each other example above).

Let's apply the only rubric that matters for redemption: are they hot or funny?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It was never one. As I said above, the alignment penalties for classes and alignment changes were a disincentive, but they didn't actually stop anyone of any alignment or class from acting how they wanted.

"If I simply hit the patient with a rock, fracturing their skull whenever they do something I don't want, it's not technically a straitjacket!"

 

[Maxperson]

"If I simply hit the patient with a rock, fracturing their skull whenever they do something I don't want, it's not technically a straitjacket!"

Clerics could find a different god. Paladins could become an anti-paladin or a fighter. It's not like the world ended. I watched characters do all of those things after they acted the way they wanted to act.

 

[Mecheon]

anti-paladin

Can I just say that I've hated this term ever since day one?

If you quit a job to the point you're against it fully you don't become an anti-lawyer or an anti-insurance agent, or an anti-grocery store clerk.