D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Steampunkette]

So if I'm reading some of this right, "inherently evil" can't actually exist? That seems counterintuitive.

What term would you use in its place, for something that has no free will but is what would commonly be called evil?

Swans.

 

[Scribe]

So if I'm reading some of this right, "inherently evil" can't actually exist? That seems counterintuitive.

What term would you use in its place, for something that has no free will but is what would commonly be called evil?

I think the issue is, what is evil.

If a being has no choice but to act in a certain way, why is it 'evil' when its just its 'natural' behavior?

Does the Deer believe the Wolf to be evil?

 

[BookTenTiger]

So if I'm reading some of this right, "inherently evil" can't actually exist? That seems counterintuitive.

What term would you use in its place, for something that has no free will but is what would commonly be called evil?

I think Evil is subjective to a campaign setting.

If you have a setting in which civilization is trying to survive against an onslaught of fey, the Fey are evil because they want to end civilization.

If you have a campaign in which the last vestiges of the natural world are being considered and subsumed by a cosmopolitan empire, then civilization is evil because it wants to end nature.

Otherwise I think it's a mistake to try and create evil forces outside of a narrative.

 

[payn]

I usually save the inherent X for planar beings.

 

[Charlaquin]

How would you design a biological race that is Inherently Evil?

I wouldn’t.

 

[Charlaquin]

At the end of the day, anything with free will is not inherently anything.

Well, except maybe gnomes.

 

[Lyxen]

The main problem with this discussion is that some people cannot rid themselves of their real world reflexes. Yes, on our world, if you are forced to do evil, some could consider that you are not really doing evil since it was not done of your own free will. But honestly, first, it's not true, because the real world is not that absolute. I'm sorry to fall immediately into Godwin's Law, but please consider concentration camp guards. And that's all what I will say on the subject, since real world it not really the issue here, but it shows that there can be evil influences that push people towards evil, towards doing evil without relying on supernatural causes. note that this is not 'inherently evil", but shows that influence, subtle or not, can lead people to evil, to doing evil, to the "banality of evil" even without supernatural causes.

However, in a fantasy world, you can have evil in many forms, natural and supernatural. And supernatural can be divine, magical, planar, and yes, why not, even "genetical" if it links you back to some forces. This is what D&D says about orcs and also half-orcs: "Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc gods, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)"

So it's in fact easy, considering the variety of possible influences above, and their various degrees and means of action, to create fantastical inherently evil races or species. And it does not have to be binary, it can be just subtle influences, that a given creature can succumb to or not (if, in addition, the creature is inherently weak-willed - low racial wisdom - they succumb much more often than not), that a creature can regret or indulge on, etc. It still has free will, but if it's a constant effort or sacrifice not to succumb...

Whether you like it or not is really a matter of taste. I think the time when people needed their adversaries to be evil so that they can be slaughtered has passed. In the beginning (see the satanical scare), playing in an evil fashion was frowned upon, but since in particular some computer games came out where playing evil was not only a possibility but a necessity to complete the game, there is no such requirement in the game. Also, when you play D&D as more of a combat game (perfectly legit way of playing), you really don't care about this, you just want technical adversaries that challenge you.

So, like almost everything in D&D, it's totally personal and the game is open enough to allow most ways of playing, without anyone having any right to frown upon some other person's game as long as they are having fun and respect each other sensibilities. That does not mean that any game has to be to everyone's liking, though, it's perfectly OK to have your own tastes as long as you respect those of others.

Some table will like inherently evil, others will not, some will like "always evil", others will prefer "often evil", others will prefer what they call a more nuanced approach (although I must say that in itself this is smacking of "superiority" as it somehow hints that the others are not nuanced in their gaming, which is not true, it's just biased in a different way).

As for myself, I like to keep my options open and be free to create what I think will be the best for the table I'm running. I don't want to deprive myself of any possibilities. The approaches that work the best for me are those like the Wheel of Time or Sanderson's books and in particular the Cosmere ones. There is certainly free will, but there is influence, sometimes subtle, sometimes overwhelming, and in any case often a lot of trickery...

 

[jayoungr]

If a being has no choice but to act in a certain way, why is it 'evil' when its just its 'natural' behavior?

I get that part. I'm just asking about terminology. If you can't call it inherently evil, then what do you call it?

 

[Scribe]

I get that part. I'm just asking about terminology. If you can't call it inherently evil, then what do you call it?

Instinct, Natural.

EDIT: Then again, I've come to believe you dont need to enforce behavior patterns on Fiends, Demons, or thinking Undead, so maybe I'm just weird.

 

[Faolyn]

How would you design a biological race that is Inherently Evil? I think the main way would have to be through some supernatural imperative.

Maybe a race of goblins that are so biologically territorial that they fly into murderous rages whenever someone trespasses on what they believe to be their territory? They might not be necessarily evil when left alone, but default to behavior considered to be evil at the slightest attempt at interaction (barring magical sending spells, etc).

I wouldn't consider that evil, just highly territorial. Unless you want to say that the Sentinelese are evil?

And it's possibly smart of those goblins, if other people have treated them cruelly in the past and they want to avoid that happening again.

Perhaps a race of elves that look like withered and wretched hags, but gain extraordinary beauty and vitality when they sacrifice someone? This doesn't seem quite inherently evil, but strongly incentivizes evil behavior through biological means (as opposed to cultural means).

That's 100% cultural. Their ugliness may be biological--although it's quite likely that they wouldn't see each other as ugly, unless you want there to be some sort of universal standard for attractiveness. But the methods they take to alter their appearance are by choice. These elves are choosing to look attractive through means that are evil. They could choose to use illusions or masks to cover their appearance.

A race of dwarves engineered in a wizard's laboratory to breed true, and who experience incredible pleasure when they betray and trample on others, or violent nausea when they act in an altruistic manner? This is similar to the incentive above, and comes from a biological source, but would it still be cultural? Since it's a series of positive and negative reinforcements that guides their behavior towards evil acts?

I'm not really sure that this makes any sort of sense--by which I mean, I have a hard time imagining somebody actually making a creature to act like this, because then the dwarfs would get great pleasure in harming and betraying the wizard creator.

Now, I suppose that this could have been an unintended side effect of a wizard's attempt to create a better dwarf. But I think it's also a side effect that would cause the dwarfs to die out really quickly. They'd have no reason to work together (or work with others), meaning it's unlikely that they would survive any great dangers. They'd probably only reproduce through rape, but the women would likely immediately abandon any young they produce since they'd get sick if they raised them (assuming they didn't miscarry, since they would be programmed to get sick if they did anything to ensure a healthy fetus and would take pleasure in harming the fetus). So, I guess these dwarfs would be inherently evil, but it would be a very short-lived problem.

Now, if they were specifically programmed to be willing to be altruistic towards each other but hateful to everyone else, that's slightly different. But at that point, I'd say they weren't even properly humanoid anymore. They'd be more like an aberration or possibly a fey. D&D humanoids are expected to have minds that are at least a bit like those of humans.

How would you do it?

I wouldn't. If I wanted an Always Evil race, I'd go for fiends or undead, or possibly aberrations. And I certainly wouldn't pick a creature that had a biology like a humanoid's. A creature that is expected to take at least some care of its offspring and compatriots would never be Always Evil.