D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Charlaquin]

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.

See, I think what it shows is that attributing evil to people is an inherently flawed model. Evil is a product of actions, not a quality of character, and evil outcomes can be produced by systems, even when the people involved in those systems are not “inherently evil.”

 

[Lyxen]

I get that part.

You shouldn't get it, it's not as binary as "forced to do" and "complete free will".

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

You can call it inherently evil, but be more nuanced about the way it expresses itself.

 

[Lyxen]

See, I think what it shows is that attributing evil to people is an inherently flawed model. Evil is a product of actions, not a quality of character, and evil outcomes can be produced by systems, even when the people involved in those systems are not “inherently evil.”

I think that this is exactly what I'm saying it can be produced by a system but it does not absolve individuals who, of their own free will, follow that system because of its influences. As mentioned, I just used that argument to say that there is no asbolution and yes, in our real world, there is no "inherently".

But when you combine it with supernatural, you can get "inherently", still with all the nuances of the above. Whether you like it or not at your table is another matter, one of personal taste, but the possibilities are extremely rich.

 

[Oofta]

Well, except maybe gnomes.

Much like Jessica Rabbit they're not bad they're just drawn that way. It's the gnome's beady little eyes as they stare down at you chittering from the trees that make them seem evil.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Cancerous.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, except maybe gnomes.

I'm curious as to the the word that follows... "Gnomes are inherently ________." Heh heh.

 

[Scribe]

You can call it inherently evil, but be more nuanced about the way it expresses itself.

Can you? I guess, but what does that even mean?

Inherently, Evil.

"in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way." - OK

"profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force." - ?

Immoral

"not conforming to accepted standards of morality."

Wicked

"evil or morally wrong."

I mean, humorously just going by the quick google hits, 'Evil' is a circular definition, based on some 'accepted standard' of morality, which goes straight back to what I always ask, and is never answered here.

"What is Evil?"

 

[Oofta]

...
"What is Evil?"

In the real world? Even dogs know when they're being treated unfairly. Good and evil is grounded in biological instinct. But philosophers have debated that for millennia, there's not a good answer.

In the game? It's a vastly oversimplified construct used to categorize the bad guys. Why are they the bad guys? Because the game says they are. Which, of course is circular logic but it doesn't have to have any more depth than that in a game that uses constructs such as HP, AC or easily quantified abilities such as intelligence.

I don't play D&D to have discussions on advanced philosophical questions that will never be answered, I play it to have fun with friends, a few laughs and escape reality where I can't truly know who the bad guys are. Well, except for Bob. He's a bad guy.

Different people play for different reasons. I do think the MM should be far more explicit than it already is that the alignment in the MM is just a general suggestion for the entries that the adventurers are likely to face as opponents. But define good and evil? Other than "you know it when you see it", never going to happen in the real world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

Misidentified.

 

[jayoungr]

You shouldn't get it, it's not as binary as "forced to do" and "complete free will".

I get that too. I just mean that I'm following the lines of reasoning of both arguments (yours and the one that says inherent evil is not possible).