By the listed definitions above just about every D&D character I've ever seen (and that's quite a lot!) is evil to the core. As are most real-world people I've ever met, including myself.
Self-awareness is a good thing. But the mere fact that you are aware of your capacity for evil, suggests you are not nearly as damaged as you could be.
Leaving aside your assertion about real world people, I'd say that I concur most PC's act in an evil fashion. Some, like a couple of IRL Satanists I met, reveled in that and some more or less default to a sort of unconcerned violence and greed because most of the time that is what the game primarily awards and their players are making choices as if this was a game. But it's not for nothing that there is a stereotype of 'murder hobos', or that Knights of the Dinner Table is funny precisely because it correctly sends up and highlights the dysfunctionality we've all seen from time to time.
The big exception I've seen is players under age 12, who make very different sorts of choices. Indeed, I find it refreshing to play with kids and even teenagers, because they play with so much more maturity on average. I have met the real munchkins, and they are us. Speaking of, why do you think Munchkin presents the average PC in a way that can only be described as deranged?
Which only tells me the definitions given are way too broad and all-inclusive.
I agree that I've given a definition that condemns pretty much everyone as being not free from evil. But, forgetting the real world again, is that definition really surprisingly broad or surprising all-inclusive given that in game the human race is presented as overall 'neutral', or to put another way, that the natural inclinations of humanity are toward both evil and good and that they are mixed in their motivations. Or for that matter, with the possible exception of a few very rare individuals whose purity and righteousness is such that it gives them superpowers, does anything about the game suggest that even 'good' humans are completely free from evil desires and temptations? I mean, if the definition was much less inclusive, what would be so special really about a Paladin? Aren't they special because humans largely free from evils taint extremely rare? Isn't that the trope?
We often here complaints from players, particularly regarding the alignment system, that D&D makes things too "black and white". That it doesn't leave room for moral gray areas. Well, here we have you complaining that my definition leaves the situation too gray! If the definition was really less inclusive, and really more narrow, what it would mean is that there really would be teams of white and black. But if we have a definition that is inclusive, it means that everyone is complicated. It doesn't I think mean everyone is necessarily more evil than good to suggest everyone is capable of evil, plagued by evil, and occasionally acts out of some evil desire, but it does mean that no one gets to claim moral simplicity.
For my part, they're also far too closely aligned with the definitions given by a few major real-world religions for me to want to have anything to do with them; thus I will not be subscribing to your newsletter.
Ok sure. That's almost inevitable. But I'm less interested in the question of whether or not they remind you of any real world philosophical musing on the nature of evil, as to whether such a definition is functional and coherent for an imagined world. And of equal interest to me is the question of whether it makes for powerful and complex fantasy stories to consider evil in this fashion, as opposed to some different less inclusive and less condemning definition. Since you are bringing real world religious critiques into this, I'll confess that the above definition is I think in all regards congruent with the definition Tolkien used to animate his worlds and that is, as you know, not at all a coincidence. A less inclusive definition could be used, but then you'd create a world where the One Ring offered no temptation, no moral hazard, and a person could wield it to overthrow the Dark Lord without the slightest fear of undesirable consequences. Yet I put to you that such a story, very much congruent I'm sure with many D&D tales, actually makes for a world of starker black and white than Tolkien's world so frequently criticized for being one of too easy moral absolutes. It's not Tolkien's world view that suggests that there aren't a lot of moral grays, and aren't a lot of victories marred by tragedy, but the world were the only baddies are ones that chew live puppies and anything you could do or can do to stop them is good and not evil.
But alright, supposing you probably disagree with all of that, what definition of evil would you provide that isn't a contradiction of not only itself but what you've written here?
Lan-"show me a 1e character who wasn't avaricious and I'll show you a character who never reached 2nd level"-efan
I'm unaware of the moral system in which greed isn't a moral hazard if not outright evil. In particular, I'm unaware of the D&D universe which defined evil in such a way that greed wasn't called out as being among the greatest evils. In stark contrast to what I've written here, the canonical D&D definition of evil as outlined by late era TSR and WotC is that evil is defined as selfishness. In which case, by the canonical rules avariciousness is very much evil. So while I'm aware that you oppose this definition, and while you've made really clear why, it doesn't seem to me that you are seriously offering up any alternative.
Besides which, you should play with 12 year olds more often. There is more than one way to succeed. In fact, in my most recent session my typically avaricious player/PCs lost a henchmen in a fight with a pack of velociraptors. And it was only after losing this resource (commonly referred to in a fit of honesty as the "the meat shield"), that they began to question why they'd left their henchmen with only his starting equipment, when many of them had magical weapons and other items that they carried but never actually used and that actually, if they stopped hoarding these useless (to them items), and gave them away it might actually improve their ability to succeed in the game.
The motives weren't pure, but it was a bit of a moral breakthrough. It very much reminded me of Belkar Bitterleaf realizing his own officious nature and callous disregard of others was violating his own deepest moral principle of self-interest. Twelve year olds would have given the weapons away out of kindness and a sense of fairness before they realized it was actually self-interested to do so.
