Can You have Free Will & a Compulsory Alignment?

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Durkon is free willed (at least he thinks so), capital 'E' Evil (his command of a devil requires that), and (probably) is behaving differently (gleefully snapping a neck? relishing drinking blood?). Can he be all three?

Normally the popular option is to say that causation flows from free will to actions to alignment. Bob has free will, Bob freely chooses to kick puppies, therefore Bob has to write "Evil" on his character sheet now. Causation (normally) doesn't run from alignment to actions (i.e. Bob has "Evil" on his character sheet and that's *why* he goes around kicking puppies.)

We know Durkon has "Evil" written on his sheet, given his command of a devil. If being "Evil" doesn't have causal power then his behavior shouldn't have changed. If being "Evil" *does* have causal power then that explains the behavior change but what sort of free will does that leave Durkon with?


It's OK. Malack's ash, so I've got me free will back.

Can Durkon freely choose between good and evil? If an outside force (i.e. being turned) is causing changes in his behavior, he doesn't seem to have free will.

I think the only way out is to conclude that Durkon is *wrong* about how much control he has over his behavior.

Take Red Cloak's view of the undead.


"That's what you've never really understood about the undead, Tsukiko. You treat them like they're people when they're nothing but bits of skin and bone and dark energy glued together by magic into the shape of a man." (Strip 830)

Red Cloak includes "free willed" undead in that category btw, specifically mentioning Xykon. They're not people anymore, they may look like people, act like people, but really the person they were is gone and a monster is parading around in their flesh. The Buffy universe has a nice quote along the lines of "When you see a person who has become a vampire, you're not seeing your friend, you're seeing the thing that killed him." Maybe Red Cloak is wrong (though as a high level negative energy wielding cleric he shouldn't be too far off the mark), but I think the most graceful solution is to assume he isn't. Durkon is dead, Malack killed him. Spiritually and morally, Durkula is someone else.

Ultimately neither the D&D alignment system nor notions of free will make a lot of sense. I'm interested to see how the Giant resolves the conflicts in an amusing way (mocking the silly tropes of D&D has long been a main source of my pleasure in the strip).

[Xelbiuj]

Do crack fiends not have free will?

[Tock Zipporah]

I have Free Will. I also suffer from Bipolar Disorder, and it occasionally makes me lash out in ways I don't intend, which I might later regret.

Maybe the "taint" on Durkon caused by the negative energy (which forces him into a compulsory alignment) is similar to that sort of influence. He makes his own decisions (free will) but he's influenced subconsciously by aspects of his mind/psyche/soul/etc.

[Kish]

Maybe Red Cloak is wrong (though as a high level negative energy wielding cleric he shouldn't be too far off the mark),

What? That doesn't make any sense.

As Redcloak, he has every reason to tell himself that undead, especially Xykon, are not people, and a long history of lying to himself.

but I think the most graceful solution is to assume he isn't.

I'm not going to follow you there, sorry.

[NerdyKris]

I think people have a tendency to assume that when a character states an opinion, it's fact. It's not. It's an opinion. That character's opinion. They aren't "lying to themselves". That's just what they believe. He made the same statements about Hobgoblins before the battle, when he was using them as tools to clear a mountain path, and feeding them to a monster to put it to sleep.

It's part of Red Cloak's personality to view everyone as tools, and to rationalize it away so he doesn't have to care about them. It doesn't mean Xykon is a just a tool. It means that Redcloak sees him that way.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Do crack fiends not have free will?
In D&D? Who knows. In reality? No one has free will, at least not any formulation of free will that makes any sense.

Free willed actions are at least two things, non-deterministic and non-random. That category (outcomes that aren't certain, probable, or improbable) is just gibberish in disguise (and a thin disguise at that).

Suppose I kick a puppy. That happens because electrochemical impulses trigger muscles in my legs to contract. Those impulses happen as outputs from my brain. Those outputs are the direct result of the behavior of chunks of my brain. The behavior of chunks of my brain are ultimately the behavior of protons, neutrons, and electrons acting as natural laws say they will. To believe that the behavior of a proton isn't deterministic *and* isn't random doesn't leave anything left. And no, souls don't help. If you propose some new spiritual object that controls protons, you haven't solved the problem, you've just pushed it one step back. What natural laws govern souls? Are the decisions they come to determinable in advance or random or something else? You've got the same problem, only Occam's Razor is mad at you now.

Another way to think about it. Drinking coffee is an act. I "choose" to drink coffee. Ah, but choosing is an act too. Did I choose to choose to drink the coffee or did I have no choice but to choose to drink the coffee? Surely I didn't choose to choose to choose coffee, and even if I did I'd need to choose to choose to choose to choose. Infinite regress is bad kids.

Really Durkon can't be free willed because the entire idea doesn't make any sense, more immediately though, even if you're sold on free will surely you must balk at someone having free will and being compelled to evil acts.


I have Free Will. I also suffer from Bipolar Disorder, and it occasionally makes me lash out in ways I don't intend, which I might later regret.
I'm sorry to hear that. Could you say more about what you mean by "it makes me lash out"? If it makes you do things you don't want to do, then what do you mean when you say you have free will (at least during episodes)?


What? That doesn't make any sense.

As Redcloak, he has every reason to tell himself that undead, especially Xykon, are not people, and a long history of lying to himself.

It makes at least *some* sense. As a high level evil cleric Redcloak can create undead and pump negative energy into them to control them. He should have a pretty profound professional understanding of how they work. Knowing how negative energy affects things is his professional skill set.

I don't see why Redcloak would need to resort to self deception to feel ok with manipulating Xykon. Xykon is a monster, you'd have to have a pretty bleeding heart to feel bad about taking advantage of him. Sure lie to yourself about your brother, lie to yourself about how you treat your CR:1 minions, but there's no need to rationalize manipulating Xykon.

[Peelee]

By RAW, I'd say yes. And I'd also venture a guess that this can get into real world morality quite easily. We may want to tread lightly here.

[Kish]

It makes at least *some* sense. As a high level evil cleric Redcloak can create undead and pump negative energy into them to control them. He should have a pretty profound professional understanding of how they work. Knowing how negative energy affects things is his professional skill set.

And Tsukiko? Who was a cleric who channeled negative energy, a necromancer wizard, and a mystic theurge? You can't argue that both she and Redcloak have an equal and great understanding of how undead work. Both could quite easily be wrong, but if one is right, the other is wrong.


I don't see why Redcloak would need to resort to self deception to feel ok with manipulating Xykon.
He doesn't need to deceive himself to "feel ok with manipulating Xykon." He needs to deceive himself to believe that he is the master, that what Xykon told him in the climactic scene of Start of Darkness was untrue. He can't be Xykon's slave; Xykon isn't even a person. That trumps however many goblinoids Xykon kills and forces Redcloak to kill, trumps the death of Redcloak's brother, trumps Redcloak no longer having depth perception; how could Redcloak be a slave when there's no there there?

[Lorick]

I don't see why Redcloak would need to resort to self deception to feel ok with manipulating Xykon. Xykon is a monster, you'd have to have a pretty bleeding heart to feel bad about taking advantage of him. Sure lie to yourself about your brother, lie to yourself about how you treat your CR:1 minions, but there's no need to rationalize manipulating Xykon.

He's not lying to himself to feel okay about manipulating Xykon, he's lying to himself to feel in control of the situation and okay with serving Xykon. He is subservient to Xykon, even though he's manipulating him, and wants to say "Everything is going as I planned" so he doesn't have to feel as bad about killing Right-Eye, at which point he was Xykon's complete slave.

[Porthos]

In D&D? Who knows. In reality? No one has free will, at least not any formulation of free will that makes any sense.

I want to jump in here for a moment to remind that this is an opinion, not a scientific fact. And no amount of quoting the famous Libet study will change that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will).

The simple fact of the matter is, nueroscience has not disproven the idea of Free Will to the satisfaction of the scientific community. And it doesn't look to do so anywhere in the near future.

I'd discuss more about this, but to do so pretty much rams right into real life philosophy and morality exceedingly quickly, and thus, the Forum Rules. Just wanted to make the above point for people reading. :smallsmile:

[SavageWombat]

How about we all just agree that this is one of the major issues Rich is going to discuss with this plot point?

[Ring_of_Gyges]

The simple fact of the matter is, nueroscience has not disproven the idea of Free Will to the satisfaction of the scientific community. And it doesn't look to do so anywhere in the near future.
My argument isn't the science tells us anything about will, it's that the concept is gibberish. Science presents no evidence on the existence of flugenblargs pro or con. The claim isn't that we've done the research and it turns out to be false, it's that the research isn't necessary because the claim is logically incoherent.

"Married bachelors" don't exist and we don't have to go check to know that. Non-deterministic non-random things don't exist either for the same reason.

We can continue this by PM if you're interested. It's a tangent really, the main point I wanted to make is that Durkula can't be free willed Durkon if he's compelled by magic to do evil. He's got free choice between good and evil or he's magically compelled, he can't be both.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

And Tsukiko? Who was a cleric who channeled negative energy, a necromancer wizard, and a mystic theurge? You can't argue that both she and Redcloak have an equal and great understanding of how undead work. Both could quite easily be wrong, but if one is right, the other is wrong.
Fair enough, you're right. One can be good at creating and controlling undead without understanding them.

[Kish]

That's like saying non-black non-white things manifestly don't exist because they make no sense. There are alternatives other than "deterministic" or "random."

That said, if you don't believe that there are alternatives other than "deterministic" or "random"...then I don't understand why you would start this thread. (Anyone who hadn't expressed disbelief in those alternatives could start this thread and not puzzle me, but for you, the answer would seem obvious: In your system everyone has a compulsory alignment, and conversely no one has free will. If vampires consistently manifest a range of three alignments while most living creatures consistently manifest a range of nine, that's only a problem for someone who believes in free will; without it, Roy has no more choice about being Lawful Good than Xykon has about being Chaotic Evil, Roy has no less choice about being Lawful Good than Xykon has about being Chaotic Evil, and Roy has no choice about being Lawful Good.)

[Porthos]

My argument isn't the science tells us anything about will, it's that the concept is gibberish. Science presents no evidence on the existence of flugenblargs pro or con. The claim isn't that we've done the research and it turns out to be false, it's that the research isn't necessary because the claim is logically incoherent.

"Married bachelors" don't exist and we don't have to go check to know that. Non-deterministic non-random things don't exist either for the same reason.

Ah, well as I said that sounds much more like a Real Life philosophical argument against the concept of free will. Which I don't particularly feel like engaging in. Sorry. :smallsmile:


Non-deterministic non-random things don't exist either for the same reason.

For certain defintions of randomness it most certainly exists in the physcial world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#In_the_physical_sciences). Various interpetations of quantum mechanics are dependant on randomness. Again, for certain definitions of the word 'random'.

But that's pretty wildly off topic for this forum as well, so I should probably leave it at that. :smallwink:

[Reddish Mage]

I've studied the free will and determinism problem in depth. This is not like that. Alignment is not determinative of how a GM or Player treat a character. In-game, that means a characters actions are NOT determined by alignment (by which I mean is not every decision a character makes is predetermined, not that maybe some decision at some point might be). Free will is this easily compatible.

Also for the classic philosophical question, google the "problem of determinism" and the problem of indeterminism. Logically, one of those can't really be a problem if free will exists at all.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

That's like saying non-black non-white things manifestly don't exist because they make no sense. There are alternatives other than "deterministic" or "random."
Deterministic means that there is a certainty that a thing will turn out a particular way.
Random means that there is not a certainty that a thing will turn out a particular way.

Non-deterministic means the same thing as random.
Non-random means the same thing as deterministic.

A non-deterministic non-random thing is literally a "random non-random thing".

It's not like blue at all.

Why do I post at all? Because D&D is weird, it's alignment system is weirder still, and trying to make sense of it is fun. Given the amount of commentary on the alignment rules in the comic, my guess is the Giant feels the same way.

[SavageWombat]

I've studied the free will and determinism problem in depth. This is not like that. Alignment is not determinative of how a GM or Player treat a character. In-game, that means a characters actions are NOT determined by alignment (by which I mean is not every decision a character makes is predetermined, not that maybe some decision at some point might be). Free will is this easily compatible.


Do you feel that a DM should either (a) disallow an action as being a violation of your character's alignment or (b) change a character's alignment by virtue of their actions? (Or neither?) If so, why or why not?

[Richard J.]

I know nothing about D&D except what I've learned by reading this always entertaining comic strip but here's my $4.67 (inflation hit that .02 cents something fierce): my view is that character alignment is equivalent to natural propensities in real life. Everyone has certain things they just naturally seem to gravitate towards. So an Evil character will default to evil acts unless they put an effort into doing things differently or otherwise try to choose a different course for themselves.

I don't want to get into any arguments about science and free will but I'm a very firm believer in the existence of free will and the concept of a person having a particular nature as a default. Effort to change one's nature through repeated free choices that are against that nature can eventually result in a different nature altogether in my view, meaning that any person (or fictional character as the case may be) can either accept their nature or change it depending on their choices.

So basically my view is Durkon is instinctively now leaning toward evil as his default choice but nothing is actually preventing him from being good, except any D&D or Stickverse rule that prevents alignment from changing for certain types of beings. (Goblins can't be the only ones who got the short end of stick.)

[EnragedFilia]

In D&D? Who knows. In reality? No one has free will, at least not any formulation of free will that makes any sense.

Free willed actions are at least two things, non-deterministic and non-random. That category (outcomes that aren't certain, probable, or improbable) is just gibberish in disguise (and a thin disguise at that).

Suppose I kick a puppy. That happens because electrochemical impulses trigger muscles in my legs to contract. Those impulses happen as outputs from my brain. Those outputs are the direct result of the behavior of chunks of my brain. The behavior of chunks of my brain are ultimately the behavior of protons, neutrons, and electrons acting as natural laws say they will. To believe that the behavior of a proton isn't deterministic *and* isn't random doesn't leave anything left. And no, souls don't help. If you propose some new spiritual object that controls protons, you haven't solved the problem, you've just pushed it one step back. What natural laws govern souls? Are the decisions they come to determinable in advance or random or something else? You've got the same problem, only Occam's Razor is mad at you now.

Another way to think about it. Drinking coffee is an act. I "choose" to drink coffee. Ah, but choosing is an act too. Did I choose to choose to drink the coffee or did I have no choice but to choose to drink the coffee? Surely I didn't choose to choose to choose coffee, and even if I did I'd need to choose to choose to choose to choose. Infinite regress is bad kids.

Really Durkon can't be free willed because the entire idea doesn't make any sense, more immediately though, even if you're sold on free will surely you must balk at someone having free will and being compelled to evil acts.


I'm sorry to hear that. Could you say more about what you mean by "it makes me lash out"? If it makes you do things you don't want to do, then what do you mean when you say you have free will (at least during episodes)?



It makes at least *some* sense. As a high level evil cleric Redcloak can create undead and pump negative energy into them to control them. He should have a pretty profound professional understanding of how they work. Knowing how negative energy affects things is his professional skill set.

I don't see why Redcloak would need to resort to self deception to feel ok with manipulating Xykon. Xykon is a monster, you'd have to have a pretty bleeding heart to feel bad about taking advantage of him. Sure lie to yourself about your brother, lie to yourself about how you treat your CR:1 minions, but there's no need to rationalize manipulating Xykon.

Ah, but if we posit that there is something (hereafter refered to as a thingy) in that brain in question which both influences the behavior of the rest of said brain in some manner and is smaller (in terms of total rest mass) than the planck constant, it follows naturally that the behavior of said thingy should be demonstrably indeterminate according to the uncertainty principle, and thus extend its indeterminacy to the behavior of the entire brain when taken as a whole. And because the behavior of the brain is not properly understood, its behavior can currently only be treated as a whole for the purpose of categorizing it as deterministic or otherwise as well as random or otherwise. As such, our hypothetical brain can now be proven to be both nonrandom (as mentioned in the inital assumptions, namely that its behavior depends upon that of our thingy) and nondeterministic (because the behavior of the thingy is itself nondeterministic by way of indeterminacy). And because that set of assumptions cannot currently be disproven, the situation of a simultaneous nondeterministic and nonrandom brain likewise cannot be disproven.

shorter version: a lot of physics technobabble attempting to say that because we can't tell what's going on in the brain we can't prove much of anything about how it goes on. Please do not attempt to take the technobabble seriously, that's why it has the word 'babble' in it.

[The Giant]

"Free-willed" in the context of D&D simply means "not being dominated, charmed, or otherwise explicitly controlled by a source outside the person's body." It has nothing to do with philosophical concept of Free Will, or alignment. Therefore, a free-willed undead is simply one that is not anyone's magically compelled thrall. Nothing more or less.

And since we already have threads about what Durkon's alignment may be, and everything else is real-world philosophy...thread locked.