Can an avatar be created bad?

This is a question I was recently asked following a presentation on metaverse avatars at a digital conference.  It is an interesting concept whether an avatar could be intrinsically evil, but it could depend on the understanding of the avatar concept.  Definitions include –

• It is a visible representation of an invisible self; the other avatars cannot see the user, only their avatar and vice versa.
•  “AI entities that represent people through “large language and multi-modals.”[1]
•  “Digital duplicates” which are “artificial, at least partial, recreations or simulations of real people”[2].

In the metaverse an avatar is a representation of the person wearing the headset or operating the computer, but how does an avatar become bad when they are just an image of an individual? Is it similar to films, where the actor plays a role?

In films like RoboCop, Star Trek or Star Wars, the machines have turned against their creators and become ‘bad.’ However, is this any different from an actor playing an ‘evil character’ like Jaws, Blofeld or Goldfinger in the Bond films, or Jack Nicholson playing Batman’s arch nemesis, The Joker? Nicholson, himself, is not evil, he just plays the allotted character.  In the films, the scripts determine the characters’ role, whether they are good or bad, the actor may engage with the part but once the cameras stop rolling, they revert to themselves.  It is a temporary phase of being bad.

Gergen[3] describes “The Ersatz Being” as “the capacity for entering immediately into identities or relationships of widely varying forms.” While Gergen is not writing with avatars in mind, it provides a good basis for considering the identity of an avatar. The avatar can be changed depending on the platform being used and, in platforms like VR Chat, does not even have to resemble a human being.

The difficulty with Gergen’s use of the word ‘ersatz’ is the translated meaning as “inferior substitute,”[4]  and this would indicate a temporary replacement until the usual one became available. Ersatz coffee was used during the Second World War, with acorns as a replacement for coffee beans, but this was just a temporary solution. This would suggest the substitute being is just temporary, but with the advance of technology and social construction, the change in the individual is going to be permanent. Abba Voyage ‘ABBAtars’ could continue to exist and perform long after the death of the original four and many people going to the concert probably have no concept of the original ABBA.

Gergen emphasises the decrease in importance of character for the ersatz being, mentioning Goffman’s observations that an individual was expected to pursue both a profession and social career “in which moral acceptability is the goal: they must appear to possess good character”. [5] He suggests that good character as a defining mark of identity is in decline and there was no longer “flawed” character but just “slips in judgement or complex situations”.

 Although Gergen uses examples of American Presidents and politicians from the twentieth century, I would suggest the character benchmark has fallen further. Over the past few years, we have had government ministers issued with financial penalties for alleged parties during the coronavirus outbreak but continued in office, even obtained higher positions, and a former American President convicted of offences, but still elected for office. It is the constant changing of these  “ersatz identities” that reduces the credibility for both actor and audience.”

However, with avatars in the metaverse, the situation is reversed. The avatar reflects the actions of the person they represent. An avatar cannot be evil per se, as they are just a computer creation, but the person they represent can be. There have been numerous incidents of sexual violence in the metaverse,[6] which have been reported in the UK national press[7] and are very difficult to investigate. There are ‘scammers’ who have sold non-existent NFT’s or stolen cybercurrency.[8]  It could be argued that this is no different from criminals we unfortunately meet in all aspects of life.

This raises the question whether humans were initially created bad or is this just a defect in later generations. The Christian understanding is that humanity was created in “the image of God” (Genesis 1:27) and was seen as good, and it was only after “the Fall” in Genesis 3 that evil started to form part of human character.  If humanity is created in the “image of God”, what does this mean? There is no space in this article to discuss this in detail, and the theologians offer different interpretations anyway.

Von Rad[9] states that humanity “is placed upon earth in God’s image as God’s sovereign emblem.”  Human beings are God’s representatives, similar to the way an ambassador represents a government or royalty. Therefore, all the activity that humans undertake must reflect back to God, whether good or bad, a responsibility all will share, just as the avatar’s actions reflect back on the controller.  

Herzfeld[10]  suggests that Von Rad had changed  the emphasis from being created “in the image of God” to “as the image of God,” “thus moving from a quality to an action.” The avatar is a representative of the person but cannot make decisions independent of their controller.

Barth[11]  writes that humanity “is created by God in correspondence with this relationship and differentiation in God himself: created as Thou which can be addressed by God but as an I, responsible to God.” Humanity is responsible to God in their relationships with each other, and this extends to the metaverse.

Relationships are built in the metaverse, not between the avatars, but between the people they represent. Welz[12] explores whether “the invisible can only be noticed by something visible, which nonetheless comprises something that cannot be seen. If the human being is seen as an image, what does this image show?” An avatar represents the invisible person, but how does the avatar represent them? Depending on the platform it may be a physical resemblance, but for others it is a created image. Clines[13] suggests that if humans are created in the ‘image of God’ they must, in some way, be like God, and suggests that this could either in a spiritual or physical context.[14]

The terminology “image of God” indicates that there is a part (or several parts) of human beings that reflects God, but, as I have previously stated, there are differences in interpretation. In the digital world the representative model is observed where people’s identity can be represented by names, icons, avatars and images. These are created by the user, who has the choice of whether they reflect them or not. An avatar’s ethnic background can be changed, a pseudonym used, or even be represented by a lion, a unicorn or a blob. These portray the image the user wants to display or who they might want to be, rather than who they are. However, when people engage with them, they are engaging with both the outward representation and the inner person.

If we are created in the image of God, how does this impact our digital life? If we are represented by an avatar, should that impact our behaviour in the metaverse? Our metaverse behaviour should not be any different from our behaviour in our other spheres of life.

In my view the avatar is not created bad, but they can be seen as being bad, depending on the actions of the person they represent. However, new research seems to indicate that ‘chatbot’s’ can be a “deceptive and scheming devil” [15] so perhaps even avatars might rebel in the future.

---

References

[1] Paula Sweeney, ‘Avatars and the Value of Human Uniqueness’, Philosophy & Technology, 37.4 (2024), p. 117.

[2] John Danaher and Sven Nyholm, ‘Digital Duplicates and the Scarcity Problem: Might AI Make Us Less Scarce and Therefore Less Valuable?’, Philosophy & Technology, 37.3 (2024), p.105.

[3] Kenneth J. Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life (Basic Books, 1991) p183.

[4] Julia Cresswell, Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins, Third edition (Oxford University Press, 2021) p. 267.

[5] Gergen, The Saturated Self, p. 185.

[6]  See report dated April 2024 by Carlotta Rigotti and Gianclaudio Malgieri, Sexual Violence And Harassment In The Metaverse  Equality Now [Accessed 6.1.25]

[7]Nancy Jo Sales, A girl was allegedly raped in the metaverse. Is this the beginning of a dark new future? The Guardian [Accessed 6.1.25]

[8] Frank Badalamenti et Al  Metaverse security: Emerging scams and phishing risks  PwC US [Accessed 6.1.25]

[9] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, Revised Edition A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), p. 60.

[10] Noreen L. Herzfeld, The Artifice of Intelligence: Divine and Human Relationship in a Robotic Age (Fortress Press, 2023), p. 25.

[11] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation III.1, ed. by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (T. & T. Clark International, 2004), p. 198.

[12] Claudia Welz, ‘Imago Dei: References to the Invisible’, Studia Theologica – Nordic Journal of Theology, 65.1 (2011), p. 75.

[13] D. J. A Clines, ‘The Image of God in Man’, Tyndale Bulletin, 19.1 (1968), p. 1.

[14] Clines, ‘The Image of God in Man’, pp. 5–7.

[15] Mark Sellman ‘Scheming’ ChatGPT tried to stop itself from being shut down The Times [Accessed 6.1.25]

---

© Simon Werrett, 2025.

This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Cover Image: Provided by the author.