This question: You can control a Demon by knowing its True Name, but why?
Got closed. I can see why as it's pushing into Opinion Based/Too Broad, but I don't really think it crosses the line - especially since the most recent edit.
However I don't disagree by enough to mod hammer it open (especially since I have a conflict of interest with one of the highest voted answers!). I did want to start a discussion though.
Should it be closed?
Is "plausibility" a valid criteria?
I would like to suggest that the burden on building worlds should go to those who ask the question, rather than those who answer it. I understand Worldbuilding SE to be a place where you can come with a world you already have in mind, to ensure that it works how you think it does, or to see if there is a way to achieve what you want with the resources you have available.
In this case, I don't think enough of a world was provided. We get some explanation of what demons are, but nothing that could specifically be used in the context of the question. In essence, the question could be about how to control regular people by knowing their names. The problem that arises is that when you start adding in supernatural elements, answerers start to make assumptions about your world, and they start building their own interpretation of what they think you want.
What I think this leads to is a list of different worlds, where (in this case) a whole host of different kinds of demons are controlled via a whole lot of different methods, all having something to do with names. This isn't helping someone build their own world, it's giving them a bunch of pre-formed worlds and letting them pick the one they think is the most interesting.
This is why we ask for criteria. You need to flesh out the world you want, the systems you have available, the fundamental laws of your universe from which answers can be built. We may build worlds here, but we don't build them for other people, just like Stack Overflow doesn't do people's homework or write their software for them.
Now, this is just my understanding of the issue; there have been a lot of highly popular questions where the asker has done almost no work of their own, where every answer is its own world, and where there's really no good way to pick the best answer. If we want to destroy our integrity just to allow these questions to keep on being asked, then I guess I'd be okay with that. However, I do not believe that's what we're here for. I think the case studies proved that there are a lot of questions that can be asked that are interesting and useful and definitely on-topic and suitably constrained. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
As the author of the question, and with a similar reluctance to @TimB to use my own modhammer to reopen, I humbly suggest that the question is in fact a perfect match for the Scope of our Worldbuilding Stack.
At the core, it is asking why a category of intelligent beings would be willing to subject themselves (or, less plausibly, be unwilling subjects to) to a code that seems on the face of it to go against their self interest.
In that sense, it is no different from another well-received question, also with over 10k views and with >100 votes answers, namely Why would vampires be incapable of entering a non-vampire human’s house uninvited?
My sense is that if we start closing "Why" questions as Opinion Based, that limits our Stack to simply helping people with figuring out orbital equations for binary worlds and calculating the caloric input for centaurs, which, while worthwhile, are less than Worldbuilding should be. We're not just a fleshy version of Wolfram Alpha here, we are Worldbuilders, and good worldbuilding includes justification for salient features present in that world. If there were super-human Demons, and they were subject to their True Names, it would be Curious and Strange to me. I'd want an Explanation. That's not Wolfram Alpha. That's Worldbuilding in all its glory.
I welcome discussion, up and re-open-votes!
I don't think that questions like that should be closed. In many ways, they are the best questions that we have on the site. They are fun to answer and interesting to read.
The biggest problem that I have with closing them is that it blocks the asker from assistance. It would be easier to answer the question if there were more limits upon it, but how do we help the asker to the point of making those limits?
My basic criterion for closing a question as Too Broad is if I see a path to narrowness. As a general rule, this means some specific comment expressing changes to the question that could make it narrow enough to ask. This can certainly leave discretion to the poster, but it should also show the poster where that discretion could be exercised. Otherwise we're essentially saying, "Have a problem? Sucks to be you."
This question seems to catch a basic problem in fiction. "I want true names to matter, but why would they?" Not just the asker, but others could have that identical problem. Some of those people may have different preferences regarding how things should work. How do we help those people get to the point where they can ask more narrow questions? After all, isn't that our goal?
Unless a question is simply off-topic and not about world building, I don't think that we should be trying to permanently close it. We should be suspending it until edited into an answerable form.
As someone who also provided an answer (though apparently not quite as well liked as yours), I have to agree with the closure. The topic is definitely valid for Worldbuilding, as we can see in the numerous pieces of literature that feature creatures bound by True Names. But that's also the problem: every author approaches the concept of True Names in a different way.
Since we don't have demons in our real world (...or do we?), there's no plausible way to go ask why True Names bind. (Bonus points to anyone who finds a demon, asks the question, survives, and posts the response here.)
Given there are 34 answers as of this writing, and all of them are equally valid solutions to the problem, the "best" answer is found purely in the eyes of the beholder.
I haven't provided an answer, and being a low-reputation user I may not know enough to cast a valid answer, but in my opinion the question didn't worth the closure. I do agree it's near the border, but think it still respects the criteria. Maybe a little edit could be needed, but there are info enough to keep it on-topic, especially if we want to consider that the answers were required to have as little magic as possible.
This type of question could have required research-based answers, although it will attract opinion-based input.
If the inquirer had specified a religion/mythology, and framed the question in a way that requires academic research, then opinion answers would be invalid. Unfortunately this site of fiction authors is - by its very nature - prone to opinion-based answers.
The first demon named is from Mesopotamian mythology, also referenced in Judaism. Judaism is where (if I'm not mistaken) the "speaking the true name" tradition originated.
If this type of question falls under the purview of Mi Yodeya (Judiasm Stack Exchange) then I would recommend their experts comment with pertinent references. Since I don't see a Stack Exchange site for Occult or Supernatural inquiries, perhaps other educated answers would come from the Mythology Stack Exchange site.
When asking for real-world possibilities to explain stories within religion, mythology, tradition and/or superstition, both "plausibility" of science and "research-based" answers of the tradition must coexist.
The only problematic issue with the question is that all 3 sample demons listed are currently materials for the D&D RPG and the PF spinoff. The first comes from mythology, but the other 2 appear to have no basis in any tradition, being created solely for the game. If the inquirer intends this question to be answered in game terms - and no such information exists in the game's core rulebooks - then any answer would be wholly opinion based.
The number of views a question gets is one measure of the question's "goodness". Another is the number of votes.
While I hesitate to recommend treating high traffic questions and answers differently, perhaps we should work harder at reforming these questions.
True Names is a popular fantasy meme so clearly this type of question is appropriate for the world builder site.
How could we reform this question (and others like it) so that it no longer offends its detractors?
Is the main problem that there's no objective measure of the answers? If so, could it be solved by the OP providing a judging criteria?
