The Evilest Evil!

[PlusSixPelican]

Of the three evil alignments, which do you personally find the most evil?

Is it Lawful Evil, which wishes to crush all under the heel of it's boot?

Is it Chaotic Evil, which wants to light you on fire and take your swag?

Or Neutral Evil, which just wants to hurt you.

Sorry for the superficial outlines, but it's the basic gist of each? Are above listed not evil in your opinion? Explain why you feel another alignment is evil then! Have fun with it! Cite examples! Fun times.

[Jay R]

Which is further north, 40 degree N in the Atlantic, 40 degree N in Europe, or 40 degree N in the Pacific?

They are all equally north, because the difference is not on the north/south line; it's on the east/west line.

[Sholos]

Like Jay said, none are "more" evil than the others. They're just different flavors. Lawful Evil is going to be more insidious. Chaotic Evil more upfront and in-your-face. Neutral Evil.... I dunno.

[PlusSixPelican]

Of the three evil alignments, which do you personally find the most evil?

That was the question, uhm...

If I can make more sense of it, which type of evil do you find the most abhorrent?

Personally I find True Neutral the most evil because you can't get a bonus on it.

[Morph Bark]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.

[invinible]

Neutral Evil as it isn't being off-set by another alignment.

[Dr.Epic]

Like Jay said, none are "more" evil than the others. They're just different flavors. Lawful Evil is going to be more insidious. Chaotic Evil more upfront and in-your-face. Neutral Evil.... I dunno.

It goes both ways.:smallwink::smalltongue:

[Sholos]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.
But then it's no longer Lawful Good inflicting the evil. Lawful Good, by definition, cannot inflict evil.


It goes both ways.:smallwink::smalltongue:

Heh.

[Brother Oni]

Like Jay said, none are "more" evil than the others. They're just different flavors. Lawful Evil is going to be more insidious. Chaotic Evil more upfront and in-your-face. Neutral Evil.... I dunno.

More self centered. They don't care what they do as long as they end up on top.

In comparison, Lawful Evil will only hurt you if they have good reason, Chaotic Evil will hurt you because they want to hurt you, Neutral Evil doesn't care if they hurt you as long as it's of benefit to them.

Using fictional examples, compare Star War's Darth Vader, Nolan-verse Joker and Wall Street's Gordon Gekko. Which of them is more evil is pretty much down to your own personal outlook.

[Blue Ghost]

I think that Chaotic Evil is the most pure evil. Strip a person of all morals and inhibitions, and anything good you can find without destroying the person entirely, and what you end up with is someone who acts entirely on base instincts, best described as Chaotic Evil.

But of the three, I think Lawful Evil has the most potential for harm. It has the most potential to corrupt entire systems, and thus have the most lasting effects. It is also the most insidious and difficult to root out.

[Scowling Dragon]

Using fictional examples, compare Star War's Darth Vader, Nolan-verse Joker and Wall Street's Gordon Gekko. Which of them is more evil is pretty much down to your own personal outlook.

I wouldn't even say the NJoker was Chaotic evil. He followed his goal, and his goal was anarchy. More of a Neutral evil.

Ordinary joker is TRULY CE. All he does is to please his own demented whims.

[Kjata]

I'm pretty sure if you have a goal to spread mass chaos, you are textbook chaotic evil.

Chaotic is not random with no goals. It does what it wants, with no regard for any sort of code.

Robin Hood is chaotic good, but he had a goal to feed poor people by fighting corruption.

Nolan Joker blew stuff up to spread chaos.

Ultimately, I feel Lawful evil is the most evil, but only barely. Mainly because I am chaotic in nature, I feel committing atrocities under the guise of "the law" to be worse than just committing atrocities. However, like I said, they are barely different.

[Morph Bark]

But then it's no longer Lawful Good inflicting the evil. Lawful Good, by definition, cannot inflict evil.

It's not about the inflicting, it's about the causing. Slightly less direct, but still an immediate result of one's personal actions.

[aberratio ictus]

Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do.

The same could be argued for chaotic good. Vigilante mobs and the like, for example. Well-intentioned extremists.
Good goals through evil means isn't exactly a lawful exclusive.

As for the OPs question: The evil that is the most abhorrent, in my opinion? Chaotic evil. The most dangerous? Lawful evil.

[GolemsVoice]

If we assume that each of these Alignments would form a government, I'd probably pick either Lawful Evil to live under, or Neutral Evil. Lawful Evil would be opressing, surely, but at least you can find out what goes and what doesn't. There are still rules and laws, even if they are unjust. Neutral Evil? That's probably just some dudes who wanted to be powerful, and as long as you don't threaten them, maybe they'd leave you alone? I'm not exactly sure with NE. Chaotic Evil? Ugh, I think there would be a feeling of constant threat, because you never knew if today you (or your "type") are the one who displeases the rulers. Sure, CE isn't outright crazy, but it's less rules, more what people feel like at any given moment.


It's not about the inflicting, it's about the causing. Slightly less direct, but still an immediate result of one's personal actions.

Have we become this cynical that we can't accept that good would do, well, GOOD? I mean, Lawful Good does NOT mean Lawful Stupid. It is GOOD. And if you compare Good to Evil, yeah, what would cause more harm is no question for me, really.

[aberratio ictus]

Have we become this cynical that we can't accept that good would do, well, GOOD? I mean, Lawful Good does NOT mean Lawful Stupid. It is GOOD. And if you compare Good to Evil, yeah, what would cause more harm is no question for me, really.

Being sceptical of the concept of good seems to be the new way to prove you're a smart, critical thinker and very grown up.

Actually, it wouldn't even make sense if you accepted the notion that the lawful good in question always turns to evil means to further its goals - I suppose you could argue that lawful people are more organized and thus more effective in what they do, but as we all hopefully know, Organisations (sadly, maybe) don't have to pretend to be good to attract followers.
I suppose even the smart, critical thinkers amongst us have to admit that if an organisation is evil at its heart it will cause much more harm than a similar good organisation that is simply misguided.

[Morph Bark]

As for the OPs question: The evil that is the most abhorrent, in my opinion? Chaotic evil. The most dangerous? Lawful evil.

This, I can sort-of agree with. Lawful Evil can be over the top with punishments and the like to be even worse, because it's all legalized that way into one big system that's hard to escape. This also makes it more dangerous than Chaotic Evil, especially because it all being systemized and legalized that way makes it often more acceptable for people as long as they aren't directly victimized by it.

[Scowling Dragon]

Have we become this cynical that we can't accept that good would do, well, GOOD? I mean, Lawful Good does NOT mean Lawful Stupid. It is GOOD. And if you compare Good to Evil, yeah, what would cause more harm is no question for me, really.

Because being cynical is COOL MAAAAAAAAAAAHN. :smallcool:

Optimism is SOOOOOO 1950s

[Jay R]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.

One of the worst of the many inaccuracies of the D&D alignment system is the absurd notion that people know how evil or good they are.

I agree that somebody who "sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something 'for the Greater Good' that leads to much worse things than" if they didn't. But regardless of how they view themselves, such people are not, in fact, good.

The idea that evil people know themselves to be evil is simply not consistent with how people act in the real world.

[PlusSixPelican]

The only people who know they're evil, in theory, are the clerics of evil gods, anti-Paladins, and people in evil Prestige Classes.

Everyone else's classes aren't align-specific (on the good/evil spectra), so it's entirely possible for the majority of evil characters to be unaware of their evil-ness.

[Thajocoth]

The only people who know they're evil, in theory, are the clerics of evil gods, anti-Paladins, and people in evil Prestige Classes.

Everyone else's classes aren't align-specific (on the good/evil spectra), so it's entirely possible for the majority of evil characters to be unaware of their evil-ness.

If they agree with the ideologies of their god, then they may simply think that that is good & those that disagree are evil. They see the chart flipped upside down. So even the cleric of an evil god might not think they're evil.

Look at Redcloak. He's doing what he does to benefit goblinkind. His motivations are not really all that evil... Due to a lack of fourth wall, he knows he's labeled as evil, but doesn't see what he's doing as bad.

[The_Snark]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.

In addition to what Jay R said: why Lawful Good, specifically? Are Chaotic Good extremists not capable of doing the same amount of harm in the name of their ideals?

I suppose the argument is that a LG idealist sets up (or supports) a system that ends up bring oppressive and horrible when exploited by non-LG people; but you could just as easily posit a scenario in which a CG anarchist works to topple a moderately corrupt but stable government, inadvertently ushering in a period of bloody revolution followed by centuries of intermittent warfare.


Back on topic: too close to call, for me. Lawful Evil tends to be associated with large organizations (evil empires, shadowy government cabals, sinister corporations) which are capable of inflicting suffering on a grand scale; however, Chaotic Evil is perfectly capable of operating on that scale as well. Bloody anarchy and rule-of-the-strong isn't any better than brutal oppression. CE isn't really worse at being subtle either - there's just a stylistic difference, the ambitious politician versus the malicious trickster. Both can do a lot of damage. Neutral Evil... it's hard to generalize about NE; the only constant is a lack of morals. There's no grandiose plan, no ideology associated with it in D&D; it's everything from petty thugs to soulless serial killers.

[Eldonauran]

Lawful Evil.

Yeah. Definately, Lawful Evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ultimately I don't really see any of the three as particularly worse than the other two in any universal sense.

Under the right circumstances any one of the three could take a commanding lead over the others in that specific place under those specific circumstances. A big part of the problem with marking any one as the worst is that the other two will both undercut its position. They simply cannot exist in a vaccum, not even in the lower planes.

[Anarion]

The combination of all three. Lawful evil beings tend to have an easier time amassing large organizations that provide them with influence and reach. However, that also makes them unwieldy and predictable, so it is useful to them to have chaotic evil allies that can take care of important things and lead to surprises. And neutral evil characters are important as well because if everyone is too rigid or a loose cannon, there won't be anyone to simply keep the whole evil enterprise functioning.

[Bulldog Psion]

I have doubts that most truly evil people in the real world don't know that they are evil, or really think that they're sweet and benign. I don't want to site examples, for obvious board rule reasons, but I think a lot of the worst in history tend to think of themselves as magnificent predators and the decent or the less evil as "weaklings" and "fools". I personally doubt that most of them think of themselves as angels, but that's just my opinion.

Leaving that aside, I'll vote for Lawful Evil as the worst by a long sight. The other two are mostly dangerous at personal range. The Lawful Evil can create a fatally dangerous, oppressive structure that can result in torment, horror, and death for countless thousands they've never met, and who may live generations later. I'll take any hundred bloodthirsty berserkers or sly, amoral opportunists over that kind of concentrated menace.

[Blue Ghost]

I have doubts that most truly evil people in the real world don't know that they are evil, or really think that they're sweet and benign. I don't want to site examples, for obvious board rule reasons, but I think a lot of the worst in history tend to think of themselves as magnificent predators and the decent or the less evil as "weaklings" and "fools". I personally doubt that most of them think of themselves as angels, but that's just my opinion.

And on a smaller scale, I think a lot of the ordinary jerks and bullies you meet in everyday life know that what they do is wrong, but don't care. They might do evil precisely because defying moral standards makes them feel powerful.

[GolemsVoice]

Leaving that aside, I'll vote for Lawful Evil as the worst by a long sight. The other two are mostly dangerous at personal range. The Lawful Evil can create a fatally dangerous, oppressive structure that can result in torment, horror, and death for countless thousands they've never met, and who may live generations later. I'll take any hundred bloodthirsty berserkers or sly, amoral opportunists over that kind of concentrated menace.

I think lawful Evil also has the tendency to corrupt society, so that things keep the facade of order and normalcy while they're in fact not normal at all. But because all the usual institutions (a king, local lords, courts, etc.) are in place, people might think that this is actually all very much normal, just different.

[Traab]

Lawful Evil.

Yeah. Definately, Lawful Evil.

I agree, its the most insidious, because there are less legitimate ways to combat it. If you have a chaotic evil monster roaming around killing everything in los, then you can form a posse and hunt his ass down. A lawful evil on the other hand, if I understand the faction properly, is not only doing terrible things, he is doing them all legally. What exactly can you do when the mayor of the town is grinding you under his heel and all without breaking a law?If you attack him, you get arrested, if you complain, who would you do it to? Talk to a higher authority? Sorry, he is following the letter of the law, nothing can be done about it.

Severus Snape might count as lawful evil in my book. At least, his cover was lawful evil. The man used his authority to abuse and belittle anyone he wanted, and since he never officially crossed the line, noone could or would do anything to rein him in. Any action the students took would wind up dismissed, or with them in trouble. You were dammed if you did, dammed if you didnt, because no official means of stopping him existed, and any unofficial means were against the rules and got YOU in trouble instead. That feeling of helplessness is why I think lawful evil is the worst.

[Brother Oni]

Severus Snape might count as lawful evil in my book. At least, his cover was lawful evil. The man used his authority to abuse and belittle anyone he wanted, and since he never officially crossed the line, noone could or would do anything to rein him in. Any action the students took would wind up dismissed, or with them in trouble. You were dammed if you did, dammed if you didnt, because no official means of stopping him existed, and any unofficial means were against the rules and got YOU in trouble instead. That feeling of helplessness is why I think lawful evil is the worst.

Are you sure you're not conflicting being evil with simply being an ****hole?

Being a git is pretty much independent of alignment - you can think of many unpleasant people in all the alignments, from the sanctimonious holier-than-thou Lawful Good types, to the apathetic indifference of True Neutral.

[Traab]

Are you sure you're not conflicting being evil with simply being an ****hole?

Being a git is pretty much independent of alignment - you can think of many unpleasant people in all the alignments, from the sanctimonious holier-than-thou Lawful Good types, to the apathetic indifference of True Neutral.

Well obviously asmodeus isnt going to step aside for him, but you dont have to burn down orphanages and eat puppies to be evil. I just used him as an example of the type of behavior I was talking about. He fits the profile, albeit on a lower scale. He delighted in causing problems for everyone but his favorites, relentlessly abused his authority to make the lives of 75% of the school as close to hell as he could manage, and he did it all without ever provably stepping over the line. He absolutely delighted in the looks of impotent rage the students had when he would deal with them. He would set up confrontations between his favorites and everyone else so he could "show up" and punish the other kids because it was in his power to do so and noone could prove any wrong doing on his part. It was all about exploiting the rules/law for his own personal gain.

[Brother Oni]

Well obviously asmodeus isnt going to step aside for him, but you dont have to burn down orphanages and eat puppies to be evil.

Ah, I think that's where we differ. I agree that there are differing scales of 'evil' but I suspect my scale is somewhat different to yours.

With regard to Snape, there are two things you should remember - 1) he despises Harry, thus he tends to go out of his way to make trouble for him and 2) most of what we see from Snape is from the viewpoint of the Harry, who is mostly likely Chaotic Good.

By definition, a Lawful Neutral person is more 'evil' than CG, but it doesn't make them 'evil' per se. McGonagall is one of the 'good' guys and quite clearly Lawful Neutral but doesn't get anywhere near the same amount of villification when she's in opposition to the protagonists.

In my opinion, if Snape assassinated one the Dark Arts teachers and blamed it on one of the many occupational hazards of the wizarding world (or arranged for one of the occupational hazards to happen to the incumbent), this would make him Lawful Evil. The fact that he covets the position but doesn't take that final step to get it, edges him out of the evil part of the alignment spectrum in my view.
It still doesn't make him any less unpleasant though.

[willpell]

For me, Lawful definitely. Chaotic Evil makes mayhem on a small localized scale when it's in the mood. Lawful Evil not only crushes the spirits of the innocent for generations and changes the very language so that vice becomes virtue and kindness a crime, but uses the letter of the law to enlist Good in the service of its Evil ends. And conversely I consider Chaotic Good to be the greatest good, because it draws on the wellspring of the human spirit, instead of the harsh and inflexible laws of impossible-to-satisfy extraplanar schoolmarms who think that all pleasure is sinful and extol the virtues of obligation and conformity.

I have a LOT of trouble with the fact that D&D inherently assumes the reverse of this, with Paladins vs. Blackguards and all that. Though part of it stems from a tendency to equate Chaos with robbery, whereas I think it's more synonymous with art and passion. There can be arch-foes that are Chaotic Evil (the Joker being an obvious example), but for the most part I figure that CEs tend to be slightly buffoonish and have short attention spans, making them manageable threats. The archvillains who engineer fiendishly cunning plots within plots, where even the hero ends up serving the villain's aims and never guessing at his true identity until it's too late, those are the ones who pose a real threat, usually using their Chaotic cousins as diversions to mask their activity.

To me, Star Wars is the best example of a CG vs. LE conflict, and I consider it far more compelling than the typical Paladin vs. Ashardalon scenario. With few exceptions, I find unflinchingly principled heroes boring at best, and more likely hypocritical, while villains who just blow stuff up all the time for no reason seem lame as well. Engineers of atrocity, those frighten me, and I cheer for heroes with a lively wit and a forgiving attitude toward humanity's frailties.

[PlusSixPelican]

A big issue with Chaotic Evil characters is the people writing them.

Just because you're chaotic, you're not stupid. (Unless you're Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid).) Chaotic Evil characters can plan and plot just as well as their Lawful Evil counterparts. (Compare the Joker to Lex Luthor.)

Or Xykon. He might be Chaotic Evil, but he does have an extraplanar castle ready for phylactery storage, and he does craft magic items to compliment his spell selection.

[Brother Oni]

A big issue with Chaotic Evil characters is the people writing them.

Just because you're chaotic, you're not stupid. (Unless you're Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid).) Chaotic Evil characters can plan and plot just as well as their Lawful Evil counterparts.

The problem is, if a Chaotic Evil character's plot succeeds, things tend to go pearshaped, quite often out of their control.

Take the Joker's plan to rob the bank in The Dark Knight. Absolute chaos, which resulted in him getting shot. If the other robber took the effort to aim and shot him in the head instead of the standard centre of mass, that'd be all she wrote.

[GolemsVoice]

The thing about a (good) Chaotic Evil person is that they crave chaos, and are masters of it, using it to remain unpredictable and thus always having teh advantage, especially when confronted with a more lawful enemy like the police/city guard or authorities, who can't deal very well with such foes.

In a way, many Chaotic Evil (or Chaotic in general) have luck in their favour, because they cause chaos, which may be beyond their control, but it somehow never hurts them too much.

[McStabbington]

I have doubts that most truly evil people in the real world don't know that they are evil, or really think that they're sweet and benign. I don't want to site examples, for obvious board rule reasons, but I think a lot of the worst in history tend to think of themselves as magnificent predators and the decent or the less evil as "weaklings" and "fools". I personally doubt that most of them think of themselves as angels, but that's just my opinion.



That is in my experience absolutely incorrect. I've dealt with some people who barely qualify if you looked at how inhuman their actions were, and to a person, each and every one of them felt that their actions were perfectly justified, that they had done nothing wrong, and that they were thoroughly good people being put upon by others. A huge component of evil is that it's facilitated by the human mind's endless capacity to invent justifications for actions and say that, regardless of what actually happened, it wasn't really a bad thing, wasn't my fault, or that there was some extremity of circumstance that drove me to it. Redemption, the act of dispelling these justifications and saying that, no, the fault was with me because what I am is evil, and I must change what I am, is an incredibly rare and special thing for a reason.

As a matter of personal opinion, I find Lawful Evil the most terrifying, because Lawful Evil is about using the machinery of the bureaucracy and the state to inflict that evil. Given the choice between risking being hacked to death with a machete in Rwanda or facing the Holocaust, I'd probably take my chances in Rwanda because of the improved chances of fleeing the conflict. But I don't find either one more evil. Reducing a person to a non-person, and treating them as sub-human, is the ultimate evil, and anything beyond that is simply a question of scale and tactics.

[Wardog]

One of the worst of the many inaccuracies of the D&D alignment system is the absurd notion that people know how evil or good they are.

Except...

In the world of D&D, Good and Evil are objective and measurable. Evil people are radioactive, and become more radioactive the more evil they do.

And there are Evil religions with Evil churches, worshiping provably-existing Evil Gods, that teach that Evil is (lower-case-g) good, and that sufficiently those who sufficiently fulfil the wishes of these Evil gods will be rewarded by them in the afterlife.

[hamishspence]

The idea that evil people know themselves to be evil is simply not consistent with how people act in the real world.

It's pretty common in fiction to have "self-despising Evil characters"

The Operative from Serenity springs to mind.

I don't see it as all that implausible.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Except...

In the world of D&D, Good and Evil are objective and measurable. Evil people are radioactive, and become more radioactive the more evil they do..... but this fact isn't readily apparent to most people. Only divine casters actually have access to the magic necessary to detect that "radiation," and they make up only a small portion of the overall population.


And there are Evil religions with Evil churches, worshiping provably-existing Evil Gods, that teach that Evil is (lower-case-g) good, and that sufficiently those who sufficiently fulfil the wishes of these Evil gods will be rewarded by them in the afterlife.

Yeah...... no. Those religions teach that they are good, not evil in general. Many of them also masquerade as something other than puppy-kicking, baby-roasting evil.

Most people in the D&D multiverse have no idea what their alignment is and many of them would deny or ignore being called evil no matter what the "magical radiation" says.

"I must've been cursed!" says the farmer that infests his neighbor's field with parasites.

"It wasn't my fault! They came home before they were supposed to!" says the burglar turned murderer.

Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize the actions they know are wrong.

[scurv]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.

The joys of narcissism

[Jay R]

One of the worst of the many inaccuracies of the D&D alignment system is the absurd notion that people know how evil or good they are.

Except...

In the world of D&D, Good and Evil are objective and measurable. Evil people are radioactive, and become more radioactive the more evil they do.

And there are Evil religions with Evil churches, worshiping provably-existing Evil Gods, that teach that Evil is (lower-case-g) good, and that sufficiently those who sufficiently fulfil the wishes of these Evil gods will be rewarded by them in the afterlife.

Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the truth of my statement. Everything you describe shows exactly how inaccurate and absurd the D&D alignment system is.


It's pretty common in fiction to have "self-despising Evil characters"

The Operative from Serenity springs to mind.

I don't see it as all that implausible.

Self-despising evil characters like Lady Macbeth are common. Most villains don't even consider the issue, like Sauron, Voldemort, Mordred, etc. Others consider themselves to be justified, like Simon Legree, Scrooge, etc.

The villain who considers himself to be evil, and accepts it as a perfectly normal part of his alignment is a D&D fiction. (You also find it in absurdly simplistic modern fiction like comic books or cartoons.)

[Brother Oni]

Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the truth of my statement. Everything you describe shows exactly how inaccurate and absurd the D&D alignment system is.


I think you're missing Wardog's point. In the fictional world of D&D, good and evil are measured on a clear independent black and white scale.

The alignment system falls apart when you apply it to reality or reality to the D&D world. It functions perfectly well within the limits of the universe.

[Jay R]

I think you're missing Wardog's point. In the fictional world of D&D, good and evil are measured on a clear independent black and white scale.

The alignment system falls apart when you apply it to reality or reality to the D&D world. It functions perfectly well within the limits of the universe.

I think you're missing my point, which is that the D&D alignment system is inaccurate and absurd. To say that one unrealistic aspect of it explains why another aspect of it is equally unrealistic doesn't disagree with my point; it reinforces my point.

[Brother Oni]

I think you're missing my point, which is that the D&D alignment system is inaccurate and absurd. To say that one unrealistic aspect of it explains why another aspect of it is equally unrealistic doesn't disagree with my point; it reinforces my point.

How can I be missing your point when I mention why and when the system breaks down? To reiterate, the D&D alignment system is indeed absurd when applied to real people.

However, you're in a universe where there a bonafide miracles everyday, there's concrete proof that there's greater beings watching over people and atheism gets your soul bound to a wall for all eternity after death (at least in FR).

Do you still think that a subjective perception of 'good' and 'evil' is still relevant in such a world? Someone that does evil things for the 'greater good' may not see himself as evil, but he's still going to be flagged up when Detect Evil is cast.

If you want to lambast D&D as morally 'absurdly simplistic', then go ahead - I'd agree with you. Sometimes having black and white morality in fiction, is not a bad thing.

I suspect that you're having issues with the terms 'good' and 'evil' being applied to people - if they hurt your sensibilities, then may I suggest replacing them with the labels 'altruistism' and 'selfishness' instead? People are certainly more aware of how selfish/altruistic they are rather than a nebulous good/evil axis.

[TrioThePunch]

"Evilest Evil"? Not sure. "Alignment capable of inflicting the most evil on the world"? Lawful Good. Because someone who's Lawful Good and sees themselves as very much Good can easily end up doing something "for the Greater Good" that leads to much worse things than anything an Evil person could do. Sure, by the end, they might no longer be Lawful Good, but we're talking start and middle here.

No.
Paladins can't tell lies because of their alignment and codes
no matter how evil the person, and no matter whether it is for the greater good or not.
Chaotic evil is the evilest, doing things randomly with little purpose. Evil things.

[TrioThePunch]

How can I be missing your point when I mention why and when the system breaks down? To reiterate, the D&D alignment system is indeed absurd when applied to real people.

However, you're in a universe where there a bonafide miracles everyday, there's concrete proof that there's greater beings watching over people and atheism gets your soul bound to a wall for all eternity after death (at least in FR).

Do you still think that a subjective perception of 'good' and 'evil' is still relevant in such a world? Someone that does evil things for the 'greater good' may not see himself as evil, but he's still going to be flagged up when Detect Evil is cast.

If you want to lambast D&D as morally 'absurdly simplistic', then go ahead - I'd agree with you. Sometimes having black and white morality in fiction, is not a bad thing.

I suspect that you're having issues with the terms 'good' and 'evil' being applied to people - if they hurt your sensibilities, then may I suggest replacing them with the labels 'altruistism' and 'selfishness' instead? People are certainly more aware of how selfish/altruistic they are rather than a nebulous good/evil axis.

If I was god, I would rarely ever pay any attention to Earth. Because I could create much more interesting places without even moving.

[distant quasar]

I'd say I find all of them equally evil, but I feel that Chaotic Evil is the most abhorrent and Neutral Evil is the most dangerous, because they will not act wholly/mostly on impulse as CE would, but also will not feel any sense of honor/duty/whatever that LE would.

If anyone here has ever read C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy (which I highly recommend), they probably experienced a hard time dealing with their moral system, because one of the main characters would probably be called "Lawful Evil". This does a good job of forcing the reader to examine just what evil really is.

I think that most of us instinctually equate "good" with "better", which is related to "practical", which is in turn related to "orderly", or, well Lawful. We think of concepts like honesty, purity, commitment, etc. as being good in principle, but of course most of us believe that lying and similar non-lawful activites are sometimes justified. (on a similar note, concepts of bad or evil are usually tied to concepts of chaos, disorder, inpracticality, or simple- i.e. base.)

Of course, if these ties are in fact correct, then CE would be most evil, followed by NE and then LE.

[Wardog]

I think you're missing my point, which is that the D&D alignment system is inaccurate and absurd. To say that one unrealistic aspect of it explains why another aspect of it is equally unrealistic doesn't disagree with my point; it reinforces my point.

D&D dragons are inaccurate and absurd. There's no way they could fly with that body shape, and everyone knows dragons eat sheep (or princesses, when they get the chance), not gems.

Or alternatively, you can accept that within the context of the D&D universe then the rules of the D&D universe are accurate.

Now, if you want to argue that they are absurd (or have some bizarre or counterintuitive consequences, etc) then I won't necessarily argue. (Some of them definitely are, IMO).

Or, indeed, you could argue that something so at odds with the way the real world works is a bad storytelling/gaming convention. (And I'm not sure I'd disagree with that either, unless the story/game is specifically trying to explore the consequences of such a metaphysical reality).


But that is the way things are in D&D-world, and while not everyone there would necessarily know their own alignment, or understand all (or any) of the ramifications of the system, some people will, and some will be able to objectively determine their/other's alignments, and what effect certain actions will have on it.



***

Now, despite, or maybe because of all that, "ethics" and "moral philosophy" will still exist in the D&D universe (IMO), and will still provoke lively debates. The nature of those will debates will be different from in the real world (because capitalized Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objectively measurable), but they will still exist. Instead they will likely focus of why Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are (lowercase) good or bad, and if/when you should strike a balance.

(In the same way that the existance of provable and interventionist deities will alter the nature of faith and religion, rather than negate it).

And many of the aspects of the alignment system that seem absurd to us will probably seem equally absurd to the people of D&D, even though they are objectively true. For example, murder, casting Deathwatch, and being a Fiend are all Evil - but why? Murder is obviously harmful, but casting Deathwatch does no harm to anyone (by RAW), and a Fiend can be good (or even Good, I think) and still ping as Evil.

I expect D&D philosophers will develop their own versions or concepts of virtue, deontological, and consequentialist ethics. (And I think that viewed in this light, the "Neutral" alignment makes a lot more sense, and could be a genuinely ethical position, rather than the cheap copout it looks like).

[White_Drake]

Having read 1984 I say Lawful Evil.

[The Succubus]

The Evilest Evil is one that you willingly rush to embrace, even though you know it's evil and will eventually corrupt you.

Hi there. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

D&D dragons are inaccurate and absurd. There's no way they could fly with that body shape, and everyone knows dragons eat sheep (or princesses, when they get the chance), not gems.

Or alternatively, you can accept that within the context of the D&D universe then the rules of the D&D universe are accurate.

Now, if you want to argue that they are absurd (or have some bizarre or counterintuitive consequences, etc) then I won't necessarily argue. (Some of them definitely are, IMO).

Or, indeed, you could argue that something so at odds with the way the real world works is a bad storytelling/gaming convention. (And I'm not sure I'd disagree with that either, unless the story/game is specifically trying to explore the consequences of such a metaphysical reality).

Alternatively, I could argue as I did, by responding to somebody who was trying to apply D&D alignment concepts to real world situations, by stating that they are inaccurate and absurd.

I don't think you and I are in disagreement here

[hamishspence]

The villain who considers himself to be evil, and accepts it as a perfectly normal part of his alignment is a D&D fiction. (You also find it in absurdly simplistic modern fiction like comic books or cartoons.)

It's not all that common in D&D to have villains "accepting their own evilness as perfectly normal".

[GolemsVoice]

You do, however, have villains who are very much more Evil than in the real world. Including a black armor with real skulls and an axe that drinks the souls of the slain, the works.

[hamishspence]

That said, in D&D Eberron, the guy in the black armour with skulls might be a Lawful Good ex-paladin who retains most of their powers- a Bone Knight.

While there are evil things it is possible to do in D&D that it isn't possible (as far as we know) for mortals to do in the real world (like soul-destroying)- it doesn't necessarily follow that such characters are significantly "eviler" than characters in less fantastical works.

[TrioThePunch]

You do, however, have villains who are very much more Evil than in the real world. Including a black armor with real skulls and an axe that drinks the souls of the slain, the works.

That sounds much more evil than people who are sometimes considered to be evil because they do things for the supposed greater good.
In the real world, I think it is hard to define what is evil, because what is to the detriment of one group may be to the benefit of another. Similarly, something beneficial to a majority but detrimental to a minority may be perceived as good by the majority and perhaps an outside force as the interests of many are met over few, but it may be seen as evil by the minority.

[Brother Oni]

Alternatively, I could argue as I did, by responding to somebody who was trying to apply D&D alignment concepts to real world situations, by stating that they are inaccurate and absurd.

The problem is, just saying 'the D&D alignment system is inaccurate and absurd' is an unqualified statement which leads to mis-interpretation.
If you had said, you can't apply the alignment system to real life because it's too inaccurate, then we would have agreed with you.

[willpell]

(And I'm not sure I'd disagree with that either, unless the story/game is specifically trying to explore the consequences of such a metaphysical reality).

IMO, that is exactly what D&D is for, and the main reason to play D&D (or at least to play it without houseruling alignment out the window). I loooove to play with the implications of the alignment system; IMC, I go to great lengths to play up the idea that arch-Good is definitely still Good, but also has an alien and forbidding quality which places it beyond the pale of most human ability, while non-arch-Evil is largely a highly understandable backlash against it. Villains in my setting are often extremely reasonable people, who accept premises as true that we accept as true in real life, and are Evil because of it, because those premises are no longer valid in the presence of objective good. But they still resonate with us in reality, and so make the villain sympathetic to us, even though they are considered insane in their own gameworld for questioning the trustworthiness of Ultimate Good.


Now, despite, or maybe because of all that, "ethics" and "moral philosophy" will still exist in the D&D universe (IMO), and will still provoke lively debates. The nature of those will debates will be different from in the real world (because capitalized Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objectively measurable), but they will still exist. Instead they will likely focus of why Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are (lowercase) good or bad, and if/when you should strike a balance.

Keep in mind that Detect Alignment results are falsifiable due to Nondetection spells, and that other spells such as Morality Undone can artificially instill an alignment. Any paladin who stands in the town square Detecting Evil on everyone who walks by and cutting down anyone who gives a positive reading is going to Fall pretty fast, probably because an actual Evil character with too much sense to walk in front of him arranged it. A real paladin uses his senses and basic logic to try and work out who seems to be responsible for problems, and will act against individuals who seem to be causing trouble, but will do so in a restrained and reasonable way, with violence as his last resort. And he'll mostly use Detect Evil to confirm a target before wasting his daily smite, or to try and pierce a veil of deception, but he won't consider it ironclad proof and he'll only plan on attempting the smite if the target's Evilness is already at least 75% certain. He won't hesitate to take down a Neutral or even Good character who's acting in a destructive fashion, though probably using nonlethal force unless this would clearly not get the job done and the job badly needs doing.


(In the same way that the existance of provable and interventionist deities will alter the nature of faith and religion, rather than negate it).

Exactly. My-god-can-beat-up-your-god arguments are just the tip of the iceberg. Groups such as the Athars and the Ur-Priests should definitely exist.


(And I think that viewed in this light, the "Neutral" alignment makes a lot more sense, and could be a genuinely ethical position, rather than the cheap copout it looks like).

The Obadian church and the Rilmani would definitely agree, among many others.


Using fictional examples, compare Star War's Darth Vader, Nolan-verse Joker and Wall Street's Gordon Gekko. Which of them is more evil is pretty much down to your own personal outlook.

Darth Vader is kind of a bad example of Lawful Evil, given how he killed his subordinates in a fit of temper given the slightest excuse. Not saying that isn't something a Lawful villain could do, but it's wasteful and sets a bad example to his subordinates ("why should we bother being loyal if he's just going to kill us for not-our-fault failures anyway; let's plot to replace him instead"), so it's hardly the epitome of LE. A better example would be someone who credibly portrays obedience to Evil as the more logical and effective route, and portrays all their villainy as "necessary sacrifices to the greater good". Rather than Godwin the thread, I'll use the fictional example of the Norsefire party from "V for Vendetta"; they are the law, so Good is whatever they say it is, and anyone who obeys their laws and accepts their version of the truth will live in a prosperous society, where they are completely safe as long as they do their part to defeat dangerous radicals who wear a Guy Fawkes mask and play proscripted music at indecent hours.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm not going to speak in terms of the Prime Material races, because for them it's mostly about the intelligence and drive of the person doing the evil. Instead, I'm going to say this: demons (both the Tanar'ri and their predecessors the Obyriths) are the most evil of the six major extant fiendish races. Why? Because demons are, above all other things, utterly selfish. Baatezu and Yugoloths reference to a larger society, but demons don't; Baatezu and Yugoloths throw up structures to prop up their narcissism, but demons destroy such structures either to delight in the destruction or because the simple suggestion of order fills them with such hate that they can only annihilate it. Demons are evil even when evil is of no benefit to them; a demon does not commit a good action to get ahead, because the very idea of such base virtue puts a red haze over their vision that can only be dispelled by blood.

They are, in the D&D context, evil without quenching, compromise, or even deviance in behavior - the hatred that feeds itself, the violence that never dies.

[willpell]

Instead, I'm going to say this: demons (both the Tanar'ri and their predecessors the Obyriths) are the most evil of the six major extant fiendish races. Why? Because demons are, above all other things, utterly selfish. Baatezu and Yugoloths reference to a larger society, but demons don't; Baatezu and Yugoloths throw up structures to prop up their narcissism, but demons destroy such structures.

But those structures which the devils and daemons creature are specifically calculated toward advancing the cause of Evil throughout the planes; they work to corrupt and ensnare the souls of Material natives, and the only reason they don't attack and destroy the Upper Planes to extinguish the very concept of Good is that the Demons make more immiedate and dangerous foes.

[Brother Oni]

Darth Vader is kind of a bad example of Lawful Evil, given how he killed his subordinates in a fit of temper given the slightest excuse.


I don't think so. He's got a very low tolerance for failure but off the top of my head, the only person he's forced choked for a non-failure reason is that general/officer near the beginning of episode 4 for insulting the Force which was stopped by Grand Moff Tarkin.

Another example would be the admiral in the beginning of Empire Strikes Back dropped the fleet at the wrong time out of hyperspace, contrary to Darth Vader's direct orders, resulting in the Rebels getting advance notice of the impending attack allowing them to evacuate in time.

If Vader was in the habit of killing anybody for the slightest provocation, then a lot of storm troopers would have died (the Falcon's escape in ESB, their failure to find the plans on Princess Leia's ship in ANH, etc), but he only seems to kill people who have failed him directly.

I'm not saying there aren't better examples, but I feel Vader is still fairly principled, especially compared to my other two examples.

[Jib]

Lawful Evil, the thought of Tyranny is my preference. Nothing seems more soul grinding and crushing than a rigid immobile structure of an empire that considers you more like a piece of wood to be burnt than a person.

[willpell]

If Vader was in the habit of killing anybody for the slightest provocation, then a lot of storm troopers would have died (the Falcon's escape in ESB, their failure to find the plans on Princess Leia's ship in ANH, etc), but he only seems to kill people who have failed him directly.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the Thrawn novels, but in both of them I've read to date, members of the post-ROTJ empire spend a lot of time talking to themselves (ie silently) about how fearsome Vader's temper was; they still haven't gotten used to working for Thrawn because he *doesn't* execute his subordinates at the drop of a hat, so they always cringe at the thought of how he'll take bad news.

Still, while I've cited Star Wars as a CG vs. LE conflict, I think of that more in terms of the factions as a whole than of their leaders. Mon Mothma could easily be LG, and the Emperor is probably NE, but the rank-and-file Empire soldiers exemplify LE to me, happily following orders to fire on vessels full of civilians, because hey, those are seditious traitors trying to undermine the integrity of the strong central government which will bring prosperity to the galaxy. While the Rebels' main strategy for staying alive is to be everywhere and nowhere at once; they abandon bases as soon as they're discovered, scatter in every direction, and (I might be wrong on this bit) I believe they tell rank-and-file members of the Alliance as little as possible to minimize how much they can be forced to betray. So the factions as a whole strike me as having LE and CG strategies, independent of their leaders' individual ethics.

[Brother Oni]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the Thrawn novels, but in both of them I've read to date, members of the post-ROTJ empire spend a lot of time talking to themselves (ie silently) about how fearsome Vader's temper was; they still haven't gotten used to working for Thrawn because he *doesn't* execute his subordinates at the drop of a hat, so they always cringe at the thought of how he'll take bad news.


I'll defer to you on the Thrawn novels as it's been a long time since I've read them. I doubt the Emperor took failure kindly either, so when you've got two Force users who are willing to kill people at the first sign of incompetence, they would all be used to treading on eggshells.



Still, while I've cited Star Wars as a CG vs. LE conflict, I think of that more in terms of the factions as a whole than of their leaders. Mon Mothma could easily be LG, and the Emperor is probably NE, but the rank-and-file Empire soldiers exemplify LE to me, happily following orders to fire on vessels full of civilians, because hey, those are seditious traitors trying to undermine the integrity of the strong central government which will bring prosperity to the galaxy.

I think this falls into a somewhat fuzzy area. Following orders to fire on enemy combatants (you sign up with the Rebellion, you become an enemy fighter even if you have a non-combat role - a FCS officer on the bridge of a battleship can kill people just as well as a X-wing pilot) doesn't strike me as a particularly good or evil act.

While the Imperial hierarchy appears to be full of ambitious people, none of them are really backstabbing each other to get to the top, a sure sign of LE behaviour (although this could simply be because Vader creates so many position vacancies, they don't need to).

Storm troopers especially have all this initiative trained out of them (or bred, in the case of any remaining clone troopers), so while they're mindlessly following orders (Lawful), they're not doing it with any intentional malice (thus Neutral in my opinion).
The only time I can remember any Storm troopers acting under their own initiative is the Troops fan comedy video, in which I agree they're borderline LE at least with regard with non-human species like Jawas.

[Wardog]

While the Imperial hierarchy appears to be full of ambitious people, none of them are really backstabbing each other to get to the top, a sure sign of LE behaviour (although this could simply be because Vader creates so many position vacancies, they don't need to).


Are you saying that backstabbing is a sign of LE behaviour, or [I]not [I]backstabbing is a sign of LE behaviour? Because I've seen both definitions given.

[Brother Oni]

Are you saying that backstabbing is a sign of LE behaviour, or [I]not [I]backstabbing is a sign of LE behaviour? Because I've seen both definitions given.

The way I understand it, backstabbing people within the rules is LE behaviour.

For example, a manager taking full credit for his team's work is LE behaviour, but the same manager taking his team's work and passing it off for his own is NE.

Either way, the team gets screwed out of recognition, but with the latter they can complain to HR/Legal, however with the former, they're out of luck unless they go outside of the company hierarchy.

[Asta Kask]

http://lpmuds.net/chaotic_evil.jpg

Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Weezer]

This right here is the most evil thing ever to exist. Make sure you don't touch it...

http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/time-bandits-evil-leftovers.jpg

[Asta Kask]

What alignment are cats?

[hamishspence]

I'll defer to you on the Thrawn novels as it's been a long time since I've read them. I doubt the Emperor took failure kindly either, so when you've got two Force users who are willing to kill people at the first sign of incompetence, they would all be used to treading on eggshells.


In Marvel Star Wars a group of Imperial officers get so tired of Vader killing them at the least excuse, they attempt to assassinate him. It doesn't go well.



Storm troopers especially have all this initiative trained out of them (or bred, in the case of any remaining clone troopers), so while they're mindlessly following orders (Lawful), they're not doing it with any intentional malice (thus Neutral in my opinion).
The only time I can remember any Storm troopers acting under their own initiative is the Troops fan comedy video, in which I agree they're borderline LE at least with regard with non-human species like Jawas.
This article:

http://www.theforce.net/image_popup/image_popup_global.asp?Image=timetales/misc/arcana/post4-03.jpg

does make it clear that they're pretty vicious. It was published shortly after ANH.

[Brother Oni]

This article:

http://www.theforce.net/image_popup/image_popup_global.asp?Image=timetales/misc/arcana/post4-03.jpg

does make it clear that they're pretty vicious. It was published shortly after ANH.

Unfortunately some of the speculation in that article is contradicted by the prequel movies and other later material.
I forget, is there a hierarchy for canon in Star Wars, or am I thinking about another sci-fi series?

[hamishspence]

There is- movies come first, then the The Clone Wars series, then books and other EU such as games (newer ones generally override older ones when there is a contradiction) - then Marvel Star Wars, and after that it's non-canon material- which is usually labelled Infinities.

In a sense, the prequels could be said to be clarifying "Yes, the Empire really did use clones early on at the very least".

So I'm not sure what of that article is outright gone.

The Empire still used clones during the ANH era and beyond- roughly 1/3 of the Stormtrooper Corps as of ANH.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Regarding Vader and the choking of subordinates: Brother Oni and Willpell are both right. Vader only really did that to the officers in charge of the Executor, his personal flagship, and other ships in the same fleet because when someone screwed up there they screwed up majorly (as when Ozzel's failure in ESB potentially stopped the Empire from wiping out the Rebellion). This tendency meant that the Executor was the quickest path to promotion and also the quickest path to, well, execution, so Vader gained a fearsome reputation for killing all incompetent subordinates when he merely killed the subordinates with the biggest failures.

Thus, when Thrawn rose to power and also started promoting officers to his flagship, they started to expect him to do the same thing, when in fact he was promoting people due to their capabilities and competence rather than to fill the void left by an incompetent admiral.

[hamishspence]

In movie. In the EU he does so to a lot of other people as well- possibly they were extrapolating from the death of Needa which was less justifiable than that of Ozzel.

Summary execution is pretty harsh in any case.

[Proud Tortoise]

Of the three evil alignments, Neutral Evil has gotten the least support. But I've studied much Planescape material and I believe it is the most abhorrent alignment (except possibly LG, but the question was about the three evils). There's a quote from Eli Wiesel that says something along the general lines of "apathy being worse than hate". I'm not sure whether I buy that in the way he meant it, but Neutral Evil is evil without caring. CE is about doing as much damage as possible while LE is trying to control people. But a truly NE person will kill without thinking twice. She holds no regard for life. And I find that truly frightening.

[Brother Oni]

Summary execution is pretty harsh in any case.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but at least there was a reason for it (you screwed up too much).


CE is about doing as much damage as possible while LE is trying to control people. But a truly NE person will kill without thinking twice. She holds no regard for life. And I find that truly frightening.

On a personal level I agree with you. Killing people or doing other evil acts simply because they don't give a **** about others, I find most repulsive.

Even a serial killer has a purpose for his victims. They may be extremely selfish and self serving, but at least it's intentional rather than just pure collateral damage.

[Morrolan]

My view is that these three concepts of "evil" of themselves mean little without the character that embodies them. It is the actions that those people take that render them evil, alignment is only a reflection of that.
So, this thread is comparing the effects, not the cause.

My conclusion is therefore that the question asked has no definite answer.

[hamishspence]

One could look at certain personality traits that tend to produce "Evil actions" and discuss which of those traits cause the most harm and misery?

Narcissism
Lack of empathy
Sadism

And so forth.

In Forgotten Realms, saurial paladins could sense the many types of evil, each of which had a color:

Greed: Yellow
Envy: Green
Hatred: Red
Sadism: Purple
Selfishness: Black

[Wardog]

My view is that these three concepts of "evil" of themselves mean little without the character that embodies them. It is the actions that those people take that render them evil, alignment is only a reflection of that.
So, this thread is comparing the effects, not the cause.

My conclusion is therefore that the question asked has no definite answer.

Plus of course there is a whole range of degrees of evilness, apart from the Law/Chaos axis.

A petty vandal/bully who enjoys breaking people's property or ruining their goals, purely because he enjoys upsetting people would be a mild form of CE. He would be far less evil than, say, an Arch Devil, but because the devil is eviler than the vandal, not because CE is less evil than LE.