Minimal Evil?

[Cheiromancer]

The thread about Alignment Drops (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284099) made me wonder about the opposite problem- when you need an evil alignment to power a feat like Deformity (Madness) or Insane Defiance, but you basically want to play in a normal adventure party. In other words, rather than Alignment Drops, you are worried about Alignment Raises.

So the question is: what is the minimal amount of evil you need to do to remain evil? Is casting protection from good and summoning fiendish dire rats enough? Or using your vile feats regularly? As I player I wouldn't want to be obliged to roleplay murder or torture, and I'd hesitate to even say I was doing it off screen. My hope is that this wouldn't be necessary to continue to meet the pre-requisites of feats that are available only to evil characters.

[Mr Beer]

I'd say ask your DM, because that's who will decide.

Myself, I'm not sure. I'm happy with the whole EVIL TM concept in D&D but I wouldn't want to run or play in a campaign where everyone had to keep up their torture count or serial killing score to stay evil.

So I would probably do it more on the basis of real world evil (bad things for seemingly good reasons) or comic book villain evil (mustache twirling) or movie bad guy (English accent, impeccable clothes); that kind of thing. Any of these things could work.

Hell, you could even play it exactly like a normal dungeon bash, just have the enemies be Good creatures. Hacking sentients apart on the basis of some notional alignment system and looting their homes is considered perfectly OK for good adventurers, I don't see why it wouldn't be OK for evil ones. Now I think about it, this is the only kind of "evil" campaign I've been involved in.

Anyway, lots of choices but you would really want everyone on the same page or at least reading the same playbook before playing the game.

[Geordnet]

I don't know, I personally think that it's this sort of 'quantitative' mindset that gives rise to the perceived problems with the alignment system... :smallsigh:

Frankly, you just can't quantify Evil.

[Water_Bear]

In my experience, it's pretty trivially easy to play an Evil PC. Most of the time Evil and pragmatic are synonyms, and when they aren't there's always an easy way to add Evil "flavor" to a Neutral or even Good action.


Don't agree to help people until you can see an angle (money, fame, sex, lulz), and make it clear that when push comes to shove you aren't above considering a better offer from someone else.
Negotiate at the first opportunity and then immediately go back on your word. If Lawful, make sure to word it as a loophole. Nothing kicks up the Evil-o-Meter like talking your enemies down and then butchering them when they've led you to the treasure vault.
Speaking of that, never take a risk by leaving someone alive. If they could come back to cause problems and are in your power, kill them dead. And make sure to mutilate the body if you have time; Speak with Dead and Raise Dead are obnoxious like that.
Don't threaten to do anything you wouldn't. You'll have to do most of the things you threaten at least once before people start taking your threats seriously.
Be offended for the wrong reasons. If you get angry that the horde of skeletal were-orcs burned down the village before they could pay you for clearing the road of bandits, people will never mistake your character for a good guy again.

There's really no excuse for an Evil PC to be mistaken for Neutral.

[valadil]

Really it depends on the GM. The way I read evil isn't sociopathic, but selfish. The character is totally motivated to help himself and doesn't really care what happens to the people around him. But even a character like that can help others if he thinks it'll come back to work out to his advantage in the end.

What it all comes down to is what motivates the character. Is he killing the dragon because saving the townsfolk is the right thing to do or because he wants the dragon's gold?

[Geordnet]

Really it depends on the GM. The way I read evil isn't sociopathic, but selfish. The character is totally motivated to help himself and doesn't really care what happens to the people around him. But even a character like that can help others if he thinks it'll come back to work out to his advantage in the end.

What it all comes down to is what motivates the character. Is he killing the dragon because saving the townsfolk is the right thing to do or because he wants the dragon's gold?
Selfish isn't really enough for Evil though; it can be Neutral too. (In fact, it can even be Good sometimes, as in a "jerk with a heart of gold".)

The question is how much a character's willing to harm others for how small a gain to himself. There's a line somewhere between "taking the last lifeboat for himself (instead of giving up his seat for others)" and "burning the last lifeboat for the lulz" that isn't very well-defined.

[CowardlyPaladin]

Evil isn't a code, a docrine or an ideology, evil is in fact the lack of those things. You don't "Be evil' you just are evil. To not be evil, you need to specifically A) stop doing evil deeds B) do some good deeds C) And if you want to be good, actually show some regret for the evil deeds you've done and try to earn forgiveness.

[Cheiromancer]

@Geordnet, given your comments about the 'quantitative' mindset - I love your signature! :smallbiggrin:

@Water_Bear: Great suggestions!

@Mr Beer: I wouldn't want the campaign to change to fighting Celestials, etc., but I really like the comic book and movie villain style. This is mostly theoretical - I am wondering what the options are, rather than thinking of a pitch to a particular DM.

@valadil: Ironically, what got me interested in Insane Defiance was that I could help boost a party spellcaster's mind affecting spells. The target I'd redirect the spell to would get a -4 on saves. So as a player my motivation is mostly unselfish. :smallsmile:

Given that the feats I mention are madness related, any thoughts about how one could play an insane evil person without being disruptive to a normal adventuring party?

[Mastikator]

In my experience, it's pretty trivially easy to play an Evil PC. Most of the time Evil and pragmatic are synonyms, and when they aren't there's always an easy way to add Evil "flavor" to a Neutral or even Good action.

[LIST]

Negotiate at the first opportunity and then immediately go back on your word. If Lawful, make sure to word it as a loophole. Nothing kicks up the Evil-o-Meter like talking your enemies down and then butchering them when they've led you to the treasure vault.

There's really no excuse for an Evil PC to be mistaken for Neutral.

Gotta disagree with this one, trickery and flimsyness is chaotic, not evil. An LE PC wouldn't go against his word or look for a loophole (unless his own interests are at stake).

Evil to me means you'd kick the puppy if it benefits you, and you'd like it.

The least amount of evil that is still evil is just never do anything that's selfless, never forgive and kick a puppy every once in a while.

[PlusSixPelican]

There isn't a minimum, just remember that you occasionally need to pull something around as cartoonishly evil as a Captain Planet villain. Remain prideful at all times, vain even. Enjoy the suffering of your enemies, and "make an example" of one on occasion, the harsher the better.

[Slipperychicken]

Put it in your backstory that you're a spiteful person who relishes in the suffering of living creatures and worships an evil god. Quietly sacrifice rats and enemies to your god, drawing out their agony for your amusement.

Get someone to cast Atonement (remember it works both ways) whenever you slip into a nonevil alignment. TA DA! Enjoy being Evil!

[Craft (Cheese)]

The thread about Alignment Drops (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284099) made me wonder about the opposite problem- when you need an evil alignment to power a feat like Deformity (Madness) or Insane Defiance, but you basically want to play in a normal adventure party. In other words, rather than Alignment Drops, you are worried about Alignment Raises.

So the question is: what is the minimal amount of evil you need to do to remain evil? Is casting protection from good and summoning fiendish dire rats enough? Or using your vile feats regularly? As I player I wouldn't want to be obliged to roleplay murder or torture, and I'd hesitate to even say I was doing it off screen. My hope is that this wouldn't be necessary to continue to meet the pre-requisites of feats that are available only to evil characters.

What constitutes an alignment change is basically up to your DM. Talk to him or her about it, tell them what options you want to take, and what, if anything, will be expected of your character if you take them. None of us are your DM, so we can't really make that judgement for you.

[Omegonthesane]

Due to the adventuring lifestyle, you're not likely to stand out as Evil unless there's a point where your morals are seriously tested. I played a Lawful Evil rogue who worshipped and was initially meant to PrC into Disciple of Baalzebul, having met the horrible sacrifice in the victim's own home prerequisite in his backstory, and who went by a false name the entire campaign, but not once gave an undeniable sign of being outright Evil rather than merely a bit selfish and snarky - though I have to admit it must have influenced the way he ended up being the party's legal defence when we were arrested for infighting due to the Evil Cleric among us.

(Who had taken less precautions than I had against the party Paladin's Detect Evil. Eh.)

Basically, one completely unrepentant atrocity is probably enough to keep you firmly in the deep end no matter how many orphanages you later build. Of course, for day to day evil you could always try logically convincing the more self-righteous party members why a particular evil act would benefit them or their ideals, such as trying to convince the Paladin of the virtues of executing your defeated enemies instead of letting them get back up and murder you while your back is turned.

[Need_A_Life]

Personally, I've played a Neutral Evil character in a party with a Paladin (took 4 sessions before a random Detect Evil screening of someone happened while I was in the room).
I was: Cowardly, greedy, merciless and a bit too happy with setting people on fire. In other words, nothing out of the usual for an adventuring alchemist.

I also frequently offered people free beer (1cp/drink marketprice; 1/3 to craft. I could afford it). Which made it all the better the first time I drugged the beer before offering it to a recurring NPC; who said blood needed to be shed to take him in?

In short: Ask your GM, but Evil can simply be a mindset.

[SiuiS]

The thread about Alignment Drops (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284099) made me wonder about the opposite problem- when you need an evil alignment to power a feat like Deformity (Madness) or Insane Defiance, but you basically want to play in a normal adventure party. In other words, rather than Alignment Drops, you are worried about Alignment Raises.

So the question is: what is the minimal amount of evil you need to do to remain evil? Is casting protection from good and summoning fiendish dire rats enough? Or using your vile feats regularly? As I player I wouldn't want to be obliged to roleplay murder or torture, and I'd hesitate to even say I was doing it off screen. My hope is that this wouldn't be necessary to continue to meet the pre-requisites of feats that are available only to evil characters.

Holy smokes, Cheiromancer? The Cheiromancer? Haven't seen you online in about six years...

The mechanical answer is from the Rokugan campaign setting: perceived honor as a feat lets you fib about your honor and use its mechanics if you keep up appearances. The standar version lets you do this with alignment, to the point that an undercover paladin with two of these feats can use all the vile feats and evil artifacts he wants, so long as no one catches you breaking character.

Otherwise, it's remarkably grey. Everyone haste or own idea of how to go about it, what qualifies, etc. you really can't just slap a number on and call it by arithmetic.


Selfish isn't really enough for Evil though; it can be Neutral too. (In fact, it can even be Good sometimes, as in a "jerk with a heart of gold".)

Nah, the point of jerk with a heart of gold is that it's specifically an exception which proves the rule.

[The Fury]

Evil's a tough one just because out of character you're going to want to maintain group cohesion. Or at least I'd hope so... :smalleek:
Also any smart evil character isn't going to do more than they can get away with, and it can actually further an evil agenda if they appear to be good. I guess that's the real trick, find whatever heinous stuff you can get away with and do that. Depending on the rest of the party and the game in general that may be tough, especially if there's a paladin breathing down your neck.

If I can make a specific suggestion, use Animate Dead to make a skeleton and have it hide in a closet when you're at an inn. When you leave the inn order the skeleton to kill whoever opens the closet next. Hilarious!

[TheStranger]

Here's the thing - alignment works 100% by DM fiat. The RAW on alignment is confusing, vague, and contradictory (not to mention horribly-written). And even where RAW is clear-ish, many people bring their pre-existing ideas of good and evil to the table as de facto houserules (and many do not, which puts them in conflict with those who do).

Some people assume an objective morality that works like a game mechanic. Some people say it's all about motivations. Some people assume good and evil mean the same thing in-game as those people think they mean IRL. Some people think in-game good and evil are artificial constructs that only mean what the rules say they mean. Some people say being a jerk is enough to be evil. Some people say you have to commit wanton acts of destruction/torture/hedonism. Some people gloss over alignment at the table, unless your paladin is kicking puppies. How alignment works is entirely up to the DM. Some DMs seem to revel in trapping characters going "against their alignment." Some are happy to defer to a player's determination of their character's alignment, unless it's blatantly wrong or abusive of the rules.

So the only real answer is "talk to your DM." Find out how alignment works at your table. If you're not in agreement, and you're not willing to do it his way to keep the game moving, you have an OOC problem. Do not attempt to solve it in-game. Do not cite the (admittedly vast) wisdom of the GitP boards, unless your DM agrees to allow us to resolve your dispute. Sort it out, agree to play a different character that won't make it an issue, or find a new DM.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe when your character gets into drunken debauchery and bangs wenches, he's thoughtlessly cheating on (and neglecting) a significant other back home. Of course, it doesn't have to stop there, your character could easily treat his SO (significant other) like garbage, insulting him/her, making baseless accusations, or even committing domestic violence or sexual assault when he does come home from "adventuring". Perhaps your character left a kid back at home, and adventures as an irresponsible escape from a life he never wanted (although that last bit is more Chaotic than Evil).

Toss that into your backstory. It puts many normal PC activites in a new (disgusting) context which makes them crimes against your loved ones. You should be able to swing an Evil alignment as long as you occasionally abuse your SO to remind the DM, and don't do too many good deeds.

[Scow2]

Gotta disagree with this one, trickery and flimsyness is chaotic, not evil. An LE PC wouldn't go against his word or look for a loophole (unless his own interests are at stake).
Treachery/Betrayal is an Evil act - in fact, one of the greatest of Evil Acts. Killing can take a life, but Treachery can destroy hundreds. It is also a positive feedback effect feeding itself. Treachery begets treachery, because it destroys Trust, which is the foundation of the Respect for Life, which is what Good is built on.

Lawful Evil is notorious for breaking its word and finding loopholes (Spelled out explicitly in D&D's PHB) - unless you'd argue that Lex Luthor and Darth Vader are not Lawful Evil? "I'm changing the deal. Pray I do not change it further."

But on the subject: The only Evil Heroic character I've played is my Gnoll, who directed staggering brutality, abhorrent cuisine, and disturbing threats toward those who opposed her, in a strong "Pay unto evil".

[Blightedmarsh]

Say you worship a chaotic evil goddess who wants to destroy/conquer the world and you are doing her bidding. However your goddess is patient, her plan won't come to fruition for thousands of years. In the mean time you are:

1) Helping to save the world in order to prevent anyone else from stealing her prize.
2) Protecting innocence and civilization so their will be more of it to corrupt and despoil when the time comes.
3) Converting others to her faith.

Bonus points if:

a) There is no goddess; its all in your mind.
b) Your actions cause the birth of the dark goddess.

[Waar]

The thread about Alignment Drops (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284099) made me wonder about the opposite problem- when you need an evil alignment to power a feat like Deformity (Madness) or Insane Defiance, but you basically want to play in a normal adventure party. In other words, rather than Alignment Drops, you are worried about Alignment Raises.

So the question is: what is the minimal amount of evil you need to do to remain evil? Is casting protection from good and summoning fiendish dire rats enough? Or using your vile feats regularly? As I player I wouldn't want to be obliged to roleplay murder or torture, and I'd hesitate to even say I was doing it off screen. My hope is that this wouldn't be necessary to continue to meet the pre-requisites of feats that are available only to evil characters.

Atonement is usually quite hard in games and tales, a sith lord leaving the dark side by accident just cause he failed to meet his qouta of force Lightning would be quite silly :smallamused: and a humanity ~1 monster (human monster) in WoD gaining humanity for not murdering people in the worst way imaginable would be equally strange :smallwink:.
I Think this is because whether you are good, evil or in between is (in most cases) not determined by what good acts you are willing to commit, but what evil acts.
As long as your willingness to commit sensless evil acts remains unchanged, the fact that you didn't commit any of them for a while shouldn't matter.

Edit: @scow2 it is easy to claim to be lawfull when making up the laws yourself (especially when "I may do anything I want", is one of them) you have to try a little harder to convince me that vaders actions and personality indicated him being "lawfull" in addition to dark side/evil

[vasharanpaladin]

Edit: @scow2 it is easy to claim to be lawfull when making up the laws yourself (especially when "I may do anything I want", is one of them) you have to try a little harder to convince me that vaders actions and personality indicated him being "lawfull" in addition to dark side/evil

Deals that benefit the party extending them while including loopholes to selectively exclude benefits toward all other parties are how devils (read: the resident LE fiends) operate.

Laws specifically written to exclude the lawmakers/lawkeepers/those in power from due process are LE's MO. Vader is, as we see in the original trilogy, a hypocrite... to have a code to espouse at the same time you subvert it is a very good habit for LE.

Extremism is also key... "for the Greater Good" is a red flag for LE. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... notice that Vader's fall from grace is nothing if not this with an added coating of dead Jedi babies to make it a proper Slip'n'Slide.

The last is the primary difference between LE and NE. An NE or CE character doesn't care if someone breaks a deal or his inane laws... they'll get their piece anyway. An LE character's word is his bond, no matter how they abuse the definition of each and every word that passes their lips.

[Doug Lampert]

I'd say ask your DM, because that's who will decide.

Myself, I'm not sure. I'm happy with the whole EVIL TM concept in D&D but I wouldn't want to run or play in a campaign where everyone had to keep up their torture count or serial killing score to stay evil.

So I would probably do it more on the basis of real world evil (bad things for seemingly good reasons) or comic book villain evil (mustache twirling) or movie bad guy (English accent, impeccable clothes); that kind of thing. Any of these things could work.

Hell, you could even play it exactly like a normal dungeon bash, just have the enemies be Good creatures. Hacking sentients apart on the basis of some notional alignment system and looting their homes is considered perfectly OK for good adventurers, I don't see why it wouldn't be OK for evil ones. Now I think about it, this is the only kind of "evil" campaign I've been involved in.

Anyway, lots of choices but you would really want everyone on the same page or at least reading the same playbook before playing the game.

Because BELKAR is clearly good since he's killing evil creatures.

No, hacking things apart and looting their homes because you think they are evil and you want their stuff is rather than because of actual crimes committed is CLEARLY and unambigously evil by the RAW.

Evil can fight evil, it does so all the time.


Selfish isn't really enough for Evil though; it can be Neutral too. (In fact, it can even be Good sometimes, as in a "jerk with a heart of gold".)

The question is how much a character's willing to harm others for how small a gain to himself. There's a line somewhere between "taking the last lifeboat for himself (instead of giving up his seat for others)" and "burning the last lifeboat for the lulz" that isn't very well-defined.

Yep, but just being willing to shove the little old lady out of the way so you can get to the lifeboat is plenty to be Evil. You are deliberately hurting an innocent for your own benefit. That's all it really takes.

I often see people saying selfish isn't evil, which is correct, but then missing the point that the INSTANT you go from "I want more for me" to "and I'm willing to hurt someone to get more for me" you've crossed the line.

[Waar]

"They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them" (Vader,Palpatine)
" They do not work well in groups" (Vader, possibly Palpatine)
"Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit" (Palpatine, possibly Vader)

Three quotes, from one evil alignment each, they all (imo) fit -> ~"Neutral" Evil :smalltongue:,

[vasharanpaladin]

"They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them" (Vader,Palpatine)
" They do not work well in groups" (Vader, possibly Palpatine)
"Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit" (Palpatine, possibly Vader)

Three quotes, from one evil alignment each, they all (imo) fit -> ~"Neutral" Evil :smalltongue:,

Sorry, no, quotes without context aren't evidence (though this does make a fantastic case for your being LE). :smallannoyed:

Read the whole thing. Vader is Lawful, as seen by having goalposts to move in the first place. Palpatine is Neutral with regards to Law and Chaos; he only cares about his own power and happily breaks tools that lose their usefulness. With that one exception, the Sith as they have existed since Bane's time are Lawful Evil, full stop.

That said, no, one should not have to kick puppies and munch babies constantly to qualify as Evil, nor does one have to enjoy murdering granny in her bed. A self-serving nature combined with a certain pragmatism is all that's needed... if your goal is personal power and eating a baby is the clearest way to get it, the first question on the Evil character's mind should be "How can I do this without getting caught?" followed by "Ketchup or barbecue sauce?"

And, as I pointed out before, "for the Greater Good" is a clear callsign for Evil. If your ostensibly Good-aligned party has to argue over an act or object "because it would be Evil," then you, the Evil character, can and should end it yourself. For the Greater Good. You bastard. :smalltongue:

[Geordnet]

And, as I pointed out before, "for the Greater Good" is a clear callsign for Evil. If your ostensibly Good-aligned party has to argue over an act or object "because it would be Evil," then you, the Evil character, can and should end it yourself. For the Greater Good. You bastard. :smalltongue:
That's just an example of what is in theory a Good principle twisted by Evil. :smallyuk:

The question isn't if making a sacrifice "for the greater good" is Good or Evil, it's whether that sacrifice is made willingly or not. That is to say, are you making a sacrifice, or are you forcing sacrifice on others? :smallamused:

[Mr Beer]

No, hacking things apart and looting their homes because you think they are evil and you want their stuff is rather than because of actual crimes committed is CLEARLY and unambigously evil by the RAW.

That's the motivation in plenty of dungeon bash adventures starring Good characters, with a thinly disguised plot plastered over the top of it. To me it's just another example of D&D alignments not being the same as in the real world.

[Ozfer]

I think that at a certain point, discussing these things is almost pointless. No matter how many points you bring up about someones actions, or a moral compass, there will always be some contingency where he might not be evil.

Perhaps the answer is that when someone is evil, you will know it.

[Mr Beer]

I think that at a certain point, discussing these things is almost pointless. No matter how many points you bring up about someones actions, or a moral compass, there will always be some contingency where he might not be evil.

I think it's pointless to argue about whether anyone is doing it right or not because it's so open to debate. A discussion of all the ways that being D&D Evil might work in a campaign or not has value though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Let me tell you about my evil cleric Kain, he is in a party of good or neutral aligned PC's.

Why is he evil?
He does not hesitate he does not show mercy he will gladly slay surrendering or fleeing enemies. He delights in making his enemies suffer using spells such as Wrack or Inspire Hate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260714).

Let me give you an example of his evil.

The party is hired to take care of a group of bandits who'd been attacking caravans in the area. What we didn't know was the caravans were carrying evil magic items and the bandits were really paladins confiscating the items for destruction.

After meeting the sentries I immediately figured something was up so I pretended to surrender while the party looked at me like I was insane. As we were escorted away I got a sense that these bandits were actually paladins. They weren't immediately hostile until they focused on me and of course they accepted the surrender without stripping use naked. I did not share this with the party by the time the rest figured out what was going on most of the paladins were dead.

The mastermind behind this, hired the paladins to confiscate the evil magic items while hiring us to destroy the evidence. I shook his hand and congratulated him on his masterful job this was followed by a few of the surviving paladin committing suicide when they realized they'd been used. Now I still tried to kill the Chaotic Evil Bard behind this plot because I don't like being used or lied to.

Had I been a good aligned character I was in the position to completely ruin the mastermind's plans without spilling a single drop of blood but I went along because legally the Paladins were engaged in banditry which meant legally I could kill them.

[hamishspence]

Yep, but just being willing to shove the little old lady out of the way so you can get to the lifeboat is plenty to be Evil. You are deliberately hurting an innocent for your own benefit. That's all it really takes.

I often see people saying selfish isn't evil, which is correct, but then missing the point that the INSTANT you go from "I want more for me" to "and I'm willing to hurt someone to get more for me" you've crossed the line.

Indeed. A similar example is given in BoVD- is the person willing to endanger others to escape from danger- in this case, risking triggering a landslide on a village, when fleeing across a slope, from monsters:

If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide, but climbs up anyway because he wants to escape from the owl bears, that's clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is.

[Waar]

"They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them" (Vader,Palpatine)
" They do not work well in groups" (Vader, possibly Palpatine)
"Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit" (Palpatine, possibly Vader)

Three quotes, from one evil alignment each, they all (imo) fit -> ~"Neutral" Evil :smalltongue:,


Sorry, no, quotes without context aren't evidence (though this does make a fantastic case for your being LE). :smallannoyed:

Read the whole thing.

Read the whole thing yourself :smalltongue:
there is context, but if you want more i can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)) give it to you, it was simply three qoutes from the descripion of the Three evil alignments and my opinion on how well these fited Vader and Palpatine, if you have a different or more elaborate description (of the evil alignments) please do, well elaborate.




Vader is Lawful, as seen by having goalposts to move in the first place. Palpatine is Neutral with regards to Law and Chaos; he only cares about his own power and happily breaks tools that lose their usefulness. With that one exception, the Sith as they have existed since Bane's time are Lawful Evil, full stop.


Funny how the abillity to cooperate at all is strictly lawful :smallamused:
about equally funny is the fact that the strongest argument for vader and palpatine being lawful, that the have built this orderly galactic empire, has been entirely ingnored :smalltongue:
Note that my argument serves to illustrate that vaders alignment is not cleraly lawful evil not that he couldn't be.
Depending on how strictly the lawful part of laful evil is enforced i could certanly see vader as "neutral" evil (possibly with some lawful tendencies :smalltongue:)
How you came to the conclusion that Vader is (a lot) more lawful than Palpatine is puzzling, to say the least :smallamused:

Edit:

Sorry, no, quotes without context aren't evidence (though this does make a fantastic case for your being LE). :smallannoyed:


gathering information and being tired when posting is LE? :smalltongue:

[Omegonthesane]

How you came to the conclusion that Vader is (a lot) more lawful than Palpatine is puzzling, to say the least :smallamused:

Probably based on how Vader is a servant throughout, which is nonsense as his actions are fully compatible with NE given his position and rank, and the way he offers to finish training Luke so they can straight up murder the Emperor together.

[Sith_Happens]

Probably based on how Vader is a servant throughout, which is nonsense as his actions are fully compatible with NE given his position and rank, and the way he offers to finish training Luke so they can straight up murder the Emperor together.

And (in the EU) the apprentice he actually did train to help him murder the Emperor. Sure, that apprentice turned good and helped found the Rebel Alliance, but it's the thought that counts...