Neutral Evil: The "Best" Form of Evil?

[Chained Birds]

I still have difficulties wrapping my head around character personalities and what their alignments would be, but I'm pretty sure a selfish personality and Neutral Evil go together pretty well.

I sometimes see this alignment referred to as "What Chaotic Neutral PC tend to actually be." So, to me, a NE character probably wouldn't behave any more different then one of those common CN PCs. I guess they'd have less remorse for being a murder-hobo and a lower reluctancy to kill things of ambiguous/good alignments and/or personalities.

I bring this up because I was working on a character who is an open demonologist. He doesn't do the human sacrifice deal (Mostly animals he buys, if required) and mostly keeps to himself. When people ask what he does, he responds honestly and explains that his research is not meant to summon demons to take over the world or something, but to just study them. He has a very detestable personality as he tends to sound like a know-it-all, as though he is speaking down to people.

The only reason he doesn't do non-animal sacrifices, is because he knows the aftermath would be too "annoying" to deal. He likes the life he currently has, and does not want anything to change it. He will kill in order to make sure he can live his passive life.

-----

So, is this character Neutral Evil, or something else?

[Emperor Ing]

He doesn't seem to be doing anything that's necessarily evil, but that may depend on how you feel about animal sacrifices. His intentions certainly can't be construed as malicious and unless i'm missing something his actions are disturbing at worst, but nothing I would even consider evil. I'd say he's True Neutral.

[Cirrylius]

The only reason he doesn't do non-animal sacrifices, is because he knows the aftermath would be too "annoying" to deal. He likes the life he currently has, and does not want anything to change it. He will kill in order to make sure he can live his passive life.

This part says to me he's riding the line between TN and NE. If his only reason for not performing cold-blooded murder for personal gain is because the complications wouldn't be worth the reward, I suppose a relevant question is "would he perform cold-blooded murder if he knew he couldn't be implicated?".

...or am I misinterpreting "aftermath"?

[Spore]

If you summon demons anything could go wrong. And summoning evil outsiders is sadly evil. So I would only say he is evil (slightly evil, as Cirrylius stated) if he doesn't do a thing to tip the scales towards neutral alignments.

If he shows mercy, affection or saves someone because he wanted, consider him true neutral. Otherwise, NE is okay.

[Da'Shain]

Depends if the animal sacrifice involves torture, I guess? It's still kinda iffy if it's simply slitting animals' throats but the argument can be made that it's no different from being carnivorous (and then devolve into moral argument with little real answer).

By default D&D morality, though, summoning demons is an inherently evil act regardless of intention or use. Also, if the only reason he doesn't do sapient sacrifices is that the aftermath would be "annoying", that's also a point in evil's favor; neutral people, by and large, are not actually "neutral" on the subject of murder, and have larger compunctions than "eh, it would too much paperwork".

V, for example, is a True Neutral character; willing and even eager to kill enemy combatants, and capable of being incited to kill noncombatants if they feel it's the best course to avert a threat, but still generally against murder for mere convenience. Your character sounds more like, say, Bozzok, who's willing to cut deals and does not murder everyone he meets on a whim, but is really only stopped from doing so by the inconvenience it would cause him, personally.

[OOPWER]

I think a perfect example of an evil character, with some pretty good depth to him even, is Raistlin Majere from Dragonlance. Just read it and you'll see what I mean.

EDIT: Meant "Neutral Evil"

[Chained Birds]

Well, I figured evil due to (pretty much) Demon worship. He actually focuses his research on Daemons through the most part, and has considered changing his title to "daemonologist", but it is already annoying for him to explain the existence of evil outsiders; let alone the different species.

Concerning whether he will kill to continue his craft; maybe. It all depends. If someone is actively trying to stop his research (Either by disrupting his activities or by killing him), he will kill them without hesitation. After much research in evil outsiders, he has "ways" of dealing with these kinds of people.
He also doesn't kill people who pose no real threat to his research and lifestyle (Like kids and most forms of NPCs). If people bug him, he may scare them away, as killing everyone he finds annoying would suddenly make him CE and have him attempting to destroy everyone in the world.

So, he kills when he knows someone is going to cause him major trouble. Paladins, unreasonable good-aligned clerics, and other extremes of the LG Alignment; all pretty big Kill targets for him, like with many Evil guys.

[Red Fel]

He strikes me as fairly Neutral Evil, yeah. NE has always struck me as more "card-carrying" evil, as opposed to CE villains who are monsters of brutality and id, and LE who are more about plans and long-term goals.

I could see him falling between NE and LE, honestly. I would see someone who pursues scientific-type goals with zeal to be more L than C or N, for example. If his goal of studying fiends is academic, with rigors and methods and specific applications and objectives, he is probably more Lawful than Neutral. That said, I easily agree he is non-Chaotic, and the fact that he's voluntarily consorting with evil outsiders pretty much guarantees him an Evil alignment. So there you go.

[Spore]

First of all, CE is not "stupid murderous rampage retard". CE is killing people just because they invaded your privacy. Killing people because they tried to impair your freedom.

On another note, WHY does your character worship daemons of all things holy and unholy? Does he want some of their power? What are his ambitions? Why is he even invested in such a dangerous topic?

I play a CE drow demonologist as well, but she sees summoning as means to an end. She will do everything needed to keep and improve her status, but not because of ambitions or lack of motivation, but because of the sheer greed and lust of her life style.

On that topic:
Warning! Nina is the daughter of the guy with the glasses, disturbing part of the story. Please bear in mind that this is fiction. If you can't take it, ignore the link.
Full Metal Alchemist's Nina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1pKY8UE0mQ)

[hamishspence]

I could also see CE as "freedom fighter who has crossed way too many moral lines".

A "corrupted CG" in short.

[Keneth]

If he shows mercy, affection or saves someone because he wanted, consider him true neutral. Otherwise, NE is okay.

Evil doesn't make you a psychopath, you can show mercy or help people, and you can certainly be affectionate towards someone, while still being perfectly Evil. :smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

That said, Evil characters that "have compunctions against harming the innocent" (normally a Neutral to Good trait) are probably kind of rare.

It may require a lot of Evil behaviour toward the "not-Innocent" for them to qualify- depending on the DM.

[KillianHawkeye]

I have to disagree with selfishness being labeled as an Evil characteristic. Everybody acts selfishly from time to time. It's basic human nature.

To me, being evil requires more than just looking out for yourself. It requires actively seeking to harm others.

[Keneth]

That's the difference in values, not actions. While an evil character might not have any issues with killing an innocent, it doesn't mean they need to or even want to. Why and how you go about things are a lot more important to your alignment than the things you actually go about. Clearly, someone going around slaughtering innocents is usually evil, but you should be able to go around doing almost exactly the same things as the paladin in the party and still be comfortably evil because you had different motivations and probably took a more ends-justify-the-means approach to each task.

[hamishspence]

There are circumstances in which "looking out for oneself" can segue into "seeking to harm others"

Mind-flayers- which require sapient brains to live.
Vampires- which require both blood and life energy to stay sane.

And survival situations in general can lead to the character "sacrificing others to save themselves"

Which, according to BoVD, is an evil act.

Acting in ones own self-interest in ways that don't harm others, is Neutral in general though. Still, extreme indifference to the sufferings of others- extreme lack of empathy- is more Evil than Neutral.

[AgentofHellfire]

The one question, to me, would be this: If it were necessary or more convenient to perform a certain test involving a human sacrifice rather than an animal one, would he do it?

If yes, then evil.

[Chained Birds]

On another note, WHY does your character worship daemons of all things holy and unholy? Does he want some of their power? What are his ambitions? Why is he even invested in such a dangerous topic?

Main reason: he is trying to predict the apocalypse that the Four Horsemen will eventually bring. He believes that an unstoppable destruction will befall his world by the Four, and wants to know when it is going to happen. Why? Because he wants to the the doomsayers who truly predicted the end of the world! We wants to be the glorious prophet who was able to tell all the common people about their imminent doom. But mainly, he just wants to know when to get out before the fires and brimstone start falling.


The one question, to me, would be this: If it were necessary or more convenient to perform a certain test involving a human sacrifice rather than an animal one, would he do it?

If yes, then evil.

He wouldn't use the NPC commoners or anything. Doing that would endanger his passive lifestyle and may interrupt his research when the villagers starts mobbing up or hire some adventurers to deal with the jerk on top of the hill. If a non-animal life is needed to further his research, he'd use someone no one in town will miss. A stranger, or a person that everyone hates and no one loves. Those lives are not favored among Daemons, but it works.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's the difference in values, not actions. While an evil character might not have any issues with killing an innocent, it doesn't mean they need to or even want to. Why and how you go about things are a lot more important to your alignment than the things you actually go about. Clearly, someone going around slaughtering innocents is usually evil, but you should be able to go around doing almost exactly the same things as the paladin in the party and still be comfortably evil because you had different motivations and probably took a more ends-justify-the-means approach to each task.

I suppose you can play it like that, but in my book you can't just look at motivations. The actions themselves are just as important, if not moreso.


There are circumstances in which "looking out for oneself" can segue into "seeking to harm others"

Mind-flayers- which require sapient brains to live.
Vampires- which require both blood and life energy to stay sane.

And survival situations in general can lead to the character "sacrificing others to save themselves"

Which, according to BoVD, is an evil act.

Acting in ones own self-interest in ways that don't harm others, is Neutral in general though. Still, extreme indifference to the sufferings of others- extreme lack of empathy- is more Evil than Neutral.

Exactly. Thank you for demonstrating my point. Certainly, selfishness can lead to evil actions, but it is not necessarily the case. Selfishness is merely a motivational force. It's what you do with it that determines if you are good or evil.

[Keneth]

I suppose you can play it like that, but in my book you can't just look at motivations. The actions themselves are just as important, if not moreso.

I guess that splits alignment into two very different concepts. If motivations and values determine your alignment, then it's something inherent and personal. If actions and results define your alignment, then alignment is how the world perceives you.

The two are not compatible. The latter option especially introduces a lot of issues, like taking control out of the player's hands, implying actions (like killing) are somehow morally aligned, preventing evil characters from being productive members of a good aligned party, etc.

[Chained Birds]

If I were to play a PC, and wanted to be Evil aligned (for some reason), I'd try to go for Neutral Evil. From what I've read, a NE character can be very close to good-aligned party members, and be an all-around nice guy to NPCs. They don't have grand evil goals like LE do, nor the anarchist personality CE have. A NE is just someone who doesn't want people to take away his/her happiness, and will go to the darkest extremes in order to preserve their lifestyle.

[Red Fel]

If I were to play a PC, and wanted to be Evil aligned (for some reason), I'd try to go for Neutral Evil. From what I've read, a NE character can be very close to good-aligned party members, and be an all-around nice guy to NPCs. They don't have grand evil goals like LE do, nor the anarchist personality CE have. A NE is just someone who doesn't want people to take away his/her happiness, and will go to the darkest extremes in order to preserve their lifestyle.

Actually, if I were with a party of non-evil adventurers, I'd try for Lawful Evil.

CE would be too free, to self-gratifying. Even if you don't play him as crazy or stupid, he would turn on the party as soon as it interested him to do so.

NE is "evil over all things." Given the choice between good and evil, NE should choose evil; not because of some plan, not because of impulse or sadism, but simply because it is the evil thing to do. They may be pleasant, even friendly, but in the end, they will always do evil for its own sake, and that can become grating.

But LE is, at least theoretically, honorable. It may be manipulative, it may be cruel, it may even be using the party. But it may do good, from time to time, in furtherance of its plans. And at least you can rely on LE to keep the letter of its promise, and to keep the party alive while the party is of use to it. (All you have to do is make sure that the party is more useful alive than dead.)

[Cirrylius]

NE is "evil over all things." Given the choice between good and evil, NE should choose evil; not because of some plan, not because of impulse or sadism, but simply because it is the evil thing to do. They may be pleasant, even friendly, but in the end, they will always do evil for its own sake, and that can become grating.
That's the extreme example; the daemon worldview of "evil is desirable". For more moderate characters, the Neutral component says that a character believes that both law and lawlessness, social responsibility and personal freedom, have their place. The Evil component says that all personal self-interest takes priority over others', not just reasonable, socially acceptable selfishness.



Acting in ones own self-interest in ways that don't harm others, is Neutral in general though. Still, extreme indifference to the sufferings of others- extreme lack of empathy- is more Evil than Neutral.
This^. A selfish Neutral banker forecloses on a functional business if it makes more money than keeping it open, but only forecloses on an orphanage full of children who'll end up on the street if it costs him money. An average Evil banker forecloses on either one if it makes more money than keeping it open.

[Epsilon Rose]

So, I'm not really sure why this character is evil, aside from the D&D convention that summoning demons is evil, but RAW also declares death watch as evil, so take that with a grain of salt. As it stands he's not directly hurting people and has little-to-no intention of doing so (in contrast, your typical Heroic party has a tendency to engage in campaigns of genocide). Sure, he intends to use the knowledge he gains for little more than self preservation and bragging rights, but that's not actually evil.

I think, in order to be really good or evil he'd have to be changing the status quo in some way. If he were actually evil, I'd expect him to be trying to hasten or enhance the apocalypse or, at the very least, use his information for profiteering (taking out loans before getting out of dodge and watching as his creditors get annihilated, charging exorbitant fees to evacuate/protect people, ect). On the other hand, I could see a good character doing basically the same things he is, but with the intention of using his knowledge and power to try and stop the apocalypse (the effort he exerts to stop it and the sacrifices he's (not) willing to make are what differentiate a good character from a sane character who doesn't want his home destroyed). Your character is doing none of these things. All he seems to be doing is trying to gain knowledge and not die. In my book those are both neutral actions; so, unless he does something else, he should be a neutral character.

More interestingly, I would also argue him as being Lawful. He seems to have a pretty strict methodology and set of rules he follows, and these are both internally imposed. To me that says Lawful much more than chaotic, enough so that I think it would push him out of neutral territory.

[A Tad Insane]

He actually strikes me as lawful evil. He is enough evil to be south of neutral, but holds it in check mostly because of society, or 'law'

[Segev]

My own signature evil character is a necromancer, and I generally consider him NE, though because his alignment is all about pragmatism, I'm not picky if others disagree.

He plays well with traditionally heroic parties because he's got enough genre savvy to recognize that the heroes have this remarkable tendency to win. Add in that it is often possible to get grateful crowds to willingly give you what you wanted, and he's more likely to go after "acceptable targets" to get those rewards than to terrorize innocents. He is even willing to go a bit out of his way to do things "the 'good' way" if it will prevent complications later on (such as having a party of adventurers get it into their heads that he's a terrible force in need of thwarting).

If there is a chance somebody would seek revenge, he's more likely to be ... if not "nice" about it (he's got an abrasive personality) ... seeking mutual benefit.

And, if he has to do things the ruthless way, he'll do so. But he will go out of his way, then, to be thorough. Like V learned with the dragon, he doesn't want families and friends and loved-ones of those he's wronged coming for him. So, he makes sure there are no survivors, no witnesses, and no evidence that can point to him. HE does try to be as surgical as possible, as well. Messily murdered townsfolk whose murder isn't going to be traced easily is superior to a completely obliterated town, since the former gets some constabulary confused while the latter gets adventurers investigating and draws noble attention (as in, the local military force, not necessarily "noble-as-in-good').

[ArcturusV]

I'm not really reading Neutral Evil off this guy from what I see.

If you think about it, what are the prototypical examples given of various alignments?

Lawful Evil? Usually you're talking about things like the Evil Vizier, the Evil Chancellor, etc. Someone plotting to take power for some reason, working within political systems, often expert bull**** artists who are effectively immune from typical justice. Lex Luthor for a comic book type example.

Chaotic Evil? Douchebags, more or less. It's like dealing with an oversized 2 year old, destructive just because they can be, throws a fit if you try to get them to stop. Generally the sort of people that no one likes unless they have to for some reason like bloodties. Everyone knows their evil, whether they admit it or not. The Joker is typically the comic book example for this type, completely bat**** insane, just wants to ruin everything, lacks any other great motivation.

Neutral Evil? Neutral evil in DnD tends to be one of of two things. One is the "Thief Guildmaster", a guy who makes his life on stealing what he wants from people, or having his flunkies do it, and slitting throats if he wants to or feels the need to do it. Generally obsessed with Wealth, and willing to do anything to get it, they lack the grandiose plans to become ruler like the Lawful Evil types, and they don't want to world to burn like the Chaotic types (Hey, the world is where I keep all my stuff!). They're the one type of Evil that tends to be "Charismatic"... unless you count something like the smarmy Lawful Evil type or the "Charisma" of a succubus.

The other type of Neutral Evil? Death clerics. Not necessarily because of Necromancy, but that's often the reason. Generally they're just asshats who only seem to be concerned with watching people suffer various forms of death, or surrounding themselves with corpses in some vague necrophiliac references.

Your character doesn't really fit into any of these pegs. Course, trafficking with Demons isn't exactly the paragon of virtue. Not like you're the Goddamn Avatar "We may do as we please, so long as no others are harmed by our actions". There's selfish desires there, but as someone else pointed out in an alignment topic recently, "Evil isn't just being out for yourself. It's being out for yourself while trampling over everyone else".

The only thing you might run afoul of in DnD terms that would force an evil alignment is the "Worship of Evil" sort of clause. If you had some religious ties to your demons or dark powers. But it hardly sounds like the case.

Oh, you're not Good, no doubt about that. I'd peg it somewhere near the border between Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral. After all, you're out to break the rules, and thumb your nose at enforcers like Paladins, etc, to do whatever you want.

[Chained Birds]

The other type of Neutral Evil? Death clerics.

Actually, the character is a cleric with the Death Domain. He doesn't follow any deity or higher being (Yep, one of those Clerics) as he wants to perform his studies with an unbiased perspective.