Overlord is Evil done smart

[SangoProduction]

I had the distinct pleasure of watching a show titled "Overlord" after some interesting talks with fellow players. Despite everything, I found myself enthralled by it, and I want to speak of it. If you want my personal recommendation? Here, take it! Just don't judge his immortality too harshly, and you might enjoy the other aspects of the show.

Now, what do I mean, "Overlord is Evil done smart"? I mean, most "Evil" is actually played really, really, insidiously stupidly (hell they even mock it with a whole episode devoted to wiping out this Stupid Evil). And, I believe this is actually a smarter variant of the alignment.

To be clear, I am talking about the main character (who's name I can not recall for the life of me, I think one of his names is "Momon").

Why is he Evil? [Obvious spoiler alert, but the true spoiler has been put in to its own sub-spoiler section. The rest of this is vague enough that it's not really spoilers, but still is just background knowledge to "why he's Evil" rather than why he's "Smart Evil", which was what the thread is about.]
Time and again, he shows (and tells) that he's entirely out for himself (also, he kinda says he's out to rule the world)...but doesn't let anyone who's not subservient know that. The one time he acted in what could be considered true kindness was when he saved a village without hope of reward, though one could argue that it was simply because he felt he had a debt to a friend, as he was going to just not do anything about it until the flash back.

He also admits to not being sickened by the mass brutality of what's going on in the village. (Even though he blames the game doing this, it's still a consistent part of his character.)
A legion of men come to save this village as well? He lets them die, except for 1, who could spread his name as a hero, and then teleports the entirety of the defeated legion into the village, and he goes out and beats up (easily) those who killed the legion.

Also, when stating how he saw humans he says "I used to see them as insects, but now, kind of like small animals." Regardless of whether this is because he doesn't see "NPCs" as humans (as evidenced by his revelation in episode 13), or not, that still shows he has little care for the lives of the sentient populace...which is kinda Evil.
He also says that he'd probably have killed his "friends" too, and described them as "tools to build my name", before fighting the Stupid Evil who killed said "friends".
Additionally, while he says he has a Wand of Resurrection, he refuses to use it, citing that a mage who brings death, causes less trouble than one who brings back the dead....which, let's be honest...is probably true. But he didn't even use it on his "friends," yet is willing to spend his entire treasury to revive a slain servant of his (to be fair, it's less risky, but also shows that he wasn't near as attached to his "friends" as he was to his servants).
The above 2 statements could be seen "acting" to get the desired response from those he was talking with...but with how he acts and the few windows into his thoughts we get through out the series, it's quite believable he does actually think this way.
It is heavily implied that he makes use of memory-manipulation abilities by the first episode, though not specifically mentioned again.

Also, while he doesn't make a habit of it (often killing in a single blow), he did show no mercy in a slow kill by crushing (against the stupid evil... who kinda deserved it...but...still).
He also does quite often "play with his food" when they are anything more than an orc - teasing out the enemies' powers.

Oh, and he does kill another adventurer purely because he got in his way (or at least is implied that he did). To be fair, if the adventurer had been able to report back that he was in league with a vampire....well....yeah. Still would call it Evil, as he hadn't even seen the vampire yet.

So, he's quite clearly Evil. But why is he smart?

Well, first off, as I already said, he doesn't tell anyone he's evil! He doesn't go "RAWR! I am Sauron, and I am almighty! Everyone undertake a mission to kill me immediately!" And...I think this may be the single largest reason why I think he is "Smart Evil".
Instead, he masks himself as a hero. Building his name up through careful manipulation. Let people come to serve him of their own volition, because they truly believe it is best. (I'm sure the plan was...the show isn't finished yet.) He didn't "let" a legion of do-Good humans die, he saved those who survived, and rescued the town!

He also doesn't play all of his cards at once...in fact, he goes out of his way to handicap himself by picking up a sword and armor and not casting spells - as a necromancer....and is still as powerful as the most powerful person of this world...but not the point.
Again the misdirection. It keeps people from discovering his actual weaknesses....if he had any...yeah, I don't get why that's enthralling...it just was. I'll go back over the show again tomorrow to find out what specifically I liked. But it might just be simply that it's a show with "Smart Evil" and doesn't have many in-world contradictions.
But, theoretically, it does prevent people from discovering his actual weaknesses (like holy damage), so I still consider it smart.

He also has a group in which he would not betray - his "family" for lack of a better word. Evil characters do have these. Just because someone is out for themselves does not (neccesarily) mean that they lack any desire for socialization and close relations. When a traitor emerges, he fights them solo because "I don't want you to fight each other," despite the likely result of having the entirety of the rest of his guards come down on them, being that the traitor probably would have keeled over without much of a match.
This doesn't make him smart. I just wanted to use this show as a medium to point it out.

And, while he might not neccesarily value lives, he does value what sparing a life might do. For instance, if you let the bandits run after announcing your name? They spread the word. If you save just one person from certain catastrophe, even while after their friends died, they'll see you as having saved them (even if you chose not to save everyone, despite having the power to). If you incapacitate, and master a magical beast instead of slaying it...that's massive reputation points there.

And, along the lines of his manipulations, he doesn't know of the power level of this world, so he tries to tease out as much of the (non-orcish) enemies' powers as possible without being too threatening until he wishes to finish it soon. Again, I would feel this would feel so much better if the main character wasn't an immortal bad ass, but still, you've got to give them props for it.

[Sacrieur]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.

[TheifofZ]

Couple points here:
First: He saved the girl because of his friend. He saved the village because it was a good opportunity to gain a positive image while also gaining a valuable connection to the world that he was completely new in, and also gain the most valuable thing of all: Information.
Second: They don't really mention it often in the Anime, but it's made clear several times in the light novel that the race he is has a built in ability that kicks in if any of his emotions begin to rise above certain points (too happy, too scared, too sad, too angry, too disgusted) and forcefully drops it to a certain baseline. He is completely incapable of being horrified because of this.
And of course, the fact that he's an inhuman 'monster' race is clearly changing the way he thinks over time. But it's less clear in the anime, where thoughts aren't clear.
Third: Again, they don't make a point of it in the anime, but in the light novel where thought patterns and motives are explained, as well as details or scenes that are relatively minor at the time, there is a lot more information. The main Guardians of the ruins are fanatically loyal to him, though, and are willing and capable of doing tasks that he doesn't ask for. Demiurge especially has been acting in the background to do quite a few things, many of which are far beyond what was asked or expected of him, all to raise Momonga/ Ainz Ooal Gown's power and prestige.
Fourth: When Shalltear is resurrected, he uses a specific function to raise an NPC (one who is aware that he has the power to raise the dead and won't be telling anyone outside). The function he used required a large amount of gold, but in the Light Novel it's made clear that it barely puts a dent in the guild coffers. On the other hand, raising the dead in a world where 7th tier magic is basically unheard of, and higher is considered next to impossible? That would draw attention like flies when word got out of what he was capable of, at a time when he wanted his exact abilities to remain unknown.
Certainly, he's evil (There are actions he takes and actions he orders or okays that are unquestionably evil later on; the anime has barely covered anything yet.) But there are a lot of reasons for most of his actions, not just the most obvious ones.

[SangoProduction]

First off, I'll quote the Alignments section of 3.5. (Parenthesis is mine.) By the way, when I say "Evil" I do not intend to hurt any one's feelings, or imply that something is lesser to anything else (that was implied by the title, but I'll make it explicit).


Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others ("I see humans as little animals") and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient (well, most opponents he comes across) or if it can be set up (that adventurer who insisted on tagging along, and was "killed by the vampire"? yeah).

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

A neutral evil character is typically selfish (as evidenced by his need to get something out of every situation) and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals (he said he would). A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. (That seems rather consistent with what this guy does.)


First: He saved the girl because of his friend. He saved the village because it was a good opportunity to gain a positive image while also gaining a valuable connection to the world that he was completely new in, and also gain the most valuable thing of all: Information.
I mentioned he saved the village because of his friend - but that does not imply a conscience (along the good-evil axis) so much as it implies a duty to repay his friend. And, before the flash back (in the anime at least), he was about to overlook the attack as there was nothing to be gained, so he saw, until the servant spoke up, and he was reminded of his friend.
His motivation in this situation was to repay a debt (indeed, he was going to ask for nothing, but found the townsfolk to be suspicious), and he later found ways to benefit from it (specifically with regards to information).


Second: They don't really mention it often in the Anime, but it's made clear several times in the light novel that the race he is has a built in ability that kicks in if any of his emotions begin to rise above certain points (too happy, too scared, too sad, too angry, too disgusted) and forcefully drops it to a certain baseline. He is completely incapable of being horrified because of this.
And of course, the fact that he's an inhuman 'monster' race is clearly changing the way he thinks over time. But it's less clear in the anime, where thoughts aren't clear.

I mentioned this as well. But, these changes are a part of the end character. He can't be horrified by slaughter. The Monster is changing how he thinks. That doesn't mean he's not thinking differently. The monster bit is a part of who he is.
Maybe if he wasn't a monster race, he would be thinking differently. Maybe he'd be more emotional....but he is a monster race, and that is who he is.


Third: Again, they don't make a point of it in the anime, but in the light novel where thought patterns and motives are explained, as well as details or scenes that are relatively minor at the time, there is a lot more information. The main Guardians of the ruins are fanatically loyal to him, though, and are willing and capable of doing tasks that he doesn't ask for. Demiurge especially has been acting in the background to do quite a few things, many of which are far beyond what was asked or expected of him, all to raise Momonga/ Ainz Ooal Gown's power and prestige.
Not sure what this has to do...well, actually I don't know your over arching point. But yeah, they were fanatical in the anime as well. As well as self-sufficient and could think for themselves, though we get only a few glimpses of it in the anime. And it was quite heavily implied that Demiurge was working in the backgrounds on a lot of stuff, though never directly stated, in the anime as well.


Fourth: When Shalltear is resurrected, he uses a specific function to raise an NPC (one who is aware that he has the power to raise the dead and won't be telling anyone outside). The function he used required a large amount of gold, but in the Light Novel it's made clear that it barely puts a dent in the guild coffers. On the other hand, raising the dead in a world where 7th tier magic is basically unheard of, and higher is considered next to impossible? That would draw attention like flies when word got out of what he was capable of, at a time when he wanted his exact abilities to remain unknown.
Yes. It's specific to raising an NPC. That much was assumed. But he still had the power, and still decided not to do it. I did admit it was probably the right move, but shows that he's probably didn't get too attached to those friends, which supports his statement of "I'd probably kill them myself, if I was in your position," and makes it all the more valid.

[Crake]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.

gr8 b8 m8, i r8 8/8

Seriously though, if you actually think he's not evil, give counterpoints to the presented arguments explaining why they're not evil, because just making an assertion without any backup means absolutely nothing.

[TheifofZ]

Real quick point as to why he's Evil.
Aside from the obvious 'He killed some guys, and let some guys die'.
He explicitly orders that various people are tortured for information, sends out hunter-killer squads to gather information on Martial Arts skills by bringing back skilled individuals, uses people without any complaints, and also killed a group of people who thought he would be helping them explicitly so that it wouldn't inconvenience him.
And that's within the first two and a bit light novels, or the first season of the Anime.
He is directly responsible for ordering the emotional torture and death of a large group of Lizardmen, uses his overwhelming power to force the tribe to obey him, has more people tortured, has more people killed, tortured, killed, and also uses people as tools. Alot.
It's pretty clear that the only beings he regards with any real affection are the Guardians of the tomb, but that's partly because they remind him of his friends who made them.

[Zanos]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.
wut.

There are probably dozens of singular acts or orders in the LN that would instantly send Ainz, if he were a PC, to the deep end of the alignment pool. Even if we only include stuff in the anime, I'm pretty sure they discussed how they were magically experimenting on the sunlight scripture guys, and its pretty horrific. Beyond that, he also has the people accompanying him to fight shalltear killed because they're inconvenient.


Actually, now that I think about, Ainz's canon character sheet has his morality stat lower than a character who spends days digesting her victims so she can enjoy their suffering, and another character who would gladly kill all humans.

[Sacrieur]

Real quick point as to why he's Evil.
Aside from the obvious 'He killed some guys, and let some guys die'.

Those aren't evil acts. It can be neutral, and very often is neutral to kill. This is what I mean by "anything that isn't good is evil". Letting someone die at the hands of someone else because you don't want to get involved is exclusively neutral.



He explicitly orders that various people are tortured for information, sends out hunter-killer squads to gather information on Martial Arts skills by bringing back skilled individuals, uses people without any complaints, and also killed a group of people who thought he would be helping them explicitly so that it wouldn't inconvenience him.

If by "inconvenience" you mean pose a serious irreversible threat to his plans? Then sure.



He is directly responsible for ordering the emotional torture and death of a large group of Lizardmen, uses his overwhelming power to force the tribe to obey him, has more people tortured, has more people killed, tortured, killed, and also uses people as tools. Alot.

They never got into this in the anime so I can't comment.



It's pretty clear that the only beings he regards with any real affection are the Guardians of the tomb, but that's partly because they remind him of his friends who made them.

That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.



wut.

There are probably dozens of singular acts or orders in the LN that would instantly send Ainz, if he were a PC, to the deep end of the alignment pool. Even if we only include stuff in the anime, I'm pretty sure they discussed how they were magically experimenting on the sunlight scripture guys, and its pretty horrific. Beyond that, he also has the people accompanying him to fight shalltear killed because they're inconvenient.

"Inconvenient" is more like a serious threat to his cover. If you recall he first attempted to tell them not to come. He only killed them when diplomacy failed. Similarly he wasn't going to go seriously out of his way and create some elaborate plan to save the poor little NPCs when he had a much bigger unknown threat to worry about who could use world class magic.



Actually, now that I think about, Ainz's canon character sheet has his morality stat lower than a character who spends days digesting her victims so she can enjoy their suffering, and another character who would gladly kill all humans.

Mostly because he acts in ways that are completely logical. While his race basically turns him mildly psychopathic, he is by no means evil even if he commits some acts that are evil because discounting all of the good things he's done (which conveniently don't count for some reason), he's more neutral than evil.

[Draconium]

Those aren't evil acts. It can be neutral, and very often is neutral to kill. This is what I mean by "anything that isn't good is evil". Letting someone die at the hands of someone else because you don't want to get involved is exclusively neutral.

Killing in self-defense or in defense of a village or something can be argued as being non-Evil. Killing a group of suspicious adventurers who just wanted to protect their home from a vampire, even if they were jerks about it, is murder and Evil.


If by "inconvenience" you mean pose a serious irreversible threat to his plans? Then sure.

Ainz is the equivalent of an epic-level Wizard. While not clearly stated, there was almost certainly a non-lethal way to deal with those adventurers.


They never got into this in the anime so I can't comment.

Actually, they do mention this at the end of the last episode. The anime had them planning to kill all the Lizardmen for use as undead. Which sounds Evil to me, as they were doing absolutely nothing to the group at the time.


That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.

Out of vengeance, yes. Because he cared about them... eh. Ainz himself said they were merely a tool for spreading his reputation, and he was mostly annoyed that his plan got screwed up because his tools were killed.


"Inconvenient" is more like a serious threat to his cover. If you recall he first attempted to tell them not to come. He only killed them when diplomacy failed. Similarly he wasn't going to go seriously out of his way and create some elaborate plan to save the poor little NPCs when he had a much bigger unknown threat to worry about who could use world class magic.

I'm fairy certain he could've used illusions or some sort of sleeping spell to simply keep them occupied - or maybe even give them a different threat to deal with while he was busy by creating some undead - he just chose to kill them because it was easier.


Mostly because he acts in ways that are completely logical. While his race basically turns him mildly psychopathic, he is by no means evil even if he commits some acts that are evil because discounting all of the good things he's done (which conveniently don't count for some reason), he's more neutral than evil.

Since his empathy and emotions are being suppressed, I'd say it was more sociopathic than anything. Most of his "Good acts," however, are for his own personal gain. He commits several acts that are more Evil than they look, too.

Clementine, for instance, he killed by grappling her and crushing her to death. But he simply could have killed her with a spell, like that one he used to crush a soldier's heart. He didn't, because he wanted her death to be drawn-out and painful as revenge for killing his companions. That's... straight-up Evil, if you ask me.

[Sacrieur]

Killing in self-defense or in defense of a village or something can be argued as being non-Evil. Killing a group of suspicious adventurers who just wanted to protect their home from a vampire, even if they were jerks about it, is murder and Evil.

Again with the "whatever isn't good is evil".

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.



Ainz is the equivalent of an epic-level Wizard. While not clearly stated, there was almost certainly a non-lethal way to deal with those adventurers.

The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.



Actually, they do mention this at the end of the last episode. The anime had them planning to kill all the Lizardmen for use as undead. Which sounds Evil to me, as they were doing absolutely nothing to the group at the time.

I don't know the details so I can't comment.



Out of vengeance, yes. Because he cared about them... eh. Ainz himself said they were merely a tool for spreading his reputation, and he was mostly annoyed that his plan got screwed up because his tools were killed.

He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.



I'm fairy certain he could've used illusions or some sort of sleeping spell to simply keep them occupied - or maybe even give them a different threat to deal with while he was busy by creating some undead - he just chose to kill them because it was easier.

That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.



Since his empathy and emotions are being suppressed, I'd say it was more sociopathic than anything. Most of his "Good acts," however, are for his own personal gain. He commits several acts that are more Evil than they look, too.

Sociopath is another word for psychopath.

It doesn't matter if they did result in personal gain, they were still good acts. The fact he's looking out for his own interests without concerning himself with whether the action is good or evil puts him squarely in the neutral alignment.



Clementine, for instance, he killed by grappling her and crushing her to death. But he simply could have killed her with a spell, like that one he used to crush a soldier's heart. He didn't, because he wanted her death to be drawn-out and painful as revenge for killing his companions.

Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.



That's... straight-up Evil, if you ask me.

It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

[Masakan]

You wanna know evil done right?
Cinder from Rwby and Master Xehanort from Kingdom hearts.
Those 2 scare me.

[druid91]

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Murder is Evil with a capital E. Chaos is not inherently harmful.




Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.

Literally nothing in this world short of the highest tiers of the Slane Theocracy are a threat to him so far as we have seen.


The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.

Which is in itself a trait of Evil. Evil is willing to play the hero to get what they want, Hero's rarely willing to play the villain.



He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.

No, his exact words were "It would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for doing what I would have done in a similar situation." And then later. "I forgot to mention that I am very hypocritical."



That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.

No, it's the most convenient option. It's the path of least resistance and the only cost is the lives of some people he doesn't particularly care about. That's an Evil act.


Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.

Torture is an always evil act. There is no good torture.



It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

No. Not at all. Giving someone a long tortuous death is on the very deep end of the alignment pool. Killing her quickly would be neutral. Capturing her, disabling her, and giving her a chance at redemption before killing her would be good.

Good is not good because it kills evil. Good is good because it takes good actions. Good is an inherently smaller domain than evil.

[TheifofZ]

To resolve this debate, I have a simple method.
Momonga/Ainz Ooal Gown's official Character sheet: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1U/Vb-DIyM5anI/AAAAAAAAC2U/CdUDLTmf8M4/s1600/01-%2Bmomonga.png

Please note the Alignment is noted as "Extreme Evil", and his sense of justice is the lowest possible, sitting at -500.

That is: According to the very official Canon sheet, Ainz is very much E-as-in-Evil. The only sentient and free-willed beings that match his alignment and sense of justice, at Extreme Evil and -500 at the same time, are Albedo and Demiurge, and both are Demons. As in, in D&D terms, creatures with the [Evil] Subtype.
For reference; Demiurge later on sets up human farms (that is; to raise humans like cattle) so he can have them butchered and used for various purposes around the Tomb (Like nests. And human skin is very good for scrolls. And the bones are great for furniture).
He's fully aware that humans are sentient and have feelings, and does not feel anything at all about the matter, except joy that it's convenient. Ainz shares his alignment.
Even Shalltear, the psychopathic vampire bloodknight has a higher alignment than them. (Being Great~Extreme Evil, Sense of Justice -450).

[MorgromTheOrc]

Again with the "whatever isn't good is evil".

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.




The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.




I don't know the details so I can't comment.




He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.




That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.




Sociopath is another word for psychopath.

It doesn't matter if they did result in personal gain, they were still good acts. The fact he's looking out for his own interests without concerning himself with whether the action is good or evil puts him squarely in the neutral alignment.




Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.




It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

You seem to be of the mindset that evil people can't have friends and loved ones. Neutral is not a person who will do whatever is most efficient, that would mean an evil person is only someone who goes out of their way to do whatever is evil, which is wrong and what causes stupid evil. Neutral implies a the middle between having no moral boundaries(evil) and having many(good), so someone who does whatever is most efficient with no regard to evil or good is evil not neutral because they would then have no moral boundaries and could not be a middle ground. Although with the stupid evil he crushes to death, that is going out of his way to torture.

This is a thread about smart evil, because someone doing whatever works best is smart evil. I ask you please do not crush smart evil and push the common trope of stupid evil. I don't know much about you so I won't say it's true but if you're saying it is neutral because it is what you would do and you consider yourself neutral then you're likely evil. And there's nothing wrong with that, evil can still have friends and function in society because evil doesn't mean stupid. I would place myself squarely lawful evil because I follow a very strict personal set of rules and make decisions purely on what is the most efficient or occasionally satisfying, but only if I'm 100% sure it won't hurt my goals at all. I don't go around murdering people who anger me because that would be stupid and I would ruin my plans as a result, I am not planning for murder or anything similar either my goals are just very selfish and I give no regard to morals in them.

[Sacrieur]

Murder is Evil with a capital E. Chaos is not inherently harmful.

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.




Literally nothing in this world short of the highest tiers of the Slane Theocracy are a threat to him so far as we have seen.

Wrong. It's a threat to his cover and plans. Simply having knowledge that he exists is a huge threat, greater than any potential enemies of equal caliber.



Which is in itself a trait of Evil. Evil is willing to play the hero to get what they want, Hero's rarely willing to play the villain.

It's neutral. See the part about "whatever is not good is evil".




No, his exact words were "It would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for doing what I would have done in a similar situation." And then later. "I forgot to mention that I am very hypocritical."

So he didn't lie. Doesn't change the fact it's a neutral act.



No, it's the most convenient option. It's the path of least resistance and the only cost is the lives of some people he doesn't particularly care about. That's an Evil act.

Not killing them would be exposing yourself to pretty significant amount of risk. He has justification.



Torture is an always evil act. There is no good torture.

"Whatever is not good is evil."




No. Not at all. Giving someone a long tortuous death is on the very deep end of the alignment pool. Killing her quickly would be neutral. Capturing her, disabling her, and giving her a chance at redemption before killing her would be good.

It would have been stupid. She deserved death. She only would have lied then went on to kill more people, and you would be responsible for it.



Good is not good because it kills evil. Good is good because it takes good actions. Good is an inherently smaller domain than evil.

Sigh.

"Whatever is not good is evil."

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.



You seem to be of the mindset that evil people can't have friends and loved ones.

Quote me what made you believe that?



Neutral is not a person who will do whatever is most efficient, that would mean an evil person is only someone who goes out of their way to do whatever is evil, which is wrong and what causes stupid evil. Neutral implies a the middle between having no moral boundaries(evil) and having many(good), so someone who does whatever is most efficient with no regard to evil or good is evil not neutral because they would then have no moral boundaries and could not be a middle ground. Although with the stupid evil he crushes to death, that is going out of his way to torture.

You're pigeon holing the neutral alignment into some narrow definition which it isn't.



This is a thread about smart evil, because someone doing whatever works best is smart evil. I ask you please do not crush smart evil and push the common trope of stupid evil. I don't know much about you so I won't say it's true but if you're saying it is neutral because it is what you would do and you consider yourself neutral then you're likely evil. And there's nothing wrong with that, evil can still have friends and function in society because evil doesn't mean stupid. I would place myself squarely lawful evil because I follow a very strict personal set of rules and make decisions purely on what is the most efficient or occasionally satisfying, but only if I'm 100% sure it won't hurt my goals at all. I don't go around murdering people who anger me because that would be stupid and I would ruin my plans as a result, I am not planning for murder or anything similar either my goals are just very selfish and I give no regard to morals in them.

I play actual evil characters quite well, and I know "smart" evil when I see it. This is neutral and GITP has a serious problem with alignments and will come out en masse to support such silly notions like, "murder is evil". This comes up all the time and it's insane.

You're the one having trouble breaking from the trope.

[TheifofZ]

In some cases, you'd be right.

But I just posted the Character sheet for the guy whose alignment is being debated over.
It says he's very evil. Very, very evil.
Here it is again. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1U/Vb-DIyM5anI/AAAAAAAAC2U/CdUDLTmf8M4/s1600/01-%2Bmomonga.png

[OldTrees1]

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.



Murder (noun): Immoral killing.

Sorry, but the word has 2 distinct definitions depending on the context. In the context of discussing alignment/morality, murder usually uses this 2nd definition.

Yes, this means Philosophy majors can honestly debate when murder(1st definition) is murder(2nd definition). Usually as early as an Introduction to Philosophy course.

[MorgromTheOrc]

That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.

This is what I was referring to, I said seem because I was unsure if you using that as a point for him being neutral or just mentioning it.

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.

This quote seems to imply all killing is murder rather than just unlawful. Which being a morally wrong action all murder is evil, but you are not evil because you murder, good people often have to murder because it's the only option but when there are other options and you do it regardless it is either neutral or evil depending how successful the other options were likely to be. So I do agree killing does not make him evil.


It would have been stupid. She deserved death. She only would have lied then went on to kill more people, and you would be responsible for it.




Sigh.

"Whatever is not good is evil."

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.




Quote me what made you believe that?




You're pigeon holing the neutral alignment into some narrow definition which it isn't.




I play actual evil characters quite well, and I know "smart" evil when I see it. This is neutral and GITP has a serious problem with alignments and will come out en masse to support such silly notions like, "murder is evil". This comes up all the time and it's insane.

You're the one having trouble breaking from the trope.
I don't think he was arguing the killing of clementine was evil, just the torture.

And despite what the game says I would say he's barely evil, the player himself is clearly neutral do to his thoughts but his in character actions do show an evil character even if not by a huge margin.

[Draconium]

Honestly? I would put him at Evil, but with leanings towards Neutral. I can't quite justify all he does as Neutral, and it seems clear to me that the character's intended to be Evil. The player, as was stated, is probably more Neutral.

[Rakoa]

I know nothing of this Overlord stuff and I can already tell you that Sacrieur is wrong just from casually browsing this thread. Someone didn't crack open...hmm...any book related to alignment. Anyone have a copy of BoVD handy so they can throw a quote on torture being Evil? Because it totally is.

[Rubik]

Torture is Evil.There. I paraphrased it.

[TheifofZ]

Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.

So... A Paladin of Freedom that throws a hissy fit in a bar and murders all the patrons in cold blood would... be totally fine and not have any repercussions at all, whatsoever.

Also the hilarious notion that as soon as an evil action is outlawed, it becomes a Chaotic action to commit, not evil.
So Slavery, once it's outlawed, moves from being a Lawful Evil action to a Chaotic Neutral action.
... wait, what?

[Rakoa]

There. I paraphrased it.

Thank you, my friend! Much appreciated.


Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.

So... A Paladin of Freedom that throws a hissy fit in a bar and murders all the patrons in cold blood would... be totally fine and not have any repercussions at all, whatsoever.

Also the hilarious notion that as soon as an evil action is outlawed, it becomes a Chaotic action to commit, not evil.
So Slavery, once it's outlawed, moves from being a Lawful Evil action to a Chaotic Neutral action.
... wait, what?

Murder as a Chaotic action...that is moving from ridiculous to hilarious, I gotta admit.

Not to mention that you've shown the canon character sheet...what? Twice now?

It's like he is trying to argue from the perspective of real world philosophy (where he is still wrong) instead of D&D, in which we have rules set in stone by books.

[daryen]

I just wanna know why former Vice President Cheney is posting in this forum.

(I wanted to use his first name, but the form won't allow me to actually print his first name! I guess Richards are not allowed to use their most common nickname. Weird.)

[SangoProduction]

Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?

[Rubik]

Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?By and large, he's rational in his decision-making processes. It's utterly self-serving and without regards for others' needs, but he IS rational.

[MorgromTheOrc]

By and large, he's rational in his decision-making processes. It's utterly self-serving and without regards for others' needs, but he IS rational.

Agreed, I smart evil person like myself knows its in your best interest to be on peoples good sides if it doesn't deter your plans. There's a pretty easy answer when the decision is more work or less work. He does a very good job of avoiding giving up efficiency for fun, at least when he can't afford to.

[druid91]

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.

Neutrality has the SMALLEST tent of all. Neutrality covers a VERY VERY small range of behaviors. Neutrality covers those with good intentions but evil means, those who feel that good and evil are ideological extremes to be avoided and specifically pursue balance, and unthinking beasts.

That's it. That's all.

[Anlashok]

Neutrality has the SMALLEST tent of all. Neutrality covers a VERY VERY small range of behaviors. Neutrality covers those with good intentions but evil means, those who feel that good and evil are ideological extremes to be avoided and specifically pursue balance, and unthinking beasts.

That's it. That's all.

And people who are generally decent but not overtly altruistic enough to qualify as good. And the reverse, people who are generally selfish but unwilling to overtly harm people enough to qualify as evil. People who are just entirely apathetic one way or another... and so on and so forth.

Biggest problem I think with most alignment discussions is that you get people like this who have a very strict definition of what they think an alignment should be and anything that isn't that quite clearly can't qualify because their way of thinking is the only way that makes sense.

General rule of thumb is that if you have a narrow definition for any alignment you aren't thinking about it enough.

[Sacrieur]

Murder (noun): Immoral killing.

Sorry, but the word has 2 distinct definitions depending on the context. In the context of discussing alignment/morality, murder usually uses this 2nd definition.

It has one applicable definition. You literally just made it up to be whatever you want it to be, where I used Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder).

It doesn't have two distinct definitions that apply here. There's only ever the one.



Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.


Murder as a Chaotic action...that is moving from ridiculous to hilarious, I gotta admit.

The only hilarious thing here is how factually wrong you both are, and don't even have comprehension of basic vocabulary.

The BoVD makes up a definition for murder as well. I'm not going to take some splatbook as the authoritative source of what murder is, because it's not nor will it ever be. The definition of murder isn't changed; the author is simply wrong. And with good reason. Murder already has a clear definition and attempting to define it as an "immoral killing" leads to confusion and makes the error of a categorization mistake. If you wanted to discuss if killing innocent people is always evil, then that would be different.

So for the question of if killing an innocent person evil? I think I would have to be forced to agree. In which case Lord Ainz's killing of those adventurers would be an evil act.



Yes, this means Philosophy majors can honestly debate when murder(1st definition) is murder(2nd definition). Usually as early as an Introduction to Philosophy course.

Please don't start to lecture me about philosophy when you can't even be bothered to open up a dictionary. I assure you this is never debated in introduction to philosophy, which is a course I took. The moment someone asks if murder is inherently wrong is the moment you should realize that they don't know what murder is.



This quote seems to imply all killing is murder rather than just unlawful. Which being a morally wrong action all murder is evil, but you are not evil because you murder, good people often have to murder because it's the only option but when there are other options and you do it regardless it is either neutral or evil depending how successful the other options were likely to be. So I do agree killing does not make him evil.

Murder isn't necessarily evil; it's an unlawful killing.

If a chaotic good character kills a corrupt ruler who was viciously torturing, enslaving, and raping people to his heart's content, it would be murder. And so if a LN character like Judge Dredd kills someone in the line of duty, it's not murder. What is and isn't murder is defined specifically by the law which governs the land. Simply because most murderers are in fact evil does not mean murder is inherently evil.



I don't think he was arguing the killing of clementine was evil, just the torture.

I disagree, I believe torture is only evil in the instance where it is done to an innocent person or without proper justification. Torturing someone to obtain information where they stored a nuclear bomb in a city is a neutral act.



And despite what the game says I would say he's barely evil, the player himself is clearly neutral do to his thoughts but his in character actions do show an evil character even if not by a huge margin.

If what I'm hearing about the lizardmen is true, then he's definitely shifted over to evil; but from what I've seen, all of the evil acts he's committed haven't been enough to convince me he's evil. Even if the author insists he's extreme evil, that's not what I've been shown thus far.



There. I paraphrased it.


Thank you, my friend! Much appreciated.

If you took thirty seconds or so to look it up, you'd find out it never says that. I know because I did spend the thirty seconds or so to look it up.

It's insulting to make something up and pass it off as being factual. Try putting more ranks in bluff next time.



Not to mention that you've shown the canon character sheet...what? Twice now?

It's like he is trying to argue from the perspective of real world philosophy (where he is still wrong) instead of D&D, in which we have rules set in stone by books.

First, some optional splatbook doesn't make me wrong. Second, I'm not wrong; that should be clear since I haven't had to make stuff up to prop up my position.



Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?

The same things that make a good person smart, really. Does alignment really have an impact on how an evil person is smart?

If your question is, "How would an evil character apply their intelligence, and is Lord Ainz an example of this?", then that's different.

[OldTrees1]

It has one applicable definition. You literally just made it up to be whatever you want it to be, where I used Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder).

It doesn't have two distinct definitions that apply here. There's only ever the one.

Sacrieur,
When a field uses a term with a specific in-field definition, it is rather low of you to dismiss it as a result of your ignorance.

In the field of Philosophy the 6 character string(also known as a word) "murder" is used to symbolize the concept "immoral killing" in order to discuss the question "What makes murder(immoral killing) immoral?". Your ignorance of this detail does not have the power to recreate reality in your own image.

So, Sacrieur, which definition is more applicable to the conversation of Good vs Evil? A legal term or a philosophic term? (or, if you are really honest, which definition is everyone except you using in this thread?)

Edit:
I just realized that you are one of those that considers words to have meaning in themselves rather than being symbols for meaning which humanity uses to communicate. I apologize for wasting both of our time in trying to communicate with you.

[Sacrieur]

Sacrieur,
When a field uses a term with a specific in-field definition, it is rather low of you to dismiss it as a result of your ignorance.

In the field of Philosophy the 6 character string(also known as a word) "murder" is used to symbolize the concept "immoral killing" in order to discuss the question "What makes murder(immoral killing) immoral?". Your ignorance of this detail does not have the power to recreate reality in your own image.

I'd like to know where it ever defines it this way. In even Wikipedia's extensive exploration of the word, the unlawfulness of the killing is a required component.



So, Sacrieur, which definition is more applicable to the conversation of Good vs Evil? A legal term or a philosophic term?

They're both the same term, I honestly do not know from what source you're getting the idea that philosophy in particular changed its definition. I've searched several encyclopedias of philosophy, including Stanford's, and could find no possible redefinition of murder.

In any case, it's best to stick to "immoral killing". But then you're presupposing it's wrong by virtue of the definition. A better method would be to define the kind of killing you mean exactly. Is it murder, execution by the state, or of an innocent person?



Edit:
I just realized that you are one of those that considers words to have meaning in themselves rather than being symbols for meaning which humanity uses to communicate. I apologize for wasting both of our time in trying to communicate with you.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[SangoProduction]

OK. Read the first chapter of Book of Vile Darkness. Read specifically the Murder part of it. Conflict ended.

[Sacrieur]

OK. Read the first chapter of Book of Vile Darkness. Read specifically the Murder part of it. Conflict ended.


The BoVD makes up a definition for murder as well. I'm not going to take some splatbook as the authoritative source of what murder is, because it's not nor will it ever be. The definition of murder isn't changed; the author is simply wrong. And with good reason. Murder already has a clear definition and attempting to define it as an "immoral killing" leads to confusion and makes the error of a categorization mistake. If you wanted to discuss if killing innocent people is always evil, then that would be different.

---

Conflict not ended, but I did leave some thoughtful advice:


The same things that make a good person smart, really. Does alignment really have an impact on how an evil person is smart?

If your question is, "How would an evil character apply their intelligence, and is Lord Ainz an example of this?", then that's different.

[TheifofZ]

First, some optional splatbook doesn't make me wrong. Second, I'm not wrong; that should be clear since I haven't had to make stuff up to prop up my position.

Except for your questionable understanding of the concept of the construction 'alignment' and it's related subjects (how it functions, what is a good/neutral/evil act), willful ignorance of certain points, and the fact that each time someone posts in a block, you only pick a few points to respond to.
Also, you've included several personal attacks that don't belong in any debate.

At this point, I'm just moving to the concept that you have readily reinforced consistently: That you are a troll or a fanatic, and best ignored.

[Draconium]

Alignment is a creation of D&D.

The term murder in D&D is used to define an Evil act.

For the purposes of D&D alignment (AKA one of the key components of this thread), murder is Evil.

Regardless of how you view murder in real life, this will remain truth in terms of alignment. Arguing against that is just pointless debate, at least for the purposes of this thread.

[Crake]

I disagree, I believe torture is only evil in the instance where it is done to an innocent person or without proper justification. Torturing someone to obtain information where they stored a nuclear bomb in a city is a neutral act.

No, it's an evil act for a good ends. The ends however, does not justify the means. You still get the black mark on your record for performing the evil act, now matter how good the intentions or resultant outcome.

Your entire premise is predicated on the idea that if you average things out, they become neutral, which is not the case at all.

[Yahzi]

he is by no means evil even if he commits some acts that are evil because discounting all of the good things he's done (which conveniently don't count for some reason)
I don't know anything about the show or the book, but this is just... wrong.

The definition of being evil is to do evil acts. That's what it means.

And no, good acts don't count. It's not like if you save three children from drowning, you're allowed to shoot a nun.

Evil is like poop. If you add a slice of ham to a poop sandwich, you get a poop sandwich. And if you add a spoonful of poop to a ham sandwich, you get... a poop sandwich.

Morality is a not a point-based system. One senseless murder and bam! you're Evil.

[Rakoa]

Sacrieur: "I am debating alignment in D&D in which the official authors have official books covering the issues we're debating and prove me wrong but that is okay because they are wrong and I am not wrong."

Good game.

[squiggit]

No, it's an evil act for a good ends. The ends however, does not justify the means. You still get the black mark on your record for performing the evil act, now matter how good the intentions or resultant outcome.

Your entire premise is predicated on the idea that if you average things out, they become neutral, which is not the case at all.

Dread Necromancers who use their powers for good are explicitly neutral because they use evil means to justify good ends. So that's not entirely true.

[Draconium]

Dread Necromancers who use their powers for good are explicitly neutral because they use evil means to justify good ends. So that's not entirely true.

I don't recall if things like the BoVD had anything to say on the subject, so I could be wrong. But I don't believe necromancy is, in of itself, inherently Evil. It does have a lot of spells with the [Evil] descriptor, though.

[Sacrieur]

Except for your questionable understanding of the concept of the construction 'alignment' and it's related subjects (how it functions, what is a good/neutral/evil act), willful ignorance of certain points, and the fact that each time someone posts in a block, you only pick a few points to respond to.
Also, you've included several personal attacks that don't belong in any debate.

At this point, I'm just moving to the concept that you have readily reinforced consistently: That you are a troll or a fanatic, and best ignored.

Don't adopt a condescending attitude then become upset when you get a taste of your own medicine.

There is no resource that ever defines murder as an immoral killing etymologically, philosophically, legally, or through diction. The only resource which defines it differently is the BoVD. Because the author decided it to mean something different just means the author made a mistake and it should be ignored, as he clearly misunderstood the meaning of the word. Had it ever been the author's intention to rewrite the definition, then it would still not be acceptable. If the author had said that "speaking" includes writing, then he would be equally wrong, since his whim doesn't overturn the proper vernacular that's necessary for effective communication. If anything, this merely makes him a poor writer for being unable to choose a word which accurately conveys what he intended to communicate.

Neither is it the case that the author's word is final and always right, since the books do have many mistakes that are ignored simply because they are, obviously, a mistake. It comes to mind that fire resistance gives a character fire immunity. If the author's word were the ultimate law, then this would be forced to stick. Because this is not the case and it's widely recognized as a mistake, it means reason can be effectively applied to anything which is found in any book, and any source book should not be taken as a holy text, but rather just a collection of writings by a handful of authors.




Alignment is a creation of D&D.

The term murder in D&D is used to define an Evil act.

For the purposes of D&D alignment (AKA one of the key components of this thread), murder is Evil.

Regardless of how you view murder in real life, this will remain truth in terms of alignment. Arguing against that is just pointless debate, at least for the purposes of this thread.

I'm refusing to accept this is the case because then my argument would change to, "Sure Lord Ainz unlawfully killed them, but didn't murder them."

I find it particularly jarring to attempt to use a word in my vocabulary which already has a very clear and explicit meaning as meaning something else entirely, and I'm not going to switch back and forth between the meaning of common words when the BoVD can be adjusted instead and not confuse anyone.

The author of BoVD is wrong not because of my whim, but rather he is the exception to the rule rather than the standard.



I don't know anything about the show or the book, but this is just... wrong.

The definition of being evil is to do evil acts. That's what it means.

That's an exceptionally basic framework for morality, since the argument of "Do the ends justify the means?" arises. It hardly settles anything at all.



And no, good acts don't count. It's not like if you save three children from drowning, you're allowed to shoot a nun.

Evil is like poop. If you add a slice of ham to a poop sandwich, you get a poop sandwich. And if you add a spoonful of poop to a ham sandwich, you get... a poop sandwich.

Morality is a not a point-based system.

It is considered more of a point-based system in Pathfinder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/alignment.html).

It's my position that the ends do justify the means which is why the neutral alignment exists. A neutral character may be perfectly willing to commit evil to do good, such as torturing someone to obtain information or stealing to obtain medicine for a family member who needs it and can't afford it.



One senseless murder and bam! you're Evil.

This is everything that's wrong with how people use alignments.

[OldTrees1]

I'm refusing to accept this is the case because then my argument would change to, "Sure Lord Ainz unlawfully killed them, but didn't murder them."

I find it particularly jarring to attempt to use a word in my vocabulary which already has a very clear and explicit meaning as meaning something else entirely, and I'm not going to switch back and forth between the meaning of common words when the BoVD can be adjusted instead and not confuse anyone.

The author of BoVD is wrong not because of my whim, but rather he is the exception to the rule rather than the standard.

Language does not exist outside of its use* since it is merely the vehicle of meaning and not the meaning itself. If Murder is being used to mean "Immoral Killing" in this thread, then the response of someone seeking to communicate your position would have been "Sure Lord Ainz unlawfully killed them, but didn't murder them and ____ is why the killing was not immoral". I urge you to stop intentionally miscommunicating and/or derailing and instead to get back to the point you initially were trying to make (when you were trying to explain why the killing was not immoral). People will probably still disagree with you but at least you would be communicating in the same language.

*Although you give the impression that you will disagree and hold the position that language is defined prior to use. (To avoid that unpleasant "particularly jarring" feeling)

[Crake]

Dread Necromancers who use their powers for good are explicitly neutral because they use evil means to justify good ends. So that's not entirely true.


I don't recall if things like the BoVD had anything to say on the subject, so I could be wrong. But I don't believe necromancy is, in of itself, inherently Evil. It does have a lot of spells with the [Evil] descriptor, though.

It's pretty much this. But then, even casting an [Evil] spell is (according to the FC2) on par with being a jerk to your subordinate. It's not great, and doing it a lot will slowly drag your alignment down, but the act in and of itself is not irredeemably evil. This same logic does not apply to much bigger applications of evil.

Now of course, in a world where murder can actually be redeemed and restitutions be paid in the form of resurrection magic, the line between what is or is not irredeemable acts of evil gets blurry. But unless you atone for all your actions, and make up for them to the people who were affected, you're still hellbound.

Personally, I use a fairly different method for determining alignment. I separate alignment and your destination in the afterlife, they are separate, but partially related statistics. Essentially, alignment is dictated by your current outlook. What extremes would you take, what would you do etc. This can change often, and drastically in people's lives. On the other hand, someone's destination in the after life is a combination of the sum of someone's deeds in life (including sense of guilt and reparations made for otherwise irredeemable crimes), the petitioner's attachment to a particular deity over time (so no deathbed repentance), and any deity's particular attachment to the petitioner, related to his deeds in life.

I also remove many alignment descriptors for spells, so things like creating undead are not themselves inherently evil, but are tools, whose use determine the alignment of the action.

That is, of course, my own personal outlook and arbitration of alignments as a DM.

[Rubik]

It's pretty much this. But then, even casting an [Evil] spell is (according to the FC2) on par with being a jerk to your subordinate. It's not great, and doing it a lot will slowly drag your alignment down, but the act in and of itself is not irredeemably evil. This same logic does not apply to much bigger applications of evil.

Now of course, in a world where murder can actually be redeemed and restitutions be paid in the form of resurrection magic, the line between what is or is not irredeemable acts of evil gets blurry. But unless you atone for all your actions, and make up for them to the people who were affected, you're still hellbound.

Personally, I use a fairly different method for determining alignment. I separate alignment and your destination in the afterlife, they are separate, but partially related statistics. Essentially, alignment is dictated by your current outlook. What extremes would you take, what would you do etc. This can change often, and drastically in people's lives. On the other hand, someone's destination in the after life is a combination of the sum of someone's deeds in life (including sense of guilt and reparations made for otherwise irredeemable crimes), the petitioner's attachment to a particular deity over time (so no deathbed repentance), and any deity's particular attachment to the petitioner, related to his deeds in life.

I also remove many alignment descriptors for spells, so things like creating undead are not themselves inherently evil, but are tools, whose use determine the alignment of the action.

That is, of course, my own personal outlook and arbitration of alignments as a DM.What happens when someone is killed shortly after becoming the victim of a helm of opposite alignment or contracting alignment-altering lycanthropy?

[Sacrieur]

Language does not exist outside of its use* since it is merely the vehicle of meaning and not the meaning itself. If Murder is being used to mean "Immoral Killing" in this thread, then the response of someone seeking to communicate your position would have been "Sure Lord Ainz unlawfully killed them, but didn't murder them and ____ is why the killing was not immoral". I urge you to stop intentionally miscommunicating and/or derailing and instead to get back to the point you initially were trying to make (when you were trying to explain why the killing was not immoral). People will probably still disagree with you but at least you would be communicating in the same language.

I'll engage ignoring the use of the word murder and attempt to use clear wording myself.

Was what Lord Ainz did to the adventurers an immoral killing?

I'd be forced to agree that it was, by simple virtue of the fact they were innocent and killing of an innocent person for any reason should always be an evil act. Where I think we draw the difference is motive. I think his motives were justified as a more neutral stance, for several reasons.

First, he attempted to use diplomacy to attempt them not to go.
Second, while it was certainly more convenient to kill them; the next best option was a poor tactical option.
Third, the overbearing threat of a powerful unknown enemy was a present concern.

So he killed as a principle of self-interest, but not wickedness. Despite this, I would still rule it as an evil act. I actually had a recent session where something similar just happened, and I warned the player it was an evil act.

---

However, does a single evil act convert a character to being evil? I think while alignment is dynamic, it is certainly not something that moves so easily.

On the topic of neutrality, I can see a neutrality covering a big tent simply because of the number of archetypes it covers:

1) Someone who seeks balance.
2) Someone who avoids extremes.
3) Someone who acts in self-interest, without concerning themselves with good or evil.
4) Someone who takes the middle path (i.e., recognizing the merits of good and evil nature).
5) Someone who commits evil in the name of good.

And so I think Lord Ainz falls into the tenuous 3rd category, arguably the most unstable and closest to evil. It's not necessarily a balancing act where his good actions are weighed against the bad; it's the position that Lord Ainz commits actions in the interest of himself and the people he cares about, regardless of good and evil, and that he hasn't committed enough evil to actually be considered such and that the good actions he has committed aren't for evil purposes.



*Although you give the impression that you will disagree and hold the position that language is defined prior to use. (To avoid that unpleasant "particularly jarring" feeling)

Not particularly; I think that's a primer for an interesting discussion.

[OldTrees1]

I'll engage ignoring the use of the word murder and attempt to use clear wording myself.

-snip-

On the topic of neutrality, I can see a neutrality covering a big tent simply because of the number of archetypes it covers:

1) Someone who seeks balance.
2) Someone who avoids extremes.
3) Someone who acts in self-interest, without concerning themselves with good or evil.
4) Someone who takes the middle path (i.e., recognizing the merits of good and evil nature).
5) Someone who commits evil in the name of good.

And so I think Lord Ainz falls into the tenuous 3rd category, arguably the most unstable and closest to evil. It's not necessarily a balancing act where his good actions are weighed against the bad; it's the position that Lord Ainz commits actions in the interest of himself and the people he cares about, regardless of good and evil, and that he hasn't committed enough evil to actually be considered such and that the good actions he has committed aren't for evil purposes.

I have not watched the anime in question (yet) so I will not address that part.

I would like to mention that holding oneself to an amoral decision process is not exclusive to Neutral. However from your number of tested qualifiers I expect you knew that. Whether you happen to be right or wrong (again, I have not watched it yet) this position or yours is worth addressing.

[MorgromTheOrc]

I'll engage ignoring the use of the word murder and attempt to use clear wording myself.

Was what Lord Ainz did to the adventurers an immoral killing?

I'd be forced to agree that it was, by simple virtue of the fact they were innocent and killing of an innocent person for any reason should always be an evil act. Where I think we draw the difference is motive. I think his motives were justified as a more neutral stance, for several reasons.

First, he attempted to use diplomacy to attempt them not to go.
Second, while it was certainly more convenient to kill them; the next best option was a poor tactical option.
Third, the overbearing threat of a powerful unknown enemy was a present concern.

So he killed as a principle of self-interest, but not wickedness. Despite this, I would still rule it as an evil act. I actually had a recent session where something similar just happened, and I warned the player it was an evil act.

---

However, does a single evil act convert a character to being evil? I think while alignment is dynamic, it is certainly not something that moves so easily.

On the topic of neutrality, I can see a neutrality covering a big tent simply because of the number of archetypes it covers:

1) Someone who seeks balance.
2) Someone who avoids extremes.
3) Someone who acts in self-interest, without concerning themselves with good or evil.
4) Someone who takes the middle path (i.e., recognizing the merits of good and evil nature).
5) Someone who commits evil in the name of good.

And so I think Lord Ainz falls into the tenuous 3rd category, arguably the most unstable and closest to evil. It's not necessarily a balancing act where his good actions are weighed against the bad; it's the position that Lord Ainz commits actions in the interest of himself and the people he cares about, regardless of good and evil, and that he hasn't committed enough evil to actually be considered such and that the good actions he has committed aren't for evil purposes.




Not particularly; I think that's a primer for an interesting discussion.

I think I see the miscommunication, see to me and most I know, intention doesn't matter. Somewhat who commits evil in the name of good is still evil because evil or good to me only deals with what actions you're willing to take to accomplish your goals, regardless of what those goals are.

For example if you've watched the walking dead, the governor would be evil because he is consistently willing to commit evil acts, despite the fact that he had good intentions. Evil or good is what you are willing to do to accomplish your goals not your intention, if you read Red Fel's lawful evil guide he talks about all the different motivations an evil character can have.

To be neutral he could commit evil acts yes but he would have to equally avoid committing them, thus be a half way point between committing them and not, it doesn't have to 50/50 but he hasn't so far shown any restrictions in actions.

[Crake]

What happens when someone is killed shortly after becoming the victim of a helm of opposite alignment or contracting alignment-altering lycanthropy?

Presuming they haven't acted upon it, nothing, since their afterlife is determined by their actions, not by their final outlook. If they had acted on it, and their actions in that short time outweighed their actions in life so far, then their dedication to a deity would kick in. If they had a strong connection to a deity, then they would be judged by said deity, and that deity may deem them unfairly influenced in their actions, and absolve them of their deeds, taking them in. If they have no particular connection, they go to hell, unless the final point steps in, a deity is particularly attached to them. If a fiend had given them the helmet for example, instead of going to whatever generic hell, they would go to that fiend's master instead, because, presumably, he would have been paying at least mild attention to the machinations of his subjects.

[TheifofZ]

1) Someone who seeks balance.
2) Someone who avoids extremes.
3) Someone who acts in self-interest, without concerning themselves with good or evil.
4) Someone who takes the middle path (i.e., recognizing the merits of good and evil nature).
5) Someone who commits evil in the name of good.

And so I think Lord Ainz falls into the tenuous 3rd category, arguably the most unstable and closest to evil. It's not necessarily a balancing act where his good actions are weighed against the bad; it's the position that Lord Ainz commits actions in the interest of himself and the people he cares about, regardless of good and evil, and that he hasn't committed enough evil to actually be considered such and that the good actions he has committed aren't for evil purposes.

The third and fifth points are the points of disagreement, here.
First: Evil for the sake of Good has been the general attitude of multitudes of villains, either from video games, movies, books, and even real life.
'The Greater Good'... anyone that preaches that tends to be regarded poorly. Especially since the evil done is rarely done to them.
Second: The acts of self interest might be a mostly neutral path, but that's only if one does not also undertake more evil deeds in pursuit of it.
Torturing a man for non-vital information that could have been obtained through other means, simply because it's more expedient, is Evil. It's not going to save millions of lives, it's not an immediate threat, and it's not for a 'good' cause that couldn't have been furthered the same way with patience.
Ainz explicitly orders this done multiple times early on in the Light Novel, and it's hinted at and mentioned briefly in the Anime.
Really, though, I'll grant that the anime only shows his actions and it's hard to understand his thoughts from it, as well as only shows his actions up to a point because there are so few episodes. The Light Novel makes it fairly clear that he's LE.
Later on, he does things like the casual slaughter of a large group of Lizardmen just to generate more minions, blackmail to get what he wants, horrific torture to break someone's will to enslave them, bribes a kings adviser to send adventurers into Nazarik specifically to test the Tomb's defenses and to learn more about melee combat and has all of them brutally slain or much worse, ordering the ones that were merely paralyzed to be used as nests, presumably for parasitic creatures.
None of these actions in any way secure his safety: The lizardmen minions are generally weaker than the routinely respawned mobs, the blackmail and horrific torture are to take control of a country's crime syndicate in a bid for power and wealth, and the testing involved people that had no way of actually being a threat so it had very little real results aside from granting Ainz a chance to spar against people fighting for their lives.
None of this could possibly be considered 'Neutral'. The casual disregard for the wellbeing of anything except the ones he cares about, the blatant cruelty, and the act of willfully causing the direct and agonizing end of several dozen humans for a petty reason like having a brief training session...
If you can say that's Neutral, then I advise you seek psychiatric help.

... Also, as further proof that Ainz is an Evil Sociopath that cares nothing for the lives of others, there is that character sheet I linked to. One that was made by the author and translated to english. You know. The Very Definitely Final Word on the matter. I'd love to see how you explain that one away too.

[squiggit]

I don't recall if things like the BoVD had anything to say on the subject, so I could be wrong. But I don't believe necromancy is, in of itself, inherently Evil. It does have a lot of spells with the [Evil] descriptor, though.


It's pretty much this. But then, even casting an [Evil] spell is (according to the FC2) on par with being a jerk to your subordinate. It's not great, and doing it a lot will slowly drag your alignment down, but the act in and of itself is not irredeemably evil. This same logic does not apply to much bigger applications of evil.

Animating the dead is an evil act. LM goes into some (vague) detail to try to explain why and it's all pretty nasty stuff. That's why Dread Necromancers can't be good, because they routinely perform acts of evil just as their basic routine. Using those evil acts for the sake of good allows them to be neutral (again, very explicitly by the book).

Also casting a trivial number of evil spells can permanently damn you to Hell, so I'm not sure it's fair to call them minor even ignoring LM.

[NapazTrix]

I failed to see a link to this show at all, so I'm just going to throw this out there

Is this the show you are talking about?: http://myanimelist.net/anime/29803/Overlord

[Rubik]

I failed to see a link to this show at all, so I'm just going to throw this out there

Is this the show you are talking about?: http://myanimelist.net/anime/29803/OverlordYes. It's also on Youtube.

[TheifofZ]

Eyup.
http://skythewood.blogspot.sg/p/knights-and-magic-author-amazake-no.html
Here's a link to an English Translation of the Light Novel.
And here's a link to the Translation of the Official, Canon Character sheet for the character whose alignment is currently being debated.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1U/Vb-DIyM5anI/AAAAAAAAC2U/CdUDLTmf8M4/s1600/01-%2Bmomonga.png
It does include his alignment. But the person who is saying he is Neutral is ignoring that.

Because there's none so blind as those who won't see.

[Rubik]

Eyup.
http://skythewood.blogspot.sg/p/knights-and-magic-author-amazake-no.html
Here's a link to an English Translation of the Light Novel.
And here's a link to the Translation of the Official, Canon Character sheet for the character whose alignment is currently being debated.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1U/Vb-DIyM5anI/AAAAAAAAC2U/CdUDLTmf8M4/s1600/01-%2Bmomonga.png
It does include his alignment. But the person who is saying he is Neutral is ignoring that.

Because there's none so blind as those who won't see.Is the stupid succubus as grating and annoying in the books?

[TheifofZ]

She's actually quite smart. But she is madly in love still, so she acts much the same.
Emphasis on madly, in both meanings. But no, she's not actually stupid at all. Except when she thinks Ainz is flirting with her.

[Draconium]

She's actually quite smart. But she is madly in love still, so she acts much the same.
Emphasis on madly, in both meanings. But no, she's not actually stupid at all. Except when she thinks Ainz is flirting with her.

I think he meant "stupid" as in the "I really don't like her" meaning more than anything. Which I don't blame him for. She's kind of annoying... Not as bad as some other "I'm madly in love with the protagonist" characters I've seen, but I don't think I'd miss her all that much if she was, ahem, removed.

[Rubik]

She's actually quite smart. But she is madly in love still, so she acts much the same.
Emphasis on madly, in both meanings. But no, she's not actually stupid at all. Except when she thinks Ainz is flirting with her.I've only seen the anime, so I can't comment on her actions in the books, but so far, she has yet to show any shred of intellect whatsoever, and lots of retarded behavior. I can't stress just how much I hate anime characters like her. So far, the only one I dislike more is Clementine.

[SangoProduction]

I've only seen the anime, so I can't comment on her actions in the books, but so far, she has yet to show any shred of intellect whatsoever, and lots of retarded behavior. I can't stress just how much I hate anime characters like her. So far, the only one I dislike more is Clementine.

Yeah. Despite having 13 episodes, the pacing was extremely slow (though not to the point at which it felt bogged down, somehow). It really didn't show much, especially with regards to the servants.

[Karnith]

Fun fact: Albedo was not in the original web novel, but was added for the light novel (on which the anime was based). Which is why she doesn't really do anything important in the adventures of Momonga/Ainz/Dad-Skeletor.

Another fun fact is that the player who created Albedo, Tabula Smaragdina, was a mind flayer, or some non-copyright-infringing facsimile thereof.
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/overlordmaruyama/images/5/5a/Tabula_Smaragdina.png/revision/latest?cb=20150410101824

[Anonymo]

I had the distinct pleasure of watching a show titled "Overlord" after some interesting talks with fellow players. Despite everything, I found myself enthralled by it, and I want to speak of it. If you want my personal recommendation? Here, take it! Just don't judge his immortality too harshly, and you might enjoy the other aspects of the show.

Now, what do I mean, "Overlord is Evil done smart"? I mean, most "Evil" is actually played really, really, insidiously stupidly (hell they even mock it with a whole episode devoted to wiping out this Stupid Evil). And, I believe this is actually a smarter variant of the alignment.

To be clear, I am talking about the main character (who's name I can not recall for the life of me, I think one of his names is "Momon").

Why is he Evil? [Obvious spoiler alert, but the true spoiler has been put in to its own sub-spoiler section. The rest of this is vague enough that it's not really spoilers, but still is just background knowledge to "why he's Evil" rather than why he's "Smart Evil", which was what the thread is about.]
Time and again, he shows (and tells) that he's entirely out for himself (also, he kinda says he's out to rule the world)...but doesn't let anyone who's not subservient know that. The one time he acted in what could be considered true kindness was when he saved a village without hope of reward, though one could argue that it was simply because he felt he had a debt to a friend, as he was going to just not do anything about it until the flash back.

He also admits to not being sickened by the mass brutality of what's going on in the village. (Even though he blames the game doing this, it's still a consistent part of his character.)
A legion of men come to save this village as well? He lets them die, except for 1, who could spread his name as a hero, and then teleports the entirety of the defeated legion into the village, and he goes out and beats up (easily) those who killed the legion.

Also, when stating how he saw humans he says "I used to see them as insects, but now, kind of like small animals." Regardless of whether this is because he doesn't see "NPCs" as humans (as evidenced by his revelation in episode 13), or not, that still shows he has little care for the lives of the sentient populace...which is kinda Evil.
He also says that he'd probably have killed his "friends" too, and described them as "tools to build my name", before fighting the Stupid Evil who killed said "friends".
Additionally, while he says he has a Wand of Resurrection, he refuses to use it, citing that a mage who brings death, causes less trouble than one who brings back the dead....which, let's be honest...is probably true. But he didn't even use it on his "friends," yet is willing to spend his entire treasury to revive a slain servant of his (to be fair, it's less risky, but also shows that he wasn't near as attached to his "friends" as he was to his servants).
The above 2 statements could be seen "acting" to get the desired response from those he was talking with...but with how he acts and the few windows into his thoughts we get through out the series, it's quite believable he does actually think this way.
It is heavily implied that he makes use of memory-manipulation abilities by the first episode, though not specifically mentioned again.

Also, while he doesn't make a habit of it (often killing in a single blow), he did show no mercy in a slow kill by crushing (against the stupid evil... who kinda deserved it...but...still).
He also does quite often "play with his food" when they are anything more than an orc - teasing out the enemies' powers.

Oh, and he does kill another adventurer purely because he got in his way (or at least is implied that he did). To be fair, if the adventurer had been able to report back that he was in league with a vampire....well....yeah. Still would call it Evil, as he hadn't even seen the vampire yet.

So, he's quite clearly Evil. But why is he smart?

Well, first off, as I already said, he doesn't tell anyone he's evil! He doesn't go "RAWR! I am Sauron, and I am almighty! Everyone undertake a mission to kill me immediately!" And...I think this may be the single largest reason why I think he is "Smart Evil".
Instead, he masks himself as a hero. Building his name up through careful manipulation. Let people come to serve him of their own volition, because they truly believe it is best. (I'm sure the plan was...the show isn't finished yet.) He didn't "let" a legion of do-Good humans die, he saved those who survived, and rescued the town!

He also doesn't play all of his cards at once...in fact, he goes out of his way to handicap himself by picking up a sword and armor and not casting spells - as a necromancer....and is still as powerful as the most powerful person of this world...but not the point.
Again the misdirection. It keeps people from discovering his actual weaknesses....if he had any...yeah, I don't get why that's enthralling...it just was. I'll go back over the show again tomorrow to find out what specifically I liked. But it might just be simply that it's a show with "Smart Evil" and doesn't have many in-world contradictions.
But, theoretically, it does prevent people from discovering his actual weaknesses (like holy damage), so I still consider it smart.

He also has a group in which he would not betray - his "family" for lack of a better word. Evil characters do have these. Just because someone is out for themselves does not (neccesarily) mean that they lack any desire for socialization and close relations. When a traitor emerges, he fights them solo because "I don't want you to fight each other," despite the likely result of having the entirety of the rest of his guards come down on them, being that the traitor probably would have keeled over without much of a match.
This doesn't make him smart. I just wanted to use this show as a medium to point it out.

And, while he might not neccesarily value lives, he does value what sparing a life might do. For instance, if you let the bandits run after announcing your name? They spread the word. If you save just one person from certain catastrophe, even while after their friends died, they'll see you as having saved them (even if you chose not to save everyone, despite having the power to). If you incapacitate, and master a magical beast instead of slaying it...that's massive reputation points there.

And, along the lines of his manipulations, he doesn't know of the power level of this world, so he tries to tease out as much of the (non-orcish) enemies' powers as possible without being too threatening until he wishes to finish it soon. Again, I would feel this would feel so much better if the main character wasn't an immortal bad ass, but still, you've got to give them props for it.


Personally, I believe Ainz is True neutral: he can bend either way.

Many of the things he does only help him and his followers, which is expected from a true neutral protagonist.

On top of that, why would a evil being attempt fair rule? i understand manipulation to make him look like a hero, that's been done before. But if he was truly evil he would plan to abandon his mask after he finished taking over the world. That would cause him problems, and since he is a being of logic, it wouldn't make sense to him. he would also probably find it fun to torture his enemies and do it all the time. he doesn't, he only does it when it is the most efficient option to extract information.


His goal is efficient and long lasting rule over the new world, not fear and chaos.

he obviously wants to be seen as a kind ruler and wants to be talked about in legend for years.

Despite all the evil surrounding him, he acts merciful towards those who do not oppose him, despite any objection from his followers, because he has no reason to be cruel towards the innocent if they do not threaten his plans.

For these reasons, I consider him true neutral: not anywhere close to evil, but not anywhere close to good, only caring about any problems that cause him trouble and/or hurt his prestige.

[TheifofZ]

First: thread necromancy. This thread was from last year.

Second: Why does noone read the character sheet. The Canon one. The one that the Writer/Author made.
The one which basically says "Ainz's alignment literally cannot get any more Evil. He is the EVIL-est."
Again, his alignment is on par with a character that set up farms to breed and raise humans so that they could be slaughtered like cattle.
Ainz has casually, and without care, ordered mass slaughters, extreme torture, and horrors that would make even Hitler say 'Woah, hang on a minute. That's a bit much, don't you think?'.
He has been very cruel to sentient beings for no better reason than 'because it's convenient' or 'because I want to test something out'.

His alignment, in D&D terms, is Neutral Evil. He has something of a code he follows, but he's willing to break it if it becomes inconvenient, and he's basically been a horrible monster that doesn't care about the literal horrors he's inflicted on anyone outside of a small group of 'people'.

The light novel's quite a bit further than the anime, and there are some things that he's had done that very much settles this.
If you can say that ordering a group of helpless individuals be turned into the nesting and breeding grounds for parasitic insects, torturing and brainwashed people just because he could, ordering the slaughter of an uninvolved group of sentient creatures and then blackmailed the remaining survivors into serving him (those survivors, by the way, being explicitly weaker on all counts than most of the routinely randomly generated mobs that fill the Tomb of Nazarik and constantly respawn for free) and that literally directly slaughtering over 200 thousand people over the course of a single day (more than a third of which were killed by a single spell) for no better reason than to make a point is not evil, then you should seek mental help immediately.

[Braininthejar2]

He's aesier to judge by World of Darkness standards than by D&D character system

His character sheet shows him to be horribly evil, but that's just how he had chosen to roleplay his character.

In reality, he starts as an average human being, but being undead stunts his empathy, causing him to quickly lose humanity.

Also, are you guys seeing some weird hyperlinks in the stuff I type, or is it just some malware on my end?

[TheifofZ]

Definitely Malware on your end.

And yes; judging him by WoD standards is, per say, easier. The 'Humanity' meter on his WoD sheet is at basically 1 pip left, and that's just barely hanging in there.

Judging him by D&D standards though; he started out as TN (The first light novel [or first half of the season]) but his alignment did a graceful swan dive off the handle and into the deep end of the N/E part of the alignment pool. (By the end of the second light novel [end of the season in the anime]).

[icefractal]

On the topic of neutrality, I can see a neutrality covering a big tent simply because of the number of archetypes it covers:

1) Someone who seeks balance.
2) Someone who avoids extremes.
3) Someone who acts in self-interest, without concerning themselves with good or evil.
4) Someone who takes the middle path (i.e., recognizing the merits of good and evil nature).
5) Someone who commits evil in the name of good.

And so I think Lord Ainz falls into the tenuous 3rd category, arguably the most unstable and closest to evil. It's not necessarily a balancing act where his good actions are weighed against the bad; it's the position that Lord Ainz commits actions in the interest of himself and the people he cares about, regardless of good and evil, and that he hasn't committed enough evil to actually be considered such and that the good actions he has committed aren't for evil purposes.Ah, so you're taking the stance that actions taken purely in rational self-interest can't qualify as evil? That there has to be malevolent intent, extra harm caused beyond what was practical?

I don't agree with that. For instance, let's say someone were to ask with my help in performing an assassination. All I need to do is to enter a building I have access to and fail to shut the door fully. There's absolutely no possibility anyone will ever find out I was the one who did it (it's a thought experiment, ok?), and they'll pay me a large amount of money for this.

Would I be evil for doing that? Yes. Even if I bear no malice toward the target and simply wish to make some easy money. Self interest is not an excuse.

Now self-defense, that could be a justification, depending on your moral philosophy. Say instead, that the assassin pointed a gun at me and told me to open the door or else. But that's not the case in most of the examples given - refraining from the evil actions would have only been a moderate setback, at worst, to Ainz.

And yes, this does mean that having greater personal power holds you to a greater standard in some cases. An ordinary man, hearing Orcs approaching and about to round the corner and discover him, and who believed the Orcs were hostile and intended to kill him, would (IMO) be justified in readying to strike first. A demi-god level archmage who could yawn while the Orcs futilely attacked him, on the other hand, would be committing an evil act by not confirming their intentions first.

[Lorddenorstrus]

In the most recent chapter of Volume 11 he orders the culling of an entire race to be brought from 80,000 to 10,000 in number if they don't kneel to him in absolute obedience.
They kept 4000 men, 4000 women and 2000 Children. The rest.. Were.. butchered by Shalltear. That is defenseless women and children being murdered. He's evil. No debate.

[A.A.King]

Second: Why does noone read the character sheet. The Canon one. The one that the Writer/Author made.
The one which basically says "Ainz's alignment literally cannot get any more Evil. He is the EVIL-est."


Easy: Because it is a terrible argument.

The fact that the Author somewhere stated that "no, actually, this character is totally evil" doesn't address any of the issues that make people think "This guy isn't actually evil". People who argue that the character is in fact not evil do so based on how the character is actually portrayed, and saying that there is an official document which says the character is "the evil-est" ever only shows that up until this point the author hadn't gotten round to properly showing it yet, or tried and done a poor job of conveying his intentions or worse, that the author just isn't a very good author.

The case people were arguing was "The character shows in [a certain anime] up until episode X (the episodes that had aired at the time) does not qualify as evil", the authors intent or what happened at a later date in either the anime or the books the show is based on are irrelevant to that case.

[Echch]

In the most recent chapter of Volume 11 he orders the culling of an entire race to be brought from 80,000 to 10,000 in number if they don't kneel to him in absolute obedience.
They kept 4000 men, 4000 women and 2000 Children. The rest.. Were.. butchered by Shalltear. That is defenseless women and children being murdered. He's evil. No debate.

Didn't he say he'd cull them anyway? I thought it was pretty much "10,000 of you will life. Kneel and I let you choose the survivors, don't and I let Shalltear choose."

[Crake]

How is this still a thing? I remember posting way back when this thread started then ignoring it because I thought it was just piling up with trolls, but it seems there are people so morally unaware as to think he could at all be considered neutral. Yeah, sure, if you put innocent people's lives on the same level as an insect, then he could be neutral. But no, seriously, why is this argument even a thing?

[Echch]

How is this still a thing? [...] Yeah, sure, if you put innocent people's lives on the same level as an insect, then he could be neutral. But no, seriously, why is this argument even a thing?

Well... Maybe the argument is made with the reason that NPCs are a lot of 1s and 0s? I mean, if a player makes his character murder an NPC in your campaign, then the player isn't evil, even if the character might be?

...I dunno, grasping at straws here.

[Zanos]

FSecond: Why does noone read the character sheet. The Canon one. The one that the Writer/Author made.
The one which basically says "Ainz's alignment literally cannot get any more Evil. He is the EVIL-est."
Again, his alignment is on par with a character that set up farms to breed and raise humans so that they could be slaughtered like cattle.
Ainz has casually, and without care, ordered mass slaughters, extreme torture, and horrors that would make even Hitler say 'Woah, hang on a minute. That's a bit much, don't you think?'.
He has been very cruel to sentient beings for no better reason than 'because it's convenient' or 'because I want to test something out'.

Actually, now that I think about, Ainz's canon character sheet has his morality stat lower than a character who spends days digesting her victims so she can enjoy their suffering, and another character who would gladly kill all humans.
I guess I'm nobody. :smallfrown:

[SangoProduction]

If this thread gets shut down for necromancy, just tell me, I'll reopen a new thread if you want to keep talking about it.

[Crake]

Well... Maybe the argument is made with the reason that NPCs are a lot of 1s and 0s? I mean, if a player makes his character murder an NPC in your campaign, then the player isn't evil, even if the character might be?

...I dunno, grasping at straws here.

Yeah, but the player knows the NPCs aren't real, ainz on the other hand, as best he can tell, is dealing with sentient living beings experiencing everything he is doing to them. That said, it is also made clear that his descent into evil is not entirely of his own volition, considering being a lich actively inhibits his humanity, so one could potentially hold that into account, but that doesn't change the result of his actions. Perhaps Momon the human player was not evil at all, but ainz the lich most certainly, undeniably is.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Didn't he say he'd cull them anyway? I thought it was pretty much "10,000 of you will life. Kneel and I let you choose the survivors, don't and I let Shalltear choose."

To my knowledge the only available translation right now is Nigels and no they weren't going to cull them to 10,000 regardless. If they surrendered at the start after being told to they'd've all lived. However Pe Riyuro instead asked for a test of strength he wanted proof they were powerful enough to control his people. Absolutely moronic considering he DID have the information available to him of having Ainz force one of the dragons to kneel to him already. But as he hadn't known the Frost Dragons leader had been killed yet.. Eh that's not even redeemable enough it was just stupid.

On the plus side this is probably good for his peoples long term health. His original plan was submit and grow strong under Ainz then stage a rebellion. He's now come to the realization that it'll never happen. They are Ainz's subjects now. Permanently.

[TheifofZ]

To my knowledge the only available translation right now is Nigels and no they weren't going to cull them to 10,000 regardless. If they surrendered at the start after being told to they'd've all lived. However Pe Riyuro instead asked for a test of strength he wanted proof they were powerful enough to control his people. Absolutely moronic considering he DID have the information available to him of having Ainz force one of the dragons to kneel to him already. But as he hadn't known the Frost Dragons leader had been killed yet.. Eh that's not even redeemable enough it was just stupid.

On the plus side this is probably good for his peoples long term health. His original plan was submit and grow strong under Ainz then stage a rebellion. He's now come to the realization that it'll never happen. They are Ainz's subjects now. Permanently.

Which doesn't really cancel out the fact that Ainz -has- killed 70,000+ soldiers with a single spell before. And then used the monsters that those sacrifices gave him to slaughter upwards of another hundred thousand.
Those soldiers that couldn't do anything to stop him, and were one-sidedly slaughtered until he basically got bored, sent a message to the king that he'll do this again but in the capital city instead if he doesn't get what he wants, and then packed up his **** and went home.

Also can you post a link to the current translation?

[Lorddenorstrus]

Which doesn't really cancel out the fact that Ainz -has- killed 70,000+ soldiers with a single spell before. And then used the monsters that those sacrifices gave him to slaughter upwards of another hundred thousand.
Those soldiers that couldn't do anything to stop him, and were one-sidedly slaughtered until he basically got bored, sent a message to the king that he'll do this again but in the capital city instead if he doesn't get what he wants, and then packed up his **** and went home.

Also can you post a link to the current translation?

http://overlordvolume10.blogspot.sg/2016_09_01_archive.html

Has the Pastebins for Volume 11, which aren't 100% considered finished just rough translations. At the very bottom you'll see 2016 October / September. He has Prologue - Chapter 4 officially translated. (Grammar and other things worked on after the rough translation.)

[Coidzor]

Now to find out why people would play a game where being horrifically tortured is a selling point, not a horrible glitch that has to be hidden lest legal action ensue.

[Nettlekid]

As someone who's only seen the anime I'm pretty ignorant of the deeper story and the development of Ainz's evil, but could someone with more knowledge of the story outline his motives for his actions? How often were his actions borne out of "I want to make stronger undead with my necromancy" versus "I need to protect Nazarik and/or the people I care about/the world at large?" Not that any motive rationalizes genocide, but it might help decide between Neutral and Evil, or more importantly Smart Evil and Stupid Evil. Killing thousands of creatures for unspecified research feels like Stupid Evil to me, Evil because you can but not actually to a greater end.

[Prime32]

As someone who's only seen the anime I'm pretty ignorant of the deeper story and the development of Ainz's evil, but could someone with more knowledge of the story outline his motives for his actions? How often were his actions borne out of "I want to make stronger undead with my necromancy" versus "I need to protect Nazarik and/or the people I care about/the world at large?" Not that any motive rationalizes genocide, but it might help decide between Neutral and Evil, or more importantly Smart Evil and Stupid Evil. Killing thousands of creatures for unspecified research feels like Stupid Evil to me, Evil because you can but not actually to a greater end.Basically he loves the Guardians like nieces and nephews, and doesn't care about anyone else. He does make one or two friends outside of Nazerick and would be sad if they died, but he prioritizes the Guardians' lives over theirs.

If left to his own devices, he'd be far less dangerous. However, the Guardians are both actively evil and convinced that Ainz's true goals are complex beyond their comprehension. So whenever they "catch a glimpse of his motives" they immediately construct elaborate plans on how to achieve them. Ainz then goes along with these plans because he doesn't want to look stupid. We see Ainz's thought processes while this is going on, and he never really cares about loss of human lives unless it would deprive him of intelligence or hurt Nazerick's reputation in some way. In fact he once watched the Guardians kill tens of thousands of people and felt nothing but pride.

Ainz also has a tendency to view people as possessions, though he's self-conscious about this. For instance, he commissions expensive armor for an albino lizardman under his rule simply because they're rare, while making up excuses about how he values the lizardman's service. He also once expressed a desire to repeatedly kill and resurrect a sentient creature in order to harvest its rare body parts, and only dismissed it because it seemed unfeasible (you can only resurrect creatures if they're willing, and it would be a PR nightmare if others of their race found out). Instead he provoked another one of the creatures into insulting him then killed it in retribution, so he could at least have two corpses rather than one.

[Segev]

In the anime, I got the impression that a lot of his "justifications" for why a particularly evil and practical action would be, in fact, impractical were meant to conceal his lack of stomach for it from his minions, who had proposed it.

Ainz definitely sounds like he's sliding downwards on the moral axis, but he starts pretty Neutral, and even possibly "with good tendencies." He just swiftly abandons the latter, which is an easy opener to a downward spiral. I get the impression that he dislikes wonton slaughter for moral as well as practical reasons, but he seems okay with it if it serves a purpose, so yeah, at BEST he's Neutral with evil tolerances/tendencies. He likely is NE overall.

(I was particularly disappointed in him for not using his Rez staff on the party he'd adventured with and genuinely seemed to care about. He could have covered that up, if he'd wanted. While it's not ACTIVELY evil to refuse to bring somebody back to life, it is cold, and it probably is another step in his personal progression that way.)

Note: I have only seen the anime.

[Nettlekid]

Basically he loves the Guardians like nieces and nephews, and doesn't care about anyone else. He does make one or two friends outside of Nazerick and would be sad if they died, but he prioritizes the Guardians' lives over theirs.

If left to his own devices, he'd be far less dangerous. However, the Guardians are both actively evil and convinced that Ainz's true goals are complex beyond their comprehension. So whenever they "catch a glimpse of his motives" they immediately construct elaborate plans on how to achieve them. Ainz then goes along with these plans because he doesn't want to look stupid. We see Ainz's thought processes while this is going on, and he never really cares about loss of human lives unless it would deprive him of intelligence or hurt Nazerick's reputation in some way. In fact he once watched the Guardians kill tens of thousands of people and felt nothing but pride.

Ainz also has a tendency to view people as possessions, though he's self-conscious about this. For instance, he commissions expensive armor for an albino lizardman under his rule simply because they're rare, while making up excuses about how he values the lizardman's service. He also once expressed a desire to repeatedly kill and resurrect a sentient creature in order to harvest its rare body parts, and only dismissed it because it seemed unfeasible (you can only resurrect creatures if they're willing, and it would be a PR nightmare if others of their race found out). Instead he provoked another one of the creatures into insulting him then killed it in retribution, so he could at least have two corpses rather than one.

Honestly, these things sound like "Stupid Evil" to me, and definitely a far cry from an intelligent overlord. "Evil done smart" doesn't get hit by peer pressure or bullied, and it's poor planning to keep company that (in his mind) would overthrow him if they knew his true nature. Plus if he can't keep his subordinates in control enough to prevent them from murdering thousands if he would prefer them not to then he doesn't actually have control over them; they're just kind of doing their own thing and pleased that they think their master's wishes align with what they like to do.

[TheifofZ]

Honestly, these things sound like "Stupid Evil" to me, and definitely a far cry from an intelligent overlord. "Evil done smart" doesn't get hit by peer pressure or bullied, and it's poor planning to keep company that (in his mind) would overthrow him if they knew his true nature. Plus if he can't keep his subordinates in control enough to prevent them from murdering thousands if he would prefer them not to then he doesn't actually have control over them; they're just kind of doing their own thing and pleased that they think their master's wishes align with what they like to do.

A: He isn't worried about them overthrowing him. He knows they're fanatically loyal to him; he just doesn't want to look foolish in front of those he cares about. (You don't want to look like an idiot in front of your family, right?) He only worried about them overthrowing him once, early on, and was making plans to GTFO until he realized he didn't need to be scared.

B: He can control them, as they're fanatically loyal. Literally 'willing to kill themselves if he asked them' loyal, it's just that he does NOT prefer them not to slaughter others. He literally doesn't care if they commit genocide as long as it doesn't get in the way of his own plan, which can largely be summed up as "Make the name 'Ainz Ooal Gown' famous around the world, so that if any of his friends are there too, they'll be able to find him". As they decided to set about conquering the world for him, and that's a pretty good way of being known everywhere, he's gone along with it.

C: The only one that basically does his own thing is Demiurge, who is literally a genius, and is plenty happy doing what he believes Ainz wants him to do. Although since Demiurge has the lowest morality out of the Guardians, this does mean that if Ainz asks for anything he'll consider every material and method possible, and then choose the most practical and expedient, regardless of how good or evil it might be. To put it another way, you have that backwards. The Guardians are all super happy to obey Ainz no matter what he asks of them, and the fact that what he asks of them lets them do things they like doing anyway is just icing on the cake.

[Mordaedil]

Now to find out why people would play a game where being horrifically tortured is a selling point, not a horrible glitch that has to be hidden lest legal action ensue.
Only Ainz is actually playing a video game, he was the last player online when the servers shut down and got transported into a world with his entire built up guild hall.

The new world is more of a tabletop game where people aren't so fortunate as being able to log out to avoid torture.

[Echch]

Only Ainz is actually playing a video game, he was the last player online when the servers shut down and got transported into a world with his entire built up guild hall.

The new world is more of a tabletop game where people aren't so fortunate as being able to log out to avoid torture.

I think he's talking about the fact that there is no emergency password to log out, or at least that there is no indication of one, and you have to have your hand free to log out. One of the most stupid design flaws ever if something like that ever comes online.

Then again, that's missing the fact that torture in extreme detail would not exist in Yggdrasil (as it would likely earn a 18+ seal, which Yggdrasil doesn't have).

[Mordaedil]

Well, that's kinda the thing, he can't log out anymore. And it's not as if it's completely unimaginable, if you've used VR.

[Echch]

Oh, yo are talking about the situation of Ainz. I thought you meant the general Yggdrasil.

[Prime32]

I think he's talking about the fact that there is no emergency password to log out, or at least that there is no indication of one, and you have to have your hand free to log out. One of the most stupid design flaws ever if something like that ever comes online.

Then again, that's missing the fact that torture in extreme detail would not exist in Yggdrasil (as it would likely earn a 18+ seal, which Yggdrasil doesn't have).He's not logged into a game. He was turned into an actual lich, and transported to a new world with no resemblance to the game he played. (apart from some of the magic and monsters, but it's implied that they're not native to the world and were introduced by another player who was transported there before Ainz)

[Echch]

He's not logged into a game. He was turned into an actual lich, and transported to a new world with no resemblance to the game he played. (apart from some of the magic and monsters, but it's implied that they're not native to the world and were introduced by another player who was transported there before Ainz)

He WAS logged into a game called Yggdrasil, even if he isn't there anymore. My reply was about Coidzor's question of why a game would allow for torture, to which I replied that Yggdrasil didn't have torture, as we could see in the first episode. I know Ainz is't in Yggdrasil anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't allowed in the original game.