Subtle Evil?

[Tanuki Tales]

Where exactly does the line between Neutral with evil leanings and Evil with a capital E lie? Evil can generally be defined as utmost selfishness at the expense of others, to get what you want specifically by hurting other beings and to pursue your own personal objectives without a real thought for those who you ultimately crush along the way.

How close can you straddle the divide with evil actions? How subtle can a character be about their evil doings where it's at the point where they fall heavily in the real world morality gray area and only a paladin would reliable oppose them?

[Gildedragon]

It would depend on the scale. The line might be around the point where a result is more important than the process or the side effects of it. Or where one regards trampling others down as a bonus.

[Geddy2112]

A good "soft" neutral evil is the assassin who only kills for money or in absolute self defense. They don't do collateral damage(nonlethal takedowns of guards and other non targets, no property damage or risk to bystanders) and other than the fact that they will take life for money, there is not a single other evil thing about them. Taking life for money is a fast track to the E alignment, and if they keep going that blood just won't wash off of their hands. However, they might be morally righteous in other regards, or even have a code of those they won't kill as to not stoop into the "harder" evils. A really good Ne assassin is probably going to also not flaunt or reveal the fact that they kill people. If anything, they want an identity that makes them the least likely to be suspected as a hitman, or at least one that keeps them out of sight.

Another example is the scumbag deadbeat-spouse abuser, drug addict, low level criminal thug, general undercity scum. They don't go out looking to kill or cause harm, but their ability to have empathy or respect for sentient life is next to gone. They are certainly not against using lethal force or harming others(they don't care) but they are pragmatic and cautious enough they won't go killing for some idealology, "they ain't riskin their neck for no one".

[Crake]

I don't think you really hit evil with a capital E until your selfish desires begin to directly become related to the suffering of others (ie. you cause suffering because you enjoy seeing others suffer kind of thing). That's where I personally draw the line, everything up until then is "I'm screwing you over to get what I want" but when it becomes "I'm screwing you over because that's what I want" that's some proper level evil right there. That level of thinking just becomes so far beyond comprehensible for normal people I think, that it becomes foreign, almost alien, which is where I think true Evil belongs. It's not something within the realm of normal people. In a case like that for example, that would make ramsey bolton from game of thrones Evil, and I think a lot of people would agree there.

That's the kind of behaviour I save for the truly depraved and vile characters in my games.

[SovelsAtaask]

If I may...

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel!

[Spore]

How close can you straddle the divide with evil actions? How subtle can a character be about their evil doings where it's at the point where they fall heavily in the real world morality gray area and only a paladin would reliable oppose them?

I feel a good point is made when you do evil things justified by good intentions. This is the crux of many alignment discussions but I feel someone is evil when they do evil things without questioning their course of action or looking for other more benevolent options.

We had an evil villain kill many believers of a lawful neutral god in order to weaken their god to allow him to finally cleanse him of his corruption (the god was originally LG). He could have straight asked the PCs to help him. But he manipulated us to do good. Naturally we opposed him and his ways, which brought us in situations in which we chose to kill an angelic guardian and set free evil priests in order to banish a lich that holds the sister of our rogue hostage.

Yes, the villain did all this to rid the world of a giant evil. But he sacrificed many for that goal. Which is funny because he was at first discreet then openly evil but as we learned more about him his actions became more and more justified. He and our CN rogue were very close in their mindset. It's just that our rogue thought about his actions before doing them.

I think restraint has a lot to do with good.

[Ratatoskir]

I don't know how 'subtle' he is, but I'm playing a gunslinger that recently got labeled officially evil by the gm. Joined the military with his foster brother to keep an eye on him, the first several sessions people assumed he was lawful good-ish. He's willing to risk himself to save his party members, he is willing to help people, is eager to save the mostly good empire from the conspiracy we got embroiled in. Sure, he stereotypes the party's elf a bit and is uneasy around the tiefling, but he's fron a podunk farming village so he's not used to seeing people that aren't human.

Then a (noncombatant) goblin the party had subdued manages to get loose and start running. We had horses, we were camped in a plain, but Nicolai just pulls out his musket and blows the poor creature's knee to shreds. Is honestly clueless why the party is shocked at the action.

Later, were are assaulting a goblin fortress with a lot of unarmed civilians in it. Whenever we get a glimpse of thwm running away its shoot a leg, interrogate briefly a creature that shares no languages with the party, then slaughter it mercilessly. One goblin takes a small child they had kidnapped hostage, Nicolai doesn't care. Raises his rifle and the goblin dies right after the child.

Thats around when the party realized a couple things. One, Nicolai may be loyal, hardworking, trustworthy, and genuinely want to good things, but he was willing to make pretty much any sacrifice to do what he thought was right. And two, Nicolai wasn't just an ignorant yokel. If you weren't human (or to a slightly less degree another standard "good" race) then you were less than an animal in his eyes.

[Gallowglass]

I don't think you really hit evil with a capital E until your selfish desires begin to directly become related to the suffering of others (ie. you cause suffering because you enjoy seeing others suffer kind of thing). That's where I personally draw the line, everything up until then is "I'm screwing you over to get what I want" but when it becomes "I'm screwing you over because that's what I want" that's some proper level evil right there.

I came here to say this. But Crake has already said it.

upvote?

[AslanCross]

Oh come on, killing a man is not as big a thing as people like you seem to think. If you’re going to take somebody’s woman, a man has to die. When I kill a man, I do it with my sword, but people like you don’t use swords. You gentlemen kill with your power, with your money, and sometimes just with your words: you tell people you’re doing them a favor. True, no blood flows, the man is still alive, but you’ve killed him all the same. I don’t know whose sin is greater---yours or mine.

If you aren't familiar with this short story, Tajoumaru the bandit was accused of murder and also admitted to raping the murdered samurai's wife. All of the witnesses to the murder claim they were the murderer, including the spirit of the dead man who claimed he had committed suicide.

Tajoumaru readily admitted to the crime, but made a big show of being honorable despite being a bandit, and also made a clear attempt to undermine the authority of the magistrate questioning him. However, according to the dead man's testimony given through a spirit medium, Tajoumaru was actually shocked that the wife demanded that Tajoumaru should kill the samurai, and offered to kill him instead. By Tajoumaru's own confession, he accepted the woman's demand, but chose to instead duel the samurai instead of killing him while he was hogtied.

I'd place this guy under NE bordering on CE, without him being Ramsay Bolton. He's a murderer, rapist, and robber, doesn't justify himself by saying it was necessary, but he doesn't exhibit psychotic and sadistic tendencies in the way that CE characters are traditionally depicted.

[Red Fel]

If I may...

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel!

You may.


Where exactly does the line between Neutral with evil leanings and Evil with a capital E lie? Evil can generally be defined as utmost selfishness at the expense of others, to get what you want specifically by hurting other beings and to pursue your own personal objectives without a real thought for those who you ultimately crush along the way.

How close can you straddle the divide with evil actions? How subtle can a character be about their evil doings where it's at the point where they fall heavily in the real world morality gray area and only a paladin would reliable oppose them?

Basically, the line is like obscenity - I know it when I see it. There's no bright line rule of "This is Neutral, this is Evil." It's a very individual, fact-based analysis.

Some things are obvious. Genocide. Driving an entire nation into chaos. Serial acts. But other things are less obvious. Is killing one innocent to save thousands Evil because you're killing an innocent, or Neutral because it saves lives?

The trick, in my mind, is to be unapologetic. Evil does Evil readily. Not randomly, and not compulsively, but readily. Things like smiling while slicing the throat of the captured prisoner (after the party is done with him, of course). Or blackmailing the sobbing clergyman whose dark secret has been uncovered while the latter laments his terrible guilt and shame. It goes beyond mere ruthless pragmatism, and into a certain level of satisfaction.

Perform acts like these periodically. At all times, be affable, efficient, and helpful, such that people may forget you're Evil, but every now and then do something necessary, and be unnecessarily cruel about it. That's the line between N and E. The Neutral character will do what is needed; the Evil character will savor it.

Oh, and read my handbook.

[Tanuki Tales]

Oh, and read my handbook.

Link please?

I hope you have a section on those who pay "evil unto evil" to the point they're socially accepted serial killers. I always love those kinds. :smallamused:

[Gallowglass]

Link please?

I hope you have a section on those who pay "evil unto evil" to the point they're socially accepted serial killers. I always love those kinds. :smallamused:


https://s31.postimg.org/6ekvq0017/redfeddummy.png

[Red Fel]

Link please?

Fair enough. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil)


I hope you have a section on those who pay "evil unto evil" to the point they're socially accepted serial killers. I always love those kinds. :smallamused:

Not by those terms, but yes. In the section on what I call the "Dark Knight" archetype, I explore the idea of the character who does the worst things for the best reasons. I do refer to the "those who fight monsters" idea, the notion that a character who fights the darkest ideals may come to embrace the darkest methods. Evil unto evil, as it were.

Enjoy.

[Thealtruistorc]

Remember to read my handbook too! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment)

But let's cut to the chase. You want to know where the line of evil is drawn, and what differentiates a taciturn villain from a guy just going about his everyday business. To me, the question of neutral vs evil is how far you are willing to go to get the job done.

There's a reason why evil societies get an inherent +2 to economy (thanks Kingmaker), and that is that they are willing to work in unorthodox or arguably unprincipled ways in order to make something work. If a plan doesn't work out because somebody seems to cautious or too nice to let you go through with it, the plan becomes evil when you decided that having that schmuck out of the way is a more effective solution than compromising with him. The path to successful evil is paved with broken opposition, as your ideals (be they lawful, chaotic, or neither) sure as **** ain't gonna be stopped by some stick-in-the-mud who thinks that a functional world isn't worth crushing a bunch of bodies under the foundation.

Evil is capable of winning because it is geared towards the practical, the belief that scruples about morality aren't going to do much more than hold you back. It doesn't matter if people write you off as unjust or even if they recoil in fear from you. You stopped caring about their opinions as soon as it got in the way of your plans.

Evil is efficient, and that's something you should be proud of. Don't balk from it, embrace the darkness and see just how much it can do for you.

[tiercel]

Reading something like this, I can't help but think of Sir Terry Pratchett's definition as voiced by his character Granny Weatherwax:



And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.

Sure, you can enjoy it, or be deliberate about it. But you don't have to: you just have to do it.

------------------

The fun part is that essentially everyone already does this, at least to some extent, even as innocuously as pigeonholing others by their role, their usefulness. When someone really is only "the baker" to you, how far is he/she from being a mere bread-dispenser, interchangeable with anyone else who could dispense tasty breads? How much do you care about the baker if the bread stops?

Generally folks make small talk for the sake of civility, the veneer of civilization, as if there's a personal connection. But mostly, the baker, the farmer, the baron, they are unpersons. So is the only real, tenuous "difference" between Neutral and Evil a willingness to go through the motions of treating with unpersons?

[Crake]

Reading something like this, I can't help but think of Sir Terry Pratchett's definition as voiced by his character Granny Weatherwax:



Sure, you can enjoy it, or be deliberate about it. But you don't have to: you just have to do it.

------------------

The fun part is that essentially everyone already does this, at least to some extent, even as innocuously as pigeonholing others by their role, their usefulness. When someone really is only "the baker" to you, how far is he/she from being a mere bread-dispenser, interchangeable with anyone else who could dispense tasty breads? How much do you care about the baker if the bread stops?

Generally folks make small talk for the sake of civility, the veneer of civilization, as if there's a personal connection. But mostly, the baker, the farmer, the baron, they are unpersons. So is the only real, tenuous "difference" between Neutral and Evil a willingness to go through the motions of treating with unpersons?

I gotta disagree on this, like, fairly strongly. Not caring about someone, or only thinking of them based on how they can benefit you is purely human, there's nothing evil about it. That's what I'd call the dictionary definition of neutral. Everyone in the world tends to think of themselves as the center of the universe and everyone they don't particularly know or interact with as just a backdrop to their own personal story. What exactly do you believe is evil about that?

[tiercel]

I gotta disagree on this, like, fairly strongly. Not caring about someone, or only thinking of them based on how they can benefit you is purely human, there's nothing evil about it. That's what I'd call the dictionary definition of neutral. Everyone in the world tends to think of themselves as the center of the universe and everyone they don't particularly know or interact with as just a backdrop to their own personal story. What exactly do you believe is evil about that?

In context, the Pratchett quote does go on to say that evil/"worse" things *start* with thinking of people as things, hence the distinction I went on to make: people who see people as things but ultimately abide by social norms, by choice or just by conformity, tend to wind up in Neutrality. But Evil, arguably, starts with people-as-things, once the thin veneer of civility is torn away or just slips away -- a very thin barrier between what most find acceptable/Neutral and what lights up red on Detect Evil.

(It's also worth noting in context that the Granny Weatherwax character also doesn't accept actual Neutrality as a moral position per se, hence the further elaboration in D&D terms.)

Everyday actual civility at least maintains the pretense that other beings are not just things (and leads to the possibilty of coming to see them as people in their own right). That's not to say that Evil can't be civil, of course-- but Evil's civility is a means to an end, not a thing in itself.

As a side note, "social norms" may sound more like a Law/Chaos issue than a Good/Evil one, and that may certainly be true of at least some norms, but the basic civility of treating other people like people regardless of actually appreciating them as such is something I'd think even most Chaotic folks would do (though possibly in a more idiosyncratic way), short of the deep end of the Good/Evil spectrum.