Evil with morals?
- Thread starter SableWyvern
- Start date
Trickstergod
First Post
I'd actually say that while an individual who refuses to kill children can still be evil, this is not necessarily indicative of Chaotic or Lawful behavior. At the very least, I'd say Chaotic and Lawful Evil each are each just about as likely to have a compunction against it. Neutral Evil, on the other hand, I'd see having the least problem with it.
The why's on the other hand, would be different.
In a Donner party or waterskin situation, for instance, I'd say any evil character will be just about as likely to resort to the child eating or depriving the kid of water as any other form of evil-aligned character. All ultimately put themselves above others. It's just that each will justify it in their own way. LE: The child likely wouldn't have survived on his own, anyway, and it's better that one of us died than both. NE: I figured no one would find out, anyway, and he'd have done the same to me if he could have. CE: It was me or him, simple as that.
Likewise, a Chaotic Evil individual may be less likely to kill a kid because he feels a child in no way threatens his ability to do what he wants. He realizes he could kill children, but doesn't do so for the simple fact that they cannot stop him from doing what he wants anymore than he lets them - and thus restricts himself from killing kids because it's his decision and no one elses.
Whereas a Lawful Evil individual may be more likely to kill a kid as a child is easily dominated and put into a subservient position, therefore, barely worth consideration.
And for what it's worth, while I don't necessarily believe Lawful fully equates to law-abiding, I do believe it equates, to some degree, towards conforming and working within the system to change it, acting on the desires of others over their own at times, whereas a Chaotic individual acts by their own beliefs for the most part, often running counter to society. Both have as much of a likelihood for having a code of honor, and a solid one at that. I'll even go so far as to say that, in some cases, two individuals with drastically different alignments can act in nearly the exact same way. All that differs is their motivation, and just where they're located (in affluence, in a city whose alignment tendencies favor or disfavor those of the character, and so on).
Edit: Spelling
The why's on the other hand, would be different.
In a Donner party or waterskin situation, for instance, I'd say any evil character will be just about as likely to resort to the child eating or depriving the kid of water as any other form of evil-aligned character. All ultimately put themselves above others. It's just that each will justify it in their own way. LE: The child likely wouldn't have survived on his own, anyway, and it's better that one of us died than both. NE: I figured no one would find out, anyway, and he'd have done the same to me if he could have. CE: It was me or him, simple as that.
Likewise, a Chaotic Evil individual may be less likely to kill a kid because he feels a child in no way threatens his ability to do what he wants. He realizes he could kill children, but doesn't do so for the simple fact that they cannot stop him from doing what he wants anymore than he lets them - and thus restricts himself from killing kids because it's his decision and no one elses.
Whereas a Lawful Evil individual may be more likely to kill a kid as a child is easily dominated and put into a subservient position, therefore, barely worth consideration.
And for what it's worth, while I don't necessarily believe Lawful fully equates to law-abiding, I do believe it equates, to some degree, towards conforming and working within the system to change it, acting on the desires of others over their own at times, whereas a Chaotic individual acts by their own beliefs for the most part, often running counter to society. Both have as much of a likelihood for having a code of honor, and a solid one at that. I'll even go so far as to say that, in some cases, two individuals with drastically different alignments can act in nearly the exact same way. All that differs is their motivation, and just where they're located (in affluence, in a city whose alignment tendencies favor or disfavor those of the character, and so on).
Edit: Spelling
Last edited:
It all depends on the character I guess...
If you go with someone like... say, Hannibal from the movies Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, etc.; he is Evil, yet he can't bring himself to hurt the main character (in the end of one, he ends up hurting himself to avoid hurting the girl).
So I'd say you can be evil... but it really depends on what you are being evil about. I can see someone being evil and being a slaver, but hating to kill. He's evil, but he's not EVIL
If you go with someone like... say, Hannibal from the movies Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, etc.; he is Evil, yet he can't bring himself to hurt the main character (in the end of one, he ends up hurting himself to avoid hurting the girl).
So I'd say you can be evil... but it really depends on what you are being evil about. I can see someone being evil and being a slaver, but hating to kill. He's evil, but he's not EVIL
the Jester
Legend
Sometimes evil villains are nice people. It doesn't mean they aren't evil, just that they're nice.
Wombat
First Post
There are many shades of evil, just as there are of good.
One of the best literary examples out there is Cardinal Richelieu from The Three Musketeers. (I won't go into the literary vs. historical character here.) Now here is a man who is evil -- he is trying to destroy the queen of France because (apparently) she spurned his advances. He is willing to have any number of people tortured, murdered, and generally made miserable. He has no pity for those that fail or cross him, be they high or low, male or female.
On the other hand, he is devouted to the kingdom as a whole (and probably the king), has a strong streak of honour, is unfailingly polite, generous to his (succesful) underlings and, to the best of my knowledge, never threatened children.
To my mind he is Evil, and in the D&D canon probably Lawful Evil, but he doesn't exactly fit the mold.
Characters like this make the whole alignment system, at best, problematic for me.
One of the best literary examples out there is Cardinal Richelieu from The Three Musketeers. (I won't go into the literary vs. historical character here.) Now here is a man who is evil -- he is trying to destroy the queen of France because (apparently) she spurned his advances. He is willing to have any number of people tortured, murdered, and generally made miserable. He has no pity for those that fail or cross him, be they high or low, male or female.
On the other hand, he is devouted to the kingdom as a whole (and probably the king), has a strong streak of honour, is unfailingly polite, generous to his (succesful) underlings and, to the best of my knowledge, never threatened children.
To my mind he is Evil, and in the D&D canon probably Lawful Evil, but he doesn't exactly fit the mold.
Characters like this make the whole alignment system, at best, problematic for me.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
I think, especially in the case of socially powerful villains, that public relations also plays a part. Evil people will want to portray themselves as benevolent to some degree, because then people will trust them more (in which case they're idiots...). The more outright evil you commit without covering it up first, the more people are likely to come after you. And of course while a policy may look compassionate and benevolent on the surface, it may have a far more sinister, ulterior motive behind it.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Here's my two-cent take:
LE: I don't kill kids because it's not lawful/customary/proper/ playing by the rules/what's done, generally. It also damages any sense of order; how are we supposed to know what's what when no one is spared?
NE: I don't kill kids because it's not my style. I dunno, I just don't feel it's appropriate. I can be eeevil and have some compassion, right? And sometimes it's a bit awkward with the authorities, which can matter from time to time.
CE: I don't kill kids because... I don't feel like. That's right; YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
I don't think that ethical codes for villains are an LE vs. CE thing; the motivation for those codes is LE vs. CE.
LE: I don't kill kids because it's not lawful/customary/proper/ playing by the rules/what's done, generally. It also damages any sense of order; how are we supposed to know what's what when no one is spared?
NE: I don't kill kids because it's not my style. I dunno, I just don't feel it's appropriate. I can be eeevil and have some compassion, right? And sometimes it's a bit awkward with the authorities, which can matter from time to time.
CE: I don't kill kids because... I don't feel like. That's right; YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
I don't think that ethical codes for villains are an LE vs. CE thing; the motivation for those codes is LE vs. CE.
CyberSpyder
First Post
ruleslawyer said:
Both of these, to me, sound like Lawful Evil masquerading itself as Neutral and Chaotic, respectively. If someone (almost) always refrains from doing something, even when it would be to his advantage, it would seem likely that he has a code against doing that thing - which is a very Lawful thing to have.
Trickstergod
First Post
CyberSpyder said:
A personal code needn't necessarily be Lawful; after all, it's personal. Individualistic. A personal sense of honor that doesn't necessarily correspond to what society generally expects of honor is an appropriately Neutral or Chaotic code. To a degree, I'd say Neutral or Chaotic individuals can, potentially, have a stronger code of honor, because they'd be unwilling to compromise it for the sake of others, whereas a Lawful individual is more likely to bend towards conforming.
I'm reminded of a short parable in a book I read:
It was about a dutiful soldier. He loved his family. He had many friends. He was never cruel to animals. He was not greedy, selfish, or proud. But if he saw one flaw in himself, it was that he was not as emotionless in fullfilling his duties as an SS officer as he should be, his stomach sometimes fluttered when dealing with the Judenrats.
If you rule out twisted morality from "Evil" then you're missing out of a big part of what evil is. Most widespread evil on this world was conducted by people who thought they were doing the right thing; they just have to "deal" with those traitors to the revolution, they need to restore the "right" morals to country, they want their nation to reclaim it's rightful place and honor, they need to put down the heretics who are endangering the people's souls, they want to prevent those rebels from otherthrowing the rightful king, etc, etc, etc. Beyond just having compunctions, this brand of evil might see killing children as "evil" but believe their own actions are right and just.
So, of course, there's evil that will spare children. There's also evil that will step infront of a bullet to save a child.
It was about a dutiful soldier. He loved his family. He had many friends. He was never cruel to animals. He was not greedy, selfish, or proud. But if he saw one flaw in himself, it was that he was not as emotionless in fullfilling his duties as an SS officer as he should be, his stomach sometimes fluttered when dealing with the Judenrats.
If you rule out twisted morality from "Evil" then you're missing out of a big part of what evil is. Most widespread evil on this world was conducted by people who thought they were doing the right thing; they just have to "deal" with those traitors to the revolution, they need to restore the "right" morals to country, they want their nation to reclaim it's rightful place and honor, they need to put down the heretics who are endangering the people's souls, they want to prevent those rebels from otherthrowing the rightful king, etc, etc, etc. Beyond just having compunctions, this brand of evil might see killing children as "evil" but believe their own actions are right and just.
So, of course, there's evil that will spare children. There's also evil that will step infront of a bullet to save a child.
Similar Threads
