The most VILE Evil!

[The Serge]

I've been thinking about this since a huge debate we had on what distinguishes CE from NE from LE on one of the many Book of Vile Darkness threads. It was a great debate, but probably many people didn't get involved because of the thread's length (10 pages).

You will notice that the poll does not allow the usual "It depends on how it's used" option I tend to offer in my polls. I want this one to a discussion in which a participants have to chose one position. Yes, I know that can be difficult, but let's see what happens.

What is the most Vile Evil. Which evil is the most dangerous? I am leaving what I mean by dangerous in the air. While I'm more interested in hearing opinions, I would love to see an intelligent debate eventually (by intelligent, I mean no personal attacks... among other things).

Thanks!

 

[Seule]

Which is the most vile, and which is the most dangerous. Two different questions. I would argue that none of the three is inherently vile, that practitioners of all three alignments have the capacity to be vile. Vileness is, as defined, evil. The reverse is not necessarily true. Evil of all three types also can be dangerous. I'll take the three in order.

Lawful Evil: Probably the most dangerous. It has the best ability to hide in a bureaucracy. Anyone who claims that they were just following orders is probably Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil also tends to be the most successful in the long term and on a grand scale. Vileness is usually not particularly common, as even these evil types follow codes of honour or laws, that prohibit the most vile acts, although institutionalized vileness is paryicularly terrifying. Dangerous, yes. Vile, no.

Chaotic Evil: Chaotic evil types tend to try to dominate through fear and violence, and this lends itself well to vile acts, thus inspiring terror. However, they tent to also have the hardest time hiding their evilness, and thus are, while individually very dangerous, not such a threat overall, or on the same scale.
Vile, yes. Dangerous, not so much.

Neutral Evil: These types are somewhere between the other two. Neither quite as dangerous as lawful evil types, nor quite as vile (usually) as the worst CE types, they nonetheless can be very good at both. Dangerous, moderately. Vile, moderately.

I personally assumed you intended to ask mostly about vileness, and answered CE on the poll.

--Seule

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

IMO, Lawful Evil is the most vile because it is much easier to disguise as good. Many people seem to equate Lawful with Good anyway (or have confusion about which is which). A Lawful Evil character uses the rules of society, which are, generally, designed to benefit the group, and twists them to their own ends. That's a perversion of intent that strikes me as much more vile than other forms of evil.

But then, I imagine we're all going to be defining "vile" differently.

 

[FriendlyFiend]

Got to be Neutral Evil for me: the Lawful character will tend to be bound into some kind of hierarchy and/or need to act within societal norms thus constraining their ability to act swiftly and independently as necessary, the Chaotic character on the other hand will have difficulty working with others to further their ends and others are unlikely to place much trust in their reliability but the Neutral character can work either alone or within a hierarchy, keep to the law or ignore it, honour their bond or betray their fellows as they desire. That's why, for me at least, the daemons (yugoloths) were the highlight of the 1e/2e lower planar baddies - flexible, clever and the true embodiment of evil.

Well, that's my two penn'orth.

 

[The Serge]

Lawful Evil: Probably the most dangerous. It has the best ability to hide in a bureaucracy. Anyone who claims that they were just following orders is probably Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil also tends to be the most successful in the long term and on a grand scale. Vileness is usually not particularly common, as even these evil types follow codes of honour or laws, that prohibit the most vile acts, although institutionalized vileness is paryicularly terrifying. Dangerous, yes. Vile, no.

Excellent points. However, I think that state-sanctioned genocide, torture, and the like are pretty vile, and each of these are tenants of LE...

I personally assumed you intended to ask mostly about vileness, and answered CE on the poll.

--Seule

No, that's not my vote, but I'll wait for more conversation before entering my position. Thanks for your insight!

 

[reveal]

I voted Lawful Evil. I think they're the worst because they sit behind the scenes and politic. They control others, willingly or unwillingly, into doing and saying what they want them to do or say.

Kinda like Dick Cheney does with Gee Dubya...

 

[The Serge]

Got to be Neutral Evil for me.... That's why, for me at least, the daemons (yugoloths) were the highlight of the 1e/2e lower planar baddies - flexible, clever and the true embodiment of evil.

Interesting points. However, isn't Neutral Evil the epitome of selfishness, lies, and meaninglessness? Afterall, there is no overarching ideal guiding the evil (Chaos or Law)....

Good points!

 

[Zappo]

I voted Chaotic Evil, because they do the most repulsive things. You know, the kind of stuff that people thought would be in the BoVD up until a few days ago.

If I had to vote on the most dangerous, it would be Lawful Evil. At least you know that a tanar'ri will try to kill you.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...That's why, for me at least, the daemons (yugoloths) were the highlight of the 1e/2e lower planar baddies - flexible, clever and the true embodiment of evil.

Well, that's my two penn'orth.

A little planar commentary...

But the yogoloth never actually DO anything. Oh, sure, they screw over the other fiends pretty regularly. There's lots of "but what are the yugoloth really up to?" but none of it comes to anything. Selfish, deceitful, and nihilistic does not an impressive danger make.

The tanar'ri are a bit more frightening on account of their tendency to make snacks out of people at random. But what do they actually do? Well, they've got succubi and such to tempt mortals to evil. Oh, yeah, real challenge there. And they kill things real good. Well, any berk with a sword can pull that off. And they spend so much time fighting with each other that they fail to take advantage of their infinitely superior numbers to really take the war to the baa'tezu. Eh, they don't worry me.

Now the baa'tezu, those are some scary bashers. Not only can they rip your spine out through your nose as well as a tanar'ri, but they can lawyer you into a corner first. How many sods have found themselves on the short end of what they thought was a perfectly straight deal with the devils? Not only that, but they hold their own against the vastly superior forces of the tanar'ri.

Personally, while I hope the Blood War goes on until the Great Wheel stops turning, if it does end, I sure hope the baa'tezu aren't the winners. They'd have the rest of the multiverse tied up in a nice pretty package before the rest of us finished saying, "Whaddaya mean the piking Blood War's over?!"

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Generally, I'd say Chaotic Evil would be the one with the "most" vileness associated to it, while Lawful Evil would have the least. Generally, Lawful Evils would use "vileness" to achieve an end or specific goal. Neutral Evil (which I most often associate to despairity and gloom more than pro-active evil, although I also consider it the most Evil) would also use for as a means, but would have a wider degree of goals and thus further application of such things.

Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, would revel in vileness for that purpose alone, enjoying the pain, misery and suffering of their victims, rejoicing in bloodlust (and other nasty lusts), and enjoying the blatant display of power.

All this, of course, in my own opinion and simply how I generally always have portrayed these alignments.