The most VILE Evil!

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...
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.

That sounds like a perfect description of visceral, in-your-face vileness. IMO, that kind of vileness doesn't stand up to the vileness of a non-evil idea twisted to evil ends.

To me, the first brings a purely visceral reaction. The second is the disheartening feeling of the corruption of something that had potential for good. A far worse, more vile, taste is left in my mouth by the latter.

 

[alsih2o]

lawfulness impies more intent and organization to me. thus i find it much more evil.

chatic evil may be spontaneous, poorly thought and thereby unintentional (not always but can be)

neutral evil is evil for evils sake

lawful evil is the kind you plot out, build for, and relish.

just my humblest of opinions

 

[Redleg06]

I stuck to just voting for vileness too, and I went with NE, because as alsih2o stated, NE is evil for evil's sake. In my view of the alignment world, one can be LE and actually think they are doing good (the Crusaders sacking Jerusalem in the name of "good" might be a good example).

But I think doing evil that one knows is evil, and then doing it just because is far more vile.

That's not to say that one cannot be LE or CE and still be pretty darn evil!

 

[Sejs]

(in my oppinion, of course)


Chaotic Evil is more 'vile'.


Lawful Evil is more dangerous.

 

[ladyofdragons]

I had to say Neutral Evil. To me neutral evil embodies the scariest types, the 'Hannibal Lechters' and such that are perfectly aware of the evil that they do, might even relish in it, but show no remorse. They're smooth and calculating, and can live within a society without calling attention to themselves.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm curious to see how people's vote on this poll maps to their definition of the word vile. As Umbran can attest if he's floating around, I'm having issues right now with the nature of definitions, and the propensity for disagreement that comes from differing definitions. So humor me, please.

I'm guessing that if you define Vile as the perverse, the disgusting (in short, as the stuff we were told was in the BoVD) you probably voted CE.

If Vile is just another word for very evil, you probably voted NE.

And if what really disgusts you is the methodical planning of evil and/or the twisting of a system to nefarious ends, you probably voted LE.

Am I half-way on target here? Or should I go back to the drawing board?

 

[Dragongirl]

Would have voted CE, but get an error. Actually I think the most VILE evil is creating another thread about vile evil.

 

[Redleg06]

I'm having issues right now with the nature of definitions, and the propensity for disagreement that comes from differing definitions. So humor me, please.

This is NOT sarchasm. Have you looked in a dictionary? The only reason I say that is it gives some comminality / consistancy to said issue.

You could go round in circles for ever over how one exactly defines "good" or "evil". You just have to try to focus on a common definition, or the spirit / intent of the thread.

Unless the thread has meandered to, oh say, Drow (hee hee)

( I think I am a sort of vile Chaotic Neutral )

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

This is NOT sarchasm. Have you looked in a dictionary? The only reason I say that is it gives some comminality / consistancy to said issue.

You could go round in circles for ever over how one exactly defines "good" or "evil". You just have to try to focus on a common definition, or the spirit / intent of the thread.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. We all have different "definitions" of the word vile. Looking in a dictionary isn't going to change that, because a) there are often multiple definitions in the silly thing and b) most people will accept the dictionary definition, but the connotations the word carries to them skew it to the point that there's very little commonality left.

So, here's the dictionary definition...

vile:
1) Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2) Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather.
3) a) Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b) Of mean or low condition.
4) Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5) Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.

Alright, let's assume we all agreed that 1) Loathsome; disgusting was the definition that we agreed on. Alright, what do you find loathsome and disgusting? I bet it's not exactly the same thing that I do, or that ladyofdragons does. So now we have to define our terms again...

Loathsome: Arousing loathing; abhorrent. Synonyms: offensive

Well, that didn't get us anywhere at all. "Offensive"? That's defined entirely by where you stand. "Abhorrent"? As in viscerally repulsive, or morally repulsive? Are those the same thing? Not always.

So, I don't think we're really capable of comonality in defining our terms in any way that we'll all agree with on charged issues like this.

That's why I was "polling the poll" so to speak, just to see how definitions matched up to responses. I don't want to argue about it, I just want to see if there are correspondences.

I'm actually beginning to suspect that there won't be, but now I've gone and contaminated the test.

I tend to agree with the other thread in that arguing about the nature of evil is pointless, I think it's interesting to hear what other people think of as truly evil. Gives me perspective. Especially considering how extreme my views tend to be on the subject.

 

[Redleg06]

I tend to agree with the other thread in that arguing about the nature of evil is pointless [/B]

I actually prefer the term Intense Discussion .