The most VILE Evil!

[Deadguy]

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?

Intuitvely, Canis, that's pretty much how I see it, so you are at least not alone in your opinion!

Indeed I broadly bear these definitions in mind when I am thinking about the actions of the Evil NPCs and organisations of my world.

Particularly at the organisational level, Lawful Evil wins out because it manages to remain structured and has an intuitive grasp of subverting the rule of law to its own ends. That makes them very dispiriting enemies as you say.

On the other hand, the Neutral Evil groups, whilst sometimes more disorganised and fragile, are definitely the most ruthless, opportunistic and just plain lethal to cross! 'No good deed goes unpunished' was made for these guys!

Finally, the Chaotic Evils find it hardest to coalesce into groups, and do so only according to the reach of their leaders. But they don't give a damn about any decency, or reasonableness in their actions, and they're the sort that burns down a village just because they can!

But definition is everything, 'tis true. And many won't accept these characterisations.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...And many won't accept these characterisations.

I know. That doesn't bother me. I want to hear everyone's opinions, not so I can straightjacket them into one definition, but so I can develop a feel for different "flavors" of evil. (amateur writer on the side, as if I wasn't busy enough with my stinkin' Ph.D. ).

I don't think the classic archetypes have the same power they did in the past, because social prejudices have changed, among other reasons. I'm inching my way towards building some "new" ideas about good and evil (new to me anyway). And threads like this make me sit up and take notice. What do different kinds of people find truly evil? What about their lives has made them decide that X is truly vile, but Y is just sort of nasty?

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night.

 

[bondetamp]

Lawful Evil craves structure and consistency in an orderly society. They might be a bit on the wrong side in their methods to achieve this goal, and they might be looking out for number one a tad more than they should, but, because of the Law aspect, one can find redeeming features within the ethos.

Chaotic Evil craves freedom and individuality. They hate rigid laws, oppressive rulers and people who wants to decide how they should lead their life. Because of the Chaos inherent in CE, redeeming features can be found.

Neutral Evil, on the other hand ...

(Of course, True Neutral is actually worse. They simply don't care enough to choose sides, letting evil build power until it is too late. Seeing as Neutral is the dominant alignment in the default setting, I'd say that it does more harm than the Evil guys do.)

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

(Of course, True Neutral is actually worse. They simply don't care enough to choose sides, letting evil build power until it is too late. Seeing as Neutral is the dominant alignment in the default setting, I'd say that it does more harm than the Evil guys do.)

A man after my own heart.

What say we knock some of those sissy weasels off their fences, eh?

 

[ladyofdragons]

(Of course, True Neutral is actually worse. They simply don't care enough to choose sides, letting evil build power until it is too late. Seeing as Neutral is the dominant alignment in the default setting, I'd say that it does more harm than the Evil guys do.)

I've always preferred the idea that there are three types of true neutral: those who, as you say, don't care enough to choose sides (sort of a lack of alignment more than anything, which is currently how the PHB describes it, but not how it used to be described in previous editions), animals who do not have alignments, and the third path which is kept by those who strive to keep the balance.

The third path is kept to by those who believe that evil must exist in order for us to understand good. i.e., if there were no rainy days, you'd never appreciate the sun. It does not suggest, however, to sit and watch while evil takes over. If evil took over, that would destroy the balance. It doesn't mean that you have to go to the extreme of switching sides in the middle of a battle, either. The balance and outcome of a single battle is trivial in the overall balance of good and evil in the world.

but I've just hijacked this thread. Back to discussing evilness.

 

[Al]

I would find Lawful Evil the most vile. Not simply because it is the most dangerous, methodical or efficient, but because of the fundamental nature of most classic Lawful Evil villains.

OPPRESSION
My first point is oppression. Nearly all lawful evil villains oppress their victims in some way or another. Granted, so do neutral and chaotic evil villains- but the difference is the scale and the approach. The scale is a by-product of the efficiency, but the sheer numbers are horrific (think the Holocaust). The approach is equally frightening. Their victims are not treated as real people, but merely pawns to exploit in order to achieve their goals. Even the neutral evils and chaotic evils have more empathy with their victims. The coldness of Lawful Evil is, whilst not gruesome, certainly vile. Continuing the example of the Holocaust, the referral to Jews as 'units' I found to be one of the most disturbing chapter of the whole vile episode.

SECRECY/JUSTIFICATION
This is split into two, because the two are mutually exclusive. Secrecy is 'vile' because whereas Chaotic Evils, and, to a lesser extent, Neutral Evils, are relatively easy to pinpoint, Lawful Evils weave a web of lies and intrigue to cover their tracks. The manipulation, backstabbing and falsehoods of Lawful Evil I find more of an affront than the axe-wielding maniac.
Justification is similar in motive but opposite in action. It means that Lawful Evils have the frequent tendency to 'justify' their actions through cheap demagoguery or masterful manipulation. They needn't hide their wickedness because they convince people what they are doing is good. For example, Robert Mugabe engages in a ruthless and brutal programme of land seizure under the guise of anti-imperialism and land reform.

CORRUPTION
Of all the evils, Lawful Evil stands the best chance to tempt, corrupt or pervert more to their cause. Neutral and Chaotic Evils rarely have to coherence, cohesion or conviction to convince more to join their cause: and those that they do managed to recruit are normally 'evil' (or at least selfish) in any case. The frightening aspect of Lawful Evil is that they can frequently persuade even those of 'good' alignment into either knowingly or unknowingly carrying out their goals, through deceit, persuasion, blackmail or a myriad other ways. The potential of a perversion of a good soul to evil I find particularly heinous.

So there we go: Oppression, Secrecy/Justification and Corruption. Three aspects of LE which I find the most vile of all. How can the psychopath and the bandit hope to compete?

 

[The Serge]

I forgot how intelligent and intellectual some of the folks on these boards are; had I remembered, I would have clarified what I meant by "vile." I would like to thank Canis and others for pointing out how the perception of that word can skew and/or impact the idea of evil.

However, I think that Al's comments (the one's preceeding mine) are the same precise reasons I believe that LE is the most dangerous and the most vile.

As Cain pointed out, there are various definitions associated with the word. I think that most, if not all of them, jive with the threat of Evil Al and I perceive LE to be. Perhaps the only component not immediately applicable would be the 3 and perhaps 4. Otherwise, I think LE takes the bulk of the options.

 

[Mercule]

Voted LE. I tend to think Law (capital 'L') is pretty vile by itself, so my vote's an easy one.

I also think it's the most dangerous. My reasons for both are pretty much the same. Lawful types are most likely to cover all their bases. That means that LE is the most likely to leave you no outs.