This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Korbl: "How, exactly, these folk have unanimously embraced one ethos (especially one so detrimental to the survival of the group), when humans have been known to kill each other over how many fingers are used in a ritual blessing" -er.. well, seeing as how the trope title (at least) is from D&D, and D&D really has no real definition of Chaotic... (seriously, go read the descriptions for Law and Chaos and then tell me either them mean a damned thing), interpretation of chaos comes into play here... the only one that's ever made sense to me (chaos doesn't care about what code you live by, whereas a lawful character thinks everyone should live by their code) actually supports civilizations relatively well... especially evil ones...
-Z-: "...disastrous and confusing lore trainwreck." like all of fourth edition, yeah?
Ununnilium: ...you know, what the elves look like really has nothing to do with this trope.
Seth: I got the point but it was a little buried. (I always figured Dark Elves for a kind of Evil Costume Switch with High Elves anyway.)
Semiapies: I don't agree with the description of the Undead ("Forsaken") in World of Warcraft as "Chaotic Good". They hate the Scourge, but they range from bitter to merrily sinister, and you end up doing a lot of rather evil quests. I mean, they're not the Blood Elves, but still. ;)
Seth: I would call them chaotic neutral. They dont care what they do not because there evil they just have no sense of morality. Good or evil they dont care so long as they are separated from the scourge.
Boobah: Isn't doing what benefits you without caring a whit about the consequences to others pretty much the definition of evil? The Foresaken are pretty much the Scourge without the Lich King dominated Hive Mind. One of the longer quest series in the game is helping the undead come up with a plague to grant undeath to the rest of the planet. Heck, having the Foresaken and Sin'dorei on the same faction is the biggest reason to consider the Horde side the bad guys.
Inyssius: Boobah is in the right here (I think); that is basically how D&D defines evil (and we're using their system for the purposes of this article).
Nezumi: The Forsaken qualify as evil under D&D, I suppose... but the real issue is rather more complicated than that. True, they do want to start a second undead plague, but their reasons for it are different. They just want to be allowed to live... but even their Horde allies dislike and distrust them (with the exception of the Blood Elves, who genuinely get along with them due to Sylvanas' role with the High Elves prior to their fall and her becoming the first banshee), and the Alliance races outright refuse to make a distinction between them and the Scourge and destroy them on sight. They want to turn the rest of the world into more undead because it seems like that's the only way they'll be allowed to continue existing. Also, regarding the Eredar, it's arguable, that although the method of getting to it was a huge, messy lore trainwreck that should never have happened, the end result is worthwhile for making the Eredar more distinct from the Nathrezim, which originally had much the same role in the conversion of Sargeras to the Big Bad.
Calling the Horde evil huh. Lets look at the Aliance. Alliance was the one who broke the treatyin the first place. It was the intention of Kul'tiras to start a genocidal campaign to kill all Horde. The actions of a few don't dictate an entire race. Otherwise humans would be listed as evil
Nezumi: The anonymous poster has a point. In light of that, the Blood Elves aren't necessarily evil, either. Some of them definitely are—siding with Illidan or the Burning Legion simply for power or an easy fix for their magic addiction—but another portion are merely doing what they have to to survive in the face of adversity and rejection by the Alliance, and many of these would likely be horrified at the extremes some of the others of their kind have gone to to deal with it... and this is the portion of the Blood Elves the playable Blood Elves come from.
Seven Seals: UGH. Not being steeped in World Of Warcraft lore, I'd have to say that Warcraft is definitely the messiest example of the trope. One minute a race is Always Chaotic Evil, the next moment it isn't, and then it's because they were brainwashed by another race who actually are Always Chaotic Evil, OR ARE THEY? I propose we do not try to sort everything out in excruciating detail. The page is just supposed to give convincing examples, not be the definite guide to Warcraft canon for the sake of things.
Note Chaotic and lawful alignments don't really exist in the warcraft universe.
The high elf section sounds weird as they were never close allies to the humans and blood elves are only doing what they can to survive. Kael who went from a well intentioned to extremist who cared about his people to a machiavellian lunatic who betrays his people is a better example of character derailment.. Zarnks
Composite: I suppose the conclusion is Warcraft both subverts and utilises this trope, by constantly coming up with new evil races, and subsequently showing them as not being unifiably evil.
lumber_of_the_beast: I would like to take this opportunity to point out that having understandable motivations for being an evil bastard does not make one any less of an evil bastard. The Forsaken's wanting to kill everyone is still evil, particularly when they could actually be seeking out a cure, rather than lying and saying they are.
Arnen: I noticed that Warcraft's Naga were listed as an example. However, they were actually Night Elves who chose the "evil side" and were changed, by magic, into a new race... so technically, they were evil before they were a race.
Fast Eddie: pulled natter
- This editor would like to note that JK seems to have forgotten the "not all Slytherins are inherently evil" message when she wrote the last book, making it painfully clear that no Slytherin student would want to fight in the final battle against Voldemort, and that if he/she DID, that person could clearly not be trusted. (not bitter... not at all.)
- However, It was only the upper class that was allowed to stay and fight, so that's only a sample of 10 students, pretty much all of which we already know. So it might be a bit justified.
- This editor would like to note that JK seems to have forgotten the "not all Slytherins are inherently evil" message when she wrote the last book, making it painfully clear that no Slytherin student would want to fight in the final battle against Voldemort, and that if he/she DID, that person could clearly not be trusted. (not bitter... not at all.)
- Actually, JKR later said in an interview that she intended some of the Slytherins to return to battle bringing much-needed reinforcements from the nearby village (at the point where the book mentions Charlie Weasley and Professor Slughorn). Unfortunately, the relevant wording is by no means clear enough to indicate this to the reader unless he/she was looking for it. Sloppy editing claims another victim, presumably.
Peteman: Can someone tell me how to get the Ilwrath conversation? I really want to see what they have to say.
It's possible that Tonks (perhaps even Sirius) was a Slytherin, given the family history and both characters' intellect.
Ophicius: It's mentioned in the books that Sirius was a Gryffindor - the first of his family to not be in Slytherin. And according to Word of God, Tonks was a Hufflepuff.
Bob: The Joker is always Chaotic Evil, but it's not what the article is about.
- The Joker (of the Batman comics fame)is typically portrayed this way. He basically exists for wanton destruction and death, and loves every minute of it. Pretty much ANY kind of redeeming feature we have been shown have been mere personality quirks (which he seems to pick and choose daily), or just a result of his chaotic nature.
Danel: Regardless of the arguments here or there and about what not: SLYTHERINS ARE NOT A RACE.
- In Harry Potter, Dumbledore's suggestion that Harry has many Slytherin qualities seems objectively positive. Rowling also claims that while most Dark wizards are Slytherins, most Slytherins are not Dark, and smaller groups of Voldemort's supporters are aligned with other Houses. This doesn't change the fact every single student, and near everything we know about Slytherins is presented as scheming, creepy and profoundly negative. In the entire series, only two avowed Slytherins side with the heroes. Horace Slughorn from The Half-Blood Prince, amiable as he is, is also a schemer who surrounds himself with a wall of "friends". You almost wonder if they're lumped together to keep an eye on them (a la this Sluggy strip
). Conversely, Severus Snape is actually truly on the side of good for the entirety of the series, despite his negative appearance, unquestionable commitment to house Slytherin, and generally being a Jerkass. Lastly, one or two Death Eaters defect when they realize exactly how much of a monster their master is, and with one exception this troper can't think of a Death Eater who's not a Slytherin.
- Wormtail was apparently a Gryffindor. As the single most cowardly character in the series, This Troper wonders how he got in.
Listmaker: I'd just like to point out that the Planescape example is not quite right. A'kin, the so-called Friendly Fiend, is actually {Neutral Evil} (its even right there in his NPC stat block in [u]Uncaged: Faces of Sigil[/u]). Sure he's friendly, helpful, and personable, but this all to further the goals of the yugoloths. He's also the writer of the Factol's Manifesto, which caused a lot of problems for Sigil's various factions.
- It's worth noting that Tolkien started writing the books during
World War 2World War 1, so the notion of a race or country that's just plain badlikely came from Nazi Germanyis still a mystery. - Though Tolkien himself adamantly denied that he had any analogies or allegories in mind when he wrote The Lord of the Rings.
- If we're to believe the "Lord of the Rings is about industrial society" theory, wouldn't Orc-kind be the poor slave-wage laborers and propaganda-ized soldiers?
- It's worth noting that Tolkien started writing the books during
- The book consistently refers to the Orcs as being "spawned" rather than born — hence the scene in the film, no doubt. However the book makes it clear that Orcs breed. A goblin child is mentioned by Gollum in the Hobbit and the book itself says Orcs reproduce like Men and Elves.
Conversation In The Main Page.
- In the Lord of the Rings prequel The Silmarillion and possibly also in the Lord of the Rings book, it is stated that the evil overlord Morgoth (to whom Sauron was only a lieutenant) created the first Orcs from enslaved Elves that were tortured and warped into this horrendous form. The movie mentions this briefly.
If I remember correctly, he considered the idea but didn't put it into the books.
It's mentioned in LOTR: ""Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves." This doesn't specify whether they were made *from* Elves or from something else to look like Elves, though. The Silmarillion actually does mention the tortured-elves origin, but only as what the Elves believed Orcs came from, not as authorial-omniscient-voice.
Tolkien considered:
-Orcs as living creations of Melkor (the original explanation): this was abandoned when Tolkien decided that Melkor couldn't create life.
-Orcs as pure constructions, animated by a sliver of the power of Melkor, and totally without free will. Tolkien abandoned this (mostly, anyway) because he wanted the orcs to be really independent creatures.
-Orcs as animals, made intelligent enough to talk and use technology by Melkor, but still without a soul or real free will.
-Orcs as corrupted Elves.
-Orcs as corrupted Men. This seems to have been Tolkien's final decision (for the origins of most Orcs), but he never made the revisions to the Silmarillion storyline that would be required (since, as written, Orcs existed thousands of years before Men.)
-Orcs as fallen Maiar (=lesser angelic/divine spirits), like the Balrogs. Tolkien seems to have kept this idea, but it only applied to a tiny minority: the most powerful leaders of the Orcs.
Removed this:
- In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, we have a race which is Always Lawful Stupid, the callous and bureaucratic Vogons. Douglas Adams came up with a justification for this which was put into the movie; the Vogon homeworld is covered in plants that fly up and whack you in the face whenever you have an idea.
- Those were indigenous flora? I thought those were an instituted social control mechanism. In the book, the Vogons' primitive nature due to Evolution's disgust with the creatures as they crawled out of the oceans. Now the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax — they were about as evil as one could get in HGTTG.
- And ironically not nearly as dangerous as the amiable but misguided Krikkiters. Even if they were just cleaning up the Armorfiends' mess.
Vogons aren't evil or chaotic. They're pedantic bureaucrats who only care about getting tic marks in the right boxes.
Monsund:This trope just has to do with species that are always one antagonistic alignment. The Vogons fit as they're always Lawful Evil or Lawful Stupid(take your pick). Infact we're thinking of renaming the trope to simply Always Evil.
Captain Crawdad: The description should specify that the race need only be antagonistic, not necessarily evil.
Kulsprutejojjo: Well technically half are the malevolent version of the Obstructive Bureaucrat while the other half serve as mooks who enjoy working for the said bureaucrats due to being a chance for them to be real assholes. So yes, this trope applies to them too. Oh, and to future editors using this trope thinking it has to do with Chaotic Evil in particular just because the name happens to be Always Chaotic Evil, read the trope describtion before editing away examples that don't fit the title. Despite the name, the article is about races which only has evil individuals, not specifically chaotic evil individuals. Seeing I can't seem to get enough support for a rename, thereby eliminating these confusions, this is the best thing I can do to keep the article clear.
Nifty Lost Kite: Should clowns be included in this list? I mean, the only two clown tropes are Monster Clown and Villainous Harlequin. By nature they are chaotic and they are almost never anything besides evil (subversions exist but are few enough). That has to count for something.
Kulsprutejojjo: Definitely not. Despite often being a source of Nightmare Fuel and thereby being portrayed as evil very often, it is far from uncommon to find good clowns in media, and even if they were always evil, it is still an occupation, not a race, therefore they would belong in Villain by Default instead of this article. As for Always Chaotic Evil races with clown motives, such as the titular villains in Killer Klowns From Outer Space, they may go here because it refers to the race.
