This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: proposal: split Character Alignment: From YKTTW
Jester Removed some obviously Neutral Evil examples (that is, the ones where even the description given by the troper who added them doesn't indicate their Chaoticness in any way whatsoever, like Aaron from Titus Andronicus), and changed the text of some examples so they show the Chaotic Evil-ness of the character, not just that they're "really really evil."
Suggestion: remove the 'bottom of the morality barrel' line. It's nice and poetic and comes straight from the Character Alignment page, but all it does is encourage people to clog this page up with Neutral Evil and Evil Stupid examples in the mistaken belief that Chaotic Evil just means very evil.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Removed it. I also moved Bender, because he's definitely Neutral Evil.
Kerrah: Removed
- Sargeras, the Satan-like entity of the Warcraft universe, is an Ex-Lawful Good titan who helped to shape the worlds. After fighting the vaguely Lovecraftian "Old Gods", he decides an ordered universe is doomed to failure and sets about creating an army to destroy all of creation.
Also: Sargeras has never fought the Old Gods. Misinformation is bad.
Wascally Wabbit: Removed Dalek referance as they are also under Lawful Evil....
Kerrah: New picture is too large. TOO LARGE!
Danel: I've never quite understood why it is that Chaotic Evil always seems to be kicked all the way up to eleven. A chaotic good character is one concerned with freedom and stuff... so why can't a Chaotic Evil character just be one who's entirely concerned with their own personal freedom, seeking to be constrained neither by concerns of morality or of law? Instead, they have to be Axe-Crazy Omnicidal Maniacs.
- The "amoral, free-spirit" description rather fits the Chaotic Neutral alignement. What mekes the difference between the CN and te CE is that the second one is, well, Evil. But I agree that this shouldn't always mean Stupid Evil.
Suggestion: Does Two-Face fit here? This troper tends to think of him as (depending on the story and writer) Lawful Evil or even True Neutral. The core of his character is that whatever the coin-toss says, he does. It's a personal law/compulsion that he never breaks in canon. This I think would make him Lawful Evil. He even has True Neutral qualities if the coin-toss results in him performing good actions.
Nobodymuch: Two-Face is certainly not Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil people make plans and stick to them, changing them only in response to previously unknown information. They don't change course based on a whim-driven coin toss. And he isn't True Neutral. While he may make moral decisions based on coin tosses, his choices tend to be between moderately bad actions and extremely bad actions. (I.E. Will I commit a robbery, or will I commit a robbery-murder?)
Not necessarily, especially in The Dark Knight, where he frequently leaves life or death up to the coin toss, which would be considered a good/bad scenario, not a bad/bad scenario. I would agree that he follows the Law of Chance (if such a law exists), although he also works around his self-imposed law (for instance, in The Dark Knight, even though the mob boss gets heads and is allowed his life, Harvey shoots his driver without hesitation though the ensuing crash might well kill the mob boss...perhaps he was even counting on it). This, however, might be due to writer interpretation and perhaps the comic version was purely Chaotic.
Charred Knight: a person concerned with personal freedom is Chaotic Neutral.
Stars: In this troper's opinion, Two Face is, when written properly, Chaotic Neutral. He's done both good things and bad things, all based on the random coin-flip. You can make a case for him being Lawful Neutral (his one law is what the coin tells him to do) or True Neutral (he's done both good and bad things based on his coin-flip) but there is no way you can say he's chaotic evil because he does have SOME method to his madness.
Skyblade: Two Face is neutral evil. Compare the scene in The Dark Knight when Harvey has the Joker at gun point. Harvey goes to the coin flip because he's indecisive. He wants to abscond personal responsibility—get all the satisfaction of committing evil, but rationalize it, saying he left it up to chance. The Joker is willing to go with the coin toss because he's like "You know, this is the single most fucked up thing I can do! Nobody would see it coming." The Joker embraces it, Dent resigns himself to it. Besides, one thing you have to remember is—the coin toss isn't chaos, it's chance. There are only two possible outcomes which, in theory, have an equal opportunity of happening. That Dent kind of ends up stacking the deck/finding a loophole pretty much signifies he's not as devout in it as he likes to claim. He just wants to create rationalizations for himself.
Guesss Who: I would say that Two-Face is both Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good—thus averaging out to True Neutral.
Trogga: How exactly is For the Evulz not related to Chaotic Evil, but Well-Intentioned Extremist (which seems more like Lawful Evil) is?
Monsund:Doing pointlessly cruel things is something all Evil alignments like to do. Well Intentioned Extremists are the chaotic counterpart to the lawful Knight Templar. An example being Chaotic Evil Terrorists thinking they are Chaotic Good fighting against an Lawful Evil Goverment.
Woldoor: If they were pointlessly cruel things than wouldn't that fit Chaotic Evil (the act, not necessarily the villain commiting the act)? For the Evulz is an underlying motivation behind one's villainy in general, not necessarily an act used to demonstrate one's evil like Kick the Dog or Villain Ball. It seems to fit Chaotic Evil quite well.
Monsund:Lots of Villains of all alignments have no motive whatsoever. A Lawful Evil Villain being motivated by his hatred of freedom, a Neutral Evil being pure hedonists . It isn't specific enough to Chaotic Evil.
Taelor: Removed Gregor Clegane, as he's actually closer to Neutral Evil. From what we can gather about him, his motives seem to be as follows: 1)Kill anyone who pisses him off; 2)Kill anyone who get in the way of him killing people who piss him off; 3)Get paid to do the above. The fact that what he does results in murder and mayhem is entirely irrelevant to him. In order to qualify for this trope, a character has to actively seek to create chaos and destruction in their actions; just wanting to kill people you don't like isn't enough for this alignment.
Taelor: Moved Victor to Neutral Evil, as he isn't particularly Chaotic, at leas not in the DnD sense. His primary motivation is his own personal vendetta against Carla, not creating anarchy and mayhem for the sake of creating anarchy and mayhem.
Sir Psycho Sexy: I have a question: Why is Sensui here? He's more properly Lawful Evil, since there's most definitely a method to his madness, even though he planned on killing all humans. Plus he did it all for Suicide by Cop.
But the thing is, having a method for his madness or even an ultimate goal(that isn't simply killing people for no reason) does not make him Lawfulevil, just ultimately a smart Chaotic Evil character with an stereotypically unusual goal. Chaotic Evil does not mean mindless killing, being crazy(though some can be) nor incapable of of intelligent planning. I admit I know nothing about this Sensui guy, but based on the description above, he definetly fits Chaotic Evil. Unless I'm wrong, Sensui seems to be an guy who believes he has the right to do whatever he feels like, fitting the definition of Chaotic Neutral if he weren't, well, evil. Whereas a Lawful Evil character believes in some sort of law, and their intelligence can range from being very smart to a total idiot-Sovvil
Filby: The Crowley quote is more Chaotic Neutral than evil, IMO. Pulling it.
Marikina: I think Ali Al-Saachez is more of Neutral Evil rather than Chaotic Evil. Yes, he lives a life devoted to war and conflict and derives some sense of enjoyment and pleasure from it, but more often than not he treats the whole thing like a business that one can make a lot of profit from, rather than seeing the joy and pleasure of warfare as an end in itself. He has no problems being subservient to others if it serves his interests (Ribbons), but would turn on them if necessary (Moralia).
Jordan: I've been thinking about that, and I'd agree- compared to many of the other Sociopathic Soldier characters in anime, Ali is definitely one of the more reliable/stable of the bunch (if no less evil). Most of the others would (and do) kill their co-workers and superiors on a whim, but as noted, Ali is loyal to Ribbons.
-Also, I admit to not watching the show, but that Baltar example doesn't seem to fit this. Someone who is completely selfish and discards others to serve their own interests seems like a really perfect example of Neutral Evil. Could anyone who has seen the show comment on whether he deserves to be on this page rather than Neutral Evil?
Some New Guy: Alright, I can't say anything about the other stuff removed, but Jeremy, Karikeya and Zagi definitely qualify for this. Hell, Zagi could be argued as the poster boy for this alignment.
