What's Happening

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: proposal: split Character Alignment: From YKTTW

Austin: I object to Xykon being placed here. By a wide margin, most of his actions are chaotic evil. The D&D sourcebooks I've read make it clear that the alignments are not absolutes, and that characters can take actions that seem to go against their regular alignment. Being chaotic does not mean a character can't scheme, and alignments are decided on how a character acts the majority of the time.

Sovvil: What, how does scheming exactly go against being Chaotic? Remember, Chaotic Evil =/= Stupid Evil, after all.

Eponymous Kid: As much as I'd prefer the Big Bad not be Chaotic Evil just once, I might have to agree. If the difference between Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil is that Chaotic Evil chatacters don't care, then that's definitely Xykon. He's too powerful to face any consequences for anything he does, he has no reason to care.

Razide: I object to Emperor Palpatine being placed here. I'd say he's the embodiment of Lawful Evil, in that he worked within the system to rise to the top, then manipulated it to create a new system in which he had absolute power. Being lawful doesn't mean that you can't change and adapt to new situations, and even if it's true that the only real law is "don't piss off the emperor," the fact remains that he enforces his will through a galactic police state.

Man Without A Body: Pulled this quote, because, aside from the fact that both characters are evil, it has naught to do with the trope.
Palpatine: "The Dark Side of the Force is a path to powers some consider to be unnatural."
Anakin Skywalker: "Is it possible to learn this power?"
Palpatine: "...not from a Jedi."
-Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith

The BST: Above all, Palpatine is a selfish schemer. Darth Vader talks about 'bringing order to the galaxy', Palpatine is only interested in power and has no sense of honour. Sounds like Neutral Evil through and through to me.

Lord Seth: I'm going to third that Xykon doesn't belong here. As someone in the Giant In The Playground forums pointed out, doing planning is not necessarily antithetical to being Chaotic (which is the only reason presented for him being NE). Other Chaotic characters (like, say, Haley) have planned things out. Most importantly, if Xykon was Neutral Evil, he wouldn't be killing off his henchmen just for fun. (a Neutral Evil person would only be killing them off if it suited their purposes, such as keeping the rest in line or punishing disobedience)

T Beholder: That would be Lawful Evil. Still, non-Chaotic could easily pick among his subjects The Un Favourite to torture or kill, but not as likely to off some random henchmen both suddenly and just for lulz. As to the "planning" part — well, typical drow tend to be rather competent schemers...

Bob!: Can we get a better image? Or the same one with a differently colored text?

Grimace: I'm assuming this was written before the Master gave this trope his approval? >;~D

Taelor: The image for this page fails to illustrate this trope. I have no idea who this Master person is, or why he aproves of this alignment. Can we try picking an image that's actually meaningful outside of context.

T Beholder: Yeah, neither shows "Neutral" nor even "Evil" part. Let's try this one, it seems to be a bit more relevant.

Storm: I actually like this one the most of what I've seen:

Taelor: I like this one as well.

Storm: Plus, hate to be picky, but the one T Beholder posted has a grammatical error. :P

T Beholder: That's fun, too. But llbbl's one shows neutral component better.

Count Dorku: Torture isn't inherently neutral - Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil people torture too.

T Beholder: Point is that this case is a bit too pre-planned and monotonous for Chaotic Evil and a bit too gleeful and not directly motivated ("...for disobeying Evil Lord!") for Lawful Evil.

Storm: Well, whatever the case may be, I'm in favor of removing the Master picture regardless. All in favor?

The BST: Leave it, it's fine. Plus of the two alternatives proposed, the first is a really obscure reference and the other is a spoiler.

Storm: Speaking of LOST, I'm in favor of removing Sawyer. I'd say he's pretty firmly Chaotic Neutral until season four where he's fairly Chaotic Good (or at least given a stroke of Honor Before Reason). The only thing he's ever done that's all that evil is his gun hoarding ploy in season two, and it's not like characters in this show don't do morally ambiguous things. I don't really care if the quote stays or goes, though, unless we find a better one.

Havoc0925: I just don't get this entire trope. There seems to be too many definitions of what a "Neutral Evil" character can be. Does merely following a evil villain make one Neutral Evil? Even if it is a entirely reasonable and understandable reason such as revenge for the death of loved ones? We need some more clarification on the meaning or definition of this trope and not just a smorgasbord of different definitions. Maybe it is just me disagreeing with the trope's claim that the worst kind of evil is evil without consistent rules or principles that only acts in self-interest. A worse kind of evil would be Cosmic Horror.

An example is Religion of Evil which fits in the Chaotic Evil section on the Character Alignment page instead of the Neutral Evil page. I am not saying which one is right but both cannot be correct. Looking at both pages, it looks like the Neutral Evil page is the page that is cluttered and confusing.
Hareoic: As I've already argued on the True Neutral page, Bernkastel of Umineko no Naku Koro ni should be removed from the True Neutral listing and put here instead, as it is more befitting of her character (though I'm loathe to say why, as it would spoil a lot of people)

Unknown Troper: Pulled the Prototype example. The player's actions while controlling Mercer do not necessarily reflect the character's actual morals. He is much more of a True Neutral character, anyway, judging by how he acts outside of the player's control.

I'm just interested to know, but isn't the Barnum Chaotic instead of Neutral Evil? I mean, which sounds more like the Barnum? Chaotic Evil;
These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible...The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited...People are play-things to the chaotic evil, to be used and manipulated for their own personal pleasure...The chaotic evil being seeks personal freedom at the expense of those who aren't smart, capable, or ruthless enough to get what they want...If what this being wants will come only at the price of the freedom and happiness (not to mention the lives) of others, so be it

Or Neutral Evil;
Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own...Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain...If the neutral evil can use laws to weaken those who stand in the way of his success, he will use them...

So does the Barnum, in conclusion, sound like a pragmatic, selfish Neutral Evil character or a Chaotic Evil character who belives he has the right to trick those that are too stupid to keep their money safely? Remember, just because you aren't necessarily killing people doesn't mean you can't be Chaotic Evil.