Discussion Main / NeutralEvil

In a video game? What do mean?

Considering he is the hero, not just thinks he is, I'm going with "Hell no" on this one.

Naruto? Evil? HA HA HA—No.

@Some New Guy: Being the hero does not preclude being evil. And he's less hero than protagonist.

@Nithael: Very thorough argument you got there.

He's a shonen protagonist. They solve their problems with violence because that's all he's good at.

But he pretty much is The Messiah. He's The Hero, through and through. And an exaggerated sense of self-worth? Early on, he didn't even have that, he wanted self-worth and was willing to work to earn it. And by the end? Any feelings of worth he has are valid considering his obscene power which he puts solely towards doing what he thinks is best.

The worst thing you can say about him (other than he's dull) is that he is often blinded by his personal problems over seeing the big picture. But that's less "Neutral Evil" and more... human.

Reading the page's history, the old Kino example not mentions the "kill people for gathering information" part.

It was poorly written, I admit. But any sane person should agree with Kino being evil, therefore they should have just laid out the facts better rather than remove the whole entry.

Anyway I will not allow any freely editable page in the Internet to exist which actively claims Light is evil and actively denies Kino being evil as well. I have had really emotionally loaded quarrels about this with a certain person and I am not giving up to hypocritical brainless masses thinking killing is "sometimes" okay.

Please remember, folks, that assigning alignments to characters where it's not canonical is always subjective.

Also, lumikko, do us a favor and drop the emotionally loaded hyperbole.

Sorry about that. But I know this one person. Her conception of what/who is evil and who/what is not boils down to what/who she personally likes or doesn't (she doesn't seem to differentiate between the concepts of "not evil" and "good" either). For real life views she's a supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars among other things, again deciding solely on the like/do not like base. It bugs me, then, that people here seem to generally agree with this person, who is clearly totally amoral, possibly a Narcissist, in what/who is evil. And I finally found a loophole in her logic to prove my point. That's Kino. Especially contrasting Kino with Light Yagami. I am not giving up my chance to prove her a total amoral bastard. I don't believe the entire Internet could possibly be in agreement with her (though even if it so happens that still proves nothing about ethics).

If you knew someone like this (and if it so happened they were your ex and one of the reasons of your breakup was constant arguing about ethics) you would feel the same.

But I'm not talking about this just to rant about her (it doesn't belong here), but to bring up the comparison between Kino and Light, as well as the issue of deciding who's evil based on who you don't like, which is just wrong.

Anyway, comparison: (*)Both are ready to kill and let die to achieve their goal. In Kino's case, that's purely self-centered: to know the world. In Light's case, that's realizing his vision of ideal society, which you can't deny having at least some non-self-centered qualities (*)Both are also ready to kill for self-defense. In Kino's case, even when killing is unnecessary. On contrast, Light never kills anyone he even possibly could deal with otherwise. If he didn't kill the law enforcement personnel with DN, they would raid his home and possibly kill him. At that point, just walking out of the situation wouldn't help, as it often would Kino. (*)Light is genuinely concerned about the state of affairs around him. Kino on the other hand is just indifferent, all the way to the deep emotional level, not just in actions, and if the world is beautiful anyway even when it's ugly, why bother to make sure you don't make it uglier yourself. Her "philosophy" is just fatalistic excuse for not caring about anything besides doing exactly as she pleases.

Even if you bring up Mikami and his idea of killing lazy people, it's not that different from how lazy people are dealt with today: don't give them jobs, drive them to poverty and to steal something, and then lock them up in a place where the risk of getting violently assaulted is 10 times higher than in the rest of society "for being evil". Are we living in evil societies then? Is everyone non-anarchist evil? Essentially, you can't argue for a single fictional Knight Templar's evilness, unless they actually torture their victims, without declaring Western societies evil as well.

I have no idea what to say in reply to that except that you're taking things way too seriously and may need a break.

Knight Templars are classically thought of as Lawful Neutral, anyway, not Neutral Evil.

And the award for most unnecessary rant goes to...

But anyway, based on your post, my Two Cents is that Kino is Neutral Evil. From the type 1 definition: "Essentially, this is anyone who would be a True Neutral if not for the lack of conscience or empathy, or their practice of putting either aside to further their own ends." This sounds like it fits Kino from your description and the two minutes of Wiki-ing I've done.

Of course, my exposure to the character is limited at best, and Neutral Evil and True Neutral is tough, especially since I have limited exposure to Kino's "evil" acts.

The same thing to me- Kino, based in their posts, really sounds evil.

They are really mischaracterizing the character. Kino is the protagonist and has a philosophy of being a tourist/observer and not taking sides, and only causes harm to those who directly hurt her. While she doesn't really go out of her way to help good people, she doesn't go out of her way to harm them either, and is basically a nice person to anyone who doesn't try to hurt her first.

She's at worst True Neutral, at best Heroic Neutral. As the entry on Heroic Neutral notes, Kino functionally acts like Heroic Neutral (although her philosophy is True Neutral), because the plot functions so that she usually ends up helping good people simply because evil people wouldn't leave her alone.

Its ridiculous to characterize Kino, who only kills in self-defense as more evil than equally evil to Light or Mikami, who killed thousands of innocent people.

Yet another reason we really shouldn't bother trying to shoehorn characters into arbitrary alignments that are not supported, referred to, or have any baring whatsoever on the fiction they're actually a part of.

Kino isn't True Neutral, Neutral Evil, or whatever. She isn't anything. Because she is not a character in a setting where any of these arbitrary classifications apply whatsoever.

I see your point there and agree. But, so long as people are able to add examples, they should avoid posting examples of characters who are clearly not any kind of Evil.

Chaotic doesn't mean unstable, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with malice or sadism. Being consumed with revenge is not Type 1 Neutral Evil- they are the least likely to be concerned with revenge, since they would (in general) think it was a "suckers game". Its type 2 and 3 who are more concerned with vengeance.

Neutral Evil is basically "evil", and Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil characters are usually as selfish as the next man, except that they have some Lawful or Chaotic leaning qualities. A Type 1 is simply amoral and is roughly akin to the average person in most more and ethical respects, except with a greatly diminished sense of compassion or empathy or guilt.

Kratos is Chaotic. He is addicted to war and conflict, and ends up going on an apolcayptic killing spree for the sake of revenge. And everything he does, he does because he feels like it, and to Hell with the consequences.

Following the Hypertext d20: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."

...following this description, personal loyalty not sounds as a chaotic trait.

I'm on a bit shakier ground saying it's Chaotic (and I wouldn't say that very strongly), but it's certainly not automatically Lawful or non-Chaotic. Assume we start off with personal loyalty as sole motivation: Tell the truth? Only to him, and will lie if he tells you to. Keep your word? Same thing. Respect authority? Not in general, just his, and he can be counter to other authority. Honour tradition? Nothing to do with that. Judge those who fall short of their duties? Only duties to him.

It doesn't well fit those symptoms of Chaotic particularly well either, basically making an exception in many of those things for one person, that's true, but what I was thinking is that being Lawful seems to really boil down to consistency, and being Chaotic to lack of it. Only paying heed to one person is inconsistent overall. Then again, it's consistent in a limited way. So, it's really kind of in between... but I think I can at least say it doesn't negate the character being Chaotic by other arguments, and Lestrange certainly seems to provide them.

Religions of Evil can be any type, but you misunderstand if you think Neutral Evil characters cannot be out for themselves and form or join groups. They join the Religion of Evil because it offers them the chance for temporal advancement or magical powers, or both, or maybe a place in the new universe.

In The Wheel Of Time Darkfriends are a Neutral Evil Religion of Evil, particularly since none of them believed that the end of the world was coming in their lifetime and were only in it for the perks. Darkfriends join up with the Chaotic Evil Shai'tan because he promises them that after he destroys the world, they will live forever and be worshipped as gods in the new world he creates (and don't bother worrying about the idea that he'll probably just destroy the world and thats it). On a more mundane level, they can presumably use their connections to undermine or eliminate their rivals or otherwise advance in the world.

In either case, they join up because they are selfish, and the fact that they are expected to kiss the ass of the people above them doesn't really undermine that, because they are still furthering their own interests.

All of the alignment articles are subjective and are stated to be arguable; Lelouch shouldn't be different from anyone else.

I know but that isn't the point. The point is about whther or not there could be a flame war as well, Lelouch is a controversial character. Still, I am not going to argue he isn't.

But the thing is that Lawful evil characters would rather rule everybody than destroy peeople. But the definition of Omnicidical Maniacs is "Put simply, the Omnicidal Maniac is a villain who actively seeks the destruction of whatever world the setting is based in to the exclusion of everything else, and is both aware of what he's doing and fully motivated to do so." So i still stand by my defense that destruction is pretty much the anthesis of being Lawful Evil, The One Who Tropes

Agreed. Lawful Evil wants to control the world, Chaotic Evil wants to destory it, Neutral Evil can go either way. Lawful Evil types who want to destroy everything are a neglible minority- actually, can you name any? No, Kira doesn't count, he wanted to be 'the God of the New World'- controlling it, not destroying it.

Not nessecarily. Lawful Evil aims mainly for order, at all costs. Sometimes, it extends to complete cosmic order, a completely static universe without any change. How is that achievable? Kill the chaotic thing called life, down to every last organism. When you look at it that way, WA-BAM, Lawful Evil Omnicidal Maniac. Good example of this is the Necrons from Warhammer 40000. Their reasoning for being Omnicidal Maniacs is that killing absolutely every single lifeform in the universe is that it's the only way to achieve absolute order. I find it that you define Omnicidal Maniac as a goal, not as a method to achieve a goal. Not all Omnicidal Maniacs are just that For the Evulz. And even then, there's different ways to be an Omnicidal Maniac, including using lawful methods to slaughter tons of innocents. As to this, I am re-adding Lawful Evil to the Omnicidal Maniac, since indifference or total disrespect towards authority is not a requirement for being one, even if it is more common. That's why you also sometimes see people wanting to Take Over the World and not destroy it despite being Chaotic Evil.

Except total destruction is the end that a Omnicidal Maniac want and the one thing that completely differ them from every other haracter archetype. Also how can you achieve total order if there is no life to dominate over?. You do realise that by killing off every last organism, you will just end total activity. And if the is no activity, how can there be order? And finally, you seem to confuse willingness to kill people for a ulterior motive with being omnicidal.

Just because the Necrons might think of themselves as being Lawful Evil just like a Knight Templar might think of themselves as being Lawful Good doesn't mean they are. Ultimately, they are deluded mass-murderers.

On a different note, I never meant to imply OmnicidalManiacs have to be motivated by amusement. They can also be motivated by hatred.

Yeah, sorry, but my point is that just because you are an Omnicidal Maniac doesn't mean that you can't use lawful methods to see it through. Also, Lawful Evil doesn't mean you want to rule anything, just to achieve order, and I think that your statement that "if there is no activity, how can there be order?" should be put the other way, if there is no order, how can there be chaos? If there is no activity, it is entirely static, therefore entirely orderly, since there is no change, and therefore no chaos.

There is no such thing as a lawful method to commit omnicide. Perhaps genocide though

Oh yes there is. Example, Bob plans on destroying the entire world, but has insufficient powers to do so. Bob is not stupid, and he realizes that breaking into the world's every nuclear missile site to launch missiles from each would simply be stupid and not accomplish much, even if he had associates helping him. Instead, he realizes that he has to be the one in power, or in a high position of the state in order to do so. As to this, he joins a political party to slowly rise in rank, manipulating himself upwards into more powerful positions, keeping his true intentions to himself and perhaps to those he trusts. Eventually, he gets voted in legally through this method, which means he now has the power in his grasp. With this, he authorizes the use of nuclear warfare, which in turn releases a chain reaction in other countries, in which they decide to fight back with their own nuclear missiles. The end result is worldwide human extinction and destruction of the Earth's entire ecosystem, bringing his plan into full fruitation.

While rare, this is a perfect example of a lawful method of committing omnicide, since Bob did not break any laws or regulations to achieve his goal, nor did he lead any coup to do so. As to this, there is such a thing as a lawful method to commit omnicide, and that is just one example. And, as The Other Wiki states it, Omnicide is considered a subcategory of genocide, making your statement a little contradictory. If that doesn't convince you that you can commit omnicide in a lawful way, I'm not sure what can.

That's just using lawful means to a chaotic end. Making it Neutral/Chaotic.

Thank you goodnight

There's a flaw in that too, it isn't a nessecarily a chaotic end. A goal is a goal, and even if you aim for something being common for chaotic characters, but achieve it through lawful methods, it is the methods, not the goal you are aiming for that makes a character lawful or chaotic. And just because there are more chaotic characters with that goal in mind doesn't mean the goal in itself is chaotic. That's like saying being The Messiah makes you Neutral Good or Lawful Good despite using Chaotic Good methods to achieve their goals simply because a vast majority is Lawful Good, for example. Hence you are still Lawful Evil if you use lawful methods to achieve the goal of an Omnicidal Maniac, because if ends go before means when judging character alignment, the whole thing is just pointless, since Well Intentioned Extremists for example would be classed as some good alignment despite how henious their deeds are.

I hope my point is clear now. I do understand that the Omnicidal Maniac is a lot more common on the chaotic end on the spectrum, but that doesn't mean lawful characters can't be it too, or that being an Omnicidal Maniac excludes you from being Lawful Evil. I'm no longer arguing if Lawful Evil should be included, so what's the point in discussing this? They are simply too few to justify the trope being listed as a Lawful Evil trope. This somehow derailed somehow trying to prove that they exist, but when nobody listens or cares enough, why bother arguing? It won't change anything.

Alright.....you win. I lost my argument.

Well, of course it always was a scale of motivation. If a well-meaning idiot who causes harm is "Good" in this—so what, why not? Those who do it consistently are more likely Neutral at best, though. And if the results differ from the percieved goals of a madman way too much due to chosen methods—where's the surprise? It's almost the definition of "inadequacy", no?
In Planescape, Harmonium are Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good, and they tend to be pain in the ass and wannabe Hive Mind; many Mercykillers are much like the following example, only on a much lesser scale and a bit more hypocritical.

As to Lawful Omnicidal Maniac — example:
X wants to wipe out everyone in the world. Not just For the Evulz, but to punish everyone—because Humans Are Bastards, there's just too much to sort one by one and from X's point of view everyone is either guilty of something bad enough or is a heir of criminals who escaped the punishment (and inherited a Crapsack World anyway). Which includes X—why not?

Lawful? Yes. Evil? Yes, or won't be inclined to choose a massive punitive action over attempts to fix the perceived wrongs—let alone "Kill 'em all". So?

Who says blowing up the world is a chaotic end. The omnicidal maniac could be an avatar of order who sees our chaotic, war-torn world as an aberration to a clean, quiet universe and so wants to restore the "order" that existed before. He also could be a Knights Templar type character who imposes strict discipline on himself and his followers, and who sees our world as nothing but a world of sin, and so must be cleansed. Doing so is desirable because it delivers sinners to hell and the faithful to heaven. It's still a Lawful Evil character.

...like Auditors.

Forget why (think it had to do with a Lovecraft thread), but the Auditors are a superlative example of Lawful Evil omnicidal maniacs. I suspect they were partially inspired by the Vogons, who are likewise Lawful Evil.

I can't speak for Orochimaru, but what makes Palpy a better case for Neutral Evil is that he really doesn't seem to give a damn about bringing order to the galaxy or anything like that. He just wants UNLIIIIMITTTEEEDDDDD POWAAAAAHHHHHHH and who's more powerful than the ruler of the known universe? Vader, on the other hand, mentions order in his Motive Rant to Luke in ESB, which makes him a better candidate for Lawful Evil in my book.

My way of looking at it is that one first has to judge alignment by philosophy. I don't think Palpatine has much of a philosophy besides being somewhat of a social Darwinist. If philosophy doesn't determine alignment, then you have to look to personality and methods. Palpatine's methods are to forge an empire that is completely uniform and structured. Palpatine may want personal power for himself, but he maintains it by keeping the galaxy in a structured state of tyranny. Considering how good he is at it, he obviously must enjoy the cruel order that his empire represents. In my book, it takes a Lawful Evil being to be able to maintain and idealize such order.

That sounds more like Darth Vader, though. Vader seems to idealize the kind of cruel order you described whereas Palpatine appears to idealize personal power. If you see the Star Wars Expanded Universe as being canonical, it's elaborated there that Palpatine formulates a plan to make himself God by absorbing people's life energy through the dark side. Obviously this sounds a bit shit, but it's the only way to go up after becoming ruler of the galaxy. I think that's the key difference planting him in Neutral Evil territory.

Palpatine idealizes personal power more than order, but he still idealizes order. Being Lawful Evil doesn't mean that the character isn't selfish. He could desire personal power for himself more than anything else, but as long as he enjoys keeping the galaxy in order, he is still Lawful Evil in my book. Even if he is Neutral Evil, he most definitely leans more to the Lawful side than the Chaotic.

Most LE characters are selfish, but Palpatine really stands out from all his gushing about POWAAAHHHH and whatnot. That's all he seems to enjoy in the films, hence I dub him NE. Although you may disagree, I'd say leave Palpy on the list because this is too trivial an issue to go round and round debating for hours :P

I concur. Is it alright for a character to be listed on more than one alignment list though?

Depends. You recall the alignment chart with Batman in all the positions?

Again, it depends. Character Development, Character Derailment, Characterization Marches On, or Depending on the Writer can cause alignment changes. So if you do feel that a character belongs on more than one list, you might want to include "when" for each alignment...

Has been here before, and has been removed due to the "No Real Life exaples" rule. Don't get me wrong, I think he fits perfectly, but rules are rules, and he will probably take offence if he finds out (not that I'd care). The last thing we need is an edit war with him on this site.