PDA

View Full Version : No good NE villains (Yay, alignment thread!)



Brendanicus
2014-02-12, 08:14 AM
Oh, poor, Neutral Evil, the most neglected of alignments. Almost every villain in media falls pretty neatly into LE or CE. Anybody else capable of naming a few NE baddies? Best I can think of is Vegeta from DBZ.

Lord Raziere
2014-02-12, 08:19 AM
Tvtropes disagrees with you (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil)

thank you for providing this opportunity for me to hypnotize everyone with the wiki-vortex that is tvtropes, so that I can go steal lots of money while no one is paying attention :smalltongue:

Saph
2014-02-12, 08:24 AM
Not sure where you're getting the idea that all villains are LE/CE. A lot of the most famous villains are the NE ones.

Off the top of my head: Voldemort from Harry Potter, The Emperor from Star Wars, most of the Forsaken from Wheel of Time, and more characters from Song of Ice and Fire than I can count.

Neutral Evil is the pure selfish alignment, so it's never too hard to find villains that fit into it.

Lord Raziere
2014-02-12, 08:34 AM
Yea lets see...

Lex Luthor
Jaffar


there are probably more, but those are two pretty iconic ones.

Red Fel
2014-02-12, 09:21 AM
The thing is that neutral-anything is harder to depict. The four corners of the alignment chart (LG, LE, CG, CE) are probably the easiest to depict because of their extremities. NG is often seen as some kind of smiling saint with a fuzzy lens filter, LN as some sort of robot, CN as some sort of lunatic, and NE as just... Bad.

That's the problem. It's hard to visualize "evil for evil's sake." Many examples of NE are debatable. You could present one image, such as Lex Luthor, and I could argue why that's LE instead of NE, and we could go back and forth all day.

So let's look at it this way - what distinguishes NE from LE or CE?

CE is freedom-oriented. They do what they want. The usual image of CE is the bloodthirsty madman, killing for kicks.

LE is order-oriented. He likes structure, he likes rules and exploiting them. The tyrant or corrupt executive.

But NE? NE is evil for its own sake. Whereas the CE person is simply exercising his id, his lusts and wants and desires - and they happen to be bad - and the LE is exploiting rules and order for his own benefit - which happens to cause others to suffer - the NE character is choosing Evil for its own sake. Not to satisfy his primal urges, not to advance his own agenda, not to humiliate his enemies or exact vengeance upon the world. He chooses Evil because it's evil.

This is extraordinarily difficult to visualize in some respects, because it seems so wrong. There has to be a reason to be Evil, you don't just to Evil to do Evil. It clashes with most modern sensibilities.

And yet... It's easy. Remarkably easy.

Just look at cartoons.

I don't mean cartoons that older audiences can enjoy. I don't mean cartoons with complex, layered villains with depth and tragedy that make them who they are.

I mean freaking Team Rocket here. Bad guys who are bad guys because they are the bad guys. I mean classic Masters of the Universe Skeletor. I mean the original Mumm-Ra from Thundercats. Villains who were villainous because that's just what they did. There was a certain pride in being evil, in saying things like "wise and wicked wizardry," or "the might, the muscle, the menace," or things like that. Card-Carrying Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain).

As an aside, Mumm-Ra wins my vote for the bestest of the bestest. First, he actually worships the Ancient Spirits of Evil. That's his thing. He's a cleric of an Evil pantheon. Second, there's this line:

"For wherever Evil exists... Mumm-Ra lives!"

Ahh, sweet memories.

Grim Portent
2014-02-12, 09:42 AM
I think Smaug from the Hobbit might count. He commits evil deeds to acquire treasure and food, and a little bit for the fun and satisfaction. He doesn't have any undirected rampages or networks of allies and protocols. His three major life events in the book were destroying Erebor to claim it's riches, destroying Dale to safeguard his wealth and steal more to add to it, and his attack on Laketown to get revenge for the theft of a cup. None of that strikes me as Lawful or Chaotic.

Saph
2014-02-12, 09:42 AM
But NE? NE is evil for its own sake.

Doesn't have to be. Look up the alignment chapter. 'Evil for it's own sake' is a small subset of Neutral Evil. The majority of NE characters are just entirely self-centred.

Really, Neutral Evil is the easiest of the evil alignments to play and find examples of.

Lord Raziere
2014-02-12, 10:02 AM
Yea, NE is all about Me, Myself and I. NE is screwing everyone else in whatever way they can for their own gain. NE is everything a cynic dreads, only thinking for themselves, only doing things for themselves. No one else. Its all about numero uno. Lawful Evil? please, they're hidebound rules-obsessed narrow-minded fools in comparison. Chaotic Evil? don't confuse NE for those barbaric mindless monsters with no sense of planning. Neutral Evil is Me First, Everyone Else Last.
It doesn't matter the method. They will use the law to screw you over when it benefits them, they will defy the law if its benefits them. All of it, everything they do, is for themselves and them only, no pretensions of enforcing evil oppressive order or indulging in weird macabre hedonism- just plain optimizing everything so that they win, no matter how much they need to cheat to do it.

They are the epitome of the narcissist. The only question they ask when they do anything is "will this benefit me?" leaving all other considerations to rot. This is different from Chaotic Evil, as CE asks instead "Will I enjoy this?" leaving all other considerations to rot.

Red Fel
2014-02-12, 10:08 AM
Doesn't have to be. Look up the alignment chapter. 'Evil for it's own sake' is a small subset of Neutral Evil. The majority of NE characters are just entirely self-centred.

Really, Neutral Evil is the easiest of the evil alignments to play and find examples of.

The problem is that "just self-centered" can also describe various Chaotic alignments, Neutral alignments, and the two other Evil alignments. That alone is an incredibly obscure metric.

Rather, it's that NE is Evil irrespective of Law or Chaos, tradition and honor or freedom and expression. It's Evil untainted by notions like respect or order, passion or exhilaration. And it's hard to imagine that in the abstract.

Worgwood
2014-02-12, 10:17 AM
There's lots of ways of looking at the various alignments.

Neutral Evil, for instance, can be goal-oriented; you have an end result you're out to achieve and you don't care who does or doesn't get hurt as long as they don't get in your way. Or it can be the power-hungry warlord who treats his own men fairly and even with compassion but everybody else like animals.

Lawful Evil can be someone who uses the system to do evil, using deception and propaganda to lead a country or organization into doing moral injustice, or it can be someone who is willing to commit certain evils for a greater good but has a line he won't cross.

Chaotic Evil is usually typecast as the chainsaw-happy psycho, but it can also be the gun runner who propagates war so that he can sell to both sides, or the leader who maintains power by staging spontaneous public executions, rigging the system, and generally lying to his people.

Honestly, there's lot of ways of looking at the different alignments, and a lot of characters in media don't normally fall neatly into one of those nine moral philosophies.

Tragak
2014-02-12, 11:11 AM
My favorite ways of thinking about Neutral Evil (keeping in mind that everybody has at least a few personal friends that they treat better than they treat strangers, enemies, or acquaintances):

Strong vs. Weak:

Regarding the strong:
*Lawfuls will assume that they should obey someone, and it would be hard to make them ignore someone
*Neutrals will want to find out first whether there is a better reason to obey or to ignore someone
*Chaotics will assume that they should ignore someone, and it would be hard to make them obey someone

Regarding the weak:

*Goods will assume that they should help someone, and it would be hard to make them hurt someone
*Neutrals will want to find out first whether there is a better reason to help or to hurt somebody
*Evils will assume that they should hurt someone, and it would be hard to make them help someone

A Neutral Evil will want to hurt you eventually, but he might or might not serve you until then.

Values: originally written here (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), very well expanded here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341)
Self-Direction - Independent thought and action; choosing, creating, exploring. Associated single values are: freedom, creativity, independence, choosing one's own goals, being curious, having self-respect.

Stimulation - Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Associate single values are: having an exciting and varied life, being daring.

Hedonism - Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. Associated single values are: experiencing pleasure and enjoying life.

Achievement - Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Associated single values are: being ambitious, influential, capable, successful, intelligence, and having self-respect.

Power - Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. Associate single values are: having social power, wealth, and authority, preserving one's own public image, and having social recognition.

Security - Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. Associate single values are: ensuring national security, reciprocation of favors, ensuring family security, having a sense of belonging, preserving the social order, being healthy and clean.

Conformity - Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Associated single values are: being obedient, having self-discipline, being polite, honoring parents and elders.

Tradition - Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. Associated single values are: respecting tradition, being devout, accepting one's own portion in life, being humble, and taking life in moderation.

Benevolence - Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the "in-group"). Associated single values are: being helpful, responsible, forgiving, honest loyal, and having mature love for others and true friendships.

Universalism - Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Associated single values are: advancing equality, being one with nature, having wisdom, filling the world with beauty, advancing social justice, being broad-minded, protecting the environment, and see the world at peace.

Neutral Evils care primarily about Power and Achievement (which revolve around having more than anybody else), and secondarily about Security and Hedonism (which revolve primarily about having enough for themselves). Since they care more about having "more" than they care about having "enough," they will take the lose-lose option more often than the win-win option.

Lawful Evils (Power + Security) commit cruelty primarily for the sake of protecting themselves, and Chaotic Evils (Achievement + Hedonism + Stimulation) commit cruelty primarily for the sake of enjoying themselves, but Neutral Evils (Power + Achievement) simply commit cruelty.

The primary sin of Lawful Evil is the Pride in one's allies and position, and the primary sin of Chaotic Evil is the Lust for new experiences no matter who gets hurt, but the primary sin of Neutral Evil is Envy: the willingness - if taking more for oneself is not an option - to take a loss and expend personal effort just to make somebody else take an even bigger loss.

Lawful/Chaotic Evils see reasons to hurt people, but Neutral Evils don't see reasons not to.

Saph
2014-02-12, 11:12 AM
Rather, it's that NE is Evil irrespective of Law or Chaos, tradition and honor or freedom and expression. It's Evil untainted by notions like respect or order, passion or exhilaration. And it's hard to imagine that in the abstract.

It's really not. Just look at the TVTropes list for examples.

You're finding it difficult because you're seeing it as some sort of quasi-philosophical principle. But you don't need to believe in evil for its own sake to be Neutral Evil. All you have to do is not to care about anyone apart from yourself. It's the simplest of all the alignments in practice.

GPuzzle
2014-02-12, 11:32 AM
Okay, I'll just quote someone here in the Internet:
"Seek out for number one isn't an Evil attitude. It's a Neutral one. Seek out for number one while crushing number two."

A Lawful Evil person cherry-picks the rules that benefit him. And if they don't, he rewrites them so he can crush the souls of the kids at the orphanage.

A Chaotic Evil person reads the rules, says "f*ck it" and throws the rule into a bonfire that burns down the nearest orphanage, while setting off fireworks to they'll also hit the other nearest orphanage.

A Neutral Evil person just doesn't care which method is he going to use. He just does it. To him, the means justify the end. The NE person is pragmatic, ruthless and ready to use every dirty trick in the book to achieve his evil goals.

Simultaneously, CN, TN and LN are much more like us then anything else. A real-life ativist who wants less government in a dictatorship is CN, not CG. The same goes for lawyers. They're LN (most of the time - really few are LE or LG). And you probably are TN IRL.

Again, we're human - deeply flawed and ignorant while thinking that we are powerful. We all have our faults. We switch alignments quickly.

It's harder to roleplay a Neutral character? Yes.

But that character will be more human than most characters out there.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 11:38 AM
Littlefinger of SOIAF is an awesome example, and pretty much one of the best villains in literature recently. He's just ruthlessly, brutally selfish and efficient at being evil, with no particular respect or disdain for authority, tradition, and rules - everything is just a weapon to use to get his way.

Similarly, Bronn is NE on a smaller scale: he's completely amoral and self-interested, with no qualms about doing anything to get ahead.

And, of course, Roose Bolton is completely NE.

The Bastard of the Dreadfort, meanwhile, is a Chaotic Evil contrast: he's too much of a sociopath to curtail his abuses (only narrowly escaping the consequences), rules by sheer fear and by accumulating and indulging like-minded but pettier sociopaths, and just completely enjoys brutality for its own sake.

Tywin Lannister, naturally, is a Lawful Evil contrast: he's all about order and authority, but his order and his authority, and he'll commit or condone any terrible deed for their sake, while keeping his own personal sins carefully private.

Saph
2014-02-12, 12:46 PM
Okay, I'll just quote someone here in the Internet:
"Seek out for number one isn't an Evil attitude. It's a Neutral one. Seek out for number one while crushing number two."

Yeah, I've always thought that quote's a really bad one. "Look out for number one" is absolutely an Evil attitude if you take it to its logical conclusion. Evil characters don't have to burn down orphanages or commit mass murder. I think the problem is that a lot of people think of Evil characters in very melodramatic terms, like the Saturday morning cartoon villains listed above.

A good way to look at Neutral Evil is that it's the alignment of petty criminals. The mugger or bandit you run into is likely to be Neutral Evil. He's not robbing you for the sake of villainy, or to destroy the world. He's not even doing it because he especially wants to hurt you. The truth is, he isn't thinking about you at all. He just wants your stuff. Sure, he might beat you up or stab you in the process, but ultimately that isn't his priority. What matters to him is that he gets what he wants.

hamishspence
2014-02-12, 01:49 PM
How about characters who are obsessed with "the greater good" - willing to commit atrocities - but who don't fit neatly into Lawful or Chaotic?

Such a villain could be both NE and altruistic.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 01:56 PM
How about characters who are obsessed with "the greater good" - willing to commit atrocities - but who don't fit neatly into Lawful or Chaotic?

I'd generally consider such a character to be Lawful Evil ("for the good of the many" being Lawful, to me), but they could certainly be Neutral Evil, too, especially if they weren't actually big on systems and structures of power, on authority and tradition, etc., just a goal they perceive as beneficial to many or most people, whether they agree or not.

Doug Lampert
2014-02-12, 04:15 PM
Yeah, I've always thought that quote's a really bad one. "Look out for number one" is absolutely an Evil attitude if you take it to its logical conclusion.

Agreed: Callus indifference to the welfare of others is explicitly called out in the 3.x PHB as being evil. Evil doesn't need to WANT to hurt anyone.

Evil need not be about looking out for number 1 while crushing number 2, it's quite clearly enough to be about looking out for number 1 and NOT CARING whether or not you hurt number 2.

mikeejimbo
2014-02-12, 04:45 PM
I think "Look out for number one as long as you don't hurt others" is neutral, while "Look out for number one regardless of the cost" is evil. Evil isn't necessarily going to go out of its way to stomp on people on the way up. But if it happens, it happens.

veti
2014-02-12, 06:47 PM
One example I've been reminded of recently: Jade Empire:

Master Li

... is surely Neutral Evil. His agenda is purely selfish, and he uses misdirection, manipulation, politics, tradition and loyalty - whatever it takes, basically - to get what he wants.