Overlord is Evil done smart

[SangoProduction]

I had the distinct pleasure of watching a show titled "Overlord" after some interesting talks with fellow players. Despite everything, I found myself enthralled by it, and I want to speak of it. If you want my personal recommendation? Here, take it! Just don't judge his immortality too harshly, and you might enjoy the other aspects of the show.

Now, what do I mean, "Overlord is Evil done smart"? I mean, most "Evil" is actually played really, really, insidiously stupidly (hell they even mock it with a whole episode devoted to wiping out this Stupid Evil). And, I believe this is actually a smarter variant of the alignment.

To be clear, I am talking about the main character (who's name I can not recall for the life of me, I think one of his names is "Momon").

Why is he Evil? [Obvious spoiler alert, but the true spoiler has been put in to its own sub-spoiler section. The rest of this is vague enough that it's not really spoilers, but still is just background knowledge to "why he's Evil" rather than why he's "Smart Evil", which was what the thread is about.]

Spoiler: Why is he Evil?

Show

Time and again, he shows (and tells) that he's entirely out for himself (also, he kinda says he's out to rule the world)...but doesn't let anyone who's not subservient know that. The one time he acted in what could be considered true kindness was when he saved a village without hope of reward, though one could argue that it was simply because he felt he had a debt to a friend, as he was going to just not do anything about it until the flash back.

He also admits to not being sickened by the mass brutality of what's going on in the village. (Even though he blames the game doing this, it's still a consistent part of his character.)
A legion of men come to save this village as well? He lets them die, except for 1, who could spread his name as a hero, and then teleports the entirety of the defeated legion into the village, and he goes out and beats up (easily) those who killed the legion.

Also, when stating how he saw humans he says "I used to see them as insects, but now, kind of like small animals." Regardless of whether this is because he doesn't see "NPCs" as humans (as evidenced by his revelation in episode 13), or not, that still shows he has little care for the lives of the sentient populace...which is kinda Evil.

Spoiler: The actual spoiler

Show

He also says that he'd probably have killed his "friends" too, and described them as "tools to build my name", before fighting the Stupid Evil who killed said "friends".
Additionally, while he says he has a Wand of Resurrection, he refuses to use it, citing that a mage who brings death, causes less trouble than one who brings back the dead....which, let's be honest...is probably true. But he didn't even use it on his "friends," yet is willing to spend his entire treasury to revive a slain servant of his (to be fair, it's less risky, but also shows that he wasn't near as attached to his "friends" as he was to his servants).

The above 2 statements could be seen "acting" to get the desired response from those he was talking with...but with how he acts and the few windows into his thoughts we get through out the series, it's quite believable he does actually think this way.
It is heavily implied that he makes use of memory-manipulation abilities by the first episode, though not specifically mentioned again.

Also, while he doesn't make a habit of it (often killing in a single blow), he did show no mercy in a slow kill by crushing (against the stupid evil... who kinda deserved it...but...still).
He also does quite often "play with his food" when they are anything more than an orc - teasing out the enemies' powers.

Oh, and he does kill another adventurer purely because he got in his way (or at least is implied that he did). To be fair, if the adventurer had been able to report back that he was in league with a vampire....well....yeah. Still would call it Evil, as he hadn't even seen the vampire yet.

So, he's quite clearly Evil. But why is he smart?

Well, first off, as I already said, he doesn't tell anyone he's evil! He doesn't go "RAWR! I am Sauron, and I am almighty! Everyone undertake a mission to kill me immediately!" And...I think this may be the single largest reason why I think he is "Smart Evil".
Instead, he masks himself as a hero. Building his name up through careful manipulation. Let people come to serve him of their own volition, because they truly believe it is best. (I'm sure the plan was...the show isn't finished yet.) He didn't "let" a legion of do-Good humans die, he saved those who survived, and rescued the town!

He also doesn't play all of his cards at once...in fact, he goes out of his way to handicap himself by picking up a sword and armor and not casting spells - as a necromancer....and is still as powerful as the most powerful person of this world...but not the point.
Again the misdirection. It keeps people from discovering his actual weaknesses....if he had any...yeah, I don't get why that's enthralling...it just was. I'll go back over the show again tomorrow to find out what specifically I liked. But it might just be simply that it's a show with "Smart Evil" and doesn't have many in-world contradictions.
But, theoretically, it does prevent people from discovering his actual weaknesses (like holy damage), so I still consider it smart.

He also has a group in which he would not betray - his "family" for lack of a better word. Evil characters do have these. Just because someone is out for themselves does not (neccesarily) mean that they lack any desire for socialization and close relations. When a traitor emerges, he fights them solo because "I don't want you to fight each other," despite the likely result of having the entirety of the rest of his guards come down on them, being that the traitor probably would have keeled over without much of a match.
This doesn't make him smart. I just wanted to use this show as a medium to point it out.

And, while he might not neccesarily value lives, he does value what sparing a life might do. For instance, if you let the bandits run after announcing your name? They spread the word. If you save just one person from certain catastrophe, even while after their friends died, they'll see you as having saved them (even if you chose not to save everyone, despite having the power to). If you incapacitate, and master a magical beast instead of slaying it...that's massive reputation points there.

And, along the lines of his manipulations, he doesn't know of the power level of this world, so he tries to tease out as much of the (non-orcish) enemies' powers as possible without being too threatening until he wishes to finish it soon. Again, I would feel this would feel so much better if the main character wasn't an immortal bad ass, but still, you've got to give them props for it.

[Sacrieur]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.

[TheifofZ]

Couple points here:
First: He saved the girl because of his friend. He saved the village because it was a good opportunity to gain a positive image while also gaining a valuable connection to the world that he was completely new in, and also gain the most valuable thing of all: Information.
Second: They don't really mention it often in the Anime, but it's made clear several times in the light novel that the race he is has a built in ability that kicks in if any of his emotions begin to rise above certain points (too happy, too scared, too sad, too angry, too disgusted) and forcefully drops it to a certain baseline. He is completely incapable of being horrified because of this.
And of course, the fact that he's an inhuman 'monster' race is clearly changing the way he thinks over time. But it's less clear in the anime, where thoughts aren't clear.
Third: Again, they don't make a point of it in the anime, but in the light novel where thought patterns and motives are explained, as well as details or scenes that are relatively minor at the time, there is a lot more information. The main Guardians of the ruins are fanatically loyal to him, though, and are willing and capable of doing tasks that he doesn't ask for. Demiurge especially has been acting in the background to do quite a few things, many of which are far beyond what was asked or expected of him, all to raise Momonga/ Ainz Ooal Gown's power and prestige.
Fourth:

Spoiler: Spoilers

Show

When Shalltear is resurrected, he uses a specific function to raise an NPC (one who is aware that he has the power to raise the dead and won't be telling anyone outside). The function he used required a large amount of gold, but in the Light Novel it's made clear that it barely puts a dent in the guild coffers. On the other hand, raising the dead in a world where 7th tier magic is basically unheard of, and higher is considered next to impossible? That would draw attention like flies when word got out of what he was capable of, at a time when he wanted his exact abilities to remain unknown.

Certainly, he's evil (There are actions he takes and actions he orders or okays that are unquestionably evil later on; the anime has barely covered anything yet.) But there are a lot of reasons for most of his actions, not just the most obvious ones.

[SangoProduction]

First off, I'll quote the Alignments section of 3.5. (Parenthesis is mine.) By the way, when I say "Evil" I do not intend to hurt any one's feelings, or imply that something is lesser to anything else (that was implied by the title, but I'll make it explicit).

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others ("I see humans as little animals") and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient (well, most opponents he comes across) or if it can be set up (that adventurer who insisted on tagging along, and was "killed by the vampire"? yeah).

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

A neutral evil character is typically selfish (as evidenced by his need to get something out of every situation) and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals (he said he would). A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. (That seems rather consistent with what this guy does.)

First: He saved the girl because of his friend. He saved the village because it was a good opportunity to gain a positive image while also gaining a valuable connection to the world that he was completely new in, and also gain the most valuable thing of all: Information.

I mentioned he saved the village because of his friend - but that does not imply a conscience (along the good-evil axis) so much as it implies a duty to repay his friend. And, before the flash back (in the anime at least), he was about to overlook the attack as there was nothing to be gained, so he saw, until the servant spoke up, and he was reminded of his friend.
His motivation in this situation was to repay a debt (indeed, he was going to ask for nothing, but found the townsfolk to be suspicious), and he later found ways to benefit from it (specifically with regards to information).

Second: They don't really mention it often in the Anime, but it's made clear several times in the light novel that the race he is has a built in ability that kicks in if any of his emotions begin to rise above certain points (too happy, too scared, too sad, too angry, too disgusted) and forcefully drops it to a certain baseline. He is completely incapable of being horrified because of this.
And of course, the fact that he's an inhuman 'monster' race is clearly changing the way he thinks over time. But it's less clear in the anime, where thoughts aren't clear.

I mentioned this as well. But, these changes are a part of the end character. He can't be horrified by slaughter. The Monster is changing how he thinks. That doesn't mean he's not thinking differently. The monster bit is a part of who he is.
Maybe if he wasn't a monster race, he would be thinking differently. Maybe he'd be more emotional....but he is a monster race, and that is who he is.

Third: Again, they don't make a point of it in the anime, but in the light novel where thought patterns and motives are explained, as well as details or scenes that are relatively minor at the time, there is a lot more information. The main Guardians of the ruins are fanatically loyal to him, though, and are willing and capable of doing tasks that he doesn't ask for. Demiurge especially has been acting in the background to do quite a few things, many of which are far beyond what was asked or expected of him, all to raise Momonga/ Ainz Ooal Gown's power and prestige.

Not sure what this has to do...well, actually I don't know your over arching point. But yeah, they were fanatical in the anime as well. As well as self-sufficient and could think for themselves, though we get only a few glimpses of it in the anime. And it was quite heavily implied that Demiurge was working in the backgrounds on a lot of stuff, though never directly stated, in the anime as well.

Fourth:

Spoiler: Spoilers

Show

When Shalltear is resurrected, he uses a specific function to raise an NPC (one who is aware that he has the power to raise the dead and won't be telling anyone outside). The function he used required a large amount of gold, but in the Light Novel it's made clear that it barely puts a dent in the guild coffers. On the other hand, raising the dead in a world where 7th tier magic is basically unheard of, and higher is considered next to impossible? That would draw attention like flies when word got out of what he was capable of, at a time when he wanted his exact abilities to remain unknown.

Spoiler: Spoiler to a spoiler

Show

Yes. It's specific to raising an NPC. That much was assumed. But he still had the power, and still decided not to do it. I did admit it was probably the right move, but shows that he's probably didn't get too attached to those friends, which supports his statement of "I'd probably kill them myself, if I was in your position," and makes it all the more valid.

[Crake]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.

gr8 b8 m8, i r8 8/8

Seriously though, if you actually think he's not evil, give counterpoints to the presented arguments explaining why they're not evil, because just making an assertion without any backup means absolutely nothing.

[TheifofZ]

Real quick point as to why he's Evil.
Aside from the obvious 'He killed some guys, and let some guys die'.
He explicitly orders that various people are tortured for information, sends out hunter-killer squads to gather information on Martial Arts skills by bringing back skilled individuals, uses people without any complaints, and also killed a group of people who thought he would be helping them explicitly so that it wouldn't inconvenience him.
And that's within the first two and a bit light novels, or the first season of the Anime.
He is directly responsible for ordering the emotional torture and death of a large group of Lizardmen, uses his overwhelming power to force the tribe to obey him, has more people tortured, has more people killed, tortured, killed, and also uses people as tools. Alot.
It's pretty clear that the only beings he regards with any real affection are the Guardians of the tomb, but that's partly because they remind him of his friends who made them.

[Zanos]

He's neutral at worst. No where even close to evil.

This "whatever is not good is evil" thing is getting ridiculous.

wut.

There are probably dozens of singular acts or orders in the LN that would instantly send Ainz, if he were a PC, to the deep end of the alignment pool. Even if we only include stuff in the anime, I'm pretty sure they discussed how they were magically experimenting on the sunlight scripture guys, and its pretty horrific. Beyond that, he also has the people accompanying him to fight shalltear killed because they're inconvenient.


Actually, now that I think about, Ainz's canon character sheet has his morality stat lower than a character who spends days digesting her victims so she can enjoy their suffering, and another character who would gladly kill all humans.

[Sacrieur]

Real quick point as to why he's Evil.
Aside from the obvious 'He killed some guys, and let some guys die'.

Those aren't evil acts. It can be neutral, and very often is neutral to kill. This is what I mean by "anything that isn't good is evil". Letting someone die at the hands of someone else because you don't want to get involved is exclusively neutral.

He explicitly orders that various people are tortured for information, sends out hunter-killer squads to gather information on Martial Arts skills by bringing back skilled individuals, uses people without any complaints, and also killed a group of people who thought he would be helping them explicitly so that it wouldn't inconvenience him.

If by "inconvenience" you mean pose a serious irreversible threat to his plans? Then sure.

He is directly responsible for ordering the emotional torture and death of a large group of Lizardmen, uses his overwhelming power to force the tribe to obey him, has more people tortured, has more people killed, tortured, killed, and also uses people as tools. Alot.

They never got into this in the anime so I can't comment.

It's pretty clear that the only beings he regards with any real affection are the Guardians of the tomb, but that's partly because they remind him of his friends who made them.

That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.

wut.

There are probably dozens of singular acts or orders in the LN that would instantly send Ainz, if he were a PC, to the deep end of the alignment pool. Even if we only include stuff in the anime, I'm pretty sure they discussed how they were magically experimenting on the sunlight scripture guys, and its pretty horrific. Beyond that, he also has the people accompanying him to fight shalltear killed because they're inconvenient.

"Inconvenient" is more like a serious threat to his cover. If you recall he first attempted to tell them not to come. He only killed them when diplomacy failed. Similarly he wasn't going to go seriously out of his way and create some elaborate plan to save the poor little NPCs when he had a much bigger unknown threat to worry about who could use world class magic.

Actually, now that I think about, Ainz's canon character sheet has his morality stat lower than a character who spends days digesting her victims so she can enjoy their suffering, and another character who would gladly kill all humans.

Mostly because he acts in ways that are completely logical. While his race basically turns him mildly psychopathic, he is by no means evil even if he commits some acts that are evil because discounting all of the good things he's done (which conveniently don't count for some reason), he's more neutral than evil.

[Draconium]

Those aren't evil acts. It can be neutral, and very often is neutral to kill. This is what I mean by "anything that isn't good is evil". Letting someone die at the hands of someone else because you don't want to get involved is exclusively neutral.

Killing in self-defense or in defense of a village or something can be argued as being non-Evil. Killing a group of suspicious adventurers who just wanted to protect their home from a vampire, even if they were jerks about it, is murder and Evil.

If by "inconvenience" you mean pose a serious irreversible threat to his plans? Then sure.

Ainz is the equivalent of an epic-level Wizard. While not clearly stated, there was almost certainly a non-lethal way to deal with those adventurers.

They never got into this in the anime so I can't comment.

Actually, they do mention this at the end of the last episode. The anime had them planning to kill all the Lizardmen for use as undead. Which sounds Evil to me, as they were doing absolutely nothing to the group at the time.

That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.

Out of vengeance, yes. Because he cared about them... eh. Ainz himself said they were merely a tool for spreading his reputation, and he was mostly annoyed that his plan got screwed up because his tools were killed.

"Inconvenient" is more like a serious threat to his cover. If you recall he first attempted to tell them not to come. He only killed them when diplomacy failed. Similarly he wasn't going to go seriously out of his way and create some elaborate plan to save the poor little NPCs when he had a much bigger unknown threat to worry about who could use world class magic.

I'm fairy certain he could've used illusions or some sort of sleeping spell to simply keep them occupied - or maybe even give them a different threat to deal with while he was busy by creating some undead - he just chose to kill them because it was easier.

Mostly because he acts in ways that are completely logical. While his race basically turns him mildly psychopathic, he is by no means evil even if he commits some acts that are evil because discounting all of the good things he's done (which conveniently don't count for some reason), he's more neutral than evil.

Since his empathy and emotions are being suppressed, I'd say it was more sociopathic than anything. Most of his "Good acts," however, are for his own personal gain. He commits several acts that are more Evil than they look, too.

Clementine, for instance, he killed by grappling her and crushing her to death. But he simply could have killed her with a spell, like that one he used to crush a soldier's heart. He didn't, because he wanted her death to be drawn-out and painful as revenge for killing his companions. That's... straight-up Evil, if you ask me.

[Sacrieur]

Killing in self-defense or in defense of a village or something can be argued as being non-Evil. Killing a group of suspicious adventurers who just wanted to protect their home from a vampire, even if they were jerks about it, is murder and Evil.

Again with the "whatever isn't good is evil".

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.

Ainz is the equivalent of an epic-level Wizard. While not clearly stated, there was almost certainly a non-lethal way to deal with those adventurers.

The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.

Actually, they do mention this at the end of the last episode. The anime had them planning to kill all the Lizardmen for use as undead. Which sounds Evil to me, as they were doing absolutely nothing to the group at the time.

I don't know the details so I can't comment.

Out of vengeance, yes. Because he cared about them... eh. Ainz himself said they were merely a tool for spreading his reputation, and he was mostly annoyed that his plan got screwed up because his tools were killed.

He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.

I'm fairy certain he could've used illusions or some sort of sleeping spell to simply keep them occupied - or maybe even give them a different threat to deal with while he was busy by creating some undead - he just chose to kill them because it was easier.

That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.

Since his empathy and emotions are being suppressed, I'd say it was more sociopathic than anything. Most of his "Good acts," however, are for his own personal gain. He commits several acts that are more Evil than they look, too.

Sociopath is another word for psychopath.

It doesn't matter if they did result in personal gain, they were still good acts. The fact he's looking out for his own interests without concerning himself with whether the action is good or evil puts him squarely in the neutral alignment.

Clementine, for instance, he killed by grappling her and crushing her to death. But he simply could have killed her with a spell, like that one he used to crush a soldier's heart. He didn't, because he wanted her death to be drawn-out and painful as revenge for killing his companions.

Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.

That's... straight-up Evil, if you ask me.

It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

[Masakan]

You wanna know evil done right?
Cinder from Rwby and Master Xehanort from Kingdom hearts.
Those 2 scare me.

[druid91]

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Murder is Evil with a capital E. Chaos is not inherently harmful.

Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.

Literally nothing in this world short of the highest tiers of the Slane Theocracy are a threat to him so far as we have seen.

The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.

Which is in itself a trait of Evil. Evil is willing to play the hero to get what they want, Hero's rarely willing to play the villain.

He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.

No, his exact words were "It would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for doing what I would have done in a similar situation." And then later. "I forgot to mention that I am very hypocritical."

That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.

No, it's the most convenient option. It's the path of least resistance and the only cost is the lives of some people he doesn't particularly care about. That's an Evil act.

Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.

Torture is an always evil act. There is no good torture.

It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

No. Not at all. Giving someone a long tortuous death is on the very deep end of the alignment pool. Killing her quickly would be neutral. Capturing her, disabling her, and giving her a chance at redemption before killing her would be good.

Good is not good because it kills evil. Good is good because it takes good actions. Good is an inherently smaller domain than evil.

[TheifofZ]

To resolve this debate, I have a simple method.
Momonga/Ainz Ooal Gown's official Character sheet: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1...%2Bmomonga.png

Please note the Alignment is noted as "Extreme Evil", and his sense of justice is the lowest possible, sitting at -500.

That is: According to the very official Canon sheet, Ainz is very much E-as-in-Evil. The only sentient and free-willed beings that match his alignment and sense of justice, at Extreme Evil and -500 at the same time, are Albedo and Demiurge, and both are Demons. As in, in D&D terms, creatures with the [Evil] Subtype.
For reference; Demiurge later on sets up human farms (that is; to raise humans like cattle) so he can have them butchered and used for various purposes around the Tomb (Like nests. And human skin is very good for scrolls. And the bones are great for furniture).
He's fully aware that humans are sentient and have feelings, and does not feel anything at all about the matter, except joy that it's convenient. Ainz shares his alignment.
Even Shalltear, the psychopathic vampire bloodknight has a higher alignment than them. (Being Great~Extreme Evil, Sense of Justice -450).

[MorgromTheOrc]

Again with the "whatever isn't good is evil".

First, murder isn't evil. It's chaotic.

Second, they were a threat. He didn't kill them just to kill them. He killed them because they were an obstruction.




The memory wipe trick didn't work so well before. It would have been gambling to use something that he didn't know how it would work against adventurers. It was the superior tactic to kill them, not simply convenient. He defaults to the best tactic, regardless of its relation to good or evil.




I don't know the details so I can't comment.




He later admitted that he was lying before that was the sole reason.




That's an awful plan for a number of reasons. First, he didn't know how they're going to react and he doesn't really know what kind of strengths and weaknesses they have to appropriately engage them. Second, there's the aspect of them asking questions thereafter. The unforeseeable number of possibilities caused by this tactic makes it extremely awful. If you kill them, however, you guarantee that you don't have to worry about it.

It's not "convenient" so much as the only acceptable tactical option, considering the circumstances.




Sociopath is another word for psychopath.

It doesn't matter if they did result in personal gain, they were still good acts. The fact he's looking out for his own interests without concerning himself with whether the action is good or evil puts him squarely in the neutral alignment.




Yes, which is a neutral act. She wasn't the least bit innocent.




It could be considered chaotic good. It'd be evil to defend her. Letting her live would be neutral at best.

You seem to be of the mindset that evil people can't have friends and loved ones. Neutral is not a person who will do whatever is most efficient, that would mean an evil person is only someone who goes out of their way to do whatever is evil, which is wrong and what causes stupid evil. Neutral implies a the middle between having no moral boundaries(evil) and having many(good), so someone who does whatever is most efficient with no regard to evil or good is evil not neutral because they would then have no moral boundaries and could not be a middle ground. Although with the stupid evil he crushes to death, that is going out of his way to torture.

This is a thread about smart evil, because someone doing whatever works best is smart evil. I ask you please do not crush smart evil and push the common trope of stupid evil. I don't know much about you so I won't say it's true but if you're saying it is neutral because it is what you would do and you consider yourself neutral then you're likely evil. And there's nothing wrong with that, evil can still have friends and function in society because evil doesn't mean stupid. I would place myself squarely lawful evil because I follow a very strict personal set of rules and make decisions purely on what is the most efficient or occasionally satisfying, but only if I'm 100% sure it won't hurt my goals at all. I don't go around murdering people who anger me because that would be stupid and I would ruin my plans as a result, I am not planning for murder or anything similar either my goals are just very selfish and I give no regard to morals in them.

[Sacrieur]

Murder is Evil with a capital E. Chaos is not inherently harmful.

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.

Literally nothing in this world short of the highest tiers of the Slane Theocracy are a threat to him so far as we have seen.

Wrong. It's a threat to his cover and plans. Simply having knowledge that he exists is a huge threat, greater than any potential enemies of equal caliber.

Which is in itself a trait of Evil. Evil is willing to play the hero to get what they want, Hero's rarely willing to play the villain.

It's neutral. See the part about "whatever is not good is evil".

No, his exact words were "It would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for doing what I would have done in a similar situation." And then later. "I forgot to mention that I am very hypocritical."

So he didn't lie. Doesn't change the fact it's a neutral act.

No, it's the most convenient option. It's the path of least resistance and the only cost is the lives of some people he doesn't particularly care about. That's an Evil act.

Not killing them would be exposing yourself to pretty significant amount of risk. He has justification.

Torture is an always evil act. There is no good torture.

"Whatever is not good is evil."

No. Not at all. Giving someone a long tortuous death is on the very deep end of the alignment pool. Killing her quickly would be neutral. Capturing her, disabling her, and giving her a chance at redemption before killing her would be good.

It would have been stupid. She deserved death. She only would have lied then went on to kill more people, and you would be responsible for it.

Good is not good because it kills evil. Good is good because it takes good actions. Good is an inherently smaller domain than evil.

Sigh.

"Whatever is not good is evil."

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.

You seem to be of the mindset that evil people can't have friends and loved ones.

Quote me what made you believe that?

Neutral is not a person who will do whatever is most efficient, that would mean an evil person is only someone who goes out of their way to do whatever is evil, which is wrong and what causes stupid evil. Neutral implies a the middle between having no moral boundaries(evil) and having many(good), so someone who does whatever is most efficient with no regard to evil or good is evil not neutral because they would then have no moral boundaries and could not be a middle ground. Although with the stupid evil he crushes to death, that is going out of his way to torture.

You're pigeon holing the neutral alignment into some narrow definition which it isn't.

This is a thread about smart evil, because someone doing whatever works best is smart evil. I ask you please do not crush smart evil and push the common trope of stupid evil. I don't know much about you so I won't say it's true but if you're saying it is neutral because it is what you would do and you consider yourself neutral then you're likely evil. And there's nothing wrong with that, evil can still have friends and function in society because evil doesn't mean stupid. I would place myself squarely lawful evil because I follow a very strict personal set of rules and make decisions purely on what is the most efficient or occasionally satisfying, but only if I'm 100% sure it won't hurt my goals at all. I don't go around murdering people who anger me because that would be stupid and I would ruin my plans as a result, I am not planning for murder or anything similar either my goals are just very selfish and I give no regard to morals in them.

I play actual evil characters quite well, and I know "smart" evil when I see it. This is neutral and GITP has a serious problem with alignments and will come out en masse to support such silly notions like, "murder is evil". This comes up all the time and it's insane.

You're the one having trouble breaking from the trope.

[TheifofZ]

In some cases, you'd be right.

But I just posted the Character sheet for the guy whose alignment is being debated over.
It says he's very evil. Very, very evil.
Here it is again. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4UmJApp1...%2Bmomonga.png

[OldTrees1]

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.

Murder (noun): Immoral killing.

Sorry, but the word has 2 distinct definitions depending on the context. In the context of discussing alignment/morality, murder usually uses this 2nd definition.

Yes, this means Philosophy majors can honestly debate when murder(1st definition) is murder(2nd definition). Usually as early as an Introduction to Philosophy course.

[MorgromTheOrc]

That's untrue. He's killed out of vengeance because someone killed someone he did care about.

This is what I was referring to, I said seem because I was unsure if you using that as a point for him being neutral or just mentioning it.

Murder (noun): the crime of deliberately killing a person.

Sorry but you're dead wrong here. Murder is unlawful killing.

This quote seems to imply all killing is murder rather than just unlawful. Which being a morally wrong action all murder is evil, but you are not evil because you murder, good people often have to murder because it's the only option but when there are other options and you do it regardless it is either neutral or evil depending how successful the other options were likely to be. So I do agree killing does not make him evil.

It would have been stupid. She deserved death. She only would have lied then went on to kill more people, and you would be responsible for it.




Sigh.

"Whatever is not good is evil."

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.




Quote me what made you believe that?




You're pigeon holing the neutral alignment into some narrow definition which it isn't.




I play actual evil characters quite well, and I know "smart" evil when I see it. This is neutral and GITP has a serious problem with alignments and will come out en masse to support such silly notions like, "murder is evil". This comes up all the time and it's insane.

You're the one having trouble breaking from the trope.

I don't think he was arguing the killing of clementine was evil, just the torture.

And despite what the game says I would say he's barely evil, the player himself is clearly neutral do to his thoughts but his in character actions do show an evil character even if not by a huge margin.

[Draconium]

Honestly? I would put him at Evil, but with leanings towards Neutral. I can't quite justify all he does as Neutral, and it seems clear to me that the character's intended to be Evil. The player, as was stated, is probably more Neutral.

[Rakoa]

I know nothing of this Overlord stuff and I can already tell you that Sacrieur is wrong just from casually browsing this thread. Someone didn't crack open...hmm...any book related to alignment. Anyone have a copy of BoVD handy so they can throw a quote on torture being Evil? Because it totally is.

[Rubik]

Torture is Evil.

There. I paraphrased it.

[TheifofZ]

Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.

So... A Paladin of Freedom that throws a hissy fit in a bar and murders all the patrons in cold blood would... be totally fine and not have any repercussions at all, whatsoever.

Also the hilarious notion that as soon as an evil action is outlawed, it becomes a Chaotic action to commit, not evil.
So Slavery, once it's outlawed, moves from being a Lawful Evil action to a Chaotic Neutral action.
... wait, what?

[Rakoa]

There. I paraphrased it.

Thank you, my friend! Much appreciated.

Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.

So... A Paladin of Freedom that throws a hissy fit in a bar and murders all the patrons in cold blood would... be totally fine and not have any repercussions at all, whatsoever.

Also the hilarious notion that as soon as an evil action is outlawed, it becomes a Chaotic action to commit, not evil.
So Slavery, once it's outlawed, moves from being a Lawful Evil action to a Chaotic Neutral action.
... wait, what?

Murder as a Chaotic action...that is moving from ridiculous to hilarious, I gotta admit.

Not to mention that you've shown the canon character sheet...what? Twice now?

It's like he is trying to argue from the perspective of real world philosophy (where he is still wrong) instead of D&D, in which we have rules set in stone by books.

[daryen]

I just wanna know why former Vice President Cheney is posting in this forum.

(I wanted to use his first name, but the form won't allow me to actually print his first name! I guess Richards are not allowed to use their most common nickname. Weird.)

[SangoProduction]

Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?

[Rubik]

Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?

By and large, he's rational in his decision-making processes. It's utterly self-serving and without regards for others' needs, but he IS rational.

[MorgromTheOrc]

By and large, he's rational in his decision-making processes. It's utterly self-serving and without regards for others' needs, but he IS rational.

Agreed, I smart evil person like myself knows its in your best interest to be on peoples good sides if it doesn't deter your plans. There's a pretty easy answer when the decision is more work or less work. He does a very good job of avoiding giving up efficiency for fun, at least when he can't afford to.

[druid91]

Neutral is not some narrow sliver of transitional phase of people who "want to be good but just can't", it covers the largest and most expansive of moral behaviors. Someone who is neutral can and will commit evil acts as well as good acts. They do whatever is in their self-interest or motives and live in moral ambiguity. Neutrality has the biggest tent of all.

Neutrality has the SMALLEST tent of all. Neutrality covers a VERY VERY small range of behaviors. Neutrality covers those with good intentions but evil means, those who feel that good and evil are ideological extremes to be avoided and specifically pursue balance, and unthinking beasts.

That's it. That's all.

[Anlashok]

Neutrality has the SMALLEST tent of all. Neutrality covers a VERY VERY small range of behaviors. Neutrality covers those with good intentions but evil means, those who feel that good and evil are ideological extremes to be avoided and specifically pursue balance, and unthinking beasts.

That's it. That's all.

And people who are generally decent but not overtly altruistic enough to qualify as good. And the reverse, people who are generally selfish but unwilling to overtly harm people enough to qualify as evil. People who are just entirely apathetic one way or another... and so on and so forth.

Biggest problem I think with most alignment discussions is that you get people like this who have a very strict definition of what they think an alignment should be and anything that isn't that quite clearly can't qualify because their way of thinking is the only way that makes sense.

General rule of thumb is that if you have a narrow definition for any alignment you aren't thinking about it enough.

[Sacrieur]

Murder (noun): Immoral killing.

Sorry, but the word has 2 distinct definitions depending on the context. In the context of discussing alignment/morality, murder usually uses this 2nd definition.

It has one applicable definition. You literally just made it up to be whatever you want it to be, where I used Merriam-Webster's definition.

It doesn't have two distinct definitions that apply here. There's only ever the one.

Also, of course, there's the hilarious notion that murder is Chaotic, not evil.

Murder as a Chaotic action...that is moving from ridiculous to hilarious, I gotta admit.

The only hilarious thing here is how factually wrong you both are, and don't even have comprehension of basic vocabulary.

The BoVD makes up a definition for murder as well. I'm not going to take some splatbook as the authoritative source of what murder is, because it's not nor will it ever be. The definition of murder isn't changed; the author is simply wrong. And with good reason. Murder already has a clear definition and attempting to define it as an "immoral killing" leads to confusion and makes the error of a categorization mistake. If you wanted to discuss if killing innocent people is always evil, then that would be different.

So for the question of if killing an innocent person evil? I think I would have to be forced to agree. In which case Lord Ainz's killing of those adventurers would be an evil act.

Yes, this means Philosophy majors can honestly debate when murder(1st definition) is murder(2nd definition). Usually as early as an Introduction to Philosophy course.

Please don't start to lecture me about philosophy when you can't even be bothered to open up a dictionary. I assure you this is never debated in introduction to philosophy, which is a course I took. The moment someone asks if murder is inherently wrong is the moment you should realize that they don't know what murder is.

This quote seems to imply all killing is murder rather than just unlawful. Which being a morally wrong action all murder is evil, but you are not evil because you murder, good people often have to murder because it's the only option but when there are other options and you do it regardless it is either neutral or evil depending how successful the other options were likely to be. So I do agree killing does not make him evil.

Murder isn't necessarily evil; it's an unlawful killing.

If a chaotic good character kills a corrupt ruler who was viciously torturing, enslaving, and raping people to his heart's content, it would be murder. And so if a LN character like Judge Dredd kills someone in the line of duty, it's not murder. What is and isn't murder is defined specifically by the law which governs the land. Simply because most murderers are in fact evil does not mean murder is inherently evil.

I don't think he was arguing the killing of clementine was evil, just the torture.

I disagree, I believe torture is only evil in the instance where it is done to an innocent person or without proper justification. Torturing someone to obtain information where they stored a nuclear bomb in a city is a neutral act.

And despite what the game says I would say he's barely evil, the player himself is clearly neutral do to his thoughts but his in character actions do show an evil character even if not by a huge margin.

If what I'm hearing about the lizardmen is true, then he's definitely shifted over to evil; but from what I've seen, all of the evil acts he's committed haven't been enough to convince me he's evil. Even if the author insists he's extreme evil, that's not what I've been shown thus far.

There. I paraphrased it.

Thank you, my friend! Much appreciated.

If you took thirty seconds or so to look it up, you'd find out it never says that. I know because I did spend the thirty seconds or so to look it up.

It's insulting to make something up and pass it off as being factual. Try putting more ranks in bluff next time.

Not to mention that you've shown the canon character sheet...what? Twice now?

It's like he is trying to argue from the perspective of real world philosophy (where he is still wrong) instead of D&D, in which we have rules set in stone by books.

First, some optional splatbook doesn't make me wrong. Second, I'm not wrong; that should be clear since I haven't had to make stuff up to prop up my position.

Let's move this conversation from "is he evil?" to "What makes an Evil person smart?" How's bout it?

The same things that make a good person smart, really. Does alignment really have an impact on how an evil person is smart?

If your question is, "How would an evil character apply their intelligence, and is Lord Ainz an example of this?", then that's different.