Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sciborg3 10-14-07, 10:09 AM	How do you see the distinction between LE, CE, NE...and the fiend races that personify them? And do the demodands Gehreleths fit in? If the distinctions can't be resolved/distinguished, why do you think so? If they are nonscensical, again please don't troll explain why. thanks, sciborg 3.0
alchemyprime 10-14-07, 11:48 AM	Hm... well... Demons seem to be the "Destroy" type of evil. They revel in violence and killing. Devils are more allong the lines of "Corrupt". They try to make sure that, if they are stuck in Hell, so are you. Yugoloths are essentailly "The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil" evil. They'll do anything for a profit, even turn on the guy that just paid them for a larger profit after their contract is up. Demodands... I always saw Demodands as this sort of "Demons Under Contract". They are CE, but under a LE contract to be stuck in Carceri, and so they constantly try to find loop holes. Once they find one, they take it. And then we have the Night Hags... um... Hags that don't covey? That's how I see it, anyhow.
Naderion 10-14-07, 12:03 PM	Though they all share the same alignment, demons, devils or any other outsiders are all free willed beings with unique personalties. So there can be great differences between members of the same outsider-race. I think devils are tyrants and conquerors. Destruction is a means to get controll over places or people and being in controll is what they crave by their nature. Also, they are strctured and think in structured ways. They always have a plan, or more likely at least three or four. There simply has to be an order and a hierarchy in hell, but that doesn't mean that always the same people have to hold the same offices. They are completely loyal to the office, but not to the devil that currently holds it. All of them want power and controll over others so they always try to improve their status and station by any means. They tend to not break rules, but enjoy to abuse them to their maximum own gain. The rules are almost sacred, but who does not know how to use the rules doesn't deserve to enforce them. When you manage to gain the upper hand within the rules, the other one deserves to fail. Demons only care for themself and not for anything else. They can care for others, but only because they sometimes like to have others around. They have friends because they enjoy it, not because they want to be kind to others. If someone isn't fun anymore or dies makes no difference to them. When someone killes a demons friend, the demon doesn't grieve for the person/demon, but is angry because someone destroyed something he had fun with. They are utterly chaotic and are solely motivated by what they want right now. It doesn't matter what their (usually rough) plan was, when they want to do it different right now. Some demons actively crave fighting and destruction (like armanites or bulezaus) while others simply don't care who suffers as a result of their pursuit of what they desire (like succubi). Fear, Terror and destruction are usefull and simple means in the eyes of demons, so there are simply no reasons not to use them. Why search for alternative ways to acomplish goals when your instinct says destruction and it works just well? Demons are beings of emotion and desire and just take what they want and do what they want. Using violence is the best way because it's fun and they can show others and themself, that they are poewerful. The last aspect is not to underestimate in the abyss, where is always a demon even more foul and powerful than you. Neutral Evil outsiders enjoy power as any evil outsiders does. But they neither tend to emotional outbursts like demons, nor are they trapped into the extreme regulations of hell. They don't rush into a fight because of instinc like a demon, or out of pride or duty as a devil, but are able to stay back for a moment and think about the whole situation. Usually, there are ways to archive goals with less efforts and danger just by staying calm and trick other people to do most of the work. Devils always try to get you into contracts or agreements with maximum gain for themself, and demons will do what they want right now anyway, but neutral evil outsiders have no problems with building huge constructs made completely of lies and also have the patience to go through with it. When dealing with neutral evil outsiders, things can go perfectly as long as your goals and success means the most profit for the outsiders. But as soon as they think they could increase their own gain, they will not hestiate a moment to betray and cheat you. Usually it's a bad idea to sell save passage and then betraying the people, because soon no one will ever pay again. But when someone vanishes from time to time, most people will thinks its worth the try. In such situations, try to not be among those people valueable enough to risk one of these few betrayls.
Shemeska the Marauder 10-14-07, 06:02 PM	CE = destruction LE = tyranny NE = misery The demodands IMO are best viewed as a variation of the 'loths, expressing their own style of NE as self-absorbed bitterness, xenophobic hatred, and the whole carcerian theme of betrayal and the betrayed, etc. Each of the major evil alignments can have multiple interpretations, even within a single alignment/plane, plus variations that might arise with different injections of Law or Chaos in whatever fraction compared to Evil you've got.
Return of the Flumph 10-15-07, 03:59 AM	Devils: 1984. Demons: Naked Lunch. Yugoloths: V for Vendetta (the comic book, not the horrible movie). Demodands: Something Wicked This Way Comes.
Furryhowler 10-15-07, 04:42 AM	Chaotic Evil - self-aggrandizing though bloodlust and ravaging. The werewolf, the stereotype of vikings, the rabid dog, unleashed lust, the bestial. Rising above others through a passion of hatred and destruction. Lawful Evil - self-aggrandizing through merciless social order where truth is defined by force. The tyrant. Neutral Evil - vaccilating between the two, sometimes the tyrant, sometimes the rabid destroyer. Probably a tyrant bordering on the insane as he learns his life is based on delusion.
Lobsopdoy 10-15-07, 12:45 PM	Chaotic Evil beings tend to run with their emotions and urges. These urges can still take the form of intricate plans, of course. For example, Demogorgon's urge to destroy the Planes is a primal emotional need that is still funneled into grand plans that are inhumanly complex. Lawful Evil beings work in hierarchies or tend to make them and like to have things ordered. They prefer to work from an organized point A to point B to point C, even if the goal is simple destruction and murder. Neutral Evil beings will do both or neither, but they are all in it for themselves. They don't care about chaos or order, as long as it makes them feel good or work out for them somehow, they'll use both as the situation warrents. Unlike Lawful Evil beings, they usually don't really have anyone to report to.
ArcTan 10-17-07, 09:34 PM	Demons: Naked Lunch. Really? I read Naked Lunch as just plain craziness, not craziness that was meant to be malicious or "evil". Limbo, not the Abyss. Yugoloths: V for Vendetta (the comic book, not the horrible movie) This confuses me. Are you talking about the totalitarian government of V for Vendetta (which isn't really all that different in nature from 1984's, just less competent) or V himself, who is arguably also evil? V seems to me to be the definition of D&D's idea of Chaos.
ArcTan 10-17-07, 09:36 PM	Going on a Moorcockian train of thought, LE is the desire to combine all beings and places into one system, totally predictable and ordered, and to be oneself the master of that system and the dictator of that order. CE is the desire to destroy all constraints and boundaries on the self so that one's own will can be free and separate from all other things. On the lower level they seem opposed, but ultimately, as Moorcock explores in his Eternal Champion series, they're really the same thing -- "I don't want there to be anyone but me", whether that's done by absorbing everything else or destroying/banishing everything else. One could make some sort of case for this being the great big secret about the nature of Evil the Yugoloths guard so jealously or something.
Return of the Flumph 10-18-07, 12:48 AM	Really? I read Naked Lunch as just plain craziness, not craziness that was meant to be malicious or "evil". Limbo, not the Abyss. The world of Naked Lunch is the most nightmarish, miserable, disease-ridden, grotesque, lawless, violent, perverted, and abominable that I've ever come across in fiction. All of the chaos that occurs in Naked Lunch seems to be done with malicious intent (mugwumps being the prime examples), and most chapters involve a great deal of murder, torture, rape, and disfigurement. I imagine a world that the Tanarri have conquered as being very much like Interzone (yes, including a Baubau with a phony medical degree who performs experimental surgery onstage). This confuses me. Are you talking about the totalitarian government of V for Vendetta (which isn't really all that different in nature from 1984's, just less competent) or V himself, who is arguably also evil? I mean the government toward the end of the book, when there is only a vague semblence of law. Up until then, I'd have called it Baatorian, but once the laws dissapeared the government oligarchy seemed very Neutral Evil. V seems to me to be the definition of D&D's idea of Chaos. V is chaotic evil in my book. His intentions might be noble, but his methods are despicable. If I was feeling generous, I might put him at Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies.
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-18-07, 01:03 AM	The world of Naked Lunch is the most nightmarish, miserable, disease-ridden, grotesque, lawless, violent, perverted, and abominable that I've ever come across in fiction. All of the chaos that occurs in Naked Lunch seems to be done with malicious intent (mugwumps being the prime examples), and most chapters involve a great deal of murder, torture, rape, and disfigurement. I imagine a world that the Tanarri have conquered as being very much like Interzone (yes, including a Baubau with a phony medical degree who performs experimental surgery onstage). I'll second this. Naked Lunch in particular, since these characters are symbols of depravity much in the same way demons are (or should be). It's most certainly malicious craziness. V is chaotic evil in my book. His intentions might be noble, but his methods are despicable. If I was feeling generous, I might put him at Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies. I'd say CN with evil tendencies; to me, he's not doing these evil things for the pleasure of them, he's a more 'ends justifies means' kind of person.
sciborg3 10-18-07, 09:10 AM	thanks guys and gals! follow up question - does Grazz't contradict the idea of CE? Why or why not? thanks muchly, sciborg 3.0
ArcTan 10-18-07, 03:39 PM	I think Grazz't is just like Arioch from Moorcock's Eternal Champion series. He's an example of why "Chaos" being the opposite of "Law" doesn't really mean anything after a while -- Chaotic people act like Lawful people for Chaotic reasons that eventually get forgotten, and vice versa.
Lobsopdoy 10-18-07, 03:55 PM	thanks guys and gals! follow up question - does Grazz't contradict the idea of CE? Why or why not? thanks muchly, sciborg 3.0 It doesn't quite contradict CE. He may seem to be really together and organized, but really it all springs from an emotional urge, rather then the cold organized style that characterizes. The burning desire to rape and take whatever you want by force is what defines him. Again, he could have a plan that's 3000 years in the making, but the entire plan is being driven by an emotional URGE. Does that make sense? There's another misconception I want to address. A lot of people seem to think that NE is somehow more "evil" then LE or CE. But really it isn't. There isn't some kind of alignment pool that you can only put a certain amount of points in. For example, there's nothing stopping a Pit Fiend from being more evil then an Arcanoloth. The amount of Law or Chaos does not have an effect on the amount of Evil or Good that something has. It's just that Yuguloths are more focused on Evil itself.
Return of the Flumph 10-18-07, 06:49 PM	Grazz't always seemed to me every bit as chaotic evil as the other demon lords. I'm really not sure what you see in him that seems less chaotic; explain your perceived contradiction, and I might have an answer.
ArcTan 10-18-07, 08:54 PM	Grazz't always seemed to me every bit as chaotic evil as the other demon lords. I'm really not sure what you see in him that seems less chaotic; explain your perceived contradiction, and I might have an answer. One would need a good definition of "Chaotic" and "Lawful" to be able to do that. We could just say that his behavior and goals hardly seem different from that of Glasya in Baator and leave it at that.
Naderion 10-19-07, 09:50 AM	Graz'zt just isn't chaotic stupid, but he's still chaotic. To be chaotic means when you think you know what's best right now, you do it. despite any rules or plans you made. I think on inately chaotic beings like demons, we all can agree to that as at least being a major part of Chaos. Graz'zt isn't lawful, but just very intelligent and foreseeing. Most demon lords have some planes of one kind or another, but they lack the patience to see them coming to the end and are prone to discard their plans if another opportunity arises, that seems quicker and simpler at that moment. Graz'zt on the other hand, has patience and is a very careful planner and he knows that he's good. He knows all the details of his plans perfectly and is always very well informed about anything so he just knows that waiting can be much more effective in a given situation and it's better not to strike prematurely when a risky opportunity presents itself. But when he realizes a plan isn't as good as he thought, he might change it or even drop it completely and feels not compulsed to go through with them when he thinks the situation has changed. But he's still a demon lord and completly chaotic in his heart. His castle is full of insane prieces of art and sometimes he sets the beasts free from the dungeons to hunt in the halls and kill whoever might come their way. He's lying all the time and breaks contracts every time it wouldn't be more profitable to accept them. He may rip off random peoples heads in anger, but make sure to grab someone he doesn't really need anymore. He's just more simmilar to a succubus or marilith and not like a armanite or bulezau.
JulesCARV 10-19-07, 05:45 PM	There are many ways to be of any alignment. For example, we could say that the Taliban was LE, but also that Brave New World was LE. Other than alignment, though, these are complete opposites -- a tradition-obsessed, pious, arch-conservative theocracy vs. a scientistic, utilitarian, technocracy? Looked at from any perspective other than alignment, they're the opposite of each other. (Note: you might quibble with my choices of the Taliban and BNW. My point is, one LE type needn't have much to do with another type.) Or take Moist Von Lipwig from Going Postal and Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Moist Von Lipwig is essentially a pacifist, and essentially never gets into fights, relying on social engineering and deception to steal. Alex is senselessly ultraviolent and destructive. However, in spite of being opposites to some extent, they're both chaotic evil (at the beginning of the books in question, at least). I also think Dr. Gregory House is CE, and he also has little in common with Moist Von Lipwig or Alex. Or, for neutral evil, you could put the Ku Klux Klan, Tywin Lannister, Emperor Palpatine, and the Mafia all into that category. My overall point is, there isn't one common motivation, attitude, method of operation, or anything like it to any of the alignments. Rather, a certain balance of attributes puts you in one box or the other. It isn't at all clearcut. I don't think alignments are philosophies or ideologies. They're much simpler: they're properties. A red apple and a red bicycle and a red light are all red. There isn't some common principle that unites them other than sharing the property of redness, or belonging to the set of all red things. However, if you're going to go with a nine-alignment system in which everyone has an alignment, you have to make each alignment broad, or else you'll end up concluding that 80% of people just don't exist. Fiends are a bit different. The Baatezu are not just lawful evil, but exemplars of those properties. However, that doesn't mean that they cover all possible instantiations of these properties -- although they might cover several of them. Rakshasas, on the other hand, in spite of being LE, might be very different from Baatezu: they also exemplify law and evil, but needn't do so in anything resembling a similar manner.
ArcTan 10-19-07, 06:34 PM	I would say that while it varies from season to season, Dr. Gregory House is on average CN (especially the Season 1 Dr. Gregory House that got all the girls to have crushes on him). You can't just discount his "saving lives" schtick as meaningless to his character. I don't think alignments are philosophies or ideologies. They're much simpler: they're properties. A red apple and a red bicycle and a red light are all red. There isn't some common principle that unites them other than sharing the property of redness, or belonging to the set of all red things. However, if you're going to go with a nine-alignment system in which everyone has an alignment, you have to make each alignment broad, or else you'll end up concluding that 80% of people just don't exist. This is the main reason I think alignment isn't a very good system.
sciborg3 10-22-07, 01:44 PM	i think alignment isn't something that should be hard and fast, and even the Outer Planes I saw as being interpreted via alignment as a matter of convenience. For me, the fact that at times the alignment system led to paradoxes was in part why I liked them - similar to figuring out Dante's salvation vs. damnation of souls in the Commedia. I suspect even the exemplars - or especially the exemplars - were confused on how to act or what they should bother promoting. I think some demons will see CE as something to experience immediately while others will, as ArcTan said, see it as a goal that can be achieved. I see the tanar'ri as beings equivalent to the Inchoroi from Bakker's Prince of Nothing, a "race of lovers" that seeks to make the world(s) "a shrieking harem".
Lobsopdoy 10-22-07, 05:20 PM	i think alignment isn't something that should be hard and fast, and even the Outer Planes I saw as being interpreted via alignment as a matter of convenience. For me, the fact that at times the alignment system led to paradoxes was in part why I liked them - similar to figuring out Dante's salvation vs. damnation of souls in the Commedia. I suspect even the exemplars - or especially the exemplars - were confused on how to act or what they should bother promoting. I think some demons will see CE as something to experience immediately while others will, as ArcTan said, see it as a goal that can be achieved. I see the tanar'ri as beings equivalent to the Inchoroi from Bakker's Prince of Nothing, a "race of lovers" that seeks to make the world(s) "a shrieking harem". YES! I love Prince of Nothing!! The Inchoroi are very CE. I think that the main point of CE VS LE is: CE = Destruction LE = Domination Graz'zt can make big plans, again. I heard a really good metaphor for this. He may want to destroy Reality as much as some random brute rank-and-file demon. However, he's smart enough to know that the best way to destroy a building isn't by just randomly hitting things with a sledgehammer, but by carefully mapping it out. You check or create structural weaknesses, place some explosives, and then when the time arrives... *BOOM*
Thanael 10-23-07, 07:14 AM	Has anyone read sepulchrave's story hour on ENWorld? It is about the conflict between Law and Good in the clergy of a LG god among other things. He handles the theological paradox quite well imho.
Kraikken 10-23-07, 01:53 PM	This thread actually inspired me to write the Erythnul "Am I so evil?" post in the Regdars Respository. I wanted to explore the idea of evil being neccesary for the ficilitation and creation of Good, and how good is often cast as the light that creates the shadow of darkness. Erythnul challenges that convention by saying evil is the source, and "goodness" the byproduct of it's passing, or at the very least the source of it's continued exsistence. I almost want to write a counter arguement from another diety's point of view.
sciborg3 10-24-07, 11:32 AM	Bakker makes the threat of tanar'ric possession rather terrifying: You can't distinguish yourself from him because for a time he was you. That's why he tried to provoke me into killing you, because he feared the memories you might have of his memories. "But the things!" she could only reply. "The things I ached for!" Grimacing faces. Grinning orifices and gaping wounds. The rush of hot fluids. "Those desires weren't yours, Esmi. They only seemed to be yours because you couldn't see where they came from ... You simply suffered them." "But then, how does any desire belong to me?" -The Thousandfold Thought
DwarfPcfan 10-24-07, 12:30 PM	Here's my classic example of Evil Alignements using comic books Chaotic Evil: The Joker :"I'd like to thank all my fans. You wonderful kids keep the dream alive.(...) Next time I'll be fully rested before I escape for my next performance tour. And of course, I appologize to everyone for the low body count-count I wont, happen again The joker, from Batman WarCrimes Joker defines himself as chaotic evil, because he's both an intelligent and devious villain, yet he's completely driven to spread fear, chaos, pain and misery on a simple whim that passe through his head. He follows little rhyme or logic and what forethough used is simply a means to ensure that chaos happens on a larger scale Lawful Evil: Darkseid:: "-Darkseid:Evil is based on deceit and backed up by force. Evil is the smallest of lies that grows into something huge. Evil is a worm that feasts from the inside -Anarky: Yeah and football's a game where you run with the ball! I'm not looking for platitudes I want to know why you're evil! Because you hunger for power? Because everything alive disgusts you? Because inflicting pain brings you pleasure? Because your self-esteem depends on the humiliation of others? -Darkseid: All that and more! -Anarky: You're a parasite feeding on pain and death! Have you no regrets Darkseid: Of course not. The ultimate evil requires that everyone alive, everywhere in the universe should bend to it's whim. that is my Aim![/I] from Batman-Anarky Darkseid defines himself as lawful evil because every action he takes is a planned and organized action bent on a single ultimate goal that everything should bow to him as their god and eternal overlord. Darkseid does not have whims and he does not act simply for pleasure, rather, he manipulates and conquers to according to a single grand sheme with a single purpose, to rule. It's not enough to feel base satisfactions,what matters is the end result. Neutral Evil: Death Stroke: Sorry Babe, It's just business From Infinite crisis. Deathstroke defines himself as Neutral Evil because, no matter of complex or devious a sheme might be, in the end it's all about is on selfish self-interests. It's not about some grand sheme or some insane desires and feeling. It's me, me, ME! Another way to define the evil alignements would be like this would be with sick quotes like this (Can't remember where I got them): Chaotic evil: Can you feel it, the pain it's so exquisite. Anguished screams, twisted metal. Death all because I decided to press a button. Maybe next time I'll find an Ebola canister.... Lawful Evil: In the end, any end. I will win, why, because I will be relenthless. I will never stop, because never, and I mean never shall i be happy till my every though is satisfied and everything is but another part in the grand machine that pleasures me Neutral Evil: I really don't care, you die, you live. Whatever, in either case, I've got nothing to gain from acting here. You want to save the world, hero sure, good for you. And you want to try and destroy the world, vilain Me my paycheck's cleared, you guys sort it out by yourselves. There's plenty of other worlds where I can spend my paycheck. And after that well, who knows, plundering, freelance conquest. Who knows? See any of those are evil as hell but, neither can we say that it's the same kind of evil...
sciborg3 10-26-07, 01:00 PM	I think one of the interesting things about the Baernoloths/Yugoloths is their devotion to Evil. For me, I've seen this as something similar perhaps to Shemmy's take, the Baern attempting to see what Evil is - a beautiful flower with infinite petals, a gem with infinite facets and despairing that so long as there is the distraction of Heaven/Good they won't ever fully grasp it.