So, like the other two threads: Neutral Evil might in some ways be the hardest to peg down exemplars of. What character embodies this, rather than falling into the 'chaotic' or 'lawful' forms?
Quote from: RPGPundit;840659So, like the other two threads: Neutral Evil might in some ways be the hardest to peg down exemplars of. What character embodies this, rather than falling into the 'chaotic' or 'lawful' forms?
Porter (Mel Gibson's character) from Payback. He just wants his money.
In terms of archetypal D&D influences, I'd say Cugel the Clever.
Conventional wisdom is that Cugel is chaotic evil, but I'm not convinced. Cugel causes chaos through incompetence rather than design. He's as happy to chest-beat in favor of traditions, rules, and petty bureaucracy that benefit him as he is to flout them.
Other fictional NEs: Harry Flashman, Lex Luthor, and I'll second the choice of Parker (the antihero of the novel series on which Porter, above, was based).
Raistlin, natch
I'd place Vader as NE.
Brother Justin from Carnivale.
Cy Tolliver from Deadwood.
Rev Powell from Night of the Hunter, maybe? It's been a while.
Quote from: Terateuthis;840703In terms of archetypal D&D influences, I'd say Cugel the Clever.
Conventional wisdom is that Cugel is chaotic evil, but I'm not convinced. Cugel causes chaos through incompetence rather than design. He's as happy to chest-beat in favor of traditions, rules, and petty bureaucracy that benefit him as he is to flout them.
Other fictional NEs: Harry Flashman, Lex Luthor, and I'll second the choice of Parker (the antihero of the novel series on which Porter, above, was based).
If Lex Luthor is NE, why is he so concerned about appearing to be LG?
Quote from: TristramEvans;840704Raistlin, natch
Beat me to it:-)
Quote from: Matt;840771If Lex Luthor is NE, why is he so concerned about appearing to be LG?
- I'm confused... an evil character can't pretend to be good to advance his selfish ends? (I'm not being snarky or defensive, I genuinely don't understand the objection.)
- Which Luthor? Luthor's been around for 75 years and his portrayal varies depending on the year and the medium. Sometimes he's the CEO/President masquerading as an altruistic Friend to Humanity, sometimes he's the guy in the battlesuit leading the Injustice League, sometimes he's the greedhead wielding the Orange Power Ring.
That said, in retrospect, the title of the thread is "Quintessential Neutral Evil?" and since a strong (though, to me, unconvincing) case can be made that Luthor is Lawful Evil, Luthor isn't "quintessential" NE. So I retract him. Cugel, Parker, and
especially Flashman are enough.
(Flashman, BTW, masquerades as a LG character to the point that he's lionized as his society's equivalent of a paladin, and he's as NE as they come.)
Petyr Baelish.
jg
Sticking with my L = society, N = group, C = individual; the answer is organized crime.
An NE character can't just be self centred or looking after number one for me. They have to actively increasing the degree of Evil directly.
So I would include
Purple Man
Dracula
John Doe (from Se7en)
Anton Chigurh.
Yeah, maybe Littlefinger.
The Earl of Warwick, at least as I ran him in Albion too. I wouldn't be surprised if Warwick was one of the sources of inspiration for Littlefinger.
Quote from: RPGPundit;841371Yeah, maybe Littlefinger.
The Earl of Warwick, at least as I ran him in Albion too. I wouldn't be surprised if Warwick was one of the sources of inspiration for Littlefinger.
Very much so. GRRM has said as much.
A neutral evil in D&D tends to be depicted as evil with no restrictions. They kill everyone. Whereas a chaotic evil *might* kill everyone or might not or whatever.
A couple of the original villains from slasher movies like Jason or Kruger.
Others of course read it differently. Like how some interpret Neutral Good as helping anyone. Or interpret it as always needing to balance. So if they help a villager they have to go help a monster. NE just replaces help with harm.
NE and CE are the two alignments I dont allow when I am DMing and pretty much refuse to play with as a player.
Quote from: Daztur;841380Very much so. GRRM has said as much.
Huh, interesting! I hadn't actually seen him say so, but to anyone familiar with the War of the Roses it seems pretty clear.
Darth Vader is the obvious choice.
Another would be Pike Bishop, a cold-blooded killer who talks a good game about loyalty and doing what's best for the group and keeping his word, yet doesn't hesitate to screw over or kill friend and foe alike. He bails on Deke Thornton, Crazy Lee and was all prepared to leave Angel to a horrible fate until he was forced to go back to town.
Simon Gruber from Die Hard 3.
The terrorist looking to crash the US economy, the bomb threats, all these ridiculous pretensions. He's just looking to cash out an enormous paycheck. It's the only thing he truly cares about.
Quote from: Elfdart;841995Darth Vader is the obvious choice.
Care to elaborate?
With Game of Thrones, what about Ramsay Snow -Bolton? I know he seems to lean towards chaos, but to me he just stinks of Pure Evil. He hurts, murders, tortures, all for his own pleasure.
Quote from: RPGPundit;842351Care to elaborate?
He's all for law, order, hierarchy, putting the group before the individual...
...until it becomes inconvenient for
him. The Jedi Code is fine and dandy as a way to get out of being a slave, but when it gets between him and getting into Padme's pants, he tosses it aside like yesterday's garbage.
The second fight with Dooku is pretty telling when juxtaposed with the scene in Palpatine's office. He hesitates to kill Dooku after chopping off his hands, knowing it's not what a Jedi is supposed to do. But this is his one chance to get some payback, so off with Christopher Lee's head.
Later, Mace Windu has Palpatine in a similar predicament. Windu dithers about chopping the Sith Lord as Anakin shows up. He then tells Windu it's not the Jedi way to just kill the old man. Why the change of heart? Because for Anakin, it's about what HE wants. Keeping Palpatine alive benefits
him, while letting Dooku live doesn't.
Later in the same movie, Anakin/Vader tells Padme (only hours at most after swearing fealty to Lord Sidious) that he's already scheming to kill him and take over the galaxy.
Two movies later, after 20 years of being the Emperor's gopher, he's once again aiming at bumping him off -this time with the aid of his son. In the following movie, he's willing to throw aside everything to get Luke on his side. He lets Luke plus a commando team land on Endor, putting an entire military installation at risk. He's so hell bent on recruiting Luke that he instructs the troops on Endor to take the rebels alive so he can use them to influence him (think about how the battle would have turned out if the stormtroopers had simply gunned them down). Finally he kills the emperor -not because he's suddenly sympathetic to the Rebellion, but for the sake of his own son.
At every turn, from the time he kills Dooku in cold blood until he kills Palpatine, Vader exemplifies Neutral Evil. He doesn't do evil things for the sake of doing them, or on a whim (CE), nor does he adhere to selfless obedience to the rules while doing evil deeds (LE).
Quote from: Elfdart;842533He's all for law, order, hierarchy, putting the group before the individual...
...until it becomes inconvenient for him. The Jedi Code is fine and dandy as a way to get out of being a slave, but when it gets between him and getting into Padme's pants, he tosses it aside like yesterday's garbage.
The second fight with Dooku is pretty telling when juxtaposed with the scene in Palpatine's office. He hesitates to kill Dooku after chopping off his hands, knowing it's not what a Jedi is supposed to do. But this is his one chance to get some payback, so off with Christopher Lee's head.
Later, Mace Windu has Palpatine in a similar predicament. Windu dithers about chopping the Sith Lord as Anakin shows up. He then tells Windu it's not the Jedi way to just kill the old man. Why the change of heart? Because for Anakin, it's about what HE wants. Keeping Palpatine alive benefits him, while letting Dooku live doesn't.
Later in the same movie, Anakin/Vader tells Padme (only hours at most after swearing fealty to Lord Sidious) that he's already scheming to kill him and take over the galaxy.
Two movies later, after 20 years of being the Emperor's gopher, he's once again aiming at bumping him off -this time with the aid of his son. In the following movie, he's willing to throw aside everything to get Luke on his side. He lets Luke plus a commando team land on Endor, putting an entire military installation at risk. He's so hell bent on recruiting Luke that he instructs the troops on Endor to take the rebels alive so he can use them to influence him (think about how the battle would have turned out if the stormtroopers had simply gunned them down). Finally he kills the emperor -not because he's suddenly sympathetic to the Rebellion, but for the sake of his own son.
At every turn, from the time he kills Dooku in cold blood until he kills Palpatine, Vader exemplifies Neutral Evil. He doesn't do evil things for the sake of doing them, or on a whim (CE), nor does he adhere to selfless obedience to the rules while doing evil deeds (LE).
You know, I always thought of Darth Vader as LE but you make some excellent points here.
Quote from: Patrick;842532With Game of Thrones, what about Ramsay Snow -Bolton? I know he seems to lean towards chaos, but to me he just stinks of Pure Evil. He hurts, murders, tortures, all for his own pleasure.
He and his dad are both pretty good examples. They're both pure evil but don't seem to be either lawful or chaotic.
jg
I can totally agree with Ramsay being NE, but Roose is solidly LE. He won't hesitate to kill or turn his cloak if he feels the situation calls for it, nor will he feel any remorse for doing so, but he doesn't enjoy the suffering of others the way Ramsay does. To the contrary, he often laments the trouble Ramsay's behavior causes him and actually rebukes him for it at one point:
Roose: People fear you.
Ramsay: Good.
Roose: You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet. A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule. Make it yours.
(A Dance with Dragons ch. 32)
Quote from: woodsmoke;842695I can totally agree with Ramsay being NE, but Roose is solidly LE. He won't hesitate to kill or turn his cloak if he feels the situation calls for it, nor will he feel any remorse for doing so, but he doesn't enjoy the suffering of others the way Ramsay does. To the contrary, he often laments the trouble Ramsay's behavior causes him and actually rebukes him for it at one point:
Roose: People fear you.
Ramsay: Good.
Roose: You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet. A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule. Make it yours.
(A Dance with Dragons ch. 32)
This exchange show he is pragmatic, not necessarily lawful. A stronger case for lawfull evilness could be made for Tywin Lannister, Ruthless but dedicated to something greater than himself (namely the family).
Quote from: Korgul;842708This exchange show he is pragmatic, not necessarily lawful. A stronger case for lawfull evilness could be made for Tywin Lannister, Ruthless but dedicated to something greater than himself (namely the family).
Yeah, I'd put Roose as NE and his son as CE. So many of Ramsey's actions are random to the point where he's clearly a lunatic. He does evil things because well, why the fuck not?
Quote from: James Gillen;842689He and his dad are both pretty good examples. They're both pure evil but don't seem to be either lawful or chaotic.
jg
I think you're mostly right. Some of the other people on the thread have argued that because Bolton sr. is not-insane that makes him lawful evil, but that would just mean that NE is the "Crazy Evil" alignment. I don't buy that. I think they are probably both NE, just one is NE-batshit while the other is NE-sane.
Quote from: RPGPundit;840659So, like the other two threads: Neutral Evil might in some ways be the hardest to peg down exemplars of. What character embodies this, rather than falling into the 'chaotic' or 'lawful' forms?
Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street. Greed is Good is Neutral Evil in a nutshell, IMO anyway.
Quote from: RPGPundit;843083I think you're mostly right. Some of the other people on the thread have argued that because Bolton sr. is not-insane that makes him lawful evil, but that would just mean that NE is the "Crazy Evil" alignment. I don't buy that. I think they are probably both NE, just one is NE-batshit while the other is NE-sane.
I think Elfdart makes a solid point about Ramsay being chaotic simply because he's such a mercurial character; he'll do shit that doesn't make any sense or even sets him back a few steps simply because it seemed like fun at the moment. Of course chaotic doesn't necessarily mean crazy, but in Ramsay's case I think both fit. I'll agree Roose is probably more NE than LE, though. Tywin is a better fit for the latter, as mentioned in the other thread.
Quote from: RPGPundit;843083I think you're mostly right. Some of the other people on the thread have argued that because Bolton sr. is not-insane that makes him lawful evil, but that would just mean that NE is the "Crazy Evil" alignment. I don't buy that. I think they are probably both NE, just one is NE-batshit while the other is NE-sane.
Well, unlike (say) Joffrey, Ramsay is competent.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;843455Well, unlike (say) Joffrey, Ramsay is competent.
JG
In an insane kind of way, yes. Certainly MORE competent than Joffrey, who was completely incompetent.
Regardless of what the alignments are supposed to mean, I've come to my own conclusion of what they represent based on how players play them throughout the years:
Lawful Good: "I'm going to roleplay this character like he has a stick right up his butt"
Neutral Good: "I'm just this guy, y'know?"
Chaotic Good: "I'm a psycho murder hobo, but I only murderize evil things."
True Neutral: "I don't know what's going on"
Lawful Evil: "I'm a passive-aggressive bastard"
Neutral Evil: "I'll pretty much do what I want, but I wont disrupt the game or start fights in the group"
Chaotic Evil: "My character is stupid-insane"
I would say Norman Osborne. Not the Green Goblin personality, obviously, that side is CE. He is your quintessential selfish corporate raider and scumbag who uses the law when it benefits him but will break in a heartbeat to get what he wants. Corporations in general are a fine example of NE imo.
Quote from: GreyICE;841998Simon Gruber from Die Hard 3.
The terrorist looking to crash the US economy, the bomb threats, all these ridiculous pretensions. He's just looking to cash out an enormous paycheck. It's the only thing he truly cares about.
The original Gruber of the first movie, as well, for much the same reasons.
Quote from: TristramEvans;843757Regardless of what the alignments are supposed to mean, I've come to my own conclusion of what they represent based on how players play them throughout the years:
Lawful Good: "I'm going to roleplay this character like he has a stick right up his butt"
Neutral Good: "I'm just this guy, y'know?"
Chaotic Good: "I'm a psycho murder hobo, but I only murderize evil things."
True Neutral: "I don't know what's going on"
Lawful Evil: "I'm a passive-aggressive bastard"
Neutral Evil: "I'll pretty much do what I want, but I wont disrupt the game or start fights in the group"
Chaotic Evil: "My character is stupid-insane"
You left out LN and CN...
Quote from: RPGPundit;844146You left out LN and CN...
Fair enough...
Lawful Neutral: "I'm the ultimate conformist"
Chaotic Neutral: "I'm with stupid"