Two kinds of evil....

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Over the years, I've started to come up with a theory about evil: 
There are two primary forms of it.

Unless someone comes up with better names, I'll call the first Monopoly Evil, the second Entropic Evil. 

Monopoly Evil is the more common form among humans and such. Those who want to acquire power, wealth, or prestige at the expense of others. The ultimate goal of such evil is to get as much as possible, preferably all, of whatever their favored resource happens to be. Relatively rarely sadistic, almost all are hedonists.
Generally reasonable and cunning, they might try to use the laws of the land against their enemies, or completely disregard them; as they tend to have overdeveloped senses of self-preservation, they will use any number of tactics to keep themselves safe from retaliation or justice. 
Monopoly evils will probably even be willing to join forces with good against entropic evils from time to time, albeit they might still stab them in the back if they think they can either kill the weakened victor of the fight between good and entropic evil or convince the entropic evils to just leave them alone once the good guys are dead.
One important thing to remember here is that even some bandits (chaotic evil by 3.5 standards), especially the smarter ones, would qualify for monopoly evil instead of entropy evil by virtue that they are more interested in helping themselves then in hurting others, or the world in general. If given the option to either kill someone for 10g or go pick up 8g without causing a ruckus, they take the later more often then some might think. 

Entropic Evil, on the other hand, is almost another word for psychopathy. These entities, most often in the form of demons, "just want to watch the world burn. " Many either hate their own existence or completely disregard themselves as irrelevent, albeit some might prefer the option of being present for as much destruction as possible. Almost all are sadists, and many are also masochists.
While many are simple-minded, annihilating everything they can get their hands on (or at least without ending their reign of terror prematurely), some might show enough intelligence to recognize that an organized resistance will last longer (or even prevail) against them and thus attempt to manipulate social systems into self-destruction or at least into a deadlock of debate and inaction in order to prevent said organized resistance. A few might even use the law of the land to hurt others as a weapon and want it to continue to exist to spread the misery and suffering (and by doing so, be more a lawful evil then a chaotic evil by 3.5 standards).
A few even recognize that getting more personal power allows them to destroy more, and thus disguise themselves as Monopoly Evils to suit their purposes. 

As for those who try and take away everyone's freedom "for their own good," this could either be argued as a form of monopoly evil (especially when they seek more power over those they govern) or even as an extreme form of the Closed Fist philosophy of the video game, Jade Empire. Granted, I know the game itself made characters following it into typical darkside jerks, but the early philisophical descriptions from the teachers at the school when you first started the game made it sound almost like something on the border between a solid teaching philosophy (only help if they're in over their heads, otherwise make them fend for themselves even if you have to piss them off to make them what they must) and a form of tyranny (those who don't help themselves don't deserve freedom), so I've been kinda pushing such out of the typical good vs evil debate, or putting somewhere along the border. 

Been kinda wondering if anyone else has thought of something similar, or even already worked such into an alignment scheme to differentiate the "kill everything" demon from the "me first" human (especially without lumping simpler bandits who ignore laws but don't care about hurting others in with the demons)? 
The "book of exalted deeds", I feel, went over the subject quite well.

Wish I could dig up my copy to get some quotes; but the first chapter or so went over "good", "evil" and "exalted" and common misconceptions. Like good not being a doormat and moral things like, if you go after an evil creature that's only protecting it's home or family, dose not necessarily make one good/exalted because you're "killing evil".

It's been several years since I read it, so my memory might be fragmented, but if you haven't read it, it's a good read.
Yeah, that and Vile Deeds were both good.... Guess in the end, there's just a lot of ambiguity with alignments, too many different ways to interpret it....
Isn't that essentially Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil? I mean that's pretty much what I thought of when I think of those alignments.


Evil at its core is extreme selfishness. No person matters more than the self and the self is all. Whether a person works within the rules of society, thinks that rules are for fools or takes a middle road between those two points is inconseqential. No other being matters, no other viewpoints or restraints are valid. Only the happiness of the self matters and any one else does not count.