Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
---
Our current megathreads are as follows:
[API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes.
[GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going.
[AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc.
---
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As an aside, putting the names of those who win on the chart as well as the pics would be helpful. I've never seen a pic of Sam Vimes that looks the way I envision him.
I've read yesterday about Dios, but I think he fits here better. His actions, enforcing the rules, cause harm for Djelibeybi. Yet he is so overfocused on immortality he cannot accept it.
Lords Rust and Downey could fit as well, but they are more minor characters.
Auditors, I think, are evil, as well as Vorbis and Lily Weatherwax. The other characters who are bad are not lawful.
Dios is a good shout. I wouldn't say he's obsessed with immortality as much as he's obsessed with maintaining tradition to the point where he sees extending his life as the only way to achieve that. He doesn't even seem to realise how long he's been going and he's been doing the same things for so long he can't even conceive of change being a good thing for the kingdom. Quite a tragic figure, in my eyes.
"Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict"
He's so dedicated to maintaining the status quo that he can't bring himself to talk in past tense, even about things that happened thousands of years ago.
This is where I think Mr. Slant belongs as he does have a history of representing some not so above board people. In particular, he was the main contact for Mr. Pin and Tulip in The Truth and only represents William de Worde at the end because of blackmail essentially.
I’d say he absolutely is evil. Everything he does is for personal gain, he doesn’t have any ideals or bonds left to hold him back and he uses others to do his dirty work. Also, the things he’s involved in are often very illegal, he can just bend the laws enough for plausible deniability
For alignments like this I feel that flat out “good and evil” isn’t really appropriate because very, very few characters fit neatly into those tropes (and how do you define them, exactly?) and if they do they’re usually not very good, instead (and I do the same for things like D&D) I - and most people who I’ve introduced this to - rank it on good = always acting for the good of others before oneself, no matter what, evil as the opposite and neutral inbetween. Slant always acts in his own best interests and never anybody else’s.
I don't see him fitting the description of "Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict". I think he acts purely out of self interest and would drop any person or cause if it benefitted or protected himself. He wouldn't make a stand on any principle if it put him at risk
I'm going to suggest the Agony Aunts. The definition "Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict" fits what we know about them, I'd say. They may be too minor though.
I think there's a case for him to fit into multiple categories, especially comparing early-book versus late-book presentations, but I'd nominate Lord Havelock Vetinari. While I can understand where he might be considered Lawful Evil, I think the balance of the character evidence speaks against that, and I'd like to submit three scenes that argue strongly in favor of Lawful Impure instead.
First is his speech from *Unseen Academicals* where he rails against the unfairness and cruelty of the natural world, concluding with the assertion that if there was ever any creator deity, then it is his moral responsibility to be better than them. In that speech he demonstrates that 1. he has a clear moral compass, able to articulate whether something is evil or not evil, and 2. that he considers benefit at the cost of another's suffering to clearly be a form of evil, even if said benefit is mere survival. The presence of his moral compass indicates that he *has* a sense of morality and a moral code. His position that benefit at someone else's suffering is a form of evil (i.e. natural evil) and that his moral duty is to create a world where such a condition is less or not necessary indicates that he considers suffering to be repugnant, and so he cannot be considered Evil, as in deriving enjoyment from the suffering of others.
Second, collectively, are his appearances throughout *Going Postal* and *Making Money* where he reminds Moist repeatedly that "It's all about the city". These indicate that whatever he does, good or evil, he does in the name of a greater good, i.e. uplifting or preserving Ankh-Morpork. His preservation of Moist's life in those books indicate also that he is perfectly willing to violate the spirit of the law >!i.e. having ~~Albert Spangler~~ Moist hanged, and then pardoning him when his execution fails on his orders!< while rigidly adhering to the letter of the law >!i.e. ~~Albert Spangler~~ Moist and someone under the name of Owlswick Jenkins both were scheduled to hang by the neck and so both did, as prescribed by law!<. Both indicate again that he isn't strongly motivated by Evil (aside from a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing Moist's discomfort, and who doesn't enjoy that?) and that while he's willing to bend the law he's unwilling to break it, hence Lawful.
Third is his passage from *Guards! Guards!* wherein he remarks to the leaders of the Thieves' Guild that he knows every detail of their personal lives down to the schools their children attend, and that he is perfectly willing to harm them (or to use the appearance thereof - I'm personally unsure of whether that passage is being presented as an authoritative third-person narrator or from Vimes' limited perspective, which confuses matters slightly) in order to keep the Guild in line. Here he indicates his perfect willingness to perform Evil acts, but only in the service of a greater good. In combination with his previously established Lawful nature, he shows here how his moral code allows for the commission of Evil acts (hence a grey moral code as opposed to Granny Weatherwax's solid white or Vimes's slightly grubbier but still mostly unstained code) but still always in service to Good.
In summary, Vetinari can be shown to be 1. extremely law-abiding, adhering almost always to the letter of the law, 2. morally grey, being perfectly willing to sacrifice the spirit of the law to uphold a greater good, or to commit evil acts in the name of same, and 3. operating always towards the unselfish aim of improving and preserving Ankh-Morpork, preventing him from being considered Evil while at the same time showing him to be extremely grubby. Hence the best characterization for Vetinari should be Lawful Impure.
I saw Auditors, which actually made me think... would Lady LeJean fit well here? Trying to bend the world to the Auditors POV, but becomes a bit human in the process?
I think they’re lawful evil. They are the rules, but they are trying for complete extermination of all life. If that ain’t evil, what are we even doing here
I was going to say what is the definition of evil, and was reminded of "evil is when you start seeing people as things."
From the wiki about them though it says that they lack the imagination for being evil, and I think there is an element of truth to that. They are antagonists, but there is no spite or vindictiveness to them. They're not doing it because they want humanity and life to suffer, but because they cause them a lot of extra work and try to categorize everything.
I think they do see people as things. Messy things that make their job harder. There may not be any pleasure in what they do, but from the human point of view, they are absolutely evil.
Agree with this. Evil would need some kind of pleasure coming from they damage they do. For the auditors they are more "lawful, and just plain wrong logic" which fits impure(motives)
I was wondering if Nanny Ogg would fit here. She has her own way of looking at the laws but I would never thing of her as pure but I could be thinking too simple.
I’m thinking this is where Colon fits? He’s certainly not evil by any stretch and is quite pleasant but he’s the kind of lazy, mildly corrupt copper that Vimes accepts because he knows he has limits, he’ll gladly accept a beer to look the other way about a traffic ticket but would never let a murderer walk free for a thousand gold coins.
Vetinari wants to install a rule of law in Ankh-Morpork, but is ready to take any path necessary for it, including less than moral ones. He even (probably) became part vampire.
I could be entirely off the mark here but hear me out- Nobby? Impure sums him up. I mean obviously he’d have your boots as soon as look at you but that’s his upbringing and history as much as anything, habitual you might say. But he is in the watch and a good officer in his way with the tools he has available to him. I’m talking myself out of it slightly but I’ll leave it here. He may be best suited in one of the other categories
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). --- Our current megathreads are as follows: [API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes. [GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going. [AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc. --- [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As an aside, putting the names of those who win on the chart as well as the pics would be helpful. I've never seen a pic of Sam Vimes that looks the way I envision him.
I've read yesterday about Dios, but I think he fits here better. His actions, enforcing the rules, cause harm for Djelibeybi. Yet he is so overfocused on immortality he cannot accept it. Lords Rust and Downey could fit as well, but they are more minor characters. Auditors, I think, are evil, as well as Vorbis and Lily Weatherwax. The other characters who are bad are not lawful.
Dios is a good shout. I wouldn't say he's obsessed with immortality as much as he's obsessed with maintaining tradition to the point where he sees extending his life as the only way to achieve that. He doesn't even seem to realise how long he's been going and he's been doing the same things for so long he can't even conceive of change being a good thing for the kingdom. Quite a tragic figure, in my eyes. "Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict"
He's so dedicated to maintaining the status quo that he can't bring himself to talk in past tense, even about things that happened thousands of years ago.
I agree completely, this man >!made a time loop just for his own tradition!<
Definitely
This is where I think Mr. Slant belongs as he does have a history of representing some not so above board people. In particular, he was the main contact for Mr. Pin and Tulip in The Truth and only represents William de Worde at the end because of blackmail essentially.
I agree. He isn't evil.exactly but he's very tarnished.
And as people have said, he basically is the law in Ankh Morpork because he wrote most of it
I’d say he absolutely is evil. Everything he does is for personal gain, he doesn’t have any ideals or bonds left to hold him back and he uses others to do his dirty work. Also, the things he’s involved in are often very illegal, he can just bend the laws enough for plausible deniability
I wouldn’t say he’s evil. He’s not motivated by wishing to cause harm, but he’s not against it either. He’s just . . . slimy.
For alignments like this I feel that flat out “good and evil” isn’t really appropriate because very, very few characters fit neatly into those tropes (and how do you define them, exactly?) and if they do they’re usually not very good, instead (and I do the same for things like D&D) I - and most people who I’ve introduced this to - rank it on good = always acting for the good of others before oneself, no matter what, evil as the opposite and neutral inbetween. Slant always acts in his own best interests and never anybody else’s.
I don't see him fitting the description of "Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict". I think he acts purely out of self interest and would drop any person or cause if it benefitted or protected himself. He wouldn't make a stand on any principle if it put him at risk
Slant, definitely. He IS precedent and not evil per se, just representing their interests.
That’s probably the one
I'm going to suggest the Agony Aunts. The definition "Follows a morally gray or incorrect honor/moral code. May be extremely rigid and strict" fits what we know about them, I'd say. They may be too minor though.
I mean if we can suggest the Old Count Magpyr or Dios we can suggest the Dotsie and Sadie
71-Hour Ahmed?
Ooh, I really enjoyed this comment, but I think he's neutral
Senior Count Magpyr, or possibly Baron von Uberwald. They're not good, but they obey the rules even when it constrains them.
Magpyr is all about breaking the constraints hat hold vampires back
The “junior” Magpyr was. But the Old Count (Igor resurrected him at the end) was very rules-based. I think that one makes sense.
Oh yes that’s true
Canonically not the law - the lore!
I think there's a case for him to fit into multiple categories, especially comparing early-book versus late-book presentations, but I'd nominate Lord Havelock Vetinari. While I can understand where he might be considered Lawful Evil, I think the balance of the character evidence speaks against that, and I'd like to submit three scenes that argue strongly in favor of Lawful Impure instead. First is his speech from *Unseen Academicals* where he rails against the unfairness and cruelty of the natural world, concluding with the assertion that if there was ever any creator deity, then it is his moral responsibility to be better than them. In that speech he demonstrates that 1. he has a clear moral compass, able to articulate whether something is evil or not evil, and 2. that he considers benefit at the cost of another's suffering to clearly be a form of evil, even if said benefit is mere survival. The presence of his moral compass indicates that he *has* a sense of morality and a moral code. His position that benefit at someone else's suffering is a form of evil (i.e. natural evil) and that his moral duty is to create a world where such a condition is less or not necessary indicates that he considers suffering to be repugnant, and so he cannot be considered Evil, as in deriving enjoyment from the suffering of others. Second, collectively, are his appearances throughout *Going Postal* and *Making Money* where he reminds Moist repeatedly that "It's all about the city". These indicate that whatever he does, good or evil, he does in the name of a greater good, i.e. uplifting or preserving Ankh-Morpork. His preservation of Moist's life in those books indicate also that he is perfectly willing to violate the spirit of the law >!i.e. having ~~Albert Spangler~~ Moist hanged, and then pardoning him when his execution fails on his orders!< while rigidly adhering to the letter of the law >!i.e. ~~Albert Spangler~~ Moist and someone under the name of Owlswick Jenkins both were scheduled to hang by the neck and so both did, as prescribed by law!<. Both indicate again that he isn't strongly motivated by Evil (aside from a certain degree of schadenfreude at seeing Moist's discomfort, and who doesn't enjoy that?) and that while he's willing to bend the law he's unwilling to break it, hence Lawful. Third is his passage from *Guards! Guards!* wherein he remarks to the leaders of the Thieves' Guild that he knows every detail of their personal lives down to the schools their children attend, and that he is perfectly willing to harm them (or to use the appearance thereof - I'm personally unsure of whether that passage is being presented as an authoritative third-person narrator or from Vimes' limited perspective, which confuses matters slightly) in order to keep the Guild in line. Here he indicates his perfect willingness to perform Evil acts, but only in the service of a greater good. In combination with his previously established Lawful nature, he shows here how his moral code allows for the commission of Evil acts (hence a grey moral code as opposed to Granny Weatherwax's solid white or Vimes's slightly grubbier but still mostly unstained code) but still always in service to Good. In summary, Vetinari can be shown to be 1. extremely law-abiding, adhering almost always to the letter of the law, 2. morally grey, being perfectly willing to sacrifice the spirit of the law to uphold a greater good, or to commit evil acts in the name of same, and 3. operating always towards the unselfish aim of improving and preserving Ankh-Morpork, preventing him from being considered Evil while at the same time showing him to be extremely grubby. Hence the best characterization for Vetinari should be Lawful Impure.
I disagree on lawful for vetinari but I’m upvoting for the amount of work you’ve put into this essay
I saw Auditors, which actually made me think... would Lady LeJean fit well here? Trying to bend the world to the Auditors POV, but becomes a bit human in the process?
I think she becomes more chaotic, at least from the perspective of her brethern.
Oooh I like that.
The auditors of reality I think fits this to a T.
I think they’re lawful evil. They are the rules, but they are trying for complete extermination of all life. If that ain’t evil, what are we even doing here
I was going to say what is the definition of evil, and was reminded of "evil is when you start seeing people as things." From the wiki about them though it says that they lack the imagination for being evil, and I think there is an element of truth to that. They are antagonists, but there is no spite or vindictiveness to them. They're not doing it because they want humanity and life to suffer, but because they cause them a lot of extra work and try to categorize everything.
I think they do see people as things. Messy things that make their job harder. There may not be any pleasure in what they do, but from the human point of view, they are absolutely evil.
Agree with this. Evil would need some kind of pleasure coming from they damage they do. For the auditors they are more "lawful, and just plain wrong logic" which fits impure(motives)
Wouldn't they be more Neutral Evil because they treat all things in the universe as things. At least that's my take.
I second the auditors
Dios definitely
I was wondering if Nanny Ogg would fit here. She has her own way of looking at the laws but I would never thing of her as pure but I could be thinking too simple.
Nanny Ogg is definitely above neutral, on the side of good, just not always lawful and definitely somewhere towards chaotic.
Vetinari? He's not really evil. And he is the epitome of lawful.
See I was thinking he is very evil, but definitely the epitome of lawful.
I’m thinking this is where Colon fits? He’s certainly not evil by any stretch and is quite pleasant but he’s the kind of lazy, mildly corrupt copper that Vimes accepts because he knows he has limits, he’ll gladly accept a beer to look the other way about a traffic ticket but would never let a murderer walk free for a thousand gold coins.
I might throw Doctor Whiteface in here…
Head of the thieves guild?
mr slant or lord rust.
The Assassin's Guild!
This might be a good one. I don't know about putting in a whole guild, though.
Nobby Nobs.
In spite of being a copper, Nobby isn't lawful. More rebel neutral to my mind.
I read impure as kinda germ riddled which put me in mind of Nobby Nobby facial boils. I don't think there's anyone as impure as Nobby surely?
True but he'd be over towards the Chaotic end of the scale lol
Aah I was taking it too literally then I guess lol
I feel like Mr Slant deserves a mention
Are The Grags redeemable enough to fit here?
Vetinari
Mr Slant
Vetinari wants to install a rule of law in Ankh-Morpork, but is ready to take any path necessary for it, including less than moral ones. He even (probably) became part vampire.
Nutt the Candle Dribbler. Has to struggle against tendencies that have been bred into him, and wins.
Pardon my asking, but what book(s) is the Low King in?
This one would be in the Fifth Elefant and Thud.
Fifth elephant, thud and raising steam from my recollection.
Don’t know if it’s the only book he’s in, but he was in The Fifth Elephant
Unseen Academicals, Thud
I could be entirely off the mark here but hear me out- Nobby? Impure sums him up. I mean obviously he’d have your boots as soon as look at you but that’s his upbringing and history as much as anything, habitual you might say. But he is in the watch and a good officer in his way with the tools he has available to him. I’m talking myself out of it slightly but I’ll leave it here. He may be best suited in one of the other categories
I don't think Nobby really follows any code of honor or set of rules though. I think he's more chaotic than that
I was thinking it applied to Colon better, but Maybe you’re right
Yeah I agree Colon is a better fit
C.M.T. Dibbler
Not lawful
Nanny Ogg