So in other words, neutral evil. He'll exploit the law to further his selfish goals like the rest of them, but he also has zero hesitation to ignore the law when that suits him better, which precludes any "lawful" alignment.

[–] FordBeeblebrox 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The propensity to prioritize self over many many others when it would not be any real loss to do so other than a line on a graph..that tips it from neutral into full (technically) lawful evil IMO, but severe moral evil. If you could do good but enrich yourself at someone else’s expense instead, that’s premeditation and a qualifier for crimes just sayin

[–] Viking_Hippie 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not sure that you're following what I'm trying to say.

On the "the law is very important" to "it's very important to oppose the law" scale, his sometimes but not always illegal ways of enriching himself puts him somewhere in the middle and the fact that he literally doesn't care whether it's legal or illegal as long as it even POTENTIALLY benefits him or just the perception of him puts a line under that.

But yeah, we're agreed that he's extremely far to the malevolent/selfish end of the benevolent/kind to malevolent/selfish scale.