#took a week

[emailgremlin]

hat! finished! had to modify the pattern (when do i not) and the decreases are wonky as hell but you can’t see it so i don’t care!

[lukasbestgirl]

Diiid a few commissions for @deloreanll of they lynx bab

[deathtrap9065]

Took my a week to do but it was fun

[raeofthelight]

Meh I finally feel like a human again

[rivervvater]

I should have a Twitter page that tracks the progress of chipping my nail polish off.

[envidium-archive]

asks u about envy as lawful evil??

The D&D alignment system is split into two axis: the law-chaos axis and the good-evil axis. First and foremost, this is a system of categorizing beliefs onto two spectrums rather than one. Each axis, or spectrum, modifies the other; chaos manifests differently in a chaotic good character than it does for a chaotic evil one, for example. Since beliefs determine actions, a lot can be inferred about a character’s beliefs from their actions. In the case of Envy, both axes will be interpreted for behaviour and belief, along with how they relate to Envy’s cause. If we were to examine the law-chaos axis on the basis of behaviour alone, we would certainly arrive at chaotic.

To quickly summarize the good-evil axis, Good emphasizes the “You,” Neutrality emphasizes the “Us,” and Evil, the “Me.” I’m a sucker for moral ambiguity, and I wouldn’t quickly label Father’s goal necessarily Evil, although abhorrent. There is no clear-cut distinction between good and evil, even in fiction, and so many characters are impossible to pinpoint here, especially when motives are known. However, according to even this simple definition, however, Father’s cause is a force of evil.

Envy themself are “evil” in more fundamental ways. Leaving aside the fact that at their center they are one of their father’s Seven Deadly Sins, which are selfish in their nature, Envy’s driving motive is a loathing for others, a desire to “level the playing field,” so to speak, to bring others down to their level. You don’t get much more selfish than that, not on such a personal level.

In theory, Envy could be either chaotic or evil, but not at once. They aren’t neutral or good; therefore, they must also not be chaotic. Their love of destruction, their unpredictability, and a number of other chaotic traits are, within the structure of the alignment system, purely described by ‘evil’. To quote my source site, “Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, but more often it is the reflection of an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose.” In its briefing of the alignment, that website goes on to state that some lawful evil people may “commit themselves to evil with a zeal.” The near fanaticism with which they perform cruel deeds remains firmly on the good-evil spectrum. Furthermore, their evil is not tied exclusively to cause or kin.

Chaos values freedom (most noticeable in chaotic good, the Robin Hood archetype, but still a motivator for evil). Envy has a very limited knowledge of freedom as is. Although, at first glance, a chaotic alignment would seem predisposed toward arbitrary destruction, its greatest emphasis is not that at all. Envy does not have freedom or independence; they covet and fear both (mainly fear). Remember that they envy human solidarity and human independence (I want to do an analysis on this in the future, unless I figure it out in a thread, because that’s both ends of a spectrum, so where does Envy lie?) . That alone rules out their potential to be a chaotic alignment. They have an intense obedience to their Father—naturally a follower, occasionally a leader, never a loner.

This isn’t to say that Envy isn’t chaotic by nature. Chaotic evil is the embodiment of reckless destruction, and if there is anything Envy lives for, it is destruction. But that is behaviour, not the underlying causes, not beliefs.

Neutral evil, then, becomes a viable option. In its definition, it has less conviction than chaotic—neutrality has a reputation as rather wishy-washy for a reason. Still, it is self-centered, more so even than chaotic evil, for neutrality on the law-chaos axis essentially describes a character whose basis for their actions relies on how much benefit comes to them. It is an arbitrary, unstable mindset, one entirely reliant on personal gain. Consider chaotic evil to be evil for evil’s sake; neutral evil, then, is evil for one’s own sake. There is a degree of individuality that is required for this alignment. Neutral on the law-chaos axis is the most self-absorbed, the one that is out for me and for me alone.

And that isn’t Envy.

There is something very precarious about Envy’s existence. They don’t have the independence, the drive, even the capability, in their family and in the way they’ve been conditioned to think, to be quite that self-centered. My interpretation of Envy depends heavily on their lack of initiative. Yes, they act on their own, recklessly and violently, erratically, on whims. They need some greater cause, some greater power. There is nothing solid about their mindset. There is no personal gain that Envy wishes to achieve; their only desire is to strip all others of the same. Although volatile, there are patterns of predictability that can be observed throughout their canon.

By simple order of elimination, Envy must be lawful evil. But to further explain this, neutral evil, the second-best option, must be thoroughly disproved.

One of the most important things about the neutral evil alignment is its total disregard for others. Envy’s life revolves around their family; that is as important, if not more so, than their interactions with the world at large. In determining their beliefs, it is pivotal.

To once again quote: “Neutral evil beings … can advance themselves without regard for others.” Although this is perfect for Pride, Envy does have a certain regard for others (their identity is based on others, typical of the vice). As a follower through and through, their motive is not so self-advancing. The desire to advance their interest, the idea that everything they do is for personal gain and that gain determines how they act, is the main thing barring Envy from fitting into this alignment.

“The only important thing is that he gets what he wants,” states that website about neutral evil. If you’ve read my analysis on why Envy would defect, and my analyses on the vice itself, I believe that Envy knows they’re not going to gain anything, much less what they want, so they don’t strive toward it. (Again, this is one of the reasons for their violence.)

Oh, there are certainly some aspects of neutral evil that fit Envy uncannily. Consider the following, since it was described very well: “A neutral evil character never feels compelled to keep his word. He will attack and kill an unarmed foe (those are the best kind). He will harm and may possibly kill an innocent. He will use torture to extract information and for pleasure. He may kill for pleasure.”

The neutral evil character “may betray a family member, comrade, or friend if it’s convenient to do so and it advances his agenda.” Absolutely wrong. See this. See the analysis linked two paragraphs ago, or this thread. See part 3. They may betray one of their siblings (namely: Greed), but for the others, I think they would only do so if the cause was greatly threatened. Envy acts on their own, but within constraints.

Take a good look at the Neutral Evil Code on that site, and note how much of it revolves around that principle of self-advancement. Perfect for Pride. Not so for Envy, who has no individual power anyway. So much of the neutral evil character’s behaviour depends on whims, on when it would be advantageous to them in some way to align themself with a particular cause, to sway toward lawful or chaotic; so much depends on “if” something would benefit them. Although Envy is arbitrary in many of their actions, there is a certain pattern, or predictability, to their whims, a certain binding motive that goes beyond themself. (So, too, would they like to think of their cause as greater than themself.)

The most important difference between neutral evil and lawful evil is the question of loyalty. A neutral evil character is typically loyal solely to themself. (Of course, there are certain exceptions, and they aren’t opposed to forming alliances.) A lawful evil character will keep alliances “even at some personal risk or cost,” which is exactly Envy’s case, and “will only betray a former ally who has proven himself untrustworthy, or if that ally betrays the group.” Even without getting into the cause itself, Envy seems remarkably at ease around their family, especially for someone wound so tightly with hatred. Conversations with Lust come very naturally (most noteworthy in episode 5 when, after revealing themself to be impersonating Cornello, Envy has an amiable discussion with Lust about the failings of the human race and the next step in their plan). They are also at ease with Gluttony, though they find him of lesser intelligence than them, of lesser worth, and chide him for his messes. (I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, but Envy does see the world in terms of superiority and inferiority.) The way they speak to their Father is surprisingly informal. In the third opening sequence, Envy is depicted in their unleashed form, towering behind their siblings in the background. To me, this looks almost protective. They become swiftly and fiercely defensive when their Father or his goals are insulted.

My source later goes on to compare all three alignments by illustrating how they might kill an enemy. Lawful evil, it claims, would use the easiest, most direct method, without seeking to prolong the suffering. They will make sure to appear not to stray outside the law. Furthermore, they don’t require credit for the deed, don’t need their victim to know who the killer was. I wouldn’t mention this, but I think there’s a misconception about Envy surrounding this point: while they do take tremendous pleasure in killing, their most notable kills were very quick and direct, without credit. Both Hughes and that Ishvalan child never knew just who killed them; the murders were a means to an end for Envy, and the aftermath was much more important. Envy prefers to do things the easy way, to achieve the greatest outcome from the least amount of work. They would rather people suffer while alive, for they do so enjoy human suffering. Like the neutral evil archetype, Envy used a “cruel and heavy-handed” method to dispose of these: a catalyst in one case, a warning in the other. Both murders were carried out in a “poetic manner,” of which Envy later bragged (a behaviour typical of neutral evil and abhorrent to lawful).

Envy wanted Hughes to suffer for personal reasons, however, not simply for his status as a threat to the cause, which is why they took the form of Elicia to kill him. That selfsame sort of psychological torture is Envy’s preferred way of causing individual suffering. The mission itself was merely a clean-up job. There’s this photo post I’ve seen a few times that explains it quite well: “Envy had nothing, so he killed a man with everything.” It’s basically that. Envy is significantly less inclined toward torture than people seem to think; they want to cause suffering, but they don’t want to stick around to carry it out. (They would believe that the end justified the means, if they had a moral compass and believed that killing could be unjustified.) On the other hand, in the Fifth Lab, they repeatedly stabbed the second of the armoured brothers when he kept talking, a brutal overreaction even in context. There is little consistency to Envy’s actions.

Lawful evil is not bound to the same standards of morality as good or neutral alignments are, simply because it is modified by evil. Lawful evil seems to correspond more naturally with good, and chaotic with evil; lawful evil, therefore, is a meeting of natural opposites. Combining opposites is pivotal to understanding Envy’s character. Above any other alignment, lawful evil manages to this mesh of contradictory aspects in Envy’s personality. Their loyalty to their Father, to his cause, and their willing subordination, particularly noteworthy since Envy does so desire control at all times, stand in stark contrast with the selfish, erratic, cruel, and ultimately more obvious side of their personality.

Envy is, undoubtedly, a follower. Though their ultimate driving motive is wholly selfish, they keep it restrained, acting only within the limits of their grander cause. This is law for Envy, first and foremost; their Father’s words. They have a tremendous faith in their Father. If anything matters to Envy, it is that.

But that doesn’t mean they aren’t discontent. And in this respect, too, lawful evil is most fitting — for subconscious motives, desires hidden from even themself.

Note that even when sowing chaos and destruction within Amestris, they make sure to act within the laws of the land—or at least to maintain appearances of such. Both the shot that started the Ishvalan war and the murder of Maes Hughes, two of their most important murders, were carried out in such a way that all events stayed within both the law’s knowledge and the realm of plausibility. Envy even made sure to set up evidence to get other people convicted. They’re only capable of shifting into a form that they’ve seen before; they used the visages of Maria Ross and of a moderate soldier, whom they later had the pleasure of watching the law apprehend them. (Envy only took Gracia’s form because of the personal element, as later displayed when bragging to Mustang.) They don’t want any credit.

The lawful alignment is most suited to one who operates within the law, or, in the case of evil, who is liable to twist it to their advantage. Manipulating the law is as important as adhering to it. Lawfulness is incredibly straightforward in Envy’s case.

The part that tripped me up the most in forming this argument was the question of honour. A lawful alignment inherently has a deep sense of honour, and its moral code follows this. Typically, a lawful character self-identifies as “honourable.” Refer to the first chart on this page, and you’ll find that neither descriptor applies to Envy.

Refer further down on the page, to the coloured wheel marked by alignments. This chart proposes that lawful evil’s primary motivators are power and security. Neutral evil, by contrast, desires power and achievement. Envy doesn’t seek achievement, self-benefit.Power, here, isn’t a power for themself, as is typical of evil alignments. It is just a power over others. Usually the two go hand in hand, so this may be difficult to understand at first, but Envy doesn’t need credit. In dealings with humans, Envy certainly exerts their power over them.

The control that Envy aims to attain over others and in every situation has an element of both power and security. It is only when it comes to their status in their family that Envy desires power for themself, and even that is highly based on my own interpretation.For their erratic, arbitrary patterns of behaviour, Envy does seem most at ease in situation that offer some amount of security. One of the reasons why they are so content with their family situation (refer to defecting AU) is because there is a very definite order, purpose, and, ultimately, security therein.

Excuse the digression. The answers to many of Envy’s idiosyncrasies lie in the question of honour. Though by no means are they actually honourable, they do hold themselves to cerain standards of honour, at least in the eyes of the only “law” that matters to them, their Father’s. Though a habitual liar, created for deception, they don’t lie to their Father (I don’t they could fathom the possibility, similar to the idea of defecting), nor do they let on how easily they break their word, when they give it. They do try to present as somewhat honourable in his eyes, though they are aware of how well he knows them, as they were a part of him. In “Reunion,” after escaping Gluttony’s belly, Ed reminds them that they promised to tell him about the homunculi’s plan. While they hadn’t exactly given their word, they had come near enough, and readily, too. They had seemed more or less sincere, to me, although everything they do should be taken with a grain of salt—it may have been from their desperation at being trapped in Gluttony’s failed Gate. (This, too, I’ve written on.) Rather than just refusing to answer, in the presence of their Father, they completely denied that they had ever made a sort of deal, acting as though they weren’t breaking their word at all. They said, “Huh? Why, I would never stoop so low as to make a deal with a worm like you.” Without hesitation, they lied to Ed, even though they had put a degree of trust in him, offering part of their stone for his transmutation. But betraying their family is unthinkable.Likewise, they don’t lie to the rest of their family either (excepting Greed, who is not loyal and therefore not “family,” another belief that easily falls into the lawful category. Greed they would betray with glee.)

Though not the greatest illustration, an example can be found in an exchange between Envy and Lust shortly after Hughes’ death, right before Maria Ross is arrested. When Lust queries, harmlessly, about Mustang, Envy replies a stuttered, “—Well, he did leave pretty suddenly, a-and he’s good at hiding—” In this case, it seems to me that they’re avoiding the truth yet refusing to deny it, perhaps in case the plan could be jeopardized. We know how easily Envy could either lie or refuse to answer—those are the actions we see most often in interactions outside their family, such as with the Elrics—yet here they stutter, handing the situation over to Lust.

Still—and don’t take this as fact; it’s been a while since I’ve seen the show—it seems to me that they generally refrain from making promises; words are as important a weapon as those that cause physical harm, and it’s harder to twist a promise than one that’s false.“They imagine that these compunctions [among other things, the standards they hold themselves to] put them above unprincipled villains.” I would be the first to proclaim that Envy has no restrictions to the breadth of the deeds they’re willing to carry out, no matter how heinous, as long as all stay within their Father’s supreme law, or don’t otherwise impede upon that. But the jabs Envy makes at enemies are often are emotional in origin, having to do with strict moral principles that Envy seems to hold others to. Based on observation, Envy makes assumptions about human morality, which they expect all humans to observe.

All explanations of lawful evil describe a character who sees themself as being near the top of the social structure, or part of a group that is. Lawful evil is the alignment of “the dominator.” Yet I have written multiple times that Envy wants control but not dominance. But is that necessarily true? Is not envy, the vice, some twisted way to dominate others who one deems above them in some way—why else do we try to tear them down?

tl;dr; Look at their cause. Look at their loyalty to their family. Look at their lack of self-initiative. Can’t be neutral because they don’t have the ambition. Destructive nature = evil. Loyalty = lawful.

[meesus]

Fucking finally!

[uppityfatgirl]

aaayyee ! but how bout i know the whole SISTAR "Give It To Me" dance routine now. okrrr !