Why is Regill Lawful Evil？

[KDA Seraphine]

He does not serve his self-interest.
He hates demons.
He was cruel sometimes, but he was strict to everyone including himself.
He even sacrificed his own reputation to support commander.
How could this man be Evil？
Regill should be Lawful Neutral.

[Pudding]

he doesn't know the concept of peace, he's from 40k warhammer.

[Pudding]

Originally posted by Pudding:

he doesn't know the concept of peace, he's from 40k warhammer.

he told ember about that in one of the camping scene.

[ExcaliburV]

He's a pretty subdued character that probably doesn't get as much spotlight as he could have, so the evil doesn't shine much. But he definitely is. The guy executes several people over the course of the game, from his own wounded to surrendered enemies.

Evil doesn't mean self-interested. Evil means anything that debases or destroys life, beauty, hope, joy, whatever the heck. Regil is a very "cold calculus of war" character. The people that serve him are numbers, pawns, whatever, to be used to achieve his greater goal of defeating the demons. (And hating demons does not make you good. Devils hate demons. They're still LE.) Even sacrificing himself and his own reputation was not something done selflessly. It was a calculated move that he made to get the result he desired that would further his goals.

He is Lawful Evil, without a doubt. He's just not a moustache-twirling villain.

[Hailspork]

In conversations with Regill, the Lawful options epitomize Regill's character and the Lawful Evil alignment. Note that they commonly justify corporal punishment, executions, and dehumanizing people.
If anything, I'd say that the Lawful options are the ones that are wrong.

[ayrtep]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

The guy executes several people over the course of the game, from his own wounded to surrendered enemies.

Compare Hulrun and Regill. Could one be evil and the other not?

[KDA Seraphine]

Originally posted by ExcaliburV:

He's a pretty subdued character that probably doesn't get as much spotlight as he could have, so the evil doesn't shine much. But he definitely is. The guy executes several people over the course of the game, from his own wounded to surrendered enemies.

Evil doesn't mean self-interested. Evil means anything that debases or destroys life, beauty, hope, joy, whatever the heck. Regil is a very "cold calculus of war" character. The people that serve him are numbers, pawns, whatever, to be used to achieve his greater goal of defeating the demons. (And hating demons does not make you good. Devils hate demons. They're still LE.) Even sacrificing himself and his own reputation was not something done selflessly. It was a calculated move that he made to get the result he desired that would further his goals.

He is Lawful Evil, without a doubt. He's just not a moustache-twirling villain.

But... that uncle Hulrun was even stupidly crueler than Regill.
and Hulrun is Lawful Neutral.
How could that be？

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by ayrtep:

Compare Hulrun and Regill. Could one be evil and the other not?

There is an entire discussion to be had there, it's an interesting topic. But to try and boil it down, alignment is measured just as much by your intentions as your actions. Like how in Kingmaker, there were instances of a Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil option to do the exact same thing sitting right beside each other, but just for different reasons.

Put simply, Regill executes his people because they're pawns to be used to win a war. Hulrun executes people because he believes he's doing the right thing and is sincerely trying to protect people. Hulrun does more damage than Regill and does a lot of detestable things, but he is still a man sincerely trying his best to do the right thing, which is why he floats somewhere around Lawful Neutral.

Regill executes people because it's useful to him. That is evil.

Edit: Let me try to pose an example. When you first meet Regill in the Hellknight camp, you see him executing his wounded because they'll hold the rest of his unit back, and he considers getting captured by the enemy to be worse than death- not for their health mind you, but just in case they might get information out of his people or use them to further their demonic ends.

In a similair scenario, if Hulrun is alive when you go to Iz, you can warn him that the nearby camp of crusaders is under attack. What does he do? He immediately drops what he was doing and rushes to save his comrades-in-arms instead of proceeding with the mission he was assigned.

Hulrun only kills the guilty. Unfortunately due to his paranoia, he does consider a lot of innocent people to be guilty, but he still believes he's doing the right thing and when push comes to shove will try to save the innocent when he can. Regill executes his people when there's even the slimmest chance that they'll burden him.

I'm not even saying I hate Regill, I like him well enough, but the guy is evil. And despite Hulrun's many flaws, he's just not.

[Super Xavior]

just the fact that he order his subordinate to kill all the injured units the first time you saw him is enough to declare him evil. Although if the game try to make his alignment lawful neutral it isn't that off the chart

[ShivaX]

Regil is LAWFUL Evil as Matt Colville would say.

He's definitely Evil, but he's more defined by Lawful.

[Adahn]

Lawful Neutral he is to me.
His goals are always led by his desire to furfill his job.
Yes he can execute surrended people but he also spares people who he thinks were just trying to be loyal to their orders.

[ExcaliburV]

Originally posted by Adahn:

Lawful Neutral he is to me.
His goals are always led by his desire to furfill his job.
Yes he can execute surrended people but he also spares people who he thinks were just trying to be loyal to their orders.

Actually, he regularly punishes people for showing initiative and even for following his orders. The only reason he doesn't is generally if you intervene.

[Quacksalber]

I guess because he favours extreme methods to enforce discipline.

[Gregorovitch]

IMO Regil's LE alignment is fully justified the moment he puts all the wounded crusaders to the sword rather than try to save them when you first meet him at the Gargoyle attack area. He can justify that legally on the basis of a "greater good" argument but the guy doesn't have an ounce of empathy or compassion in him. He is committed to his cause and his duty, which he follows to the letter, but he cares not one jot about anything else or more importantly anyone else. He is a sociopath. Almost a psychopath in the technical medical sense. Zero empathy is almost a definition of evil. By human standards anyway. So lawful evil fits the bill perfectly for friend Regil.

[KDA Seraphine]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

IMO Regil's LE alignment is fully justified the moment he puts all the wounded crusaders to the sword rather than try to save them when you first meet him at the Gargoyle attack area. He can justify that legally on the basis of a "greater good" argument but the guy doesn't have an ounce of empathy or compassion in him. He is committed to his cause and his duty, which he follows to the letter, but he cares not one jot about anything else or more importantly anyone else. He is a sociopath. Almost a psychopath in the technical medical sense. Zero empathy is almost a definition of evil. By human standards anyway. So lawful evil fits the bill perfectly for friend Regil.

As Regil said, he already gave some supplies to the wounded crusaders before, and he killed them because he can not take the risk of losing everyone.
He wasn't “good”, but I don't think “rational person” is Evil.

[JonWoo]

Originally posted by 奥术学徒拉比克:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

IMO Regil's LE alignment is fully justified the moment he puts all the wounded crusaders to the sword rather than try to save them when you first meet him at the Gargoyle attack area. He can justify that legally on the basis of a "greater good" argument but the guy doesn't have an ounce of empathy or compassion in him. He is committed to his cause and his duty, which he follows to the letter, but he cares not one jot about anything else or more importantly anyone else. He is a sociopath. Almost a psychopath in the technical medical sense. Zero empathy is almost a definition of evil. By human standards anyway. So lawful evil fits the bill perfectly for friend Regil.

As Regil said, he already gave some supplies to the wounded crusaders before, and he killed them because he can not take the risk of losing everyone.
He wasn't “good”, but I don't think “rational person” is Evil.

He killed them because he thought the gargoyles were trying to take them and he wasn't having it. His line is something like "They were attempting to take them alive and I wasn't about to give them what they wanted".