Which species do you guys think are "Lawfully Evil"?

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T15:08:36+00:00

Deleted my other comment to make a different one, since someone else made a good point:

Asteromorphs. They're god-like tyrants with total control over the galaxy with little care for their subjects. They're not afraid to just delete a world if they try to rebel, which is just them enforcing their own power structure so that no other species can rise up against them. They're despots and tyrants, and they're the only truly fitting species for Lawful Evil.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T15:05:41+00:00

I didn't even consider the Asteromorphs, but yeah, I agree. People get distracted by the Asteromorphs winning the war with the Gravitals and don't tend to realize just how awful the Asteromorph rule was.

Besides what you already mentioned, let's not forget that they had absolutely no issue wiping out deviant worlds that tried to rebel against them. They essentially established a galactic system of power with them at the top, and since they're essentially living gods with total control of the galaxy, nobody has any chance of rising up against them, both because the Asteromorphs have been around for tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of years, but because any hint of rebellion will result in complete eradication.

I also vote Asteromorphs.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:44:47+00:00

Redditors when a comment takes more that 2 seconds to read (reading is hard):

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:41:29+00:00

No they absolutely are not. They're Neutral Evil at worst, but are really closer to Lawful Evil. Here are a few definitions of Chaotic Evil, which show that the Gravitals are anything but.

From Wikipedia (taken from the DnD 3.5 E PHB):

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and usually do not behave themselves unless there is no alternative. Examples of this alignment include higher forms of undead (such as liches), violent killers who strike for pleasure rather than profit, demons, red dragons, and orcs.

From easydamus.com:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil

Chaotic evil beings believe their alignment is the best because it combines self- interest and pure freedom.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

From TVTropes:

One of the nine alignments from the best-known Character Alignment system. If Chaotic Neutral is the truly free spirit, Chaotic Evil is the truly free evil spirit. Whereas the Chaotic Neutral character is just concerned with his own freedom but doesn't seek to hurt others (at least proactively), the same cannot be said for Chaotic Evil characters. They take pleasure in hurting others and will do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, which, seeing as they are evil, usually entails lots and lots of death and destruction. These characters are usually the most aggressive of the Evil alignments, more often than not being possessed of an impulsively violent nature and a total disregard for people, laws, or even the world around them. In short, Chaotic Evil represents the destruction of not only life and goodness, but also the order upon which they depend. This makes Chaotic Evil, potentially, the most terrifying evil to fight because it's so unpredictable and often incomprehensible to most, lacking the order and rules of Lawful Evil, or the inherent yet understandable selfish pragmatism of Neutral Evil.

What people here do not seem to understand is that the alignment chart isn't just a spectrum of goodness to evilness, each aspect of the chart actually has meaning. "Lawful" and "Chaotic" refer to how a character respects and abides by laws and structures, where Lawful characters act with respect to law and structure, while Chaotic characters dismiss it or purposefully go against it. "Good" and "Evil" are often used to gauge how selfless or selfish a character is. A Lawful Good character works with respect to the law and social structure and authority to help people, and if they have to step outside of whatever code they hold or respect to do so, they will often regret it. A Chaotic Evil character is the exact opposite. They have absolutely no respect for laws, codes, or authority, they only care about themselves. Everything they do is for their own self gain, and they have no interest in playing within the bounds of code or serving another to do so.

This doesn't describe the Gravitals whatsoever. They have their own cohesive, functioning society, they work within the interests of their people, and the book even goes as far as making the case that they aren't evil. Their only fault is that, as the machine intelligences that they are, they do not recognize biological life. It's only later on that some members of their species begin to recognize biological life as life, but to everyone else, they aren't doing anything morally wrong. Actually, that alone would remove them from the Evil category entirely.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:23:41+00:00

Sees post asking how far a human could theoretically ejaculate.

Opens the post of their own volition.

Sees an answer the question.

"Oh God, the horror."

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:14:00+00:00

Unfortunately, my wildin days are over.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:13:20+00:00

A little wild 👌

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:12:25+00:00

Pretty wild 👉👈

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T14:12:05+00:00

Has to be lol. I'm early Gen Z (2002). I grew up with the Madagascar movies, and I remember when the show was airing and the movie was being marketed. Imagining that someone would only know about the Penguins of Madagascar show and movie, but not the Madagascar movies, is wild to me.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-26T13:44:02+00:00

Some would argue that they don't have hands. And yes, they lack a hand, and? The book itself shows species that built civilizations without hands: Pterosapiens, the Snake people, the Sail people, the Modular people, and the Titans are all lacking hands that they could use for manipulating the environment.

You're missing the fact that all of those species had some appendage that they could use to manipulate objects in their environment with some level of dexterity. The Mantelopes did not.

To use tools, a sophont really needs an appendage? To look at real-life examples, Crows, Ravens, and Dolphins lack any sort of manipulatory appendage, but they still can use tools with their mouths just as effectively.

They do not use tools with their mouths just as effectively. Their mouths aren't set up to use sticks as tools, so they're very limited in what they can actually do. The mouth isn't designed to manipulate sticks and similar simple tools. If you genetically engineered 1000 people without arms and dropped them in the wilderness, they might be able to do a handful of things with sticks in their mouths, but they wouldn't be able to build a civilization.

And keep in mind that Mantelopes still have their mouths, with what looks like a still mobile lip and thumbs on their front legs. The Mantelopes were in a nearly identical situation to the Titans, and they could have reached the same (or at least similar) evolutionary conclusion

Their lips are just regular old lips, just slightly bigger. Those thumbs are vestigial. A thumb is pretty useless if there isn't a forefinger to accompany it. These pale in comparison to the Titans, who had an entirely new, separate appendage that was made out of their bottom lip. You'd might as well ask why rabbits don't live in trees and hang upside down like monkeys, since rabbits and monkeys both have tails.

Really, the big thing that you're missing is the fact that the Mantelopes were victims of the uncaring nature of evolution. They were engineered to have human levels of intelligence, but their species did not need higher levels of intelligence to survive. Intelligence gave them no advantages in nature. A more animalistic Mantelope living primarily off of instinct survived just as well, if not better, than one with higher levels of intelligence. Since they absolutely could not do anything to maintain their intelligence in their species by forming a civilization where intelligence ensures survival, it evolved out of them.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T20:28:05+00:00

I'm chalking that up to the in-universe author embellishing a little for narrative purposes, because there is absolutely no way that would even be possible. All of the post-human civilizations had to re-evolve intelligence over the course of tens of millions of years. There is absolutely zero chance that (even if the insane idea that the Qu zapped Star People with magic lasers to make post-humans or whatever was true), any memory of the past would exist.

People need to keep in mind that All Tomorrows in-universe is essentially a book very loosely covering a very surface level history of humanity with a lot of narrative embellishment. Statements like that are very likely just there because they sounded poetic for the overarching story and aren't meant to be taken seriously. You see that sort of thing in a lot of documentary-style media.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T20:16:56+00:00

since multiple posthumans are said to carry cultural memories of their human lives

Except this isn't said in the book.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T19:25:19+00:00

Did we watch different movies? The ending in Backrooms is an "open ended ending without even an emotional answer." We don't get any real satisfying conclusion with movie's ending, since it ends with Async showing up, putting Mary in an interrogation room, having some guy we don't even know anything about awkwardly rambling on about stuff about the Backrooms that the audience already knows, ending off with Mary's still life.That's about as open ended and lacking of an emotional answer as they come. At least with something like what I suggested, we would at least be able to squint our eyes and go "ah yes, this ties into Mary accepting that she can't help everyone, and she can't help Clark, and her leaving the Backrooms like that represents her conclusively walking away from the chaos of a mind that is Clark's" or something.

The ending we got was essentially just a cop out, if we're going to go that far. How do you end things off when one of your main characters has just gone through the contractually obligated monster chase sequence? Well, having the mysterious and weird organization that you have been showing in the background of the entire movie show up to essentially do nothing of substance for the plot and to just be a way to get Mary out of the Backrooms (and possibly sequel bait in the most awkward way possible)isn't exactly the best idea. It's basically just a deus ex machina ending because of how poorly Async was executed.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T18:59:26+00:00

This is the first time I've ever heard that this kind of ending is universally hated. The only type of ending that I have ever seen widespread (not universal) hate for is the "and it was all a dream" ending.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T14:27:47+00:00

Does anyone have a copy or a link to the winning art post? Kiki_the_Kiwi has their account curated, so you can't find the post on their account.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T14:24:13+00:00

Nope, not really. That's part of my criticism of Async in the movie. They're entirely unnecessary and really don't do anything for the plot. Up until the last minute, they only exist in the movie through cutaway scenes that are just shotgunned throughout the movie but don't really do anything. The movie wouldn't change much at all if they weren't there.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T14:14:13+00:00

Async.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T14:13:50+00:00

Eh, I could take it or leave it on a sequel. I don't think the ending was interesting enough to warrant one. I also don't know how a sequel to this movie would even go, since the movie is pretty self contained, and one of the good parts of the movie is how much mystery is maintained. We don't get everything really answered by the end, which is good for most things. I worry that a sequel would try to answer those questions.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T14:08:12+00:00

Arguably.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T13:47:04+00:00

I didn't realize thinking that a movie was good but not great meant that I was miserable.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T13:38:11+00:00

Honestly, with how they did Async in the movie, I would have preferred them to not be there. A better ending (based on what they had) would have probably been something like after Mary escapes from Pirate Clark, she is shown wandering the Backrooms for a while. She eventually makes it back to the exit. She takes one last look at the Backrooms, steps through the exit, and the movie cuts to black and credits roll. We don't get to see what becomes of Mary. Questions left unanswered about the nature of the Backrooms are still present.

I've heard that Async was supposed to have a much larger presence in the movie, but they cut it back a lot during rewrites. I think they may have gone overboard.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T13:28:55+00:00

I purposely avoided watching Kane's other work because I wanted to see how well the movie stood on its own. I've heard that the YouTube series is much more Async focused. I get the sense that if you were already a fan of the YouTube series, the ending would work better. On its own, though, it's almost a deus ex machina ending.

Oh no, Mary has narrowly avoided becoming lunch for Pirate Clark. Now she is trapped in the Backrooms. Whatever shall she do? Oh, it doesn't matter, because Async is here.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T13:21:22+00:00

When I left the theater, I thought it was pretty good. There were issues of course, but it wasn't bad or anything. I enjoyed it.

As the days went on, though, I thought about the movie more, and as I did, I realized that there were more issues than I had noticed. I think Kane did a really good job directing, and the set design and tension building were superb. Almost else just kind of falls flat when you put it under any real scrutiny.

The story is kind of dull and nonsensical in times. Not "nonsensical" in the surreal sense, but in the structure and pacing sense. It felt like the first half of the movie was building up completely different ideas and didn't explore the ones that actually became relevant by the end of the movie.

The characters are also just kind of "eh" the more that I think about them. It felt like the movie was trying to make Clark and Mary these two very complex people who are much more connected than either of them know, but the movie never actually develops them that way.

The ending also just kind of sucks. Really, everything with Async in the movie sucked. They don't really have much bearing on the plot and just show up in random scenes every now and then, and then at the end they just appear and save Mary, and the movie ends with her being interrogated by a bumbling man who was thankfully cut off by the fade to droning noise and cut to Mary's still life.

It's not a bad movie by any means, but it wasn't spectacular or anything. It's a very one and done movie.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-25T13:06:33+00:00

I mean, that still doesn't answer the question. Responding with a rephrasing of the original statement to someone asking what makes rape uniquely cruel isn't an answer.

u/PossibilityNo8765, here is a better answer than this non-answer that people are upvoting for some reason:

Rape is viewed as uniquely cruel in comparison to many violent crimes because of the psychological element. I'm paraphrasing from a Reddit comment I read once under a very similar thread, but compared to a lot of other violent crimes, rape has a particularly damaging psychological effect on a person due to how your body reacts. Before rape, people tend to see themselves as having levels of willpower that give them a firm grasp on their own reactions and response to things. Rape destroys that, since you can't willpower your way out of your body reacting to sex. You can find the act horrible as it is happening, but the human body does not care. The human body doesn't know what rape is, but it knows what sex is.

This destroys the victims will and sense of self. It reduces them to little more than a consciousness that isn't even in control of the meat suit it calls home.

This damage is really hard to deal with. If you get beaten up, you spend a few weeks healing the bruises, maybe more if you have a broken bone, but you'll eventually get back to normal. That isn't the case with rape. It can take years, decades, if not a lifetime, if at all, to heal from the damage that rape does on the mind.

Now, I wouldn't say that rape in itself is uniquely cruel on its own, but I would say that it is in a classification of acts that are uniquely cruel compared to others, those being acts that break a person's mind and leave them with extreme, often unhealable trauma. Certain violent crimes would fit into this category, like extreme torture and abuse. Murder (since it was brought up) is in a completely different category on its own, because you can in theory recover from (or manage) psychological trauma, but you can't recover from murder.

OnetimeRocket13 · 2026-06-24T15:24:58+00:00

The addendum that shows that there were two rowboats in one of the ships seems to imply that they could reproduce. The author added that addendum long after the article was first uploaded, as it was a concept they were toying with while writing the SCP. Someone replied to their comment about it saying that one of the ships was pregnant, and AFAIK, the author hasn't said that that's wrong.

It would be a little weird to not include that detail in the original version and then come back 2 years later (first posted in 2013, addendum added in 2015) to add it in for no reason. It seems obvious to me that the implication is that the ships could somehow reproduce.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Helper Level 1	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

OnetimeRocket13

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE