Talk:Ainz Ooal Gown/@comment-78.226.26.9-20161028192334/@comment-27343892-20161031154429

I think "Good" and "Evil" depend entirely on your point of view. Even a total massacre that serves no apparent purpose could be rationalized by the perpetrator if they try. I guess "True Evil" would be acceptable to describe such a massacre if you asked the perpetrator and he just said "Meh, cuz I felt like it, no real reason." and that's how he really felt.

Agree with Mkprovince that for many people of RE Kingdom, Ainz landed himself firmly in the "Evil" range. Even if you blame Jerky for calling upon him instead of fighting the war like normal, he did unleash a full-on massacre when it's obvious that even a 10th of the casualties (heck, even the original spell's kills, without the DY adding on) would have had the Kingdom's army running scared, so he carries some blame. Also agree with how he describes how "Evil" is related to fear.

There is undoubtedly a disparity between places like Carne and E-Rantel, whose lives have improved under his control, and the rest of the Kingdom, who see him as a mass-murderer. Carne in particular has loved him since book 1 and held a distinct disdain for the Kingdom that all but abandoned them.

In the end though, it's irrelevant. Ainz is loyal to Nazarick and his old guildies. Take Carne Village in Book 1, for example. He intervened specifically because he remembered a conversation with Touch Me, otherwise he would have ignored them due to no immediate advantage for Nazarick and he was more concerned with securing its safety after the unexpected transfer.

Ultimately, Overlord's characters can be divided into 2 groups: those that join the Nazarick regime and receive protection and those who don't and are therefore fair game. A conqueror does not concern himself with the whining of those who oppose him.