He is listed as "lawful evil" (no idea what this is based on), so I guess he's most valuable for evil runs.
Makes sense. He's clearly principled and lives an ordered life, and he values the rule of law. But he clearly has no qualms with committing evil acts in the pursuit of his research. I like that they have someone in the game that is Lawful Evil without being a cackling villain, and can be worked with to the point where even a Paladin might end up recruiting him, never giving it a second thought, especially with all the Lawful Good "monsters are evil, die!" which is bordering on the tiresome considering that "Good" (i.e. Neutral Good) is apparently all about being nice and extra forgiving and shit to the point of retardation. Alignments in the game are generally stupid, and I have no idea what muppet was in charge of them, so it's nice to hear that it's not all bad.
This will turn into an alignment discussion, but the thing is that most people who play Lawful Good simply aren't.
Just ask a fucking SJW and it will proudly tell you that it is Lawful Good and doing whatever it takes to force you to do "good" is justified. It will believe that it is a modern day Paladin on a crusade to rid the world of "evil", "bigotry" and "hate".
That is the problem with the whole alignment thing. In DnD type games, alignments are absolutes. There are entire
dimensions/planes dedicated to an alignment concept (Celestia, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, Mechanus, Pandemonium, etc.). They cannot be viewed "from a certain point of view". This is what most people don't get.
Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin. That is where the problem is.
Similarly with Lawful Evil. A cackling villian is Evil, yes. But is he really Lawful? Not really. Too many players worship the concept of the Joker (seen too many in other RPG forums) and think that it is "cool". So they make up some stupid rule their character follows (e.g., will not eat babies with his breakfast; lunch and dinner is fair game) and call it Lawful Evil. Why? Well, because it says so in the damned PHB. Yep, the writers of the bloody thing caused the problem in the first place. But that is not what Lawful Evil is all about. Take Mephasm. He is a Pit Fiend, basically an embodiment of Lawful Evil in DnDverse. The way he acts is very Lawful Evil. He warns you about the dangers of entering into pacts with him, he honours his deals and he will help you
if it suits his purpose and plans. Even with Ammon Jerro, he warns him of the dangers of his actions. And he will stand aside and let the consequences befall you (and Ammon) if you went ahead. He isn't going to help. He
fucking warned you and you still went ahead. Reap the reward, fool. No compassion, no tolerance, no forgiveness. He
will extract his due as per the deal.
The problem with the alignment system is not the system. It is players wanting to be something they are not and forcing others to accept it on pain of lots of whining and bitching. This is coming from a long time DM who has seen all kinds of people trying to abuse the alignment system, some out of sheer ignorance because they are newbies, others just wanting to be something they are not, and still others trying to powergame (usually by trying to add a class that requires a non-Evil alignment when they are plainly Neutral Evil at best if not outright Chaotic Evil, and so write "Neutral Good" on their character sheet). And being a long time DM, I have plenty of creative ways to wreck their shit when they keep up their nonsense.
