Board Thread:Legitimate Canon Questions/@comment-141.224.199.87-20140730014502/@comment-14168656-20140806134150

124.187.3.57 wrote: Oh, so can I, it just strikes me as a little inaccurate. Also, the "evil" label is lazy, pure and simple. Peter looks out for himself first, and that leads him to do things that land him on both sides of the moral spectrum.

Kate, however she was before, likes to hurt things. Torture them. Break their bodies and their minds. Formerly it was supernatural things, but now? Who knows? Added to which, she has never done anything that was remotely helpful to anyone on Team Save Everybody.

Makes quite the argument (I thought). Is a sadist worse than a sociopath?

I have to agree with your argument here. Peter's character is very nuanced and complex. If you look at everything he's done, there's a reason for it (albeit a selfish one). The only thing he's done so far that was actually EVIL was kill his neice in order to become more powerful. Granted that is a HORRIBLE thing to do, but everything else was either for revenge or to get power and manipulate people. Sociopath? Yes, and not a friend I would ever want to have, but I don't know that evil is a fair assessment.

Kate on the other hand burned a house down, totured people, went against the code in her hunting of Werewolves who she knew had no reason to believe had killed anyone. Seduced and slept with a minor, and seems to take a legitimate joy out of watching people suffer. She tried to manipulate Allison into becoming like her and Gerard. Her only redeeming quality seems to be that she genuinely loves her brother. She has never done anything good for anyone on the show.

Don't get me wrong Peter is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a good person, but I'm going to have to go with the Sociopath being less evil on this one.