I think the time has come to remove the "Amoral" category from the wiki - of all the alignment categories it is the one most frequently abused or misunderstood plus more importantly it isn't needed for the wiki.. we have Grey Zone for those that are morally dubious.
Truly amoral characters are not only rare but also shouldn't really be here, this is a *VILLAINS* Wiki, no? villain means a wrong-doer, a person or entity that is on the "evil" spectrum.. whether they believe themselves to be evil or not isn't the question, more evil has been done by those who think themselves good than anything but guess what? if a character commits evil deeds even in pursuit of what they see as a "good" cause, they have entered the "evil" spectrum of morality.
Likewise a being simply being "made of evil" or born to some realm where they embody a specific alignment doesn't mean they are amoral - quite the opposite.. Demons in D&D are NOT amoral.. they are literally Chaotic Evil.
Amoral simply doesn't work and it really shouldn't be on a wiki about Villains or Heroes for that matter, it causes no end of headaches even to folk that stick closely to alignments (alignments themselves cause headaches) - the Grey Zone is a much better category for establishing characters that don't fit any of the established alignments we have.
Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Evil and Grey Zone are perfectly fine.. amoral has time and time again shown itself to be more trouble than it is worth.
so it is time to remove it.
(in face here's a good sample of why amoral can't work and is not the same as Grey Zone:
" The first is the neutrality of creatures which have no moral sense or awareness at all; such creatures (animals, for instance) simply don't make moral decisions, and as such, have no measurable alignment. Vipers will kill innocent life freely, but they are not making a moral choice to disregard the ideals of Good; they are simply acting as designed. Any creature without the capacity for moral choice must be neutral, whether its actions might otherwise suggest an alignment or not. "
animals are amoral, some elementals etc are amoral.. characters with human-level or above intellect are not amoral, no matter how strict they may hold their neutrality they are not true amoral.. even entities like Galactus etc are not true amoral (since time and time again they have shown higher intellect and reasoning.. if someone can raise a banner or champion a cause, they are no longer true amoral.. villains by their nature almost always champion something (usually unpleasant).).
we've have many problems in the past with "do animals count?" etc and we've denied it on the grounds they are not capable of morals, the only "evils" they commit are those necessary for their survival.. that's amoral for you.. doing no unneeded harm, save what one does by very design.. a storm is amoral, a bear killing a fish to feed its cubs is amoral.. same doesn't apply to 99 percent of the characters on this wiki because by very virtue of being a villain they aren't amoral.
"the second kind of neutrality is halfhearted Goodness. These are characters who basically aspire to the ideals of Good, but lack the willpower or commitment to follow through. Many people who consider themselves Good may fall into this category. The man who passes by poor folk every day, muttering that "something should be done", but saves his money because he's always wanted a greenhouse, is probably Neutral "
this second version is definitely more accurate to how we can judge "neutral" characters on this wiki and again, we have Grey Zone specifically for this kind of character.
hopefully I have made my point.