PDA

View Full Version : Always Chaotic Evil: An Essay



Falconer
2009-04-04, 07:34 PM
Please note that I've posted this in Arts and Crafts rather than in gaming because it's intended first and foremost as a writing exercise rather than a discussion on the D&D rules. I enjoyed writing this thing, and I hope all of you enjoy reading it. So without further ado...

Always Chaotic Evil
In the Monster Manual, there's all manner of creatures with all kinds of fantastic abilities and traits and powers and appearances. Some are ridiculously awesome, and others are…less so. But do you know what a ton of them have in common? The label of 'Evil' as their alignment. But why?

….anyone?....


…….anyone?.....



….Beuller? ….Beuller?...


Exactly! And thus, we shall investigate this matter most thoroughly, and we shall never, ever say "it makes no sense, just ignore it". Why? Because that's no fun! That requires no analysis! No thinking! And I don't get to force you all to listen to my ideas!

First up, we have some of my favorite baddies, the..

Rakshasa
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/eb_gallery/82161.jpg

Y'know, I've always liked Rakshasa. They have a sort of aristocratic classiness to them that just makes them great villains. But I ask myself: why does it say, in the SRD, that they are "always lawful evil"? They are spirits native to the material plane, a mildly neutral plane, so they are not simple manifestations of a great evil. They do not have the evil subtype, and so it is not inherent in their natures. So what is it, in their kind, that leads them, almost uniformly, to be Lawful Evil?

It is my opinion here that we go by their appearance. Do not misunderstand: I'm not saying "OMG they lookz mean so dey iz EEEVILZ!!1!" That would be stupid. But their appearance is that of a tiger, is it not? And so, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they have some manner of connection to said animal. I'll expand on this in a second. For now...

So Why are They Evil?

Evil, as specified in the SRD, is "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Personally, I don't like that definition of evil, as its far too simplistic; but nonetheless, it is what we are given to work with. So what is it that drives Rakshasa to hurt, oppress, and kill others, without exception (or nearly so)?

My theory is that its just so easy for them. Ridiculously easy. They have fangs and claws, and a rather impressive arcane arsenal that is just at their fingertips. Say you're a rakshasa. Is that monk really, really getting on your nerves? Then just slaughter the idiotic buffoon and be done with it. That court jester told one too many jokes about native outsiders? Then rip him limb from limb and eat him. Why? Because you can. And if you can, why not? You can kill the vast majority of things around you by sneezing at them, so it's not like you'll be held accountable. To a creature with the instincts of a jungle cat, death is a quick, easy, and satisfying solution to nearly any problem. Until the adventurers come, of course.

So Why are They Lawful?

This one is a bit trickier, especially as "lawful" is a very vague concept, with no good definition, not even in the SRD. In the SRD, lawful characters are described as people who "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." Whoopdee-friggin'-doo. True, we can work with this, but only in respect to a character's interactions with society. I imagine Rakshasa, by virtue of their sparse numbers, would not have a society, or at least not in the typical sense of the word. I picture them essentially growing up by themselves, and, throughout their immortal life spans, only meeting up with others of their own kind every few centuries in order to do the nasty and make the next generation of fuzzy little killing machines. And in a lonely, ageless lifespan, I imagine there's little to do. Oh, of course, you can take up hobbies: hoarding treasure, slaughtering peasants, or knitting, but sooner or later, such trivialities will grow boring…unfulfilling. They look to their surroundings for meaning and purpose. And to Rakshasa, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has a purpose. A reason. Nothing is 'just because'. This affects their interactions with others, too, even with activities that most people would consider 'chaotic': when they lie, cheat, and steal, there is a reason for it. It is never just for the heck of it. There's always an ulterior motive. A higher goal. When they genuinely make a promise, they fully intend to follow through on it. Whatever they start, they plan to finish. You could say that they're creatures of habit, but it's more than that. They do what they do because they've concluded that their way is the BEST way. The ONLY way. And come hell or high water, they’re going to stick to it.


General RP Ideas

Unlike what one might logically conclude about immortality, that it keeps one focused on the moment and never worrying about what is to come, I think the opposite takes effect: Rakshasa are, in fact, completely obsessed with the future. In their ageless lifespans, they lose their sense of the present and focus on the future and past. Just by virtue (or vice, in this case) of the way their native outsider brains have developed, they're constantly worrying about their future prospects, and always fretting about the past. Oh, they can certainly acknowledge the moment: it's not like they're literally stuck in the future or the past (as interesting as that would be). They can still cast Fireball on those hapless adventurers who stumbled into their cave/secret lab. But their thoughts and plans and hopes and dreams are always in the distant future. Once their evil plan to take over the kingdom has succeeded, it's on to the next diabolical project, like destroying the world or stealing Christmas.



Just a random thought
Can you imagine a rakshasa cub? It would be completely adorable. Seriously. Think of it.

"Koochykoochykoo! Who's a good rakshasa? Who's a good rakshasa? That's right! You are! …wait…wait a second...what are you...DEAR GOD IT'S GOT MY LEG!!!

Mordokai
2009-04-05, 03:47 AM
Interesting and amusing thoughts :smallbiggrin: Well writen and I must say you put forward an interesting perspective, one that I can say that I find quite appealing.

Good work and I hope to see more essays like this one from you.

hamishspence
2009-04-05, 09:18 AM
is good. Reminds me a little of 4th ed's Draconomicon- dragons are predators first and foremost, and this colours their interactions with everything- even non-evil dragons will eat people on occasion.

Better written than the Draconomicon bit, of course, but "the psychology of evil monsters" is beginning to be more common in 3.5 and 4th ed sourcebooks:

Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, in 3.5.

Draconomicon, Open Grave, in 4th ed.

Eshu
2009-04-18, 07:47 PM
Interesting topic. Alignments in general are somewhat ambiguous, really it's all about perspective from that society. The norm for the society would qualify as lawful good, so for example the righteous paladin who spares the life of a defeated enemy would be viewed as chaotic evil to Drow society, where they expect failure to result in slavery or death.

Overall, though, IMO the "lawful" refers more to enforcing/supporting a social structure and the laws/customs that bind it together. Good vs. evil is more of a slippery slope, much more difficult to define on a macro scale. In this context, the "evil" side as you said kinda denotes that they tend to have a "might makes right" style of rule.

I don't know a lot about rakshasa but I'd think they arrange/grow up in family/clan-like units, where there's a dominant leader for the group and as the cubs grow into adolescence and young adulthood they leave (whether by choice or by being pushed out) and form new clans elsewhere. So there is some loose structure on the microscopic level, but as you zoom out over a larger area you come across less centralized control and more tribal hunting grounds or fiefdoms (of a sort).

Falconer
2009-05-07, 12:02 AM
You know...I'm not usually the kinda person to shamelessly bump his own work, especially about a month after its been posted. But seriously. Any more feedback? Any at all? I worked a while on this bugger...

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-15, 08:47 PM
Are you going to do any more of these? It looks like you worked a whole format out.


In the Monster Manual, there's all manner of creatures with all kinds of fantastic abilities and traits and powers and appearances. Some are ridiculously awesome, and others are…less so. But do you know what a ton of them have in common? The label of 'Evil' as their alignment. But why?
So the heroes have plenty of things to fight. (Evil creatures tend to be good at providing reasons to fight them.)

What did you expect, for D&D to have a whole lot of setting detail that doesn't set up battles to the death? Madness! :smalltongue:


The norm for the society would qualify as lawful good
Huh? Being a society's norm would make something Lawful, if anything. It certainly wouldn't make it Good.

I'd say that a society's Law is really its ideals, though: How it thinks people should behave.


so for example the righteous paladin who spares the life of a defeated enemy would be viewed as chaotic evil to Drow society, where they expect failure to result in slavery or death.
Um, no. The drow don't think that they're Good, they think that they're Evil. They like Evil. Cruelty is great when it's yours because exploiting others gets you what you want.

"Good" in the alignment sense isn't "what I like". It's benevolence, basically.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-15, 10:54 PM
You know...I'm not usually the kinda person to shamelessly bump his own work, especially about a month after its been posted. But seriously. Any more feedback? Any at all? I worked a while on this bugger...
Well, for one thing the guy who drew the anthropomorphic tiger in the OP fails. That's not a rakshasa, despite the file name; it's palms aren't backwards. :smallamused:

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-20, 03:30 PM
Um, no. The drow don't think that they're Good, they think that they're Evil. They like Evil. Cruelty is great when it's yours because exploiting others gets you what you want.

"Good" in the alignment sense isn't "what I like". It's benevolence, basically.

I would argue that this depends on whether alignment is being examined as a universal trait, or within the constraints of the D&D game. Within the game, "Good" does basically equate to benevolence. This is because traditionally D&D exists in a cosmos which personified forces of Good and Evil. However, I would argue that the Drow do think that they are "Good", because if they were using the word then they would be using it to denote something morally admirable. Therefore, the Drow's own terms for "Good" and "Evil" would be opposite to the comsmological forces of Good and Evil.

Good, after all, is entirely subjective and based on the moral codes of individuals. Drow moral codes would be different to those for halfings, say.