The Chaotic-Evil conundrum.

[Jenner]

How does one be chaotic evil in a good aligned party without ruining the campaign with infighting? I've been told that by cooperating with the party and not just flying off the handle slaughtering everything I'm not playing CE. But I don't see why a CE character would revolt against an organization if its going along with what they want to do anyway. (Kill people and terrorize people, collect loot, profit) I don't think we have to buck the system just because the system exists. I also think CE people are fond of living and not incapable of conniving. Killing women and children is CE, doing it in front of the party is STUPID.

I thought I would challenge myself, but Chaotic-Evil is hard. LE is easy, abusing the rules. How can you walk this line with a CE character? Their has to be a way. My character adventures so she can kill people and get paid without anyone judging her and the law getting up her grill.

It's the Pathfinder Kingmaker Campaign setting, for elaboration.

[Mikeavelli]

you're chaotic evil, not stupid evil. These people are useful, or just happen to be your friends. Don't betray them.

Respect strength above all else. The leader of the party isn't there because of fitness to rule, he's the leader because he's capable of defeating all other challengers. Take control of the party, insist on your way being the right way. At an appropriate time, challenge the rest of the party for dominance.

Do it when it would be dramatic, and don't get the party killed over it.

Understand that your companions are not going to be convinced to follow you by your own rules, so twist the situation so it's clear you're a prick...

Examples:

Party encounters slaves in BBEG's dungeon

LG Party: We need to free them!

CE: "No, leave'em. They'll be a distraction, and if you feel so strongly about it you can come back here once the Bad guy is dead."

LG: "Naw dude, we need to rescue them now."

CE: "You're just going to be a selfish little **** and put us all in danger because of your bleeding heart? No, keep moving."

[hr]

Or alternatively,

Party kills BBEG

CE: "Y'know, there's that artifact of power he was using, we'd be pretty much unbeatable if we used it for ourselves."

LG Party: "But it's radiating pure evil, we need to destroy it."

CE: "You gonna stop me from taking it? Didn't think so."

*Yoink*

[hr]

**** like that.

[Morph Bark]

Even Chaotic Evil has friends. They just tend to play rough games more often.

I think I might have more of a problem come next week with characters being all over the alignment grid (LE, LG, CG, CN...) and one wanting to become a Paladin eventually.

[cupkeyk]

I have played a CE bard in a neutral party and it was okay. She played a harp strung upon the horns of a fallen balor ally. Diplomancer build with SOD/SOL class abilities and spells. Buff and inspire. Normal bard-y stuff.

Its just a different mindset. Killing things yourself is crass, base evil. Corruption is elite evil. Evil should be beautiful and polite, bureaucratic and diplomatic. Sway people to abuse their power and calling it claiming what is rightfully theirs. Sow seeds of doubt. Show them the safety that can be purchased with greed. Call laziness inventiveness. Dole out compliments freely and make people feel good about being bad.

Kill one man today and you destroy one life. Corrupt one man instead and you destroy thousands in time.

[Gensh]

Remember, when playing Chaotic Evil, you don't have to be Chaotic Evil, you can also be Chaotic and Evil, i.e. an anarchist necromancer or what have you. Said necromancer can also be a sweet and loving man who adopted a rich orphan in order to pay for his unholy research but nevertheless treats her like his own daughter. Heck, he might even be married to a famous paladin's sister, and he might help his brother-in-law discover the weaknesses of undead he's never fought before in exchange for diplomatic immunity.

I use Jack as an alignment example way too often. :smallbiggrin:

[Vemynal]

^- with my friends we've always house ruled the paladin 'not able to associate with evil' thing a little bit.

1) The paladin is in no way able to heal or be the cause of any benefit to the evil member of the party.
2) It is the paladin's responsibility to prevent the evil members evil deeds or to fix them/right them after they've been caused.

imo if anything this actually makes things *even harder* on the paladin and allows other players freedom to be who they want to be while allowing for an interesting inter-party dynamic/conflict of interest

(You do have to set up some sort of scenario/ situation that prevents the 2 characters from killing each other though...note i said killing. Beating the ever loving **** outta each other is fair game)

And yes, me and my other friend ripped this idea off Roy and Belkar, we got the idea from Roy's explanation of "now the prison travels with him"

and to the OP: Your playing chaotic evil just fine, the other players are simply mistaken and believe stupid evil=chaotic evil.

A chaotic evil character above all is selfish and sadistic, while this can require a character to need to kill on occasion you could actually pull this off with a character who refuses to kill anyone.

Simple mindset: "Why would I ever kill anyone? Its much more interesting to see how long they can cope with the torcher before their mind/body breaks"

[Killer Angel]

How does one be chaotic evil in a good aligned party without ruining the campaign with infighting? I've been told that by cooperating with the party and not just flying off the handle slaughtering everything I'm not playing CE.

That's totally Chaotic stupid Evil.
I hope it wasn't your DM to tell such a thing...

[Katana_Geldar]

A chaotic evil character above all is selfish and sadistic, while this can require a character to need to kill on occasion you could actually pull this off with a character who refuses to kill anyone.


No, that's just a player being a prick and using his alignment as an excuse.

I have a CE wiizard in my group playing 4E Tomb of Horrors for two sessions now, and it's going very well. His philosophy is to burn everything and he couldn't give a pair of flaming dingoes kidneys for authority. But the closest he's come to a backstab is setting the caravan on fire that they party was supposed to guard when the rogue was driving it and it ran over his foot. He later blew it up, and there was much rejoicing.

Now, after the second session I know I'm not going to have problems with him. I said I had to be convinced, as our group has had bad experiences with PvP which led to me putting some very strict rules on my games. Now, I'm okay with it as it's just his character and he's had rather different one in the past.

But there are a few players I would NEVER let play Chaotic Evil, because they'll use it as an excuse to turn against the party, try to impliment their own plans and then I just sit there and watch the players turn on them. We're a big group so they wouldn't last long, and things like this have happened before and they know how far I will let them go.

Short answer: It depends on the player.

[FelixG]

That's totally Chaotic stupid Evil.
I hope it wasn't your DM to tell such a thing...

Totally this.

If it was the DM who told such a thing it is your duty to pick up his DMG and throw it at his face :P

[kamikasei]

Your OP sounds like you know how to handle this already. If you put your interests before anyone else's and enjoy killing people regardless of whether they deserve it, and if you dislike authority and rules and prefer to operate on your own initiative, you're pretty solidly chaotic evil. Nothing says you have to kill everyone you possibly can without judgment or restraint, or that you can't make nice with your allies and go along with what they want to do when it doesn't inconvenience you too much. Or heck, even if it does: you're not likely to straight-up sacrifice yourself for someone else's benefit, but you can certainly accept risking yourself to help them out if it buys their loyalty.

My character adventures so she can kill people and get paid without anyone judging her and the law getting up her grill.
Sounds plenty CE to me. I'd say you're doing fine.

I've been told that by cooperating with the party and not just flying off the handle slaughtering everything I'm not playing CE.
Seconding Killer Angel: who told you this? If it was your DM, then you'd better just stop playing CE because it's not going to be worth the headache. Personally I'd take that as a warning sign to get out of the game entirely, but that'd depend on how the rest of it is going.

[Jenner]

Mostly its the PCs, and I suspect they REALLY wanna kill my toon 'cause she has done properly CE things, but never in line of sight. (We rescued a group of lizard men, while they were divvying up the loot I snuck off with most of the women and children and sold them into slavery. I can buy my own loot.) The GM seems to recognize but is trying to think of ways to turn my character away from chaotic evil. (I see actually don't mind this. I like how everything is being woven into making my girl as weak as possible to the inevitable atonement spell. Good character development.)

I've been told that by playing by the rules and manipulating the system I'm being LAWful evil. But I'm not using the law to get what I want, I'm taking advantage of the lawful to do what I want to do. Having an understanding of the law and how to toe the line and get around it is not the same as being lawful.

Thanks guys, the chaotic-evil character is still a challenge, but I'm really glad I did it.

[kamikasei]

Sounds like you need to talk to the group. At the moment it seems your character bothers them but they're not willing to say why straight out. Ask them. Even if you're playing a properly CE character and doing it in a way that, in character, works fine with the party, if it's a character that the rest of the group don't want at the table then it'd be a good idea to change or retire it.

Just make sure you get to actual reasons instead of pretexts.

[Killer Angel]

I've been told that by playing by the rules and manipulating the system I'm being LAWful evil. But I'm not using the law to get what I want, I'm taking advantage of the lawful to do what I want to do. Having an understanding of the law and how to toe the line and get around it is not the same as being lawful.


Tell'em that a Lawful Evil plays by the law to gain power, respects his own word, etc.
A Chaotic evil can do exactly the same... 'til he gains more in doing it. He doesn't respect almost anything a lawful character does. He doesn't believe in laws and in any moment, he can betray you.
I could say that the chaotic character likes the laws, because others can feel compelled to follow them , while he's not. A chaotic criminal can be well aware of what are the rights that the laws gave to him.

edit: That said, don't force too much the situation, if talking with the DM and the other players doesn't work

[Jenner]

Sounds like you need to talk to the group. At the moment it seems your character bothers them but they're not willing to say why straight out. Ask them. Even if you're playing a properly CE character and doing it in a way that, in character, works fine with the party, if it's a character that the rest of the group don't want at the table then it'd be a good idea to change or retire it.

Just make sure you get to actual reasons instead of pretexts.

Yeah, I was assuming (hence the post) that I was doing it wrong and that was what was causing the discomfort. This group has ALWAYS liked me, but I've always played something good and decent and trustworthy. I really wanted to challenge myself and play something evil. Thank you all for letting me know that I'm not doing CE wrong. I'll let'cha all know how it goes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Be lazy.

EXPLANATION
The real problem with playing Evil characters is that you're willing to place your needs above those of everyone else. This means that, even with a group of friends, it can become hard to see why you need to always be placing the needs of the group ahead of your own. Worse, Evil characters place no particular importance on the life of other sentient beings and actually spend a lot of their time hurting and killing them for fun or profit.

As a reminder, from the SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
In the same way that a character which refuses to protect Innocent life cannot be Good, a character that refuses to debase or destroy Innocent life cannot be Evil. Obviously, this sort of activity will make you clash with any Good people in your party and will be unsettling to the Neutrals.
Now, why lazy? Well, if your aims are being accomplished without you having to do anything - and you've decided not to go with the "killing for fun" angle - then there's little reason to be obnoxious. In fact, if you make it clear that you will kill people to get your way, you might be able to intimidate your fellow PCs to give in and keep you happy.

As you said - a Chaotic Evil character is not going to revolt against an organization that is giving them what they want, but they are certainly not going to respect any rules that go against his personal desires either. Either bend the organization to your will (the bully approach) or tailor your character such that what the organization wants to do is what you want to do. The first is easiest, but the second in more party-friendly. Be warry with the second path - NE is going along with an organization on the little things; CE is about blowing off the little things that an organization wants you to do.

[hamishspence]

Worse, Evil characters place no particular importance on the life of other sentient beings and actually spend a lot of their time hurting and killing them for fun or profit.

In the same way that a character which refuses to protect Innocent life cannot be Good, a character that refuses to debase or destroy Innocent life cannot be Evil. Obviously, this sort of activity will make you clash with any Good people in your party and will be unsettling to the Neutrals.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- it depends on the evil character and the setting.

In some, the evil character will be hurting, oppressing, and debasing- but not killing. An "evil innkeeper" or "evil legal advocate" in Eberron, for example.

Or you could have a character who very enthusiastically debases and destroys "non-Innocent life" but steers clear of hurting, oppressing, debasing, killing Innocent life. Either out of moral qualms, or a belief that no-one will object if he keeps his oppressive, debasing activities within certain bounds.

If all a person needs to be evil-aligned is to repeatedly, deliberately commit evil acts, and if evil acts can be evil even if their victim is "non-Innocent" then you can have a Evil person who won't commit evil acts against the Innocent.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- it depends on the evil character and the setting.
And I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
This is about as clear a quote as you can get on the nature of Good and Evil in D&D. It's directly from the Core Rules; it is written in simple, absolute language; and its Good clause is universally accepted.

Until you can come to grips with this very basic statement - and Core Alignment in general - we can't really have a reasoned discussion.

RESPONSES (if anyone is interested)
The fallacy of the "evil advocate" argument is that lawyers and innkeepers aren't perceived as being killers. But if an Evil lawyer or innkeeper found a critically-wounded traveler in the middle of nowhere, what's to say that they wouldn't finish them off and rob them?

Obviously I'm not going to re-argue this point with my Alignment Nemesis, but I thought I'd take a moment to point out the fallacy here.

Also: Action Alignment?

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
Your Alignment is not the sum of your actions; nor is it strictly proper to refer to actions as having an Alignment. Yes, Paladins cannot willingly perform Evil actions but that is most logically understood as "actions that only a person of the Evil Alignment would have undertaken" rather than "actions that are inherently Evil" since actions are neither creatures nor do they have attitudes.

EDIT: Also, the OP should study Belkar in OotS. He is the sort of party member you would have to be in order to be CE in a non-Evil party. Note in particular the sorts of actions that caused him to get booted from the party and follow Lord Shoujo's advice carefully.

[hamishspence]

Yes, Paladins cannot willingly perform Evil actions but that is most logically understood as "actions that only a person of the Evil Alignment would have undertaken" rather than "actions that are inherently Evil" since actions are neither creatures nor do they have attitudes.

Then why, does it work out as: a paladin can willingly perform Evil actions- and Falls for doing so?

To say to the paladin player "only an evil aligned person would do that- so you can't do that since you are good aligned" is a good example of unnecessarily restricting the player's actions.

Simpler, and more consistant with the game mechanics, to say "You can do that- but you will Fall for doing so, and if you keep doing that, you will change alignment".

Even the PHB calls Rebuking Undead "an evil act" not "an act that only an evil person would do- since Neutral clerics can rebuke undead.

Every book that discusses alignment in any depth, speaks of "evil acts" and "acts which will eventually cause a person's alignment to change" not "acts which only a person of evil alignment would willingly do".

[Oracle_Hunter]

Then why, does it work out as: a paladin can willingly perform Evil actions- and Falls for doing so?

To say to the paladin player "only an evil aligned person would do that- so you can't do that since you are good aligned" is a good example of unnecessarily restricting the player's actions.
Damnation, I lost my post on this.

OK, short form:
(1) That's not what I said or meant to imply - it contradicts the RAW

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

(2) A longer restatement for greater precision
"An action which, if viewed by a semi-omniscient objective observer (i.e. the DM) in isolation, would cause the observer to conclude that the character is acting according to a general system of morality consistent with that described by the Evil Alignment."

(3) Giving actions Alignments is like talking about the Class of a song or a speech's HP - you're applying Terms of Art to concepts outside of their in-game definitions.

[hamishspence]

(3) Giving actions Alignments is like talking about the Class of a song or a speech's HP - you're applying Terms of Art to concepts outside of their in-game definitions.

Actually, it's pretty normal.

When watching Attack of the Clones, and Anakin's murder of the Sandpeople, instead of saying "Is this proof that Anakin is evil" I say "Was this an evil act?"

The same when reading a book where the protagonist, or their friends, does something extremely dubious.

"Was this act evil?" can be more informative than "Does this act tell me that this person is evil?"

"Good" and "Evil" are not just "terms of art" they can apply almost anywhere- even outside of roleplaying games.

On the OP's question, which was basically "how do you play a CE character that plays well with good characters" it didn't specify restricting it to core.

In fact, if you go by the core PHB "In general, Evil alignments are for villains and monsters"

So, the expanded alignment books may be more helpful to the OP- since they do discuss the kind of evil character that might get on with a mixed party. Savage Species, BoVD, or Champions of Ruin can be helpful in this case.

"Evil character that is lazy" is one option.

Such a character would have a "general moral and personal attitude" that matches Evil even if they never do much in the way of it.

"Energetic Evil character that restricts their evil acts to "acceptable targets" only" is another.

Such a character would regularly commit "evil acts" as defined by the various splatbooks- but their targets would be ones the rest of the party is reluctant to "call them out" for their cruelties against.

The rest of the party might remonstrate a bit, if they are Good, but, at least at first, they might not do much more than that.

Creatures aren't the only things that are aligned though- entire planes are "mildly evil aligned" or "strongly evil aligned" in the DMG despite not having intelligence. So, why not acts?

[Oracle_Hunter]

"Good" and "Evil" are not just "terms of art" they can apply almost anywhere- even outside of roleplaying games.

...yes, except when you are talking about the game concepts of "Good" and "Evil" in the context of a game!

Since the OP is asking how to play a Chaotic Evil character within a game of D&D I think we might want to actually make reference to the game concepts that are being asked about :smallsigh:

* * * *

The reason I focus on the Core Alignment is that it is simply and clearly laid out in comparison to the mishmash of the Splatbooks. Taken together you have a system of holes rather than a whole system - you simply cannot reconcile any splatbook with the plain language of the Core. In particular, my experience with those books (as mediated by Hamishspence) continually results in "evil" characters that never kill or injure Innocents despite having ample opportunity and motive to do so.

I have no doubt you can use, say, Heroes of Ruin to create Good characters that never bother to protect Innocents either - and actively kill them when it is convenient. However, I cannot help but wonder whether this is consistent with the intent of the Nine Alignments System or whether the splatbook authors were simply looking for a way to let people who don't like the Nine Alignments System justify their actions to a DM.

[hamishspence]

Champions of Valor does discuss Good heroes, but there's nothing in it that can be used to have them "never protect Innocents, and kill them when convenient"

And BoED makes it clear that for Good alignment, "making sacrifices to help others" is expected.

BoVD, by contrast, doesn't say that "debasing or destroying the innocent is compulsary" and lists many evil acts without specifying that their victims must be "innocent" for the acts to count as evil.

BoED lists a couple too- including Torture.

It's only Evil alignment, and acts, that's covered in this way- maybe because the writers recognized that not all villains act the same way, always harming the innocent whenever it's convenient, either for fun or profit.

[Ormagoden]

When I play any evil alignment I always explain it with the following quote from one of my previous characters.

"It sure is nice to sleep in a camp with a bunch of people that won't stab you in your sleep for your boots. Do you know what it's like waking up with a rusty knife in your stomach?"

[hamishspence]

I will admit that the "Evil character who has qualms about harming the innocent- and so doesn't do it" is likely to be a rarity in most D&D worlds- but, for some characters, it will still make more sense for them to be this kind of Evil, than Neutral.

An exceptionally cruel noble lord, who punishes the worst crimes against the innocent with extra-savage Death By Torture, may qualify as this.

Might want to check if the DM goes with act-based alignment (some acts are evil and doing them repeatedly results in an evil alignment even if the "rest of the character's moral outlook" is not consistant with evil) or not.

If the DM likes act-based alignment- then all the character has to do, is evil acts- they don't have to "kill the innocent when convenient"- indeed, the character might be a protector of the innocent. An anti-hero, in short, if a very vicious one.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Killing women and children is CE, doing it in front of the party is STUPID.

I'd like to emphasize this part to challenge what (I think) is the preconception behind it. We tend to assume that if LE is "principaled evil" then CE must be the "nihilistic/absolute" evil, that it's allowed no provisos or qualms. This simply isn't true--CE is no more likely to attack the helpless than LE, the only question is (as with LG vs CG) the ethics involved--do they come from within, or without?

A knight who lives in the forest and challenges all worthy travelers to fight to the death, but ignores passerby who can't defend themselves, can still be CE. A pirate who attacks heavily guarded government shipping and slaughters the whole crew, but ignores small fishermen and the like, can be CE. A huntsman who ignores "weak prey" but loves to hunt the deadliest game he can find (and doesn't care if the game is sapient or not) could be CE.

Maybe your Chaotic Evil character just likes killing stuff, and he signed up with the party because it gives him a chance to fight worthy adversaries and pick up heaps of treasure. He doesn't have to go out of his way to harm the innocent--in fact, he doesn't even have to want to hurt ordinary people. Maybe they're beneath his notice. Sure, if given the opportunity he might kill a civilian who is in his way or preventing him from obtaining what he wants. But he wouldn't enjoy it the way he'd enjoy slaying a dragon or something. And he's willing to squelch his instincts so long as his partnership with the party remains profitable, of course.

I dunno anything about the setting of your campaign, but honestly you could just play him as a slightly unstable, bloodthirsty soldier or mercenary--he could make his companions edgy without ever giving them a real reason to turn on him. You can also have a lot of fun making outrageous suggestions ("it's too bad for the hostages but honestly, why don't we just burn the building down?" "I bet I could get that gaoler to tell us where he hid the keys if you just give me five minutes with him." "It's been five days, when am I gonna get to kill something?") without actually doing anything evil.

EDIT: If your DM and fellow players insist you have to kill things at every opportunity or you're "not Chaotic Evil," then IMO don't even bother arguing about it. Just say "fine, I'm Chaotic Neutral," and then play the smart Chaotic Evil character you want.

[hamishspence]

This. Evil characters can be pretty discriminatory.

"Making outrageous suggestions" can help to show an "evil overall moral outlook" without them having to do evil deeds all the time. Helps get the point across that the guy thinks in an evil fashion.

A CE guy with principles, might be a bit like V in V for Vendetta- very Chaotic- willing to do horrible things to achieve his goal.

V even puts his own ally through physical and emotional torture to ensure she has the "mindset" to be his replacement when he dies.