PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic Evil: Are there degrees?



Keinnicht
2010-12-25, 06:28 PM
Here's a question for you guys. How do you view the evil alignments in D&D? For me, I view it as more of a spectrum than I do other alignments. It seems like Chaotic Evil isn't just more chaotic than Lawful Evil - it's also more evil. Anyone else get this?

To me, a Lawful Evil character isn't necessarily psychopathic. He's selfish, possibly callous. But he makes calculated moves, has some close friends he wouldn't betray unless there was a very, very good reason, is probably adverse to unnecessary bloodshed (Although his definition of "unnecessary" is probably different from a good character's.)

On the other hand, Chaotic Evil seems to just mean crazy and murderous. The way it seems to be written, this is pretty much just Patrick Bateman, The Joker, serial killing nutjobs who don't care about anyone and barely care about themselves.

This, to me, seems like bad writing. All the other alignments are just guidelines, but Chaotic Evil seems to come with a personality. It's as stupid as if every Chaotic Good character stole from the rich and gave to the poor, or every Lawful Neutral character was a judge.

I mean, look at it. Lawful Evil means lots of different things. It can be a selfish politician, or a loophole-loving Lawyer, or an affably evil aristocrat. It can also be someone bent on world conquest and the establishment of a tyrannical empire. Lawful Good can be the crusading holy knight of supreme justice and good, or it can just be a peasant who tries to do the right thing. Chaotic Evil's only defining trait seems to be "Gee whiz, I sure like to slaughter the innocent."


So I ask you: Are there degrees of Chaotic Evil? Can you think of someone who is definitely chaotic evil, but breaks the mold?

Kurald Galain
2010-12-25, 06:31 PM
So I ask you: Are there degrees of Chaotic Evil?

Sure, you just go to Tanar'ri University :smalltongue:

Keinnicht
2010-12-25, 06:34 PM
Sure, you just go to Tanar'ri University :smalltongue:

"And then I got my masters in Macroeconomics, specializing in predicted plane-wide larva availability."

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-25, 06:45 PM
How about a guy who drinks all day long, beats his wife and kids and drives while drunk, giving the middle finger to society's laws and well-being of others? Obviously chaotic, obviously evil, but quite pathetic and most certainly not larger-than-life psychopath like the ones you mentioned.

Another would be a slimy used-car salesman, who's goes around making illegal deals to get himself quick dough so he can indulge in his favorite excess. He might not kill anyone, directly, unless pushed to a corner, but I think he still qualifies.

Then there's of course the classic dragon - a whimsical, remorseless being that follows just one law: its own. It isn't really going out of its way to make the world burn - if adventurers aren't going to prod it, it might be content to stay in its cave forever. It just considers all other living being as beneath itself, and sees at its right to do as it pleases with them. This kind of Chaotic Evil might even seem noble, or naturalistic, from a distance. After all, it's behaviour isn't that different from that of large predatorous felines, for example - the dividing factor is that its sadism, territorialism and anarchism are reasoned and conscious choices, instead of instinctive traits.

So yes, I think Chaotic evil holds more than one possible personality. I think the perceived problem comes from people setting the bar of Evil far too high (or low, as might be more proper); small, everyday evils are quite often written off as "neutral" behaviours, even though they should by all means lead to an Evil alignment in the absence of balancing good deeds.

mostlyharmful
2010-12-25, 06:52 PM
"And then I got my masters in Macroeconomics, specializing in predicted plane-wide larva availability."

I can sell you a selection of insurance products based on this very reliable footing..... in fact I can sell you derivitives of the proceeds of the risk of the resale of the percentage base of the investment of the concept of the flavour of your debt.....:smallcool:

Chilingsworth
2010-12-25, 07:01 PM
Maybe take a look at the Elric Saga?

Angry Bob
2010-12-25, 07:11 PM
I've always thought of it being entirely possible for chaotic evil to have friends, even friends they don't intend to ever disembowel, and still be totally chaotic evil. It's what I would try to encourage players playing CE characters to try at my table for the sake of party cohesion.

Gensh
2010-12-25, 07:52 PM
Actually, the most benevolent god out of all my games is the CE god of atheism. He believes that everyone should be free to make their own choices and before his ascension, actually martyred himself for that cause. Unfortunately, he also believes in an eye for an eye and the end justifies the means, so his martyrdom actually came shortly after a cleric-killing rampage. Nevertheless, he still upholds his ideals, and apparently, he's so sympathetic, the players actually changed sides and decided they'd join his deicidal crusade instead of stopping him. *facepalm* Anyway, CE doesn't have to be about baby-eating; it can just be going too far in the name of Good.

Chilingsworth
2010-12-25, 08:00 PM
I've always thought of it being entirely possible for chaotic evil to have friends, even friends they don't intend to ever disembowel, and still be totally chaotic evil. It's what I would try to encourage players playing CE characters to try at my table for the sake of party cohesion.

The Band of Seven (http://inuyasha.wikia.com/wiki/Band_of_Seven)from Inuyasha are a good example of this.

EDIT: Some of its members are relevant(not good) examples of this.

Eiko
2010-12-25, 08:06 PM
My CE character for my current online PbP would vehemently deny he's a mindless murder machine, or the joker or any of those stereotypes. He's a devout follower of a goddess who preaches self empowerment, self reliance, and self progression. This means he does what he wants when he wants, if somebody tells him not to do something he has no reason to obey their desires (read: laws), but will respect anyone who can physically stop him from doing anything. If he fails then blame lies entirely on him.

He is mostly a hedonist, out for any and all of life's vices and pleasures. He also recently attempted to stop the percieved execution of a small boy by paladin guards. Granted his reasons were selfish, by having made a deal with the boy earlier he viewed the boy as 'his' and objected to paladin's breaking his things, but still attempted what could be considered a good act. This does not make him anything other than CE, his method was to attempt to hang the paladin in question with his own shadow.

But I digress. There are other facets to CE than the role of the destroyer, there can be the joker as mentioned, there can also be the corrupter -someone who takes pleasure in proving good isn't -, the hedonist, the man utterly disconnected from humanity, blue and orange morality, and many other possibilities.

Ormur
2010-12-25, 08:10 PM
I think there's a bit of difference between the violent thug that beats people up for disrespecting him and the Joker. One just thinks violence is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with most situations while the other is actively seeking to watch the world burn. Still I guess that both are the kind of person you'd never feel safe around no matter how good a friend you were to them.

I can think of a more emotionally stable CE type though. The rebel that goes too far. He might be well meaning, have lofty ideals about anarchy in general or just bringing down a particular form of order, he might be a very pleasant fellow in private, not even with a bad temper, it just so happens that he'd willing to burn orphanages to achieve his goal. Perhaps he perceives all sorts of benign forms of order and authority as complicit in oppression.

Gamer Girl
2010-12-26, 01:01 AM
Chaotic Evil does not have to be the crazy Joker.


We all work with CE folks every day.....they are the lazy(chaotic and random) selfish(evil and out for only number one). Every work place has them...the people that are late, every day; the people that don't get thier work done on time every day; the people who are always trying to take time off as they have other stuff to do, every day; the people who can not be counted on to do any work at all, every day. Ultimately the type of person who goes from job to job in an endless chaotic spiral. You should know at least one person like this...somehow all their jobs just 'don't work out'. They will often say stuff like 'my boss always hates me' or 'they want me to work for eight full hours'....while at the same time calling off three days a week.

CE also covers the 'I just don't care' type of evil. If something does not effect them, they can care less who gets hurt.

And CE is the heartless type of person who can steal a retirees whole life savings and then blow all that money on a car they they just drive and crash and walk away from...to go steal more.

Coidzor
2010-12-26, 01:24 AM
Well, you know how Paladins are supposed to be more Lawful Stupid than Good? :smallwink: Kinda like that, you can have CE characters who are more C and lighter on the E, Heavy on the E and lighter on the C, and ones that toe the lines between C and N or N and E or both.

Mordokai
2010-12-26, 02:55 AM
He also recently attempted to stop the percieved execution of a small boy by paladin guards. Granted his reasons were selfish, by having made a deal with the boy earlier he viewed the boy as 'his' and objected to paladin's breaking his things, but still attempted what could be considered a good act. This does not make him anything other than CE, his method was to attempt to hang the paladin in question with his own shadow.

Along the same lines, I had a CE character in real life game that put her life on the line for a catatonic little girl that was her captive and would often prevent the rest of the party(also evil) to sacrifice the girl, even if it would mean much easier for them to get away from troubles. Sure, they killed her parents before that and later killed her brother and tried to feed his remains to her(which lead to her being catatonic in the first place) and she intended to use her for less than holy purposes later in the campaign, but that the point still stands. CE can be multiple things, not just "raaarghhh, I kill you dead!". And why is everybody looking like that at me...

I always figured there's a connotation between behaviour and mental capacity. Therefore, a thug with eight INT and CHA and ten WIS is much more likely to be destructive aspect of CE then a 18 INT, 14 CHA, 16 WIS wizard. That is, of course, not always the case(Joker seems pretty intelligent and charismatic to me, for example), yet I believe lines can be drawn.

DragonSinged
2010-12-26, 03:03 AM
Chaotic Evil does not have to be the crazy Joker.


We all work with CE folks every day.....they are the lazy(chaotic and random) selfish(evil and out for only number one). Every work place has them...the people that are late, every day; the people that don't get thier work done on time every day; the people who are always trying to take time off as they have other stuff to do, every day; the people who can not be counted on to do any work at all, every day. Ultimately the type of person who goes from job to job in an endless chaotic spiral. You should know at least one person like this...somehow all their jobs just 'don't work out'. They will often say stuff like 'my boss always hates me' or 'they want me to work for eight full hours'....while at the same time calling off three days a week.

CE also covers the 'I just don't care' type of evil. If something does not effect them, they can care less who gets hurt.

And CE is the heartless type of person who can steal a retirees whole life savings and then blow all that money on a car they they just drive and crash and walk away from...to go steal more.

Wow... Are you certain these people you work with are chaotic evil? It sounds like you've had some bad experiences that you're maybe a bit bitter about, but I wouldn't say that just because someone is bad at the whole employment thing, that makes them evil. Chaotic, maybe. Your last example, yeah, sure, that fits, though.

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that many petty thieves may be chaotic evil - the types that execute poorly thought-out convenience store robberies, things like that.
Personally, though, I'm having a bit of trouble drawing the line between neutral evil and chaotic evil.

But, yes, to the OP, at least by the core book, I agree that Chaotic Evil seems like one of the most one-dimensional alignments. I don't think it was written as something to be used by Player Characters. I wonder if there's any more written about it in the Book of Vile Darkness, or other splats?

Trekkin
2010-12-26, 03:19 AM
I've thought about this, usually while sketching alternate versions of the alignment grid. This one reminds me of a particular trapezoid, in which the Lawful end is all scrunched together because LG and LE characters can often be making very similar short- to mid-range plans, and can frequently come off as using the same methods to different ends; the noble king is using the same laws as the scheming vizier behind him, just with less rules-lawyering, and they are both restricted by their Lawfulness. CE/CG characters are by definition less inhibited, and therefore get presented as more immediately recognizable as Good and Evil off of the assumption that Chaos is defined as the absence of Law. This is, of course, erroneous, but I've seen it frequently in groups I've played with/watched play, and it's from them that I got the above ramble, the point of which is that there are fewer degrees than would be immediately assumed because Chaotic characters get RP'ed as freer to be immediately G/E while Lawful ones are assumed to be more tied into a given rule system and therefore less able to be moral or immoral "on cue", at which point the availability heuristic makes us think of the axe murderer as evil more readily than the guy whose schemes may not take effect for a decade.

Callista
2010-12-26, 03:19 AM
Yeah, those sucky co-workers are usually just CN with a low Wisdom score. (Remember that Wisdom is what the Profession skill depends on. That is why they would be such undependable workers, if you statted them out in D&D.) With a really low Wisdom, they could even be CG--they don't mean to let you down, but they just don't have the ability to stick with it long enough for you to be able to depend on them for anything. But what you're seeing is undisciplined people, chaotic with low wisdom, not evil. However annoying they may be. (Lawful with low wisdom would tend to be more like the rule-following, stick-up-the-rear tattletale type of co-worker, I think.)

Mildly CE is the sort of person who will watch someone being beaten up and not call the police. He'll drive dangerously because he likes the thrill and doesn't care that he's endangering others. He'll take out his anger by hitting or verbally abusing whoever happens to be nearby. He's willing to sell you a car with iffy brakes, a dose of heroin, or a cut of meat that's way past its expiration date. He probably terrorizes his spouse and children, if he stuck around long enough to actually live with them. If he's charismatic, he'll cultivate personal relationships and con people into thinking he's a nice guy. If he's smart, he'll use his intelligence to work the system and "win the game" wherever he goes. He may have a conscience; he may have limits to what he's willing to do; but in the end, he's out for himself and nobody else. (I use the male pronoun here, but this is equally common in females, with the primary difference being the prevalence of verbal/relational abuse rather than physical aggression.)

hamishspence
2010-12-26, 04:38 AM
Complete Scoundrel cites Carl Denham from the King Kong movie as Chaotic Evil (probably of the milder kind).

It also cites Riddick from Pitch Black as CE- though we don't actually see him do much overtly CE stuff on screen in that- all we know is that "he is a murderer".

Burner28
2010-12-26, 04:37 PM
Wow... Are you certain these people you work with are chaotic evil? It sounds like you've had some bad experiences that you're maybe a bit bitter about, but I wouldn't say that just because someone is bad at the whole employment thing, that makes them evil. Chaotic, maybe. Your last example, yeah, sure, that fits, though.

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that many petty thieves may be chaotic evil - the types that execute poorly thought-out convenience store robberies, things like that.
Personally, though, I'm having a bit of trouble drawing the line between neutral evil and chaotic evil.


You do realise those are very different kinds of evil. Chaotic Evil can easily be prescribed as the alignment of those that are truly free spirited and sometimes even rebellious people. they care about and support the concept of freedom, individualism and choice and disregard anything that goes against that(authority figures, laws, customs). Neutral Evil characters are in fact more concerned with their goal than the concept of Order vs Chaos. and are sadistic/selfish/whatever above all else. Both are willing to do evil deeds towards their goal obviously.

How can you confuse CE with NE?

To answer the OP CE can be many different things. Sure you could go the madman way, destroying the world for sadism, but you could also be the charming con artist who is willing to prey on the naive and vulnerable cheating them out of needed money and so on. The point is that alignment isn't a straightjacket and it is possible to have two very different types of characters who just happens to be CE

Coidzor
2010-12-26, 04:52 PM
Applying D&D alignments to real-world individuals, especially those one works with is probably a bad idea.

For one thing, it probably isn't healthy in the long term to actively view one's associates as capital E Evil.

Apophis775
2010-12-26, 05:20 PM
I play chaotic Evil quite crazily. Occasionally even using dice to determine my actions.

Usually, I'm not allowed to do an action (lots of group says no, and it's easier to not do whatever i was going to do than kill them all (for now...) )

Gnorman
2010-12-26, 06:34 PM
Lovable, affable Chaotic Evil: Bender from Futurama. Sure, he occasionally wants to kill all humans, harvest his friends' organs, or score some major cash in a racketeering scam or burglary, but it's hard to hate him because he always comes through in the end.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-26, 06:47 PM
Lovable, affable Chaotic Evil: Bender from Futurama. Sure, he occasionally wants to kill all humans, harvest his friends' organs, or score some major cash in a racketeering scam or burglary, but it's hard to hate him because he always comes through in the end.
...which means he isn't actually evil.

Bender talks trash a lot, but when push comes to shove he doesn't actually kill or harvest anyone.

(also, whether he's affable is up to debate, but he certainly isn't evil; better examples of evil characters from Futurama are Mom, Nixon's head, and possibly Lrrr).

(edit: obligatory trope link to Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil). Examples include Hank Scorpio, the Major from Buffy, and absolutely not Bender)

yldenfrei
2010-12-26, 07:19 PM
A zealot of a Chaotic Evil god: is he also Chaotic Evil, or can he be considered Lawful by virtue of his following his tenets to the letter?

Hannibal Lecter and Francis Dolarhyde (Red Dragon). Where do they fall in the alignment? Methinks they both fall in CE, but they are very different from each other.

At first glance, all Chaotic Evil may look the same crazy murderer type. It is by delving deeper into their rationales and methodology that one sees each CE's identity.

Just my thoughts. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Also, agree on the run-of-the-mill thieves and burglars being NE instead of CE. Personally, I think Neutral (Law-Chaos) is the definitive selfish alignment. The Law end pursues the betterment of the Society, while the Chaos end pursues the fulfillment of an ideology (with all means necessary). The Neutral Good is not a stickler to the rules, but cannot commit himself to a cause (because he fears the society's judgment, etc.). the Neutral Evil, as stated above, is only out for his own betterment. Lastly, the True Neutral stays where he is because he cannot understand the extremes.

So... Chaotic Evil can be more than the crazy murderer. It can also be the depraved idealist. I think it can also apply to those "A[n Evil] God am I" aspirants.

kme
2010-12-26, 08:26 PM
Applying D&D alignments to real-world individuals, especially those one works with is probably a bad idea.
It's actually a very good idea since it puts evil in perspective. Also there are a lot of evil people in real world and most of them are not murderous psychopaths.

For one thing, it probably isn't healthy in the long term to actively view one's associates as capital E Evil.That's the key, Chaotic Evil is not a capital E evil. Chaos has nothing to do with Evil (at leas not in D&D).

In real-world Chaos is usually considered to be bad while Law is considered to be good. This is only natural since all societies are based on law.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-26, 08:41 PM
I don't remmeber who it is, but there's someone on these boards with signature like "looking out for number one is Neutral. Evil looks out for number one while crushing the number two."

I think that's an important distinction; evil isn't merely selfish, it gets enjoyment from misery of others, or at the very least shows no ill consciousness if its enjoyment causes misery to others. For example, using drugs for enjoyment isn't really evil, but if a person willingly sells drugs to other people to fund his own hedonism, despite knowing the drugs are bad for them, a case can be made that he's evil; he's clearly disregarding and/or endorsing suffering of others so he can keep doing what he wants.

Personally, I think petty thieves tend to be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Stealing I see as Chaotic, as it shows pretty clear disregard for rules of society and the opinions of the victim. As thievery is pretty universally condemned by law, I see it really hard to keep writing it off as "neutral", as it's pretty hard to be a thief without being consciously disregarding society. Granted, a thief might be Neutral if he otherwise follows the law and does not actively endorse anarchism.

They're evil because, eventually, they'll start hurting someone with the behaviour. Stealing spare chance from someone who's well-off can maybe written off as neutral, but stealing bread from someone who's starving is pretty clearly evil. Within the context of a lawful society, the thief will also invariably become hurtful due to his persisting chaotic acts. Consider a merchant - one item being stolen might not be a big deal, but if thefts persists, he'll eventually go bankrupt. A sales clerk or a guard who fails to catch a thief might get fired and lose his living that way. Thus, by moving outside established social contracts, the thief is "debasing innocent life" - and will end up with an evil alignment if he fails to make up for it.

Few things more: while I agree actions can be morally neutral, I still think in most cases neutral alignment (in deeds, and especially in people) comes from different factors balancing each other out. Killing for food is neutral, for example, since you take a life to support some other life, to give an example.

I don't see Chaos as pursuing "fullfillment of an ideology", first and foremost. Rather, I see it as denial of established conditions; willing refusal to factor in or take as granted any sort of constants. Most crime can easily be seen as at least signifying chaotic aligment (even if not directly causing it), because it often shows the kind of disregard of society detailed above.

I think people are focusing a bit too much on insane and active variations of Chaotic Evil. I think more thought should be given to "naturalistic Chaotic Evil", like the kind I detailed in above Dragon example. Mostly because such CE is ostensibly sane, and not necessarily out to watch the world burn. It just consciously revels in its sadistic and anarchistic traits.

About H. Lecter: I think it's been shown well enough that he's willing to disregard pretty much everything to keep doing his own thing. I'd say most of the time he acts Neutral (such as when masquerading as a teacher in Hannibal), but he doesn't really do anything lawful to balance out his chaotic nature.

Achernar
2010-12-26, 11:02 PM
Here's a question for you guys. How do you view the evil alignments in D&D? For me, I view it as more of a spectrum than I do other alignments. It seems like Chaotic Evil isn't just more chaotic than Lawful Evil - it's also more evil. Anyone else get this?

This, to me, seems like bad writing. All the other alignments are just guidelines, but Chaotic Evil seems to come with a personality. It's as stupid as if every Chaotic Good character stole from the rich and gave to the poor, or every Lawful Neutral character was a judge.

I mean, look at it. Lawful Evil ... It can be a selfish politician, or a loophole-loving Lawyer, ... It can also be someone bent on world conquest and the establishment of a tyrannical empire. Chaotic Evil's only defining trait seems to be "Gee whiz, I sure like to slaughter the innocent."


So I ask you: Are there degrees of Chaotic Evil? Can you think of someone who is definitely chaotic evil, but breaks the mold?

Hmm. Well, I like this model of Chaotic Evil as a moldbreaker: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/a35RPYkB5HGcePdenI1.html

Any trickery-devoted, sly man who manipulates with unorthodox or unpredictable methods is a good CE candidate. CE villains never have to spill even a drop of blood to be CE. Anarchist hackers who cause people to lose their life's work, accountants who have perfected the art of skimming off the top and lying to cover their tracks, crooked cops who destroy evidence, all of these may be chaotic evil, even though they sound like CN, NE and LE at first glance. Get creative, all the alignments have a delightful palette of possibilities.

Keinnicht
2010-12-26, 11:24 PM
...which means he isn't actually evil.

Bender talks trash a lot, but when push comes to shove he doesn't actually kill or harvest anyone.

(also, whether he's affable is up to debate, but he certainly isn't evil; better examples of evil characters from Futurama are Mom, Nixon's head, and possibly Lrrr).

(edit: obligatory trope link to Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil). Examples include Hank Scorpio, the Major from Buffy, and absolutely not Bender)

I disagree. Bender has certainly done or has been implied to have done quite a few unsavory things on screen. Bender is almost Evilly Affable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvillyAffable), although he's certainly a fairly mild case.

To take an example from TV Tropes, you used the Mayor from Buffy as an example of Affably Evil. Spike in the early days and Angelus (Not Angel) are good examples of this trope. They're really, really, really evil. But they're really, really, really entertaining.

I.E. Bender's evilness is the reason everybody likes him.

yldenfrei
2010-12-27, 12:09 AM
Personally, I think petty thieves tend to be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Stealing I see as Chaotic, as it shows pretty clear disregard for rules of society and the opinions of the victim. As thievery is pretty universally condemned by law, I see it really hard to keep writing it off as "neutral", as it's pretty hard to be a thief without being consciously disregarding society. Granted, a thief might be Neutral if he otherwise follows the law and does not actively endorse anarchism.

They're evil because, eventually, they'll start hurting someone with the behaviour. Stealing spare chance from someone who's well-off can maybe written off as neutral, but stealing bread from someone who's starving is pretty clearly evil. Within the context of a lawful society, the thief will also invariably become hurtful due to his persisting chaotic acts. Consider a merchant - one item being stolen might not be a big deal, but if thefts persists, he'll eventually go bankrupt. A sales clerk or a guard who fails to catch a thief might get fired and lose his living that way. Thus, by moving outside established social contracts, the thief is "debasing innocent life" - and will end up with an evil alignment if he fails to make up for it.

The thing that prevents me from chucking them into the Chaotic Neutral area is the fact that they are hurting people. I, however,cannot consider them Chaotic Evil, because they are not consciously championing an idea: they merely rob for their self-preservation. Paraphrased, thieves in general do not rob with the sole intent of hurting others. (with some revenge exceptions).

Your drug pusher example of CE is a very good one for me, because he goes beyond his self-fulfillment and successfully creates an institution, a spiral of depravity. Something that thievery does not do.


I don't see Chaos as pursuing "fullfillment of an ideology", first and foremost. Rather, I see it as denial of established conditions; willing refusal to factor in or take as granted any sort of constants. Most crime can easily be seen as at least signifying chaotic aligment (even if not directly causing it), because it often shows the kind of disregard of society detailed above.

I think people are focusing a bit too much on insane and active variations of Chaotic Evil. I think more thought should be given to "naturalistic Chaotic Evil", like the kind I detailed in above Dragon example. Mostly because such CE is ostensibly sane, and not necessarily out to watch the world burn. It just consciously revels in its sadistic and anarchistic traits.


I defined Chaos as "fulfillment of an ideology" so as to give room for the variations of Good-Evil. I admit it is a bit to broad, but most of the well-written Chaotic characters I've come across have purposes that they pursue single-mindedly. And most of the time, these ideologies are so alien to society, that the characters end up disregarding society to pursue said purpose. Anarchists who actively denounce and/or destabilize the societal structure are only a part of the Chaotic population. There are more kinds.

And to paraphrase your classic CE Dragon: he pursues his ideals of draconic supremacy and anarchy to the fullest. His tormenting of the local populace is the result of such ideals, and the riches he gathers from these plundering exploits are testament to his greatness. to covet his riches is to undermine his power, and the CE dragon will obliterate you for your insolence. :smallwink:

Gah... I have so many points to elaborate, but my english vocabulary will not allow me. >_<

Keinnicht
2010-12-27, 12:16 AM
The thing that prevents me from chucking them into the Chaotic Neutral area is the fact that they are hurting people.

What if they steal from very large businesses, who barely even notice the loss?


Your drug pusher example of CE is a very good one for me, because he goes beyond his self-fulfillment and successfully creates an institution, a spiral of depravity. Something that thievery does not do.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Drug peddlers aren't forcing anyone to buy drugs, they're providing something there's a demand for. And, fo course, in some cases, there's very little viable alternatives.

Of course, plenty of drug dealers are CE. I just don't think the act in itself is CE. Certainly Chaotic, mildly to moderately evil depending on drug sold and where (Selling heroin on an elementary school playground is CE), but not enough to define a person.

JaronK
2010-12-27, 12:21 AM
Jayne from Firefly is classic Chaotic Evil. He's in it for himself. He'd betray his friends for a buck, if the profit was reasonable (read: more profitable than not betraying his friends). He doesn't care for the law at all. But he's nothing like an evil tyrant that exterminates all who oppose his will (classic Lawful Evil). He's just really selfish.

JaronK

kme
2010-12-27, 09:30 AM
The thing that prevents me from chucking them into the Chaotic Neutral area is the fact that they are hurting people. I, however,cannot consider them Chaotic Evil, because they are not consciously championing an idea: they merely rob for their self-preservation. Paraphrased, thieves in general do not rob with the sole intent of hurting others. (with some revenge exceptions).
If they are neither CE or CN then what are they, Chaotic Good? Chaotic Evil is the way to go, simply because that's the alignment that fits them the most. And no, why would they have to champion the idea of Evil to be evil, that seems silly. Disregarding the well being of others is evil too. Self-preservation? I bet that most criminals and psychopaths will tell you that they acted only for self-preservation. Good people don't do good deeds in the name of Good they do it because they like it. Evil people are no different, they do it because they like it or they simply don't care.
I defined Chaos as "fulfillment of an ideology" so as to give room for the variations of Good-Evil. I admit it is a bit to broad, but most of the well-written Chaotic characters I've come across have purposes that they pursue single-mindedly. And most of the time, these ideologies are so alien to society, that the characters end up disregarding society to pursue said purpose. Anarchists who actively denounce and/or destabilize the societal structure are only a part of the Chaotic population. There are more kinds.
You could categorize many (or even most) chaotic acts as "fulfillment of an ideology" but the question is why? There is already a term for such acts, it's "chaotic". Fulfillment of an ideology with no regard for law is definitely chaotic, but you could also do it with regard to law. You could also find examples of chaotic without ideology to back it up.

What if they steal from very large businesses, who barely even notice the loss? It's still Evil, just less so. You can get away with such small evils if you balance it with enough good. If you don't, you will find CE written on your sheet pretty soon :smallamused:.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Drug peddlers aren't forcing anyone to buy drugs, they're providing something there's a demand for. And, fo course, in some cases, there's very little viable alternatives.
Selling drugs is evil because drugs are addicting while also being harmful to those that use them. Drug dealer is disregarding the well being of others for his own profit, even without addiction that's evil (just less so). By your logic assassins would not be evil, they are not forcing anyone to hire them, they are just providing something there's demand for.

Doing something evil does not automatically make you completely and utterly Evil without any capability of doing something non evil again. Dexter Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Morgan) for example. He is clearly Evil but he also does some good things. And evils that he is doing are not some small petty evils, they are pretty big.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 09:36 AM
Jayne from Firefly is classic Chaotic Evil. He's in it for himself. He'd betray his friends for a buck, if the profit was reasonable (read: more profitable than not betraying his friends). He doesn't care for the law at all.
How is that anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

Lord Raziere
2010-12-27, 09:47 AM
How is that anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

chaotic neutral cares for his friends, himself and no one else, chaotic evil doesn't care for his friends.

chaotic good cares for everyone.

so yes, Jayne is chaotic evil.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 09:48 AM
Bender has certainly done or has been implied to have done quite a few unsavory things on screen.
Such as what?


Bender is almost Evilly Affable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvillyAffable), although he's certainly a fairly mild case.
That trope is problematic: most of that page is simply about evil people that the audience likes, and says little if anything about the personality of those people. There's a Repair Shop discussion about that. Bender's personality does not strike me as affable, he's simply a jerk.


chaotic neutral cares for his friends, himself and no one else, chaotic evil doesn't care for his friends.
No, I don't think so. Even Belkar cares for his friends, so "caring for your friends" does not define you as "not evil". Nor does "not caring about everyone" definie you as "not good".

JaronK
2010-12-27, 09:48 AM
How is that anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

This is someone who sold out even his own crew mates for a quick buck, and made it clear that he'd do the same to those closest to him as well if the prince was decent enough. He holds no loyalty to anyone, and does nothing without profit for himself alone. He's decidedly CE.

JaronK

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 09:52 AM
We all work with CE folks every day.....they are the lazy(chaotic and random) selfish(evil and out for only number one).

That isn't evil. That's neutral. Evil is a very strong word, (as is good) and people throw it around far too lightly.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 09:54 AM
This is someone who sold out even his own crew mates for a quick buck, and made it clear that he'd do the same to those closest to him as well if the prince was decent enough. He holds no loyalty to anyone, and does nothing without profit for himself alone.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others ... A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Quoted from d20srd, and clearly Jayne doesn't fit into any of that. Sure, you can define alignment in lots of different ways; but if your definition of evil is simply doing anything for profit, then you're going to need a new word for all the sociopathic omnicidal maniacs in fiction.


That isn't evil. That's neutral. Evil is a very strong word, (as is good) and people throw it around far too lightly.
QFT.

JaronK
2010-12-27, 10:22 AM
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others ... A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.

So... Jayne? He kills people because it profits him in some way all the time. It's pretty much his thing.


He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.

Now you're describing Chaotic Stupid. If he does things for no reason other than random "arbitrary" violence and whatnot, he's not profiting himself. Jayne's not a fool. If he just killed his crew randomly, how would that profit himself?


If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.

So... Jayne. He's ruthless and brutal when doing so gets him money.


Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Jayne made it damn clear that he would turn on the Captain some day, given a situation that would profit him to do so. He in fact helped kill his old crew simply for a pay raise. And consider his "that'll be an interesting day" line. So, yeah, Mal DOES have to thwart his attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Jayne is textbook CE. He just also really likes money.

JaronK

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 10:28 AM
Now you're describing Chaotic Stupid.

Same thing in my mind. You won't find a CURRENTLY intelligent Chaotic Character HARDLY ever.

Jan Mattys
2010-12-27, 10:47 AM
god of atheism

I lol'd.
:smalltongue:

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 10:47 AM
I lol'd.
:smalltongue:

Yeah, I had that response too.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-12-27, 10:54 AM
Same thing in my mind. You won't find a CURRENTLY intelligent Chaotic Character HARDLY ever.

What? Patently untrue! I'd say this is more true for standard dungeon-crawl games, but anything above and beyond that in terms of demanding RP tends to weed out Chaotic Stupid as an alignment.


Back to the subject at hand though...there are certainly tiers of evil (and good) for every axis of Lawful/Neutral/Evil. It's more about motivation then actions though.

Take, for instance, an old character of mine. He was a charlatan and a trickster (the Chameleon class, for those who know about it), who masqueraded as a Paladin of Pelor. He'd do good deeds and help the community to preserve his disguise, but he did it for the thrill of the deception, and for the risk involved rather than out of any sense of decency. He also thrived on small evils whenever he could get away with it: using his position as the beloved town Paladin to turn laws on their heads, sow little bits of chaos, or steal and pin the blame on others. Sure, they were small evils that never led to deaths or injuries, but he's definitely Chaotic Evil in alignment because of the motivation behind his action. Bringer of chaos? Check. Agent of evil? Check. Psychotic murdering machine or just pure crazed nihilist? Nope.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 11:02 AM
So... Jayne? He kills people because it profits him in some way all the time. It's pretty much his thing.
Even aside from the fact that he rarely if ever does that on-screen, there's a clear difference between a mercenary (Jayne) and a psychopath (Black Mage). Heck, practically every soldier in the world/setting kills people for money. Are you claiming all soldiers are chaotic evil, then?


Now you're describing Chaotic Stupid.
I'm still quoting the SRD, though. If you don't agree with WOTC's official description of that alignment, well, that really turns the discussion into "the term has no clear definition so it means whatever we like it to mean".

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 11:02 AM
What? Patently untrue! I'd say this is more true for standard dungeon-crawl games, but anything above and beyond that in terms of demanding RP tends to weed out Chaotic Stupid as an alignment.

:smallsigh:

That, was my bad. I meant intelligent Chaotic Evil.

Sorry.

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-27, 11:10 AM
Even aside from the fact that he rarely if ever does that on-screen, there's a clear difference between a mercenary (Jayne) and a psychopath (Black Mage). Heck, practically every soldier in the world/setting kills people for money. Are you claiming all soldiers are chaotic evil, then?


If they all fit evil, then yes, they are all evil. Alignments aren't voted.

On the whole CE vs CN thing... "Caring" for other people can come in any alignment, it's nearly irrelevant. Being willing to hurt those you care about is not a pre-requisite to evil.

A CN person would be more irresponsible and innovative yadda yadda... but he wouldn't harm a person without an excellent excuse. He'd need at least as much reason to harm others as a true neutral or lawful neutral person would, because that's what neutral people are: When it comes to helping, harming and associated feelings towards strangers, neutral people keep to themselves and help those they like.

"But then so many action heroes would fall under evil!"
Yes, they would. Doesn't make them any less heroes.

Lord Raziere
2010-12-27, 11:14 AM
No, I don't think so. Even Belkar cares for his friends, so "caring for your friends" does not define you as "not evil". Nor does "not caring about everyone" define you as "not good".

excuse me? are these the same "friends" he regularly is a jerk to, Elan whom he tried to kill for exp and was only stopped because everyone else threatened to kill him for exp, the bug slaver he killed, or the cat which he threw into a sorcerers face?

right cause some one who can't recognize other peoples right to exist can have real friends, which is like claiming a blind man can see the color turquoise. Before you can ever claim to have connection with someone else, you must recognize they have that right to exist and be connected with people before you can be connected with them a friend. therefore Belkar does not have friends, he just has a bunch of people he is amused by and will allow to live longer.

ThunderCat
2010-12-27, 11:16 AM
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others ... A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Quoted from d20srd, and clearly Jayne doesn't fit into any of that. Sure, you can define alignment in lots of different ways; but if your definition of evil is simply doing anything for profit, then you're going to need a new word for all the sociopathic omnicidal maniacs in fiction.Someone who is out for whatever they can get, and don't mind killing or betraying others to get it, are evil. Even if what they want is profit. I agree that good and evil are more extreme than neutral, but there are only 9 alignments, and they're supposed to encompass all people. Demanding a special alignment solely for sociopathic omnicidal maniacs is ridiculous. It would be like requiring a new sexual orientation to describe people with a foot fetish, except that there isn't a set number of sexual orientations.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 11:23 AM
Belkar does not have friends, he just has a bunch of people he is amused by and will allow to live longer.
The Giant states differently in Don't Split The Party.


Someone who is out for whatever they can get, and don't mind killing or betraying others to get it, are evil.
But that's the point, really. Jayne does not do "whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do", he has something of a temper but is absolutely not "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable", nor is he "ruthless and brutal". That definition of evil is quite clear, and while I can think of several characters that fit (e.g. Belkar), Jayne clearly isn't one.


Demanding a special alignment solely for sociopathic omnicidal maniacs is ridiculous.
Yes, precisely (reductio ad absurdum, y'know). And that's why someone who is merely selfish is not automatically evil.

ThunderCat
2010-12-27, 11:42 AM
Yes, precisely (reductio ad absurdum, y'know). And that's why someone who is merely selfish is not automatically evil.People who're so selfish they're willing to kill innocents for profit are evil. People who're unwilling to kill or severely harm innocents except in the most severe cases, but also aren't willing to make any great sacrifices or take any great risks to help people they aren't personally connected to, are neutral (that would be most people). People who're unwilling to kill or harm innocents, and who furthermore are willing to make sacrifices and take risks to help others, are good.

If all people had to do to be good was to refrain from committing grave acts of harm to others (e.g. murder, torture, rape, severe bodily harm, stealing from people who can barely feed themselves), then most people would be good. And if all people had to do to be neutral was to be out for themselves, be willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goal, and not hold up evil as an ideology in itself, then most villains would be neutral. And evil would be a distant third, applying to about 1% of the population.

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-27, 11:42 AM
But that's the point, really. Jayne does not do "whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do", he has something of a temper but is absolutely not "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable", nor is he "ruthless and brutal". That definition of evil is quite clear, and while I can think of several characters that fit (e.g. Belkar), Jayne clearly isn't one.


Without a specific reason not to, he shoots first. When he turned on his previous group, he didn't just say "get lost". He shot the guy for convenience, with all disregard expected from evil. Were he CN, he'd not shoot, not that quickly.


And if all people had to do to be neutral was to be out for themselves, be willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goal, and not hold up evil as an ideology in itself, then most villains would be neutral.

I refrain from labeling heroes and villains by their alignment. With appropriate context, any evil person can be an incredible hero just as much as any good guy can be a horrible monster.

Burner28
2010-12-27, 12:17 PM
Same thing in my mind. You won't find a CURRENTLY intelligent Chaotic Character HARDLY ever.

Um... Yes you can. Lawful=/=Smart and Chaotic=/=Stupid. There is a reason why Lawful Stupid exists, you know.

Maho-Tsukai
2010-12-27, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by AtlanteanTroll :
Same thing in my mind. You won't find a CURRENTLY intelligent Chaotic Character HARDLY ever.

Niv-Mizzet ( http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Niv-Mizzet) and his guild (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Izzet_League) would like to have a word with you...

ThunderCat
2010-12-27, 12:38 PM
I refrain from labeling heroes and villains by their alignment. With appropriate context, any evil person can be an incredible hero just as much as any good guy can be a horrible monster.So do I, but most villains fit the description (are out for themselves (or possibly an ideology), willing to use any/most means necessary to achieve their goal, and don't hold up evil as an ideology in itself). There's a reason for concepts like anti-heroes and anti-villains, because benevolent villains and jerk heroes are not the norm.

The point being that people who hold up evil as a goal in itself are almost unheard of in real life, and are even pretty rare in most fantasy (especially the more realistic cases, like George R. R. Martin). And it's a bit impractical to have alignment distinguish between people who kill innocents for profit and wouldn't mind enslaving the whole world for their pleasure, and people who want to murder others for fun (e.g. the Joker) or because they feel morally obliged to serve evil, but not between people who kill innocents for profit and wouldn't mind enslaving the whole world for their pleasure, and people who generally refrain from hurting others on principle, but also don't go out of their way to help strangers.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 12:58 PM
Um... Yes you can. Lawful=/=Smart and Chaotic=/=Stupid. There is a reason why Lawful Stupid exists, you know.


Niv-Mizzet ( http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Niv-Mizzet) and his guild (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Izzet_League) would like to have a word with you...

I corrected myself. Calm down.


:smallsigh:

That, was my bad. I meant intelligent Chaotic Evil.

Sorry.

yldenfrei
2010-12-27, 12:59 PM
Guys, remember that the point we're trying to make here is to broaden the CE personality spectrum, to break away from the Chaotic-Stupid-Evil-crazy-murderous-something-something perception. :smallbiggrin:

Pardon if I did not make myself clear about the thievery issue. I meant I see them as only Neutral Evil. For me, thievery is only answering to a given person's need for self-preservation.

I cannot explain it any better, but please see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). Catering to the bottom two steps of the pyramid (physiological and safety) are what for me defines Neutral (both Good-Evil and Law-Chaos), while the pursuit of the upper three is what defines the Good and the Evil, the Lawful and the Chaotic.

As I view it, CE is the kind of Evil that operates on a level much higher than the Neutral Evil. He finds his identity in the fulfillment of an ideal, something which happens to be incompatible with society and its notion of what is lawful and good.

On disregarding ideologies when discussing alignments:
Disregarding the person's ideology and clumping their whole lot into the Chaotic bin is what starts all these Chaotic Stupid problems in the first place. To look only at the actions and not at their accompanying intents is looking at only half of the issue. No real effort is made to understand the case. To such people, madness, whatever the shape and form, is still madness, plain and simple. So every Chaotic Evil character is a Joker clone, every Chaotic Neutral a rebel without a cause, every Chaotic Good a benevolent lunatic, and so on.

I believe that ideologies are essential to differentiating the persona of each CE character. The ideals they pursue are what defines the extent to which they threaten society and goodness. It also defines the methods they can or cannot utilize to achieve their goals.

And just to clarify: There is NO ideology of Evil. There is no such thing as "championing the ideology of Evil". That's another problem. A follower of the God of Evil is the crux of Chaotic-Stupid for me. Evil is only a descriptor. Supremacy, Torture, Corruption, Pestilence--those are some of the real and specific evils that define and differentiate one CE from the next.

Again, so sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I'll try to word my thought better. ^_^

Burner28
2010-12-27, 01:02 PM
Thieves are usually not Neutral as they seem to do whatever they feel like doing and disregard any rules or authority. If they were indifferent to authority figures and to the concept of personal freedom, using Lawful and Chaotic means then they could be Neutral Evil. but really aren't they Chaotic?

Angry Bob
2010-12-27, 01:03 PM
Instead of arguing about how a supposed CE character treats those close to him or her, why don't we look at how they treat people they're never going to see again? What's that line again? "Judge a man by how he treats those who can do him no good?"

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 01:21 PM
Heck, practically every soldier in the world/setting kills people for money. Are you claiming all soldiers are chaotic evil, then?
From here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3065.0):

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him."

So, rarely is that the actual motivation of soldiers. Because the pay is generally pretty bad. Mercenaries on the other hand...


Such as what?

I think at one point he was trying to sell the organs of orphans he adopted in order to subject them to barely livable conditions in order to make a profit off of the government paying him to take them.

Taking control of a slave empire after having been a slave and making everything that much worse by being an even harsher task master, such that even the privileged of the society turned against him.

Gensh
2010-12-27, 01:52 PM
I lol'd.
:smalltongue:

Well, since the gods in the setting are real, atheism isn't the correct term, but you'd have a heck of a time convincing him that he wasn't just the next step in human development. Part of his philosophy was that everyone could reach his level if they put in the same amount of effort. So technically, he was the god of misotheism, deicide, and raw willpower. He had faith that everyone who had long suffered oppression at the hands of the decadent gods could one day rise up and establish a perfect society, and he would never turn down a cry for help. Nevertheless, he was CE because he was willing to kill even innocents if they stood in the way of his ideal; sure he would mourn their loss, but he wouldn't hesitate in the slightest.

That's a key part of this argument that's missing: the difference between intentions and deeds. CE as an alignment insists certain characteristics; nevertheless, it is possible for someone with almost none of these characteristics to have the alignment because they commit far too many CE deeds, whether the ordinary type or by casting [alignment] spells. Jakou-Hamon, the god in question, is CE as a result of his deeds rather than his intentions because his dozen or so massacres far outweigh the countless small acts of kindness he did. Chaos and Evil have a great deal more weight than Law and Good. This is the defining factor of Utopia Justifies the Means (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans).

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-27, 02:01 PM
I strongly disagree with this statement. Drug peddlers aren't forcing anyone to buy drugs, they're providing something there's a demand for. And, fo course, in some cases, there's very little viable alternatives.

Of course, plenty of drug dealers are CE. I just don't think the act in itself is CE. Certainly Chaotic, mildly to moderately evil depending on drug sold and where (Selling heroin on an elementary school playground is CE), but not enough to define a person.

First you say drug dealing ain't CE, then you define it's mildly chaotic and often evil, meaning its often chaotic evil. Self-contradictory much? :smalltongue:

I agree that one case of drug dealing would not define a characters alignment or personality. However, alignment and personality are about behaviours that persist, not one-time occasions. If someone keeps dealing drugs without compensating for it with any manner of lawful good behaviour, they're pretty obviously Chaotic Evil, and being a drug dealer is also clearly a big defining factor of the character.

Also, I don't think alignment is a matter of "viable alternatives". If survival demands actions of alignment X, the character will also slide towards alignment X if he does no actions of alignment Y to balance it out.

I posit neutral actions are not character defining. You only get black and white stone for your deeds, not grey ones. So even small amount of lawful, chaotic, good and evil acts can see the character slide towards the appropriate alignment despite majority of their actions being neutral. Otherwise you'll end up with (in my opinion, stupid) view that everyone is neutral because they're not committing "aligned" actions constantly.

About Jayne: Wait, the argument is about whether he's evil or not? Given the arguments thrown about, I'd think the issue whether he was chaotic or not. The guy's done some pretty evil deeds and I don't recall aby redeeming qualities about him. His control of his temper rather suggests he's closer to neutral than chaotic. Personally, I still think he falls to CE - he's just one of the lower-key examples this thread is about.

About soldiers being evil: Without doubt, most soldiers, at least during active war, are forced to do actions that would qualify as Evil in D&D morality. However, like said, alignment is about behaviours that persist - a good soldier would feel bad about his evil deeds, and try to compensate for them. Thus, his actions outside the battlefield might make him good despite his evil actions.

On the other hand, I can easily see a soldier being forced to do deeds so vile they can never quite repent. I'd call this "I was just following orders" kind of evil - in everyday morality and personality, the character might seem perfectly decent, but his past actions cast such a long shadow that his alignment will ping as evil even on his death bed.

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 02:04 PM
Chaos and Evil have a great deal more weight than Law and Good.

I'd say it's less that and more that there are fewer Good acts of great gravity. There are many small evils and small goods, but there are more great Evils possible than great Goods, not that small evil acts are more evil than small good acts are good.

It is, after all, far easier to take a life away than it is to give one.

Gensh
2010-12-27, 02:09 PM
I'd say it's less that and more that there are fewer Good acts of great gravity. There are many small evils and small goods, but there are more great Evils possible than great Goods, not that small evil acts are more evil than small good acts are good.

It is, after all, far easier to take a life away than it is to give one.

I'll agree with that being the cause, but the net effect remains the same.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-27, 02:21 PM
I disagree in regards to Law Vs. Chaos - I think there's equal amount of major lawful acts as there are chaotic ones.

But it's true it's easier to do major evil than major good - I suppose there has to be a reason for the Lawful Good path to be called "straight and narrow".

Gensh
2010-12-27, 02:54 PM
I disagree in regards to Law Vs. Chaos - I think there's equal amount of major lawful acts as there are chaotic ones.

But it's true it's easier to do major evil than major good - I suppose there has to be a reason for the Lawful Good path to be called "straight and narrow".

At their cores, both Law and Good represent restraining oneself from performing certain actions. They're more anti-Chaos and anti-Evil than entirely different choices. Since their nature is simply restrictive, at the most basic level, there are inherently fewer Lawful and Good acts and fewer acts of great magnitude.

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 02:57 PM
I'll agree with that being the cause, but the net effect remains the same.

No, because minor evil acts are balanced by minor good acts.

If the net effect were the same, then minor evil acts would always overpower minor good acts and there would really only be evil creatures and paladins given sufficient time.

Gensh
2010-12-27, 03:06 PM
No, because minor evil acts are balanced by minor good acts.

If the net effect were the same, then minor evil acts would always overpower minor good acts and there would really only be evil creatures and paladins given sufficient time.

Minor Evil acts *do* balance minor Good acts. The problem is that, as you said, there are more major Evil acts than Good, and equally important, they're a lot easier to perform than their Good counterpart. Your example of life, for instance: not only is the Evil act easy, but there is in fact no way to perform the Good version short of epic spells. The reason why Evil doesn't overpower Good is because Good requires conscious effort. You can become Evil by accident; you become Good because you want to.

I.e. Good tries harder.

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 03:12 PM
Minor Evil acts *do* balance minor Good acts. The problem is that, as you said, there are more major Evil acts than Good, and equally important, they're a lot easier to perform than their Good counterpart. Your example of life, for instance: not only is the Evil act easy, but there is in fact no way to perform the Good version short of epic spells. The reason why Evil doesn't overpower Good is because Good requires conscious effort. You can become Evil by accident; you become Good because you want to.

I.e. Good tries harder.

No, you can't become Evil by accident (barring some really ridiculous and absurd scenarios), it's still a conscious choice.

That's why Neutrals are capable of existing. If one became evil by accident, simply by the passage of time there would be no neutral elves or elans or warforged or gemstone dragons, for example.

Gensh
2010-12-27, 03:23 PM
No, you can't become Evil by accident (barring some really ridiculous and absurd scenarios), it's still a conscious choice.

That's why Neutrals are capable of existing. If one became evil by accident, simply by the passage of time there would be no neutral elves or elans or warforged or gemstone dragons, for example.

True, you do have to make a choice to become Evil, but it's a choice that you won't necessarily know you're making. There's a reason why it's called "falling" - you might see the cliff, but you don't realize you've slipped until you're already gone. Changing alignment to Evil can be as simple as taking the easy way out one too many times. You also have to remember that most people are mooks, and are too set in their ways or afraid to act out of the mold, in which case their alignment conforms to the alignment parameters of their society (usually LG, NG, CG, LN, N).

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-27, 03:50 PM
I think there's enough fundamental decency in most peoples that many would do as much good by accident as they might do evil. Despite relative "easiness" of evil, all the really grand deeds on any side are pretty hard to do by accident.

Besides, I don't think most evil people fall in any sense of the word. More like they saunter vaguely downwards because they don't care enough to dodge the cliff even if it's in plain view. Take petty thieves, for example; it doesn't take grand genius to realize stealing is naughty, and it's pretty easy to notice when you're slipping. Yet they just keep doing it from convenience and habit, even if they realize their justifications are flimsy as balsa sticks.

Callista
2010-12-27, 04:08 PM
Well, neutral people do lots of mildly good and mildly evil acts without shifting. It's when you start tipping the balance toward evil that you can say their alignments have changed.


At their cores, both Law and Good represent restraining oneself from performing certain actions. They're more anti-Chaos and anti-Evil than entirely different choices. Since their nature is simply restrictive, at the most basic level, there are inherently fewer Lawful and Good acts and fewer acts of great magnitude. I disagree here.

Good and Evil are different from Law and Chaos; in fact, they're completely unconnected.

Good is not about restraint; it's about altruism. Good-aligned people have something about their basic nature that dictates that they feel more distress at knowing that someone else has been hurt than they would feel if they themselves were hurt. Good is not "don't do this; don't do that." That's Law. Good is the tendency to see the welfare of others as more important than your own; and it can be very impulsive and unrestrained. Chaotic Good people are like this all the time--they're the people who, on impulse, will give a tired waitress a $50 tip, or who'll jump into a freezing river to save a dog, who'll do generally unplanned, undisciplined things because they see somebody hurting and they can't stop themselves. Sometimes it's stupid and does nothing; sometimes it changes the world; but the CG person will take that gamble. CG is all about the individual person, the immediate circumstances, the gut feelings and the raw emotion.

LG is restrained, yes, but that's not because of the Good component; it's because of the Law component. Lawful people think in big-picture terms; they like predictability, honesty, order, and long-term plans. Lawful Good people believe that the best way to help others is to organize society in such a way that everyone in it benefits. Instead of giving the waitress a tip, they'll support unions or minimum-wage laws. Instead of giving the beggar a hot meal, he'll find the beggar a job. Lawful people are restrained; Lawful Good people are restrained because they believe order and discipline are the best ways to serve Good.

LGs don't see eye-to-eye with CGs in many cases--not because their goals aren't the same--they are--but because the LG person believes the CG is ruining long-term chances by thinking too much of the moment and the right-now, and the CG person believes that the LG person has lost his heart and his caring for the individual in the midst of coldly calculating the ideal possible environment to benefit everyone.

Gensh
2010-12-27, 04:44 PM
I think there's enough fundamental decency in most peoples that many would do as much good by accident as they might do evil. Despite relative "easiness" of evil, all the really grand deeds on any side are pretty hard to do by accident.

Besides, I don't think most evil people fall in any sense of the word. More like they saunter vaguely downwards because they don't care enough to dodge the cliff even if it's in plain view. Take petty thieves, for example; it doesn't take grand genius to realize stealing is naughty, and it's pretty easy to notice when you're slipping. Yet they just keep doing it from convenience and habit, even if they realize their justifications are flimsy as balsa sticks.

But how did these petty thieves start performing Evil actions? Was it because they were starving? Peer pressure? For the buzz? The first two cases would definitely indicate a fall; it was never their original intention to keep doing so, but the Evil way simply ended up being too easy. In the case of the latter, then certainly they sauntered off the edge, but they also have some sort of pre-existing condition that put them within its reach in the first place.


That's Law...Chaotic Good people are like this all the time--they're the people who, on impulse...

That's Chaos. :smallwink: I make it a point to look at the individual facets separately and then combine them rather than looking at the given descriptions of the nine.

While I agree with your summaries of LG and CG and have been working on fiction that emphasizes that particular dichotomy, I must insist that Good is hardly different than Law from a purely technical standpoint. Since animals are given as the baseline Neutral, we must assume that the default actions of any animate creature solely support its own existence. Evil actions are those that improve one's existence in one way or another - at the cost of harming another creature or thing. Carnivorous animals are not Evil because they only attack the weak, sickly, or old, whereas a farmer specifically fattening an animal and then eating it would be a mild act of Evil. Good acts, by comparison are those that improve the quality of someone or something's existence, possibly at the cost of one's own.

Let's look at the big picture. Both Chaos and Evil represent looking out solely for oneself without regard for later consequences, whether it be arrest or the wrong end of a paladin's greatsword. By comparison, Law and Good represent putting aside one's immediate well-being for the sake of a long-term benefit.

grimbold
2010-12-27, 04:54 PM
chaotic evil does not have to be played by being a murderous psychopath but people who are chaotic evil have the capacity to be murderous psychopaths and will become pyschopaths quiecker than good people. Chaotic evil also does not mean that they are against all life,
currently i am playing a kind of CE barbarian in a mostly good party and the others realize i am evil. But i have come through as a sort of leader because i am willing to do stuff the others can not even think of.
also i get to sacrifice peasants to grummsh

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-27, 05:23 PM
But how did these petty thieves start performing Evil actions? Was it because they were starving? Peer pressure? For the buzz? The first two cases would definitely indicate a fall; it was never their original intention to keep doing so, but the Evil way simply ended up being too easy. In the case of the latter, then certainly they sauntered off the edge, but they also have some sort of pre-existing condition that put them within its reach in the first place.

... expect evil, especially such minor kind as thievery, does not lead to some grand unstoppable downfall. Outside dire circumstances, most good characters would feel guilty and bounce back, averting the "cliff" consciously. As said, alignment is about behaviours that persist - and quite often, for the behaviour to persist there must be "fault" in the invidual committing the acts, outside influences just aren't strong enough every time.

So thievery due to starvation or peer pressure would not be a "fall" - merely getting close enough to the cliff to see its there. It's within the scope of a person to acknowledge faulty behaviour and correct himself. Failure to do so is the "sauntering downwards" bit.



Since animals are given as the baseline Neutral, we must assume that the default actions of any animate creature solely support its own existence. .
No. In D&D, animals are neutral quite a bit because they're "too dumb"; a character with Int below 3 is simply not held responsible for its actions the same ways as sapient beings. There are quite few animals with behaviour that would automatically make them non-neutral if D&D morality applied to them in full. On the other hand, there are many sapient creatures which are described as following their basest instincts - and get labeled Chaotic Evil for it.

Gensh
2010-12-29, 04:25 PM
... expect evil, especially such minor kind as thievery, does not lead to some grand unstoppable downfall. Outside dire circumstances, most good characters would feel guilty and bounce back, averting the "cliff" consciously. As said, alignment is about behaviours that persist - and quite often, for the behaviour to persist there must be "fault" in the invidual committing the acts, outside influences just aren't strong enough every time.

So thievery due to starvation or peer pressure would not be a "fall" - merely getting close enough to the cliff to see its there. It's within the scope of a person to acknowledge faulty behaviour and correct himself. Failure to do so is the "sauntering downwards" bit.

I wasn't referring to the cliff as an arbitrary point of "once you pass this, you're evil," so much as a falling off point for good intentions. Once you've fallen off, you've taken the easy way out too many times; you're an addict to Evil (alternatively Chaos). At that point, most people realize they're in the hole, and there's no point in putting the effort into climbing back out because, odds are, if they fell off while they were standing freely, they're likely to fall off while they're struggling to climb up. That's why redemption stories are so popular; because it takes enormous willpower to keep climbing.


No. In D&D, animals are neutral quite a bit because they're "too dumb"; a character with Int below 3 is simply not held responsible for its actions the same ways as sapient beings. There are quite few animals with behaviour that would automatically make them non-neutral if D&D morality applied to them in full. On the other hand, there are many sapient creatures which are described as following their basest instincts - and get labeled Chaotic Evil for it.

Aye, the average animal is not intelligent enough to go beyond its basest instincts and therefore cannot make moral choices. Nevertheless, they also do not go beyond the bounds of Neutral behavior unless driven by external circumstances, as is the thief compelled by hunger or peer pressure. On the other hand, sapient animals are usually if not always (I'm not actually sure), the result of some form of magical interference - a permanent external circumstance - which may drive them to do Evil much as a paladin's mount is driven to Good. The key here is that they *are* sapient; they are capable of making a choice and have chosen CE.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-29, 04:39 PM
I can sell you a selection of insurance products based on this very reliable footing..... in fact I can sell you derivitives of the proceeds of the risk of the resale of the percentage base of the investment of the concept of the flavour of your debt.....:smallcool:

May I sig this?

Tvtyrant
2010-12-29, 04:42 PM
I always find that there is a focus in the game on where the capitals go. A Chaotic evil person is likely to be crazy but only incidentally evil, while a chaotic Evil person is truly evil and just doesn't accept the use of laws, and a Chaotic Evil person would be the Joker.

Same thing with Lawful Good. A Paladin is usually Lawful good, a Cleric is lawful Good, and an Archon is Lawful Good.

Burner28
2010-12-29, 05:16 PM
Being crazy doesn't make you Chaotic as there are different ways of being crazy.

Mordokai
2010-12-29, 05:32 PM
I always find that there is a focus in the game on where the capitals go. A Chaotic evil person is likely to be crazy but only incidentally evil, while a chaotic Evil person is truly evil and just doesn't accept the use of laws, and a Chaotic Evil person would be the Joker.

Same thing with Lawful Good. A Paladin is usually Lawful good, a Cleric is lawful Good, and an Archon is Lawful Good.

No. That's just the thing why people think paladins are prudes and stick up your arse. Paladin can be Lawful good or lawful Good. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, most paladins should be latter. If they aren't, I blame it on badly written concept and/or bad cognition of most paladin players who want to boss their party around.

Callista
2010-12-29, 06:19 PM
No. That's just the thing why people think paladins are prudes and stick up your arse. Paladin can be Lawful good or lawful Good. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, most paladins should be latter. If they aren't, I blame it on badly written concept and/or bad cognition of most paladin players who want to boss their party around.Yes. Paladins should place an emphasis on Good, not Law. That's obvious from the class description--Atonements are required for a single Evil act, but to get "in trouble" for Chaotic acts, the character has to commit so many of them as to actually switch alignments away from Law. (There's also the "gross violation of the paladin's code" possibility, which would naturally depend on the individual paladin's code.)

I disagree, though, that only badly played paladins place an emphasis on Law. If Miko had been a PC, she would've been very well played--annoying, but well-played--because she is an example of what would realistically happen if a paladin starts caring about Law more than Good. (That, and being given too much responsibility too soon, refusing to investigate, refusing to edit one's beliefs, among other things.) A well-played paladin who emphasizes Law, though, should only be created in the full knowledge that their storyline will likely lead to a fall and either redemption or going into a LN (or even LE) prestige class.


Let's look at the big picture. Both Chaos and Evil represent looking out solely for oneself without regard for later consequences, whether it be arrest or the wrong end of a paladin's greatsword. By comparison, Law and Good represent putting aside one's immediate well-being for the sake of a long-term benefit.Sure, but Chaos and Good have similarities too. Both consider the value of the individual person as an important concept; Chaos because of its focus on freedom and individualism, and Good because of its focus on other people. Similarly, Law and Evil have something in common: They will put some other goal ahead of the welfare of the individual. Tyranny is the archetypal Lawful Evil concept; everyone serves the state to benefit the state and not the individual. But Lawful people in general will look to something larger than themselves to have the authority (whether that's government or a code of honor or whatever). And Evil people in general will also ignore the individual person, just like Lawful people do, because they put more importance on some other goal than on their welfare.

If you start from a LG perspective, then you do tend to assume that Law and Good are related because they're part of the same code of ethics (the LG code, obviously). But if you started from CG, you'd end up assuming chaos and Good were related.

Gensh
2010-12-29, 10:13 PM
Sure, but Chaos and Good have similarities too.

Since we're comparing up and down with left and right - so to speak - there of course will be similarities between non-opposites. The point is that the alignment cross doesn't have right angles but rather is slanted so that the correlations are stronger between Law and Good and also Chaos and Evil.


Both consider the value of the individual person as an important concept; Chaos because of its focus on freedom and individualism, and Good because of its focus on other people.

That's not entirely true. Chaos considers itself important. A CN person will rebel against authority if s/he believes s/he is being repressed, but s/he won't necessarily care if it's someone else. The decision would be based solely on the individual's preferences. Good, on the other hand, is focused on helping as many people as possible through whatever means.

Part of the reason why there are so many problem paladins is because Law can be used as a long-term barrier to keep people from harm. If it means people are protected, Good will trample all over individual freedoms.


Similarly, Law and Evil have something in common: They will put some other goal ahead of the welfare of the individual. Tyranny is the archetypal Lawful Evil concept; everyone serves the state to benefit the state and not the individual. But Lawful people in general will look to something larger than themselves to have the authority (whether that's government or a code of honor or whatever). And Evil people in general will also ignore the individual person, just like Lawful people do, because they put more importance on some other goal than on their welfare.

Except that Evil doesn't put anything ahead of the individual. Evil is about advancing oneself at the expense of everyone or everything that happens to get in the way, and maybe even things that aren't in the way. Of course, the notion of "self" would depend on the individual; it might not literally be the person but rather an ideal that s/he values over his/her life. Regardless, an Evil person does not look to a larger goal by default; even a Lawful person might not do that; even a LE person might not do that.


If you start from a LG perspective, then you do tend to assume that Law and Good are related because they're part of the same code of ethics (the LG code, obviously). But if you started from CG, you'd end up assuming chaos and Good were related.

True; however, there is a reason why LG is assumed the default. LG is the desired behavior of any society - people follow the laws and help each other when in need - regardless of an organization's actual alignment, they'd want their followers to be LG so that they don't have to deal with unrest. Historically, society always tends to build toward LN at the very least before somebody conquers everything and the process starts over again, and the majority of hero stories are about someone LG or are corrupted to sound like they're about someone LG or CE. Here, CE is a generic enemy, a danger to both life and society, a creature without reason for its malice.

Waker
2010-12-29, 11:52 PM
There are many things I've gotta say about this thread, where to start?

About soldiers being evil: Without doubt, most soldiers, at least during active war, are forced to do actions that would qualify as Evil in D&D morality. However, like said, alignment is about behaviours that persist - a good soldier would feel bad about his evil deeds, and try to compensate for them. Thus, his actions outside the battlefield might make him good despite his evil actions.
Ok, I imagine that the actions you are referring to is killing. Some people may subscribe to the notion that killing, in any situation is wrong. Using this rational though, even creatures that are always Good, such as Angels, are performing evil deeds when they kill a Demon, which I find to be quite silly. Now if we define killing as being good or evil dependent upon the situation and reason, then we are probably closer to the mark. Killing to protect another could be considered a Good act, whereas killing someone because they have a nice coat could be considered an Evil act.

Though it has been said multiple times by others, Evil isn't solely defined as "Me, me, me" though that is one of the most common forms it comes in. One could be a subordinate who would kill rivals to advance his superior. An Evil person could poison a nearby Orc tribe to prevent any future attacks. These are specific examples, but Evil can be motivated to act for others, it's merely a matter of personality.

Good is a bit trickier to add to when compared to Evil. It seems that there are a ton of acts that could be considered Evil, depending on outlook and religious edicts. Until I can think of something better to describe it, I will agree that Good acts are those of Altruism, whether that means feeding orphans or defending against invaders.

Law/Chaos are one of the issues of alignment that I find myself disliking. What defines a Lawful act when you are in a dungeon? Good/Evil actions can be done anywhere, but Law/Chaos seem almost entirely dependent on the presence of civilization. So while it might seem strange to some, I follow a slightly different definition of Law/Chaos than what is described in the Players Handbook. To me, Law represents Order and Logic. A character who is Lawful can be counted upon to examine a situation and weigh the pros and cons of a given action. The laws that a given society follows should be based upon logic and reason. Chaos represents spontaneity, emotion and impulse. A Chaotic character is driven by emotion and intuition. If a Chaotic character follows the law, it is merely through chance, not any conscious effort.


True; however, there is a reason why LG is assumed the default. LG is the desired behavior of any society - people follow the laws and help each other when in need - regardless of an organization's actual alignment, they'd want their followers to be LG so that they don't have to deal with unrest.
This is another quote that I have to reply to. Why is Lawful Good the desired behavior of any society? There are plenty of societies in the D&D setting which don't follow that reasoning. You can look to the Hobgoblins Lawful Evil alignment or the Elves Chaotic Good alignment to see some examples.

Burner28
2010-12-30, 12:06 AM
Logic is more of a concern of Smart-Stupid axis than Lawful-Chaotic axis.

Gensh
2010-12-30, 12:26 AM
This is another quote that I have to reply to. Why is Lawful Good the desired behavior of any society? There are plenty of societies in the D&D setting which don't follow that reasoning. You can look to the Hobgoblins Lawful Evil alignment or the Elves Chaotic Good alignment to see some examples.

Well, hobgoblins are a parody of feudal Japan, which was like feudal Europe, but notable for lasting *forever*. They're evil because they're constantly killing people and taking over things in a never-ending power struggle, much like the (currently) NE drow would if they could leave the Underdark. You also have to take into account that they're of the goblin/orc variety, which seems to be used as shorthand for permanent vikings. Even if every other humanoid species becomes civilized, they won't because the authors like it that way. Elves, on the other hand, are basically the final evolution of the hippie; being baked has become a genetic condition. :smallwink:

Waker
2010-12-30, 12:27 AM
Not necessarily. Though many would agree with that assessment, intelligence is made up by several factors; creativity, abstract thought and understanding are just a few. To say that someone is stupid simply because they are illogical is a bit much.
Now saying that a Lawful character is a better planner and looks more to the future than a Chaotic character is something I could agree with.


In response to the post that I was made concerning society.
I just used the Hobgoblin and Elf as an example because they each only had one aspect of the alignment in their societies. I could have wasted time posting more, (Gnomes tend toward Good but are split between Law/Chaos. Halflings are Neutral with a split between Law/Chaos) but the point I'm trying to make is that there are many examples of non-Lawful Good societies out there, I would assume they are outnumbered when compared to the other ones. But the idea that LG is the ideal is only true in certain cases. Most likely the reason that Paladins are LG as the standard is because roleplaying a guy who is always good and always upholds the law, even when breaking the law would be easier, is because it's probably the hardest alignment to stick to. Playing a Chaotic Good character is easier for most people to manage.

Rob Roy
2010-12-30, 12:40 AM
Of course, not every CE creature is a baby eating sociopath. The assassin looking for money, the ignoble thief, the drunk wife beater... All CE, and all on different points of the scale.



god of atheism.
What is this i don't even.

Gensh
2010-12-30, 12:59 AM
I just used the Hobgoblin and Elf as an example because they each only had one aspect of the alignment in their societies. I could have wasted time posting more, (Gnomes tend toward Good but are split between Law/Chaos. Halflings are Neutral with a split between Law/Chaos) but the point I'm trying to make is that there are many examples of non-Lawful Good societies out there, I would assume they are outnumbered when compared to the other ones. But the idea that LG is the ideal is only true in certain cases. Most likely the reason that Paladins are LG as the standard is because roleplaying a guy who is always good and always upholds the law, even when breaking the law would be easier, is because it's probably the hardest alignment to stick to. Playing a Chaotic Good character is easier for most people to manage.

Well, this goes back to my example. Paladins default to LG because that's what the stories say they are, and the stories are written as such because most people admire LG. You'd be hard-pressed to find an actual LG society even in D&D, however, because it's so in defiance of animal instinct, such a society would be destroyed within a decade at most, whether from internal or external causes. LG is the ideal, but unfortunately, it is nothing more.


What is this i don't even.

Since deific power is based on belief and within a given system, there are a defined amount of divine ranks by default, if a deity is stripped of his power but no other god wants his domains, it just kind of floats there. In this particular campaign, there was a prophecy that stated the son of the fallen god would one day rise up and slay all the gods. Furthermore, these gods had an Olympian sort of mindset and usually did nothing more than mess with humans despite it being an inhospitable desert world. Incidentally, the prophesied, powerless, demigod was raised as an ordinary human and became an atheist. Upon his ascent to godhood, however, he refused to believe it and continued to believe he was human even after he killed the overdeity.

The party was supposed to stop this. Instead, they joined his cult at the first chance and used a loophole in some houserules to kill the son of the god of war, looted the war god's sword, and conquered a quarter of the world. They were level 7 by the end of it. :smallsigh:

Waker
2010-12-30, 01:15 AM
Well, this goes back to my example. Paladins default to LG because that's what the stories say they are, and the stories are written as such because most people admire LG. You'd be hard-pressed to find an actual LG society even in D&D, however, because it's so in defiance of animal instinct, such a society would be destroyed within a decade at most, whether from internal or external causes. LG is the ideal, but unfortunately, it is nothing more.
Not trying to argue with you, so don't take my continuous replies to be aggressive. I will agree with you that bias from the real world influences players to think that Lawful Good is the ideal, even though in the D&D world there are many races which do not hold the same beliefs in what is ideal.
The only thing I'm trying to get across is that while some people do think that Law is Good and Chaos is Evil, that is largely dependent upon your own personal beliefs. Being Lawful Evil doesn't make you slightly less evil than the Chaotic Evil villain. People often point to Chaos and say that it begets war and suffering from a lack of stability, but Chaos also can bring with it creativity and growth. The same structure and order provided by Law can lead to stagnation and repression. Law/Chaos are morally void and are both equally valid. Good/Evil are the alignments that are concerned with morality.

Gensh
2010-12-30, 01:43 AM
Not trying to argue with you, so don't take my continuous replies to be aggressive. I will agree with you that bias from the real world influences players to think that Lawful Good is the ideal, even though in the D&D world there are many races which do not hold the same beliefs in what is ideal.
The only thing I'm trying to get across is that while some people do think that Law is Good and Chaos is Evil, that is largely dependent upon your own personal beliefs. Being Lawful Evil doesn't make you slightly less evil than the Chaotic Evil villain. People often point to Chaos and say that it begets war and suffering from a lack of stability, but Chaos also can bring with it creativity and growth. The same structure and order provided by Law can lead to stagnation and repression. Law/Chaos are morally void and are both equally valid. Good/Evil are the alignments that are concerned with morality.

It's no problem; I once spent two hours arguing with someone that we actually agreed. >_<

Certain races certainly do hold different beliefs than the norm, however, they are of varying intelligence and are affected by various external conditions. If someone killed Lolth, the drow would only have half as many reason to kill each other, and there would likely be some internal conflict with a slightly less insane social structure forming in the aftermath. By that same token, if you compare goblins/orcs to historical human counterparts like vikings or the Goths, they will eventually settle down, whether they like it or not. Lawful Good is the ideal in the sense that it's something along the lines of holy in the eyes of the common man, but the reason why it has so much propaganda from societal leaders is because its the most efficient alignment (and allows government to function unquestioned). LG isn't more Good than CG, but Good laws predict a greater amount of Good for all than just letting citizens do as their conscience guides them.

Callista
2010-12-30, 02:33 AM
LG is best for a stable society, yes. However, CG is also necessary. Because of the reality that mortals are fallible, you can't have one without the other: Lawful Good people establish a good society; but eventually, corruption sets in, and the Chaotic Good people become agents of change, tear down the tyranny, and establish individual rights as important. However, Chaotics are no good at making the trains run on time; soon the Lawful Good people drift into leadership roles because their sense of order and discipline makes them good organizers. If you had only one and not the other, you'd end up with either stagnation or anarchy. (And NG is no good either--drift one way or the other is inevitable; so NG just means you're in the transition between CG and LG.) Without racial alignment tendencies toward either law or chaos, a society tends to bounce back and forth in a sort of cyclic fashion.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-30, 11:31 AM
There are many things I've gotta say about this thread, where to start?

Ok, I imagine that the actions you are referring to is killing. Some people may subscribe to the notion that killing, in any situation is wrong. Using this rational though, even creatures that are always Good, such as Angels, are performing evil deeds when they kill a Demon, which I find to be quite silly. Now if we define killing as being good or evil dependent upon the situation and reason, then we are probably closer to the mark. Killing to protect another could be considered a Good act, whereas killing someone because they have a nice coat could be considered an Evil act.


Not merely "killing", but having to kill people who've done nothing wrong simply because you're told to, ruining people's lives with collateral damage, robbing innocent people of livelyhood by forcing them to flee their homes, having to look past your fingers or contribute to torture, murder, raping and pillaging and countless of other every-day occurrences of war that really can't be "justified" as good or neutral, but which even the best of soldiers would be hard-pressed to avoid or stop by themselves.

Killing Demons or other Evil outsiders is a bad comparison, because those creatures are actual living incarnations of evil. By destroying them, you literally remove Evil from the universe. I still don't see it as a necessarily good act, just one that can't be evil. Neither do I percieve "killing to protect others" as Good; I consider it practically the same as hunting for food, which is morally neutral. There are very few things that take a life I'd consider good. Necessary or acceptable, yes, but not good.

In any case, Angels committing evil deeds only comes out as paradoxical if you hold Angels as Paladin-like beings who can't commit evil without seizing to be Angels. Personally, just like I can see a soldier being good despite atrocities of war, I can see an Angel dabling in "necessary evils" and still be good due to their good deeds and nature outshining those evils. Just because a creature is good doesn't mean every single act it does is good; indeed, most actions are likely morally neutral, and an Angel doing neutral deeds might still seem callous and even monstrous and cruel in some cases.

hamishspence
2010-12-30, 12:14 PM
Killing Demons or other Evil outsiders is a bad comparison, because those creatures are actual living incarnations of evil. By destroying them, you literally remove Evil from the universe. I still don't see it as a necessarily good act, just one that can't be evil.

Given that even demons can become nonevil, or even Good (WoTC's succubus paladin article springs to mind) I think that this may have changed somewhat.

To have the Evil subtype- means you'll always ping as Evil for the purposes of various spells regardless of your actual alignment. The MM points this out.

It is possible to have the Evil subtype- and yet be Good aligned.
Conversely, it's possible to have the Good subtype- and yet be Evil-aligned. In the splatbook Elder Evils, Avamerin, servant of Sertrous, is an angel- a planetar- retaining the Good subtype, with an Evil alignment.

An angel can fall all the way to Evil- and still be an angel.
Just as a demon can rise all the way to Good- even paladin-Good, and still be a demon.

Gensh
2010-12-30, 01:13 PM
LG is best for a stable society, yes. However, CG is also necessary. Because of the reality that mortals are fallible, you can't have one without the other: Lawful Good people establish a good society; but eventually, corruption sets in, and the Chaotic Good people become agents of change, tear down the tyranny, and establish individual rights as important. However, Chaotics are no good at making the trains run on time; soon the Lawful Good people drift into leadership roles because their sense of order and discipline makes them good organizers. If you had only one and not the other, you'd end up with either stagnation or anarchy. (And NG is no good either--drift one way or the other is inevitable; so NG just means you're in the transition between CG and LG.) Without racial alignment tendencies toward either law or chaos, a society tends to bounce back and forth in a sort of cyclic fashion.

As I said, you'd be hard-pressed to actually find a LG society that's lasted more than a few years without dropping to at least LN. Corruption isn't a flaw - it's an inherent part of society as much as the tier system is a part of 3.X - it might not be visibly apparent, but it's there. Only by restructuring everything from the ground up, whether the game manuals or the entire mindset of the society in question, can it be fixed. A system in which LG and CG work hand-in-hand to preserve society would probably be more effective than a purely LG one, but realistically, most societies would tend LN>LE>NE, usually disintegrating or being conquered once self-interest becomes the sole concern.

By the way, hooray for an entirely civil alignment debate for once. :smallbiggrin:

Fiery Diamond
2010-12-30, 06:57 PM
So, after reading all of this thread, I'm curious as to what alignment people here would think that a character in a story of mine (a Zelda fanfic, with the character being Dark Link, but that's irrelevant) would be. I always pegged him as CE.

Description of character

Actions:
--He enjoys (and engages in) killing people without caring whether they are good or evil, innocent or vile, young or old, vital or part of the masses.
--He delights in combat with others, regardless of whether the others are skilled or not, though he enjoys fighting with more skilled opponents more than less skilled opponents. Fighting with safeguards, however, is a terrible un-fun idea.
--He has no respect for the rights or well-being of others, but the majority of his actively evil actions are violent; apart from verbal abuse, he doesn't engage in much non-violent evil. He enjoys causing physical suffering.
--He likes making jokes and thinks he has a decent sense of humor. His humor is mostly verbal and includes wordplay and sarcasm. He mocks others.
--He strives to protect the "balance" that preserves the existence of the world, even going so far as to defend the essential life of someone he dislikes.
--While often highly impulsive, he is capable of being logical and of determining when it might be best to stand down or engage in a disliked activity for the sake of protection of his long-term interests of going on killing sprees in the future.


Motives:
--To have fun, and to preserve his ability to have fun.

Quotes by character

--"'It's wrong?' Are you serious, kid? You think that I care that it's 'wrong?'"
--"Give me fear, give me blood, but I want the world to be around for me to play in." He snarled. "If I find the Dark Princess first, I'll do everything I damn well can to keep her alive."
--"I'm a simple man. Killing, blood, battle, blood, and just generally having a good time is all I really want."

Small passage snippets

"I'll just have to get rid of you right now, and then I'll have free reign to do what I want!" The shade raised his sword and chuckled. "Sorry, kid, but I'm going to kill you now. I can't have you interfering, and if I let you go, you will."

"Me, the fool?" Dark Link laughed in disbelief. "You've gotta be kidding me! Who the hell do you think you are?"

"That," the hissing voice answered, "is none of your concern."

"Oh, I'll bet," mocked the shade. "I guess I'll just have to cut you up to find out! But first, little servant boy here needs to die, witnessing the power he so readily dismisses." He lunged.

"The balance has been upset," the voice hissed. "There is no one suitable to host Wisdom yet found. Those things which were once certain are certain no longer."

The shade hesitated. "Then the Dark Princess yet sleeps," he said.

"And should I find her resting place, she will never wake," the voice said venomously. "Then the balance will truly be broken."

"Are you out of your damn mind?" cried Dark Link, shoving the hunched, black-cloaked man off of him. "We have no idea what will happen if you do that!" The shrouded figure reached out a knurled hand and pulled his cloak tighter.

"But we do know," he hissed, his voice's tone and pitch changing, becoming deeper and more foreboding, "that it will break the cycle that has continued since Ganondorf first touched the Triforce all those centuries ago. And that," he said, the transformation of his voice complete, "is all that I want."

Dark Link climbed to his feet, shaking his head. "You are crazy!" he said vehemently. "I thought I was the reckless one! Carnage I like, but if you destroy the balance, this world might actually be destroyed entirely! Then where would we be? Give me fear, give me blood, but I want the world to be around for me to play in." He snarled. "If I find the Dark Princess first, I'll do everything I damn well can to keep her alive." He whirled around to leave.

"And stay out of my business!" he yelled back. "Link is mine! You hear me? He's mine, Agahnim! M-I-N-E! Mine!"

"Heh, heh, heh… Only if you kill him before I do, my sweet little shade."

"You don't look scared," he said, a note of skepticism in his voice. "You're bluffing. You're damn good at it," he admitted, "but you're bluffing." He gave an exaggerated sigh.

"You know, I really wish that Link were here," he said in a falsely wistful tone. "Or Link. Either one. Both of them would be so mad at me right now." He pretended to wipe away a tear. He paused, then burst into laughter. "Ah ha ha ha! What a joke! I'm Dark Link, so Link should be here to be mad at me! No, really," he said to Zelda, "Link would hate me for what I'm about to do."

"And what…what is that?" Zelda asked, her eyes widening slightly despite her attempts to keep a straight face.

"What is that? What is that?" Dark Link mocked. "Oh, come on! Use your head a little, distressing damsel! What the hell do you think I'm planning to do? I freed this fool" – he gestured at Raistler with his sword – "so that he would lead me straight to you. Do you think that I'm just going to sit down and have a little tea party on his corpse? Is that what you think?"

Zelda remained silent. Dark Link freed his left hand from the black Hylian shield's straps and it shot out and picked up the young woman by her neck. "I asked you a question," he said darkly. "I don't like being ignored." He leaned his face into hers, staring into her aqua eyes with his crimson ones. "No…" he murmured. "It's not certain… It's there, but it's weak. Is there another heir? It's not like the family of Hyrule to be so…diluted." He let go of her, and she dropped the potions and massaged her throat, gasping for air.

"Perhaps my time would be better served if I looked on my own," he said to himself, ignoring the gasping Princess as though she weren't there. After a moment, he turned his head back to Zelda.

"Do you have a sister, or perhaps a cousin or something?" he asked.

Dark Link didn't even look like he was fighting seriously, and he had already pinned Sharla against the wall and was almost casually inflicting more wounds on her body.

"Ah…nothing like a stroll in the woods for relaxation," Dark Link said, breathing in. He leaned against a tree some twenty feet away, his jet sword and shield safely stowed. His crimson eyes were closed.

"I can feel it already," he murmured. "The seal is weakening. The seven seals that keep that man locked away are starting to decay." He wrinkled his nose. "Stupid bastard. I wish that he'd just stay locked up for once." He opened his eyes and addressed the Deku Scrub as though it were a friend.

"I've been to Castle City, you know," he said amiably. "Big place, lots of people. I checked out the seal there, too. It's pretty weak. Both Forest and Light, huh?" He grinned. "Oh, I relish the thought of what dark turmoil the City will end up in. Already you can feel the corruption here. I'm sure it won't be long before it rears its head in the capital."

"Still," he pondered, "I don't understand what that damn magician is up to. Talking about stealing my prey, and killing the Dark Princess, then sending his lackey to save Zelda. It doesn't make sense." He shrugged. "It's not like he ever made much sense to start with. Me," he directed his attention back to the quivering plant-creature, "I'm a simple man. Killing, blood, battle, blood, and just generally having a good time is all I really want. Not at all like that slimy shade of that man. He plans and plans and weaves his stupid little plots all over the place." He paused. "You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?"

The Deku Scrub shivered in fear. This black-clad man was evil. Very bad. Was this the end?

"N-no," it squeaked.

"That's because you are a plant. A tiny, insignificant plant." The shade started walking toward it. "But you know," he said, "you could be so much more. Would you like to be powerful?" he asked.

The squirrel had sidled up against the Scrub and was hiding behind it. The Deku Scrub shuddered and steeled itself. "No," it cried, and shot a Deku Nut out of its mouth at Dark Link, grabbed the squirrel, and plunged beneath the ground inside of its flower-pad. Dark Link stumbled back and rubbed his eyes.

"Well damn," he said in an impressed tone, "I didn't expect a little Scrub to stand up to me. Today's been full of surprises."

After a moment, he shrugged. "I should probably check on the other seals, but I don't have the patience for that," he said dismissively. "The whole Seventh Sage thing is bugging me, but I'll leave that for later. I'm gonna go search out the Dark Princess." He scowled. "Hopefully, I can find her before Agahnim does." In a whirl of black and a flash of light, he was gone.

Burner28
2010-12-30, 07:05 PM
The character in question is definetly Evil, most likely chaotic... So CE.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-30, 07:21 PM
The thing that prevents me from chucking them into the Chaotic Neutral area is the fact that they are hurting people. I, however,cannot consider them Chaotic Evil, because they are not consciously championing an idea: they merely rob for their self-preservation. Paraphrased, thieves in general do not rob with the sole intent of hurting others. (with some revenge exceptions).

Your drug pusher example of CE is a very good one for me, because he goes beyond his self-fulfillment and successfully creates an institution, a spiral of depravity. Something that thievery does not do.[/COLOR]

Thievery seems like sort of a generally evil thing to me. It isn't on the scale of murder and so forth, and I agree that it's usually not done with the intent to "be evil", but yknow, few evil things are.

A thief doesn't seem like an especially chaotic type, though. Barring something unusual, I'd chuck them into neutral evil, since they're doing evil things for personal gain.

Burner28
2010-12-30, 07:26 PM
I am not too sure really that Thieves are necessarily Neutral really as they tend to be more individualistic, so they are more likely to be Chaotic than Neutral.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-30, 07:35 PM
It'll vary depending on the guy, sure. However, "stealing" is a label often applied to activities that are technically legal. Consider con artists, for instance. Even if they manage to get someone's money by deceit, using a method that hasn't been explicitly made illegal yet...they're still doing something that's fairly evil, and that isn't particularly chaotic.

Thieves may often be portrayed as highly individualistic in literature, but that need not be the case in general. Especially in D&D. Note the lack of alignment required.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-30, 11:13 PM
Treading outside established laws and social connections has always struck me as Chaotic, even if the goal is "mere profit". I explained my opinions regarding thievery in particular earlier; I still hold it's more chaotic than evil. If a thief is neutral, lawful or good, it's despite his thievery and due to other factors.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-30, 11:33 PM
Treading outside established laws and social connections has always struck me as Chaotic, even if the goal is "mere profit". I explained my opinions regarding thievery in particular earlier; I still hold it's more chaotic than evil. If a thief is neutral, lawful or good, it's despite his thievery and due to other factors.

Nah. Taking what isn't yours is a very widely known crime, sure, but the devil's in the details. For instance, how do you determine what is rightfully yours? I'd rather not get into politics, but all sorts of rationales exist for crime.

As for the established law, etc...is it chaotic for a paladin to break the laws of an evil empire? Nope. He's got his own code that he follows. So, he's still on the side of law and order, just a different form of law and order. The same can be true of the thief. They may adhere strictly to a code, and tend towards law, or they might go towards chaos. There's really no reason you have to go either way. In the case of say, brigands, or a group of thieves, there might even be rules and culture around stealing. The "honest crook" is a pretty well used trope in popular culture.

Consider the example of the movie Transporter. The initial character was at least neutral on the good-evil alignment, probably trending towards evil. After all, he did routinely assist those committing all sorts of crimes(including the example of thievery), and had no qualms about deaths resulting from his actions. Generally not a good sort of thing. Plus, strict rules, yadda, yadda. Clearly trending towards order in that regard(though I could see a case made for neutrality).

However, as the movie progresses, he becomes both more good in the D&D sense, doing what certainly qualifies as good actions, and also becomes more chaotic. By movie's end, I'd put him as CN-CGish. Now, this hardly is the only way things could go, but is quite illustrative of the independent nature of the axis, and helps point out just how many different types of people can be in a given section of the alignment chart.

I think the big problem is that too many people see chaos as far too similar to evil.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-31, 01:07 AM
Nah. Taking what isn't yours is a very widely known crime, sure, but the devil's in the details. For instance, how do you determine what is rightfully yours?

For many thieves, that question is wholly rhetoric. And that's what I see as chaotic in many thieves - quite often, their actions come down to whim. They're putting their own desire before social convention and established order. If a thief ends up non-chaotic, it's due to something else he does to balance it out.


As for the established law, etc...is it chaotic for a paladin to break the laws of an evil empire? Nope. He's got his own code that he follows. So, he's still on the side of law and order, just a different form of law and order. The same can be true of the thief. They may adhere strictly to a code, and tend towards law, or they might go towards chaos. There's really no reason you have to go either way. In the case of say, brigands, or a group of thieves, there might even be rules and culture around stealing. The "honest crook" is a pretty well used trope in popular culture.


Actually, I do think it's chaotic for a good person to break evil laws - a Paladin is just likely to immediatly "redeem" himself by establishing that "different form of law and order". Last time I checked, Paladins don't fall from committing minor chaotic acts. Of course, if it weren't for the clause about associating with evil characters, I'd hold the "right" way for a Paladin to change corrupt laws would be to rebuild the system from inside out, using already established ways of influencing the system to correct offending decrees.

You see, the point I've brought up a few times in the past is that the alignment of a person and the alignment of his deeds don't always go hand-in-hand. A Paladin who values good more than law will do minor chaotic deeds if they further good more than the available lawful deeds. Indeed, a lawful person valuing one kind of law over another might engage in chaotic deeds to make a point; "expection enforces the rule".

The kind of "code-abiding" thief is a perfect example of this, as other examples with similar mindset include quite a lot of anarchists and terrorists. To support the rule of their own group, they commit deeds that actively undermine order of the general populace. No matter how lawful they are within their own group, there's no question that they're using chaotic means, with chaotic results for some people.

Indeed, if the those "some people" numerically exceed vastly those whose "law" is benefiting from the chaotic acts (such as stealing), then the "honest crooks" could quite reasonably still be chaotic. In fact, their "honesty" might be a factor of good and evil, rather than law and chaos, reflecting of their ability to feel sympathy towards others. Jack Sparrow of Pirates of Caribbean comes to mind as possible example - I'd peg him as Chaotic Neutral.

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 06:12 AM
Jack Sparrow of Pirates of Caribbean comes to mind as possible example - I'd peg him as Chaotic Neutral.

Complete Scoundrel also pegs him as Chaotic Neutral.

Burner28
2010-12-31, 11:19 AM
I think the big problem is that too many people see chaos as far too similar to evil.

Probably.

If there is one thing thing I have to say, it is that many of the things that are associated with "Chaotic" part includes cheating, lying and breaking their promises which are all things that are(legitimately) looked down on as not being Heroic whilst the opposite is also true.

Although it may not be surprising to see people seeing Chaotic Good characters as antiheroes rather than heroes and Lawful Evil characters as noble, things that are also associated with "Chaotic" includes open-mindness and love of freedom, individualism and choice, whilst the opposite is associated with being Lawful.:smallwink:

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 11:36 AM
"Chaos as similar to evil" might be a holdover from Basic D&D (and its various derivations).

Rules Cyclopedia:


Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful characters will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.



Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behaviour is usually the same as behaviout that could be called "evil".
Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish, "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.

So- back then, while Chaotic didn't always mean Evil- there was a strong suggestion that it was more likely to be Evil than not.

BardsAreEpic
2010-12-31, 11:58 AM
I completley agree about the sterotyping of Chaotic Evil. In all other versions of the Chaotic allignment, a Chaotic character simply does not like laws and regulations. In a Chaotic Evil character, it seems like they are not capable of rational thought or planning.

In my opinion, a Chaotic Evil charatcer dispises law, like a Chaotic Good charatcer, but uses the Chaos created by this for his own benifit. He can form complex plans for this, work in a team, or temporarily work under the law. He's just as organized as a Lawful Evil charatcer, he simply dislikes those in power. He may desire to be a ruler, but will break laws and murder nobles to get there.

An example of this type of Chaotic Evil charatcer would be Blackadder III. He's fully capable of serving under someone, even a Lawful Good Prince. However, this is just to benifit his own means. He has no problems obeying laws, as long as it leads to his own benifit. He is cruel, and adept at using everyone he knows as pawns, in an elaborate plan to overthrow the prince and eventually become King of England. He harbors no loyalties, but is intelligent enough not to let it be known.

Burner28
2010-12-31, 12:00 PM
An example of this type of Chaotic Evil charatcer would be Blackadder III. He's fully capable of serving under someone, even a Lawful Good Prince. However, this is just to benifit his own means. He has no problems obeying laws, as long as it leads to his own benifit. He is cruel, and adept at using everyone he knows as pawns, in an elaborate plan to overthrow the prince and eventually become King of England. He harbors no loyalties, but is intelligent enough not to let it be known.

That sounds more like NE you know

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 12:23 PM
Where does the line fall between CE and NE?

Are CE characters generally just a little more whimsical that NE ones?
Do they tend to see Chaos as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end?

Exemplars of Evil did have a list of "villainous personality traits"- some of which were strongly or weakly associated with various alignments.

Chaotic ones:

Duplicitous:
Duplicitous villains are liars, cheats, and traitors. They honor no alliances or bonds of friendship and use other people to serve their needs. Duplicitous villains are always chaotic.

Lascivious:
Fueled by sexual desire, lascivious villains are driven by bodily impulses and ardent for physical gratification. They speak in innuendos and double entendres, and they are aggressive in matters of the flesh. These characters are often chaotic.

Mad:
Mad villains might have any number of mental ailments, ranging from paranoia and delusions to psychotic behaviour. Their erratic and sometimes hostile actions can repel others quickly. Mad villains are usually chaotic.

Nihilistic:
Nihilistic villains defy social conventions, having little use for custom or proper behaviour. They actively oppose anything they deem to be tradition, and they mock people who seem shackled by convention. Nihilistic characters are usually chaotic.

These are traits which tend to have a particular alignment (Chaotic) associated with them, according to that book (so a nihilistic villain is more likely to be Chaotic rather than Neutral or Lawful).

However they may not be very good usages of the words given. "Nihilistic" for example, may not be the best word for someone driven by the desire to challenge social convention.

Burner28
2010-12-31, 12:35 PM
Where does the line fall between CE and NE?

Are CE characters generally just a little more whimsical that NE ones?
Do they tend to see Chaos as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end?

.

The same line that separates TN and CN:smallwink:

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 12:52 PM
"how chaotic does behaviour have to be to justify a Chaotic alignment" can be a bit tricky though.

Especially if the DM thinks that enough Lawful traits equate to a Lawful alignment, regardless of overall Chaotic goals.

Can a Chaotic person be extremely organized, regular in their habits, honorable- and still be comfortably Chaotic because of their goals and loyalties?

I'd say they could.

JonestheSpy
2010-12-31, 12:57 PM
It seems like Chaotic Evil isn't just more chaotic than Lawful Evil - it's also more evil.

I think the OP is demonstrating the common societal prejudice favoring law over chaos. You see it quite often - heck, in the game itself First edition had just Law, Neutral, and Chaos as the three alignments, while the IMHO lame-ass 4th edition system explicitly lays it out so Lawful Good is the best and chaotic evil the worst. The highly unimpressive 2nd edition alignment description also looked down on chaotics, going so far as to describe chaotic neutrals as insane, as opposed to, y'know, radical individualists who are neither particualrly benign or malevolent.

Really though, in the view of Gygax in AD&D and in 3/3.5, Law and Chaos are both morally balanced, neither good nor evil. A lawful evil person can be as much as a psycho as a chaotic evil person, it just gets expressed differently. Folks with comic geekdom leanings tend to hold up the chaotic Joker as the ultimate evil, but is he actually more evil than lawful Darkseid? Was Jack the Ripper more evil than Hitler? Not in this writer's opinion.

Chaos= change, individuality, unpredictability, creativity
Law= stasis, stability, community, and whatever you want to call that trait that takes the raw stuff of ideas and orders them into a comprehensible form

Neither is good or evil, savvy? In the writings or Moorcock and many other fantasists, the evil comes from when either Law or Chaos is too dominant, throwing off the balance necessary for life.


Edit:

"how chaotic does behaviour have to be to justify a Chaotic alignment" can be a bit tricky though.

Especially if the DM thinks that enough Lawful traits equate to a Lawful alignment, regardless of overall Chaotic goals.

Can a Chaotic person be extremely organized, regular in their habits, honorable- and still be comfortably Chaotic because of their goals and loyalties?

I'd say they could.

A chaotic person can be completely consistent with a code of ethics and behavior, but it's their own and they don't give a rat's arse about what anyone else thinks, and said code might not make any sense to the general population. Elric is an excellent example of this.

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 01:03 PM
I think the OP is demonstrating the common societal prejudice favoring law over chaos. You see it quite often - heck, in the game itself First edition had just Law, Neutral, and Chaos as the three alignments, while the IMHO lame-ass 4th edition system explicitly lays it out so Lawful Good is the best and chaotic evil the worst.

TV Tropes does explain that this is an oversimplification:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrderVersusChaos
providing a link to the WOTC article:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20080602a
and summarizing what it meant:

To summarize for those who don't want the link; Word Of God is that Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are explicitly not The Same But More of Good and Evil. They simply represent very specific, focused views of good and evil — Lawful Good views law and order as being essential components to goodness, while Chaotic Evil is so psychotic and self-absorbed it goes beyond what even Evil considers appropriate. Even Evil Has Standards... at the very least, an Evil character recognizes that if they destroy the world, they lose everything they want. A Chaotic Evil character will happily destroy the world, just For The Evulz.

Callista
2010-12-31, 05:22 PM
Yeesh, don't even get me started on 4th ed. alignments. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are two of the most interesting alignments out there, and they want to get rid of them? What were they on when they thought of that?

Rob Roy
2010-12-31, 05:48 PM
Yeesh, don't even get me started on 4th ed. alignments. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are two of the most interesting alignments out there, and they want to get rid of them? What were they on when they thought of that?

Something that makes you fix things things that aren't broken Or meth, it could be either or.

Frozen_Feet
2010-12-31, 06:25 PM
I think it the chance in 4th Edition was largely due to the designers seeing not enough functional difference between Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral, and Chaotic Good and Neutral Good, to explicitly separate them anymore. I think it signifies an even stronger paradigm shift towards Good Vs. Evil; that is, the determining trait for both CN and TN was considered to be that they take no side in Good Vs. Evil, and the determining trait for both CG and NG was considered to be that they side with good. Since Law and Chaos seized to have any considerable mechanical effects (or so I heard), making the distinction became useless in all cases except the narrow cases of extreme Mechanical, systematic benevolence (LG) and Omnicidal mania (CE).

In a way it makes 4th Edition more black-and-white, as opposed to the very morally grey conflict of Law and Chaos. However, one can also look at it as an attempt to reinforce the notion that Alignments are not personalities; by having less Alignments, the game requires for each to cover more different people, which should make each alignment less of a "straight-jacket".


Neither is good or evil, savvy? In the writings or Moorcock and many other fantasists, the evil comes from when either Law or Chaos is too dominant, throwing off the balance necessary for life.

This is actually a good point. While you can argue that Evil is unnecessary, you can't really say the same of either Law or Chaos. Law and Chaos are like Yin and Yang - both are required, and neither is completely pure of the other.

Failure to realize this might be the reason why every now and then the argument pops up that "Law and Chaos are not mutually exclusive, and thus the Alignment system doesn't work". While the observation is sound, the conclusion is faulty. "Good" might as much about absence of evil as it is about good deeds and vice versa for "Evil", but in the case of Law and Chaos, it's about two diffent sets of traits that exist in all things. Where a thing stands on the law-chaos axis thus depends on how much it has either traits and whether one side comes of as dominant.

Paseo H
2010-12-31, 06:31 PM
I will give you 5 examples of Chaotic Evil in my game:

1. Shinu - blind swordswoman type, was created and possesssed by an evil spirit. She is sadistic and AxCrazy,
but she will behave in the presence of people she looks up to. In other words, Belkar with boobs.

2. Xanatos - Magnificent Bastard android, well over three or four centuries old. Pretty much views all organics as 'meat bags,' but he isn't hostile about it, he figures it's like how humans view dogs. Treats life as a game to be played and exploited for its own pleasure, regardless of who it hurts, though he never goes out of his way to harm others, and often pretends to be good, for his own purposes. One Moral Event Horizon of note: firing a missile through an office building to reach a target on the other side, just so the target wouldn't get away. Another is that he helped drive Yue (below) to cross the Moral Event Horizon herself.

3. Yue - Psychopathic, borderline Complete Monster (she calls herself an Angel of Cruelty...she knows she is nearly pure evil and revels in it. One of her redeeming qualities is that she genuinely cares about children, and takes no pleasure in their deaths). If you are not someone she cares about, you might as well be dead, and if you actually do something to raise her ire, don't expect a clean and honorable death from her...she loves to make people beg for their lives, only to laugh and point out that she wasn't actually offering to spare them. However, some see her as a Heroic Sociopath, given that at least half the people she goes after do deserve at least death.

4. Rafaelo - Started out well meaning, and in his mind, he thinks he is a daring and honorable Robin Hood type figure, fighting against the evil corporations that rule his planet. However, he crossed the Moral Event Horizon when he masterminded a missile attack on an apartment building, meant to target a corrupt businessman but still end up taking a few innocents along with it, as well as massive property damage, all to cause terror. In other words, he thinks he's Chaotic Good, and he certainly mainly intends to only target the wicked, but he also figures that there will be casualties regardless so he feels no qualms about getting innocent blood on his hands if he feels it will suit his aims.

5. Akiela - Similar to Rafaelo, she is a member of the Revolutionary League in Planescape, she wishes to tear down the establishment. She can be disarmingly polite, especially if you do a genuine good deed towards her, but she can be very cross if her agenda is called into question. She also tends to be the first to volunteer to interrogate (i.e. torture) Harmonium or other lawful types if there is questioning to be done. Using her power to infiltrate other factions, she also loves to try to make them look bad by committing small atrocities under their guise, even if it's to innocents or allies.

So there's 5 types of Chaotic Evil for you.

Burner28
2010-12-31, 06:48 PM
I will give you 5 examples of Chaotic Evil in my game:

1. Shinu - blind swordswoman type, was created and possesssed by an evil spirit. She is sadistic and AxCrazy,
but she will behave in the presence of people she looks up to. In other words, Belkar with boobs.

2. Xanatos - Magnificent Bastard android, well over three or four centuries old. Pretty much views all organics as 'meat bags,' but he isn't hostile about it, he figures it's like how humans view dogs. Treats life as a game to be played and exploited for its own pleasure, regardless of who it hurts, though he never goes out of his way to harm others, and often pretends to be good, for his own purposes. One Moral Event Horizon of note: firing a missile through an office building to reach a target on the other side, just so the target wouldn't get away. Another is that he helped drive Yue (below) to cross the Moral Event Horizon herself.

3. Yue - Psychopathic, borderline Complete Monster (she calls herself an Angel of Cruelty...she knows she is nearly pure evil and revels in it. One of her redeeming qualities is that she genuinely cares about children, and takes no pleasure in their deaths). If you are not someone she cares about, you might as well be dead, and if you actually do something to raise her ire, don't expect a clean and honorable death from her...she loves to make people beg for their lives, only to laugh and point out that she wasn't actually offering to spare them. However, some see her as a Heroic Sociopath, given that at least half the people she goes after do deserve at least death.

4. Rafaelo - Started out well meaning, and in his mind, he thinks he is a daring and honorable Robin Hood type figure, fighting against the evil corporations that rule his planet. However, he crossed the Moral Event Horizon when he masterminded a missile attack on an apartment building, meant to target a corrupt businessman but still end up taking a few innocents along with it, as well as massive property damage, all to cause terror. In other words, he thinks he's Chaotic Good, and he certainly mainly intends to only target the wicked, but he also figures that there will be casualties regardless so he feels no qualms about getting innocent blood on his hands if he feels it will suit his aims.

5. Akiela - Similar to Rafaelo, she is a member of the Revolutionary League in Planescape, she wishes to tear down the establishment. She can be disarmingly polite, especially if you do a genuine good deed towards her, but she can be very cross if her agenda is called into question. She also tends to be the first to volunteer to interrogate (i.e. torture) Harmonium or other lawful types if there is questioning to be done. Using her power to infiltrate other factions, she also loves to try to make them look bad by committing small atrocities under their guise, even if it's to innocents or allies.

So there's 5 types of Chaotic Evil for you.

So to sum it up

Shinu is the insane, bloodthirstly swordswoman who looks for opponents to kill, Xanatos is the manipulative, two faced, selfish android with a prejudice against humans and who treats life like a game, Yue is the horrifically evil and dishonorable psycho, Rafaelo is the deluded anti authoritan who isn't afraid to sink as low as the people he fights against(in other words "He who fights monsters must make sure that he himself doesn't become that monster", and he did) and Akiela is the polite but ruthless agent of chaos, wanting to bring down the establishment.

Paseo H
2010-12-31, 06:54 PM
Pretty much, yeah.

Though I would say Rafaelo's delusion is his willingness to sink so low, not that he fights the authority, because they really are that bad.

Paseo H
2011-01-01, 11:31 PM
I kind of skimped on Shinu's details, so here's a little more:

While being Ax Crazy, she does honestly love the hero, and a friend of hers, and she will behave herself for their sakes.

At first, she was on a team of two other evil ninja. One is a lying, manipulative shapeshifter (not natural, but through a cybernetic disguise kit) and a deadly doctor with a grim, clinical disposition who uses his skills to harm more effectively as much as to heal.

And, they are both seriously afraid of Shinu. They reason, while they would only kill or torture to achieve their aims, and even then without taking pleasure in it, she might torture and kill them just because it sounded like a good idea at the time.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 07:36 AM
This is actually a good point. While you can argue that Evil is unnecessary, you can't really say the same of either Law or Chaos. Law and Chaos are like Yin and Yang - both are required, and neither is completely pure of the other.

In Rules Cyclopedia, there were 5 Spheres (all of which were at least necessary in some way to the multiverse).

Energy was Chaotic,
Matter was Lawful,
Time was Neutral,
Thought was all three alignments.
Entropy didn't exactly have an alignment.

(It also had a few Chaotic but benevolent monsters in the monster section, and a few Lawful but evil monsters- despite not having Good or Evil as listed alignments)

However (Entropy) was focussed on destroying all. Which might make it the closest equivalent to Evil as a power.
Imbalance between the other four always favored Entropy- since it always benefited when the multiverse was out of balance.

Entropy- despite always trying to drag the other four down- was still necessary for the multiverse to exist.

Paseo H
2011-01-22, 02:49 AM
Adding another Chaotic Evil character to the mix to bump the topic:

Riannon (special case) - Alignment feedback from her empathic weapon increases her nihilist/fatalist tendencies to the point of callous disregard for human life. To her, killing a human is no different from killing an ant, if it's inconveniencing her, and nobody is there to force her to behave. She takes no pleasure in it, it's just that she really places no value on human life.

However, if the link to her empathic weapon is broken, she will revert to being Neutral Good, and genuinely regret any innocents she may have killed.