PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic Evil characters who are not insane



Yora
2011-11-04, 08:44 AM
I just read another discussion about how all chaotic evil characters have to be completely insane mass murderers who behave completely randomly.

I think this isn't true, but when thinking about examples, not much came to my mind.

Do you have good examples for characters from fiction whom you would regard as chaotic evil while still being sane and able to not kill all their allies?

- Spike from Buffy. No doubt about either evil or chaotic, and he loves carnage, but he's perfectly capable of thinking about what he's doing.
- Tuco from The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
- Raziel from Soul Reaver. He's fighting Kain not because Kain is evil, but because he killed him. His own partner in crime.
- Zevran from Dragon Age. Murdering people for monney and enjoying your work is NOT neutral!
- Sniper Wolf from Metal Gear Solid is similar to Zevran. Same goes for Vamp who is even more evil. Yet he is completely loyal to his bosses and friends, and does his job without being a burden for his boss.
- Kerrigan from StarCraft. Pretty chaotic, I think. Conquers the galaxy just because she can but is willing to let enemies flee or surrender when she doesn't personally want to see them dead.

Conners
2011-11-04, 08:50 AM
The problem is, DnD makes things really hard to tell....

Neutral Evil, means someone who can use the law for their goals, or swap to completely illegal means, on a heartbeat.

Chaotic Evil, means someone who doesn't seem to care about any laws... Which means: Stupid Evil. This can probably apply to a lot of teenagers who hang around slums. They avoid the law, but they often commit crimes on a whim, even if it'll get them busted, or worse.

And Lawful Evil means lawyers, BTW.


That's essentially how Evils are defined in DnD... It's a method that helps to destroy all subtlety, to confuse everyone half to death with arguing, and to make morality excruciatingly boring at the same time( as eating puppies while burning an orphanage).

Krazzman
2011-11-04, 08:56 AM
Example:
Cyric from the Avatar Chronicles. (Yes he is CE but not Insane a bit slightly megalomanic later)

This is at least the example I know, what wasn't mentioned so far.

Yora
2011-11-04, 08:59 AM
A chaotic evil character may not care about the laws. But he can still care for the consequences of breaking a law. Being hunted by the guard, having a bounty on your head, and having the assassins guilds top hitman after you is something that any sane person would want to avoid.

Conners
2011-11-04, 09:01 AM
Then how are they different from the Neutral Evil people...? Because they simply refuse to use the law to their advantage...?

Altair_the_Vexed
2011-11-04, 09:02 AM
Well, I've always seen CE as the might-is-right bully of the alignments.
I can get what I want because I'm more powerful. If you cannot defend yourself you deserve to lose. The weak are just chaff before my awesomeness.... and so on.

That's not mad, it's just mean and really callous.

Unfortunately, I can only think of examples from real life, and politics are not to be discussed in the Playground. Let's just say that certain executives of certain corporations appear to have made some CE policy choices.

The Reverend
2011-11-04, 09:09 AM
That's why I like the color wheel alignment system. Its only confusing till you get used to it.

Conners
2011-11-04, 09:18 AM
Well, I've always seen CE as the might-is-right bully of the alignments. ... and so on.

That's not mad, it's just mean and really callous.

Unfortunately, I can only think of examples from real life, and politics are not to be discussed in the Playground. Let's just say that certain executives of certain corporations appear to have made some CE policy choices. That was considered the fact of life, of the ancient world. I think Greece even sent a letter to a king, telling him to stop whining that the Persian Empire(?) was conquering him--because it had the right to from being stronger. Of course, I can't promise that's accurate--I might've misheard.


That's why I like the color wheel alignment system. Its only confusing till you get used to it. Which, for some at least, is NEVER!

The Boz
2011-11-04, 09:20 AM
OK, you guys up for a challenge?
Quantify Major Quartich from Avatar.

Yora
2011-11-04, 09:24 AM
Easy, Neutral Evil.

Thanks to the one guy who replied to the threads topic. :smallbiggrin:

flumphy
2011-11-04, 09:26 AM
-Kratos from God of War.
-Illidan Stormrage from the Warcraft franchise. Okay, he arguably goes insane at the very end of his life, but he spends a good portion of his story arc possessing all his mental faculties while still being CE.
-Some incarnations of Catwoman.
-Sabretooth from the X-Men
-Starscream from Transformers.
-Morgoth from the Simarillion.
-Various depictions of Satan throughout the centuries.


OK, you guys up for a challenge?
Quantify Major Quartich from Avatar.

I'll go with LE, actually. He definitely values the idea of a hierarchy and possesses a strict personal code. Parts of it just happen to be Evil.

Yora
2011-11-04, 09:39 AM
With Kratos I am not so sure. He slaughters everyone without second thought, thinks that it's awesome, and doesn't really have anyone he cooperates with. He just slaughters everything that gets into the very long reach of his weapons.

Hyudra
2011-11-04, 09:39 AM
When I define Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful evil, I like to relate to serial killers.

Now, before I get into that, a few notes on my personal perspective on alignment:
Lawful does not mean "obeys the law" - this creates a whole lot of problems and conflicts in a world like D&D's. Like lawful paladins in a society where the law involves murder and human rights violations. I think it's an unfortunate word choice for one end of the alignment spectrum. Rather, lawful is about being ordered. Lawful individuals are about tradition, stricture, loyalty, planning, premeditation, routine and goals. Monks are lawful because they believe in tradition and they hone their abilities through endless practice. Paladins are lawful because they hold themselves to a code.
Conversely, chaotic doesn't mean 'anarchy'. Rather, it means creativity, emotion, flexibility, exploration and impulse. Barbarians are chaotic because they tap into the most emotional and impulse driven part of themselves to Rage.
Being lawful does not mean being smarter, better or even more efficient. Conversely, chaos doesn't mean stupidity or being disorganized. Lawful societies can be bogged down by needless tradition or bureaucracy, for example. Lawful people may hold to a routine because it's most comfortable to them, even if it's not the best way to go about things.
So with this interpretation, a very lawful musician would be someone who practices one instrument religiously. Sits down to the piano and practices over and over until their work is flawless. The sort of musician who hammers out Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No.3. A chaotic musician is someone who tries every instrument, every genre, and learns a little something from each. This is the bard with a huge fan following who plays something different every time, or always adds something new.

The same logic extends to killers. There's two major types of serial killer; there's the logical killer, someone that can be effective because they're so methodical, so careful. The logical killer plans things out to the last detail, covers up the evidence. However, they can be easier to catch because they're so prone to patterns, even ones they aren't aware of. The spree killer, by contrast, is constantly changing, with no pattern. They're effective because they're unpredictable. Their way of killing, their choice of targets, it's new every time, and there's little if anything to link one crime to the next.

Again, one type of killer isn't necessarily better or worse, nor is one smarter or dumber. A logical killer can still make mistakes because they're too dumb or too weak to do everything they should to cover up, or devolve into rituals that make them too easy to catch. A spree killer can flub a crime or walk straight into an ambush set up by the local sheriff, push their spree too hard, too fast, and get in over their heads.

Logical killer vs. spree killer is the same distinction you'd make between law and chaos.

Characters that are Chaotic Evil:
Sylar of Heroes
Marlo Stanfield from The Wire.
Kratos
Belkar
Richard of Looking for Group
Hyenas of Lion King (they bicker, they're kooky, but that's just on the surface. Beyond that, they work together where necessary).

Yora
2011-11-04, 09:43 AM
Good: Takes risks and makes sacrifices to protect and save strangers.
Evil: Is not bothered if strangers suffer because of his actions.
Lawful: Follows his principles and prefers to plan things through.
Chaotic: Follows his feeling and prefers to adapt to situations as they arise.

Really easy if you break it down to the basics, and works every time.

Conners
2011-11-04, 09:46 AM
A lot of people will vary based on the topic, though. Like those criminals who seem to be chaotic and like to let everyone do what they like, but for some reason "raep" is something they disapprove of so they have a hard Lawful law against it.

And by "those criminals", I mean movie-villains.

Hyudra
2011-11-04, 09:52 AM
A lot of people will vary based on the topic, though. Like those criminals who seem to be chaotic and like to let everyone do what they like, but for some reason "raep" is something they disapprove of so they have a hard Lawful law against it.

And by "those criminals", I mean movie-villains.

Well, look at it this way. Even evil villains will usually have some good traits, and good guys will usually have some vices. It makes sense, therefore, that a lawful character is liable to have some chaotic traits and vice versa.

Killer Angel
2011-11-04, 09:55 AM
I believe many characters in ASOIAF fit the CE alignment, and very few of 'em can be called "stupid" or "insane"...

Spiryt
2011-11-04, 09:56 AM
Then how are they different from the Neutral Evil people...? Because they simply refuse to use the law to their advantage...?

Well, to sum up quickly what's written above me:

Chaotic/Lawful - has. not. much. to. do. - with laws and other stuff. Necessarily, at least. It can, as written in the rules.

Otherwise, we would have something like 20 personalities in whole setting.

Lawful and chaotic axis is about individual personality traits - spontaneousness, rigidity, fondness of habits/traditions/plans etc.

As far as Tuco goes - most of Western 'cliche' baddies are CE IMO, in fact.

Frank from Once upon time in the west - story of marauding, spontaneous, restless being, that happens to commit cruel atrocities without shade of compassion, remorse or regret.

The Boz
2011-11-04, 10:11 AM
I, for one, am still not convinced that Quartich is actually evil.
Wanting to kill your enemy that wants you dead is not being evil.
Wanting to destroy the home of the "enemy" is not being evil.
He is not the one that declares someone enemy, he's the one that wages the war against the enemy.
Personally, I'd make him a Lawful Neutral, with maybe a 20% chance of being Lawful Evil.

flumphy
2011-11-04, 10:42 AM
Wanting to destroy the home of the "enemy" is not being evil.


This is exactly the part that makes him evil. He harms innocent civilians and destroys non-military targets, mainly for revenge rather than out of tactical necessity.

I'll agree that merely participating in a war does not make someone evil by D&D standards, however.

The Boz
2011-11-04, 10:47 AM
When did he deliberately target civilians? He did target civilian structures mainly because the enemy he is fighting does not have a military outside of the normal tribe organization. And every time he did target civilian structures, he gave plenty of warning before striking.
And he never once did this out of revenge, not as far as I remember. If you analyze his strategic decisions in the "campaign", every single one is made with the goal of minimizing tactical engagements, minimizing human losses and minimizing local population losses, in that order.

Tengu_temp
2011-11-04, 11:11 AM
I don't see post-fall Raziel as CE, unless you purposely attack humans in the first game instead of protecting them. I'd say he's firmly neutral, which is closest you get to a heroic character in the Grimdark World Of Shakespearean Voice Actors. Sigh, pity we'll never see the resolution to that series...

Winds
2011-11-04, 11:22 AM
Also from Batman's corner...Penguin qualifies in some iterations. Two-Face might, depending on whether you think he takes the coin flip as seriously as he claims. (I don't think he does. Too many times where he'll flip again if the result is 'good' and he wants to kill them.)

Ninja_Grand
2011-11-04, 11:27 AM
When I define Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful evil, I like to relate to serial killers.

Now, before I get into that, a few notes on my personal perspective on alignment:
Lawful does not mean "obeys the law" - this creates a whole lot of problems and conflicts in a world like D&D's. Like lawful paladins in a society where the law involves murder and human rights violations. I think it's an unfortunate word choice for one end of the alignment spectrum. Rather, lawful is about being ordered. Lawful individuals are about tradition, stricture, loyalty, planning, premeditation, routine and goals. Monks are lawful because they believe in tradition and they hone their abilities through endless practice. Paladins are lawful because they hold themselves to a code.
Conversely, chaotic doesn't mean 'anarchy'. Rather, it means creativity, emotion, flexibility, exploration and impulse. Barbarians are chaotic because they tap into the most emotional and impulse driven part of themselves to Rage.
Being lawful does not mean being smarter, better or even more efficient. Conversely, chaos doesn't mean stupidity or being disorganized. Lawful societies can be bogged down by needless tradition or bureaucracy, for example. Lawful people may hold to a routine because it's most comfortable to them, even if it's not the best way to go about things.
So with this interpretation, a very lawful musician would be someone who practices one instrument religiously. Sits down to the piano and practices over and over until their work is flawless. The sort of musician who hammers out Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No.3. A chaotic musician is someone who tries every instrument, every genre, and learns a little something from each. This is the bard with a huge fan following who plays something different every time, or always adds something new.

The same logic extends to killers. There's two major types of serial killer; there's the logical killer, someone that can be effective because they're so methodical, so careful. The logical killer plans things out to the last detail, covers up the evidence. However, they can be easier to catch because they're so prone to patterns, even ones they aren't aware of. The spree killer, by contrast, is constantly changing, with no pattern. They're effective because they're unpredictable. Their way of killing, their choice of targets, it's new every time, and there's little if anything to link one crime to the next.

Again, one type of killer isn't necessarily better or worse, nor is one smarter or dumber. A logical killer can still make mistakes because they're too dumb or too weak to do everything they should to cover up, or devolve into rituals that make them too easy to catch. A spree killer can flub a crime or walk straight into an ambush set up by the local sheriff, push their spree too hard, too fast, and get in over their heads.

Logical killer vs. spree killer is the same distinction you'd make between law and chaos.

Characters that are Chaotic Evil:
Sylar of Heroes
Marlo Stanfield from The Wire.
Kratos
Belkar
Richard of Looking for Group
Hyenas of Lion King (they bicker, they're kooky, but that's just on the surface. Beyond that, they work together where necessary).

This....Has redifned D&d for me.... Thanks for being smart!

MukkTB
2011-11-04, 11:30 AM
Quaritch Hmmm...
I always get pissed off because he was so dumb in fighting his battles. There are so many things he could have done. My favorite would be to clear forest for about 5 miles in every direction around the complex. Now there's a killing zone that no primitive is going to cross without dying. The Na'vi would be forced to trench warfare across the thing which would be a mess. Considering how little construction they seem to actually have done I could imagine that being very difficult.

But for alignment.
Quaritch cared about his men.
He didn't respect the Na'vi rights as sentients.
He didn't commit atrocities for the joy of committing them and minimized how atrocious his actions were.

So that's either a very moderate evil or a very dark neutral. It depends on which definition of the alignments are used.

His reliance on military order makes him lawful.

I'll go ahead and say that he chose actions that would lead to suffering that were probably not optimal for achieving his goals. So Lawful Evil but a fairly weak evil that would be very close to neutral if you were using a sliding scale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXraSkgssFk

A Chaotic Evil character doesn't need to be stupid. They're evil because they're sadistic, greedy, or don't empathize with others. Chaotic because they're random, pragmatic, creative, or divorced from any code of conduct.

So Bob could be a Chaotic Evil businessman, Greedy and Pragmatic. He'll follow the laws when they benefit him but he's willing to do anything to make cash.

Lets compare Bob to John the Lawful Evil businessman and Marvin the Neutral Evil Businessman. The trio of greedy bastards.

John follows the laws. Bob does not. Maybe John feels that following the laws gives him cover from judgement of society. Bob Probably doesn't care what society thinks as long as it doesn't impact him in the short term. Maybe John is risk averse and doesn't want there to be a possibility the authorities will come after him. Bob is probably risk loving. At least that's a trait we would normally associate with chaos. Maybe John feels that as long as he follows the laws he isn't actually a 'bad' person. Bob doesn't even bother worrying about it. "Bad' is just a way society tries to control you.'

Marvin won't deal with child prostitution because its just too icky. He doesn't mind selling drugs. He doesn't mind theft. But for him some crimes just go too far. Bob would totally go in for child prostitution if it made cash. Marvin is going to treat long term associates with respect and feel more comfortable working with people he has known. Bob would shoot them in a second if he felt they were double crossing him. Marvin is going to stick with business ventures he is familiar with. Bob is willing to try something he has no previous experience with and do his best to learn about it and make it work.

IDK maybe that helps.

aazru
2011-11-04, 11:31 AM
CE: Sick and twisted sense of humour.
NE: Self before others.
LE: Diabolic planning.
LN: Lives buy rules.
TN: Enjoys life as it is.
CN: Enjoys life and tries to make it more enjoyable.
LG: No sense of humour. Has a sense of grater Good(what he thinks is Good) in its place.
NG: Generally good natured guy. Does good because it feels good not because it is good.
CG: Does good with no empathy or regard for others.

Anything with a C or L is a fanatic(how much it shows depends on characterization), unless there is an N in it.

Irish Musician
2011-11-04, 12:09 PM
When I define Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful evil, I like to relate to serial killers.

Now, before I get into that, a few notes on my personal perspective on alignment:
Lawful does not mean "obeys the law" - this creates a whole lot of problems and conflicts in a world like D&D's. Like lawful paladins in a society where the law involves murder and human rights violations. I think it's an unfortunate word choice for one end of the alignment spectrum. Rather, lawful is about being ordered. Lawful individuals are about tradition, stricture, loyalty, planning, premeditation, routine and goals. Monks are lawful because they believe in tradition and they hone their abilities through endless practice. Paladins are lawful because they hold themselves to a code.
Conversely, chaotic doesn't mean 'anarchy'. Rather, it means creativity, emotion, flexibility, exploration and impulse. Barbarians are chaotic because they tap into the most emotional and impulse driven part of themselves to Rage.
Being lawful does not mean being smarter, better or even more efficient. Conversely, chaos doesn't mean stupidity or being disorganized. Lawful societies can be bogged down by needless tradition or bureaucracy, for example. Lawful people may hold to a routine because it's most comfortable to them, even if it's not the best way to go about things.
So with this interpretation, a very lawful musician would be someone who practices one instrument religiously. Sits down to the piano and practices over and over until their work is flawless. The sort of musician who hammers out Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No.3. A chaotic musician is someone who tries every instrument, every genre, and learns a little something from each. This is the bard with a huge fan following who plays something different every time, or always adds something new.

The same logic extends to killers. There's two major types of serial killer; there's the logical killer, someone that can be effective because they're so methodical, so careful. The logical killer plans things out to the last detail, covers up the evidence. However, they can be easier to catch because they're so prone to patterns, even ones they aren't aware of. The spree killer, by contrast, is constantly changing, with no pattern. They're effective because they're unpredictable. Their way of killing, their choice of targets, it's new every time, and there's little if anything to link one crime to the next.

Again, one type of killer isn't necessarily better or worse, nor is one smarter or dumber. A logical killer can still make mistakes because they're too dumb or too weak to do everything they should to cover up, or devolve into rituals that make them too easy to catch. A spree killer can flub a crime or walk straight into an ambush set up by the local sheriff, push their spree too hard, too fast, and get in over their heads.

Logical killer vs. spree killer is the same distinction you'd make between law and chaos.

Characters that are Chaotic Evil:
Sylar of Heroes
Marlo Stanfield from The Wire.
Kratos
Belkar
Richard of Looking for Group
Hyenas of Lion King (they bicker, they're kooky, but that's just on the surface. Beyond that, they work together where necessary).

Agreed. Thank you Hyudra for writing all that down. That is kind of how I feel about it as well. That lawful didnt exactly mean following the laws of the state, but more following the laws of your conscience. Sometimes, yes, the laws of the land are part of the conscience of the character, but sometimes not. Very well said Hyudra and once again, that you for putting it so eloquently!!

Mixt
2011-11-04, 12:09 PM
*Points at Vanitas from Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep*

What about that guy?

Conners
2011-11-04, 12:34 PM
CE: Sick and twisted sense of humour.
NE: Self before others.
LE: Diabolic planning.
See, this is what it boils down to, generally... CE is stupid, the other two are smart. LE might be lesser to NE, though, depending on if the L means needless restrictions, like a dwarf merchant who doesn't break the law but is a total ba****d (Baldur's Gate).

Friv
2011-11-04, 01:29 PM
See, this is what it boils down to, generally... CE is stupid, the other two are smart. LE might be lesser to NE, though, depending on if the L means needless restrictions, like a dwarf merchant who doesn't break the law but is a total ba****d (Baldur's Gate).

Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be stupid; it's just a refusal to follow anybody's rules, and being willing to kill or injure others for your own amusement.

The Joker is Chaotic Evil, and while he doesn't meet the OP's guidelines, he sure isn't stupid. Kimbery from the Full Metal Alchemist anime is neither stupid nor crazy (well, not crazy in a manner that affects his capabilities.) A schoolyard bully who knows how to dodge teachers is not crazy or insane, but he's going to ruin your kid's life.

hamishspence
2011-11-04, 01:30 PM
In Complete Scoundrel, the sample CE scoundrels from modern media are Carl Denham from King Kong and Riddick from Pitch Black.

Hyudra's description summed it up pretty well, and accounts for the fact that in D&D splatbooks there can be Lawful crimelords and Chaotic law enforcers.

aazru
2011-11-04, 01:32 PM
See, this is what it boils down to, generally... CE is stupid, the other two are smart. LE might be lesser to NE, though, depending on if the L means needless restrictions, like a dwarf merchant who doesn't break the law but is a total ba****d (Baldur's Gate).
Stupid is such a strong word... Imo it boils down to how you get to your desired result not what that result is. As Xykon said: "When it's really important, it's worth to go that extra mile."
Anyway, I think traits i mentioned ar not exclusive to alignments I assigned them to(except LG and sense of humour). Those are just the most defining.

hamishspence
2011-11-04, 01:37 PM
CE "Well Intentioned Extremists" are quite possible- a person who believes a strongly Chaotic philosophy, who cares for others, but who regularly resorts to atrocities to further their cause.

A bit like V in the comic version of V for Vendetta, but maybe even more ruthless (for those DMs that view V as CN at worst).

Jayabalard
2011-11-04, 01:47 PM
A chaotic evil character may not care about the laws. But he can still care for the consequences of breaking a law. Being hunted by the guard, having a bounty on your head, and having the assassins guilds top hitman after you is something that any sane person would want to avoid.it's something many insane people want to avoid as well. Wanting to avoid it does not mean that this person is sane.

Personally, I'd say that any chaotic evil person is not sane... If they were sane, they wouldn't be chaotic evil.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-04, 01:56 PM
For a Chaotic Evil well-intentioned extremist, and a good example of a Chaotic Evil person with the appearance at least of sanity and a plan, look at Lucifer in any Shin Megami Tensei game in which he is actually a character. His motivation always boils down to shattering the rule of law and society to create an anarchic environment where the strong prey on the weak and rise to the top based on might making right. Chaotic? Yes. Evil? Yes. Sane? Well, it hangs together as a philosophy, at least, and he's usually a lot better at planning and manipulating than the Law side.

Please note that while I call SMT Lucifer Chaotic Evil, the "Law" ideology that opposes the "Chaos" ideology is Lawful Evil and pretty much just as bad. In old-school Shin Megami Tensei games, your three choices of ending are pretty much universally Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, or True Neutral.

Aneurin
2011-11-04, 02:54 PM
I work out Lawful/Chaotic and and Good/Evil entirely independantly from one another, so a CE character will never be any more stupid than a CG character.

I do generally use law to some extent in determining a character's position on the Lawful/Chaotic axis. Okay, well, a set of rules, anyway.

I've got a fairly vague mental list of rules that I think the vast majority of people would consider reasonable. Just simple things; murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, random abductions and torture are wrong. Things like that. Before anyone says something like "evil characters might not consider stealing and murder to be wrong", they might not consider that it is wrong for themselves to commit those acts. That is not to say that they don't think everyone else should obey these rules - even a thief resents being robbed.

I'll then work out how my character would approach these rules.

A lawful character would seek to uphold these rules and would never break them if possible. A neutral character would, in general, obey them, but not if it put them at great inconvenience - so just a normal person, really. A chaotic character would not recognise these rules applied to them. Or would not care. Or would not realize these rules existed - possibly because they come from a culture where these rules do not exist, such as in a culture where strength determines status, slavery is common, and death-match gladiatorial arenas are a form of entertainment.

Good and evil are based on the character's perception of these rules.

A good character thinks they're noble and just, although maybe inadequate. A neutral character considers them to be reasonable. An evil character considers them to be an interference to their goals.


A Lawful Good character would use the 'reasonable' laws to protect people, and perhaps want to see them made tougher, and would never break them. If they found themselves somewhere where the rules conflict with the 'reasonable' laws, they would not consider themselves held to them, although they may feel guilty about breaking them.

A Neutral Good character would follow the 'reasonable' laws where possible, but if they felt it necessary they would ignore them.

A Chaotic Good character would consider the 'reasonable' laws to be inadequate, and follow their own instincts as to what is right and wrong. They would not consider themselves bound to the laws, although for the sake of convenience may pay them lip service and would not go out of their way to break them.

A Lawful Neutral is... well, a policeman. Uphold those laws without fear or favour, really.

A True Neutral is probably you. You think the laws are pretty reasonable, but you'll tolerate moderately crueler or moderately kinder laws, too. You don't feel a huge compulsion to follow them, but if it's not too inconvenient you'll go along with them

Chaotic Neutral lives outside of those 'reasonable' laws for whatever reason, but won't go out of their way to hurt someone. They may pay lip-service to the laws for the sake of avoiding trouble, but will ignore them as soon as they become inconvenient.

Lawful Evil uses whatever laws are around (with the 'reasonable' laws as a baseline) to hurt people, to put themselves in control. Or maybe they do everything to make the laws unbreakable, to make the laws harsher, and to punish those who break them. They have no compassion or empathy for others. The morality of the laws is unlikely to concern them. They will not break the laws if they have an alternative

A Neutral Evil character is in it for whatever they can get. They'll twist and bend the laws of their society, but only break them in situations of major inconvenience.

Chaotic Evil characters will do what they want, when they want. They may consider the laws to be something that do not apply to them or anyone, or they may not understand them, they may simply be unaware of their existence, or maybe not understand what the law means - "Oh, great, what did I do?". What that character wants, they will take, although they won't necessarily go out of their way to break the laws, and they won't necessarily cause trouble for no reason.



I will also consider "Lawful" to mean something more akin to "Orderly" too, making the axis into Order/Chaos, which might be a better way of describing it, if I'm defining alignment by personality rather than their outlook, or by the viewpoint of my cultural background... or whatever. I have different ways of doing it depending on what makes sense for the character. The above is just the easiest method to describe.


For an example of a Chaotic Evil character, I'd go for Kitiara from the Dragonlance novels. She's intelligent and ruthless, but not needlessly destructive and cruel - if only because being Evil Overlord of the World is kinda difficult/pointless if the World is a desolate wasteland. She does, however, feel that only her rules matter, and everyone else's are merely tools to be used against them for as long as is convenient for her.

Yora
2011-11-04, 03:02 PM
I never saw why they called it Law to begin with.

But I think in the very first edition, Law was actually Good and Chaos was Evil. Good and Evil were added only later.

hamishspence
2011-11-04, 03:08 PM
That said, even back then there were "chaotic but benevolent" creatures like genies- and similar "lawful but malevolent" monsters.

So- right back then they were aware that it wasn't always Law=Good Chaos=Bad.

Gnaeus
2011-11-04, 03:42 PM
Jayne Cobb from Firefly isn't the smartest, but he is a CE character who is willing to work with teammates so long as he sees benefit in it. Certainly not insane.

Elric is very smart, mostly sane, and generally considered CE.

Hyudra
2011-11-04, 03:46 PM
I like Jayne as an example of CE that can cooperate. I mean, he ~does~ betray teammates at one point, but it makes sense to him.

Conners
2011-11-05, 05:46 AM
Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be stupid; it's just a refusal to follow anybody's rules, and being willing to kill or injure others for your own amusement.

The Joker is Chaotic Evil, and while he doesn't meet the OP's guidelines, he sure isn't stupid. Kimbery from the Full Metal Alchemist anime is neither stupid nor crazy (well, not crazy in a manner that affects his capabilities.) A schoolyard bully who knows how to dodge teachers is not crazy or insane, but he's going to ruin your kid's life. But the Joker plans (despite his statement to the contrary in the movie), which by the definition of some means he couldn't be Chaotic Evil.

That's the thing... as soon as you think you've nailed a way to make the Alignment system work, a wrench is thrown in the gears.

The Boz
2011-11-05, 05:48 AM
Why shouldn't Chaotic be able to plan?

Spiryt
2011-11-05, 06:07 AM
But the Joker plans (despite his statement to the contrary in the movie), which by the definition of some means he couldn't be Chaotic Evil.

That's the thing... as soon as you think you've nailed a way to make the Alignment system work, a wrench is thrown in the gears.

Uh... Chaotic character will make plans. Some kind of plans are simple consequence of certain amount of intelligence. From wolves and chimps trough humans to some super intelligent beings from fantasy.

Descriptions provided in the basic stuff like SFD suggest that Chaotic creature plans can be more flexible, adaptable, and generally nifty.

On the other hand, they can be more reckless, risky, and generally irresponsible.

But for the sake of more convincing character - Chaotic being can easily make very detailed and meticulous plan. It will probably be somewhat harder to him, since (s)he naturally frisky person.

Conners
2011-11-05, 06:17 AM
Why shouldn't Chaotic be able to plan?


Uh... Chaotic character will make plans. Some kind of plans are simple consequence of certain amount of intelligence. From wolves and chimps trough humans to some super intelligent beings from fantasy.

Descriptions provided in the basic stuff like SFD suggest that Chaotic creature plans can be more flexible, adaptable, and generally nifty.

On the other hand, they can be more reckless, risky, and generally irresponsible.

But for the sake of more convincing character - Chaotic being can easily make very detailed and meticulous plan. It will probably be somewhat harder to him, since (s)he naturally frisky person. Someone said, in their description of the Evils, LE means "An Evil Planner".

Spiryt
2011-11-05, 06:27 AM
Someone said, in their description of the Evils, LE means "An Evil Planner".

Well, so what? I'm not sure I get the point?

Ravens_cry
2011-11-05, 06:28 AM
To me at least, Evil is, to a greater and lesser extent and with possible exceptions, basically comes down to selfishness taking to an unhealthy extreme.
Chaos is, again in my opinion, based on a belief that results matter more than how you do it. Combine the two and you are likely too have someone who does what suits them, what helps them and they don't give two <expletive redacted/> how they do it and who cares.
The saner will have a sense of self preservation. If anything it will be stronger because, hey I can't keep being me if I can't still be alive.
Think Belkars epiphany (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) for example.
But humans are social creatures, and living in a social world means some give and take, compromise and empathy.
Crazy or not, someone whose moral and ethical code comes down to "Me First and I Don't Care How!" is going to have a hard time playing nice with others.
Not impossible, depending on the extreme one takes it to and a good ability to fake said feelings, not to mention good deal of patience, can serve such a one well.
But certainly difficult.

Spiryt
2011-11-05, 06:40 AM
But humans are social creatures, and living in a social world means some give and take, compromise and empathy.

But certainly difficult.


Don't really get why. Evil doesn't mean that person is unable to feel empathy, or compromise, because that's what social world indeed requires.

Doesn't change the fact that such person will abuse others whenever no one can be really able to do something about it. Cannot do anything if doesn't have position of strength, or superiority. The same story like with any other social contact.


I think that people unnecessarily assume that "Evil" dude needs some "scheme" "fake" or whatever. Not at all, it's just a dude who makes what he wants at expense of others.

From murderer trough "defraud what I can and get away" politician, too construction materials vendor who will never think twice about stealing stuff and selling cement with good deal of rubbish in it, as long as he can get away with it. No matter how bad consequences will be and how many people will be miserable because of them.

Acanous
2011-11-05, 06:48 AM
CE: Sick and twisted sense of humour.
NE: Self before others.
LE: Diabolic planning.
LN: Lives buy rules.
TN: Enjoys life as it is.
CN: Enjoys life and tries to make it more enjoyable.
LG: No sense of humour. Has a sense of grater Good(what he thinks is Good) in its place.
NG: Generally good natured guy. Does good because it feels good not because it is good.
CG: Does good with no empathy or regard for others.

Anything with a C or L is a fanatic(how much it shows depends on characterization), unless there is an N in it.

I had to read the bolded section three times before I figured out you meant "Lives by the rules" and not "Stalin".

shadow_archmagi
2011-11-05, 07:18 AM
Chaotic Evil, means someone who doesn't seem to care about any laws... Which means: Stupid Evil. This can probably apply to a lot of teenagers who hang around slums. They avoid the law, but they often commit crimes on a whim, even if it'll get them busted, or worse.

What?



"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.


I don't see anything in here that says "A chaotic character will blithely ignore laws even when they know it'll get them imprisoned."


As for not being able to plan; they can plan, they just usually don't make super detailed or complex plans, and even that's a usually. Even Xykon does something clever (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) from time to time. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)

I think it's a pretty common misconception that Lawful characters have to hold the Law in a high regard. They might often do, because they synergize well with it, but Law just means espousing consistency; I can be Lawful and commit crimes. What makes Robin Hood Chaotic is how he steals from the rich and gives to the poor, not that he does.

The Boz
2011-11-05, 07:25 AM
Lawful/chaotic has almost nothing to do with the legal system.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-05, 07:35 AM
I just read another discussion about how all chaotic evil characters have to be completely insane mass murderers who behave completely randomly.

1. Insanity is something that's really difficult to define. Mental illness and just being a complete jerk are two different things.

2. Not all evil people murder or mass murder. They could just care about acquiring wealth and keeping people deprived of money.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-11-05, 07:42 AM
Riddick in Pitch Black is a good example of intelligent, sane Chaotic Evil. He wants his survival and he wants his freedom, and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone that stands in the way of either-- but he doesn't ever seem to kill anyone for no reason at all, and he can be quite protective of people he likes.

Chronicles of Riddick portrays him more Chaotic Neutral, but I think that's intentional.

The Boz
2011-11-05, 07:51 AM
Riddick in Pitch Black is a good example of intelligent, sane Chaotic Evil. He wants his survival and he wants his freedom, and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone that stands in the way of either-- but he doesn't ever seem to kill anyone for no reason at all, and he can be quite protective of people he likes.

Chronicles of Riddick portrays him more Chaotic Neutral, but I think that's intentional.

It gets much better/more interesting in the games, especially Butcher Bay.

Spiryt
2011-11-05, 07:55 AM
Riddick in Pitch Black is a good example of intelligent, sane Chaotic Evil. He wants his survival and he wants his freedom, and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone that stands in the way of either-- but he doesn't ever seem to kill anyone for no reason at all, and he can be quite protective of people he likes.


That hugely depends on the details though - cause on the very basic, survival and freedom are fundamental things, and killing to sustain them can not be actually immoral at all.

At least if you actually kill those who try to rob you of either of them.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-05, 09:57 AM
Lawful/chaotic has almost nothing to do with the legal system.

Not quite. They indirectly influence each other pretty strongly. Someone who follows the law isn't necessarily Lawful, and someone who breaks the law isn't necessarily Chaotic, but someone who follows law more often than not is likely to be Lawful and vice versa. This, because looking at alignment as written, strong (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) set of laws would naturally appeal to Lawful people, while Chaotics are likely to ignore or disregard them for various reasons, "just because" included.

In addition, routinely adhering to law reinforces or requires a greater extent of Lawful traits, while routinely breaking the law reinforces or requires a greater extent of Chaotic. Which is why you can make a case for Alignment shifts when a character is faced with an alien legal system, or absense of one, for long enough.

Maryring
2011-11-06, 07:56 AM
No you can't. A paladin who enters a society with a legal system that he finds completely and utterly morally incomprehensible and sticks to his own ruleset of moral behaviour won't budge an inch towards chaotic.

Ravens_cry
2011-11-06, 11:17 AM
Lawful can be either internal or external or both. Internal Lawful is an internal code. The Paladin in a land with unjust and morally repugnant laws is a good example. External Lawful is someone who follows the laws of the land to the letter, though that is most often also Combinational Lawful, which is where you take the code of law as your personal ethical code.
There is also matters of degree.
Extreme Lawful, in my opinion, tends to care more about means than ends, so that something that produces what they consider a good result by a manner that offends their code, external or internal, to be less than desirable.
Again, there is matters of degree.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-06, 01:49 PM
No you can't. A paladin who enters a society with a legal system that he finds completely and utterly morally incomprehensible and sticks to his own ruleset of moral behaviour won't budge an inch towards chaotic.

Does fighting the alien legal system require the paladin to be untruthful, break thei word, disregard tradition or disobey legal authority? Most likely, yes. Those are all Chaotic acts. If the Paladin, or other Lawful character, goes around doing those things constantly, they should change to Neutral or Chaotic.

That is why people like Robin Hood are oft consider Chaotic, rather than Lawful Good - they might be morally in the right, and they might opposing an "unjust" ruler, but going against the law more often than not requires adopting more Chaotic traits. Rebelling, even if you start rebelling from Lawful precepts, usually ends up being a Chaotic act.

Your argument would make more sense if you swapped all instances of "chaotic" with evil. The Paladin's actions stay consistently Good, but staying consistently good in these cases can require being looser on the Lawful part.

The Boz
2011-11-06, 04:57 PM
Does fighting the alien legal system require the paladin to be untruthful, break thei word, disregard tradition or disobey legal authority? Most likely, yes. Those are all Chaotic acts. If the Paladin, or other Lawful character, goes around doing those things constantly, they should change to Neutral or Chaotic.

That is why people like Robin Hood are oft consider Chaotic, rather than Lawful Good - they might be morally in the right, and they might opposing an "unjust" ruler, but going against the law more often than not requires adopting more Chaotic traits. Rebelling, even if you start rebelling from Lawful precepts, usually ends up being a Chaotic act.

Your argument would make more sense if you swapped all instances of "chaotic" with evil. The Paladin's actions stay consistently Good, but staying consistently good in these cases can require being looser on the Lawful part.

You are using circular logic.
"Law/chaos has a lot to do with the legal system because a paladin surrounded by a strange legal system inches towards chaos because he is lawful and follows the law or he doesn't, and since not following the law is chaotic, he moves towards chaos."

navar100
2011-11-06, 05:09 PM
Voldemort

He has killed allies wantonly when he lost his temper or gets upset, such as when he finally learns Harry Potter is after his Horcruxes, but he usually doesn't just kill for the sake of killing.

TheGeckoKing
2011-11-06, 08:55 PM
You are using circular logic.
"Law/chaos has a lot to do with the legal system because a paladin surrounded by a strange legal system inches towards chaos because he is lawful and follows the law or he doesn't, and since not following the law is chaotic, he moves towards chaos."

I think the idea is "Just because the Paladin's idea of law and the laws of the land are different doesn't automatically doesn't give the Paladin a free pass to stick to his own internal laws and ignore the laws of the land while still saying firmly LG".
Notice how I say automatically, because tyrants are still tyrants and evil laws are still evil, but the whole "My laws are my laws, other laws be damned" sounds a bit like the mindset of an LE character, not a Paladin. Unless it's a Paladin of Tyranny.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-07, 04:46 AM
I think the idea is "Just because the Paladin's idea of law and the laws of the land are different doesn't automatically doesn't give the Paladin a free pass to stick to his own internal laws and ignore the laws of the land while still saying firmly LG".

This is correct. Like Ravens_cry noted, ethics are both internal and external. If you give weight just to your internal ethics, it's not enough to be Lawful if your external actions ar counter-indicative of Lawful alignment.


...the whole "My laws are my laws, other laws be damned" sounds a bit like the mindset of an LE character, not a Paladin.

LE? Could be a character of almost any alignment. Yes, even Chaotic. In my opinion, people put way too much on the idea of "personal codes", utterly disregarding what traits are considered indicative of Lawful alignment by the rules.

If "my laws" constantly make me disobey and disrespect authority and tradition, chances are I'm not Lawful.


You are using circular logic.


I'm not. I said it aready: there are traits that are considered Lawful by the rules, and traits that are considered Chaotic. Following law requires more of the former, while breaking it requires more of the latter. A character who consistently acts in a Lawful manner is or becomes Lawful, and vice versa. There is no circle.

gkathellar
2011-11-07, 07:17 AM
I posted an interpretation of the various alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178169) a while ago, which I feel pretty confident about the comprehensiveness of. I'll repost the Chaotic Evil portion, for relevance:


A chaotic evil character believes he is totally free. He has no moral compunctions to manipulate him, and no code to adhere to. If he hates someone, he finds a way to hurt them. If he wants something, he finds a way to take it. This doesn't make him impulsive or reckless, because he can still prioritize his goals and decide what is important to him. In his own eyes, he is truly in control of his own life. Usually, however, he is ruled by his impulses, incapable of going against his desires, and his own freedom has become a cage of sorts. He is an animal in this sense, if a cunning animal, guided only by harmful wants. A warlord who conquers and slaughters simply because he wants to, a knight-errant who terrorizes the countryside, a warrior lives to spill the blood of the mighty and a hero driven only by the opportunity for violence and glory are likely chaotic evil.

Vendle
2011-11-07, 11:47 AM
A lot of examples of CE characters are spoiled because the character is insane. A character can be insane and not be CE, or can be CE without being insane.

I played a chaotic evil bard once who didn't get along with half of the party, but he recognized the necessity of their mission and was able to work with them for a while to achieve mutual ends. His primary motivation was self- interest; he would cast invisibility and then pick through unattended packs and bags to steal from. He didn't go out of his way to hurt people, but he also wouldn't risk his own life for others. He wanted to kill the party wizard, but was held in check by their vigilant familiar.

Jayabalard
2011-11-07, 12:08 PM
Voldemort

He has killed allies wantonly when he lost his temper or gets upset, such as when he finally learns Harry Potter is after his Horcruxes, but he usually doesn't just kill for the sake of killing.Nah, he did plenty of killing for the sake of killing.


can be CE without being insane.It really depends on your definition of sanity. I'd personally say that you're not simply wrong about this.


I played a chaotic evil bard once who didn't get along with half of the party, but he recognized the necessity of their mission and was able to work with them for a while to achieve mutual ends. His primary motivation was self- interest; he would cast invisibility and then pick through unattended packs and bags to steal from. He didn't go out of his way to hurt people, but he also wouldn't risk his own life for others. He wanted to kill the party wizard, but was held in check by their vigilant familiar.Nothing you say here makes your character sound particularly sane.

Nor is there enough there to have people agree that he is unambiguously evil.

warmachine
2011-11-07, 12:09 PM
I can't believe no one's said Xykon yet. Bored by planning, kills people if their name is too long, joins Redcloak's team with almost no consideration or research, recruits a subordinate in the middle of a battle, kills minions for amusement and needlessly paralyses O'Chul just to torture him.

hamishspence
2011-11-07, 12:14 PM
Mind you, he's also described as "mad" on occasion:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

Yora
2011-11-07, 12:30 PM
For the purpose of this thread, we couls say insane is "killing people for ****s and giggles".
Which is what quite a lot of the few mentioned characters do as their favorite activity. Killing people without need is not normal.

Seharvepernfan
2011-11-07, 01:57 PM
Real life psychopaths are pretty much chaotic evil. They blend into society, they have normal jobs, yet they do evil things all the time and often get away with it. Most of them don't get caught. The stupid ones do stupid things and end up in prison. The rest are "upstanding members of the community". They are "insane without delireum", also called "moral insanity". They are just as logical or intelligent as the rest of us, and is some ways more so, but they have little or no capacity for empathy and see no reason not to live for themselves and their own kicks.

They might go their entire lives without killing, stealing, or what have you, but they more likely will do those things but do them without getting caught.

Also, I see Tuco and Jayne as CN. They don't enjoy killing, they aren't out to kill, but if someone actively gets in their way and opposes them, they will kill. They are out for money and other forms of enjoyment, which aren't sadistic (except with revenge in Tuco's case, but even then he didn't murder blondie, he just wanted to get him back). Contrast them with Belkar. Belkar LOVES to kill and cause pain and do all the other "evil" things, they are an end in themselves to Belkar, wheras with Tuco/Jayne they are a means (usually a "if other options fail" means too).

Jayabalard
2011-11-07, 03:19 PM
I can't believe no one's said Xykon yet.He's quite clearly "not sane" ... so he's of little relevance.

charcoalninja
2011-11-07, 03:45 PM
I think the idea is "Just because the Paladin's idea of law and the laws of the land are different doesn't automatically doesn't give the Paladin a free pass to stick to his own internal laws and ignore the laws of the land while still saying firmly LG".
Notice how I say automatically, because tyrants are still tyrants and evil laws are still evil, but the whole "My laws are my laws, other laws be damned" sounds a bit like the mindset of an LE character, not a Paladin. Unless it's a Paladin of Tyranny.

It's more "my laws are good and just, while yours exploit the people and cause only suffering. Enjoy your smiting tyrant."

I feel a paladin is under no order to follow a law they feel to be unjust by the virtue of their commitment to law and good. Allowing someone to be enslaved by a corrupt police force when you are capable of freeing them is an evil act. Though their lawful nature does give them a respect for law and tradition, anything in violation of their beliefs is objectively wrong and should be fixed.

That's sorta what they do.

Jayabalard
2011-11-07, 03:51 PM
It's more "my laws are good and just, while yours exploit the people and cause only suffering. Enjoy your smiting tyrant."Does he say that while helping his uncle, Jack, off his horse?

hydroplatypus
2011-11-07, 04:24 PM
On the paladin's in an evil nation, I would like to point out that in OOTS the current rulers of azure city (or whatever it is) are the goblins. The paladins in the city have not fallen (nor should they) for opposing the current rulers and laws.

JohnnyCancer
2011-11-07, 04:59 PM
I ran a short-lived evil game in '08 (fell apart due to time conflicts) that included a Paladin of Slaughter in the party's ranks. She tended to try and throw her weight around and intimidate the party into doing things her way. If she was beaten in a first-blood duel, or if the party stood united (which they didn't frequently do in intra-group struggles) against her she'd back down.

TheGeckoKing
2011-11-07, 06:38 PM
LE? Could be a character of almost any alignment. Yes, even Chaotic. In my opinion, people put way too much on the idea of "personal codes", utterly disregarding what traits are considered indicative of Lawful alignment by the rules.

If "my laws" constantly make me disobey and disrespect authority and tradition, chances are I'm not Lawful.

I meant in the sense of enforcing laws against the will of a vast majority, but you still have a point.


It's more "my laws are good and just, while yours exploit the people and cause only suffering. Enjoy your smiting tyrant."

I feel a paladin is under no order to follow a law they feel to be unjust by the virtue of their commitment to law and good. Allowing someone to be enslaved by a corrupt police force when you are capable of freeing them is an evil act. Though their lawful nature does give them a respect for law and tradition, anything in violation of their beliefs is objectively wrong and should be fixed.

That's sorta what they do.

Not quite. The Paladin can believe whatever he likes - if it disagrees with his code and isn't right, he's still in trouble. My idea wasn't absolute, by the way - I never said the idea of "The laws are unjust, so I'm not following them" was wrong for a paladin to act on, but rather "I think the laws are unjust, so i'm not following them". Ignorance of the laws excuses no-one, even Angels get it wrong and a Paladin needs proof, even if it is seeing a tax collector whipping an old lady for being late on the payments.

Or, very simply, Paladinhood is not a free pass to act above the law.

ANYWAY, on the subject of CE characters, i'd say their chaotic actions can come across as erratic and even insane, but have a meaning just as deep as the plotting of a LE character and probably harder to pin down if the CE character does it right.

Hague
2011-11-07, 07:46 PM
The Joker is Chaotic Evil. No social structure will bind him. Not even one he creates. He has no loyalty to any of his associates. He often uses other organizations for personal gain and subsequently destroys or tears down that organization.

Yora
2011-11-07, 07:49 PM
And he is completely nuts and random, doing evil because it entertains him.

Interesting how this thread ended up discussing how to play a paladin.
I guess the next time I have a question, I just type "Alignment" into the opening post and let things go from there. :smallamused:

Lord Raziere
2011-11-07, 07:58 PM
Interesting how this thread ended up discussing how to play a paladin.
I guess the next time I have a question, I just type "Alignment" into the opening post and let things go from there. :smallamused:

…now I want to try this.

Yora
2011-11-07, 08:08 PM
I would bet considerable money that paladins will be discussed before the thread dies down! :smallbiggrin:

Urpriest
2011-11-07, 08:41 PM
Amber from House, at least before she started dating Wilson. Passionately vicious and unselfconsciously manipulative, but still quite sane.

Most depictions of Yuan Ti. They're smart, they know what they're doing, but they also care about what they're doing. Perhaps a little too much killing for your tastes though.

In general, most sociopathic characters can be thought of as CE. While not DSM-sane, they're not happy-go-lucky murderers either.

Yora
2011-11-07, 08:57 PM
Sure, but give examples. I don't know of what kind of people you are thinking off.

Urpriest
2011-11-08, 09:57 AM
Sure, but give examples. I don't know of what kind of people you are thinking off.

Jeff Winger from Community. The man has utter contempt for anyone else's rules and is totally self-centered, makes decisions fundamentally on what he finds most entertaining, but aside from a few lapses in judgement is much more socially functional than his peers.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-08, 11:04 AM
Any intelligent character acting roughly in the vein of big felines are a good example. Dragons, notably. They're whimsical, self-serving, prideful and cruel, but still smart and down-to-earth in an animalistic way. And despite looking down on those not their kin, they still have full spectrum of emotions towards their own species.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-08, 11:26 AM
No you can't. A paladin who enters a society with a legal system that he finds completely and utterly morally incomprehensible and sticks to his own ruleset of moral behaviour won't budge an inch towards chaotic.

See, with this kind of logic, I can justify Rorchach being a paladinesque lawful good type.

It's just damned fuzzy when you allow multiple legal systems and/or personal codes to qualify.

The Boz
2011-11-08, 03:36 PM
Nah, that dude was Lawful Neutral.
Maryring never once mentioned goodness or evil.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 01:31 PM
Nah, that dude was Lawful Neutral.
Maryring never once mentioned goodness or evil.

Oh, his very language oozes the ideas of a city of evil needing to be purged. He most definitely spoke of evil.

"Soon there will be war. Millions will burn. Millions will perish in sickness and misery. Why does one death matter against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution ... and there is so little time."

Morithias
2011-11-11, 08:01 PM
I think our problem here is not "define: Chaotic evil" but rather "Define: insane".

As a cracked article once said "Wouldn't choosing to murder someone be something no sane person would do? Exactly, which is why the insanity defense is rarely used." (I don't think that's the exact quote but it gets the point across)

To me "insane" means that you're not in control of your actions. And to break the time honored tradition of not subjecting people to brutal torture cause I'm evil I also have this handy link.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneEqualsViolent

Please note the "In reality" part of the descriptor.

JaronK
2011-11-11, 08:10 PM
I tend to see Lawful vs Chaotic in this way:

Lawful characters have a code they follow, which may get in the way of their goals.

Chaotic characters have goals they try to achieve, without worry about a specific code of any kind.

Neutral characters have a balance of the two.

As such, Jayne from Firefly is Chaotic Evil... he doesn't follow a code, though he still cares if people like him (he really respects Mal). And he's perfectly willing to kill for money, or over a woman, or... well, lots of situations, if it benefits him.

In a Lawful society, Bureaucracy is important and the rules matter a great deal, because the rules are what keep a society together. In a Chaotic society, rules are seen as something that gets in the way of growth and betterment of that society.

JaronK

Yora
2011-11-12, 06:38 AM
I think our problem here is not "define: Chaotic evil" but rather "Define: insane".
Which I did.

For the purpose of this thread, we couls say insane is "killing people for ****s and giggles".
Which is what quite a lot of the few mentioned characters do as their favorite activity. Killing people without need is not normal.

Morithias
2011-11-12, 12:30 PM
For the purpose of this thread, we couls say insane is "killing people for ****s and giggles".
Which is what quite a lot of the few mentioned characters do as their favorite activity. Killing people without need is not normal.

Which is ignoring the fact that there are TONS of mental problems out there that do not boil down to "MUST MURDER PEOPLE CAUSE HULK MAD". Heck I have one of them, I spent time in a bloody asylum getting treated.

Avilan the Grey
2011-11-12, 03:03 PM
I work out Lawful/Chaotic and and Good/Evil entirely independantly from one another, so a CE character will never be any more stupid than a CG character.

This is absolutely true. The axis should always be separate. Chaotic Evil, Neutral and Good are all equal in their behavior, from a Chaotic point of view.

GungHo
2011-11-12, 06:45 PM
Example:
Cyric from the Avatar Chronicles. (Yes he is CE but not Insane a bit slightly megalomanic later)

This is at least the example I know, what wasn't mentioned so far.
No, Cyric's nuttier than my doodoo after a Snickers bar binge.


Frank from Once upon time in the west - story of marauding, spontaneous, restless being, that happens to commit cruel atrocities without shade of compassion, remorse or regret.
This.

And the guy William Munny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unforgiven_(film)) used to be.

Yora
2011-11-12, 06:51 PM
Sure, Frank is evil, but I don't see anything chaotic in him.

Unforgiven is an interesting case, as it decidedly stays very grey on the issue of good an evil.
The bounty hunters are not really sure if what they do is right and can't really convince themselves that it is, and the sheriff believes he protects his town and deals with outlaws the only way they understand.
It's a movie about really dark shades of grey, but I think not a setting in which good and evil are clearly defined.

Cerlis
2011-11-12, 07:31 PM
Then how are they different from the Neutral Evil people...? Because they simply refuse to use the law to their advantage...?

i think the main arguement regarding alignment is motivation. on Good vs evil you have killing people to protect people (which is neutral or good depending on how hard you try to find an alternate to killing) vs killing someone to protect yourself Vs Killing to hurt them or gain something (this last is evil.)

Both have the same ends , which would be obeying a law or not in this example. the question is WHY they do it. NE probably obeys laws and then undermines them (secretly) when he thinks that st he only way he can get what he wants. CE would do whatever he wants, and obeys laws as a trifle only if it means it will destroy what he wants.

So for NE Breaking laws is an exception, while CE obeying laws is an exception.

NE obeys laws because he thinks that rules work and you can gain advantage of em. CE sees laws as an arbitrary rule system that he has to suffer the existance of.

probably.

Jayabalard
2011-11-14, 12:09 PM
For the purpose of this thread, we couls say insane is "killing people for ****s and giggles".No, there's a lot more insanity than that.

Yora
2011-11-14, 12:55 PM
That's why the sentence started with "for the purpose of this thread".

Wardog
2011-11-15, 08:11 PM
I think the idea is "Just because the Paladin's idea of law and the laws of the land are different doesn't automatically doesn't give the Paladin a free pass to stick to his own internal laws and ignore the laws of the land while still saying firmly LG".
Notice how I say automatically, because tyrants are still tyrants and evil laws are still evil, but the whole "My laws are my laws, other laws be damned" sounds a bit like the mindset of an LE character, not a Paladin. Unless it's a Paladin of Tyranny.


My view on the difference between Law and Chaos is that the essence of a Lawful alignment is believing there ought to be laws (or more accurately: there ought to be rules/order/structure/heirachy etc). The essence of a Chaotic alignment is believing the opposite: believing there should not be rules.

In my view, Luke Skywalker and many of the Rebel Alliance were Lawful, because even though they were fighting against the government, they were doing so in order to establish a different, better government. (And in Luke's case, followign the way of the Jedi required a whole lot of additional lawful-type attitudes and behaviours). A Chaotic person in the Star Wars universe, on the other hand, would have thought something like "See - this what happens when you have governments and vast galaxy-spanning bureaucracies. We should overthrow the Empire, and then not replace it with anything!"

Going back to the paladin, while living and doing good under an evil regiem may require some chaotic acts, I don't think that would necessitate an alignment change (which, after all, would cause him to fall), provided he retains his beliefs and attitudes that disciplin, honour and truthfulness are important, and that if/when the evil regiem is overthrown, it should be replaced by a good one.

Remember - you can also have Lawful-aligned criminal organisations and secret societies, with their own internal rules, heirachies and organizations.



As for the OP - I would say a typical, petty-minded vandal, who breaks other people's things for the lulz, and enjoys the distress he causes, would be a good example of a low-grade non-insane CE person.


Then how are they different from the Neutral Evil people...? Because they simply refuse to use the law to their advantage...?
That probably is one difference. A NE person would have no qualms about using the law to his advantage if he could, or working as part of a heirachy to achieve his goals, and would do so wherever it benefited him.

A CE person would resent the law, or The Man, or the local crime lord telling him what to do, and would avoid working with or supporting them wherever possible, and may well try to undermine them or stick it to them if he thought he could get away with it. (Even if doing so was risky or counterproductive - Chaotic Stupid does exist as an alignment in Real Life).

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 07:33 AM
My view on the difference between Law and Chaos is that the essence of a Lawful alignment is believing there ought to be laws (or more accurately: there ought to be rules/order/structure/heirachy etc). The essence of a Chaotic alignment is believing the opposite: believing there should not be rules.

In my view, Luke Skywalker and many of the Rebel Alliance were Lawful, because even though they were fighting against the government, they were doing so in order to establish a different, better government. (And in Luke's case, followign the way of the Jedi required a whole lot of additional lawful-type attitudes and behaviours). A Chaotic person in the Star Wars universe, on the other hand, would have thought something like "See - this what happens when you have governments and vast galaxy-spanning bureaucracies. We should overthrow the Empire, and then not replace it with anything!"

I'd tend to go with "as few rules as possible" rather than "no rules". CG people can have a structure, even if it's loose- Elven kingdoms probably typify this.

Same with CE, even if the only rule is "Do what the most powerful guy around orders"- orc tribes might be this.

nersxe
2011-11-16, 07:45 AM
In general, most sociopathic characters can be thought of as CE. While not DSM-sane, they're not happy-go-lucky murderers either.

A sociopath is, by definition (DMV-IV: "failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors" , "impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead" , "consistent irresponsibility"), chaotic, so you're partially right.

However, if you read further into sociopathy, you find that sociopaths don't relate to normal people (either at all, or just not well), so giving them a "Chaotic Evil" title doesn't particularly work. They don't work on the same level as baseline humans, so defining them by our system ends up with flimsy results at best. It's similar to the reason all animals are TN; they don't work within the same frame as we do, so we don't use our system to make them fit, we essentially place them outside of it by giving them a neutral designation.

More to the point, sociopathic behavior is often viewed as "insane", so they don't fit with the topic of "CE characters who are not insane" in the first place.

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 07:48 AM
The low intelligence of animals is the main reason- "creatures that are unable to make moral decisions" (at least, going by the description).

nersxe
2011-11-16, 07:55 AM
The low intelligence of animals is the main reason- "creatures that are unable to make moral decisions" (at least, going by the description).

Sociopaths don't tend to understand the underlying morals behind good and evil. They have little-to-no empathy, and empathy is the basis of most good alignments. You don't hurt entities because you understand that you yourself would not want to be hurt either. Sociopaths don't have that understanding.

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 07:58 AM
That would be the "There Is No Evil" philosophy in Lords of Darkness Champions of Ruin- it lists a range of ways an evil character may regard themselves and their actions- that was one.

nersxe
2011-11-16, 08:00 AM
That would be the "There Is No Evil" philosophy in Lords of Darkness- it lists a range of ways an evil character may regard themselves and their actions- that was one.

I have no idea what you're quoting, so I'm going to smile and nod. :).

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 08:05 AM
Lords of Darkness is a Faerun book- covering the playing of villainous characters (NPCs and PCs) in some detail.

EDIT: sorry, that should have been Champions of Ruin:

A summary:

Champions of Ruin had its own list of "paths to evil alignment"

Tradition/There is No Evil
Character follows the norms and standards of their ancesters and society- which might involve slavery, violent retribution/revenge, and so on.

I Am Not Evil
Character believes their every action is in the service of good.

Evil Curse
Character has been hit by lycanthropy, helm of opposite alignment, or similar.

Seduction
Character has been lured with promises of power, glory, wealth or pleasure into performing evil acts.

Driven To Evil
Character may have had to commit evil acts just to survive, be seeking retribution for wrongs committed against them or loved ones, or be "fighting fire with fire" - driven to evil to keep a worse evil at bay.

Just Plain Mean
Character cannot control their violent impulses, tends to blame their outbursts on others, and doesn't accept what they are doing is wrong.

Natural Born Evil
Character was brought up in a society where evil is the rule of thumb, and knows no other way of life.

Mad, I Tell You
Because of some psychosis, obsession or overpowering phobia, character is driven to commit acts of incomprehensible evil, that might "horrify a demon".

Inherently Evil
Character is an Always Evil creature.

Evil Choice
Character has chosen to act in a fashion they admit is evil- for selfish reasons, revenge, obsession with a goal, or simply being a sociopath equally capable of acts of extreme good or evil and seeing no contradiction.

Better To Rule In Hell Than Serve In Heaven
Character is actively opposed to good, finds it repellant in any form, thinks it's a sign of weakness of character. Driven by hate and lust, and revels in thwarting goodness at every turn.

The Ends Justify The Means
Character seeks some greater good- the overthrow of an evil villain or the establishment of a good organization, for example, and is willing to do evil to accomplish it.

boomwolf
2011-11-16, 09:12 AM
Good: Takes risks and makes sacrifices to protect and save strangers.
Evil: Is not bothered if strangers suffer because of his actions.
Lawful: Follows his principles and prefers to plan things through.
Chaotic: Follows his feeling and prefers to adapt to situations as they arise.


Very much this, and by adding "neutrals" you get:

Neutral of good/evil: don't want to harm others, but not going to get into trouble helping them.

Neutral of law/chaos: has a general concept of what he wants to do, but nothing specific.

If you want to extend it to the "extreme alignments" (although they delve into the realm of silly.)

Exalted (supergood)- puts others, even strangers, above himself.
Vile (superevil)- practically enjoyed harming others.
Methodical (superlawful)- follows his "code" at any cost, planning everything to the finest detail.
Anarch (superchaotic)- suffers from order and does what he can to avoid it.


Going back to the original question, I once played a CE drow, that was very sane.
He had a "better you then my" approach, practically willing to kill anyone to get what he wants, and he gave little respect to law, tradition, or even moral codes-but he was fully aware of what they meant to others, and was willing to "play along" as long it did not bother him too much.

So yes, he did execute the captured villain once the good guys turned their backs for too long, and he did kill people just because they were in his way, but he also stuck his neck a few times to help out the party, figuring it will pay off in the long run. (and it did, because they considered him a "friend" despite everything, and saved his ass a couple of times too...)

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 09:20 AM
Of course, you can mix and match depending on the circumstances.

A soldier in a brutal war might develop "sadistic tendencies" toward "the enemy" or simply discover them, without losing a basically altruistic "help strangers even at cost to self" ethos.

In which case, decide whether "evil acts" equal good attitudes (so Neutral aligned) or whether they're severe enough to outweigh them (Evil yet altruistic).

Urpriest
2011-11-16, 10:52 AM
I have no idea what you're quoting, so I'm going to smile and nod. :).

Minor tip: when talking about alignment, it's prudent to assume hamishpence knows what he's talking about.

He's read literally everything written by WotC on the subject.

Gnaeus
2011-11-16, 05:00 PM
Again I will bring up Elric.

He is CE...because: Deities and demigods said so
He summons and negotiates with demon lords.
He is chaotic because he walks away from his kingdom and love on a whim allowing it to be overthrown, then leads the army that destroys the kingdom.
He is evil in that he carries a demonic sword that steals souls and feeds them to him.

He is not insane in the "I kill people for lols" sense (He does seem to have some tendency towards depression). He never kills anyone without a good reason unless his sword forces him to. His overall actions in any given circumstance are likely to tend towards true neutral (indeed, he aspires to peace in the war between chaos and law), except for the whole eating the souls of his enemies/bargaining with demons/overthrowing his ancient society thing.

Da'Shain
2011-11-16, 06:00 PM
As someone mentioned, several aSoIaF characters would qualify (Amory Lorch, Vargo Hoat, possibly Euron Greyjoy, Rattleshirt, etc). These people weren't insane, they were merely given free reign to indulge their cruelty and did so.

Kar Vastor from Shatterpoint I'd argue is another example, as is Jack from Mass Effect (although she's definitely toeing the line of crazy, if she's not over it) and Lewis Dodgson from The Lost World (book, not movie). The Changeling from The Waterborn is also CE, at least if you can consider gods in that book any specific alignment.


Also, I'm really not getting why people bring Jayne up as CE. Yes, he's a brutal thug, but aside from taking perhaps a bit too much pleasure in inflicting pain on those who've wronged him and his friends, what's he done that's overtly evil? Turning in Simon and River was at worst a neutral act; he'd threatened to do it before, but he only went ahead with it after River cut him out of nowhere and proved herself an actual threat to him.

hamishspence
2011-11-17, 05:17 AM
Again I will bring up Elric.

He is CE...because: Deities and demigods said so
He summons and negotiates with demon lords.
He is chaotic because he walks away from his kingdom and love on a whim allowing it to be overthrown, then leads the army that destroys the kingdom.
He is evil in that he carries a demonic sword that steals souls and feeds them to him.

BoVD, in the "antihero" section at least confirms his evilness:

"he is evil, but mostly because of the culture he comes from. He is motivated by love and compassion, but also by terrible rage and hatred. He does good deeds, but he uses evil methods- especially that terribly evil artifact sword he wields".

Cerlis
2011-11-17, 08:33 PM
My view on the difference between Law and Chaos is that the essence of a Lawful alignment is believing there ought to be laws (or more accurately: there ought to be rules/order/structure/heirachy etc). The essence of a Chaotic alignment is believing the opposite: believing there should not be rules.

In my view, Luke Skywalker and many of the Rebel Alliance were Lawful, because even though they were fighting against the government, they were doing so in order to establish a different, better government. (And in Luke's case, followign the way of the Jedi required a whole lot of additional lawful-type attitudes and behaviours). A Chaotic person in the Star Wars universe, on the other hand, would have thought something like "See - this what happens when you have governments and vast galaxy-spanning bureaucracies. We should overthrow the Empire, and then not replace it with anything!"

Going back to the paladin, while living and doing good under an evil regiem may require some chaotic acts, I don't think that would necessitate an alignment change (which, after all, would cause him to fall), provided he retains his beliefs and attitudes that disciplin, honour and truthfulness are important, and that if/when the evil regiem is overthrown, it should be replaced by a good one.

Remember - you can also have Lawful-aligned criminal organisations and secret societies, with their own internal rules, heirachies and organizations.



As for the OP - I would say a typical, petty-minded vandal, who breaks other people's things for the lulz, and enjoys the distress he causes, would be a good example of a low-grade non-insane CE person.


That probably is one difference. A NE person would have no qualms about using the law to his advantage if he could, or working as part of a heirachy to achieve his goals, and would do so wherever it benefited him.

A CE person would resent the law, or The Man, or the local crime lord telling him what to do, and would avoid working with or supporting them wherever possible, and may well try to undermine them or stick it to them if he thought he could get away with it. (Even if doing so was risky or counterproductive - Chaotic Stupid does exist as an alignment in Real Life).

This is why i consider Malcom Renolds Lawful (I might be convinced Neutral), not chaotic. Almost all of his chaotic acts fall under harming/or surviving a corrupt government, while all of his personal decisions seem based on a personal code. "I do the job, i get paid!" "If you ever stab me in the back, you better do it to my face." "If i ever kill you, you will be facing me, and you will be armed"

again i see his plucky attitude and might consider Neutral (on the L/C axis), but my main point is that i think hes a great example of someone who only rebels because the person he is rebelling against is either corrupt, a criminal, morally bankrupt, or trying to kill him.


----------------
Hamish makes a good point with the elves. I believe they are usually "flighty" and tend to CG. i believe if they have a rule breaker, whether it is murder or larceny, the way they "punish" them is exile. And its usually decided by royalty or a council. Very simple.


*Slightly edited because i must have been high or something and couldnt spell

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-18, 11:22 AM
Was playing Iji again the other day, and it occurred to me that Komato Assassin Asha is a pretty good example of functional Chaotic Evil, even if he does dive straight off the deep end during the course of the game.

For the 99% of you who don't play obscure Swedish freeware sidescrolling shooter games (but should), Asha is the head of the Assassin contingent of an invading force of aliens (who came to Earth to eradicate another force of aliens who invaded it previously). He cares only for personal glory, showing off, and making his enemies suffer. He's not a capable leader and doesn't really care about his responsibilities, only causing as much damage as possible and showing up the more physically impressive Annihilators (on a pacifist playthrough, his whole squad is usurped by his second in command and deserts en masse - Asha doesn't even care since by that point in the game he's obsessed with defeating Iji.) Yet, before he meets Iji, he's still perfectly capable of handling himself in the Komato military's admittedly hyperviolent military society. He's just an extremely capable idiot.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-11-19, 05:29 AM
Roth Ursuul of the Night Angel Trilogy. He's as the book says, "a sick twist" but he doesn't kill people for fun. There's usually a reason for it. Releasing poor starving farmers into the buffet in your courtyard, and killing the first three of every third person that comes out? Yeah that's evil and sounds not only insane but lawful.

However he does it to prove a point. People are greedy. Because he spares the one that figured out the pattern. After the rest scatter and panic his "favorite" comes out and enjoys a feast. This shows greed because he doesn't tell the others of the pattern so he can have more for himself and so Roth won't change the pattern.

Think that still doesn't. Explain how he's chaotic? The dead bodies from those he kill, get cooked and added to the feast and fed to his visitors. Yeah, that seems pretty chaotic to me haha