PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic Evil Tyrant...a thought experiment...



Giegue
2012-05-24, 04:50 PM
As the title says. Many times, people classify tyrannical rulers as lawful evil and rightfully so. Likewise, chaotic evil is almost always played as bloodthirsty and brainless with all the leadership skills of a houseplant, and as a result I wanted to try and create a thought experiment in regards to alignment. Lets imagine, for a second, that our tyrannical king/CEO/Dictator/Emperor/Archmage/whatever is for once, not lawful evil, but chaotic evil. What kind of tyrant would they be? How would they operate. How would they both be chaotic, yet still be a ruler figure of some kind?

So, lets do the impossible! Lets design a chaotic evil tyrant!....anybody willing to take a stab at this?(Pun not intended)

Textor44
2012-05-24, 05:06 PM
I think they end up being lawful evil just because they can change the laws to suit their moods... so, if they are "obeying the law" (even ones they created) they are being "lawful" no matter how chaotic they tend to be.

But, for the sake of this thread:

A Bitter, cruel man comes to power. He has his political rivals executed in the throne room. "Wait sire! You can't..." the advisor exclaims. He has the advisor executed, as well. The guards happily do it, because they don't feel like losing their head, either. The law states that he can't be doing that... everyone must be subject to a trial before being sentenced to anything. He really doesn't care, either. He's the king! Why should pesky laws get in his way! And why should they apply to him?

Driderman
2012-05-24, 05:17 PM
A chaotic evil ruler could make up laws whimsically and feels no obligation to obey them himself.
Maybe he makes up laws and rules as it fits him, changing them from day to day and punishes his subjects harshly if they break said rules, while he himself flaunts them with impunity as "he's the king".

Ravens_cry
2012-05-24, 05:30 PM
On the deep end, look up some of the more . . .addled Roman Emperors, or at least their enemies words on them.

Scots Dragon
2012-05-24, 05:31 PM
Case in point; look up on Emperor Nero.

Sergeantbrother
2012-05-24, 05:43 PM
The kingdom will have laws, but the ruler will act outside of them when ever he feels the inclination or ignore them when it is convenient. He will pardon the crimes of friends while condemning others that displease him. He may commit a lot of purges of his own people, killing those who he feels threatened by. He may have friends and allies, but this will be based either on an emotional like of such people or the belief that they benefit him, not out of any sense of loyalty to them.

It is good to remember though, that CE doesn't mean stupid and it doesn't mean crazy, it means unconstrained by either morality or by any codes of conduct. The ruler may still act in an orderly or reserved fashion to achieve his goals, he just doesn't feel compelled to do so.

Spider_Jerusalem
2012-05-24, 05:48 PM
You know what... That kid from Game of Thrones looks like a CE king to me. Actually, lots of real world king seem to be CE.

Sergeantbrother
2012-05-24, 05:54 PM
You know what... That kid from Game of Thrones looks like a CE king to me. Actually, lots of real world king seem to be CE.

Lots of people from A Song of Ice and Fire and Chaotic Evil, not just individuals but there are cultures that are largely CE in there. The Iron Born and the Wildlings tend towards CE as societies. The Dothraki are probably closer to NE. A lot of the schemers and manipulators in King's Landing would probably be CE evil, as they have no morals or code of conduct aside from what best serves their interests.

VeliciaL
2012-05-24, 05:55 PM
You know what... That kid from Game of Thrones looks like a CE king to me. Actually, lots of real world king seem to be CE.

I was just thinking King Geoffry and the Mad King from Game of Thrones qualifies. In my thinking, Lawful Evil tyrants are the "evil, but make the trains run on time" type. Chaotic Evil on the other hand is the type to inspire riots and revolts.

In other words, chaotic evil dictators exist, but typically not for too long. :P

Talyn
2012-05-24, 06:02 PM
Remember that someone who is Chaotic Evil believes in strength. Strength defined as "the ability to do what I want and get away with it." Therefore, his "rulership" would be little more than doing what he feels like, and if anyone objects, either he or his minions would crush them. If his kingdom is large, he'd put other "strong men" out there, each with a mandate to do whatever he wants so long as he doesn't interfere with the tyrant's desires. If he's smart, he'll play he "strong men" against each other so that they can't gang up on him, and so they spend their energies stabbing each other in the back for his favor rather than devoting their energies towards claiming the throne.

If a chaotic evil tyrant wants to rule longer than a couple of years without things totally collapsing on him, he either needs a vast bureaucracy and other inherent-in-the-system government agencies to exploit (think some Roman Emperors) or a truly loyal Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral enforcer to keep his minions in line (think Xykon/Redcloak, or the Emperor/Vader).

Textor44
2012-05-24, 06:16 PM
You know what... That kid from Game of Thrones looks like a CE king to me. Actually, lots of real world king seem to be CE.

King Jofferey is Chaotic Stupid, in my opinion. My favorite moment is when Tyrion slaps his stupid, whiny face.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, I agree with many of the other posters: there are quite a few people in history that you could model as being chaotic evil, without them necessarily being insane or Joffery stupid.

Grail
2012-05-24, 07:08 PM
The current campaign that I am running for one of my PnP groups features a CE tyrant. Granted, it's only 2 sessions into the game, but they've already witnessed how tyranical she is, and how corrupt her strong arm military are, and how they are permitted to bend, break or ignore laws as they see fit, but at the same time grinding any subversion or criminal activity under their iron heel.

They have witnessed her military beat, steal and bully the merchants and civilians that they are supposedly protecting.

They have witnessed an incredibly over-zealous enforcement of a curfew.

The characters have themselves been bullied and extorted by the military in the process of enforcing minor and pedantic laws with ruthless abandon.

They have spoken to her and her baronial guards and been threatened with certain death if they cross her.

The last session ended with the public humiliation, flogging and hanging of a teenage girl for various "crimes".

I consider most true Tyrants are CE, even if they start out LE. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Kane0
2012-05-24, 07:08 PM
Andrew Ryan from Bioshock could theoretically be seen as a chaotic ruler (not entirely evil until later on in his rulership though). He encouraged everyone to be an individual and seek their own fortunes in a society that grew (with some external influence) to become rather cut-throat. He valued freedom, creativity and progress unhindered by rules and dogma.



A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well.


A Chaotic Evil tyrant could well be an intelligent, power hungry dictator that wants his society to surpass all others, and will not rest or give mercy until it achieves the destiny he perceives it to be capable of.

Righteous Doggy
2012-05-24, 07:24 PM
My first thought about a Chaotic Evil Tyrant is a bandit king that has expanded his empire. You don't have to be intellegent, nor truly powerful. Just not so focused on law for order as much as domination through brutality... if that makes any sense. Law doesn't have to equal order.

Sergeantbrother
2012-05-24, 07:28 PM
Andrew Ryan from Bioshock could theoretically be seen as a chaotic ruler (not entirely evil until later on in his rulership though). He encouraged everyone to be an individual and seek their own fortunes in a society that grew (with some external influence) to become rather cut-throat. He valued freedom, creativity and progress unhindered by rules and dogma.

A Chaotic Evil tyrant could well be an intelligent, power hungry dictator that wants his society to surpass all others, and will not rest or give mercy until it achieves the destiny he perceives it to be capable of.

Though it seems like if you have an ideology that emphasizes individuality and minimal restrictions, that following that ideology could actually make you more of a lawful person than a chaotic one.

akma
2012-05-24, 07:59 PM
I thought of a CE tyrant once.

In return for a service he provides for a powerfull demon (in that setting each demon is unique) the demon made him a ruler on his behalf for a small kingdom the demon basically founded.
What the tyrant didn`t know is that running a kingdom would be quite boring, so out of boredom he makes random rules. His solution for the citizens annoyance is occasionly lowering the taxes, which hurts the treasury. He doesn`t run the kingdom very efficantly, and he isn`t very concerned about it. He remained in power for two reasons:
A. Due to his fighting abilities and the tricks he keeps in secret, he managed to kill any assasins sent to kill him very easily.
B. The demon backs him up and makes sure that he won`t fall, becuse the tyrant is a usefull asset to the demon. The fact that many of the citizens of the kingdom worship that demon greatly helps.

Reltzik
2012-05-24, 08:00 PM
Remember that the original definition of a tyrant was a usurper who seized control of the government absent legitimacy. Usually they came from a class not normally allowed into government (ie, a commoner). This suggests the idea of a rebel who's made good, overthrown the existing government, and is free to do what they will once there. There's no check on his power, because he's thrown all of those checks down with the established order. And there need be no sense to how he uses his power, because he doesn't necessarily know how to wield it.

A common aspect of tyrants is that they trample on rights considered sacrosanct to those he/she rules. What rights are sacrosanct vary from culture to culture and caste to caste. Freedom of religion might be sacrosanct in some societies, but a violation of the church's rights in a long-standing theocracy. Nobles might consider someone who violates an unspoken constitution regarding their privileges to abuse commoners a tyrant, while the commoners in question would not. Ultimately whether someone is considered a tyrant or a reformer depends on whether they win or lose.

None of this implies evil, yet, just chaotic. So let's throw in some evil. In keeping with the chaotic element, the tyrant will trample on positive rights to things, the privileges rather than the protections. Some examples:

* The right to vote. Sorry, no voting the tyrant out.
* Water, land, property rights. Some taxation (depending on culture) might be reasonable, but it's usually within limits. The tyrant just grabs whatever he likes for his own personal demesne, and does not meet the existing obligations and debts of the state. No attempt is made to codify the laws, or to justify the takings in terms of the good of the land. He wants, he takes.
* The right to justice. The tyrant might abolish all courts and declare mob justice the rule of the land. "Kill all the lawyers" may feature prominently in this. Another feature might be releasing all prisoners from jail (including murderers, necromancers, etc awaiting execution) in the name of freedom.

Ultimately, the tyrant must either codify a set of rules and laws, become a benevolent dictator whose whims forward the good of society, or wear the society down to ruin with his/her poor governance. As CE is generally a destroyer of civilization, this last option is quite plausible.

Steward
2012-05-24, 08:01 PM
The Lich Queen, the immortal oppressor of the githyanki empire, is also chaotic evil.

Kane0
2012-05-24, 10:01 PM
Though it seems like if you have an ideology that emphasizes individuality and minimal restrictions, that following that ideology could actually make you more of a lawful person than a chaotic one.

Yeah, he is rather Lawful in his approach, especially with the whole great chain thing... probably half half between lawful and chaotic when you put him all together.

Maybe he's Lawfully chaotic?

But then again when he gets mad or is undermined he does some pretty chaotic things, which usually lead to people dying (deserving or not) or the direct contradiction to his own beliefs (pheremones controlling the population, martial law, etc).

Frenth Alunril
2012-05-24, 10:13 PM
Actually, if you watch the show "Ancients behaving badly" they do a lot of these well. Atilla the Hun would be a great example of a CE Tyrant, then again, so would a mob boss. Rules don't really exist for them, and they crush anyone that gets in their way because everything in the end is all about them. Atilla was a Baaad Dude, killed his own brother just to intimidate his enemy. People followed them because they got money and power in service. There are no rules for the CE tyrant, and they could rule a whole region with no laws at all, simply by showing up and watching everyone cow-tow to them, on penalty of death, or just because he wanted to kill someone before lunch.

That's pretty CE. No order, just massive egoism and greed.

Think of the broken economy, the broken dreams, and crushed spirits of the people, the absolutely unpredictable daily grind. "No one is looking today, we can enjoy the sun and have a cool drink." Tomorrow, "oh, one of the lakys has arrived today, I have to hit you, that's my job, cuz he said so."

Shadowknight12
2012-05-24, 10:23 PM
Unlike what the media tell us, tyrants aren't solely responsible for a tyranny. Stories like to portray a tyranny as a group of oppressed people under the iron fist of the titular tyrant, who would be free to be good and wholesome if it wasn't for the aforementioned iron fist.

This is patently false. Actual tyrannies have rarely been the sole responsibility of a single person, but of a whole social class, and in some cases, of a whole nation. Corruption and evil aren't some elusive virtue that must be cultivated diligently or else those pesky peasants will snap back to goodness and honesty the second the tyrant looks away. It's the exact opposite. Corruption and evil are quite prolific on their own, and they can grow just fine without being tended to.

A tyrant does not NEED to be Lawful in order to be a tyrant. After all, he has a whole caste of aristocrats, oligarchs or corrupt military/law enforcement/mages/priests/etc to keep the tyranny running just fine without him. A tyrant is, somewhat often, merely a figurehead that the oligarchy sets up, even.

A tyrant, therefore, has the absolute freedom to be of any alignment it pleases, from the strictest of Lawful to the most anarchic of Chaotic without it having any significant impact on its tyranny.

EDIT: TL;DR: A tyranny is not about alignment.

Steward
2012-05-24, 11:15 PM
I agree with Shadowknight.

I also want to plug Fiendish Codex II here, which I think (inadvertently?) undermines the link between tyrants and Lawful alignments -- depending on your interpretation of Lawful, of course. In one section, it gives a description of a prototypical Lawful Evil society, and it emphasizes the fact that the upper echelons/ruling class are essentially lawless. They impose strict, regimented order on the lower classes (which makes the society itself Lawful) but they themselves break and disregard the rules with impunity. With that kind of set-up, the actual alignment of the guy on top doesn't really matter. The psychopathic brutality and arrogant lawlessness of dictatorship tends to blur the line between LE, NE, and CE.

Gettles
2012-05-25, 05:46 AM
Caligula? Would he work?

hamishspence
2012-05-25, 06:02 AM
Take OoTS Shojo and dial up the evilness a bit.

Killer Angel
2012-05-25, 10:07 AM
Case in point; look up on Emperor Nero.

:smallsigh:
If you wanna use a real life example, at least use someone that fits. Unless your knowledge about Nero is limited to Quo Vadis and Peter Ustinov... :smallamused:

Scots Dragon
2012-05-25, 10:15 AM
:smallsigh:
If you wanna use a real life example, at least use someone that fits. Unless your knowledge about Nero is limited to Quo Vadis and Peter Ustinov... :smallamused:

Meh. My knowledge of Rome is admittedly limited, but most popular depictions usually put Nero under the crazed-lunatic-drunk-with-power category. It's still an example that can be used by virtue of that.

Ellye
2012-05-25, 10:20 AM
I'd argue that the typical tyrant is actually Chaotic Evil, not Lawful Evil as they often seem to be portrayed in fantasy.

Tyrants that change the laws or policies (or flat out ignore them) whenever it suits their needs are Chaotic. And it seems that this is often the case with tyrants.

Killer Angel
2012-05-25, 10:27 AM
Meh. My knowledge of Rome is admittedly limited, but most popular depictions usually put Nero under the crazed-lunatic-drunk-with-power category. It's still an example that can be used by virtue of that.

I apologize if it sounded too harsh. I understand where you came from, and it's a pretty populated place :smallredface:
During his reign, Nero focused much of his attention on diplomacy, trade, and enhancing the cultural life of the Empire. He ordered theaters built and promoted athletic games.
When most of Rome was destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome, it was believed Nero himself had started it, in order to clear land for his planned palatial complex, the Domus Aurea (which BTW was a huge improvement to the previous "slums").
It's political adversaries spreaded the voice, and he didn't "fiddled while Rome burned", and many of the bad things known are based on the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius, which weren't exactly his friends... Actually, the majority of modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's tyrannical acts.

Man on Fire
2012-05-25, 11:45 AM
There is nothing to imagine here, Ancient Rome has it's share of those people. Nero and Caligula comes to mind.


Actually, the majority of modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's tyrannical acts.

Which means the vote is sti up, they might have been right as well.

Necrus Philius
2012-05-25, 11:58 AM
I don't know if this is relevant but anyone familiar with one piece? Blackbeard is a great example of a, if not ruler, at least Chaotic evil leader. He's also a great example of how to make someone unequivocally evil yet still likable.

Man on Fire
2012-05-25, 11:59 AM
This may give (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/03/04/counter-monkey-thieves-world-part-1-poor-impulse-control/) some ideas. (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/03/04/counter-monkey-thieves-world-part-2-the-chicago-way/)

Man on Fire
2012-05-25, 12:01 PM
Not seeing my posts again...

kugelblitz
2012-05-25, 12:11 PM
Consider a bandit kingdom, wherein in the "no man's land" deserters from many armies reside under the rule of "king", there are many myths through history about this kind of outfit, and that could certainly be sen as CE.

Caligula, executing people willy-nilly, ensconced behind his Praetorian Guard is a pretty good example of a tyrant. I would argue that Edward II, who seemed pretty weak and innocuous, as a poor tyrant but one nonetheless.

Randolph Flagg, the Crimson King in "The Stand" is a tyrant. He makes up rules that OTHER people have to obey but not him. He is deliberately chaotic.

The Bad Guy in Time Bandits played by David Warner. Wonderfully tyrannical and evil.

Burner28
2012-05-26, 06:25 AM
Though it seems like if you have an ideology that emphasizes individuality and minimal restrictions, that following that ideology could actually make you more of a lawful person than a chaotic one.

Not really, as that ideology does not have to be based on a specific code.