Roleplaying No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment [Archive]

View Full Version : Roleplaying No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:23 PM

Disclaimer: I will be going quite deep into character over the course of this guide, so let me assure that I am not in real life an unstable terrifying psychopath (usually). Pretty much all of this is thealtruistorc character speaking, not the otherwise fairly rational individual writing this guide. If you at any point feel the need to call law (or good) enforcement when reading this guide, please restrain yourself.

AND NOW WE HAVE SOME FUN!

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/clockwork.jpg

No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

“I started my life with a single absolute: that the world was mine to shape in the image of my highest values and never to be given up to a lesser standard, no matter how long or hard the struggle.”
― John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

1. Introduction
Guides are quite a popular subject here on the playground, letting people in on all of the tips and tricks for making the most of your character’s class, feats, or other abilities. However, I’ve noticed that one subject has never really been touched upon when pertaining to guides: roleplaying.
Chaotic Evil is often looked down upon by players and GMs alike, primarily because the concept itself spits in the face of what most consider to be logical. It's common to hear things like "CE is reserved for psychopaths too crazy/dumb to do anything else" or "Chaotic Evil means you don't really have any goals or values besides killing stuff. Just play CN or LE instead."
I am here to tell you that chaotic evil is far broader in scope than that. One can break the rules in ten times as many ways as one can uphold them, and that results in a wide variety of characters, motivations, and attitudes that have the potential to define a CE entity. You aren’t just some mindless engine of destruction and misery, you are a thinking individual who has looked at the world and said “I don’t like the way things work.” Chaotic Evil is all about rebellion, defying the norms of law and good because you see them as obstacles or even vices in some way. You actively circumvent the order of what is with your actions, not just of civilization but also of morality. You hold your own moral code, distinct from everyone else’s, and in the end your results will likely justify your means. Now tell me, doesn’t that sound enticing enough to at least attempt?

2. What is Chaotic Evil?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-05bu_FlVJ6Y/T4OZkPYlVEI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/0H6TuYf13g8/s400/Solf+J.+Kimblee+Fullmetal+Alchemist+Brotherhood+Ci rcle+hand+Sol+e+lua.png

The Player’s Handbook from 3.5 describes Chaotic Evil as follows:

“A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil.”

I cannot provide a better argument for why you should not listen to them.

What they define as chaotic evil is narrow, contrived, and will likely be a pox on whatever game you try to play. Not every CE character is an aggressive idiot who just destroys everything, and in fact very few good examples of the alignment actually meet these expectations. Instead, I propose these alternate criteria:

Apathy/Disdain for the rules: The first and most obvious part of “Chaotic Evil” is the chaos, a philosophy that typically entails going against the grain and not playing by the of society. You don’t give one iota about what sort of regulations that you should be following or what others perceive as typical behavior. You follow your own intuitions and inclines wherever they may lead you and won’t take orders unless you genuinely feel that you have something to gain from following them. Chaotic characters are free spirits, deciding for themselves what should be done in any given situation. this of course means that chaotic evil characters emphasize self-determination as well, only with more of a mean streak than a kindly one. Chaotic Evil characters value their own freedom greatly, more often than not, and when suppressed in any way will do everything in their power to shrug it off.

Little regard for others’ well-being: Sometimes, bad things must happen to good people if others are to prosper. There are some ambitions and processes for which respecting your fellows must come second to getting the job done. In fact, there are some duties you’ll likely perform that mandate some innocent people getting hurt. Some may feed some sort of twisted hunger, some may kill foes because they believe that their quarry cannot be made to see the truth, some may incite destruction so that the world takes notice of the problems facing it, while still others may deal in the misery of others because they know of no other way to live. Regardless, understand that this by no means is an excuse to murder everyone you meet under the pretenses of roleplaying. If you are going to commit horrible acts, there should be some reason for it (even if that reason is only “to show how little the world really cares”). Nonetheless, chaotic evil means that a few bodies buried in the foundations may be a necessity for building the structure.

Enemy of the established order: Let’s face it, not even angels are perfect. If they were, no mortal would ever be anything other than lawful good. The fact that you aren’t speaks volumes about the way the campaign world works, because it validates alternate perspectives and invalidates the idea of objective morality in a way that makes people ask questions. Law and Good are in the end nothing but constructs, and you are the philosophical engineer who is pointing out the flaws (intentionally or not). Society cannot evolve without protest and questioning, and so long as CE creatures exist those two things will always exist. Be sure to make clear to the world what you think is wrong with Law and Good and why they should change, because it is then that they start taking you seriously. Nobody has ever changed the world just by doing what they were told, and everything is open to scrutiny and reinterpretation. That’s where you come in.

Beholden to nothing: A vital thing to remember about chaotic evil is that you are never obligated to act in a specific way. Lockstep descriptions that define your actions are for goody-two-shoes alignments, and if you wanted to be confined into a specific set of norms you would play one of them. Do whatever the nine hells you want, even if it ends up benefitting law or good in some minute way. Heck, not even the ends you seek have to be awful. I understand that some patron deities might disapprove if you don’t live up to their expectations or actively undermine them (We’ll get to that later), but you should also remember that evil (and chaotic evil) has many faces, and that on some level all of their actions have desired results and purposes, some of which may be lawful or good (just look at Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, which arguably advocates what D&D would dub chaos and evil to promote law and good). Not every action you do should be some horrible act, because an essential element of chaos is choice. You can still fight other evil or even chaotic evil figures if they are a threat to your values, and you likewise shouldn't ever feel obligated to indulge in instances of cruelty and debauchery if such actions serve no purpose. What you care about is your own business, and nobody has the right to tell you how to think, act, or play.

Just like everybody else: This is the most important point that I will make in this guide: being Chaotic Evil does not make you fundamentally different from every other creature in the game. You can still be intelligent, you can still have moral codes, and you can still behave rationally and methodically in pursuit of your goals. What makes you stand out is what those goals are and what you are willing to do to accomplish them. Others may look on you as some sort of inhuman monstrosity (a stigma reinforced by those detect alignment spells) and will likely shun you in some manner, but never let them forget that you are just as sentient as they are, and that you most often have the same emotions and concerns that they do, you just act upon them differently. And y’know what, sometimes the chaotic evil decision can be a very rational or even ethically sound one. Don’t ever get lumped into stereotypes, because you are an individual and likely have some reason or another for opposing the typical moral standards. You can be a nihilistic genius who sees the trappings of objective good as self-destructive, or perhaps you can be an everyday rebel who sees the law hurting people and wants to take justice into his own hands by punishing those (advertently or not) responsible.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:24 PM

3. Archetypes of Chaotic Evil

http://leavingcertenglish.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Iago.jpeg

As mentioned before, there is far more to chaotic evil than just “I like destroying stuff grrr/hahaha!” Characters of this alignment can have a wide variety of worldviews, motives, and morals (or lack thereof). It’s just as possible for a destructive character to be intelligent, wise, or charismatic in the same way that a Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral character can be. The following character archetypes below are the most common “mannequins” on which a fleshed-out chaotic evil character tend to be constructed, and offer varying levels of roleplaying viability and interest.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/chrono/images/7/73/Lavos.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080828025844

Djur: Also known as the beast. A Djur character is essentially a feral animal, often with minimal intelligence. They don’t think about much beyond their present obstacle or their next meal, and are apathetic to most anything beyond that. Generally their low intelligence can be exploited to control them, which is good because a wiser master keeping it on the leash is one of the few things that can keep a Djur from dusting everything in its path. This umbrella also encompasses “Chaotic Stupid” characters like Thog, who rarely think for themselves and ceaselessly follow another. More often than not, this type of character is a burden for the party, as it winds up being as much of a hazard to allies as it does to enemies (there’s a reason why nobody likes playing with a frenzied berserker). This archetype should generally reserved for monsters (which the PCs should generally be able to outsmart), although there are times when a particularly interesting and thought-provoking Djur can be created, the most notable being Transformations and Legendary Beasts. Transformations are a popular idea in culture because they demonstrate the potential for almost anyone to devolve into a psychotic beast, and integrating that into your game as a trait of a normally trustworthy NPC (or even PC if your group is into that) can certainly rachet up the tension. Legendary Beasts, on the other hand, are immensely powerful monstrosities that thrive very much upon buildup. High-level PCs may be able to take it on eventually, but the destruction that would occur in the fight would be catastrophic, giving most anyone pause about putting so many lives at risk. They don't even have to be that big, a small but very dangerous entity (think Akira) could be pulled off to the same effect. The most important thing to remember about Legendary Beasts, though, is that they should remain shrouded in mystery, with PCs hearing about their exploits primarily through secondary (and heck, sometimes unreliable) sources. The idea of the monster is just as scary as the real thing, if not moreso (I mean, think about how horrifying the tarrasque is when you read about it compared to when you fight it). As a DM, Djurs should be deployed sparingly and strategically, because they are very much a matter of “all or nothing” in terms of appeal.

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/wp-content/uploads/queen-of-hearts-7.jpg

Varelse: This type of character is harder to explain, and that is exactly what makes it so darn memorable in the villain seat. The idea behind a varelse (title taken from Orson Scott Card’s amazing Speaker for the Dead) is that they are so strange and/or insane that their actions are wholly incomprehensible from a human standpoint. They perform deeds whose patterns and ideas seem perfectly logical to them, but their reasoning is beyond even the most insightful mortals. They certainly aren’t stupid, but mentally they are on a level the likes of which we cannot understand and are forced to declare crazy. Demons, Aberrations, Elder Gods and many other irrational and reality-defying entities fall into this category, most often used to make a point about how little we are capable of comprehending about the universe. True psychopaths who do mad things for reasons that nobody understands also fall into this category, as there is little hope in trying to reason with them. Varelse are the things that man was not meant to know, and which we have no choice but to fight. Trying to apply reason to them is a lost cause, and them trying to explain their reasoning to you is just as futile. They themselves may not even know what makes them so darn crazy. Naturally, they end up only recruiting followers that are just as crazy as they are or who are under some form of control. The premise itself is very postmodern in nature, representing how much is simply beyond the realms of science and reason to touch. As such, Varelse should be used to inspire a feeling of dread in the players about how much is possible in their campaign world. Placing one in a position of power (either civilly or just by force) ups the effectiveness dramatically, as here you wind up having an unpredictable and incredibly potent foe that the players have no choice but to fear (because the wimpy nutballs can be shut up. The strong ones people wind up listening to). Varelse as player characters are a bit more difficult to pull off, on the other hand, and usually wind up having to be treated like Djur in a typical party. However, if their insanity offers bizarre flashes of insight or connection to the plot in some way, then things can get interesting (imagine an insane character who holds crucial secrets to stopping a major disaster). Varelse are unnerving, and that is their greatest advantage. Utilize it well and it holds plenty of potential.

http://cdn3.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Niko-Bellic.jpg

Broken: This is the saddest and probably the most realistic interpretation of chaotic evil out there: the person who has to commit atrocities just to get by in the world. This could be because they are forced to crime because it’s the only way to put food on the table, or perhaps because they have grown up surrounded by violence and feel that they must participate in it because that is the only way they know. Some even may have what they feel to be their whole lives taken from them and are forced by fate or by their emotions to act as an engine of desolation for the rest of the world. Many broken will likely be reluctant or at least skeptical in their actions, and may even end up out of control when placed under stress. Although playing a character like this may end up to be kind of a downer and won’t usually be suited for light-hearted adventures, a psychological or dark fantasy adventure benefits greatly from individuals who have gone too mad to accept a life devoid of horror and cruelty. This type of character also encompasses a lot of the feral monster races who live on the edges of society, such as the orcs, goblins, and gnolls that are so commonly used as generic enemies. Deep down, every one of them is a reasoning intelligent creature, driven by their terrible circumstances to become what are little more than beasts. Think about that next time a roving band just decides to crash a caravan and you can see how effective and interesting a well-applied broken character (or even entire race) can be.

http://oldweststories.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mad-Dog-1.jpg

Jerk: It’s characters like this that give this alignment a bad name. These are the types of characters that just hurt people because they like hurting people and don’t have much of a personality beyond “I want to make others miserable because why not?” If a character is accurately described in this passage, some fleshing-out is likely in order. Consider building up the motivations and backstory enough so that they actually have some solid reasoning behind what they do and why they do it (generally this leads to them becoming broken or ravager characters, sorta like Biff in Back to the Future II). If somebody is very careful this archetype can be pulled off to create a competently interesting character, and a jerk can certainly fun in a self-aware lighthearted campaign (Xykon is unliving proof of that), but in most cases I frown upon this archetype’s use.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/05ISR.jpg

Aggro-Individualist: This arose out of a conversation with one my players whose character fit very squarely into the “jerk” archetype. The long discussion slowly built up a backstory for the character, whose motivations were wholly dedicated to protecting his individual rights and whose personal moral code gave him the conviction to stomp out anything he saw as a threat to his freedom. Such a prospect might not seem too bad, but this isn’t just any guy who values his individuality. An Aggro-Indi is the kind of person who sees most any act of oversight or control as a significant threat, and will violently lash out in what he believes to be self-defense. He doesn’t care about whom or what gets damaged, just so long as he himself can exercise what he believes to be his gods-given rights. What differentiates an aggro-indi from the jerk is a sense of justice, a need to stand for individual rights and protect the world from the forces of law that may consciously or unconsciously harm it (the good side of chaos, if I do say so myself). They don’t go after anyone who isn’t perceived as a threat to their sovereignty or person, and will sometimes give a deal of respect to those who don’t cross them. Overall, I find that this makes for a fun and topical character, and can be utilized and made interesting in a few different ways.

http://nelsonnelson.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/6/6/10665886/1329265017.png

Experimentalist: There comes a time in anybody's life where it no longer seems fulfilling. Man is motivated always to seek new frontiers and test his abilities to a greater degree. In some cases, that pursuit can lead to some utterly messed-up deeds. From the aesthetic who celebrates the beauty of destruction by making cities his canvas to the scholar who indulges in dangerous forbidden rituals to the master strategist who seeks a uniquely capable and intelligent prey to match his abilities against, Experimentalists are always individuals who sit on the cutting edge of their craft and dare to make artistic leaps in the name of their own curiosity (Bloody art for art’s sake, if you will). Placing their own illustrative desires above the safety and security of anyone around them, they strike at the world to see just how much they can do or just what might happen if they were to shake something most others don’t dare look upon. After all, he’s ahead of his time, and those who stand in their way are simply afraid of progress. Characters of this archetype will often showboat, and frequently want to let their quarries know that they have been surpassed. Honor and respect don’t typically mesh with chaotic evil, but Experimentalists will sometimes hold to these tenants to pump up the sheer thrill of the hunt. They want to prove something to the world and to themselves, after all, and if they don’t get any satisfaction or information from their misdeeds it will all have been for naught. Things get particularly interesting when an experimentalist reaches a point where he feels he cannot overcome, and is forced to deal with the possibility of his own limitations. This is a concept I highly advise players and DMs to explore when implementing an experimentalist in their campaign. At the end of the day, this archetype works well as both heroes and villains, because experimentalists are most often calculating and methodical and won’t do anything crazy they don’t feel they can learn from. However, if they feel that something is worth their time, everyone else had better beware.

http://www.amoeba.com/admin/uploads/blog/Charles/killing-joke-joker-takes-pictures.jpg

Cruel Teacher: Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote that all crime is on some level a form of protest, and Cruel Teachers exemplify this concept. They are often about giving the world pause as to what its morals are and why it works the way it does by means of doing terrible things that are on some level justifiable or rational. A Cruel Teacher is often grandiose in scope and well aware of the fact that what they are doing is evil and breaks the rules, and that is precisely why they do it. Many of them may not wholly support the skullduggery they are performing, but they go through with it so that their actions may influence events for the better. This is the type of character that would murder a village full of people to get a country's population angry at their king for not stepping in, or who would rise to the top of a government and exploit its powers to make sure that something is done about it. They manufacture brutal spectacles specifically with the intent of getting people to question their beliefs about the world, most notably law and good, and when they are successful all of society ripples at the consequences of their actions. This archetype is particularly prominent amongst casting characters, whose trained mental faculties imply an awareness of the world’s problems as well as a motivation to turn it upside-down. This is certainly an archetype that requires a lot of development in order for it to be utilized effectively, but when it pays off… well, there’s a reason that many of cinema’s most iconic characters fall into this archetype.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N1KvgtEnABY/hqdefault.jpg

Radical: If you want to create a CE villain, this is the archetype that I most recommend. The Radical is an individual who is immensely dedicated to a cause and will do everything in his power to carry it out regardless of the costs. He will overcome any obstacle and fell any foe to get what he wants, and even if the ending is lawful or good the warpath he blazed getting to it will likely cancel out any altruism he may have originally had. Few of these characters view their actions as evil (or chaotic, for that matter), and will fight tooth and nail to justify their actions in some way, shape, or form. Many will proclaim their unfettered dedication to law or good while taking a dump on their most basic tenets. This works so well for villains because it not only makes them believable but also energizes the world around them with dedication. Terrifyingly, we are very ready to accept madness as a norm in society, and only rarely are we willing to acknowledge that a friend or ally has gone too far or is pushing for something that may well be self-destructive. This factor ends up propagating support for radicals, and so every other faction has little choice but to match them in their absolute lunacy to combat their influence (often becoming just as bad). There is nothing that chaos loves more than watching reason and order dissolve, and that is exactly what Radicalism does. Extremists exist among all alignments, but Radicals are unique in their willingness to trample everything (including what they allegedly defend) to get what they want exactly how they want it. When a particularly intelligent or charismatic one steps up to the plate, the world WILL take notice, and shortly after will begin to spiral out of control. Their sheer conviction is a gateway to many other powers, and a radical can definitely emerge as an organized or potent threat while still acting like chaos incarnate. In fact, radicals' perverse views of justice are often the direct cause of titanic power buildups and the subsequent arms races that are bound to follow. As a GM, remember that a radical’s ultimate power sits in his influence, and that such authority should be nearly untouchable if he’s to be considered a threat. The radical himself may eventually be defeated, but his zeal may yet live on, and others will soon take up the position of their deceased master. Some radicals may go as far as to kill themselves for their cause, furthering it in the process rather than killing it off. That is what makes them great villains: immortality that goes far beyond the flesh. In terms of PCs, this archetype is very open, enabling characters that can mesh well with the party (a guy has to protect his good name) while also standing out and going a little nuts. You are willing to do anything to accomplish your goals regardless of what they entail, so don’t be afraid to break your own rules any time such necessity occurs to you.

http://media1.fdncms.com/tampa/imager/u/original/5248662/nwa.png

Behemoth: They go by a variety of names: pirates, gangsters, avengers, and too many more to count. But they all share some common traits. Behemoths are the types of characters whose world and survival necessities are messed up beyond recognition and who have to do horrible things to stay alive. The difference between them and Broken is that Behemoths OWN IT! They take pride in their terrifying reputation, and use it to spread their influence. They seek to climb to the top of the midden heap, because if your circumstances are as awful as they are you may as well dominate them. They are the kings and queens of the world’s underbelly, whom its other residents either look up to or seek to take down. They will gladly shout from the rooftops how many people they killed, and how many more they would if some idiot were to cross their path. Authority figures know their names and fear them. A Behemoth often reflects some sort of brokenness in their position or life, one that in theory could be solved by proper application of law or good. However, it is because such action is not taken that behemoths will take to the seas/streets/wherever they may go to make known the falsehoods of the world by imposing them on others. They defy society while at the same time exploiting it, preying upon its vulnerabilities to survive while actively striking fear the hearts of all that oppose them. Interestingly, behemoths are not always bad people. On the contrary, their tendency towards affability (a crew has to be acquired somehow) can make them a benefactor in their own community. Be it via friendship or fear, a behemoth is always a power player in whatever world they roam, and will make his plights known to the world as they share in his fate. Definitely my number one choice of CE PC archetype and a phenomenal option for GMs as well.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:26 PM

4. Motivation: Why do you want to be Chaotic Evil?

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/watchmen/images/9/96/The_Comedian_Barbequing.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080724135908

Every character should have some sort of motivation or purpose in their life, or should at least be searching for one. Chaotic Evil is a direct rebellion against what is considered to be well and good in the world, which means it is especially necessary for a player or DM to justify why their character sits in this alignment. There are many possible answers, and below I’ve outined some of the most prominent and interesting ones. Again, don’t feel like you have to hold to these, but be sure that you come up with some path for your character.

Because it’s all I know: Sometimes, a person who has seen a great deal of violence in their life feels that they have no other option but to perpetuate the cycle, taking to destruction and violence simply because that is the only thing that gets them through the day. Others may not trust you, so in some cases you’ll have to fight or kill just so you can get your dinner or home. You aren’t so much the aggressor as the victim, forced to brutal means because that is what survival entails in your mind. It’s sad, but not much can really be done about with your world and mind in the state that it is.

Because it has to be done: This answer will usually entail one of two things: that you are chaotic evil because you feel your cause needs that sort of extra push or because you understand that chaotic evil actions have to be taken to make the world work properly. Either way, your intentions are not likely entirely anarchic or destructive, and in many ways may be altruistic in motive. You are willing to forfeit your own soul so that you can benefit others in some way, and will likely be willing to forfeit some other lives in the process. In the end, my actions will be justified by the providence your successors may reap.

Because that is what this world deserves: Our universe is a cruel, messed-up place, and it’s high time that it gets a heaping serving of vigilante justice. It’s high time that somebody did something about all the troubles in the world and punished its wickedness at all costs. I strike out against all of your misplaced optimism and hope for societal betterment, because in the end we are all just animals who hide behind trappings of civility. No more of that! We all must be shown how pitiful we are. Scary, I know, but the truth is seldom peaceful.

Because you could never understand: There are certain experiences that do things to people, transforming them in ways that make no sense whatsoever to sane folk. Their reasoning becomes distorted, and while they in their mind have perfect justification for demented behavior it ends up being relatable to nobody. Even in a world where divinations can reveal most any piece of objective information, some motives are just beyond comprehending. A paladin may detect evil, but can never see the process that led to its genesis. Such is your fate, to walk a world where you are utterly and totally alone in your pursuit.

Because good/law is wrong: Things really start turning when you invoke this argument, because it has an uneasy amount of truth to it. Think about all of the times that a paladin has fallen for something that anyone but a fanatical white knight would consider reasonable. If that is the way things happen in this universe, then it is high-time that somebody took a stand against the angels and declared “you’re no better than the rest of us!” You arm yourself with reason as a shield against the holy/axiomatic champions that would make you conform and critique as your sword by which you bring them low.

Because I don’t need a reason: I like to call this the “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown” answer, because this answer really sells the lack of reason inherent to this alignment. You can’t find an answer, and you frankly don’t need one. Screw logic, screw morals, screw every conception that you have about reality and basic decency. I stand here as a living embodiment of everything that you think is wrong and I am not going to justify such activity for you. Go ahead, lock me up, kill me, do whatever you want. Just remember that I existed and I chose of my own free will to be the way I am.

5. What makes one Chaotic Evil

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/fightclub/images/d/d3/Tyler-Durden.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140513065629

Now that we’ve gone through so much of what chaotic evil is, it’s time we reflect on some of the things that make someone chaotic evil. What are some of the actions and motives that turn them to this alignment, or some of the aspects of the character that make somebody look at them and say “you’re Chaotic Evil”? Though some of these can be argued, behaviors as outlined below typically show up in CE characters, and exhibiting them will push you towards it in the books of most DMs.

Victory by Any Means Necessary: You may have scruples, but when push comes to shove those things can easily be set aside. What matters most of all is results, and if you have to strangle a small child or eliminate a country to complete them SO WHAT? This mentality is raw unbridled CE because there is nothing tying you down in your pursuit of the greater goal. What matter for you is results, and even if those results don’t make you a terrible person the sheer unquestioning zeal with which you pursue them may well. Pay close attention to just what you are willing to do in order to get the job done, because there is always, always the risk of going too far and winding up here.

Honorless and Ruthless: Fair play? Common Decency? What are those? I fight to win, regardless of what happens in the meantime. Chaotic Evil combatants will likely employ every weapon in their arsenal in a fight, ranging from stealth to poison to just plain physical superiority. A fair fight to them is rarely worth fighting (combat-focused experimentalists are an exception to this rule), and no tactic is expected to be below them. In addition, if one spares you, it is not because he has any honorable obligation to do so, but because he simply doesn’t have interest in killing you. Scruples about behavior are nonexistent and any restraint employed is meant for practical or emotionally fulfilling purposes only. These guys ain’t knights.

Extreme Brutality: If deliberately causing pain to others is considered an evil act, then there are some types of violence that will typically send you straight to the abyss. By extreme brutality, I mean that a character goes far beyond defeating a foe and begins doing things to them that make the rest of the party back away slowly. This can be done either to simply indulge in your demented hunger or to make a point (sometimes to the victim, sometimes to others who may be watching), and in most cases this kind of action is self-explanatory when it comes up in-game (i.e. when a character slowly mutilates a foe and then shoves their face in the air repeatedly so that anyone scrying on them gets a good idea of what happened). Even when it only occurs on certain hated foes, cruelty for the sake of cruelty is often viewed as a warrant for shifting to CE.

Fighting the Norm/Resisting Authority: As I have mentioned before, a major role that chaotic evil plays in the universe is pointing out that the Lawful Good emperors of the world have no clothes. Traditional morals and the way people often perceive them can be horrifically corrupt and sometimes dangerous, and that’s where you come in (if lying is a flawed act, then why does every “good” leader tell his followers that everything is going to be all right?). Challenging the world and fighting the power aggressively is CE simply because it makes Law and Good the enemies, and if you see angels as the opposition then the rest of the world will have little choice but to label you a demon. This is one of the alignment system’s biggest faults, but that’s what makes playing CE so interesting.

Out for yourself at the expense of others: Reckless endangerment of your allies is by most accounts evil (one of the few “insta-fall” paladin tenants that I agree with), and doing so on the grounds that the tide turns against you seems rather chaotic to me. It stands to that logic that screwing number two to save number one sits fairly comfortably in this alignment. You have no obligation to help your allies, or anybody else for that matter. Your own goals are priority number one, and anyone who gets in their way or has no role in them is completely expendable. You may save and protect allies if you so wish, but that can be for selfish reasons. The fact that you aren’t obligated to, however, means that you may not be trusted. It may well be in your interest to play along, but never forget what you are really in it all for.

Committed to a Deadly End: Mass devastation is, no matter how you slice it, pretty darn evil. At the same time, however, there come instances where some serious brutality needs to be carried out. When you need to fulfill such goals, the whole world will be out to stop you, but that just means that they’ll be making your job easier by coming right at you. Fight on, for those who oppose you do not know the truth of your actions, and if they did would thank you. You have little time to waste on everybody, so going straight to action is seemingly the only option when the truth won’t come easily to most. Be it the end of all things or the complete eradication of a civilization or way of life, remember that if it has be done and that there is no other way, the CE label is a small price to pay.

Involvement with Demons: Okay, this is sort of a cheap one, but if you are working with anything Demonic or otherwise abyss-dwelling, you wind up being chaotic evil (Malconvokers are the exception due to some weird fine print). Quite frankly, you would have to be either incredibly desperate or sort of insane to trust these things (that or you have a specific purpose that abso-posi-tivo-lutely must be fulfilled). They don’t follow any sort of rules or honor code and their sheer alienness ends up making them a hazard to everybody else around them. Yet at the same time, that sort of power may be the kick that you feel is needed to do something. Selling your soul can have some powerful perks (as a certain Kobold has taught us), and it makes sense that someone very committed or working towards a very messy end would toss a coin into the abyss once and awhile. Demons are by no means necessary to CE, but the anarchy they throw into the equation can always make walking the limbo of sanity more interesting.

NOT Kicking Puppies: I cannot stress this enough. It is a bad, BAD idea to make a Chaotic Evil character simply for the intent of abusing innocent creatures with no greater purpose. CE means you are doing bad things for a purpose (even if that purpose is just raw unbridled madness), and there is no real goal that going out of your way to kick puppies will ever accomplish. Society will not be challenged, traditional morals will remain unaffected, and you will gain no information or benefit from going nuts on puppies. If you want to keep the impact of your destructive actions, make every single one count, or the effect will be wasted. Stupid violence for the sake of stupid violence is just that: stupid.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:27 PM

6. Of Chaotic Evil Deities and their followers (particularly Antipaladins)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/FF6_Kefkaart.png

Gods of Chaos and Evil have always been present in religion and mythology, but scarce are the records of their worship. In D&D, many are often the most human of the higher powers, who simply fall victim to the common moral struggles of intelligent beings and end up having such ideas represent them in their entirety. Like in Greek myth, D&D gods are by no means perfect, and can fall victim to the temptations and vulnerabilities that plague their mortal flock. Many in the CE zone are extremely emotional, almost to the point of alien, and will often implore their followers to work to their personal ends (Lolth is a famous example of this). Still others view chaotic evil very pragmatically, using it as their ultimate tool to achieve their ends (which may well include immense destruction). Some goals simply cannot work in any other alignment, so the gods who champion them end up being CE by default. The final category are the ones so insane and mysterious that nobody can hope to understand their motives and ambitions, and so end up consciously or unconsciously acting as pawns in their twisted, illogical, existence-spanning game (most of Lovecraft’s work touches upon this). Such deities of madness are usually shrouded in mystery, and that enigma is at once their ultimate draw and ultimate anathema. They represent the things in this mad universe which we simply cannot come to terms with, the unjust machinations of greater powers which man cannot and will never understand. That is a subject which most any can relate to, and one that should be prevalent in most any cosmology.

One of the least touched-upon concepts by most parties and DMs is chaotic evil faith, primarily because the idea just seems so darn weird in today’s culture. Why would anybody ever follow and regale a demented and horrific entity committed against society’s basic tenants when there are so many kinder and more orderly gods out there? The answer, my friends, lies in the fact that a true disciple of CE looks upon such kindness and order and turns away in disgust. They see kindred spirits in the hateful and destructive deities and swear themselves to their service so that they may be an engine of tradition’s downfall. They tire of the lies and vulnerabilities of society and insist on bearing the bitter truth of the world to all the blind followers of what the gods try and pass for law and good. These people turn to the gods for the same reason that many people in real life and in fiction turn to their faith, just for a very different end. Some may look at the dark god, demon lord, or aberration they worship as a source of reassurance and power, a bastion that they may rely upon for aid and strength in times of struggle (the cult of Erythnul is a phenomenal example of this, given the vulnerable and pathetic nature of many of his followers). This feeling may not even be mutual, as can be attested by the many people who worship elder evils for the express purpose of hurting the world. Others may look to a CE master to find spiritual guidance, seeing the path of brutality and destruction as a path to enlightenment and/or self-betterment. After all, it can be argued that a natural progression of ascending to a higher spiritual consciousness may well involve teaching the masses through force. Some may even invoke their god as justification for mad or depraved behaviors, calling upon their wisdom and teachings to convince others (or themselves) that their strange actions are for their own good or that of the greater world.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/32/Antipaladin.jpg/250px-Antipaladin.jpg

Antipaladins in particular are a figure of great controversy, because everybody expects a knight to be honorable and courteous and Antipaladins spit in the face of that. This causes a lot of disgust and animosity towards the class on so many levels, and That is precisely what makes it work. The Antipaladin exists to break down our expectations about the universe being a kind and just place, and teach the people of the world just how brutal and insane it can be. It is the incarnation of all of the terrors and pains that we hold in our hearts, and its diverse powers invoke all of the vulnerabilities that hit close to home (disease, fear, and of course raw brute strength, all things that have resulted in countless deaths and agonies that have marred this world). Antipaladin isn’t even the best name for them, because in our hearts they have been around far longer than Paladins. In fact, Antipaladins and everything that they stand for are the whole reason for why Paladins are born to fight back the darkness. They are the ocean of humanity’s depravity that Paladins are forced to build tiny boats upon to keep themselves from slipping into the madness. Some may argue that Antipaladins are never as effective as CE Clerics or Oracles because of their lack of magical power, but I disagree. It’s easy to dismiss and hide from Chaotic Evil when it is invoked through strange and powerful alien magics, constantly convincing yourself that you are separate from it. But when you see a hulking mass of a man coming towards you with sword in hand while screaming praise to the lords of destruction and radiating a palpable aura of unbridled horror, you have to come to terms with the fact that what you are fighting is just as mortal as you are, and that there is always the danger of you becoming that beastial man you see before you. Paladins are a figurehead of justice in the world, and likewise Antipaladins are a radiant beacon of man’s inhumanity. There is something much more tangible and thus much more terrifying about a mortal who champions the darkness of the universe than a demigod who does the same thing. After all, you are always capable of convincing yourself that you are beyond the reach of demons and incantations, but never can you shake the feeling that a bloody axe bears down on you waiting for an opportunity. That, my friend, is what makes brute strength such a powerful tool of the evil gods.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:30 PM

7. How other Alignments respond to Chaotic Evil

https://media3.giphy.com/media/NbZhDneBjpZOE/200_s.gif

The interactions between law, chaos, good, and evil can be varied and multifaceted depending on the personal views of each party involved. However, there are some typical behaviors that other alignments express when confronted with a Chaotic Evil individual, and while these are no means the end-all-be-all of character romance they should often be considered

Lawful Good: If Roy Greenhilt has taught us one thing, it is that Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil do not necessarily need to be opposed on all fronts. In fact, LG characters will often be the first ones to try and help redeem CE ones. Unfortunately, far too often these result in failure, as the rift between the two groups is simply too great. Lawful Stupids will likely just smite them on sight, but what a smart LG should often do is listen to what CE characters have to say. Communication is frequently an issue between the two groups, and perhaps exchange is just what needs to happen for law and good to, in the end, succeed.

Neutral Good:Similar to LG characters, NG characters sometimes see CE as redeemable, working with them for the latter party’s good as much as their own. They won’t often try and control them like LG characters do, but will likely make an effort to either keep them from doing harm or even channel the chaos to a good end. However, in some cases it would make sense for a NG character to aggressively destroy chaotic evil, particularly when it poses a very large-scale threat. In any case, NG can view CE as either an enemy or an ally, and like LG will usually put their faith in eventual redemption.

Chaotic Good: Chaotic good will almost always look down upon chaotic evil, seeing themselves as better than their counterparts in most all ways. Compromise usually isn’t in a CG’s playbook, so in many ways the exchange between two opposing chaotic parties can be far more destructive than a match between LG and CE or between CG and LE. Chaotic Goods will think that they understand the world better than Chaotic Evils, but whether that is true is up for interpretation. Fights between these two alignments happen often due to the lack of scruples, and that’s where things get particularly fun as well as messy.

Lawful Neutral: Seeing chaotic evil as a validation for their ordered efforts, LN characters will often crusade particularly fervently against CE. However, for them it is not so much the danger they cause as the peace that they disrupt. Rebellion and emotional volatility, both defining traits of chaotic evil, are seen as the most dangerous aspects of the alignment to LN, and in some cases the fight may become so fervent to keep them down that a lapse to Lawful Evil may well occur. In some cases a LN character may become so desperate to fight that they wind up becoming the very Chaotic Evil they sought to destroy (which is considered a win for the mad guys).

True Neutral: What can I really say about this alignment? A true neutral character will often be the ones standing on the sidelines as the Chaotic Evil hordes rampage on by, afraid to fight back unless they personally are threatened. TN characters are in many ways the most vulnerable to becoming CE, because they themselves stand for nothing and will fall for most anything if it is forced upon them fervently enough. This alignment is by far the most common among weak NPCs, which is why so many Chaotic Evils choose to prey upon them for potential recruits to the dark causes. When a CE character looks upon a TN one, he sees one thing: opportunity.

Chaotic Neutral:CNs see themselves as similar in many ways to CEs, but pride themselves on their superior restraint and (allegedly) understanding of the universe. They don’t want to hurt people, they just want to be free, and view CEs as giving them a bad name. This is primarily because the line between the alignments is so darn blurred in many circles, and many CNs will try to act more good when they see a CE. Alternatively, many Chaotic Neutral characters fall to Chaotic Evil when the world simply becomes too much for them and they feel that extreme methods have to be take for their freedom to persevere (somebody please implement a corrupted protean into their game. I would love to see how that goes).

Lawful Evil: Don’t ever think that the alignment ultimately opposing chaotic evil is lawful good, because that honor falls to LG’s evil counterpart. Lawful evil is about order at all costs, and that mentality springs directly from the fact that chaotic evil is a powerful and dangerous force. It doesn’t matter who suffers under your control, because it is certainly better than suffering under a foe’s untempered brutality. In almost every mythology and work of fiction, lawful evil exists to fight the forces of chaotic evil, and if a LE character won’t kill them they will subjugate and utilize their less lockstep counterparts.

Neutral Evil: To Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil is, just like most other alignments, little more than a nuisance. NE just cares about the ends, not about order or freedom or any of that nonsense. However, the NEs that do have opinions on CE are afraid of it, seeing it as going simply too far into the realm of crazy for their goals to be sustainable. The two alignments won’t get along the best, but have no particular animosity towards each other and won’t usually come to blows over scruples.

Chaotic Evil: Follow your own cause, anybody else’s isn’t worth your attention unless it’s a threat. Just because two characters share this alignment does not mean that the two of them will get along. In fact, it usually means the exact opposite. Chaotic Evil characters are often highly dedicated and highly individualistic, and that doesn’t really mesh well with a bunch of other people who are the same thing yet focus on different goals. CE vs CE is a common battle, and proof that alignment and allegiance are two very different things.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 07:31 PM

Kesnit

2015-09-28, 08:05 PM

I want to thank you for stressing the Chaotic Evil does not mean Chaotic Stupid.

I just brought a CE Crusader into a 3.5 game. (He was NE, until the DM read "can be any alignment except neutral" as "cannot have neutral in your alignment.") Also in the party is a LG Monk. The DM kept trying to tell us that the Monk is "kill on sight" for my PC because of the alignment contrast. I refused to play along, telling the DM "I'm not that stupid." IC, I work with the Monk because it suits my purposes. He works with me because he is trying to get me (and the NE Incarnate going into Necrocarnate) to see the "error of our ways."

Red Fel

2015-09-28, 08:17 PM

https://gsngaming.com/uploads/monthly_07_2015/post-536-0-31844600-1437139191.gif

Well done. Well done indeed. How very neatly and orderly you've managed to encapsulate this particular alignment. You do a great job of showing ways to play the alignment, you provide solid illustrations of what lines aren't worth crossing while not sugar coating the brutality, and you managed to recognize who the real enemy is. Excellent suggested resources, as well.

Bravo.

http://media.giphy.com/media/ormDqLRfiaY1y/giphy.gif

Vhaidara

2015-09-28, 08:34 PM

Figured I'd share these here

I've got a character who kind of waffles between CE and CN, depending on the group I'm playing him with and where he is in his timeline.

Torch is a Red (my own variation on Blues, they're fire themed psionic goblins). Reds were caused because the Lord of the Elemental Plane of Fire opened a rift between the Material and the Plane of Fire in the volcano near the tribe. The portal was part of a game (the plotline of a set of my characters) between the elemental lords to see who got to take control of a given Material Plane (my setting includes multiverse theory and multidimensional travel). Each of them generated a champion, with differing levels of independence, depending on how much the given elemental lord cared.

Torch was the most tightly controlled. His power was directly linked to how much fire was on the Material. Ergo, a lot of the time, he sees it as his divine imperative to literally SET THE FREAKING WORLD ON FIRE. Like, literally, his god told him to do it. The god who is whispering in his head.

I have another character who is taking the alignment roller coaster, including a swing through CE. Full process is LN->LE->NE->CE->CN->N->NG->LG
Honorable member of a powerful house of duelists from Taldor (Golarion), Leah was orphaned when she was a child. An enemy of her family, a vampire lord, attacked and killed everyone. The young Leah was able to finish off the vampire, who had been grievously wounded by her father, but not before the vampire bit her (mechanically, she is a dhampir, but fluffwise, she's human). She was taken in by mercenaries who arrived late to protect the household, and so joined the Scarlet Sentinels

That's how Leah starts: a LN Dhampir Crimson Countess and member of the Scarlet Sentinels. Over the course of the campaign, I keep track of damage dealt by her Crimson Countess abilities (Crimson Claim and Drain, mostly). When it reaches a point (100-200 damage dealt), Leah swoons, falling unconscious. When she wakes up, she has the Lords of the Night vampire template, which shifts your alignment one towards evil. Now, with the loss of her empathy, she is LE.

Leah's most conscious drive has always been the need to continue her family's name. She fights so that she can find a man strong enough to protect her while she bears his child. But now she is undead. She cannot bear children. It takes her a while to realize this, but as she does, it begins to wear away at her honor. Eventually, this results in the transition to NE, when she stops being honorable.

At this stage, she still wants to be honorable, but she just keeps slipping. However, here is where the temptation begins to arise. Every game I've gotten Leah into has included a bad influence PC, usually a CN or CE whose opinion she starts to actually listen to during her fall. The line that marks her change from NE to CE is when she stops CARING about her honor. This has had 2 permutations
1. Forcing herself on a fellow party member (they'd both had feelings for each other that they didn't let show, and yes, I did discuss this with the other player first. He is also the GM)
2. Taking a random person off the streets to her bed with the intention of drinking them dry during the throes of ecstasy itself (think succubus but bloodier)
It is at this point that she begins the switch into her redemption arc. I struggle to enjoy playing CE characters for long. Too many Saturday morning cartoons. But still, it makes Leah one of the more dynamic characters I've written.

Strigon

2015-09-28, 08:44 PM

Telonius

2015-09-28, 09:03 PM

Well done! The only thing I might add is something you touch on in several places bit but don't address head-on: how to be a contributing member of an adventuring party while being Chaotic Evil. Who are these people you hang out with, and why haven't they killed you yet (or vice versa)?

Not kicking puppies is usually necessary to that, but it's not enough on its own. If you expect to survive in a party (rather than as a boss of minions) they can't see you as an immediate threat to their personal well-being. Nothing puts a damper on a relationship like worrying if your friend is going to be placing alchemist's fire traps in the bedrolls. They have to like you. Even if they are a bit afraid of you, it can't be the shudder of wondering if they're the next target. It should be the relief that you're on their side. "He may be a psycho, but he's our psycho," should be the the thoughts you're engendering.

The quickest way to that reaction is having style. Without style, you're nothing but a common mook. With style, you're they guy everybody wants to be with. A big part of that style is wrapped up in how you deliver your pain. Bludgeoning someone to death for looking at you wrong might be tempting, but where's the artistry in that? Where's the joy? Remember that some of the worst tortures aren't physical. Collapsing a windpipe will make you smile for an hour. Seeing someone go pale every time they even hear your name will give you years of enjoyment. A little ultraviolence here and there is fine, of course; your enemies do need to know just what you're capable of.

http://i69.servimg.com/u/f69/13/95/20/16/oots_310.png

So, on to your relationship with the party. Why do you keep them around? You might have respect, camaraderie, friendship, or even love for them. Just because you're willing to go out of your way to hurt people, and overturn social norms, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll murder your friends. Even if you're the type that would consider that, consider your own interests. They should at least overlap with the party's. Does helping the party help your character get what he or she wants? It should, or you should pick a different character to play. This is a collaborative game, after all, and far too many beginning players use the CE alignment as an excuse to disrupt others' fun.

Draconium

2015-09-28, 10:08 PM

Oh, yes, this thread is exactly what I've been looking for - advice on how to play a Chaotic Evil character well. I know have an actual idea for a potentially fun character of this alignment... :smallamused:

Geddy2112

2015-09-28, 10:25 PM

Well done!

People need to know there is more to CE than eating the flesh of puppies raw after you rip them apart. CE can be a very lovable alignment- Che Guevara is probably a textbook "radical" by your definition, and was almost certainly a Chaotic Evil person(who did not start out that) and people love that guy.

And then of course, CE can be can be fun and nice, if not a bit...weird.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/mightyboosh/images/b/b6/Old_Gregg.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090417120306

I disagree with John Galt being CE, or Ayn Rand for that matter. "Because you could never understand" "fighting the norm/resisting authority" and "aggro-indivdualist" all fit pretty well, but evil is more than just being selfish and telling people to F off. Evil requires the willingness to harm others and profit from their expense, which Ayn Rand was pretty against.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-28, 10:34 PM

While I must applaud you for bringing nuance to the downtrodden alignment that is CE, I must also point out that I'm rather concerned with what you said about TN characters.
It seemed to imply that TN characters are simply... there, with no motivations, personality, specific philosophical views, nothing. Just a blank slate, living their life.

Now, I can't see how you would understand the nuance behind CE, and just skip over TN as... well, nothing, so I'm going to hope I'm reading you wrong?

Primarily, I was viewing TN from the perspective of other alignments, drawing upon the fact that anybody who tries to stay out of the fight or remain unaligned to purposes is seen as a potential recruit. In a world of extremes, staying neutral (regardless of cause or motive) will draw the attention of those more radical than you seeking to win your favor (or fear. Fear is good too). Everybody starts their life as True Neutral, so most view them as clay to be molded. Even TN outsiders are looked upon as being one step from serving an allegiance. CE in particular will exploit the heck out of those who stand for balance because their alignment is proof that balance is simply not there. Neutral characters may try to avoid or justify their actions, but that will only make the aggressors more determined to sway them.

Well done! The only thing I might add is something you touch on in several places bit but don't address head-on: how to be a contributing member of an adventuring party while being Chaotic Evil. Who are these people you hang out with, and why haven't they killed you yet (or vice versa)?

(extended, neat-o explanation)

So, on to your relationship with the party. Why do you keep them around? You might have respect, camaraderie, friendship, or even love for them. Just because you're willing to go out of your way to hurt people, and overturn social norms, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll murder your friends. Even if you're the type that would consider that, consider your own interests. They should at least overlap with the party's. Does helping the party help your character get what he or she wants? It should, or you should pick a different character to play. This is a collaborative game, after all, and far too many beginning players use the CE alignment as an excuse to disrupt others' fun.

Well said! Chaotic Evil is an alignment that many DMs outright ban for being too potentially hazardous to the other players, so it falls to you to make sure that your mates can trust you while at the same time ensuring they do not become a burden to your goals. CE characters are still mortal, after all, and desire many of the same things anyone else would (companionship, respect, etc.). Besides, allies are powerful, and if manipulated to your means can do far more than if you just killed them all and struck out alone. You can certainly work with people, but remember that while you are operating as a part of a group you are still an individual, and shouldn't sacrifice much more than you have to for the collective effort (particularly Ayn Rand-y characters probably won't sacrifice anything at all, operating outside the influence of the party). Again, have a reason for what you are doing, and try to understand the consequences of your actions if you turn on the party in the middle of the night. Allies are phenomenal resources, so cashing their loyalty in for an advantage should be an absolute last resort.

Although my personal favorite use of Chaotic Evil in a party is one where he openly points out how chaotic/evil the other characters are, constantly standing as a reminder of what they could become if they go too far. Subtle manipulation like that makes most any group more interesting.

ThinkMinty

2015-09-28, 11:34 PM

This is a great guide. I gotta be friends with you in the future, Thealtruisticorc. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say.

I disagree with John Galt being CE, or Ayn Rand for that matter. "Because you could never understand" "fighting the norm/resisting authority" and "aggro-indivdualist" all fit pretty well, but evil is more than just being selfish and telling people to F off. Evil requires the willingness to harm others and profit from their expense, which Ayn Rand was pretty against.

...how is John Galt not?

Chaotic Good: Chaotic good will almost always look down upon chaotic evil, seeing themselves as better than their counterparts in most all ways. Compromise usually isn’t in a CG’s playbook, so in many ways the exchange between two opposing chaotic parties can be far more destructive than a match between LG and CE or between CG and LE. Chaotic Goods will think that they understand the world better than Chaotic Evils, but whether that is true is up for interpretation. Fights between these two alignments happen often due to the lack of scruples, and that’s where things get particularly fun as well as messy.

It's a fight between Good and Evil, with neither side being polite about it. It's going to be messy, and more importantly, it's going to be a spectacle.

Plus yeah, I have little interest in trying to reason with my evil counterpart. **** that noise.

Crake

2015-09-29, 03:33 AM

I have to say, this popped up at the perfect time for my upcoming game where I have a player going an undead hunter character who, due to the campaign setting's anti-undead deity being evil, ended up going a paladin of slaughter (though we scrapped the code of conduct for them, just maintaining that they need to stay CE) into undead hunter. This is perfect reading material for him, my deepest thanks Thealtruisticorc, madprops for this guide.

Strigon

2015-09-29, 07:18 AM

Primarily, I was viewing TN from the perspective of other alignments, drawing upon the fact that anybody who tries to stay out of the fight or remain unaligned to purposes is seen as a potential recruit. In a world of extremes, staying neutral (regardless of cause or motive) will draw the attention of those more radical than you seeking to win your favor (or fear. Fear is good too). Everybody starts their life as True Neutral, so most view them as clay to be molded. Even TN outsiders are looked upon as being one step from serving an allegiance. CE in particular will exploit the heck out of those who stand for balance because their alignment is proof that balance is simply not there. Neutral characters may try to avoid or justify their actions, but that will only make the aggressors more determined to sway them.

Fair enough; I still can't say I agree with that standpoint, but you make a convincing case for why CE would see it that way.
I withdraw my reservations; this is a masterpiece!

Seto

2015-09-29, 01:26 PM

Thaaaank you, altruist orc. This is a masterpiece, truly. Developed, in-depth, well thought-out essay on a too-often caricatured alignment. I can only hope this will start a trend of similar guides. (I'd try my hand at TN myself, but for that I'd have to find time).

I'll just leave here, as tribute, a practical example of a possible CE outlook, that I'd done a while ago out of boredom (I have some other alignments as well).
I'm not a bad person, you know. No badder than the rest of you. I'm just fighting for my skin, to be the predator and not the prey. Just like everyone does. Nature works that way, and there's no alternative. The difference between me and the rest of you "good" folks ? I'm honest enough to admit it. 'Cause you know what ? When you think of it, holier-than-thou paladins with their so-called goodness, and rightful rulers with their so-called lawfulness, d'you know what they're trying to do ? Same thing as me : be the highest on the food chain. Only they also try to trick people into thinking their rule is the way to go, and that everyone should bow to it because it's just. Makes me laugh. Illusions, all that. Oh, sure, some get into it and are genuinely selfless, but that's naive : they got carried away by their own "morality" and forgot the origin of it all : physiology. Just nature and its blind desire to be all-powerful, drivin' em without them suspecting a thing. Thinking you're better than others ? First step to oppression. Wanting to have rules or morality ? Old natural defense, old strategy that the weak and the misfits use to convince the strong that they shouldn't be eaten. And I will have NONE of that.
Don't stand in my way.

Thealtruistorc

2015-09-29, 04:51 PM

I disagree with John Galt being CE, or Ayn Rand for that matter. "Because you could never understand" "fighting the norm/resisting authority" and "aggro-indivdualist" all fit pretty well, but evil is more than just being selfish and telling people to F off. Evil requires the willingness to harm others and profit from their expense, which Ayn Rand was pretty against.

Objectivism walks a very fine line between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, because while it is CN to even CG in intent some of the raw extremism associated with it can definitely result in a lapse into CE. Ayn Rand was certainly against deliberately harming others for your own gain, but the big problem with pseudo-anarchy is that it is a major gamble. If fortunes end up going south, people wind up desperate, and a bloodbath can often ensue when there is no other way to obtain food. The fact that the philosophy is aware of this risk and yet still chooses to adhere to it can lead to the issue of knowingly and recklessly endangering innocent lives, which as I mentioned typically qualifies as Chaotic Evil.

Overall, Objectivism's place on the alignment spectrum is based a lot upon how it is wielded and implemented into the society. If it is implemented strictly as Ayn Rand wrote it Objectivism serves as CN, but when there are so many other economic and sociological factors in play the line becomes blurred.

Thaaaank you, altruist orc. This is a masterpiece, truly. Developed, in-depth, well thought-out essay on a too-often caricatured alignment. I can only hope this will start a trend of similar guides. (I'd try my hand at TN myself, but for that I'd have to find time).

I'll just leave here, as tribute, a practical example of a possible CE outlook, that I'd done a while ago out of boredom (I have some other alignments as well).
I'm not a bad person, you know. No badder than the rest of you. I'm just fighting for my skin, to be the predator and not the prey. Just like everyone does. Nature works that way, and there's no alternative. The difference between me and the rest of you "good" folks ? I'm honest enough to admit it. 'Cause you know what ? When you think of it, holier-than-thou paladins with their so-called goodness, and rightful rulers with their so-called lawfulness, d'you know what they're trying to do ? Same thing as me : be the highest on the food chain. Only they also try to trick people into thinking their rule is the way to go, and that everyone should bow to it because it's just. Makes me laugh. Illusions, all that. Oh, sure, some get into it and are genuinely selfless, but that's naive : they got carried away by their own "morality" and forgot the origin of it all : physiology. Just nature and its blind desire to be all-powerful, drivin' em without them suspecting a thing. Thinking you're better than others ? First step to oppression. Wanting to have rules or morality ? Old natural defense, old strategy that the weak and the misfits use to convince the strong that they shouldn't be eaten. And I will have NONE of that.
Don't stand in my way.

I'm glad you like this, and that I got to read your fantastic writeup (this was actually very similar to the premise behind a CE character I created a while back). I would love to see more guides of this kind on the playground, hopefully for all nine alignments eventually (Red Fel could make an awesome guide for Lawful Evil).

Psyren

2015-09-29, 04:54 PM

Oh gods, Altruistorc and Red Fel are both here.

*Sprays holy water on thread*

well done

Vhaidara

2015-09-29, 04:56 PM

From what I've seen, Objectivism is like every other political/economic/social system: In theory, they work. Put them in contact with people, and everything goes to ****, because we don't work.

See: Bioshock

Oh gods, Altruistorc and Red Fel are both here.

*Sprays holy water on thread*

well done

You think that's going to work?

Also, Red Fel bought out the holy water suppliers last week. Replaced it all with green jello.

Psyren

2015-09-29, 04:57 PM

W...why is there Jello coming out of my hose??

(Let's stay away from politics, nobody wants this locked.)

Vhaidara

2015-09-29, 05:04 PM

Fair point. Modified my post to be less ambiguously forum legal. AND more true :smallbiggrin:

Blackhawk748

2015-09-29, 05:37 PM

Very good sir, this is an excellent resource.

Psyren, this is why you make your own Holy Water. Personally im just gonna hang out next to my Unicorn Cohort.

FocusWolf413

2015-09-29, 10:39 PM

Hey Red Fel, where's your handbook? Do you think you can top this?

Optimator

2015-09-30, 12:00 AM

Cool guide! I dig it.

Red Fel

2015-09-30, 07:11 AM

Hey Red Fel, where's your handbook? Do you think you can top this?

This ain't a competition, mate. Thealtruistorc (ever noticed that those initials spell TAO?) did a nice thing. Bask in the nice thing. And no, no I can't. Sob.

kulosle

2015-09-30, 07:24 AM

Not done reading yet but this is amazing. I'm going to show my group this. Thank you very much.

Seto

2015-09-30, 09:46 AM

Oh, also : although it's easy to guess the end, there's an unfinished sentence at the beginning of section 5, below the picture of Tyler Durden. (end of the introductory paragraph)

Thealtruistorc

2015-10-02, 04:28 PM

Oh, also : although it's easy to guess the end, there's an unfinished sentence at the beginning of section 5, below the picture of Tyler Durden. (end of the introductory paragraph)

Thank you. Fixing now.

Mrs Kat

2015-10-02, 05:21 PM

You could add "because all my friends were doing it" to the list of motivations (part 4).

Associations and relationships with CE individuals don't necessitate a fall to evil, but there's a strong possibility that they will, particularly if the CE is the stronger personality, or has stronger motivations. And once you're helping your best friend pillage and murder his way through a paladin base, you can't really argue for an N in your alignment anymore.

Geddy2112

2015-10-03, 11:19 AM

Objectivism walks a very fine line between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, because while it is CN to even CG in intent some of the raw extremism associated with it can definitely result in a lapse into CE. Ayn Rand was certainly against deliberately harming others for your own gain, but the big problem with pseudo-anarchy is that it is a major gamble. If fortunes end up going south, people wind up desperate, and a bloodbath can often ensue when there is no other way to obtain food. The fact that the philosophy is aware of this risk and yet still chooses to adhere to it can lead to the issue of knowingly and recklessly endangering innocent lives, which as I mentioned typically qualifies as Chaotic Evil.

Overall, Objectivism's place on the alignment spectrum is based a lot upon how it is wielded and implemented into the society. If it is implemented strictly as Ayn Rand wrote it Objectivism serves as CN, but when there are so many other economic and sociological factors in play the line becomes blurred.
I totally agree, and I think its one of the many good examples you provided of how to be awesomely and not murderhobo chaotic evil.

I would love to see more guides of this kind on the playground, hopefully for all nine alignments eventually (Red Fel could make an awesome guide for Lawful Evil).
I have been kicking around the idea of making one for chaotic good....but I don't know if I could meet up to yours. Again, well done sir. Well done.

genderlich

2015-10-05, 04:22 PM

Beautiful. I'm applying some of these ideas to a character I was making for a short module, but it's making me love her enough to want to keep her around for a longer game. And as a person who usually plays Lawful Good, that's saying a lot. :smallbiggrin:

Svata

2015-10-05, 10:13 PM

I may end up doing one on either NE or CN, which can be quite similar, and have more in common with each other than either does with CE, IMHO.

ThinkMinty

2015-10-06, 02:31 AM

I may end up doing one on either NE or CN, which can be quite similar, and have more in common with each other than either does with CE, IMHO.

Dooooooo it. I wanna see one on Neutral Evil more, because I have no idea what it's supposed to be.

I'm about halfway through writing one on Chaotic Good, incidentally.

Segev

2015-10-06, 11:15 AM

Disclaimer: I am, philosophically, a Christian Objectivist. I know this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it isn't if you understand the underlying drives behind Ayn Rand's philosophy in a way she...didn't. She mistakenly conflated government-mandated "charity" (e.g. welfare) and social-pressure guilt with Christian charity; the latter is about loving thy neighbor as thyself, not about feeling guilty if you have more than they do.

Objectivism is, ethically, a neutral philosophy. It values individualism and the freedom to make one's own choices, but recognizes that there is a job for government: protecting people's rights to make their own choices from those who would use their choices to unrightfully deprive them of it. That is, laws exist to define precisely where my face starts and your right to swing your fist stops.

It is, however, not a pure-Lawful alignment; it has rules that one follows, but strict legalism about precisely what and how they constrain your behavior, particularly in specific instances, is seen as a sign of an over-controlling authority that is stifling one's individual freedom. Perhaps ironically from Ms. Rand's standpoint, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is a very firm part of Objectivist ideals. The caveat is that there is a very specific list of what you should and should not expect to do unto others and to have them reciprocate unto you.

Morally, Objectivism is either Neutral or Good. The characterization of it as Evil is a gross misunderstanding; it mistakes a recognition that the natural state of Man is one of selfishness with a celebration of man's greed. The phrase "Enlightened Self-Interest" comes up a lot in the philosophy, and for good reason. Self-interest is not quite the same as selfishness or greed; self-interest is the recognition that, if you do not take care of yourself, you have no means to take care of others...and, in Objectivist philosophy, it converts that to a reflective understanding that expecting that you will take care of others means they may expect the same in return, and if everybody expects everybody else to take care of them, nobody is taking care of anybody.

Objectivism, in implementation, is an attempt to exploit the base nature of man's inherent self-interest and extract the greatest good for all therefrom. One does not get sausage by wishing that animals could regenerate like trolls; one gets tasty tasty sausage by recognizing how it is made and optimizing that process.

Agree with it or not, Objectivism says that human beings are at their most productive when they keep what they earn. The fruit's of a man's labor are his own, and nobody else's, and he is free to do with them what he will. (Provided the whole "right to swing fist ends at others' faces" thing is respected.) Because people will work harder and be most productive in this circumstance, goes the philosophy, more production and prosperity happens overall. Because enlightened self-interest recognizes that voluntary exchange of goods and services yields the maximal prosperity for oneself in the long run (because a prosperous society has more surplus wealth overall for which one can work and trade), the optimal Objectivist will respect others' property and will trade his specialized labor/product for that of others, who are more efficient and skilled at providing different specialties.

Where Rand's philosophy most often comes across as Evil is in her celebration of "selfishness" and denigration of "altruism." The truth is, she is guilty of mislabeling the former ("self-interest" and "selfishness" are not the same thing), and completely forgets her own philosophy with the latter. She even, in her novels, goes so far as to work hard to justify genuine charity within her anti-charity framework, as she recognizes that everybody needs help, sometimes, even if it's just to get STARTED supporting oneself. She couches all such charitable acts as "loans," and (furthering the image of Objectivism as somehow evil, despite this really being a neutral position to take) emphasizes that these loans are carefully constructed to be maximally profitable to the lender while still being possible for the borrower to pay back without indenturing themselves.

Played that way, Objectivism is a philosophy only for the hyper-intelligent with near prognosticative ability, because knowing your borrower's limitations that precisely is not something non-professionals in the field are going to get right often enough. Further, it forgets that humans are also emotional. Charity - genuine charity - is another way of approaching this solution which takes far less calculation: Evaluate the person in need for whether you believe they really are in need or are just lazy, then give what you feel you can if you feel they deserve it. Don't feel obligated beyond what you can - heck, don't feel obligated at all. Just know that a society that is charitable is one which will show you charity when YOU need it, so you should contribute to the general charitability of society as you feel you are able (by giving when you can to whom you feel deserves it). That 100% voluntary element is critical to a successful implementation of Objectivism; obligation based on guilt (or worse, threat of force) diminishes productivity, while voluntary charity is always going to come from what you, yourself, view as excess. So you already have done work and improved your life and thus others' lives through trade.

The strongest argument, I think, is for Objectivism being a CG alignment, with NG leanings. If the society as a whole fully embraces the philosophy, the need for strict laws is limited to contract enforcement (part of the purpose of contracts is to ensure that all sides know exactly what they're getting and what they're giving, and to thus minimize even honest misunderstandings). The rest is better handled by understanding property rights, recognizing that anything that deprives people of the right to choose whether and what to trade is a form of theft, and protecting people's right to life. They will tend to recognize the need for an authority system, so they're not quite full CG with vigilantism being the norm, but they recognize that generally "good" behavior yields more overall prosperity. And those who lack the Int to really puzzle it out still benefit from the CG society's moral teachings that just let them know charity is good to give, but expecting/demanding it is wrong. It's something for which to be grateful, not to expect as one's "due."

The beauty of Objectivism is that, properly understood, it only fails when people forget the "enlightened" part of the self-interest, and start to be willing to burn down 30 mansions if it means they get an extra room in their house, and willing to destroy others' livelihoods if it means they personally get a small raise. Such behaviors ultimately make the whole culture poorer, even the supposed "winner" who got that raise, as food/goods/services become more scarce and the increased personal wealth buys less than he could have gotten in a more thriving society with a smaller relative income.

But just about every alignment, save NE and CE, will ratchet to a prosperous society under Objectivist philosophy. At least, I think so, based on my analysis of human nature. NE and CE are too willing to go for tearing down others rather than building themselves up, and that doesn't allow for Objectivism to be implemented.

But John Galt, quoted at the beginning of the thread, would be horrified by CE behaviors. CE steals and kills for its own benefit. Galt would balk at both, save in direct self-defense of his own life and property. CE cheats and defrauds; Galt would not do that even at the expense of his own life and property. This isn't speculation; this is directly from Galt's words and deeds in Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's atheist version of Objectivism, property is sacred, and life is the most precious property anybody has. Only by violating others' rights to life and property may your own be righteously infringed (in immediate self-defense, as restitution, punishment to discourage you or others from trying the same, or as a preventative measure to make it impossible for you to repeat your crimes).

The most "evil" thing Galt did was encourage people to go on strike, and refuse to use his talents in ways he found unethical or immoral. Only a philosophy which believes that you owe your life and property to others for no reason other than they want it could call his actions evil. He would view such as slavery.

As for how CE acts in general, I still think this discussion goes a bit too heavily into "madness" as the explanation and method. CE is indeed broad-spectrum, but the central key to it is one that's mentioned less prominently than I think it should be: ruthless selfishness. You care about what you want, and only what you want, and everything is a tool to get it or an obstacle to be destroyed. If it's neither, you can ignore it.

CE is about measuring yourself against others on a relative scale, because CE recognizes nothing save two questions: "Can I do it? Can you stop me?" If another has more power/wealth/ability, they can only be tolerated if they're helping you, but since they could ALWAYS turn on you (after all, you'd do the same if it suited you, right?), it's best to leave them torn down to the point they can't hurt you than to leave them stronger than you. If you can make yourself stronger, great, but tearing them down is almost as good.

There is nothing "enlightened" about CE self-interest, because CE doesn't trust anything other than its own, personal power. It may respect others', but only insofar as those others can thwart them or hurt them or coerce them.

NE is willing to try the "scratch your back if you scratch mine, and we'll part amicably" thing; it's a risk, but NE recognizes that a reputation for it makes things easier a lot of the time, and the occasional betrayal of it is best done when it gains maximum advantage for minimum risk of damage to reputation.

CE will eschange backscratchings, but will expect a knife and, thus, try to be the FIRST to knife, unless the opportunity doesn't arise. This isn't out of chaotic stupidity, but out of fear that the other side will do it, first. Only if the other side remains valuable for future use will they avoid this...and then, they try to make sure they're just as useful for future use to the other side, or backstab proof.

CE is not always stupid, but it has a different golden rule: Do unto others before they can do unto you. Because they will if you let them; after all, you would, right?

Svata

2015-10-06, 11:57 AM

I think I have an opening lines for my NE one of these.

Rules, Anarchy, Morals, none of them matter. The only thing that matters is satisfaction of the self or one's cause.

rockdeworld

2015-10-06, 12:07 PM

Looks like a solid guide to roleplaying. I approve.

On that note, the only suggestion I'd make is to put this part in bold:

Not every CE character is an aggressive idiot who just destroys everything

I like that "not kicking puppies" is bolded and large, but I feel it can't be stressed enough.

Thealtruistorc

2015-10-06, 06:35 PM

CE will eschange backscratchings, but will expect a knife and, thus, try to be the FIRST to knife, unless the opportunity doesn't arise. This isn't out of chaotic stupidity, but out of fear that the other side will do it, first. Only if the other side remains valuable for future use will they avoid this...and then, they try to make sure they're just as useful for future use to the other side, or backstab proof.

CE is not always stupid, but it has a different golden rule: Do unto others before they can do unto you. Because they will if you let them; after all, you would, right?

As I have mentioned before, Objectivism sits as CG-CN in theory, but practitioners can end up slipping into CN or CE simply because, being human, we don't always understand our own limitations. Everyone is capable of going too far in pursuit of their goals, and is as such always one step away from becoming Evil. Look at Bioshock, in which the idealistic society was obliterated because the lines became too blurred between what was self-preservation and and what was encroaching upon the rights of others. Humanoids are not always fundamentally good creatures, and given enough power will often turn it to fuel self-interest at the expense of others (this was the whole point of the Radical archetype). Boundaries are almost never clear-cut as to what they can and cannot do, and when the rules of a society go unwritten (as is the case in most hands-off societies), bending them too far is a simple fact of life in a world where we are all in some way flawed.

Chaotic Evil isn't always madness, and there is certainly another question besides "can I do it?" and "who can stop me?" That question is "Is it worthwhile?" Constant backstabbing is too risky a behavior in many cases because there will likely come a time when you have to fall back on something (I should have mentioned Crogan's Vengeance in examples, because it outlines very well why CE characters would hold themselves to certain standards). If nobody can trust you, that could mean the forfeiture of longevity or greater success. A well-made CE character usually has a goal, and that goal could as often be detrimental or undermining to good or law as it could support them (in the latter case, the character's extremism would cause them to pursue it in a destructive way). Regardless, the character plays for that end, and may even be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

A great historical example of a CE character is John Brown, whose steadfast opposition to slavery (definitely a good cause) propelled him into violent and reckless action that ended up taking the lives of many innocent people (chaotic evil activity). He accepted the costs of what he did and was executed cleanly, becoming an icon stronger in death than he ever was in life. In a sense, his CE action paved the way for good people to take a stand, which is how I believe this alignment should work. The ends absolutely justify the means, be they hazardous or altruistic.

Deophaun

2015-10-06, 07:37 PM

As I have mentioned before, Objectivism sits as CG-CN in theory, but practitioners can end up slipping into CN or CE simply because, being human, we don't always understand our own limitations.
Well that's wholly useless. The same can be said for practitioners of every philosophy.

As the saying goes; there is no cause so noble that it won't attract fugheads.

Saintheart

2015-10-06, 08:24 PM

A great historical example of a CE character is John Brown, whose steadfast opposition to slavery (definitely a good cause) propelled him into violent and reckless action that ended up taking the lives of many innocent people (chaotic evil activity). He accepted the costs of what he did and was executed cleanly, becoming an icon stronger in death than he ever was in life.

Well, that's because he managed to get ethereal after undergoing conversion to Necropolitan:

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching oooooonnnn....

Thealtruistorc

2015-10-06, 09:12 PM

Okay, in retrospect, my previous argument isn't the most convincing. I think it would be best if I provide a bit more of a concrete example.

While an objectivist society in which everybody agrees to play by the rules hovers around the CG area, the disruption that the creation of such a society may cause to the world can endanger many people.

Let's say that the metaphorical atlas figure, a man who is burdened with supporting a great deal of the world, shrugs off his burden to live wholly by his own authority. What happens to all of the people on the metaphorical planetoid he was suspending. Simply shrugging them off and leaving them to fend for themselves quite knowingly places them in danger, as they are dealing with a spontaneous loss of supports that had previously kept the world in balance. The results would likely be dangerous and harmful to a lot of people, and knowingly throwing a dependent world to the curb would probably qualify as a strongly evil act. It may be neutral in intent, but it is evil because it pushes lots of innocent people into the direct line of danger.

Then again, there come times when somebody has to be the martyr, so in the long run such an act could be worthwhile to build a society based on the objectivist ideals.

tadkins

2015-10-06, 10:23 PM

Really awesome guide, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. :)

What about using the Unseelie Fey as an example for CE? Their actions are random and whimsical as well as often brutal and cruel. At the same time though, just as the Seelie court isn't always benevolent, the Unseelie aren't always malevolent. That to me screams CE.

I had this in mind since I found about the Dark Fey (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/archetypes/paizo---sorcerer-archetypes/wildblooded/mutated-bloodlines---paizo/dark-fey) bloodline and thought of a CE character concept I could use with it.

Warrnan

2015-10-07, 10:09 AM

What an incredible resource!? Good work thealtruisticorc. :)

Platymus Pus

2015-10-07, 12:37 PM

Lavos doesn't really work as an example of Djur.
It's closer to NE or LE rather calculating and cruel. It just appears to be rampaging.

Segev

2015-10-07, 02:31 PM

Look at Bioshock, in which the idealistic society was obliterated because the lines became too blurred between what was self-preservation and and what was encroaching upon the rights of others. Bioshock is not an example of Objectivism failing; Bioshock is an example of somebody deliberately undermining the system with a contrary, deliberately destructive philosophy. The actions that led to the ruin of Rapture were diametrically opposed to Objectivist philosophy - even as specifically espoused by the founder of Rapture. It was a traitor who respected neither the lives nor property of others who engineered a plot to steal the best technology Rapture had created. None of these are Objectivist behaviors. They're selfish, and any self-interest isn't even enlightened, since it kills the goose that laid that golden egg.

Humanoids are not always fundamentally good creatures, and given enough power will often turn it to fuel self-interest at the expense of others (this was the whole point of the Radical archetype). Indeed. It is for this reason that Objectivist-backed authority structures tend towards distributed authority as close to in the hands of individual decision-makers as possible. The stronger and more central the authority, the greater the power invested in one person, and the easier it is to corrupt that position (or have it fall into corrupt hands).

Objectivism, as a philosophy and an implemented socio-economic system, is designed to accept that human beings behave in certain ways and have certain goals. They will work towards their own self-interest; there is no preventing this. Efforts to force something else, goes the Objectivist philosophy, will result only in people finding other ways to work around, exploit holes in, or directly corrupt the system to still do this. Objectivism seeks to exploit this human nature by implementing a system which causes the natural pursuit of self-interest to also better society.

Nothing in the philosophy says to exploit, abuse, cheat, or even harm your fellow man. The most cruel thing the philosophy preaches is that nobody owes you anything they didn't agree to give you of their own free will, and that if you cannot or will not provide for yourself, you should starve, because nobody owes you a free lunch. And yes, when you literally CANNOT provide for yourself, that is heartless. Fortunately, very few people who actually understand the philosophy (as opposed to those who either denigrate it as an evil and selfish thing, or those who adopt the denigrated strawman as an excuse for their own evil) really lack the willing heart to provide charity when and where they genuinely believe it is needed.

(Rand herself wrote exceptions for those who literally cannot provide for themselves, saying that their family and others should care for them. She never, to my knowledge, adequately reconciled that with the rest of her philosophy; I have my own reconciliation of it, though: if you don't like seeing suffering, use your own resources to alleviate it in the manner you feel is most effective, so long as you respect others' lives and property and demand nothing of them they do not willingly give.)

Thealtruistorc

2015-10-07, 05:38 PM

What about using the Unseelie Fey as an example for CE? Their actions are random and whimsical as well as often brutal and cruel. At the same time though, just as the Seelie court isn't always benevolent, the Unseelie aren't always malevolent. That to me screams CE.

Unseelie Fey are a wonderful example of the Varelse archetype. CE can be beautiful, creative, and inventive just as any other alignment is.

Nothing in the philosophy says to exploit, abuse, cheat, or even harm your fellow man. The most cruel thing the philosophy preaches is that nobody owes you anything they didn't agree to give you of their own free will, and that if you cannot or will not provide for yourself, you should starve, because nobody owes you a free lunch. And yes, when you literally CANNOT provide for yourself, that is heartless. Fortunately, very few people who actually understand the philosophy (as opposed to those who either denigrate it as an evil and selfish thing, or those who adopt the denigrated strawman as an excuse for their own evil) really lack the willing heart to provide charity when and where they genuinely believe it is needed.

As I summed up on page one, how far you are willing to go in your self-determination sums up the difference between being a proponent of freedom and being a hazard to the society around you. Would you be willing to disrupt a power structure and jeopardize those who depend on it? If so (as John Galt's "no matter the struggle" sentiment and even the title "Atlas Shrugged" implies), then I would definitely envision this action as sitting within the realm of CE. If not (or if you actively try to mitigate any destabilizing effects resulting from your split), then you probably sit as CN-CG.

To paraphrase another famous author, the idea of a mutually accepted struggle falls apart as soon as people get caught in the middle. If you aren't able or willing to conscientiously keep the innocents out of harms way when accomplishing your goals, then you will probably step into Evil, because if you screw up and end up making them suffer because of your actions, having been aware that such was a potential consequence, the blood will be on your hands.

Segev

2015-10-07, 06:26 PM

As I summed up on page one, how far you are willing to go in your self-determination sums up the difference between being a proponent of freedom and being a hazard to the society around you. Would you be willing to disrupt a power structure and jeopardize those who depend on it? If so (as John Galt's "no matter the struggle" sentiment and even the title "Atlas Shrugged" implies), then I would definitely envision this action as sitting within the realm of CE. If not (or if you actively try to mitigate any destabilizing effects resulting from your split), then you probably sit as CN-CG. Except...that's not what he did. He didn't disrupt anything. He simply encouraged those who were being exploited to stop allowing it. He encouraged those who would be enslaved to run away and be free.

Or do you suggest that the Underground Railroad was a CE organization because, if they could have, they would have taken every last slave out of the South, and that would have caused the immediate collapse of the Southern economy and the starvation of most non-slaves down there?

Remember: Galt's plan only destroys a society already destroying itself, and then only by giving it exactly what it asked for.

Chaotic, certainly: valuing individual freedom over laws that would deny it. Evil? Only if you countenance slavery as "good," or at least "acceptable."

He killed no-one, encouraged no violence, and only allowed a self-destructive philosophy to reach its natural ends. His plan could not have worked - he would not have persuaded so many Atlases to shrug - if the society were not abusing them. Remember that their shrugging cost them all they'd built, too; if their dignity were not worth it to them, they could have held on much longer, prolonging the decline until they were branded criminals and had what was left taken from them.

To paraphrase another famous author, the idea of a mutually accepted struggle falls apart as soon as people get caught in the middle. If you aren't able or willing to conscientiously keep the innocents out of harms way when accomplishing your goals, then you will probably step into Evil, because if you screw up and end up making them suffer because of your actions, having been aware that such was a potential consequence, the blood will be on your hands.So...

When the orcs raid the village, and start raping, pillaging, and murdering, are you to blame for the death and destruction when you fight back?

What about when the village elders know the orcs are coming, and make plans to let them have what they want in order to avoid violence. Are you guilty of the slaughter if you fight back against their wishes? What if you COULD have fought back, but chose instead to just leave with all of those who agreed with you that giving the orcs what they wanted was unacceptable?

ThinkMinty

2015-10-07, 11:44 PM

Two words knock Objectivism out of Chaotic Good right away. Those words: Ragnar Danneskjold

Anyways, here's what Objectivism sounds like to me, and has since I became aware of it when I was twelve.

"Rape is fine if I want to rape because your petty morals and talk of consent are nothing but ineffectual hot air against the sheer power of my inherent righteousness, which lets me do whatever I want to whoever I want because I'll just keep ranting at you about how not being allowed to rape people is oppressing rapists."

It's...kinda like religion for selfish people, really. It's what a certain brand of smugass uses to justify their pre-existing advantages. The philosophy's rotten to the core.

I probably disappointed someone by stating this opinion, but better you hear it from me than in divorce proceedings.

hamishspence

2015-10-08, 12:35 AM

Actually, there's a very strong "respect other people's individual rights" theme.

ThinkMinty

2015-10-08, 12:39 AM

Actually, there's a very strong "respect other people's individual rights" theme.

I'm still too stuck on Ayn Rand's presentation of rape as heroic to believe that. Heck, Objectivism-as-Written wants the strong rich to have no obstacles in their way. It's a lot like Social Darwinism, in that it's stuff people use to justify being atrocious.

hamishspence

2015-10-08, 12:55 AM

The scene in The Fountainhead didn't really fit with a lot of the later stuff, it is true. TV Tropes YMMV article for it offers a slightly different interpretation.

Still "no cheating, no fraud, no initiation of violence" gets repeated an awful lot.

Segev

2015-10-08, 11:04 AM

Two words knock Objectivism out of Chaotic Good right away. Those words: Ragnar DanneskjoldRagnar actually was a Robin Hood figure, if you truly, honestly pay attention to both the Robin Hood story and to what Ragnar is doing.

Robin Hood didn't "rob from the rich to give to the poor," despite the common tagline. He robbed from the nobility (who taxed the common folk and even lesser nobility to destitution) to return the wealth to those who had originally produced it (said common folk).

Ragnar Danneskjold stole from government transports which carried goods and wealth taken through excessive taxation (or specialized, targeted taxation), and gave it to those from whom it had been taxed.

Argument of "need" might be made - Robin Hood's work kept people from starving, while few of Ragnar's beneficiaries were destitute - but that would be a crux of Objectivist thinking: "need" never justifies anything on its own. Your need does not entitle you to another's labor, nor does a lack of need make you less entitled to the fruits of your own.

Anyways, here's what Objectivism sounds like to me, and has since I became aware of it when I was twelve.

"Rape is fine if I want to rape because your petty morals and talk of consent are nothing but ineffectual hot air against the sheer power of my inherent righteousness, which lets me do whatever I want to whoever I want because I'll just keep ranting at you about how not being allowed to rape people is oppressing rapists."Um... you clearly didn't actually read and understand it, then. If you mean LITERAL rape, as in sexual assault, Rand portrays that as abominable when it happens. She definitely likes her rough, powerful-people-going-at-it-passionately sex, but the "good" sex in her novels is best epitomized by this line: "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." Her heroines who are "taken" in rough sex actively want it, and her heroes who perform the act with them know it. When her heroes make the mistake of thinking the woman wants it and she doesn't, the woman's disinterest (expressed as passivity) is a turn-off or her refusal (usually expressed forcefully and clearly) causes him to back off.

Remember: respect of others' life and property are central to Objectivism. One's body is both the vessel of one's life and the most personal of one's property; you do not "take" it without their consent.

It's...kinda like religion for selfish people, really. It's what a certain brand of smugass uses to justify their pre-existing advantages. The philosophy's rotten to the core.As you seem to understand it? Certainly. But your understanding of it is more in line with the kind of "my need justifies taking what you have because I want it" that Rand's villains embody. You have her philosophy, essentially, exactly backwards.

The only thing Objectivism says you have a right to is your life and your labor (and the fruits thereof). You can trade labor and its fruits willingly with others who willingly trade back, but you cannot take it by hook or by crook (or by force or threat thereof) and be morally nor ethically justified in Objectivist philosophy.

It is Rand's villains who blackmail, lie, defraud, cheat, and steal. The closest Rand's heroes come is in dealing with those they KNOW are liars, cheats, and frauds, and allowing the assumptions of those fraudsters to destroy them. (Francisco D'Anconia's copper mines are an interesting example. Pay very close attention to exactly what he did, how he describes it, and whose choices actually caused those who got involved to get hurt.)

I probably disappointed someone by stating this opinion, but better you hear it from me than in divorce proceedings.I'm...not sure I follow this line. Is it in reference to Rand's rough-sex fetish? Personally, I find little sexy in her sex scenes, regardless of how approving or disapproving the authorial voice is on any particular one.

I'm still too stuck on Ayn Rand's presentation of rape as heroic to believe that. Heck, Objectivism-as-Written wants the strong rich to have no obstacles in their way. It's a lot like Social Darwinism, in that it's stuff people use to justify being atrocious.Er, no.

Rape is not heroic. It is a violation of another's right to life and property. Where rape - the forcing of sex on an unwilling person - actually happens, Rand portrays it as abominable. Her heroes only ever enjoy sex when the heroine isn't merely not saying "no," but is actively participating with full enthusiasm.

And Objectivism-as-Written wants NOBODY to have externally-imposed obstacles in their way. Her villains didn't just include government agencies imposing restrictions; it also included large corporate interests colluding to exclude competition from their field. The Phoenix Line railroad and the Wyatt Oil fields are a good case study of this. Objectivism advocates the rules - written or unwritten - supporting people's freedom to exchange goods and services as they wish, without external forces coercing them to do so or not to do so.

The scene in The Fountainhead didn't really fit with a lot of the later stuff, it is true. TV Tropes YMMV article for it offers a slightly different interpretation.

Still "no cheating, no fraud, no initiation of violence" gets repeated an awful lot.
Fountainhead is not as good a work as Atlas Shrugged, and is not really an Objectivist piece (despite being written by Rand). It's more a celebration of the individual's creativity and a lambasting of a society Rand viewed as oppressing it. It honestly is a weaker work, philosophically, and is a bit self-contradictory regarding who has rights to what.

I wouldn't really recommend it to anybody who wants to actually understand Objectivism. To understand Rand's feelings on individualism and heroic drive, sure, but Roark is not an Objectivist so much as just a passionate creator of genius. He has a tendency to philosophically claim as "his" things he sold to others, which is a direct violation of Objectivist principles.

If the Fountainhead has any real message, it's as an advisory piece about leaving genius freedom to be ingenious, and to avoid assuming that everything is better when done by committee.

...and that's really wandering off the topic of Objectivism being CG or CE. To bring it back around, I will re-emphasize that Objectivism is about individuals and their rights to their own lives and property (most particularly an individual's body, mind, and the products of the labor thereof). Any violation of those rights - any effort to take them by force, fraud, or stealth without permission - is abhorrent to Objectivist philosophy. This would tend to include reneging on an agreed-upon exchange after having gotten your pay for it, though rarely does Rand herself provide examples thereof.

Svata

2015-10-08, 11:44 AM

So you're just gonna ignore the implied "if they can't work, let them starve to death, no, I don't care that they're a four-year-old orphan"?

Segev

2015-10-08, 01:59 PM

So you're just gonna ignore the implied "if they can't work, let them starve to death, no, I don't care that they're a four-year-old orphan"?

No, I'm going to reject it as a straw-man, since that is never stated nor even implied. A great deal of disdain is expressed towards those who will not work. Little to nothing is said about those who cannot. One interesting side-effect of teaching people to respect life and others' rights and dignity is that it ironically engenders greater sympathy where it is genuinely deserved. As I've noted in other threads, we tend to cheer for the underdog, the disadvantaged, not because he's succeeding due to having the bar lowered, but because his heroic struggle to overcome his disadvantages makes his successes all the more exciting.

I don't know how Rand felt about those who were genuinely eternally dependent. I know that I believe that it is up to each of us, individually, to decide what we can and will do to help them. Objectivism says that it is immoral to demand that somebody else give of their substance to help another; while Rand's fear of altruism leads her to comment that one should only give loans as a personal philosophy, her base principles do not support that rule: if it's your substance, you may dispose of it how you like, according to Objectivism. Thus, if you want to help somebody else out with a gift of support...go ahead! Just use your own property and labor to do so. And do not feel OBLIGATED. By all means, if it makes you happy to help, do so. I applaud you for your kind-heartedness.

It is not kind-heartedness to turn to your neighbor and compel him to help. It is especially hypocritical to then celebrate yourself as the loving giver when you use another's substance.

This, again, is treated clearly in Atlas Shrugged, when Hank Rearden is giving a generous sum to a "charity" (more Sierra Club-like than, say, Salvation Army-like, though) his brother is in, because he believes it would make his brother happy. His brother ungratefully asks for the money in cash so that his friends don't have to publicly acknowledge their good works were funded by an "evil industrialist" like Hank. They felt they were deserving of the praise for how they spent Hank Rearden's money.

It gets worse when, instead of Hank willingly giving it and then being snubbed, they turn to force (or threat thereof) by seeking to tax him of it, and still claim they're the generous and big-hearted ones.

But for those who cannot care for themselves, I expect that a society which truly internalized Objectivism's respect for life would see individuals willingly helping them out. Such is the province first of family, then of increasingly broader community. Tragically, people fall through the cracks of any system implemented by man, but the least harm is done to the least people when there is not a powerful hypocrite able to forcefully take and redistribute and call himself generous for so doing.

That's the thing that I think most who denigrate Objectivism simply refuse to recognize: at the core of it is a respect for life. This is a recurring theme in all of Rand's works, and contrasts mightily with her villains' obsession with death. Subsumption of the individual to the collective to the point that the individual's life is of no meaning is one of the greatest evils in her moral framework. It reaches its epitome in the expectation that your life's greatest meaning is in how it ends to support the collective. This is abhorrent to Rand, and to Objectivists philosophy in general.

Don't get me wrong: there are things worth dying for in Objectivist philosophy. But death is not something to court, to herald, to laud. It is an evil inflicted by those who would take away that which is worth dying to keep.

And if you really, truly believe that Objectivism cannot include generosity, if you believe Rand's heroes are devoid of anything but the most selfish of motives... observe that Hank Rearden WAS blackmailed, not by any shame that would fall upon him, but by shame which would fall upon the woman he loved. He would not countenance this when it was in his power to prevent it...so he allowed himself to be stolen from, his creation taken from him.

To call Objectivism CE is to either grossly misunderstand or misrepresent it. Objectivism is rooted in a deep respect for others. Respect, not pity. Expectation of competence, not mediocrity. Celebration of life and success, not death and failure. Failure and strife are things to overcome, not to endure and not to hold up as banners of worth. And the Objectivist believes that the greatest good is helping each other realize we can rise above our failures and succeed by the labor of our hands and minds; that the greatest evil is telling each other that we cannot do it, that we are dependent, that we deserve something unearned because we cannot earn it.

Objectivism is not evil because all of the supposed "evils" of it stem from the cold realities of the world; Objectivism looks at these and asks, "How do we overcome them?" It doesn't ignore them, nor pretend the world and mankind are other than they are; it instead celebrates those aspects of it which make things better, and shapes a society by making the path of least resistance towards natural human drives (success, life, achievement) be those which also most benefit as many as possible. Other philosophies, deemed "kinder" by some, ignore reality and seek to shape societies in unnatural ways, pretending people will go along with the proclaimed good and ignore their natural drives. It punishes those very behaviors which actually lead to greater bounty in the name of fairness, and rewards those very things which diminish bounty in the name of compassion.

It's like trying to stop optimizers from breaking D&D by banning the Tome of Battle. It's ignoring the real problems and allowing people to run towards those.

It's like trying to stop currency inflation by banning gold farming. It attempts to stifle the natural human urge to get better things (which the game encourages on the one hand) by simply saying "that way to do it isn't allowed." Rather than trying to exploit that human nature in some way to solve the problem. (But that's getting into game design theory, and what does that have to do with this forum? :P )

Vhaidara

2015-10-08, 02:08 PM

Requesting a cessation of this discussion. Or at least move it to another forum. I'm a little surprised the mods haven't stepped in already, but no one wants this thread locked.

Red Fel

2015-10-08, 02:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIIvpPGYjLs
Can't we just have a nice thread about Evil and Chaos?

ThinkMinty

2015-10-08, 02:23 PM

...am I allowed to understand Objectivism while disagreeing with it?

Segev

2015-10-08, 02:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIIvpPGYjLs
Can't we just have a nice thread about Evil and Chaos?Sadly, I cannot see that video.

...am I allowed to understand Objectivism while disagreeing with it?

Sure! (Heck, if there weren't factual errors in the reasoning behind it being labeled CE by the author here, I'd just agree to disagree.

It's coming off right now as "The Girl Scouts Of America are evil because they encourage girls to hunt each other down and cook each other into cookies!" level of incorrect, is all.)

It is perhaps wisest to simply not include Objectivism as an example, for the same reason you wouldn't include Islam or Catholicism or a major American political party.

jedipilot24

2015-10-08, 02:56 PM

Chaotic Evil is, IMHO, best summed up by Durkula in comic 1007:
"You are who you are on your very worst day. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain."

Cirrylius

2015-10-08, 03:00 PM

Thealtruistorc

2015-10-08, 04:48 PM

Can I perhaps make a suggestion? In my mind the Archetypes could use a few more fictional examples- not because the explanations are unclear, but because chaotic often means complicated motivations, and evil often means complicated motivations, and trying to assign villain( protagonist)s as CE specifically over LE or NE is striking (at least me) especially hard.

I wanted to keep a lot of the content in this piece intentionally vague, because I intended to give a rough outline of CE rather than quantify it. The archetypes aren't meant to be rigid guidelines, simply suggestions as to how certain characters react, and you are welcome to mix and match ideas however you so like. Don't try and emulate them, use them as springboards for your own characters and stories. In fact, it can certainly be argued that most well-written characters don't fall strictly into one archetype (Iago, who I used as an example at the top, arguably works in all of them), and they really shouldn't. A well-built character should be multifaceted, have many aspects to his actions and personality that mold together to shape a cohesive individual.

As for what could make your character CE, I would advise simply looking at section 5: What makes one Chaotic Evil. If you want more specific advice, I could probably help out with more details.

atemu1234

2015-10-08, 11:32 PM

Huh. I always thought of Solf as NE for some reason. But your argument is compelling, I think you're right.

Segev

2015-10-09, 09:32 AM

Neutral Evil can be a hard one to quantify, simply because all Evil alignments are about what YOU want, and darn the happiness or well-being of anybody who isn't a part of what you want.

Even CE is willing to follow rules. Blasphemy, you say? No, not really: they follow the rules that they can't get away with breaking, or which actually help them out. CE isn't Stupid Evil; they can understand the rules of a system even if they have no personal respect for them. They can even exploit them, using them to tie their more-Lawful enemies in knots. The LG, LN, and LE foe are all equally stymied when you manage to manipulate the situation to force the law to be on your side.

The difference between CE and NE is that the CE character only cares about the rules insofar as they're directly useful to him: tie up the opposition in red tape (because they'll foolishly adhere to it), or knowing what they HAVE to do to avoid being pulped by somebody stronger. (That latter kind of "rules" is what CE organizations run on: the biggest bad at the top wants that hot prisoner bathed and brought to her chambers; even if it's unspoken, you probably know you'd best not defile or mar their appearance lest the biggest bad have unfortunate things done to you.)

NE characters care about rules. They even have some by which they live. Unlike CE types, they even have more tendency to expect others to follow them, as well, if only out of habit. NE characters break small rules that they think nobody cares about, but habitually follow at least the big ones.

What separates NE from LE is that NE will break the rules if it serves them. What separates NE from CE is that they will follow the rules until the rules get in the way.

This is actually true of NG, as well: NG recognizes that LG's laws are important for a number of reasons, but is not afraid to say, "well, that's not what the law is MEANT to do," or, "that's just stupid; I won't let it stop me from doing good." CG, at best, knows what the laws are and respects them when they have a good reason, but disregards them entirely otherwise.

LE is hidebound; it follows the rules because the rules are good guidelines and because the rules protect and empower them. This may be used against the LE character, but he expects to be able to use it against other LE characters, so it's just how "the game" is played, to him. LE is always trustworthy: they do what they say they will.

CE ignores the rules unless they're useful ("look both ways before crossing the street" may be a rule, but it's a rule because it keeps you from stepping out in front of something bigger and stronger than you that will hurt a lot if you get hit). CE is not trustworthy unless you have something to hold them to their end of the deal: they only keep their word if keeping their word is in their best interests. (They will NOT value a reputation for trustworthiness...but they might value an allegiance enough to keep their word to maintain it.)

NE follows the rules until they get in his way. NE may or may not be trustworthy: it depends how much they feel a reputation for trustworthiness helps them. And, most importantly, NE may well be saving that broken promise for a time when nobody will know...and they can get away with it.

AvatarVecna

2015-10-09, 09:42 PM

I love love love this guide! Lawful Evil makes a good organization to overthrow, and NE makes a good solo villain to oppose, but CE is the villain that, if done right, can make you ask uncomfortable questions about yourself. Lovely lovely lovely...

EternalZiggurat

2015-11-30, 01:30 PM

Oh my god do one for every alignment you just made me realize my chaotic good character is chaotic evil

Segev

2015-11-30, 01:42 PM

Oh my god do one for every alignment you just made me realize my chaotic good character is chaotic evil

Please do elaborate.

AvatarVecna

2015-11-30, 01:53 PM

Oh my god do one for every alignment you just made me realize my chaotic good character is chaotic evil

Way ahead of you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread)

Bohandas

2016-02-14, 02:13 AM

...how is John Galt not?

John Galt is too much like a Yugoloth to not be NE

Bohandas

2016-02-14, 03:35 AM

8. Great Sources/Examples of Chaotic Evil

I would like to thank everybody who participated in this thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445496-Post-your-favorite-Chaotic-Evil-Characters-Here!) by posting their characters and experiences with them. I was going to narrow the list down and only mention a couple, but there are just so many great ones that I couldn’t.

These pieces have also been a great boon to my reflections on CE, and I advise that you check them out at some point if you want to better understand what makes the alignment tick.

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, a meticulous character study of a somewhat rational killer, delving into his motivations for why he murders two innocent people in cold blood. This is my number one recommendation on the subject.

The Stranger, by Albert Camus. Another story about an unrepentant criminal and social outcast, filled to the brim with his curious musings about life and its values.

Absolutely anything involving the Joker, because he embodies this alignment in more ways than I can ever list.

Pretty much everything else I used for quotes or images is quality in terms of good material. They are as follows:
Atlas Shrugged
A Clockwork Orange
Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood
Othello
Chrono Trigger
Alice in Wonderland
Grand Theft Auto IV
Back to the Future III
Akira
The Most Dangerous Game
Batman: The Killing Joke
Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop fearing and love the Bomb
N.W.A
Watchmen
Fight Club
Final Fantasy VI
Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Feel free to recommend others.

Input is, as always, appreciated.

I'd like to suggest a few additions to this list

*The Dark Knight in particular the hospital scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmkRi_tr9c)
*The music of GWAR (especially "War is All We Know", "Beat You to Death", "Biledriver", "Parting Shot", "Happy Death Day", "The Song of Words", "Go to Hell", "We Kill Everything", "Nudged", and "RagNaRok")
*Aqua Teen Hunger Force, specifically the character Master Shake (and to a lesser extent the Mooninites, the Bible Fruits, and Lance Potter; plus the Hairy Bus is neutral evil, and Meatwad is chaotic neutral)
*Futurama, specifically the bending units (Bender, Flexo, and implicitly all other bending robots), and Roberto
*The Postal videogames, especially as played on "Hestonworld" difficulty or higher.

Segev

2016-02-14, 11:43 AM

John Galt is too much like a Yugoloth to not be NE

Er, no. First off, this is dangerously close to flame bait, since the same could be said with equal sincerity by partisans of other political views about icons of the opposite position.

Secondly, yugoloths are happy to cheat people, and view others as incapable slobs who exist to be exploited. Regardless of what you think about the quality of the writing that produced it, you cannot read the multi-page essay he gives towards the end of the book in which he appears and believe that Galt has the slightest belief that humans are incapable nor that exploiting their stupidity is anything but the motive of evil, venal, useless men. He firmly believes that men are not just capable of taking care of themselves, but that they thrive when allowed to do so.

No yugoloth would believe that others are capable of thriving without exploiting them, nor vice-versa.

Galt is somewhere between CG and CN, with a genuine belief in the "individual freedom" aspect. On a strong philosophical level.