Chaotic Evil = Chaotic Homicidal?

[Ninja Chocobo]

I'm going to be playing a Drider in a campaign, and I was wondering if there are any ways to role-play Chaotic Evil other than Chaotic Homicidal. Keep in mind my character will have high Intellect and Charisma, as I'm playing a Wis/Sorc/Ultimate Magus.

[Dark Knight Renee]

There should be. Chaotic Evil does not have to equal Homicidal Maniac, Chaotic Stupid or Chaotic Crazy.

Actually, there is a similar thread about Law-Chaos alignments (and the LE alignment, specifically) which could provide some insight. I'll just quote from it now:


A Lawful person is fairly methodical in his thought processes, trying (to the best of his ability, which may be limited by Int and Wis stats) to cover all possible eventualities. He doesn't like being caught off-guard, or being forced to improvise. He tends to be well-organized and well-prepared. Philosophically, he tends to favor traditional approaches over innovation, enjoys having a sense of stability, and may be uncomfortable with major change.

A Chaotic person is generally fairly spontaneous, allowing his gut instincts and his emotions to inform his decision-making, and may not have the patience to hammer out every detail of a plan before acting. This is not to say that a Chaotic character need go off half-cocked, but he is more at ease thinking on his feet, which can allow him more flexibility. He is fairly comfortable with trying new things, and strongly dislikes having his options limited. He may suffer from wanderlust, or simply be more curious than most. Philosophically, he tends to prefer personal freedom of choice, even to the extent of giving up a measure of stability and security.

- Jannex, poster on the OotS board

As for evil, there are many ways to be evil without being over-the-top. Generally, being evil means being the bad guy, being ready and willing to step on or hurt other people to get what you want, etc. It doesn't have to entail murder, random slaughter and destruction, or eating babies.

[FdL]

Conversely, a character can be homicidal in any of the other alignments (ok, to an extent :p)

[Dhavaer]

A possible basis for Chaotic Evil philosphy might be 'ability equals permission'; the fact that you can do something with little or no negative consequences to yourself justifies your doing it. This would work quite well in D&D, where it is very much possible to become powerful enough to do what you like and be able to shrug off or evade the consequences.

[LordLocke]

Chaotic Evil characters don't need to be homicidal, although it's a trait that without external reason or qualifiers is firmly Chaotic Evil. That said, the primary component if Chaotic Evil is unrestrained selfish action that doesn't terribly care what you have to do, or how badly you eff over the other guy as long as you get what you want.

Regardless of what Complete Scoundrel's alignment lineup says, Captain Jack Sparrow'd be a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who does relatively little killing during his career- he instead spends most of his time backstabbing, side-switching, and selling unknowing souls in order to escape messes largely his own making. Other good examples of fairly bloodless Chaotic Evil characters would be Toad from X-Men, Beetlejuice (movie variant), and Wario.

[Jorkens]

As for evil, there are many ways to be evil without being over-the-top. Generally, being evil means being the bad guy, being ready and willing to step on or hurt other people to get what you want, etc. It doesn't have to entail murder, random slaughter and destruction, or eating babies.
(My emphasis.) Just focus on getting what you want - money or power or whatever your motivation is. Don't have the character particularly enjoy violence and destruction, just view it as a something they're willing to do if it's the only (or quickest or most convenient) way to get what they want and if they think they can probably get away with it.

[SurlySeraph]

The main thing to keep in mind is the non-evil parts of being chaotic evil. The non-evil part? Chaotic Evil people have lots of fun. No one can get away with telling them what to do, they go where they want when they want, and are completely free. You don't have to go around slaughtering people to be Chaotic Evil - unless you feel like slaughtering some people, in which case do whatever you please. For a high Intelligence and Charisma character, it would be Chaotic Evil to manipulate people for your own amusement, without caring what ends up happening to them. Think Valmont in Les Liaisons dangereuses , if you've read it.

[Ninja Chocobo]

Perfect!
Thanks a lot, everyone, your suggestions have turned me from confused into...not confused.

[Quietus]

Regardless of what Complete Scoundrel's alignment lineup says, Captain Jack Sparrow'd be a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who does relatively little killing during his career- he instead spends most of his time backstabbing, side-switching, and selling unknowing souls in order to escape messes largely his own making.

I like this definition. I like it a lot. I probably would have nailed him into Chaotic Neutral, at first, but I think that's got more to do with me liking that character.

[TheOOB]

Lets see. An evil person is someone who is willing to harm others for personal gain. A chaotic person is someone who tends to think in terms of here and now rather then thinking for the long term on a large scale.

So a chaotic evil person whatever they think would be best for them at any given time, not caring if they hurt others. Yes a homicidal maniac is CE, but so is a school bully or con-artist.

[Dervag]

I like this definition. I like it a lot. I probably would have nailed him into Chaotic Neutral, at first, but I think that's got more to do with me liking that character.Well, if it weren't for the selling people's souls, I would too.

In and of itself, betraying one side and going to the other is neither good nor evil. Doing so for personal gain is not good, but is only evil if you should stick with the side you're on. Since Jack has also performed a number of (sort of) good acts, I would make him chaotic neutral with a tendency to tack across the alignment, sometimes verging on evil and sometimes on good.

But the whole selling souls thing- that makes him evil.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Good walk into a bar and it hurt and sit down to order a drink. Evil was in a great mood, but noticed Good had a long face and so he asked him what the problem was.

Good said that he was bummed out because he and his girlfriend had been mugged. He had to give away all his money to protect her and run away to get help. He really wanted to stay and help her, but it would have been selfish to throw his life away pridefully like that. "Why are you in such a good mood?"

"I was mugging some couple earlier, and the guy ran away. I felt bad for the girl after that, so I let her keep her money. She was so happy she gave me her phone number."

Meaning: You don't have to be a sadist to be evil; being generally selish and self-serving and taking advantage of others makes you evil, but you can still be polite and still have your limits.

Also, Chaotic doesn't mean sporadic or insane, it can just mean that you're flexible and that you tend to go with the flow; in fact, CE is more likely to allow random good acts than LE.

[Stephen_E]

Also, Chaotic doesn't mean sporadic or insane, it can just mean that you're flexible and that you tend to go with the flow; in fact, CE is more likely to allow random good acts than LE.

Mercy is an inherently Chaotic concept.

Stephen

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Well, if it weren't for the selling people's souls, I would too.

In and of itself, betraying one side and going to the other is neither good nor evil. Doing so for personal gain is not good, but is only evil if you should stick with the side you're on. Since Jack has also performed a number of (sort of) good acts, I would make him chaotic neutral with a tendency to tack across the alignment, sometimes verging on evil and sometimes on good.

But the whole selling souls thing- that makes him evil.

besides that he never "sold" anyone's soul except perhaps Wills(special circumstances). Since the task of gathering the souls he'd have to sacrifice was near impossible to begin with, I'd say he never planned on doing it, he was just buying time.

[LordLocke]

Well, if it weren't for the selling people's souls, I would too.

In and of itself, betraying one side and going to the other is neither good nor evil. Doing so for personal gain is not good, but is only evil if you should stick with the side you're on. Since Jack has also performed a number of (sort of) good acts, I would make him chaotic neutral with a tendency to tack across the alignment, sometimes verging on evil and sometimes on good.

But the whole selling souls thing- that makes him evil.

Switching sides to someone who has one of his openly-stated goals as the extermination of everything you claim to be is a little beyond non-good, no matter what way you look at it. I'd agree Sparrow could be argued as Chaotic Neutral after the first movie, but between selling Turner to Jones in Dead Man's Chest and cutting the deal with Beckett in World's End pushes him firmly into the Chaotic Evil category.

He's a erratic, self-absorbed Chaotic Evil who's primary motivations are largely self-preservation and short-term gratification, but considering the lengths he's gone to to fulfill those goals, it's extremely difficult to make a case for even Chaotic Neutral without making exceptions for Sparrow (Which people do, because 1- People don't like characters they like being evil and 2- People don't like the idea of an evil main protagonist in what would otherwise be a high-epic heroic adventure story.)

As for Sparrow's good acts, you can count them on one hand, and most are done largely because it'd help Jack in the long run as well. The single most selfless act Sparrow's done (at the end of World's End) was done for the benefit of a character who's probably as close as he has to a genuine friend as anyone else. Even if that friend is also the same patsy Jack spent three movies selling up the river whenever it crossed his fancy. Enough to show that Jack has a heart and is actually capable of doing actual genuine good under extreme duress, but one selfless act isn't enough to making him anything less then CE.

[Skjaldbakka]

I like this definition. I like it a lot. I probably would have nailed him into Chaotic Neutral, at first, but I think that's got more to do with me liking that character.

I would have agreed with the CN viewpoint up until the last movie. No I agree more with the CE depiction.

[Tengu]

Though not exactly screaming "high intelligence and charisma", Jayne from Firefly is a perfect example on how to play a CE character in an otherwise good and neutral group, and have it all working.

[PinkysBrain]

Ultimately your group determines what an alignment embodies precisely.

I like the extremely black and white system set down in BoED (and to a lesser extent BoVD). Assuming just what's in the PHB I'd disagree with TheOOB that an evil person is someone who is willing to harm others for personal gain. The PHB makes it pretty clear it doesn't matter why you do it, just that you do it. Evil is as evil does.

PS. I'd try to come up with some background story which ties you to your party members in a way you don't feel justified in acting against them ... inter party strife rarely works out well.

[Jorkens]

I like the extremely black and white system set down in BoED (and to a lesser extent BoVD). Assuming just what's in the PHB I'd disagree with TheOOB that an evil person is someone who is willing to harm others for personal gain. The PHB makes it pretty clear it doesn't matter why you do it, just that you do it. Evil is as evil does.
I'd guess that in "for personal gain" he's implicitly including "for the sheer heck of it." Being willing to harm others (eg bandits) to stop them raiding the village probably doesn't count as evil, for instance.

[Saph]

Though not exactly screaming "high intelligence and charisma", Jayne from Firefly is a perfect example on how to play a CE character in an otherwise good and neutral group, and have it all working.

Yup. Jayne's a great example.

"I'll kill a man in a fair fight . . . or if I think he's going to start a fair fight . . . or if he bothers me . . . or if there's a woman . . . or if I'm getting paid . . . mostly only when I'm getting paid."

You could argue about whether he's Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil, but he's definitely in the Evil camp, and he gets on with the rest of the crew. Hanging out with them just happens to suit him.

- Saph

[Khoran]

Mercy is an inherently Chaotic concept.

Stephen

I don't exactly see how. Mercy is, if any alignment, inherently a good concept. I don't see how it's Chaotic in the slightest.

[Citizen Joe]

You start a fight with the intent to kill. If at the end you change your mind (chaotic) you grant mercy... or maybe you don't... again (chaotic).

[Saph]

You start a fight with the intent to kill. If at the end you change your mind (chaotic) you grant mercy... or maybe you don't... again (chaotic).

Or you decide right from the start that you're only going to kill if you need to, and that you'll keep the person alive if they surrender. You don't change your mind, because that's how you approach every fight.

That's how I play Lawful Good characters, anyway.

- Saph

[Khoran]

You start a fight with the intent to kill. If at the end you change your mind (chaotic) you grant mercy... or maybe you don't... again (chaotic).

There is nothing inhernitly chaotic about chaging your mind. Also, you make the assumption that everyone enters the fight attempting to kill someone else. You could be using a Merciful Weapon, for example. Your intents are never to kill, your intents are to capture and rehab, which is a form of mercy. Also, you could have something in a code that you must grant mercy if the opponant surrenders. There is nothing Chaotic about that, it's part of your code (Person, church, class ect). Going against your code would be the chaotic action, not the granting of mercy. Or perhaps you see a chance of redemption in someone evil, and you offer them surrender so that they can come to realize this ability to change.

Nothing about Mercy is chaotic. Mercy is one of the paragons of good, but on the Law-Chaos scale, it means nothing.

[SITB]

Nothing about Mercy is chaotic. Mercy is one of the paragons of good, but on the Law-Chaos scale, it means nothing.

A bad, bad, assumption. Mercy killing anyone? It's just happens to synchronizes a lot with good, it's not inheritangly good.

[Khoran]

A bad, bad, assumption. Mercy killing anyone? It's just happens to synchronizes a lot with good, it's not inheritangly good.
Depends, really. I think that if there is a situation where it's either they will die, or they will suffer (The situation that calls for a mercy killing), the good choice is clear. It's not the pretty choice, it's not the nice choice, but it's the good choice. If there is a way to make it so this person does not suffer and still lives that is actually possible, of course, makes the mercy killing not neccicary and therefore would not be performed.

Unfortunatly, alignment is subjective, so what I see as the paragon of good, you may not agree. But I believe that we all should be all on the same page that mercy is good, even if it's not the paragon of it.

[SITB]

To use an often recited example where I live, what about retarded children? Those who dribble and show very basic intelligence and cause major drain on their family resources? Or hell, comatose kids who are unconscious and break their family apart yet willing to live?


But I believe that we all should be all on the same page that mercy is good, even if it's not the paragon of it.

Bah, letting your enemy live that he will suffer every waking moment from the realization that he could prevent what happened but when the moment of truth came couldn't?

[Jorkens]

The mercy part of 'mercy killing' refers to the desire to end someone's suffering: it's debatable whether and under what circumstances something described as 'mercy killing' is actually an act of mercy. The desire to end someone's suffering is still definitely a Good Thing, but the decision as to whether actually doing it is still a Good Thing if it requires killing them is a Moral Dilemma. Which we probably shouldn't go into here.

[I_Got_This_Name]

Also, Chaotic doesn't mean sporadic or insane, it can just mean that you're flexible and that you tend to go with the flow; in fact, CE is more likely to allow random good acts than LE.

This doesn't mean that CE is more likely to do good than LE, though. An LE character might have a few "rules" that they follow mandating good acts; he might be in the habit of sending bread to the orphanage, either for genuinely altruistic motives (Evil people can be altruistic sometimes, too) or to throw the heroes off them or protect themselves; the heroes might think twice before killing someone if that means that orphans will starve, and so on. A CE character's good acts will be more spur-of-the-moment nice things.

[Stephen_E]

Order is about structure approach.
In "x" situations you do "y". If he did Crime "a" he receives punishment "b".

Mercy is abot saying "well yes, you deserve "x" happening to you, but on the spur of the moment I'm going to let you off and only doing "y".
Depending on the situation it can also be good, but it's not inherently so. It's goodness depends on why you're doing it.

"I'm letting you off because I think you can turn your life around and make things better if you're given a 2nd chance" is good.

"I'm letting you off because I'm curious as to what you'll do, or because it'll be interesting" is neutral.

"I'm letting you off because I think I might gain from it in the long run, and I'll take a chance" would tend towards evil.

All these are showing mercy.
Mercy is Chaotic because it's about breaking the ordered rules.

Stephen

[Neon Knight]

Order is about structure approach.
In "x" situations you do "y". If he did Crime "a" he receives punishment "b".

Mercy is abot saying "well yes, you deserve "x" happening to you, but on the spur of the moment I'm going to let you off and only doing "y".
Depending on the situation it can also be good, but it's not inherently so. It's goodness depends on why you're doing it.

"I'm letting you off because I think you can turn your life around and make things better if you're given a 2nd chance" is good.

"I'm letting you off because I'm curious as to what you'll do, or because it'll be interesting" is neutral.

"I'm letting you off because I think I might gain from it in the long run, and I'll take a chance" would tend towards evil.

All these are showing mercy.
Mercy is Chaotic because it's about breaking the ordered rules.

Stephen

Not always. For Example:

Sir Galidor is a knight in a local castle plagued by orcs. The orcs have done much damage to the local villages, and the lord Galidor serves has finally amassed enough forces to deal with them.

On the eve before Galidor and his fellow knights ride to face their foe, the king holds a feast in his hall. During the feast, the king begins a speech about the sacred nature of life. He believes that eve the lives of the orcs have value. He commands that all his knights swear an oath of mercy. If any foes should surrender to them, they are honor bound to accept that surrender and treat their captives with dignity.

The next day, battle is joined. Sir Galidor rides into the heart of the enemy forces and breaks through their lines. He finds himself in a one on one duel with Gortak the One Eye, orcish war chief responsible for all the slaughter.

Galidor disarms Gortak with an excellent parry, and Gortak falls to his knees, surrendering and begging for mercy. Remembering his oath, Galidor spares Gortak's life.

The above is an example of lawful mercy. Another example.

Harrington is a lawful evil knight who has sworn never to harm children or young life in general (Harrington was abused as a child. He believes that children should have the best childhood possible, because adulthood is ugly. He also believes that everyone deserves a shot at life, and killing children denies them their chance to grow up and fully experience life.) He departs from his ancestral castle to collect taxes from the peasants who hack out a poor living in his lands. He is accosted and assaulted by a good cleric apparently visting for some reason.

They duel, and Harrington finds himself winning. Just as he is about to drive his blade into her neck, he realizes she is with child. He spares her life because he cannot harm the unborn life inside her because of his off.

Mercy is an act. It can be either lawful or chaotic.

[DSCrankshaw]

If mercy is inherently chaotic, please tell that to the rest of my party. My lawful good knight is the only one who ever shows mercy. Those chaotic elves don't seem to know the meaning of the word.

[Renegade Paladin]

Mercy is an inherently Chaotic concept.

Stephen
Well actually, no it isn't. "Respect for life" is right up there on the core list of the defining characteristics of good alignment. The most common summary of the paladin credo I've seen is "justice tempered with mercy." Chaos is characterized by sometimes arbitrary actions; mercy could come of such arbitrariness, but it might also be part of a lawful-aligned character's ethos. I really don't see how you peg mercy as chaotic.
Bah, letting your enemy live that he will suffer every waking moment from the realization that he could prevent what happened but when the moment of truth came couldn't?
What part of that is merciful? Sparing someone to subject him to psychological torture isn't mercy.

[Dervag]

Switching sides to someone who has one of his openly-stated goals as the extermination of everything you claim to be is a little beyond non-good, no matter what way you look at it. I'd agree Sparrow could be argued as Chaotic Neutral after the first movie, but between selling Turner to Jones in Dead Man's Chest and cutting the deal with Beckett in World's End pushes him firmly into the Chaotic Evil category.Well, it depends on whether you've changed your mind about whether or not you want to be that. And on whether you seriously intend to stick with the bad guys. I haven't seen World's End yet, so I don't know the details.


To use an often recited example where I live, what about retarded children? Those who dribble and show very basic intelligence and cause major drain on their family resources? Or hell, comatose kids who are unconscious and break their family apart yet willing to live?Comatose people hvae had their brain activity suppressed, presumably because they have suffered sufficient Intelligence loss or damage to reduce them to Int 0. As such, they are incapable of actions, and therefore anything that happens because of them does not affect their alignment.

Retarded children who are in on the 'dribbling' level may have an intelligence below 3 (again due to Intelligence loss or damage) and therefore have a default alignment of True Neutral.

As for mercy being chaotic, I'll buy that. However, I think that it would take many many many acts of justified mercy to shift someone's alignment away from law towards chaos. Many coherent moral codes require mercy where possible, and mercy mandated by a law or an ethical code is not an anti-lawful act.

[Zeful]

My thoughts on...

Mercy: A decsicion to spare some one the common pushinment for whatever reason. It is also subjective. An example of mercy is taking a death row prisoner (LE or CE) and Geas/Questing him to perform 1000 good deads, without accepting rewards, before he'll be released onto the world again and Mark of Justiceing him to willingly do no harm to any living creature unless as a last resort and never to reveal his punishment to anyone. The evil prisoner may believe this is worse than death because he's helping people he'd otherwise be victimising. And can't be rewarded for it, he also can't get rid of people that annoy him endlessly. The person giving the punishment however has done this because s/he believes the person can be redeemed and is willing to help along those lines

Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character only has one priority, him/herself. No one else matters unless they can provide useful services or can help them get out of a jam. Everyone who gets in his way is going to die/be subdued/rendered harmless unless they move. Riddick is the perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character, his actions only benefit himself a large majority of the time. He kills any threat to his continued existance, irregardless of which side they are on, sometimes without needing to. His actions have good consiquences for a number of characters, but his intentions are always selfish. The only good act Riddick has ever done was save Jack from the creatures in Pitch Black. It is the only action that does not have a reason behind it. Now while this description might make him seem more Neutral Evil (because of the lack of discrimination) or Lawful Evil (because of the unwavering dedication to his plan of outliving everybody) he never, ever plays along with anyone's desires, they may be fullfilled but he does something without realising what something could do to help his survival. He is more Neutral Evil at the end or Chronicals of Riddick but that's only because his emotions for Kirin (Jack from pitch black), the only family he's ever known, change him.

These are my thoughts take form them what you will.

[Diggorian]

The way I portray evil is that a character will do anything to accomplish their goals. Chaotic is the style with which they practice evil, freestyle in this case.

Chaotic Evil need only be chaotic homicidal if you encounter multiple human obstacles in your way that cant be lied to, bargained with, intimidated, or out manuevered. Kill'en them is your only solution; and since your chaotic it need not be saved for last.

[TheOOB]

This doesn't mean that CE is more likely to do good than LE, though. An LE character might have a few "rules" that they follow mandating good acts; he might be in the habit of sending bread to the orphanage, either for genuinely altruistic motives (Evil people can be altruistic sometimes, too) or to throw the heroes off them or protect themselves; the heroes might think twice before killing someone if that means that orphans will starve, and so on. A CE character's good acts will be more spur-of-the-moment nice things.

A LE persons acts of good arn't usually, if ever, random. Lawful people tend not to do things at random, they tend to do things thought out in advanced.

Mercy is also a good trait, at least the way I see it. You are taking a personal risk (that they might attack you at a later time) to help someone. That is a good act, not always a smart or wise act, but a good one.

However, good people are not always good in every case, unless your a paladin.

[Callix]

Not all evil people are monolithic evil. BoVD is a great resource for BBEGs or evil campaigns, but not all evil characters are necessarily like that. Evil clerics and blackguards, on the other hand, pretty much are. Ninja_Chocobo, you know you're evil. Why do you need to show it off every waking moment? Good adventurers don't all feel compelled to take every opportunity to show respect for the sanctity of life. Why should you feel compelled to take evey opportunity to express your disregard?

Furthermore, you can just favour [Evil] descriptor spells, sneaky tactics, and backstabbing in your combat and negotiation strategy. This confirms your evilness without just killing random innocents. Kill random monsters in cruel and unusual ways. Relish the blood and screams of your victims, but don't make this an addiction. You don't need to kill. You just like to, occasionally.

Finally, Chaotic Stupid is just that. Any intelligent CE sadist doesn't kill people when there's any chance of getting caught and punished.

[Aquillion]

Xykon from OOTS might be a good role model... he's certainly chaotic, but not homicidal.

One easy way to show evil is to show someone willing to make vastly disproportionate and inappropriate sacrifices of other people for their own self-interest (e.g. allowing an entire town to die to make a few gold.) It's possible to be amoral and self-interested and remain neutral; the scale, here, is part of what sets the difference. Neutral characters would usually have some moral boundaries, while to totally farthest-extreme evil character, no price would be too much as long as they come out ahead.

A chaotic evil character might be wantonly destructive in pursuit of their pleasures, causing absurd amounts of damage (not necessarily death) for extremely stupid things. For instance, a chaotic evil noble might start a war to get a flavoring they particularly like for their soup, or bankrupt the kingdom to get a set of nice mink coats. In general, complete disregard for others + shortsighted, selfish, and small-minded goals = (one possible) easy flavor of chaotic evil. For some reason, shortsighted pleasure-seeking as a goal often seems to come off as chaotic.

There are lots of ways to show characters as chaotic. Often (if combined with low wisdom) they're shown as flighty, with a short attention span, or as having inconsistent ways of judging things; a chaotic evil character is likely to have an outlook on things that changes to suit whatever works best for them at the moment. For instance, a chaotic evil BBEG might complain that it's not fair when the heroes use a particularly trick against him, then gleefully use the same trick back on them on their next encounter, and honestly believe it both times.

A high-wisdom chaotic character is a bit tougher to RP, IMHO, because wisdom implies that the character does see some sort of order to the world around them, and will often prevent you from acting chaotic 'just because.' If you've played PS:T, Ravel is probably the best example I can think of of a 'wise' yet extremely chaotic character.

A high-wisdom evil character might be very good at seeing the surface of things, but ignore anything that doesn't suit their personal goals... PS:T has another good example of this in the Practical Incarnation. A high-wisdom evil character sees people's emotions clearly, say, but just views them as another way to get what they want.

A high-wisdom chaotic evil character might have larger (supposedly) self-serving plans that make no sense to anyone else, and would be willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone to these plans. They might be like the pleasure-seeking noble described above, but with flashes of deep perception--when others criticize them for their gluttonous ways, they riposte by easily pointing out their accusers' faults. A high-wisdom chaotic evil character of that sort would probably realize that their way of doing things is ultimately self-destructive and shortsighted, but simply wouldn't care at all; they're out to grab as much pleasure as possible without regard for anyone else without regard for their long-term future.

[SITB]

A high-wisdom chaotic evil character of that sort would probably realize that their way of doing things is ultimately self-destructive and shortsighted, but simply wouldn't care at all; they're out to grab as much pleasure as possible without regard for anyone else without regard for their long-term future.

Why do you presume that chaotic means self destroying? An evil chaotic character might indulge in any pleasure he sees fit in the spur of the moment as long as it does not destroy him.

Or he may have an all encomposing goal and have the to achieve it plan very flexible and changing according to how he feels at the moment.

Chaos does not mean self destructive, it's just means ever changing.

[Stephen_E]

I said Mercy is inherently chaotic.
I didn't say only Chaotics show mercy.

Anything operating on the human/mortal type level displays elements of all alignments. The Lawful Good Paladin can exhibit elements of Chaos in beem merciful. The Chaotic can show elements of law/order.

To quote the PHB alignment descriptions, under Lawful Good "a paladin who fights evil without mercy".

As for the example given re: a Knight sparing the Orcs life when he surrendered. He was following orders. Enough said.

Yes, you can throw around examples of where a nominally lawful character might make a chaotic act and show mercy, but that doesn't make the act lawful. Although it should be noted that many of the examples given weren't of mercy. If you're Lawful and have a code that you can't kill or hurt people who've surrendered, and I surrender to you, I'm not at your mercy, because you can't hurt me without breaking your code! If a policeman pulls you over for speeding and declines to shoot you for the crime, he isn't showing mercy. He's not allowed to shoot you!

Stephen

[Dervag]

A LE persons acts of good arn't usually, if ever, random. Lawful people tend not to do things at random, they tend to do things thought out in advanced.

Mercy is also a good trait, at least the way I see it. You are taking a personal risk (that they might attack you at a later time) to help someone. That is a good act, not always a smart or wise act, but a good one.

However, good people are not always good in every case, unless your a paladin.WEll, a lawful evil person might do something at random because it amuses them to do so, but they wouldn't do anything important for that reason. Their random behavior tends to be epiphenomenal, affecting only irrelevant things.

[Callix]

A high-wisdom chaotic character is a bit tougher to RP, IMHO, because wisdom implies that the character does see some sort of order to the world around them, and will often prevent you from acting chaotic 'just because.'
High wisdom means high perception. CE with high wis has looked at the fundamental nature of the multiverse, and it is change. All things change, and we must always change with them. If we change quickly and well, we may advantage. Any advantage we may gain is ours by right, and so we may use it as we will. Thus, a Social Darwinist may be Chaotic Evil. They might also be Lawful Neutral. Go figure.

[Jayabalard]

Xykon from OOTS might be a good role model... he's certainly chaotic, but not homicidal.Do you read the same OotS that I do?

[Saph]

Do you read the same OotS that I do?

I was just thinking that. ;)

- Saph

[factotum]

You could argue about whether he's Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil, but he's definitely in the Evil camp, and he gets on with the rest of the crew. Hanging out with them just happens to suit him.


I think what that all comes down to is that Jayne, in his heart of hearts, knows he wouldn't last five minutes if left to fend for himself--he's fine with problems where the solution involves guns or grenades, but I don't think he'd have a prayer when trying to negotiate with people for business and the like. Mal can do that stuff easily, so Jayne stays attached to him.

To be honest, I think Xykon is a fine example of Chaotic Evil as well. He isn't just a homicidal maniac--after all, he could have destroyed the entire Sapphire Guard using area-of-effect spells at range, but he chose instead to use a method that would mean they all killed each other, purely because he considered it would be funny to watch. Generally, if killing someone is fun, he'll do it, but if he can get his jollies in other ways he's fine with that, too! (Note that he offered Roy the chance to escape and level up a bit, simply because he wanted to get some fun out of the inevitable fight with him).

[PaladinFreak]

I have to agree. You can be CE and never have the urge to kill someone, you just do nasty stuff because you feel like it. The nasty hooligan who takes the wheels off somebody's wheelchair, or smashes someones valuables simply because he thinks it's funny can be CE, just in a different way.

[barawn]

I think what that all comes down to is that Jayne, in his heart of hearts, knows he wouldn't last five minutes if left to fend for himself--he's fine with problems where the solution involves guns or grenades, but I don't think he'd have a prayer when trying to negotiate with people for business and the like. Mal can do that stuff easily, so Jayne stays attached to him.

That... and Mal's still paying him.

That's the easy way for a CE to not play a chaotic homicidal. "Am I getting paid? Great." The character needs to be not loyal to his employer, though. Just loyal to the money - so if a better offer comes along... "well... that'll be an interesting day."

[Jorkens]

That's the easy way for a CE to not play a chaotic homicidal. "Am I getting paid? Great." The character needs to be not loyal to his employer, though. Just loyal to the money - so if a better offer comes along... "well... that'll be an interesting day."
Good call. A mercenary who doesn't care who they work for and only stays loyal until they get a better offer or an opportunistic thief / pickpocket who'd steal candy from a baby but tends to avoid killing people because it gets you into unneccessary trouble would both be CE I think.

[Bassetking]

The main thing to keep in mind is the non-evil parts of being chaotic evil. The non-evil part? Chaotic Evil people have lots of fun. No one can get away with telling them what to do, they go where they want when they want, and are completely free. You don't have to go around slaughtering people to be Chaotic Evil - unless you feel like slaughtering some people, in which case do whatever you please. For a high Intelligence and Charisma character, it would be Chaotic Evil to manipulate people for your own amusement, without caring what ends up happening to them. Think Valmont in Les Liaisons dangereuses , if you've read it.

You can't spell "Manslaughter" without "Laughter"...

...Lots and lots of cackling, throat-cracking, giggling-at-the-gates-of-hell Laughter.

[herrhauptmann]

I vote with Mercy being a chaotic concept.
You witness a man stealing money. You catch him and he gets taken to jail. That's law.
You chase the man and realize he's buying babyfood and milk with the stolen money. Feeling bad, you let him go. That's compassionate, and merciful.
Also, the foodseller is technically recieving stolen money, knowingly or not, that's also against the law.

[SurlySeraph]

A high-wisdom chaotic character is a bit tougher to RP, IMHO, because wisdom implies that the character does see some sort of order to the world around them, and will often prevent you from acting chaotic 'just because.' If you've played PS:T, Ravel is probably the best example I can think of of a 'wise' yet extremely chaotic character.

Like Callix, I usually see high-wisdom CE characters as fairly Darwinist. They realize that the only thing that truly matters in the world is them and what they leave behind. Fighting a bit for an ideal is all well and good, but 82 living children can affect the world more than one dead martyr. CE clerics - I'm thinking mainly priestesses of Lloth here - fight for their deity because they know that they and their descendents will be wiped out if they don't make their deity happy. They get to live a bit like their deity does while they're alive, and they get descendents and a fun afterlife when they're gone. High-wisdom CE is all about the greatest happiness and greatest power for yourself and those few you care about.

[Matthew]

I said Mercy is inherently chaotic.
I didn't say only Chaotics show mercy.

Anything operating on the human/mortal type level displays elements of all alignments. The Lawful Good Paladin can exhibit elements of Chaos in beem merciful. The Chaotic can show elements of law/order.

To quote the PHB alignment descriptions, under Lawful Good "a paladin who fights evil without mercy".

As for the example given re: a Knight sparing the Orcs life when he surrendered. He was following orders. Enough said.

Yes, you can throw around examples of where a nominally lawful character might make a chaotic act and show mercy, but that doesn't make the act lawful. Although it should be noted that many of the examples given weren't of mercy. If you're Lawful and have a code that you can't kill or hurt people who've surrendered, and I surrender to you, I'm not at your mercy, because you can't hurt me without breaking your code! If a policeman pulls you over for speeding and declines to shoot you for the crime, he isn't showing mercy. He's not allowed to shoot you!

Stephen
I dunno about that. The clemency of Caesar was an ordered political policy. I suppose it's possible that he could be said to be Chaotic or that it wasn't real mercy or what have you.

[dyslexicfaser]

Has anyone here played Xbox's Jade Empire?

I was thinking about the Path of the Closed Fist, the nominal 'evil path'. The concept is that strength to fend for yourself is critical to the Closed Fist world view. If you do not have strength to defend something, you do not deserve to have it. But by making people go through hardship, you force them to become strong.

I always looked at it as the, 'Yes, I'm robbing you, but I'm doing it for your own good' model of humanism.

Where would something like that fall on the alignment scale?

[thehothead]

At best CN.

[Porthos]

I'm quite sure that the Monk that I played that took a Vow of Non Violence (back in 3.0 days long before the BoED came out) would be quite surpised that he was committing Chaotic act after Chaotic act. In fact, the Paladins that I have played would be quite suprised as well at all the acts of Chaos that they commited over the years.

And I wonder about all of the judges that decide to grant a merciful sentence to someone and how they would view this Mercy = Chaotic concept.

If Lawfulness is based on Order, then you could easily build in Mercy to the Worldview. All you would have to say to yourself is that in situations where X, Y, and Z are present, then you are merciful. It becomes Chaotic when sometimes you are merciful and sometimes you are not if the situations are exactly the same. A Lawful person would (probably) react in identical situations the same way, while a Chaotic person might not. In other words, to the Lawful mind, if a situation calls for Mercy, then it will always call for Mercy. [NOTE:::: Of course, two different lawful people might have two different ideas on when a person should be merciful]

Mercy is completely neutral (no pun intended :smallwink: ) to the Law/Chaos axis. :smallsmile:

[Khoran]

Order is about structure approach.
In "x" situations you do "y". If he did Crime "a" he receives punishment "b".

Mercy is abot saying "well yes, you deserve "x" happening to you, but on the spur of the moment I'm going to let you off and only doing "y".
Depending on the situation it can also be good, but it's not inherently so. It's goodness depends on why you're doing it.

"I'm letting you off because I think you can turn your life around and make things better if you're given a 2nd chance" is good.

"I'm letting you off because I'm curious as to what you'll do, or because it'll be interesting" is neutral.

"I'm letting you off because I think I might gain from it in the long run, and I'll take a chance" would tend towards evil.

All these are showing mercy.
Mercy is Chaotic because it's about breaking the ordered rules.

Stephen

Except, you may forget that part of your idea of Order is granting mercy when the situation merits it. You could play it that you only resort to lethal force when non-lethal force will not subdue them. Also, mercy is not "letting you off." Only an idiot lets someone who is evil walk away after they surrender or are granted mercy. If you let them go and show them no repercusions for their actions, they'll do it again.

Also, another way that you can show mercy is not chaotic at all. Paladin that only does non-lethal damage to any living creature that is not inherintly evil (Evil Subtype.) He tries to capture as many wrong-doers as he can and have them put in rehabiliation (under the watchful eye of his order, of course.) Always merciful and forgiving, all the time. Nothing about it changes, it's part of his code. Chaotic, not on your life.

Mercy is good. The neutral thing you listed as mercy is truely streching it, and I'm still not sure I'd call it mercy. The evil one is not mercy, it's manipulation. You don't let them live because it's the merciful thing, they're just more useful with blood in their viens. By your definintion, Slavery is Mercy. You just defeated these people, but instead of executing them, you chain them up and force them to clean up your S***. Somehow, that just dosn't click with mercy.

[Steelwraith]

I don't exactly see how. Mercy is, if any alignment, inherently a good concept. I don't see how it's Chaotic in the slightest.

Mercy is an emotional response... you're thinking with your heart, not your head. Traditionally a chaotic trait.

[Porthos]

Mercy is an emotional response... you're thinking with your heart, not your head. Traditionally a chaotic trait.

What, Lawful people can't think with their hearts??? What a strange concept. :smalltongue: I've played many a character who was ruled by their heart who was Lawful. Usually they were based on either stereotypical Monks from Asia, or Paladins in the Galahad mode. After all, Chivalry is all about the heart, and Paladins and Chilvary are practically tied at the hip.

And then there is the Eternal Batman Debate. You gonna try to tell Batman (who is as Lawful as they come) that he isn't ruled by his heart? I don't think so. :smalltongue:

The trick is that you make sure that you react in similar ways to similar situations most of the time (one of the keys to the Lawful Outlook, IMO). But that isn't a contradiction. That just means that the person's heart is predictible. :smallbiggrin:

---------

Edited to Add: After thinking about it for a moment, Superman is probably the quintessential example of the Lawful Good character that is both merciful and who thinks with his heart (at least at times :smallwink: ).

[ArmorArmadillo]

If a paladin believes that all enemies deserve mercy, it's lawful.

A chaotic person would be willing to give out mercy on a case by case basis and extreme punishment at other times; if you believe in mercy all the time, that's lawful.

Mercy is a good trait;
Mercy isn't defined by not killing someone when you have the chance, it's not doing something to someone out of empathy.
Not killing someone because you think that you can use them later isn't mercy, it's selfishness.

[Porthos]

Mercy isn't defined by not killing someone when you have the chance, it's not doing something to someone out of empathy.

Exactly. :smallcool:

[Ravyn]

Mercy is an emotional response... you're thinking with your heart, not your head. Traditionally a chaotic trait.

Not necessarily.

As Exhibit A for the defense, I give you one of my current projects. Her name is Tuyet, and she's one of the two most merciful members of the group.

She's the kind of person who leaves most of her opponents alive. Who advocates not doing everything to her enemies that her team could do. Who will go out of her way to avoid a fight. Who has been known to face down oncoming armies and appeal to their better natures with speeches about honor, and patriotism, despite the fact that it makes her a target; whose idea of the right thing to do involves going into the heart of a camp of enemies whom she knows perfectly well know what she looks like and all want her head, in a very shoddy disguise, for the sake of preventing the burning of an area the enemies believe is plague-ridden but is actually disease-free and full of innocent civilians--who at one point (over the strenuous objections of certain of her teammates) promised a defeated enemy dibs on her life if she hadn't proven to him her intentions were good by the time she was finished with all she'd need to do, and will go out of her way to keep that promise.

From this description, you'd expect a shining beacon of virtue, wouldn't you? Definitely good, probably somewhere between neutral and chaotic on that axis, a paragon of compassion with a couple sacred vows to her name....

....and you'd be utterly, utterly wrong.

Not a bit of it is "heart over head", as you would put it--all of it is very thoroughly calculated, due to an idea one of her teammates slipped into her head about maybe getting herself put on the throne after all this mess is settled. She is merciful, because mercy is admirable and because it suits the image she wants to project of a reluctant fighter who's only participating in the war because it gets her to where she can work best to make it stop as bloodlessly as possible--and because not only will such a reputation help in her long-term goals, it might even convince her opponents that she's worth working with. Her bouts of heroism, so visibly noble and against all odds that even she refers to them as "stupid heroics", are usually things that actually tilt the odds in her favor (she's a much better orator than a fighter, so she was fully confident that the shouting at the army gambit would work) or will serve her reputation later (because if word gets out that she was willing to take that much of a risk for a bunch of people she doesn't know...). And as for that promise of hers? She's pretty sure she isn't going to need to follow through. It gives her an extra incentive to work hard on her reputation, though, and that's always good--besides, she's operating under the assumption that being the type of person who'd make that promise is going to prove her point just as effectively, and being the type of person who'd follow through on it and even go to the lengths she plans on going to to make sure he doesn't receive any undue consequences should cover things the rest of the way.

Chaotic? No. Just clever, calculating, and very image-oriented. The closest heart has to do with any of it is just why she became so determined to make this mess work in the first place.

[Aquillion]

Mercy is an emotional response... you're thinking with your heart, not your head. Traditionally a chaotic trait.Not at all true. Say, for instance, that I have a Paladin that worships the god of mercy. Everything in his life is based on a firm bedrock of faith in the god of mercy; he believes in an orderly world in which everyone and everything is deserving of mercy, at least by default. To him, there is no distinction between the head and the heart; he would say that, for a truly orderly person, the head and the heart work in unison, and that a division between them is the result of living chaotically.

(Incidently, the one god of Mercy I turned up in a quick search, Zodal, is Neutral Good.)

[Steelwraith]

If a paladin believes that all enemies deserve mercy, it's lawful.

A chaotic person would be willing to give out mercy on a case by case basis and extreme punishment at other times; if you believe in mercy all the time, that's lawful.

Mercy is a good trait;
Mercy isn't defined by not killing someone when you have the chance, it's not doing something to someone out of empathy.
Not killing someone because you think that you can use them later isn't mercy, it's selfishness.

Tell me, if a person believed in stealing all the time, would that make them lawful? Consistancy is NOT lawful, it simply means you're not wishy-washy.

mer·cy
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner.

Note that by definition, you are not killing/punishing the 'sinner' because of an emotional response: sparing them for your amusement, or just to see what they will do, etc. is not mercy. Just as using non-lethal damage instead of killing someone because its the law is not an example of mercy.

Now, we all know that mercy is a 'good' trait, what I'm saying is its also inherently a chaotic trait. For example, you catch a thief trying to pick your pocket. When confronted, he admits he needs money to feed his family. If you were merciful, you might let him go... but by doing so, you are committing an unlawful act, as by law he should be punished for his attempt at stealing.

In my campaigns, a lawful good person who continually lived 'by their heart' would eventually come dangerously close to an alignment shift towards neutral good (hope you're not a paladin!). Mind you, this isn't always a bad thing, I always love a good moral dilemma... does the paladin steel her heart and dispense justice, or does she tempt the fates by letting her compassion rule her judgment?

Just remember, we're not robots... its perfectly natural for us to do something contrary to our alignment at times, usually due to mitigating circumstances... it doesn't change the nature of the act, it just makes us human. :)

(edited for spelling)

[Steelwraith]

Not necessarily.

Not a bit of it is "heart over head", as you would put it--all of it is very thoroughly calculated, due to an idea one of her teammates slipped into her head about maybe getting herself put on the throne after all this mess is settled. She is merciful, because mercy is admirable and because it suits the image she wants to project of a reluctant fighter who's only participating in the war because it gets her to where she can work best to make it stop as bloodlessly as possible--and because not only will such a reputation help in her long-term goals, it might even convince her opponents that she's worth working with. Her bouts of heroism, so visibly noble and against all odds that even she refers to them as "stupid heroics", are usually things that actually tilt the odds in her favor (she's a much better orator than a fighter, so she was fully confident that the shouting at the army gambit would work) or will serve her reputation later (because if word gets out that she was willing to take that much of a risk for a bunch of people she doesn't know...). And as for that promise of hers? She's pretty sure she isn't going to need to follow through. It gives her an extra incentive to work hard on her reputation, though, and that's always good--besides, she's operating under the assumption that being the type of person who'd make that promise is going to prove her point just as effectively, and being the type of person who'd follow through on it and even go to the lengths she plans on going to to make sure he doesn't receive any undue consequences should cover things the rest of the way.

Chaotic? No. Just clever, calculating, and very image-oriented. The closest heart has to do with any of it is just why she became so determined to make this mess work in the first place.

Ah, but in this case, she is not actually merciful, she is feigning mercy. Remember, its perfectly natural for an evil person to commit a good act, as long as that act furthers her own goals. Hmm, this thread is tempting me to begin a new one on the nature of evil... :)

[Porthos]

Tell me, if a person believed in stealing all the time, would that make them lawful? Consistancy is NOT lawful, it simply means you're not wishy-washy.

Ever hear of organized crime? :smalltongue:

Someone who steals all of the time can easily be Lawful. If he has a meticolous personailty, if he constantly plans out his heists, and if he has an ordered outlook toward life and he bends these talents to thievery, he still is Lawful. :smallsmile:


mer·cy
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner.

Note that by definition, you are not killing/punishing the 'sinner' because of an emotional response: sparing them for your amusement, or just to see what they will do, etc. is not mercy. Just as using non-lethal damage instead of killing someone because its the law is not an example of mercy.

I fail to see how Lawful people cannot also be compassionate or show pity. Please elaborate. :smallsmile:


Now, we all know that mercy is a 'good' trait, what I'm saying is its also inherently a chaotic trait. For example, you catch a thief trying to pick your pocket. When confronted, he admits he needs money to feed his family. If you were merciful, you might let him go... but by doing so, you are committing an unlawful act, as by law he should be punished for his attempt at stealing.

No, no, no. A thousand times no. :smallsmile: It would be justice to let him go. Taking circumstances into account applies all of the time to people, Lawful or not. It's why Judges (historically) have discretion in sentencing (ETA:::: Even to the point of letting people off completely free).

Besides, (and this cannot be stressed enough in these debates) Lawful Does Not Always Mean Following The Laws Of Society. I seriously doubt you want me to bring up the whole case of "What's a Lawful Good Person to do when they visit a society where Human Sacrifice is Legal" do you? Because it might be a cliche, but it's still relevant. :smalltongue:


In my campaigns, a lawful good person who continually lived 'by their heart' would eventually come dangerously close to an alignment shift towards neutral good (hope you're not a paladin!). Mind you, this isn't always a bad thing, I always love a good moral dilemma... does the paladin steel her heart and dispense justice, or does she tempt the fates by letting her compassion rule her judgment?

Again, why can't Compassionate people be Lawful? It seems to me that you are falling into the Vulcan Trap. Yes, all Emotionless Vulcans are Lawful. But not all Lawful people are Emotionless Vulcans. Why can't a person say, "According to my outlook of the universe, I must always act compassionate in situations where X,Y, and Z occur."

There are many, many people in both Fiction and Real Life that are both Compassionate and Lawful. There is nothing contradictory about Order and Compassion. In fact, there is an entire religon (Buddhism) built around the concept that the two are one and the same. :smallwink:


Just remember, we're not robots... its perfectly natural for us to do something contrary to our alignment at times, usually due to mitigating circumstances... it doesn't change the nature of the act, it just makes us human. :)

(edited for spelling)

And as Aquillion so eloquantly noted, in some cases the Heart and Head can act as one. :smallsmile:

[Steelwraith]

(I apologize for the multiple posts, as these new replies keep appearing while I'm still writing my last post, and I can't resist a good debate.)


Not at all true. Say, for instance, that I have a Paladin that worships the god of mercy. Everything in his life is based on a firm bedrock of faith in the god of mercy; he believes in an orderly world in which everyone and everything is deserving of mercy, at least by default. To him, there is no distinction between the head and the heart; he would say that, for a truly orderly person, the head and the heart work in unison, and that a division between them is the result of living chaotically.

(Incidently, the one god of Mercy I turned up in a quick search, Zodal, is Neutral Good.)

You may have contradicted yourself there. Being neutral good means that 'goodness' is more important that law/chaos, so mercy would be more important than justice. Though technically its possible, a lawful good paladin would have serious problems with priority... after all, he is the law. Regarding my example with the thief in my earlier post, how would your paladin react? Arrest him as justice would dictate, or release him as mercy would demand? Enough encounters like this and your paladin could become a nervous wreck. :p

This is a case where the game rules don't make complete sense. You described what I see as essentially a neutral good paladin, which frankly should be possible. If it were my campaign, I would probably waive the lawful alignment restriction, in return for double penalty for non-good acts.

[Steelwraith]

Ever hear of organized crime? :smalltongue:

Someone who steals all of the time can easily be Lawful. If he has a meticolous personailty, if he constantly plans out his heists, and if he has an ordered outlook toward life and he bends these talents to thievery, he still is Lawful. :smallsmile:

Ok, I'll give you that one, it was a bad example... I was just pointing out that being consistent doesn't make you lawful.


I fail to see how Lawful people cannot also be compassionate or show pity. Please elaborate. :smallsmile:

I never said they couldn't, I simply said it wasn't a lawful trait. Us humans are often full of contradictions (ok, and demi-humans as well).


No, no, no. A thousand times no. :smallsmile: It would be justice to let him go. Taking circumstances into account applies all of the time to people, Lawful or not. It's why Judges (historically) have discretion in sentencing (ETA:::: Even to the point of letting people off completely free).

Ah, but if you are a lawful character in your own lands, wouldn't that assume compliance with local law? Remember, we're dealing with a medieval setting, where laws are often harsh for a reason. After all, that thief you just let go is most likely going to steal again... and someone else may go hungry because of it, or worse, someone may get hurt the next time. Is that justice?


Besides, (and this cannot be stressed enough in these debates) Lawful Does Not Always Mean Following The Laws Of Society. I seriously doubt you want me to bring up the whole case of "What's a Lawful Good Person to do when they visit a society where Human Sacrifice is Legal" do you? Because it might be a cliche, but it's still relevant. :smalltongue:

Actually I invite you to bring up that case, it illustrates the crux of our disagreement. Yes, I would expect a lawful person to comply with that society. A lawful good person would avoid having anything to do with the sacrifices, and again there is that moral dilemma between lawful vs. good they might have to deal with, but yes they would still strive to follow the local laws when they can. When they conflict, the character must choose whether to obey the law by committing evil, or break the law by not doing so. Simply letting them off the hook because the society is lawful evil is a cop-out in my opinion... and eliminates some really good drama. :)

Since you brought up Star Trek first, let me use it also: the Prime Directive states that all Starfleet personnel must follow local laws regardless of their personal opinions... and I would definitely classify Starfleet as lawful. There have been a few episodes where doing so has led to the very drama I mentioned (let the kid be executed for running through a garden, or grab the kid and run, knowing they will never be welcome there again).

Oh, and your example was no more cliche than mine with the thief... nothing wrong with the classics. :p



Again, why can't Compassionate people be Lawful? It seems to me that you are falling into the Vulcan Trap. Yes, all Emotionless Vulcans are Lawful. But not all Lawful people are Emotionless Vulcans. Why can't a person say, "According to my outlook of the universe, I must always act compassionate in situations where X,Y, and Z occur."

There are many, many people in both Fiction and Real Life that are both Compassionate and Lawful. There is nothing contradictory about Order and Compassion. In fact, there is an entire religon (Buddhism) built around the concept that the two are one and the same. :smallwink:

Again, I never said you couldn't be lawful and compassionate, I simply said its not a lawful trait. None of us are 100% lawful, chaotic, good, or evil... we have traits of all the above. Its these mishmash of traits that give us our personality. This is where the best role-playing comes from, portraying these conflicting emotions and beliefs. Simply saying 'I can be the best of both worlds' without any conflict, and you may be denying yourself some good role-play opportunities.

That being said, I stand by my opinion that mercy is a chaotic Trait, just as justice is a lawful Trait. A single trait does not define a person, unless they were very very one-dimensional.


And as Aquillion so eloquantly noted, in some cases the Heart and Head can act as one. :smallsmile:

Still sounds like a balance to me, which is how neutrality is often defined. :)

[Devils_Advocate]

Someone who steals all of the time can easily be Lawful. If he has a meticolous personailty, if he constantly plans out his heists, and if he has an ordered outlook toward life and he bends these talents to thievery, he still is Lawful. :smallsmile:
Bzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG.

Law is not planning. Law is not organization. Being anal-retentive or obsessive-compulsive will not make you Lawful. Nor will being random and inconsistant make you Chaotic. Why does everyone seem to think that these days? Do they not even read the actual alignment section of the PHB anymore?

Look. Does this thief "tell the truth, keep his word, respect authority, honor tradition, or judge those who fall short of their duties"? If he does all of those things (coincidentally, since they don't have anything to do with what you wrote), then he's Lawful. If he doesn't do any of those things (which isn't in any way inconsistant with what you wrote), then he's not Lawful. Not even a little.

Yeah, being Lawful isn't always about following laws. But that's because there's no direct correlation between the strength of a social convention and whether it's enforced by the government. So, being Lawful doesn't make you obey the posted speed limit despite the fact that no one else does; rather, it makes you buy a birthday gift for Jim because he got you one for your birthday, despite the fact that you like neither Jim nor the gift he got you. It makes you smile politely at him and say hello, even though you hate his friggin' guts because the guy is an obnoxious little twerp.

Please, guys. The RAW Law vs. Chaos axis already needlessly conflates Conformity vs. Independence with Honesty vs. Dishonesty. (And no, the two do not consistantly line up the same way. "Why, no, Virginia, there's not a Santa Claus." Sometimes the most rebellious thing you can do is to tell the truth, or even just to refuse to lie.) There's no reason to make things even more complicated by dragging Order vs. Disorder in too.

Lawful characters want everyone to act the right way. Chaotic characters know that there is no "right" way in which it's everyone's job to behave. Chaotic characters who aren't idiots nevertheless realize that there are still wrong -- or at least... unadvisable -- ways to act.

[Aquillion]

You may have contradicted yourself there. Being neutral good means that 'goodness' is more important that law/chaos, so mercy would be more important than justice. Though technically its possible, a lawful good paladin would have serious problems with priority... after all, he is the law. Regarding my example with the thief in my earlier post, how would your paladin react? Arrest him as justice would dictate, or release him as mercy would demand? Enough encounters like this and your paladin could become a nervous wreck. :pYour definition of lawful would turn all lawful people into nervous wrecks.

A lawful character doesn't have to mindlessly obey laws, no matter who gives them and even when they contradict each other; nor do they have to follow every single tradition in the world. A lawful character can have one set of coherent laws or traditions that they base their lives around. Living a lawful life guided by principals of mercy is no different from living one guided by honor, justice, monastic discipline, rigid religious faith, or whatever.

Naturally such a paladin would release your thief, since that is the only lawful thing to do; they believe they are governed by a 'higher law' of mercy. If they turned the thief in simply because the local magistrate demanded it, they would be acting in violation of the laws they swore to uphold as a Paladin of the God of Mercy; they would be violating the ancient traditions of the followers of the God of Mercy; they would be rejecting the authority of the God of Mercy and the sacred texts of mercy (or whatever they have); and they would, in fact, be committing a chaotic act. If the local magistrate questioned them, they would respectfully explain that while they have the highest respect for the law, in their view a higher law took precedence.

[Callix]

Here's a morality-neutral attempt at definition:
A Chaotic character tends to embrace change
A Lawful character tends to oppose change.

Lawful Good: In general, disorder leads to suffering (war, disease, famine). Where change is necessary, it should be gradual and internal.

Chaotic Good: In general, strict laws make it difficult to help others, and where a law or system of laws are causing suffering, they should be immediately removed.

Lawful Neutral: The old ways are the best. Keep to your traditions and upbringing at all costs. Do your duty before all else.

Chaotic Neutral: Change is the only constant in the universe. All things change, and you oppose those who try to keep things the same for the sake of it being the same.

Lawful Evil: You use the system to your advantage, taking every possible luxury and protection from your environment. Help yourself when you can, but don't tear down the rules that protect you.

Chaotic Evil: If you want to do it, do it. Consider punishment before you act, but don't stop just because it's illegal. If you won't be caught, what's the problem?

[Duff]

Do Driders have to be chaotic evil?

If not, decide on a Driderish (or even non-Driderish) personality and then pick the alignment that best describes.

If you want to fit the "evil" box, you have to decide what you LIKE. If you LIKe some or all of the rest of the party you can fit in quite well. You might even be able to Belkar (evil(ish) in a good(ish) party).

If you want to fit "Chotic" make a policy of not paying any attention to local laws and only nodding attention to local conventions except where you know you will get in trouble!