PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Strange problems with CE alignment



Pinjata
2016-02-28, 09:45 AM
So CE is: 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.

... and as I played my NPCs like this (basically big bullies - from an Orc to Dragon), eventually my players got upset over "baddies not having a plan". "How come they do not apply X or Y or masterful approach of Z?" were some of the questions. "What kind of a moron goes looting a village a mile away from Baldur's Gate?"

Anyway, with bullies in school, ISIS on the run and all sorts of "might is right" groups in real life, it amazes me that people see "brutal and unsophisticated" enemies as improbable.

What do you gus think on it?

goto124
2016-02-28, 09:56 AM
It depends. Do your players like having to plan carefully against smart enemies? If so, dumb enemies are not terribly good.

But if the players prefer a more straightforward, hack-and-slash style? Absolutely nothing wrong with what you have!

OldTrees1
2016-02-28, 09:56 AM
Well here are some things to remember:
1) CE is many things, not just that.
2) Many jerk negative_play_experience PCs have had CE alignment
3) Your players were upset that your BBEG had too low INT/WIS this is a direct statement of preference

It is not that that minor subset of CE is improbable, it is that it is boring to your players. They would rather your CE BBEGs have plans and have those plans match your intellect. So why not?




PS: You will want to delete the real world political reference (see forum rules)

Pinjata
2016-02-28, 10:15 AM
Well here are some things to remember:
1) CE is many things, not just that.
3) Your players were upset that your BBEG had too low INT/WIS this is a direct statement of preference

1) What else would that be? Let's not wade into other alignments.
2)How would CE INT 18, WIS 18 character act?

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-28, 10:58 AM
*Sigh*

CE is no more incapable of complex planning than any other alignment. They may be less inclined to it, but they're certainly capable of it. Just as there's more to LG than the Paladin, there's more to CE than the Berserker.

Example: This Guy (http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IFWT_Joker.png) is exceedingly CE, and very much capable of hatching detailed and complex schemes. As is This Guy (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/bakerstreet/images/b/bc/MoriartyCrown.png/revision/latest?cb=20140113071813). And, arguably, This Guy (http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-06/10/10/enhanced/webdr06/anigif_enhanced-4259-1402410964-28.gif).

Pinjata
2016-02-28, 11:02 AM
*Sigh*

CE is no more incapable of complex planning than any other alignment. They may be less inclined to it, but they're certainly capable of it. Just as there's more to LG than the Paladin, there's more to CE than the Berserker.

Example: This Guy (http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IFWT_Joker.png) is exceedingly CE, and very much capable of hatching detailed and complex schemes. As is This Guy (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/bakerstreet/images/b/bc/MoriartyCrown.png/revision/latest?cb=20140113071813). And, arguably, This Guy (http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-06/10/10/enhanced/webdr06/anigif_enhanced-4259-1402410964-28.gif).

It really puzzles me like people like you are unable to grasp the concept. Read up any definition of CE.

OldTrees1
2016-02-28, 11:03 AM
1) What else would that be? Let's not wade into other alignments.
2)How would CE INT 18, WIS 18 character act?

1) Well first a handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment) since it has more words than I would write.

2) All CE characters have motives. A Int 14 Wis 14 CE character would make plans that were reasonably thought out to accomplish their objectives. What those objectives are and the obstacles in their way will shape their plans just like their Chaotic nature will shape their plans.

You mentioned looting a village close to a well defended city. Not much of a hint about motive but let's work with it. Let's say that they are motivated by a desire for conquest (in the might makes right wave of barbarians orcish way) but currently they need an influx of cash. They know that any village they hit with their gang will get reinforcements from Baldur's Gate. So they have a few options in how to plan for this known obstacles.
1) They could hit distant villages. This means they have more time before the army arrives, but it means that their targets would suspect moving towards the city would protect them.
2) They could hit middle distance villages. This has a faster response time but their targets would be split as to which way to move.
3) They could hit a nearby village, knowing the response time would be quick. If they take this route they would need to plan for how to deal with the known threat or how to exploit it.
3a) They could ambush the army while on route. Guerilla tactics could allow them to remove the threat or at least discourage Baldur's Gate from responding to them in future. At minimum it would slow down the response time for future attacks.
3b) Attack somewhere else while the army is out of position. Maybe split off a small band after the initial attack to keep attacking villages to draw the army away. In the meantime you sneak into Baldur's Gate and do some looting there.

3b is the most complicated plan and it is only 3 moves deep, and those moves are each very simple & flexible. Easily doable for a 14/14 Chaotic character.

In all of those cases the BBEG should have an idea for what they will do after their current objective is completed.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-28, 11:22 AM
It really puzzles me like people like you are unable to grasp the concept. Read up any definition of CE.

From the 5e PHB: 'Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.' I fail to see how that necessarily precludes forethought, or that any of my examples fail to match that (I suppose you could argue Littlefinger).

It really puzzles me how people like you fail to follow their own advice.

Darth Ultron
2016-02-28, 11:30 AM
First, the alignments are a bit different system to system and edition to edition.

Even if you want to say all CE people are "brutal and unsophisticated ", and they are all not, the definition of the words matters. What is "brutal" to one person in not to another, and sophistication is a huge can of worms.

And even if you have them all the same, they can still have plans.

Let's take Sauron as CE, his plan was "attack the world....oh, and find that one ring". I guess you could say it was brutal and unsophisticated, but it was a plan. Thantos from Marvel comics is a good example of chaotic evil, and he is smart and always has a plan.

Pinjata
2016-02-28, 11:31 AM
From the 5e PHB: 'Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.' I fail to see how that necessarily precludes forethought, or that any of my examples fail to match that (I suppose you could argue Littlefinger).

It really puzzles me how people like you fail to follow their own advice.

It really puzzles me how people like you manage to understand acting with arbitrary violence as planning.

In fact it does not. You are just one of those meta-optimizer types that get all steaming and foaming if one suggests Orcs with INT 7 WIS 11 should not use any tactics beyond brute force and simple traps.

OldTrees1
2016-02-28, 11:34 AM
In fact it does not. You are just one of those meta-optimizer types that get all steaming and foaming if one suggests Orcs with INT 7 WIS 11 should not use any tactics beyond brute force and simple traps.

Simple traps (aka the most basic 3 step plan)? So even dumb as 7/11 CE Orcs can plan? Since your players are asking for 14/14 CE BBEGs, what is the problem with having BBEGs that plan? Sure not all CE BBEGs will plan, but your players find/found/will find those boring.

Blackhawk748
2016-02-28, 11:38 AM
It really puzzles me how people like you manage to understand acting with arbitrary violence as planning.

In fact it does not. You are just one of those meta-optimizer types that get all steaming and foaming if one suggests Orcs with INT 7 WIS 11 should not use any tactics beyond brute force and simple traps.

Orcs are one thing, you brought up Dragons, and, for the record, Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil and are considered one of the greatest manipulative masterminds around.

Pinjata
2016-02-28, 11:40 AM
Simple traps (aka the most basic 3 step plan)? So even dumb as 7/11 CE Orcs can plan? Since your players are asking for 14/14 CE BBEGs, what is the problem with having BBEGs that plan. Sure not all CE BBEGs will plan, but your players find/found/will find those boring.
A legit comment. And here is where I got a bit caught wit the module I was running. Enemies were CE. I could change them into super-organized Darguun bugbear-like enemies, but that is not CE.

As I see it, alignment is, similar like all systems, plagued by underpinning desire of optimizers to rape every concept with optimization, masterful planning and overal common sense. CE is not that and IMO this very trait gives it some special stype of scary.

Pinjata
2016-02-28, 11:41 AM
Orcs are one thing, you brought up Dragons, and, for the record, Black Dragons are Chaotic Evil and are considered one of the greatest manipulative masterminds around.
Very good point.

How should one run a CE creature with INT 18, WIS 18?

Blackhawk748
2016-02-28, 11:48 AM
Very good point.

How should one run a CE creature with INT 18, WIS 18?

By having a framework of a plan. Lawful types generally like to have plans for every contingency. Chaotic types generally have a basic plan and a back up or two in case it all hits the fan.

For example, the raid on Village A near Baldur's gate:

Now as stated, Orcs would simply attack the town and then probably have the raiders split up afterward to confuse pursuit. This is something even animals do so their low Int doesnt matter here.

If a Black Dragon wanted them to attack that village, it would most likely go to their village and tell them about how much loot that place had. So the Orcs go and attack the village, and while that is happening the Dragon is using them as a distraction for its true ends. Maybe he was robbing a wizards tower or wanted a MacGuffin from one of the Nobility. In the end what he wanted doesnt matter, the Orcs have drawn the army away, he attacks the city as a Dragon, chucks an illusion of him still attacking the city as he polymorphs into a Pixie or something and then steals whatever he wanted in the confusion. After that he just buggers out with his preferred method.

There, what i consider a typical CE plan. There is a goal, a way to achieve the goal, and plenty of wiggle room.

OldTrees1
2016-02-28, 11:52 AM
A legit comment. And here is where I got a bit caught wit the module I was running. Enemies were CE. I could change them into super-organized Darguun bugbear-like enemies, but that is not CE.

As I see it, alignment is, similar like all systems, plagued by underpinning desire of optimizers to rape every concept with optimization, masterful planning and overal common sense. CE is not that and IMO this very trait gives it some special stype of scary.

Organized? No. CE organizations are not organized. They scoff at the slow reaction and inflexibility of being truly "organized". Instead they take advantage of the quick reaction and flexibility of having groups of individuals. And that is the trick, as intelligence and wisdom go up the ability to plan/adjust/react/predict increase but does so in a manner consistent with the personality of the character.

Lawful plans tend to be rigid, contingency heavy, top down orders, and detailed
Chaotic plans tend to be fluid, planned flexibility, uses individual initiative, and abstract

Be careful you don't mistake "optimization" with empathy/understanding. In any individual case either could be the culprit.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-28, 12:00 PM
It really puzzles me how people like you manage to understand acting with arbitrary violence as planning.

In fact it does not. You are just one of those meta-optimizer types that get all steaming and foaming if one suggests Orcs with INT 7 WIS 11 should not use any tactics beyond brute force and simple traps.

*Further Sighs*

'Arbitrary violence' and 'planning' are not contradictory concepts. They are not, in fact, related concepts in any way. The presence of one does not imply anything about the other - that one commits arbitrary violence does not prohibit one from also committing, at other times, deliberated violence.

And no, low intelligence orcs shouldn't be making complex plans. High intelligence CE characters though? Like maybe that specific breed of orc known for heightened intelligence and tactical planning?* Or maybe one of those demon lords known for their incredibly complex schemes and plans? Yeah, maybe they should do that. Just a thought.

*That's Orogs, incidentally.


A legit comment. And here is where I got a bit caught wit the module I was running. Enemies were CE. I could change them into super-organized Darguun bugbear-like enemies, but that is not CE.

As I see it, alignment is, similar like all systems, plagued by underpinning desire of optimizers to rape every concept with optimization, masterful planning and overal common sense. CE is not that and IMO this very trait gives it some special stype of scary.

You forgot our wish to make people use spellcheckers. Overall, that's the type of thing we like to do with our time.

Also, what Blackhawk and Oldtrees said.

The Insanity
2016-02-28, 12:26 PM
Don't use CE enemies.

Enything else?

Arbane
2016-02-28, 02:07 PM
Very good point.

How should one run a CE creature with INT 18, WIS 18?

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzssDOTMXs)

Darth Ultron
2016-02-28, 02:22 PM
Very good point.

How should one run a CE creature with INT 18, WIS 18?

Well, they would be smart and wise and evil.

Intelligence is knowing stuff. Wisdom is about gaining from experience, being able to connect the dots. Knowing why someone does something and how they were motivated, doesn't make them less evil.

Now, having a plan does has nothing to do with alignment. After all even ''lets attack that guy and steal his money'' is a plan. But intelligence and wisdom can add to the level and complexity of the plan. While dumb unwise orcs will attack whatever is in front of them, a smarter wiser evil person will do things that make sense.

So, using the small town example. If the area is well paroled and the forces of good and law and justice are closely, then it's not too smart or wise to attack the town. Unless you don't care about the good guys or are too arrogant to think you will be caught. Or, if your smart and wise.....well, maybe you want your ''minions'' to get caught or killed. Maybe attacking the town is just a feint or a distraction or a test. Maybe it is setting up something else. Maybe the whole attack had some other goal?

Bohandas
2016-02-28, 02:59 PM
Anyway, with bullies in school, ISIS on the run and all sorts of "might is right" groups in real life, it amazes me that people see "brutal and unsophisticated" enemies as improbable.

I'd say ISIS is NE or possibly LE though. They've got an awful lot of crazy rules.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-28, 03:10 PM
A stupid chaotic character has a goal (=something he wants) and takes the first action that comes to mind towards it. A smart chaotic character does the same thing, they just make better choices. It's the difference of trying to muscle through a door versus trying the doorhandle versus ringing the doorbell versus climbing in from an open window versus checking under the nearest potted plant for the key... correlating past experience with sensory information for that one decision.

Fable Wright
2016-02-28, 03:40 PM
Very good point.

How should one run a CE creature with INT 18, WIS 18?

As mentioned: Watch The Dark Knight. Observe Heath Ledger. Learn.

He's got a goal, right? Sow terror, stay free. So he gets himself a base, some minions, and makes a robbery to get him all the cash he needs for the party. He comes up with a complex plan to get all of the hired help to kill each other, giving each of them one simple little instruction to carry out to rob the bank, and one instruction to bump off another one. Instructions are simple, leave them room to improvise, just tell them the salient points of what they have to do.

Or, say, you're crashing a big dinner party. The Joker's plan:
1. Infiltrate party.
2. Sow a little terror.
3. ???
4. Profit!

He plots out 1 pretty well, improvises 2 in the moment, and then just sits, laughs, and watches the fallout to figure out how to implement number 3. The mafia, the LE types, they don't want a step of ???. That means that you don't have a plan, it means that something can go wrong. The Joker, though? CE types in general? They know that you can't plan for everything in ???. So they don't bother. Joker's wise enough to know that in ???, everyone's going to fall back on their contingencies. Now, he doesn't have the time or the patience to plot out contingencies for their contingencies or whatever, and he knows that whatever you plan is going to get messed up by their contingencies. So he doesn't plan. He plays it by ear and takes advantage of their contingencies, throwing their order into disarray. When their contingencies are broken, and it's just pandemonium? He and his guys are used to pandemonium. He's successfully dragged a superior fighting force down to his level and beat them with experience.

That's how a smart and wise CE thinks. He knows the value of using chaos as a tool and a weapon, rather than trying to bring order to it. He rides the crest, wields chaos like a weapon, and grabs what he was aiming for while taking opportunities wherever they appear.

TL;DR: No plan survives first contact with the enemy, right? So you're smart enough plan deviously up to that point, and wise enough to play the rest by ear.

Agrippa
2016-02-28, 06:11 PM
Part of the problem with D&D alignment as it is how the definitions for each alignment has shifted over the years. Frankly I prefer the take on alignment from the 1st Edition DMG as posted here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,691.msg12964.html?PHPSESSID=9ac7f0bab4969e13 3350a15624c2453f#msg12964). Instead of the difference between Law vs. Chaos being about rigidity/planning/rationality vs. flexibility/spontaneity/madness it was the difference between collectivism and individualism. And here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4C1ROgsCZY) the best Lawful Evil quote I can find on such short notice.

In short, I imagine the Evil alignments like this:
Lawful Evil: fascist/totalitarian/ruthless authoritarian
Neutral Evil: non-ideological/apolitical cruelty
Chaotic Evil: blood thirsty anarchism/extreme Social Darwinism/harmful self-aggrandizement

Surpriser
2016-02-28, 07:10 PM
Something to note is that while the chaotic NPC might not be so keen on planning, that does not mean that you as DM can't plan either.

In fact, if your CE BBEG is highly intelligent, one way to show this to the players is by having them come up with just the right reaction for each situation (which of course you have planned beforehand, but you should portray it as improvised, instinctive things). Just be careful that their actions don't require too much specific preparation before the fact and you should be fine.

Bohandas
2016-02-28, 07:33 PM
As mentioned: Watch The Dark Knight. Observe Heath Ledger. Learn.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know? I just do things. The Mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers...how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say... Ah. Come here. When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal...you'll know that I'm telling the truth....It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans...and look where that got you....I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot...or a truckload of soldiers will be blowing up...nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die...well, then, everyone loses their minds. Introduce a little anarchy...upset the established order...and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-28, 07:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know? I just do things. The Mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers...how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say... Ah. Come here. When I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal...you'll know that I'm telling the truth....It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans...and look where that got you....I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot...or a truckload of soldiers will be blowing up...nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die...well, then, everyone loses their minds. Introduce a little anarchy...upset the established order...and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

Yeah, sure, he says he doesn't have a plan. And he's obviously full of crap. He sets up incredibly (I'd say implausibly) complex schemes which demand his minions obey very specific orders - right down to crashing a bus at exactly the right moment (https://youtu.be/Yqvbv-SB4bg?t=211) or having someone fed an explosive phone and be at the correct location and managing to get a phone while locked up all at the exact right moment (https://youtu.be/w_gawHgA0-k?t=95), et cetera. So yes, whatever he says, the Joker is a planner. The Joker is a schemer. But that doesn't really change the 'agent of chaos' bit. (Though fair is exactly what chaos isn't, but that's beside the point.

veti
2016-02-28, 08:48 PM
My favourite CE characters are those who play on the same team as Good-aligned characters. After all, they're out for themselves, they care nothing about "cosmic evil" or any greater cause - they're perfectly happy to support the forces of right and justice, as long as they can satisfy their own vicious lusts and pocket enough loot while doing so.

Think Belkar Bitterleaf, or Harry Flashman.

CE villains can be fun - they can be elusive, destructive, stupidly powerful - but on average, they're by nature likely to be less of a threat than comparably-powerful LE villains. Dealing with them is more likely to involve a chase or hunt, rather than a stand-up fight. But CE "heroes" - they can be a real threat.

Harbinger
2016-02-28, 09:20 PM
Chaotic vs. Lawful doesn't have to do with intelligence or ability to plan. It was to do with ideology and what the character values and considers important.

The reason a character like the Joker is considered Chaotic Evil rather than Lawful despite the complicated plans he creates and executes is because his ultimate values and goals are Chaotic. He believes in the inherent disorder of the human condition and tries to tear down the veneer or order that (he believes) people like the Mafia or Harvey Dent hide behind. This would be the case even if he were a drooling idiot.

Or, to use another example, lets take the Comedian from Watchmen. He works for the US government, follows the rules set forth for him, and ultimately acts under the rule of "law". He's Chaotic Evil because he believes in none of it. For him the government is just a legitimate reason to continue his nihilistic crusade against other people. He doesn't care about structure or civilization or order. He thinks life is all a big joke and he acts on that. But he does it in an intelligent way that allows him to be legitimate. Chaotic Evil is not one thing, it's not a cartoon character, and it's not Stupid Evil.

On a separate note, I think you would be better served by not being rude and accusatory towards the people who are attempting to help you.

wumpus
2016-02-28, 09:24 PM
First, the alignments are a bit different system to system and edition to edition.

Even if you want to say all CE people are "brutal and unsophisticated ", and they are all not, the definition of the words matters. What is "brutal" to one person in not to another, and sophistication is a huge can of worms.

And even if you have them all the same, they can still have plans.

Let's take Sauron as CE, his plan was "attack the world....oh, and find that one ring". I guess you could say it was brutal and unsophisticated, but it was a plan. Thantos from Marvel comics is a good example of chaotic evil, and he is smart and always has a plan.

Sauron's long term plan included learning ringlore from the elves, "helping" them build a number of rings for themselves, dwarves, and men, and finally forging the one ring. After that it was a matter of breeding enough orcs to defeat the combined armies of men and elves. Entire plan: started at the start of the second age, ended with the third age.

Still no reason to doubt he was chaotic evil. No real law other than *obey the mighty* in Sauron's armies. His long term planning had more to do with his immortality: presumably it was seen as chaotic evil by elves, and incomprehensible evil by men. One other reason for him to be chaotic is that he (and Morgoth) may have been fighting law as long as they have been fighting good.

Don't get trapped in the "nine possible personalities of D&D". It is bad characterization and bad gaming.

Keltest
2016-02-28, 09:34 PM
IMO, where your villain falls on the law-chaos axis is dependent on how long term you want him to be operating on. Cause mass destruction and a bit of mayhem? Chaotic. Theyre good at mayhem and doing things that cause a lot of short term problems that in the grand scheme of things will probably peter out within a generation at the very worst. People will remember them, and the threat is certainly urgent to those involved. But if you need to topple a trade organization? Incite war between cities? Destroy the iron market to weaken military forces in an area? Lawful is your best bet. Such operations require incredible organization and long term planning. Theyre going to be harder to notice and dismantle in the short term, but at the same time you can afford to spend more time taking them apart because their effects are oriented towards long term goals.


Is this an absolute scale? Of course not. Its a rule of thumb. But ive found it a useful rule of thumb for creating villains. The wider spread the effects you want to be, the more manpower they would need to use, which means extended organization, which means order, which means lawful.

goto124
2016-02-28, 10:25 PM
Part of the problem with D&D alignment as it is how the definitions for each alignment has shifted over the years. Frankly I prefer the take on alignment from the 1st Edition DMG as posted here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,691.msg12964.html?PHPSESSID=9ac7f0bab4969e13 3350a15624c2453f#msg12964).

Instead of the difference between Law vs. Chaos being about rigidity/planning/rationality vs. flexibility/spontaneity/madness it was the difference between collectivism and individualism.

So, which definitions of Law and Chaos are we talking about again?


But if you need to topple a trade organization? Incite war between cities? Destroy the iron market to weaken military forces in an area? Lawful is your best bet. Such operations require incredible organization and long term planning.

A villain who topples trade organizations and incites wars between cities... would that villain be Lawful (due to all the careful preparation required) or Chaotic (due to the end goal of causing chaos)?

Agrippa
2016-02-29, 12:55 AM
goto124: I'm talking about the definition of Law and Chaos from the quotes below.



Finally, I got around to including the 1st Edition DMG's description of alignment. Here it is!


ALIGNMENT

Alignment describes the broad ethos of thinking, reasoning creatures — those unintelligent sorts being placed within the neutral area because they are totally uncaring. Note that alignments does not necessarily dictate religious persuasion, although many religious beliefs will dictate alignment. As explained under ALIGNMENT LANGUAGES (q.v.) This aspect of alignments is not the major consideration. The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just at the latter would make a common cause against the lawful good men. Thus, alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions, and purposes will be. It likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae. With the usefulness of alignment determined, definition of the division is necessary.

There are two major divisions of four opposite points of view. All four are not mutually exclusive, although each pair is mutually opposed.

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.

Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is determinant.

There can never exist a lawful chaos or an evil good. These, and their reverses, are dichotomous. This is not to say that they cannot exist in the same character or creature if it is insane or controlled by another entity, but as general divisions they are mutually exclusive pairs. Consider also the alignments graph. If law is opposed to chaos, and good to evil, then the radically opposed alignments are lawful neutral — chaotic neutral, neutral good — neutral evil, lawful good — chaotic evil, and lawful evil — chaotic good. Lawful groups might, for example, combine to put down some chaotic threat, for example, just as readily as good groups would combine to suppress some powerful evil. Basic understanding and agreement, however, is within the general specific alignment, i.e. one of the nine categories. These are defined as follows:

NEUTRALITY: Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary part or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order for chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this naturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. The may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. Absolute neutrality is the central or fulcrum position quite logically, as the neutral sees all other alignments as parts of a necessary whole. This alignment is the narrowest in scope.

NEUTRAL GOOD: Creatures of this alignments see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness, and prosperity to all deserving creatures. Order is not good unless it brings this to all; neither is randomness and total freedom desirable if it does not bring such good.

NEUTRAL EVIL: Similar to the neutral good alignment, that of neutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by te powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.

LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. The are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL: It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything. Without regimentation and strict definition, there would be no purpose in the cosmos. Therefore, whether a law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning.

LAWFUL EVIL: Obviously, all order is not good, nor are all laws beneficial. Lawful evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from the lowest to the highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while lawful evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger, but being served by the weaker.

CHAOTIC GOOD: To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of no concern. After all, life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end. Therefore, life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combated, and in the end it too will pass into entropy.

CHAOTIC EVIL: The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit. Thus, law and order rends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success.

Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasonings are completely subjective according to the acculturation of the individual. You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil. Lawful societies will tend to be highly structured, rigid, well-policed and bureaucratic hierarchical. Class, rank, position, and precedence will be important, so they will be strictly defined and adhered to. On the other hand, chaotic areas will have little government and few social distinctions. The governed will give their consent to government, acknowledging leaders as equals serving those who allowed them to assume leadership. Obedience and service in a chaotic society is given only by those desiring to do so, or by dint of some persuasion, never by requirement.

You heard it here: the US system of government is ideally Chaotic. Makes sense.

This presents new aspects of 1st Edition alignment. Good is defined as maintaining the rights of sapient creatures (life, relative freedom, and happiness), while Evil believes in "the ends justify the means."

Law and Chaos are defined primarily as collectivism and individualism instead of "order versus randomness."

Each of the Evil alignments has some aspect of Social Darwinism. LE believes that Good only holds society's strongest back through the "equal" sharing and enforcement of mediocrity, NE believes that altruism is a zero-sum game (bringing aid to all makes the truly smart/powerful/etc. suffer), while CE insists that anybody weak enough to get hurt, oppressed, and killed has no right for better treatment that they cannot personally take for themselves. The description of Neutral Evil here is much more informative than its PHB counterpart; nothing has any meaning beyond personal empowerment.

Chaotic Neutral gives off a weird death obsession vibe, viewing life as order and entropy as a desirable outcome. Ygorl, a Slaadi Lord, was an avatar of Entropy. Maybe it's a reference to this.

Cazero
2016-02-29, 02:28 AM
But if you need to topple a trade organization? Incite war between cities? Destroy the iron market to weaken military forces in an area? Lawful is your best bet. Such operations require incredible organization and long term planning.

Funny you would mention that. Are you thinking about Sarevok? Just add "taking control of one of the strongest armies around" and "using the iron crisis you started and solved yourself as a pretext to get that war truly started". Sarevok did exactly that as parts of his long and elaborate plan to ascend to godhood. And he is Chaotic Evil all the way.

Grim Portent
2016-02-29, 03:53 AM
It really puzzles me how people like you manage to understand acting with arbitrary violence as planning.

Arbitrary violence is not necessarily the same as unplanned violence. All it really means in the context of CE is that the method by which the individual picks his victims is not consistent.

A CE person might buy a man a beer for having the guts to insult him to his face one minute, then beat another man to death for the exact same thing a minute later. Think of the sort of guys who decide if they like you or hate you based on initial impressions rather than waiting to see what you're like first.

A CE warlord might choose to leave a village in peace because he likes the pies baked by an old woman in the village and then raid a neighbouring village because he also likes their pies and wants some right now.

The arbitrariness of CE comes from how it chooses who to hurt, how it hurts them is capable of being very logical and planned out in excruciating detail, indeed several of the most often cited CE characters (such as the Joker) have exhaustive and detailed plans.

There are several historical examples of such people in history, several of the Roman emperor's being great examples. One had his servants purchase him some bags of venomous snakes, held a public meeting and then scattered the snakes among the crowd. Why? No one knows, but he certainly planned it in advance and it seems to be the sort of thing that would fall under CE.

goto124
2016-02-29, 05:10 AM
Arbitrary violence is not necessarily the same as unplanned violence. All it really means in the context of CE is that the method by which the individual picks his victims is not consistent.

Ah, so in this case "arbitrary" means "inconsistent choice of victims", as opposed to "unplanned".

Elderand
2016-02-29, 07:34 AM
DnD alignement works on three axis. No, don't look for the third one; you won't find it anywhere. It's an implied thing rather than an explicit thing.

The three axises are as follow:

Good-evil

Lawful- chaotic

Temporal-cosmic

The third alignement is vitaly important because it denotes wether your other alignement exist out of temporal preferences or as part of some cosmicly inclined belief.

For exemple a CE temporal is just out for himself, he has no higher belief, he'll do what he likes when he likes and what he likes involve stomping someone's face in.
A CE Cosmic is out to prove a point, that chaos, nihilism and destruction are what's best, that people are one bad day away from turning into complete sociopath, that society is one good meal away from riots pillage and rape.

Then you realise there is another axis. The Planner-Spontaneous axis. Which, despite what it sound like is actually divorced from intelect. A master of reacting to thing in the best way possible is very smart and spontaneous. Meanwhile you could have a complete morron with intricate plans (that will fail due to huge obvious blind spot).
You could say there is a competence axis but that's really a combinaition of your intellect and wisdom.
Then you realize axis are sort of a bad way to judge someone's personality or tendencies. You realize you should establish a Briggs Myers personality matrix for everyone that's tackled on top of the traditional alignement.
Really it work like this. Briggs Myers for how you go about life. A selfless-selfish axis for wether or not you're a jerk and then a good-evil and law-chaos axis that's work entirely with the previous cosmic end of the temporal-cosmic axis.

Seto
2016-02-29, 08:32 AM
DnD alignement works on three axis. No, don't look for the third one; you won't find it anywhere. It's an implied thing rather than an explicit thing.

The three axises are as follow:

Good-evil

Lawful- chaotic

Temporal-cosmic

The third alignement is vitaly important because it denotes wether your other alignement exist out of temporal preferences or as part of some cosmicly inclined belief.


That denotes a misunderstanding of the very concept of alignment. Good and Evil, Chaos and Law are cosmic powers in nature, that is why temporal beings can be aligned with them (whether Neutrality represents a distinct alignment, or the lack of one, is a trickier question).
Alignment is not personality. It represents what you, personally, bring to the multiverse and the internal struggles between its four Pillars. It represents whose goals you further. Whether you do that unwittingly because of personal circumstances, or out of allegiance to those powers, is irrelevant to the whole affair.

Now, your point may be that roleplaying a character with a cosmic allegiance is incredibly different from a character who doesn't see beyond the scope of their mortal life, and with that I agree. If making up categories to classify your character and define them more helps you, go right ahead. It is often helpful, indeed. Temporal/cosmic, planner/non-planner, nice/unpleasant, dog person/cat person, go right ahead. But I don't think you should put it in terms of new alignment axes, because it just contributes to muddle up the notion of alignment. You can't be aligned with "cosmic belief" or "temporal circumstances", because they're not cosmic principles and it doesn't make sense. They're just personality traits and roleplaying categories.

Millstone85
2016-02-29, 09:09 AM
Instead of the difference between Law vs. Chaos being about rigidity/planning/rationality vs. flexibility/spontaneity/madness it was the difference between collectivism and individualism.So, which definitions of Law and Chaos are we talking about again?My impression is that Chaotic Good has remained the alignment of the freedom fighter while Chaotic Evil has become that of the criminally insane, the moral axis determining which definition of Chaos is in use. It makes the system very inconsistent and that might be the reason why Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil are often closer to each other than either of them is close to Chaotic Evil.

Elderand
2016-02-29, 09:11 AM
Alignment is not personality.

Wrong. I mean you can repeat this until the cows come home if you like but you're still wrong. Alignement IS in part personality.

From rule cyclopedia: An alignment is a code of behavior or way of life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters.

From ad&d second edition: The character's alignement is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general.

From player handbook 3.5: A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other.

From player handbook 5th edition: A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS&DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes
its moral and personal attitudes.

The only edition that clearly try to dissociate alignement from personality is 4th edition. And even then it says this: Isn’t alignment just another part of your personality? Yes and no. Certain personality traits have moral weight, particularly those that influence how you interact with others.

Alignement are more than just teams to pick. They concern moral and ethical attitude. If they were just cosmic teams to pick you could have a murderous, treacherous, out for only himself, character who is lawful good. There is a pure cosmic force side to thing but there is also a moral and personal side to alignement. The best exemple is true neutral. Here are two valid exemple of true neutral. Those that don't care enough or are bland enough in their personality and attitude that they don't fall toward any extremes (the peasant who just generaly want to be left alone, help his neighbor if it isn't too much of an inconvenience and who may not particularly enjoy obeying a king, but would rather have one than fend for himself) and the one that view neutrality as important on its own. (Looking at you Mordenkeinen)

And my point, which clearly flew right over your head was that alignement are useless and stupid precisely because they muddle personality and cosmic allegience in one giant undetermined pot.

goto124
2016-02-29, 09:37 AM
There are games with an alignment system that's more like a Faction system... see which Factions/gods/what have you like you and your behavior more...

Seto
2016-02-29, 09:58 AM
First thing : my objection was pretty much a terminology thing. I'm saying that calling "planner/non-planner" or "cosmic believer/individual agent" alignment axes is confusing and poorly-worded. They're something else besides alignment, even if they do impact the way a particular character will play their alignment. But that's less interesting than the "personality/cosmos" debate we're having, so let's put that aside.


Alignement are more than just teams to pick. They concern moral and ethical attitude. If they were just cosmic teams to pick you could have a murderous, treacherous, out for only himself, character who is lawful good. There is a pure cosmic force side to thing but there is also a moral and personal side to alignement.

That's an interesting problem. The way I adress it is : content matters. Good and Evil are not just team tags, they're principles, which means they give away team tags based on what you do. You can't be a murderous, treacherous, LG because the simple fact of committing murder is, by itself, setting back Good and furthering Evil. The idea that you could advance Good goals by doing Evil is meaningless, because these cosmic principles are ends in themselves.
To oversimplify, it's sort of like I'm saying that there's a Red team and a Blue team, and that you can join either regardless of personality. And you're saying "if that were the case, you could join the Blue team and play for the Red one".

Murder and treachery are actions, not personality traits. Saying that a person is "murderous and treacherous" is misleading : it does not tell you something about the nature of the person, but something about their life history. Alignment is concerned with what you do, not who you are. Of course, the two are linked, your personality affects your moral choices and your choices in turn contribute to shape your personality. They're linked, but they're still not the same thing.


The best exemple is true neutral. Here are two valid exemple of true neutral. Those that don't care enough or are bland enough in their personality and attitude that they don't fall toward any extremes (the peasant who just generaly want to be left alone, help his neighbor if it isn't too much of an inconvenience and who may not particularly enjoy obeying a king, but would rather have one than fend for himself) and the one that view neutrality as important on its own. (Looking at you Mordenkeinen)
Yeah, I know a little something about that. I did say that roleplaying the first type was very different from roleplaying the second, and their characterization will be very different. That still doesn't make it a third alignment axis. The point here is precisely that you can have different personalities and different reasons for acting the way you do, and it doesn't impact your alignment.


And my point, which clearly flew right over your head was that alignement are useless and stupid precisely because they muddle personality and cosmic allegience in one giant undetermined pot.
Okay, I see what you mean. In fact, I agree that the subjective components and the cosmic components of alignment are not very well brought together by RAW, and one of the biggest failures of RAW alignment is that, depending on the source, it tries to have it both ways. It's roughly the motives vs. actions debate. I've developed this opinion elsewhere. But I wouldn't go as far as to call it "useless and stupid". On the contrary I think alignment is fascinating and a great storytelling tool, even if it's rather clumsily implemented. It just requires some interpretation work. My interpretation emphasizes the cosmic/objective/actions side, and treats the individual/subjective/intent side as secondary. It does not scrape it off entirely, as that would just be avoiding the interesting questions. But it claims that their importance derives from the cosmic side rather than the reverse.

goto124
2016-02-29, 10:56 AM
If it ignores intent, it's evil to execute a wrongly accused person even after a trial you've done your best to make sure was fair. Perhaps the trial was messed in a way you could not possibly know of. It's also a great way to frustrate your players ("how was I supposed to know?!") and make them forever give up on alignment.

Even after taking intent into account, however, there's the whole "people who do evil things think they're doing good" going on. People don't do evil for the sake of evil, discounting literally-made-of-evil beings.

I suppose you mean something along the lines of "actions matter over intent, just apply common sense to see if intent has to be considered".


Do we do a Virtue-Vice thing? Doesn't have to be exact numbers, it's just to be able to say "this thing shifts you towards Good, that thing shifts you towards Evil".

It's often said that tables quickly resolve alignment arguments that go on forever in forum threads... not that I'm terribly sure why. Probably because in an actual game, players want to get on with the game and are thus more open to compromise. On the contrary, posters in an alignment debate are there for the purpose of... well... debating on alignment.

What sort of storytelling is the alignment system good at? It doesn't seem to really allow for exploration on ethics and morals, because any action would have the GM attach some value of 'Good' or 'Evil' to it. (Unless the alignment system is in-universe and recognized for all its shortcomings, and sometimes even challenged by the characters themselves...?) To really explore ethics and morals, seeing how the world and other characters reacts to your actions helps a lot.

Maybe an alignment system roughly splits the characters of the world into "Good - they help you, work with and help them back", "Evil - fight against these guys", and "Innocents"? This would work in a game where the theme is about how the cosmic "Team Good vs Team Evil" battle.

Seto
2016-02-29, 11:08 AM
If it ignores intent, it's evil to execute a wrongly accused person even after a trial you've done your best to make sure was fair. Perhaps the trial was messed in a way you could not possibly know of. It's also a great way to frustrate your players ("how was I supposed to know?!") and make them forever give up on alignment.

Even after taking intent into account, however, there's the whole "people who do evil things think they're doing good" going on. People don't do evil for the sake of evil, discounting literally-made-of-evil beings.

Do we do a Virtue-Vice thing? Doesn't have to be exact numbers, it's just to be able to say "this thing shifts you towards Good, that thing shifts you towards Evil".

It's often said that tables quickly resolve alignment arguments that go on forever in forum threads... not that I'm terribly sure why. Probably because in an actual game, players want to get on with the game and are thus more open to compromise. On the contrary, posters in an alignment debate are there for the purpose of... well... debating on alignment.

The problem here is the Paladin's "willingly commit an Evil act and you fall". Because barring the Paladin, there really is no need to get into a debate regarding whether or not an act is Evil (unless it's a thing your character does all the time). Yes, I regard executing a wrongly accused person as Evil. Heck, I regard killing any person as bringing some Evil into the world, whatever the reason. (But in some cases it might avoid bringing a ton of Evil into it, so that's a net positive). For all the Evil that it is, it can also be a legitimate mistake, and there's no need to penalize anyone. Evil acts don't bring the story to a halt, and every character except the most exalted ones commit minor evils from time to time.
So, in-game, I keep it simple : don't make the Paladins or Clerics fall for something controversial, don't trap them, and debate can happen after the session. On these forums, yes, I confess that I greatly enjoy debating about alignment, because I find it interesting.

OldTrees1
2016-02-29, 11:23 AM
What sort of storytelling is the alignment system good at? It doesn't seem to really allow for exploration on ethics and morals, because any action would have the GM attach some value of 'Good' or 'Evil' to it. (Unless the alignment system is in-universe and recognized for all its shortcomings, and sometimes even challenged by the characters themselves...?) To really explore ethics and morals, seeing how the world and other characters reacts to your actions helps a lot.

Maybe an alignment system roughly splits the characters of the world into "Good - they help you, work with and help them back", "Evil - fight against these guys", and "Innocents"? This would work in a game where the theme is about how the cosmic "Team Good vs Team Evil" battle.

Case A: Imagine if you will, that each PC only knows what they believe their alignment to be while the universe is the only thing that knows the actual alignments of the PCs. Sound familiar? This is the experience of the moral agent except afterwards you can compare how well the ignorant moral agent did. This is less about what is moral/immoral and more about can we find a way as ignorant moral agents to still preform our moral duties.

Case B: Imagine if you will the same case as A, except all the players also know the actual alignments and the actual judgment metric the DM is using. This can be used to test a judgment metric on a larger scale than normal.

Case C: Imagine if you will the same case as B, except instead of a predetermined judgment metric, the players all discuss questionable cases. To move forward the DM would have to choose an answer but the point was the conversation not the choice.

Those are 3 cases where the exploration of morality is the primary usage of the alignment system in the relevant campaigns. This ignores cases where the alignment system de facto doesn't exist outside the PC's heads (required for making certain characters).

Douche
2016-02-29, 11:33 AM
It really puzzles me how people like you manage to understand acting with arbitrary violence as planning.

In fact it does not. You are just one of those meta-optimizer types that get all steaming and foaming if one suggests Orcs with INT 7 WIS 11 should not use any tactics beyond brute force and simple traps.

The irony in saying stating someone can only perceive orcs in one way, and then only accepting one definition of chaotic evil.

mikeejimbo
2016-02-29, 11:36 AM
Don't use CE enemies.

A bunch of debate, and the reasonable, simple solution is completely ignored. It's almost like a metaphor for something.

Elderand
2016-02-29, 11:36 AM
Intent don't matter in dnd, not really. you can't have objective morality as defined by cosmic force and have intent matters. In dnd you specificly are what you habitualy do. And the less mortal you are the more this hold ture, outsiders are exactly what they do. Nothing more or less.
In the world of dnd morality are both absolute but also quantifiable, it is an utterly alien way of existence. And that is why alignement are stupid, by mapping morality onto absolute quantifiable results you end up an untractable hodge podge leading to continuous debates for over 42 years.

Alignement, as they are now, don't actually serve roleplaying, quite the opposite. There is in fact nothing wrong with a paladin using detect evil on everyone he meets and killing those that pings his radar there and then. Asside from the occasional fake alignement. There is a machine like logic of morality if one accept alignement as cosmic truth, which they are. And it's horrible. Goodtm but horrible by our real world standard.

Any good story about morality that happens in dnd happens in spite of alignement; they happen when we quietly ignore this whole absolute morality and instead use the moral shades of grey the real world work with.

Segev
2016-02-29, 12:01 PM
you can't have objective morality as defined by cosmic force and have intent matters.

You can, but it takes a lot of care and deep understanding by the writers of the moral and ethical system to make it consistent and work.

Intent can absolutely matter; it reflects how you've internalized the objective morals and ethics. As a general rule, intent will lead to actions in line with it. The less intelligent and wise you are, the more often you will make mistakes that thwart your intent, but as a general rule, it matters. Intent also is revealed in how one deals with one's own actions which result in things contrary to the intent.

Only particularly unlucky AND stupid people wind up having intent be totally unreflected in end result. Where, in a game, "unlucky" can often mean "A DM out to make a point/screw you over."

OldTrees1
2016-02-29, 12:16 PM
A bunch of debate, and the reasonable, simple solution is completely ignored. It's almost like a metaphor for something.

Well isn't that how debates go? Every time a subthread reaches resolution the subthread stops but the thread continues. The simple "don't sue CE enemies" solution subthread was 1 post long for that very reason. People moved on to discuss other solutions that don't avoid CE alignments (since some people like the Joker as a villian).


@segev
Thanks for handling the "intent matters too" part. I agree with you there.

Cazero
2016-02-29, 12:17 PM
Intent don't matter in dnd, not really. you can't have objective morality as defined by cosmic force and have intent matters.
Why not? From the perspective of the raw energies of the cosmos, intent can be just as objective as actions are. Every individual can have an intent-aura or something that the raw energies can react to. Doesn't an objectively Evil person too cowardly to commit truly Evil acts ping on a Detect Evil spell?

The problem is weighing intent against actions. That's a complicated mess that require case by case analysis and will never get everyone to agree on it because we're not all perfect omniscient unbiased morality analysers.
The reason to dismiss intent as not mattering in objective morality has no basis in philosophy. It's a game convenience.

Seto
2016-02-29, 12:17 PM
What sort of storytelling is the alignment system good at? It doesn't seem to really allow for exploration on ethics and morals, because any action would have the GM attach some value of 'Good' or 'Evil' to it. (Unless the alignment system is in-universe and recognized for all its shortcomings, and sometimes even challenged by the characters themselves...?) To really explore ethics and morals, seeing how the world and other characters reacts to your actions helps a lot.

I agree with you, and most others, that alignment doesn't help to provide a good, interesting, realistic ethical narrative, and rather hinders it. Mind you, I believe it's possible to still have an interesting narrative with shades of moral grey, and also have alignment, that's why I wrote my handbook. But alignment doesn't help with that.

In games unconcerned with morality, it helps define narrative roles - divide NPCs between allies, foes and others. There's nothing wrong with that use of alignment, but it's a bit too simplistic for my taste.

No, what alignment is really good at, and where it enhances my roleplaying experience, is the epic genre. Epic is about great heroes battling the agents of Evil and saving or dooming the Earth or generally being larger than life. It's a world where Good and Evil are absolute. When badly done, it's simplistic and boring, but when well done, it revitalizes morality, breathes new life and intensity into it. Being attuned to primal forces of the multiverse goes a long way towards that.
Tolkien's world doesn't have alignment per se, but I'd say it's a rather similar approach to morality. When I first read Lord of the Rings, I remember being very impressed with the scene where Sam and Frodo enter Shelob's lair. The place, the atmosphere, is oppressive, and it's not just actual bad smell. They physically feel that something horrifyingly Evil lives here.

I can't and won't do that in real life. In real life, people are ultimately just people, each with their own worth and motives, in tune with their heart and mind rather than cosmic forces. Applying the alignment system to them is inadequate and sometimes socially dangerous thinking.
But when I play D&D, I want that experience.

woodlandkammao
2016-02-29, 12:22 PM
I can't pass up this opportunity to mention Zeheer (http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Zaheer). This guy is an Anarchist with a capital A. He is also one of the smartest, wisest people in the whole setting. He literally teaches the Avatar philosophy and meditates with her before they fight. He masters ancient airbending techniques that rely on pure wisdom and spiritual peace. The guy is a mental giant.

There are three ways to make a smart CE character: The Nihlist, The Evolutionist and The Anarchist. There are subtle differences between all three.

The Nihlist is the Joker or Agent Smith. He belives that life and civilization are meaningless, and that rules prevent us from realizing the absurdity of the world. He wants to sow Chaos because Order is so stupid it's a joke, one he wants us to get.

The Evolutionist is Sebastian Shaw or Tyler Durden. He believes that humanity is being held back from its true potential and in order to build a better new world the old one must be torn down, right down to our understanding of society. He wants to sow Chaos because Order gives the weak power that the strong should take from them.

The Anarchist is Zaheer or, arguably, V (Although he's probably more Chaotic Neutral). He actually believes himself to be Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Good. Because, and this is the important bit, he believes that the most important thing a person can have is their freedom. All of it. Any law is unjust and thus invalid. He follows a code as strong as any Lawful character, and this code is dedicated to the eradication of the Law. He wants to sow Chaos because it's just the better way to live, and he doesn't have morals about it because even Goodness is Law to him.


At least that's my two cents.

OldTrees1
2016-02-29, 12:24 PM
Why not? From the perspective of the raw energies of the cosmos, intent can be just as objective as actions are. Every individual can have an intent-aura or something that the raw energies can react to. Doesn't an objectively Evil person too cowardly to commit truly Evil acts ping on a Detect Evil spell?

The problem is weighing intent against actions. That's a complicated mess that require case by case analysis and will never get everyone to agree on it because we're not all perfect omniscient unbiased morality analysers.
The reason to dismiss intent as not mattering in objective morality has no basis in philosophy. It's a game convenience.

Imagine a diamond




Moral Intent/Moral Action



Moral Intent/Immoral Action

Immoral Intent/Moral Action



Immoral Intent/Immoral Action



Yes it is hard to weight one against the other. This might not tell you how to scale the 2 axes (Y=X and Y=-X) but it does highlight the room for improvement.

woodlandkammao
2016-02-29, 12:26 PM
Here's some good Zaheer quotes.

"The idea of having nations and governments is as foolish as keeping the human and spirit realms separate. You've had to deal with a moronic president and a tyrannical queen. Don't you think the world would be better off if leaders like them were eliminated?"

''So, we lucky few. This band of brothers and sisters and anarchy, are witnessing the beginning of an era of true freedom. Together, we will forge a world without kings or Queens, without borders or nations, where man's only allegiance is to himself and those he loves. We will return to the true balance of natural order''

''When you base your expectations only on what you see, you blind yourself to the possibilities of a new reality''

Seto
2016-02-29, 12:30 PM
Yeah, I like Zaheer, he's a very interesting antagonist.

Kami2awa
2016-02-29, 12:39 PM
I'm a fan of character first, alignment second. That is to say, decide what the character's personality is like and then allot an alignment. So if they are the sort to plan things deeply, then that's part of their character not their alignment, and their stats should reflect it.

wumpus
2016-02-29, 02:30 PM
Has anyone considered the source of D&D's law-chaos alignments*?

One of the strongest contenders for the law-chaos alignments (especially considering that they predate good-evil) are Micheal Moorcock's Elric books. The title character is certainly CE, although presumably less evil than most of his relatives and other Melniboneans (I think those who wrote about the Drow probably cribbed off Melnibone). He is chaotic, partially due to being a Standard Adventuring Hero who roams the world and makes his way by the sword, but mainly due to a binding contract.

Elric is an Agent of Chaos, and this is largely due to a binding pact with a demon. He presumably could have been an Agent of Law, but:
1. He knew how to summon demons. Don't think he could summon [whatever passed as beings of law in that world]
2. What he was bargaining for (and I haven't a clue what it was) could be provided by the demons. I'm guessing the others might not have provided it.

The thing is: alignment in Elric made sense. Alignment in D&D makes sense only when it was "chainmail" and played as a wargame (red vs. blue). Once it got made into things like "the nine possible personality types you find in D&D" and "nine teams of D&D" (read about alignment languages in the spoilers above. It really was in the rules and showed what a disaster alignment was 30 years ago) it had to go. I strongly suggest limiting alignment to creatures that could plausibly have the "aligned" subtype (angels, demons, undead, but also include paladins and high level clerics). Forcing everyone into an alignment "role" is a disaster.

* I read the Elric books 30+ years ago. Don't be surprised if I got every single bit wrong in this post.

EvilestWeevil
2016-02-29, 03:24 PM
Just because a baddie is CE doesn't mean they don't have a plan. It could be they have a great plan but change it on a whim, while also using violence less like a tool and more like a weapon to enact said plan. CE is less about ruling and more about destroying, but maybe the plan is to rule, but to rule they feel they must first eradicate the original civilization entirely. CE to me is mostly about strength and survival of the fittest and the leader should indeed be the fittest among them all. Dragon's are highly intelligent, red dragon's especially so, they use kobolds are weapons, they go out and pillage and plunder for the dragon. The red dragons plan is to gather wealth, it seems simple, but maybe that is just the initial goal. You can do a lot of things with the CE alignment in the game, and evil still has many shades of gray.

goto124
2016-02-29, 09:32 PM
Alignment in D&D makes sense only when it was "chainmail" and played as a wargame (red vs. blue). Once it got made into things like "the nine possible personality types you find in D&D" and "nine teams of D&D" (read about alignment languages in the spoilers above. It really was in the rules and showed what a disaster alignment was 30 years ago) it had to go. I strongly suggest limiting alignment to creatures that could plausibly have the "aligned" subtype (angels, demons, undead, but also include paladins and high level clerics). Forcing everyone into an alignment "role" is a disaster.

Even DnD is getting rid of alignment.

See: 5e. Few to no spells or abilities that rely on alignment. Even the Paladin class uses Oaths instead of alignment. Personality type is represented by traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds.

runeghost
2016-02-29, 11:44 PM
Sauron's long term plan included learning ringlore from the elves, "helping" them build a number of rings for themselves, dwarves, and men, and finally forging the one ring. After that it was a matter of breeding enough orcs to defeat the combined armies of men and elves. Entire plan: started at the start of the second age, ended with the third age.

Still no reason to doubt he was chaotic evil. No real law other than *obey the mighty* in Sauron's armies. His long term planning had more to do with his immortality: presumably it was seen as chaotic evil by elves, and incomprehensible evil by men. One other reason for him to be chaotic is that he (and Morgoth) may have been fighting law as long as they have been fighting good.

Don't get trapped in the "nine possible personalities of D&D". It is bad characterization and bad gaming.

To address the last (and most on-topic ) point first, I agree with you. The D&D alignments are best used as inspiration, and sometimes as shorthand for the DM to track NPC's personalities. Trying to be absolutely prescriptive with them is an endless rabbit-hole. (Thinking about them can be fun, but over-analyzing alignment doesn't really help play much in my experience.)

As for Sauron, I think deeply Lawful or Neutral Evil fits him a lot better. He was *organized*, with a massive empire with armies, a whole Sauron- and war-centered economy, continent-wide spy network long-range plans, and ranked subordinates (though they had a problem with really independent thought). And finally, as Tolkien mentions (I think in Letters) while Sauron was twisted and evil, he thought (at least in the beginning) that he was doing it all for the general good. He wanted to order the world to make it better. That he thought only he could do so, and that he was right to do so by force is where the evil comes in.

Maybe the best alignment for Sauron would be Neutal (Lawful) Evil - he thinks he's Lawful, and will hold to that general shape in his actions and dealings, but ultimately it's really all about himself and power. (Now, Morgoth, who wanted to destroy existence might be CE, but even he had to act NE or LE in order to accomplish his goals.)

Bohandas
2016-03-01, 01:32 AM
It's unclear whether morgoth wanted to destroy the world or just to cause worldwide suffering. Certainly his repeated attempts to plunge the world into eternal darkness seem more relevant to the latter, given that the ancient denizens of Valinor and Middle Earth were apparently able to produce food and heat without light, and therefore in no world-ending danger from the darkness. It would, however, have the potential to cause widespread misery, especially when you comsider how much more frequent accidents would become (both tripping and such and also fires as well, since the lamps, torches, and candles would have to be kept burning perpetually and thus have the potential to be a source of an accidental fire perpetually)

Lorsa
2016-03-01, 03:19 AM
So CE is: 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.

... and as I played my NPCs like this (basically big bullies - from an Orc to Dragon), eventually my players got upset over "baddies not having a plan". "How come they do not apply X or Y or masterful approach of Z?" were some of the questions. "What kind of a moron goes looting a village a mile away from Baldur's Gate?"

Anyway, with bullies in school, ISIS on the run and all sorts of "might is right" groups in real life, it amazes me that people see "brutal and unsophisticated" enemies as improbable.

What do you gus think on it?

Is your description taken from the Player's Handbook? Does it mention, in specific, plans being haphazard?

If so, then maybe you should consider not following that particular line to the letter.

Not all baddies have a plan, let alone a masterful one. It depends on their intelligence and foresight much more than alignment. Some do have a plan, and your games should include these kind of villains, or it risk becoming boring for many type of players.

Nevertheless, if they ask what kind of moron goes looting a village a mile away from Baldur's Gate, your answer should be "this moron". However, you should always take the players' questions as a source of constructive criticism, and consider the fact that many morons like this might affect their verisimilitude.

If all CE-types are mindless destruction-causing maniacs, then none of them would survive to high enough level to become a threat. Unless they changed alignment on the way of course.

Being Chaotic Evil, to me, is more about being extremely treacherous than stupid. A CE individual values their own personal freedom above all else. They will break their word without thinking twice of it, or murder their superior, or whatever, if they think they can get ahead. That doesn't mean they're stupid, such a person still wants to get ahead. Even psychopaths learn to "play by the rules" when they have to, or fake emotion or whatever is necessary. A clever CE individual will appear trusting and loyal, maybe even join a good adventure party, and then stab them all in the back once they have defeated the dragon and steal all the treasure for themselves.

You can be cunning and CE at the same time. Choose the right time for your treacherous, murderous instincts, and your reward will be much greater.

Esprit15
2016-03-01, 03:48 AM
A smart CE character knows when they can destroy an enemy, and when they have to wait. If you're stronger than they are, they stay off your radar, pursuing other goals. If they believe stronger than you and you have something they want, or have crossed them, then you'll have a terrifying enemy who has no problem throwing bodies at you, or simply coming in and killing you.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-01, 11:42 AM
Is your description taken from the Player's Handbook? Does it mention, in specific, plans being haphazard?

That's from the 3.5 PHB. One of the many reasons I prefer the descriptions from other editions (particularly 1st and 5th)

Lorsa
2016-03-01, 12:07 PM
That's from the 3.5 PHB. One of the many reasons I prefer the descriptions from other editions (particularly 1st and 5th)

I think I've always taken those descriptions with a grain of salt (or three). The idea behind alignments is hard to communicate I feel, and hopefully I have understood them in a somewhat appropriate manner, so I can implement them in a way that makes sense to my players.

That's really the issue here I think. The OP believes that CE means doing whatever without caring about the consequences, whereas the players feel most people have some form of sense in their actions, regardless of alignment. Whenever the DM and the players have different ideas of how the world works, there are bound to be some issues.

runeghost
2016-03-01, 01:41 PM
It's unclear whether morgoth wanted to destroy the world or just to cause worldwide suffering. Certainly his repeated attempts to plunge the world into eternal darkness seem more relevant to the latter, given that the ancient denizens of Valinor and Middle Earth were apparently able to produce food and heat without light, and therefore in no world-ending danger from the darkness. It would, however, have the potential to cause widespread misery, especially when you comsider how much more frequent accidents would become (both tripping and such and also fires as well, since the lamps, torches, and candles would have to be kept burning perpetually and thus have the potential to be a source of an accidental fire perpetually)

I lean towards "destroy everything" (and I think Tolkien called him a nihilist somewhere, but not sure). It wasn't "mere" eternal darkness that he wanted though. When Sauron recites the oath to Morgoth in the Lay of Lethian, it's pretty chilling:

Death to light, to law, to love!
Cursed be moon and stars above!
May darkness everlasting old
that waits outside in surges cold
drown Manwe, Varda and the sun!
May all in hatred be begun,
and all in evil ended be,
in the moaning of the endless Sea!

Morgoth isn't opposed to only Light, but to everything good that it represents.

I'm not sure if that makes him pure, deepest Neutral Evil (because he's opposed to all things Good and his ultimate desire is their total destruction), or Chaotic Evil (because he wants destruction above all else, and because his ultimately motivated by his own desires, not any sort of loyalty to greater principle, even Evil - Morgoth himself is his own 'greater ideal').

Âmesang
2016-03-01, 02:05 PM
Being Chaotic Evil, to me, is more about being extremely treacherous than stupid. A CE individual values their own personal freedom above all else. They will break their word without thinking twice of it, or murder their superior, or whatever, if they think they can get ahead. That doesn't mean they're stupid, such a person still wants to get ahead. Even psychopaths learn to "play by the rules" when they have to, or fake emotion or whatever is necessary. A clever CE individual will appear trusting and loyal, maybe even join a good adventure party, and then stab them all in the back once they have defeated the dragon and steal all the treasure for themselves.

You can be cunning and CE at the same time. Choose the right time for your treacherous, murderous instincts, and your reward will be much greater.
I like this quote 'cause it can definitely apply to a CE character of mine… save for the "betraying the group" aspect, 'cause as a player I find such actions to be a jerk move regardless of alignment: :smalltongue: I just explain that way in-story by having the character treat everyone around her as pawns, tools, and meatshields… and the better you treat your tools, the longer they'll last and be "willing" to work. That's also why I'm a fan of this particular quote from the DRAGONLANCE® Campaign Setting:


Black Robe wizards embrace the cause of evil. They do not, however, hurl random fireballs at peasant's cottages (at least, not usually), since such activities would abuse and jeopardize their primary loyalty, which is to magic itself. Black Robe wizards may be cruel, but they are also selfish and cunning, and avoid open acts of violence if a more subtle way can be found.
Of course to be any sort of competent wizard you need to have a modicom of intelligence, and I think that's the key; a CE character who's intelligent (and, perhaps, charismatic) should know that "there's always a bigger fish" so if you want to become that "bigger fish," you shouldn't draw too much attention to yourself (especially attention from the forces of weal). This falls under the "immoral intent/moral action" concept, but one could perform a "good" action here or there, just enough to draw suspicion away from you while you continue your vile acts in secret; like the kindly, old gentleman who does volunteer work while also building an atomic bomb in his basement—don't show your true face until it's too late for them to do anything.

I try to imagine an intelligent CE (or at least NE) villain as being similar to Star Wars' Emperor Palpatine, slowly building up power under a kind, "law-abiding" guise; the CE villain might not necessarily be trying for world/galactic conquest, but just keep himself alive to do whatever pleases him and enjoy a comfortable life.

The Chaotic aspect is all about freedom and individuality, whilst the Evil aspect is all about one's own freedom and individuality above all others—"looking out for #1 while stepping over #2," in a way. Do whatever you can to keep yourself free and happy, and if that means playing nice with the Law from time-to-time, so be it; that's why I love the Bluff skill. Using those around you like pawns and puppets doesn't mean you have to make their lives miserable (in public), it just means you can trick them into thinking they're helping a "good" cause… and if you can trick those people into willing perform acts of depravity, even better! (I always get a smile out of "Drakthar's Way" from the Shackled City Adventure Path 'cause it involves goblins committing non-lethal thievery and graffiti, and the captain-of-the-guard's answer was to kill 'em all… even going so far as to offer a 5 gp reward for every goblin ear brought back. Who are the heroes, again?)

EDIT: Heh, I forgot I wanted to weigh in my opinion on Sauron and Morgoth. I've always seen the former as being closer to Lawful Evil, at least towards the end of the Second Age and during the Third, since he wanted total conquest of Middle-earth. From what I recall he was perfectly fine with Elves, Dwarves, and Men existing so long as they worshiped and obeyed him as the god-king he believed himself to be; likewise he created the "Black Speech of Mordor" to have a singular tongue that all of his servants would know and use. I definitely agree that he sought order… albeit a very oppressive order.

Morgoth, on the other hand, wanted to destroy everything… for everything, in its beginning, was born of the Light of Illúvatar and not of his own devising. If Morgoth had succeeded in destroying his enemies, he would have then turned his attention towards his own servants, for even the Orcs, Trolls, and Dragons were nothing more than mere corruptions of pre-existing beings, not born solely of his own power. If I remember Morgoth's Ring correctly, he would have continued to rage until all of Arda/Earth was nothing more than formless chaos (though I believe it would have been an eternal rage since the breaking of the world isn't an easy accomplishment, even for one of Vala-like power).

Coidzor
2016-03-02, 02:25 AM
Ah, so in this case "arbitrary" means "inconsistent choice of victims", as opposed to "unplanned".

Or even inconsistent levels of violence/retaliation.

Bohandas
2016-03-09, 01:59 AM
Morgoth, on the other hand, wanted to destroy everything… for everything, in its beginning, was born of the Light of Illúvatar and not of his own devising. If Morgoth had succeeded in destroying his enemies, he would have then turned his attention towards his own servants, for even the Orcs, Trolls, and Dragons were nothing more than mere corruptions of pre-existing beings, not born solely of his own power. If I remember Morgoth's Ring correctly, he would have continued to rage until all of Arda/Earth was nothing more than formless chaos (though I believe it would have been an eternal rage since the breaking of the world isn't an easy accomplishment, even for one of Vala-like power).

What about the silmarils? He seemed to like to hang on to those, even though they harmed him. He wouldn't even let Ungoliant destroy them.

Âmesang
2016-03-09, 08:01 AM
The Silmarils were just that pretty; probably why he set them into his crown. :smalltongue: Even dark lords want to look fabulous.

…which reminds me, Lúthien put Morgoth to sleep with her song, so I suppose she must have the Music of the Gods feat.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-09, 01:59 PM
The Silmarils were just that pretty; probably why he set them into his crown. :smalltongue: Even dark lords want to look fabulous.

…which reminds me, Lúthien put Morgoth to sleep with her song, so I suppose she must have the Music of the Gods feat.

Are we sure he's immune to mind-affecting? I mean, he's an outsider, they don't get it by default.

Frozen_Feet
2016-03-09, 04:29 PM
Using assumptions of an RPG system to inquire a work which predates it and doesn't share those assumptions is a fool's errand. D20 is versatile enough to model Middle-Earth, but you can't draw simplistic lines like that and expect to get close. To borrow a phrase from old-yet-famous article, "calibrate your expections". :smalltongue:

Âmesang
2016-03-09, 08:14 PM
True, true… I just always figured the Ainur would have some sort of divine rank; even if Sauron's only demigod status I imagine he would have forged the One Ring with some variation of "Craft Artifact."

Heck, isn't it essentially the basis for our concept of major artifacts and their near indestructibility save via a specific means?

runeghost
2016-03-10, 02:01 AM
True, true… I just always figured the Ainur would have some sort of divine rank; even if Sauron's only demigod status I imagine he would have forged the One Ring with some variation of "Craft Artifact."

Heck, isn't it essentially the basis for our concept of major artifacts and their near indestructibility save via a specific means?

I'd never thought of the One Ring as the basis for all those "only way to destroy an artifact" ideas in the DMG, but it does make sense. I'd always though it was some reference back to Greek myth or something, but I can't remember another example off the top of my head.

And Craft Artifact is actually a decent way to look at forging the One. Sauron did put a TON of his own "experience" or "levels" into it. So much, that he was quite reduced without it.

Just for fun, you can sort of picture Sauron as played by an uber-min-maxing PC. He'd be trading his regular xp (and levels) in for the tweaked, min-maxed, rules-munched artifact, such that his net level was actually increased. And then he had all kinds of hedges and fail safes, so that even if he lost the artifact, he still got a lot of its benefits, and the real penalty (loss of all of his remaining levels) only happened if it was destroyed, and someone could only do THAT by taking it back to where it was made. Which just happened to be the absolute center of his munchkin min-maxed kingdom.

And really, isn't Mordor exactly what a tactical optimizer with ZERO interest in role-playing would do? All the other kingdoms have free citizens, and all kinds of fluff and non-optimized details. But in Mordor, it's all war all the time. Anything that doesn't give plusses is eliminated.

The Grue
2016-03-10, 02:06 AM
It really puzzles me like people like you are unable to grasp the concept. Read up any definition of CE.

What really puzzles me is when people make threads openly asking for discussion and input, and then reject any that doesn't fit their narrow assumptions.

I guess you aren't really looking for advice so much as looking for a pat on the head?

TheFamilarRaven
2016-03-11, 02:55 AM
What really puzzles me is when people make threads openly asking for discussion and input, and then reject any that doesn't fit their narrow assumptions.

I guess you aren't really looking for advice so much as looking for a pat on the head?

My working theory is that the OP could just be trolling...

But if that's not the case, I'll go ahead and re-link a very handy guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment). Credits to Thealtruistorc

And in the case the OP doesn't bother to read said finely crafted thesis on the nature of chaotic evil, I'll go ahead quote a passage from it.


“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]


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.

The bold passage is the important one. In general, the page or two that the authors of DnD books give to describe alignments is not nearly enough to flesh out the intricacies of each. That doesn't mean that the alignment system is inherently broken or bad, it just means that DM may need to expand upon what the books give as their definition of a certain alignment before they begin to label their NPC's as such and such alignment.

As you can tell be looking at the article, CE can be a very dense and complicated alignment, just like every other alignment

tl;dr In other words, you don't have a "strange problem with CE" as the title of this thread suggests, your players are simply unsatisfied that as a DM you did not provide any sort of originality to your CE antagonists. "An orc behaves just like a dragon." pfff. And all lawful good characters behave like paladins and all chaotic good character behave like robinhood? There exist only 9 distinct personalities in the whole multiverse?

This playground is a wonderful place where you can get all kinds of good advice. But you first have to willing to accept that your preconceived notions about certain topics may not be shared by the majority of the community.

goto124
2016-03-11, 04:05 AM
What PHB 3.5 defines as chaotic evil is not meant to play as a PC in a party with other PCs.

Pinjata
2016-03-11, 05:03 AM
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.

I think things have been quite explained on the topic so far, but quoted passage caught my eye due to deeply flawed idea it presents.

Thealtruistor stuffs people ALL ACROSS the evil/chaotic and even lawful alignment spectrum into his "special, full of unique snowflakes CE alignment". In an alignment system of D&D and its perception of evil and good as not being relative, you can not do that. I know that people with tendencies toward, what I can, for a lack of better words, describe only as autistic tendencies, have hard time grasping, but these are facts. Blocks upon blocks of text do not make you right. They only make you look obsessed.

Satinavian
2016-03-11, 06:07 AM
If you define alignements extremely narrow, you will end up with most people not matching any of them. As the 9 existing alignements are meant to cover any existing morality and personality types that is obviously the wrong way to use this system.

Fable Wright
2016-03-11, 06:29 AM
I think things have been quite explained on the topic so far, but quoted passage caught my eye due to deeply flawed idea it presents.

Thealtruistor stuffs people ALL ACROSS the evil/chaotic and even lawful alignment spectrum into his "special, full of unique snowflakes CE alignment". In an alignment system of D&D and its perception of evil and good as not being relative, you can not do that. I know that people with tendencies toward, what I can, for a lack of better words, describe only as autistic tendencies, have hard time grasping, but these are facts. Blocks upon blocks of text do not make you right. They only make you look obsessed.

To reiterate Satinator's point:

I come to the table with a character that's a blatant expy of Heath Ledger's Joker. He's not hot-tempered. His plans are not haphazard, and the group of minions he's collected is pretty well organized, given how effectively he can use them.

He's obviously not Chaotic Evil based on these three points. So, Pinjata: what alignment would you give him at your table?

EDIT: Oh, and please don't call people autistic. Frankly, disregarding the fact that clinging to one line of text contradicted by other sources many times is far more obsessive than exploring alternative options, you're unfairly lumping everyone in the spectrum into one group used in a derogatory sense. It also comes across as an ad hominem attack, which rather heavily undermines what credibility your arguments have.

goto124
2016-03-11, 08:03 AM
Considering that Pinjata mentioned "for a lack of better words", perhaps you could help suggest some, well, better words to use?

Frozen_Feet
2016-03-11, 08:25 AM
What PHB 3.5 defines as chaotic evil is not meant to play as a PC in a party with other PCs.

So don't play as a party, then. PvP for everyone! :smalltongue:

goto124
2016-03-11, 08:55 AM
Paranoia is a thing!

Felyndiira
2016-03-11, 09:17 AM
I feel that playing a [alignment] character (as a PC or NPC) - thus defining your character by his/her alignment - isn't the best way to go about it. Rather than defining your character based on their alignment, it's much better to define your character based on a set of goals, beliefs, and personalities first, then try to fit him/her into an alignment.

The PHB to-the-letter descriptions of Alignment shouldn't be the law that constrains your character. Their personalities and motivations should.

Segev
2016-03-11, 09:17 AM
Chaotic: Acting according to the dictates only of one's own judgment. Deciding case-by-case whether to accept another's advice, orders, or commands. Rejecting anything which does not feel "right" to one's own gut, morals, or intellectual examination. Doing what one wishes based only on one's own determination of what that is.

Evil: Viewing others as objects or obstacles with no inherent right to their own happiness. Indulging one's own passions and pleasures and seeking one's own goals no matter the cost to others. Considering only benefit to oneself and one's own happiness when determining a course of action.

Neither of these precludes long-term planning, short-term sacrifice for long-term gain, nor considering others' drives, goals, designs, or likely reactions to your choices. Both can "make nice" with anybody, if they're the planning sort of people and they view being nice as getting them the longer-term better result. Both can obey superiors, whether out of fear of punishment or as a means to try to manipulate said superior (quid pro quo, for instance; the superior pays them or grants them power in some form, so they obey to keep getting that pay or power). Both can plan for the long term.

The difference between a long-term planner who is Chaotic and one who is Lawful is that the Lawful one will adhere to his plan almost slavishly, and will only reconsider it if he really and truly sees that it's inherently flawed. HE is far, far more likely to want to make organized changes to it than to scrap and replace it, and if he does replace it, he'll seek a fully-functional alternative plan. The Chaotic planner is more likely to play Xanatos Speed Chess; the plan is sound, but it's a guideline, and opportunities arising or things changing on the ground call for quick and dirty alterations. His plan will be grand in design, but malleable in the details, where the Lawful planner tends more towards "like clockwork," with every contingency planned for.

The Lawful person, incidentally, needn't be a long-term planner. Just as the Chaotic person can be impulsive and act on short-term goals only, the Lawful one can simply react according to the code by which he lives.

Chaotic Evil can be a Machiavellian planner. Just don't expect consistency in how his rules apply to himself vs. others, nor that he can be trapped by his own plan (unless you can literally trap him by pieces out of his control). He will drop it the moment it isn't going to work for him. You can still pin him between short-term and long-term goals, but you have to pin him with the GOALS being in conflict; you can't pin him with the RULES.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-03-11, 04:06 PM
*snip*

Wise is the Segev.

Fable Wright
2016-03-11, 04:36 PM
Considering that Pinjata mentioned "for a lack of better words", perhaps you could help suggest some, well, better words to use?

Sure. Obsessive, stubborn, and single-minded are concepts he was trying to convey with his statement, given his summary at the end. So just use those words. Or cut to the bit at the end that doesn't stereotype people. It's not that hard.

TheFamilarRaven
2016-03-11, 06:26 PM
It also comes across as an ad hominem attack, which rather heavily undermines what credibility your arguments have.

Indeed, thus my working theory.


I think things have been quite explained on the topic so far, but quoted passage caught my eye due to deeply flawed idea it presents.

Which idea? The one that describes the exact problem you seem to having with your players?


Thealtruistor stuffs people ALL ACROSS the evil/chaotic and even lawful alignment spectrum into his "special, full of unique snowflakes CE alignment".

Are you saying that in an alignment that stresses selfish individualism above of all else, has no members that are uniquely different from one another in anyway? That an orc, with an CE alignment, would behave in the exact same manner with the exact same motivations as a red dragon? Who both in turn share the same values as the Demon Lord Grazzt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graz%27zt)? Who, by the way, practically contradicts everything the entire passage on CE says as presented in the 3.5 PHB.

And furthermore, if you're going to argue against what the author is saying you better cite which parts are clearly wrong and why, rather than just making blanket statements.


In an alignment system of D&D and its perception of evil and good as not being relative, you can not do that.

Sure I can! I have a CE villain who is criminally insane. He perceives all other races other than Human to be incarnations of demons. Thus, he murders non-humans in horrible ways, believing that he is cleansing the world of demonic filth. He's mistaken of course, and objectively he is CE. But he thinks himself a great hero of the world and a man destined for the 7 heavens.

Likewise, I could have a young orc. He was born to a warlike tribe which values strength and ferocity over weakness and a calm mind. Thus, in his culture, it is "evil" to allow weakness to exist, and to show mercy. They are CE by DnD standards, but in their minds might makes literal right, and it is those LG types who promote order and compassion that are the real villains.

Word of advice, it's really hard to prove a negative is true for the general case.


I know that people with tendencies toward, what I can, for a lack of better words, describe only as autistic tendencies, have hard time grasping, but these are facts. Blocks upon blocks of text do not make you right. They only make you look obsessed.

More so than vehemently adhering to one single passage about CE while dismissing all other interpretations of the alignment? Look, you started this thread by asking for the community's take on CE, and why your players can't seem to accept that big bully type characters exist in the world.

We have not denied that a CE villain can simply be a big bully, but to only play CE using that archetype is what your players are frustrated with, when CE characters can be CE for a multitude of a reasons, and implement CE in a variety of ways. You can only kill so many orc warlords who want nothing more then to pillage before it starts getting stale.

Coidzor
2016-03-12, 09:53 PM
If you define alignements extremely narrow, you will end up with most people not matching any of them. As the 9 existing alignements are meant to cover any existing morality and personality types that is obviously the wrong way to use this system.

Indeed, better to just eschew the use of the alignment system if one interprets it in such a manner.