CE Pacifist

[Xuldarinar]

In what ways could one make a pacifist character who is Chaotic Evil? By that I don't mean just someone who does not kill, as there are many atrocities one can commit to someone that doesn't take their life, but someone who will not do physical harm to another being or command another to do so.


Additionally, is there a suitable patron for such an individual?

[Florian]

In what ways could one make a pacifist character who is Chaotic Evil? By that I don't mean just someone who does not kill, as there are many atrocities one can commit to someone that doesn't take their life, but someone who will not do physical harm to another being or command another to do so.


Additionally, is there a suitable patron for such an individual?

*Laughs*

Sorry, the list here is huge. Indirect ways toil are not uncommon, do start with Typhus on this.

[Gildedragon]

In what ways could one make a pacifist character who is Chaotic Evil? By that I don't mean just someone who does not kill, as there are many atrocities one can commit to someone that doesn't take their life, but someone who will not do physical harm to another being or command another to do so.


Additionally, is there a suitable patron for such an individual?

Yes.
A merchant that cheats on the weights and measures and adulterates product

A thief that mugs people using illusions and enchantments

A con artist preying on the poor and desperate

[Red Fel]

I can't help but think that a specific refusal to kill pushes him away from C, though. The idea that you're willing to put a binding principle above your particular desires is much more L than C. That's not to say every CE character is a willy-nilly murderhobo, but just that if a CE character wanted to kill someone, and there would be no consequence to himself or others (other than the victim), I don't see why he wouldn't just kill the guy. Sure, torture him a bit if you want, make him scream, make him cry, make him pray for the sweet release of death, but if your hypothetical CE wants to kill him, and can do so without consequence, why won't he?

I'm able to see an E character who doesn't kill, but I think CE is pushing it for me.

[Xuldarinar]

I can't help but think that a specific refusal to kill pushes him away from C, though. The idea that you're willing to put a binding principle above your particular desires is much more L than C. That's not to say every CE character is a willy-nilly murderhobo, but just that if a CE character wanted to kill someone, and there would be no consequence to himself or others (other than the victim), I don't see why he wouldn't just kill the guy. Sure, torture him a bit if you want, make him scream, make him cry, make him pray for the sweet release of death, but if your hypothetical CE wants to kill him, and can do so without consequence, why won't he?

I'm able to see an E character who doesn't kill, but I think CE is pushing it for me.



You are right. If it is a principle it would likely cause them to be NE or even LE, other factors pending.

I suppose then it would have to be an individual who utterly lacks the desire to kill or even wound others, or for some reason desires not to harm people physically.

[Geddy2112]

I could see it as a puppeteer, insinuator, string puller, House of Cards style backroom dealer. The kind of person that through their actions, they cause unrest, chaos, destruction. They themselves might never actually use force, or directly command anyone to do so. However, their actions lead to chaos and violence, unrest, anarchy. They could be corrupt and use their power to gain personal wealth and power, at the expense of others and society itself. Spreading(making) a plague, causing a famine, devaluing currency, causing strikes or riots, etc is not directly using force against anyone, but those actions are going to lead to a lot of death.

Also, the CE individual might be unable to commit a violent act. The movie/book A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. The protagonist (very CE) is conditioned to be physically unable to commit a violent act and is forced to be pacific, and while it arguably has some influence on the character, I would argue that the conditioning did not make the individual not CE(although other factors in the movie do)

[Seppo87]

To be evil you must actively take actions that measurably harm others (not just in your opinion, i.e. life is suffering so I let them live. This is not evil).
To be chaotic you must have disregard for rules, including self-imposed ones.

If Physical harm is not allowed, psychological and property damage are still allowed, right?

Maybe this person likes to ruin others' lifes.
I.E. he leaves fake hints around to let a husband believe his wife has cheated on him.
He convinces a boy too young to understand the consequences to say that his parents molested him "this way they will let you do everything you want with no restrictions", so both parents get arrested and the boy ends up in an orphanage, feeling guilty forever for what he did.
Perhaps, this person can make a business fail by saying that Tavern X is dirty and its dangerous to eat there, call for a higiene control, and spread insectes and mice just before the guards arrive.
Bonus points if the owner was emotionally invested.

Maybe he does this to "teach" people that there is no control, only chaos. maybe he finds unsettling that people try to build their own lifes around the concept of stability.

Whatever.

Aaand he's a pacifist, because...? maybe he genuinely dislikes violence, i.e. he believes resorting to violence shows poor taste, not that it's wrong per se, just not of his liking
(note: having taste has nothing to do with being lawful)

[Xuldarinar]

Here is one notion that just came to mind, in the form of a patron;

Sifkesh.

[Mystral]

In what ways could one make a pacifist character who is Chaotic Evil? By that I don't mean just someone who does not kill, as there are many atrocities one can commit to someone that doesn't take their life, but someone who will not do physical harm to another being or command another to do so.


Additionally, is there a suitable patron for such an individual?

Someone can still be evil, but such a strict set of behaviour rules speaks of a lawfull person.

[Gildedragon]

I can't help but think that a specific refusal to kill pushes him away from C, though. The idea that you're willing to put a binding principle above your particular desires is much more L than C. That's not to say every CE character is a willy-nilly murderhobo, but just that if a CE character wanted to kill someone, and there would be no consequence to himself or others (other than the victim), I don't see why he wouldn't just kill the guy.
emphasis added
That's the thing for a pacifist CE type
They just don't ever want to do violence on someone, for a number of reasons
a) All but the most vile and depraved of Evil beings have lines they won't cross; and violence is this characters'
b) they find violence unappetizing, gauche, crass, or ineffective
c) Their evil deeds for not require it
d) engaging in violence is a losing game for them: low str, bad bab, no damaging magic... One doesn't pick fights one can't win.
e) it just never occurs to them as a viable solution; other tools have always worked, so it isn't something they ever even consider

And maybe it really is that line they won't cross: the line they feel keeps them "good" or "civilized" or "not a bad person". They aren't tanar'ri, they aren't beholden to being pure chaos and pure evil; and most mortals regard themselves as "good" or "justified" even if they habitually lie and cheat and harm others. This character has that line drawn at violence. He isn't a monster, he'd never even kill a fly... He might be indirectly be responsible for the increased suffering and worsening conditions of a thousand lives, indirectly responsible for a thousand deaths: suicide, disease, malnutrition... But it is distant, it isn't HIM doing it

[Psyren]

You are right. If it is a principle it would likely cause them to be NE or even LE, other factors pending.

I suppose then it would have to be an individual who utterly lacks the desire to kill or even wound others, or for some reason desires not to harm people physically.

Even then, to be chaotic he would have to not care even if his actions indirectly cause physical harm. For instance, if you torment someone psychologically to the extent that they mutilate themselves or commit suicide, that becomes physical harm - would your character actively avoid such an outcome or even physically restrain his victim from doing so, or would he shrug and say "Well, *I* didn't kill/maim them!"

[Red Fel]

That's the thing for a pacifist CE type
They just don't ever want to do violence on someone, for a number of reasons

That's fair. A CE might not want to kill. But let's look at your reasons.


a) All but the most vile and depraved of Evil beings have lines they won't cross; and violence is this characters'

Incorrect. All Lawful or Good beings have lines they won't cross. The same is not true of Chaotic or Evil ones. In fact, these types are often indicated by their willingness or eagerness to cross lines.


b) they find violence unappetizing, gauche, crass, or ineffective

That I can stomach. The idea of a CE character who causes chaos and destruction, but never outright death, as a personal challenge to himself or form of artistic expression. Sort of like the Joker, only with less killing.


c) Their evil deeds for not require it

Doing only what is required, and no more, tends towards Neutral, not Evil. Evil doesn't just do what's necessary to succeed - it does Evil.


d) engaging in violence is a losing game for them: low str, bad bab, no damaging magic... One doesn't pick fights one can't win.

One doesn't have to be violent to kill. Save-or-die spells are a thing. Poisons are a thing. Sending someone to their certain death is a thing. There are ways to kill someone other than hand-to-hand combat.


e) it just never occurs to them as a viable solution; other tools have always worked, so it isn't something they ever even consider

What kind of Evil has never considered killing someone? Heck, most of the people on this forum wouldn't ping Evil, and I guarantee you that almost everyone here has thought of killing someone before. Even LP.

Especially LP.


And maybe it really is that line they won't cross: the line they feel keeps them "good" or "civilized" or "not a bad person". They aren't tanar'ri, they aren't beholden to being pure chaos and pure evil; and most mortals regard themselves as "good" or "justified" even if they habitually lie and cheat and harm others. This character has that line drawn at violence. He isn't a monster, he'd never even kill a fly... He might be indirectly be responsible for the increased suffering and worsening conditions of a thousand lives, indirectly responsible for a thousand deaths: suicide, disease, malnutrition... But it is distant, it isn't HIM doing it

If they draw a line, they have a principle they hold above their own desires. By the terms of arbitrary alignment, they aren't C anymore.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Even Chaotic people have lines they won't cross, even Evil ones (for most, anyway; I doubt there are many things beyond a demon lord's depravity, after all). CE may (arguably) be at the nastiest end of the spectrum, but there are degrees, even to Chaos and Evil. You have Neutral leaning towards Chaotic or Evil, fairly light Chaotic or Evil (see: many cartoon villains), and so on, continually getting more out of control and depraved until you start hitting truly and utterly vile, like with Stephenie Meyer.

Perhaps he's Chaotic and Evil enough to get hit extra-hard by Lawful and Good effects because he lies, cheats, steals, breaks lots of rules for the hell of it, and enjoys it, and he likes watching people despair as their lives fall apart around them. He's incredibly individualistic and hates being weighed down by society's pointless rules (though he might get a thrill from circumventing them), but he dislikes blood and gore, and watching people die disturbs him.

Violence is definitely not the be-all and end-all of CE. There's a wide variety of personalities and characters that can fit within each alignment, and "murderous psychopath" is only one archetype within the CE alignment spectrum.

[Seppo87]

By definition, CE people don't have lines they won't cross, unless they just don't feel like crossing them, not because of some self impsoed limitations.

This is the standard definition iirc.

[Telonius]

Possible reasons for pacifism:

- Mind over Matter. They get their jollies by hurting people's feelings and souls, not their bodies. If you have to stoop down to actually hitting someone, you've already lost the contest.

- Dead Puppies Aren't Much Fun. What's the use in killing someone, when keeping them alive can be so much more satisfying?

- Enlightened Self-Interest. Violence leaves evidence, and evidence gets you caught.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If all Chaos were on the levels that some people here are indicating, then all CG characters would be Pinkie Pie, rather than, say, Robin Hood.

Chaos is broader than that, even for Evil.

[Gildedragon]

Incorrect. All Lawful or Good beings have lines they won't cross. The same is not true of Chaotic or Evil ones. In fact, these types are often indicated by their willingness or eagerness to cross lines. As long as it serves them, and also: there are degrees of C and E. One doesn't have to bathe in the blood of the innocents or want to. Evil can be prosocial and care about others; chaos can have lines they won't cross. Only subtyped beings of each alignment are absolutely held to always be that alignment.


One doesn't have to be violent to kill. Save-or-die spells are a thing. Poisons are a thing. Sending someone to their certain death is a thing. There are ways to kill someone other than hand-to-hand combat. outside of sending someone to their death (which a ce pacifist could do), all those examples are violent.



What kind of Evil has never considered killing someone? Heck, most of the people on this forum wouldn't ping Evil, and I guarantee you that almost everyone here has thought of killing someone before. Even LP.

Especially LP. one may think it, but considering it as a serious alternative might not be the case. In a highly lawful society/in the vicinity of a very powerful being a CE fella might be opposed to killing, or attacking, or violencing can be counterproductive to their goals. it isn't a matter of artistry. Violence doesn't occur to them as a viable route because they're used to it not being viable

Also violence need not be necessary, and doing more evil than necessary isn't needed to be evil. Doing evil is enough.

So example:
One desires the X a person has
Taking it from them will be an evil act by default
One could con the person to get it, or con them and kill them, but the killing is superfluous. It is the Neutral to do "just as much evil as I need to do"


If they draw a line, they have a principle they hold above their own desires. By the terms of arbitrary alignment, they aren't C anymore. a) principles are desires (the desire to think if oneself as Just or Kind)
b) they aren't exemplar outsiders, they can brook some L and G in their day to day

[Seppo87]

principles are desires (the desire to think if oneself as Just or Kind)
That's exactly the kind of desires that chaotic people - by definition - are ready if not eager to abandon as soon as they get in the way of other impulses

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's exactly the kind of desires that chaotic people - by definition - are ready if not eager to abandon as soon as they get in the way of other impulsesSo all Chaotic characters are Pinkie Pie levels of insane, then, with no room for individualism, meaning the Chaotic alignment is rigid and unchanging...

That totally makes sense.

[Seppo87]

So all Chaotic characters are Pinkie Pie levels of insane, then, with no room for individualism, meaning the Chaotic alignment is rigid and unchanging...

That totally makes sense.

Nice strawman

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Nice strawmanHalf of everyone is saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control." It's not a strawman if people are saying that exact thing.

[Xuldarinar]

I think we need to define thresholds, something that in general is poorly defined. Examples are given of all alignments, but they don't state when someone starts or stops being a certain alignment.

[Gildedragon]

That's exactly the kind of desires that chaotic people - by definition - are ready if not eager to abandon as soon as they get in the way of other impulses

Mmmm nope.
One can have bits of oneself that are out of synch with your general alignment, hold onto false ideas of one's identity, and set up goal posts and true-scotsman lines for justifying one's self to oneself

One can lie, hold that society is a shame, power goes to those capable of seizing and wielding and one owes nothing to anyone... But that seizing power through violence is monstrous and wrong. It isn't a show of how capable one is, using strength.

[Red Fel]

Half of everyone is saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control." It's not a strawman if people are saying that exact thing.

I, for one, am not saying that.

I'm not saying that a CE character is a "rampaging psychopath[] with no boundaries and no self-control." In fact, I dismissed that position earlier.

Instead, I'm saying that a CE character enjoys freedom from outside constraint. That means freedom to act on his desires, if he so chooses to, without feeling obligated to act in a certain way. He does not voluntarily subject himself to rules and restrictions; his obedience to rules is incidental, if at all.

A "line one will not cross" is such a principle, and it is either absolute or worthless. Either it is something you will not violate, even on your very worst day, or it is a meaningless distinction.

A Chaotic character will obey a given rule only so long as it pleases him to do so. If it becomes expedient or desirable to break such a rule, he will if he so chooses. That's not to say that he's a creature of id and impulse, incapable of obeying rules, but rather that he actively chooses whether to obey rules. And I can see very little reason (but see my concession above, perhaps he's some kind of "artist" type) for a Chaotic character to voluntarily bind himself to a code he dares not break, by deciding that killing is a line that he will not cross.

[Gildedragon]

I, for one, am not saying that.

I'm not saying that a CE character is a "rampaging psychopath[] with no boundaries and no self-control." In fact, I dismissed that position earlier.

Instead, I'm saying that a CE character enjoys freedom from outside constraint. That means freedom to act on his desires, if he so chooses to, without feeling obligated to act in a certain way. He does not voluntarily subject himself to rules and restrictions; his obedience to rules is incidental, if at all.

A "line one will not cross" is such a principle, and it is either absolute or worthless. Either it is something you will not violate, even on your very worst day, or it is a meaningless distinction.

A Chaotic character will obey a given rule only so long as it pleases him to do so. If it becomes expedient or desirable to break such a rule, he will if he so chooses. That's not to say that he's a creature of id and impulse, incapable of obeying rules, but rather that he actively chooses whether to obey rules. And I can see very little reason (but see my concession above, perhaps he's some kind of "artist" type) for a Chaotic character to voluntarily bind himself to a code he dares not break, by deciding that killing is a line that he will not cross.

So a being with a single line they will not cross can't be chaotic?
That feels like saying that a being with a single rule they find irrelevant or harmless to break or bend can't be lawful; or a being with a single virtue can't be Evil, or a single vice can't be Good

[awa]

lets turn that around and look at it the other way if a chaotic person would break any rule that would mean logically a lawful person could never break a rule, which doesn't feel right to me.

Personally my opinions is there are varying degrees of each alignment if he is chaotic 99 times out of 100 then the fact that he doesn't kill doesn't make him neutral.

A white collar criminal could easily fit these requirements if he was sufficiently impulsive and got enough glee out of "losing" the little old ladies payment so her house gets taken away just because he could even though it doesn't benefit him.

[Geddy2112]

Half of everyone is saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control." It's not a strawman if people are saying that exact thing.

I am also not saying this. Most people are not.

The opposite is actually the scariest chaotic evil. The ones that sow discord to excess, that revel in breaking down the fragile illusions of order and altruism. Not just the ones that do these things, but the ones that get sick jollies about watching society burn to the ground. The artists, that play the harp of discord causing the structures of law and the restraint of good to shatter.

There is an episode of The Twilight Zone called "The Monsters are due on Maple Street" that epitomizes this. Aliens decide to take over earth. They start with Maple Street, anytown USA. They start playing with the power grid, making the residents decend into fear and eventually turn on each other. Within just a few hours, once loving paragons of LG leave it to beaver apple pie Americana good neighbor idealism, are shooting each other in the street dead and running around in a lynch mob. All the antagonists did was awaken the innate chaos/evil in the hearts of mankind. They ripped down their cookie cutter houses and threw them into caves. They did not use violence or directly harm anyone. It was a prank with the power grid.

At the end of the episode, the aliens talk about how easy it was to create paranoia and panic just by turning off the power. And that they have conquered planets by causing the natives to turn on each other.

The closing narration "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices – to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill – and suspicion can destroy – and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own – for the children – and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is – that these things cannot be confined – to the Twilight Zone."

That is chaotic evil "pacifism" for you.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I am also not saying this. Most people are not.Oh? Let's take a look, then, shall we?


I can't help but think that a specific refusal to kill pushes him away from C, though. The idea that you're willing to put a binding principle above your particular desires is much more L than C. That's not to say every CE character is a willy-nilly murderhobo, but just that if a CE character wanted to kill someone, and there would be no consequence to himself or others (other than the victim), I don't see why he wouldn't just kill the guy. Sure, torture him a bit if you want, make him scream, make him cry, make him pray for the sweet release of death, but if your hypothetical CE wants to kill him, and can do so without consequence, why won't he?

I'm able to see an E character who doesn't kill, but I think CE is pushing it for me.Check.


You are right. If it is a principle it would likely cause them to be NE or even LE, other factors pending.

I suppose then it would have to be an individual who utterly lacks the desire to kill or even wound others, or for some reason desires not to harm people physically.While less so, "utterly lacks the desire to kill or even wound others," is a bit much. You don't have to "utterly lack" a desire to hurt, maim, or murder to not do it. Perhaps the desire isn't as strong as other desires, or there's a turn-off there, somewhere. You don't get off on physically maiming or killing others, so you don't do it. You might want to hurt someone on occasion; it's just that watching them writhe psychologically is so much more appealing.

Not exactly "check," but very, very close.


Someone can still be evil, but such a strict set of behaviour rules speaks of a lawfull person.So characters who have one or two rules they follow because they don't like doing that sort of thing can't really be Chaotic. That's what I'm getting from what's being said, anyway. Check.

That looks like about half of the people who have actually expressed an opinion on the matter.

[Geddy2112]

That looks like about half of the people who have actually expressed an opinion on the matter.

You are accusing people of saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control."


I can't help but think that a specific refusal to kill pushes him away from C, though. The idea that you're willing to put a binding principle above your particular desires is much more L than C. That's not to say every CE character is a willy-nilly murderhobo, but just that if a CE character wanted to kill someone, and there would be no consequence to himself or others (other than the victim), I don't see why he wouldn't just kill the guy. Sure, torture him a bit if you want, make him scream, make him cry, make him pray for the sweet release of death, but if your hypothetical CE wants to kill him, and can do so without consequence, why won't he?

I'm able to see an E character who doesn't kill, but I think CE is pushing it for me.
This is in no way saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control."
It says the opposite.


You are right. If it is a principle it would likely cause them to be NE or even LE, other factors pending.

I suppose then it would have to be an individual who utterly lacks the desire to kill or even wound others, or for some reason desires not to harm people physically.
I disagree that having a principle or particular fancy does not disqualify one from being chaotic, but this again is in no way saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control."


Someone can still be evil, but such a strict set of behaviour rules speaks of a lawfull person.
Again, disagree with this implying law, but still this is in no way saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control."


I agree that it would be unusual to have a situation where a CE character is a pacifist, and I totally agree that a chaotic character can have a personal code for personal reasons. The personal and individual choice is chaotic. But there is a big difference in between arguing for chaotic individuals having a code, and saying that if you don't agree you advocate for "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control." Because while some chaotic evil characters are exactly this, many are not.

this has been discussed before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment)

[Seppo87]

Half of everyone is saying "All Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths with no boundaries and no self-control."
Nope, nobody said that, at all.

[Mystral]

So characters who have one or two rules they follow because they don't like doing that sort of thing can't really be Chaotic. That's what I'm getting from what's being said, anyway. Check.

That looks like about half of the people who have actually expressed an opinion on the matter.

Actually not was I meant, no.

Have you ever heard of so's law?

[Jowgen]

My pitch for a reason: "Killing and hurting things is soooo mainstream. Like, everything and every one does it. Those goodie-two-shoes pacificts, no they stand out! Lets see their face when I stand out more."

A guy big on the C, incidental on the E, who's all about being super unique and individualistic. Has a pathological hate for doing things in the conventional way, and thus dispises violence. Doesn't swear off it, he just never does it because he feels like it would lessen his unique awesome.

Obviously, needs a super individualistic stage-name. Like, "Zephyr Breeze" or something. :smalltongue:

[Bucky]

He's making an amateur mistake. You don't kill the people you're stealing from. You want them alive and productive so you can steal from them again and again
(source: Freefall (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2500/fc02413.htm))

[Sian]

Killing people is so finite, dead people can't earn you money (well, undeads could but then you'd have to micromanage them, and/or lick some deities nasties ... not fun), Hence its better to not kill people so you can keep them around for blackmailing them (or in other ways forcing/coercing them), or simply force them to entertain you. Killing people also have the annoying tendency to either make people pick up their pitchforks or Adventurers to 'magically' appear.

Ultimate Pragmatic hedonist

[AslanCross]

He could be an inveterate coward and be unable to fight or even draw blood from people simply due to a squick factor. But he could still be a psychological bully. The Game of Thrones TV show's portrayal of Ramsay Bolton was something of this (the book version was more of a competent brute). He only picked fights he knew he could easily win. That still might be tactical ability, so take it one step further than that and make him unable to indulge in any sort of physical violence because he's a coward (TV Ramsay was capable of a lot of physical violence, but he can't fight when he knows he can't win).

[Âmesang]

Is it weird that I'm reminded of the Batman: The Animated Series episode, "Joker's Favor?"

After a man named Charlie Collins curses at the Joker on the road for offensive driving, the Clown Prince of Crime corners him and intimidates him into doing him a "small favor". Two years pass, and the Joker finally decides how to use Charlie: to sneak a bomb into the Peregrinator's Club, where Commissioner Gordon is to give a speech at an award ceremony. Charlie, who merely has to open the door, is skeptical at first, but for the sake of his family, he reluctantly decides to obey.

Note: This episode features the debut appearance of the Joker's sidekick/girlfriend, Harley Quinn.
Well, I suppose it helps to have actually seen the episode, since there's only so much a brief description can get across…

[Sayt]

Y'know what?

Moist Von Lipwig. (Before he gets visited by an angel)

He lies, cheats, steals and robs. He has never used violence, but because of his actions, 22.8 people have died, and that just never occurred to him because he wasn't committing violent acts. He has no respect for rules, and he cares/d not a whit about what happened to the people he ripped off.

[Braininthejar2]

Are you familiar with the Erfworld prequel "Inner peace through superior firepower"?

If you aren't: Erfworld is a fantasy world with laws of physics based on a strategy game. There are no civillians there, as people "pop" adult and armed when their side starts recruitment, and all the culture is based around the glory of killing each other.

It turns out that the main villain in the prequel is an evil... hippiemancer. Hippie magic mostly focuses on controlling plants, and breaking up fights. But one witch has discovered just how far she can push the effects of her plants without it counting as an 'attack' rules-wise. So her way of conquering enemies is to get them stuck around her, using her hippie magic to prevent an actual fight until everyone is her slave, helplessly hooked on drugs. We get to see her ruler ( casters can't formally act as leaders for countries) who has left all the decisions to her, and is a dirty junkie with missing teeth, just sitting in her garden and slobbering.

[Dayaz]

The villain is hemophobic. He has mental breakdowns at the sight of blood. Maybe he also has vivid nightmares of people he's killed personally getting their bloody revenge on him. Maybe he has a family, and his kids think he's the coolest dad ever and he doesn't want them to lose that impression of him.

Telling his minions to go kill someone is just close enough to directly killing them that it triggers his nightmares, so he has a couple of brutes who are smart enough to take the initiative when he mentions on how someone is becoming a large thorn in his side. Whether the mooks murder that thorn or help him prune it back by finding great blackmail are both acceptable.

[Quertus]

I had a lot to say, but let me make this simple: chaotic people absolutely can get married, even though it is a lawful contract through government and religious institutions. Chaotic evil individuals are not limited to rape for their sexual gratification.

Yes, you can have a chaotic evil pacifist, for a variety of reasons. What that reason is will affect how tightly the individual clings to their pacifism when it is tested.

[Luccan]

No character, even a CE one, should have to commit violence to maintain their alignment, even if it's the easiest choice, at least not all the time. I can see why justifying a pacifist CE character is hard, but maybe that's because of the term. A pacifist doesn't commit violent acts on principle, because they believe it's wrong. A CE person who doesn't like violence or doesn't commit violent acts isn't the same thing. If they refuse to commit violence ever, they need a reason not too.

Reason 1: They are weak and/or a coward. They could probably kill someone in their sleep or by surprise but they are so used to being weaker than others or so afraid of getting caught that they wouldn't really consider trying. A local merchant who gouges his prices and taunts people with the knowledge that they are being cheated, but whose political protections and bodyguards keep them safe and are the only reason they feel they can do it might be such a coward. Perhaps, in either self defense or the rarest of cases, they themselves might do something violent, but they generally find the potential retribution to much of a risk.

Reason 2: As some have suggested, they see it as beneath them, that the act of committing violence turns them into one of the lesser creatures they like to control, bully, and torture psychologically. Such a character might order others to do violent things, but in the end, they most enjoy being able to do what they want without having to get their hands dirty. An illusionist who enjoys sending people into madness might fit this character.

I feel the need to interject here with another thought I had. Perhaps having a CE character who never commits a violent act is a problem. Unless they have a fear of retribution from any such violence (and reason to expect it) or a psychological barrier that prevents them (such as believing any such act will be punished, even if it's impossible for anyone to know), someone who is Chaotic Evil should probably not be the sort to never hurt a person. They might not have done it yet or they might not have been caught or maybe they do and it's just to people who can't really stop them or animals etc., but remember that their own self preservation and happiness are something they put above all other goals, that's part of what makes them evil. If they end up in a situation where violence actually is the only solution that seems viable and they refuse, they need to have a realistic reason. Digression over.

Reason 3: They just don't like it. Oh sure, they might kill or beat someone if necessary, but just because you're evil doesn't mean you take pleasure in violence. More over, they're chaotic. Someone orders you to execute someone or expects you to meet out a violent punishment? Nah. It'd be much more interesting/fun/convenient to instead have the would be corpse in your debt and watch the other person squirm as they realize they can't control you. Or maybe it's just that, you want to demonstrate you can't be controlled, because you don't feel like murder today. A fast rising member of a corrupt political institution might be chaotic evil, if their moral compass is completely skewed, betraying their own allies, delivering blackmail, and holding an iron grip of terror over those who serve under them and not killing all that much because their aspirations lie down a path where it's usually unnecessary. They probably do terrorize the populous through ridiculous laws that prove their contempt for order or proxies committing violence, though

In conclusion, there probably shouldn't be a CE character who will never commit violence. But a character who is CE doesn't have to be violent just because it's easier or just because that would cause the most immediate chaos or evil. Most characters who aren't good aren't out to cause the most X part of their alignment anyway. I guess what I'm saying is, a CE pacifist isn't possible by definition, but an insane barbarian who worships anarchy and bloodshed shouldn't be the assumption either.

Edit: There might be more reasons for a generally non violent CE characters, but these are the ones that came to mind.

[Manly Man]

Not a huge help here, but this topic kinda reminds me of Needful Things.

[killem2]

No I do not see this as possible. Being a pacifist in a world that is so volatile and dangerous as the Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons Worlds especially for an evil person I cannot fathom a chaotic person to have the discipline required to be a pacifist.

[Mehangel]

I stand with others who believe that you can be good with one vice, you can be evil with one virtue, you can be lawful with one criminal hobby, and you can be chaotic with one philosophy. I am not saying that someone can be exalted good with a vice, or vile evil with a virtue, but they can be of good/evil alignment with their flaw.

Besides isn't Charles Manson considered a paragon figure in the chaotic evil group? If I recall correctly, he himself never killed anyone. Another famous individual who sports the chaotic evil alignment is Jim Jones who while responsible for the deaths of several, also never killed anyone.

[Inevitability]

Have you considered the possibility of a character who has been affected by a Mark of Justice? He may want to kill people, but knows that if he does so he gets cursed.

Alternatively, he could serve an eldritch horror that will one day come into this world and devour all sentient life, and refuses to kill because that would reduce the number of souls his master will consume.

[LTwerewolf]

They would act exactly the same as a chaotic evil person that's not actively killing people. I'm really not sure of the point here. It's like there's an assumption that murder must be committed or they're not CE. That's just inane and lacks any understanding whatsoever. They do things without regard to others and those things benefit themselves. You've just described nearly every politician ever. "But politicians are lawful!" <-This assumes they're actually paying any heed whatsoever of what the laws are before breaking them left and right as politicians do.

[Peat]

I can see a number of CE characters that for whatever reason, very much dislike violence and avoids it. Its like how some people like every meat apart from lamb, or something weird like that.

The question for me comes when violence is overwhelmingly in their best interests. Self defence. Murdering one person right in front of you to earn a fortune, no come backs, no second chances now or never. Things along these nature.

I am struggling to see why they wouldn't commit violence then. We all do things we very much dislike from time to time.

The reasons I see are

a) A personal code against violence so strong that the Chaoticness of the character is questionable (I said questionable, not outright revoked)

b) A streak of cowardice so wide and broad that I fail to see how they took the risks needed to ping as both Chaotic and Evil

c) An incredibly strong mental block of some sort. Clockwork Orange style. Or a mental derangement in the style of Vampire The Masquerade (I do not know if real life mental illness works that way).

I guess part of this depends on how exactly you see the word 'Pacifist'.

[Luccan]

I can see a number of CE characters that for whatever reason, very much dislike violence and avoids it. Its like how some people like every meat apart from lamb, or something weird like that.

The question for me comes when violence is overwhelmingly in their best interests. Self defence. Murdering one person right in front of you to earn a fortune, no come backs, no second chances now or never. Things along these nature.

I am struggling to see why they wouldn't commit violence then. We all do things we very much dislike from time to time.

The reasons I see are

a) A personal code against violence so strong that the Chaoticness of the character is questionable (I said questionable, not outright revoked)

b) A streak of cowardice so wide and broad that I fail to see how they took the risks needed to ping as both Chaotic and Evil

c) An incredibly strong mental block of some sort. Clockwork Orange style. Or a mental derangement in the style of Vampire The Masquerade (I do not know if real life mental illness works that way).

I guess part of this depends on how exactly you see the word 'Pacifist'.



Yeah, imagining a CE person who doesn't like violence for one reason or another isn't that hard as long as orc barbarians aren't what you consider the best examples of Chaotic Evil. Assuming you don't view the other alignments as simple, cookie cutter personality creators, one must remember that people are different and what exactly motivates, interests, and sickens them. Taking a look at the way it's actually defined in the PHB, I think that it must be for some reason the CE character does not like violence. However, that won't always prevent them from committing violence, but they far prefer causing disorder, chaos, destruction, and ruining people's lives by other methods.

[dascarletm]

Actually not was I meant, no.

Have you ever heard of so's law?

I'm curious where you heard it from. I googled it and the only source is some random dude with something like 200 followers on twitter. Did this person invent that, or did you get it from another source?

[killem2]

no.

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəfəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Having a CE person do their dirty work doesn't mean they are pacifist.

[squiggit]

Of course you can. I mean, what would you call someone who abhors violence but is otherwise flexible, reckless, irresponsible, fickle, self serving and more than willing to oppress, manipulate or otherwise disadvantage anyone who stands in his or her way?

It's easier if the character is less opposed to violence as a concept and more just doesn't like to fight, but I don't think it's unworkable either way.

[dascarletm]

no.

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəfəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Having a CE person do their dirty work doesn't mean they are pacifist.

What about someone that believes that, but enjoys swindling people. This person also ruin's the happiness of others by tempting them to ruination.

Example:

Joe believes war and violence is abhorrent, however he makes his living scamming those less fortunate since they are easy targets. For fun he finds people recovering from addictions and causes them to backslide. He enjoys watching them throw their lives away. He secretly circumvents all of his friend's efforts to succeed in life, because he doesn't want to be around anyone more successful than him. He also enjoys watching them struggle and fail.

EDIT:
He is also very inconsistent with his approaches to all these things, and holds no stock in rules/laws/traditions.

[Sayt]

no.

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəfəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Having a CE person do their dirty work doesn't mean they are pacifist.

Except that the alignment system interacts with actions, not beliefs or intentions.

[trikkydik]

A Pacifist is a GOOD character, no matter how you try to slice it.

Only a GOOD person resolves to NEVER TAKE LIFE.

you have a 100% contradiction.

the only example i can find of a chaotic evil pacifist is from the anime Naruto.

specifically the character "Hugo" is a pacifist by all means, but he goes into uncontrollable rage, and kills.

But in terms of D&D i would classify him as chaotic good, when he's not enraged. but if he's enraged he is 100% Chaotic Evil.

I'm all for debating the intricacies of the human psych, which is a fickle thing.

But pacifist and evil are 100% mutually exclusive. (They cannot exist at the same time.)

Again, pacifism requires a strong resolve to be "good" to others.

[LTwerewolf]

A pacifist need not be good at all. You can vow never to take a life and have your underlings do terrible things short of taking lives and be labeled a pretty clear LE.

[trikkydik]

Of course you can. I mean, what would you call someone who abhors violence but is otherwise flexible, reckless, irresponsible, fickle, self serving and more than willing to oppress, manipulate or otherwise disadvantage anyone who stands in his or her way?
NOT A PACIFIST!!
definitely classified as lazy Chaotic Evil.


Honestly i think this is how corporate greed is accomplished.
White collar crime is still unethical and evil to its very core. (if i can crash the stock market, send the mass population into poverty, and make a LOT of money doing it. Why not?) (I'm not physically hurting anyone.)
100% evil.

Do evil people really think they are evil? Or do they create mental "bypasses" to good moral judgement?
THE MOST OF EVIL BEINGS BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING THE MOST GOOD. (examples - Hitler, Stalin, every malicious dictator in history, Every republican... ever)

We can discuss ethics all day, but when it comes down to it, taking advantage of the goodness in others is straight up evil. NOT neutral or good.

Putting your needs before others, to the point where it infringes upon their very way of life and well being, is evil.

Final answer - A pacifist can never be EVIL. chaotic, sure. Evil... NEVER

[TheIronGolem]

A Pacifist is a GOOD character, no matter how you try to slice it.

Only a GOOD person resolves to NEVER TAKE LIFE.

Hardly. Killing people is (generally) an evil act, but that doesn't mean that not killing them is a good act. If someone breaks into your house and robs you blind while you sleep, he doesn't get credit for not slitting your throat while he's at it.


Honestly i think this is how corporate greed is accomplished.
White collar crime is still unethical and evil to its very core. (if i can crash the stock market, send the mass population into poverty, and make a LOT of money doing it. Why not?) (I'm not physically hurting anyone.)
100% evil.

Also 100% nonviolent, and therefore compatible with pacifism. You're scoring own goals here.

Chaotic Evil can absolutely be pacifistic. No alignment has a sign that says "you must be at least this violent to enter".

[LTwerewolf]

They believe violence isn't ever justifiable. There are lots of bad things that aren't violence. Buy a company in order to lay off the employees just to spite someone working there. Not violence. Also not good. If your personal definition of pacifist is "must be good" of course you're going to argue against anything that says otherwise, but that's not the definition of the word.

There are a lot of people in modern culture that have resolved to never take a life. Not because they feel it's wrong, but because there's no benefit to it. These people are also considered pacifists. If there's no benefit, there's no justification for doing it. Evil isn't "let's be stupid hurr murder." Evil is primarily out for the betterment of themselves. If pacifism is a means to that end, an evil person will take it.

[Peat]

They believe violence isn't ever justifiable. There are lots of bad things that aren't violence. Buy a company in order to lay off the employees just to spite someone working there. Not violence. Also not good. If your personal definition of pacifist is "must be good" of course you're going to argue against anything that says otherwise, but that's not the definition of the word.

There are a lot of people in modern culture that have resolved to never take a life. Not because they feel it's wrong, but because there's no benefit to it. These people are also considered pacifists. If there's no benefit, there's no justification for doing it. Evil isn't "let's be stupid hurr murder." Evil is primarily out for the betterment of themselves. If pacifism is a means to that end, an evil person will take it.

What would these people do if there was suddenly an overwhelming benefit to be had out of resorting to violence?

And where do they stand on wars being conducted?

[Gildedragon]

A Pacifist is a GOOD character, no matter how you try to slice it.

Only a GOOD person resolves to NEVER TAKE LIFE.

you have a 100% contradiction...But pacifist and evil are 100% mutually exclusive. (They cannot exist at the same time.)

Again, pacifism requires a strong resolve to be "good" to others.

Let me posit someone to you:
Mister D is a rich and powerful man: we can talk of how he acquired his wealth and power later, be it through villainy or inheritance or luck or labor. One day Sir W, a man from a noble house, slights D in some way; perhaps W sneered at D's plebeian ancestry, or perhaps bested D at a duel (D, for all his power, is a pathetic swordsman, untrained and disliking of blood), or perhaps he ridiculed D in public, or refused to pay D for services rendered. D feels slighted, and perhaps there is some legal recourse he could use to get his payment from W, or accuse him of assault, or the like; heck D could even pay for assassins if he would like. But the law is too fair, too sweet, and won't restore D's sense of dignity; and death, death is too quick.
D wants W humbled, stripped of his title, and mocked by the elites he so loves.
It starts small, with jokes and japes at W's expense, and perhaps malicious rumors: he was seen at the brothels where he was turned away for his rod of lordly might was more of a thimble; he is a drunk; he has gratified himself with a pig's head... etc
And it grows from there: D spends a lot of money implicating W in a number of scandals, he bribes officials and pays folk to perjure, he spreads rumors, and has him drugged so he can't give a good alibi. If W has a business, he pays workers to strike and claim he is a cruel overseer; he forges papers in W's name so as to make it seem he has evil intent, or as if he's said cruel lies about his fellow nobles. D whispers poison into ears, and tampers with whatever W does so as to make W seem evil, wretched, and unfitting.
D pulls and tugs at strings to spread malicious lies and evidence that will eventually result in W being stripped of his lordly title. Perhaps it costs D his fortune to bring W down but he does. He makes W toxic to associate with.
And never did he spill a drop of blood.
D is clearly chaotic: he does not trust justice, his notion of punishment is out of any equitable proportion, and he promotes the misuse of the institutions of justice (by perjury etc)
D is clearly evil: he will seek to destroy a life for a trifle without any regard for the cost it might bring... even to himself.
D is a pacifist: he does not wish to engage in violence, he finds it crass and unapetizing, and ultimately, unsatisfying.



But in terms of D&D i would classify him as chaotic good, when he's not enraged. but if he's enraged he is 100% Chaotic Evil.
IF his rage is something he' willingly engages, and has no restraints set in (ie, he engages in it knowing the danger he poses, has set up no safeguards or precautions, and does it anyway) it seems he'd be CE even unraged; or maybe CN

IF his rage is something he can't control OR he sets precautions to prevent his ragebeast from getting out of hand, then he is CG or CN (deffos CG if his rage comes about unbidden)

compared to Frenzied Berserkers who can be of any non-Lawful alignment and are pretty... mindlessly destructive to the point they may be considered Evil during the frenzy

[Gildedragon]

What would these people do if there was suddenly an overwhelming benefit to be had out of resorting to violence?
What benefit? Immediate gratification? What sort of benefit is that?
No. Whatever one thinks one can accomplish by beating someone or killing someone, or the like can be accomplished by other means. Perhaps they are slower. But they are subtler, harder to track, and longer lasting.
To use violence indicates that one has no right to any power one gets; and won't keep it for long.
As the saying goes: those who live by the sword, die by the sword. One would much rather live (and eventually die) by words and gold; at the very least that is less painful.


And where do they stand on wars being conducted?
Unpleasant unfavorable things: they galvanize and unify the elites, disrupt the flow of wealth (to one), and give the authorities the opportunity to seize more power and goods; they are a waste of life and resources.
Furthermore; what are wars but means to validate the inconsequential concept of a nation state via the loss of life. They back systems of power that are fundamentally wrong, and support the positions of people who are not worthy of the power they wield.

But if two or more individuals were to choose to fight and die... well as long as they don't involve one in their mess. Regretable though.... very much so, especially if there are deaths as a result of that scuffle. Yes it might end up benefiting one, but, honestly, one wouldn't ever ASK them to do fight.
Still people do have tempers.
and if they were to hear the wrong thing, and take it the wrong way...
Still no one could call me responsible for that fight, just as one can't call the grandfather of a businessman responsible for the birth of the grandson of one of the workers employed by business; or a butterfly responsible for the death of a child during a storm.

[LTwerewolf]

What would these people do if there was suddenly an overwhelming benefit to be had out of resorting to violence?

And where do they stand on wars being conducted?

Wars are inefficient, expensive, and dangerous. Why conquer people when you can get them to submit themselves willingly? My infrastructure is enough to buy their fealty over time. This is not only safer, but also expands the sphere of power on a more permanent basis. Every solider that would have died is now in my employ. Every would-be rebel cannot put the blame on a single person. No, it was their compatriots that betrayed them more than anything. How can you truly fight for the freedom of your friends when doing so gets them to label you the terrorist that must be stopped? Trade expands power far more assuredly than wars ever could. Wars destroy artifacts and technology. Wars put civilizations back hundreds of years. They burn libraries and raze cities to the ground. No, I will attain power and ultimate control through the best possible method. I will get you to beg me for it. You will buy me wares over your friend's because my prices are lower. Prices your friend cannot hope to match. Prices that don't even make me money. Prices that are supported by other areas of my investment. All will buy those wares, because it makes life more affordable. Paying half price for food, paying a third for medicine! For awhile, anyhow. Once those others are out of business, they need jobs. I have those jobs, they come work for me. The market belongs to me. I now charge what I like. After all, I didn't put your friend out of business. You did. All of you did.

An overwhelming benefit? Certainly not. Nothing in life, death, or anything in between comes without strings attached. Violence leads to death. Death leads to misplaced loyalty demanding vengeance, which creates problems in the future. Even if the one seeking whatever false "retribution" they feel is appropriate is entirely incapable, it's further resources that must be allocated to dealing with the problem. At worst, it causes serious problems, all because of the short-sighted view that violence must happen. No, anyone with such a foolish view of things deserves what they get. I have time to wait for the fall of those who choose that path, and shall reap the harvest of their work after they are gone. I barely have to lift a finger.



That's an example of the executive. No need for violence or war whatsoever, but still undeniably evil.

[TheIronGolem]

What would these people do if there was suddenly an overwhelming benefit to be had out of resorting to violence?

And where do they stand on wars being conducted?

The responses you've already received to these questions are good ones. However, those answers are based upon a rejection of your question's premise, and I feel that you deserve one that accepts that premise because it is a valid one.

So the Chaotic Evil pacifist perceives a huge, undeniable benefit from a violent course of action that's available to her. Okay. That doesn't mean she's automatically going to take it, though. Just because she's Chaotic Evil doesn't mean she has to be both Chaotic and Evil, as hard as she possibly can, 100% of the time. The great thing about chaos and evil is that you can be as selective about upholding them as easily as you would any other morality.

She doesn't even have to be operating on a coldly calculating basis of her own long-term interest to reject the violent course. Even if she can be absolutely certain that there will be no opportunity cost whatsoever for passing up on this chance to improve her situation through violence, even if she can be assured that it will make things unquestionably better for her in the long run, she can reject that opportunity - and do so out of a genuine, heartfelt desire to avoid violence as a matter of principle - and still remain every bit as much of a selfish, conniving bastard as she's always been. She can go right on profiting at the expense of others in any number of nonviolent ways. She will still be Chaotic Evil, and not one jot less so for having declined to bash some poor fool's head in.

[Xuldarinar]

I really wish there was a Like system in place... (I may think I do, but I don't.)


Anyways, to pile on, here is something; Lets talk about this from the standpoint of an antipaladin. Can you have a Pacifist Antipaladin?



An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.

[Gildedragon]

You can't have a pacifist antipaladin
But the antipaladin coc makes even less sense than the paladin's
But I do believe the Antipaladin is meant predominantly for NPCs

[Propagandalf]

CE Pacifist reminds me of the tale of Shane the Shy: The most infuriating villain ever.

http://i.imgur.com/gz4q16o.png

It's a good read.:smallsmile: