Convincing a DM to allow CE

[Naez]

I was going through building a Barbarian for a PbP and in looking through the examples of Ideals in backgrounds I kept finding that the character I envisioned would fall into Chaotic Evil.

Not the wanton slaughtering, puppy kicking, baby eater kind. But more the might makes right type.

The issue is that this wouldn't necessarily be disruptive to a group, but many DMs outright ban CE, and saying that they're CN just to get them into a game is just outright lying, and could cause issues further down the road.

Anything you can think of to encourage a change in perspective?

[Skelechicken]

Try telling your GM exactly this.

5e is starting to make strides away from the morality table with the flaws/bonds system. If the DM is worried that CE is typically too disruptive just explain why you think this character needs to be CE, and explain why it will not be disruptive to the rest of the party. I don't think a DM rule has to be absolute if the reason for that rule isn't at issue.

That said if your DM still refuses, I don't necessarily see it as a lie to suggest such a character is CN or even true Neutral. Again the alignment system is more of a guide, and a character who believes in a "might makes right" mentality but who doesn't go out of their way to actively harm or subjugate the weak strikes me as more Chaotic Neutral anyway.

[XmonkTad]

CN and CE have always been kissing cousins. If CE is having trouble getting through, then CN will be the way to go. That being said, "might makes right" seems very LE to me, and that's a much more DM friendly alignment.

[Scots Dragon]

Playing evil-aligned characters in general is something that faces an uphill struggle, and chaotic evil is like trying to climb an electrified vertical frictionless surface.

You've got a couple of options; the first is to possibly massage the might-makes-right approach into chaotic neutral. This is where Conan the Barbarian tends to be for most of his adventures, and if you can play it more as being self-interested rather than being actively malevolent this would be easy enough to incorporate. From the Player's Handbook, page 122;


Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.


Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

It really wouldn't be hard to fit a might-makes right concept into the realm of chaotic neutral. And in fact I'd consider it more easily fitting to the concept of chaotic neutral than to chaotic evil; while most CE characters do respect strength and power, they are actively malevolent, hateful, and destructive, acting randomly and wantonly upon lusts and greed rather than having any real respect for strength in itself. This is the important dividing line between moral neutrality and moral evil most of the time. The only thing you really need to do is keep in mind that your character probably wouldn't pointlessly murder someone. They'd never hesitate to kill, but slaying a weak or defeated foe in ther path would be a waste of time or energy compared to simply ignoring them, by way of the mantra that the weak do not deserve warriors' deaths or something like that.

The second is that if this to perhaps just change the character, or play a different character and reserve this one until such a time as you're playing a more evil-focused campaign. While it might be an interesting concept for your current character, you have to keep in mind the needs of an adventuring group and you're allowed to file the character away for later use if it doesn't fit for this campaign.

Naturally a third option is bribing the DM, but I don't think that's entirely kosher.

[Naez]

That said if your DM still refuses, I don't necessarily see it as a lie to suggest such a character is CN or even true Neutral. Again the alignment system is more of a guide, and a character who believes in a "might makes right" mentality but who doesn't go out of their way to actively harm or subjugate the weak strikes me as more Chaotic Neutral anyway.

I've always seen evil as a willingness to hurt others as opposed to needing to actively cause it. And I believe the Ideals tend to back me up on this.

[Asha Leu]

Quite frankly, if the DM doesn't want Chaotic Evil characters in his/her game, I think you should just respect their decision. It's their campaign, and pretty reasonable as far as character restrictions go.

That said, if you are truly set on trying to change your DM's mind, I'd heavily emphasize that you will make sure to maintain party unity, won't be starting any PvP nonsense, and that your character is essentially a high-functioning psychopath who is savvy enough not to act in an overtly "evil" way, at least when anyone else is watching. But make sure you actually follow through on that promise. Were I in that DM's shoes, I'd possibly be swayed by such an argument, but if the player then started causing needless party friction and derailing the game because "that's what my character would do", my patience would wear thin very quickly.

I must admit, I tend to take a pretty dim view of players who are so tied to a certain ultra-narrow character concept that they just have to be something the DM has already barred or some bizarre homebrew race/class. If someone really plays so much D&D that they are already bored of the options that are available, then they'll surely get an opportunity to play that character in a future game soon enough. Either suck it up and play by the DM's rules, or politely quit that game and search for one that suits you more.

Personally, I almost always outright ban either good or evil alignments in my own games (sometimes allowing the players to decide which one is banned at the start of the campaign). I've learnt the hard way about allowing both into a game at the same time. At worst, it descends into PvP chaos. At best, the players most concerned with maintaining party unity wind up forced in directions they didn't want to go by the ones who don't really give a **** about consensus.

It also tends to screw over the players with good aligned characters far more than those with evil or neutral ones. An evil character can follow along with whatever the good guys are doing while sticking to their character concept and avoiding risking a change in alignment - doing "good" things doesn't make an evil person any less evil if they're just keeping up appearances, after all - but a good character has to actually put their money where their mouth is. So, when the evil characters want to do something that is unambiguously evil, and the good characters can't convince them otherwise, they've either got to outright try to stop them or leave the party (both of which basically signal the end of the campaign for some players, if not for everyone), or suck it up, go along with the plan, and gradually find their own alignments shifting to neutral and/or evil (which especially sucks for the poor bastard that chose to be a Paladin).

Sure, a campaign with such a mix of alignments can certainly work, and be a lot of fun, when everyone has agreed to play that sort of game and is down for potential inter-party conflict, PvP, being forced into uncomfortable moral situations, and/or being stabbed in their sleep by their fellow party members. But a DM intending to run a more "typical" D&D game (insofar as such a thing exists) is completely justified in controlling what alignments are allowed to suit their campaign.

[Contrast]

Maybe remind your DM that not everyone is the perfect paragon of their alignement. I first encountered the alignment system in the NWN video game so I usually see alignment on a scale of 100 to 0 lawful to chaotic and another 100 to 0 axis for good to evil. 30 to 70 is the neutral range. So perfect lawful good is 100, 100. True Neutral is 50,50 and maximal chaotic evil is 0,0.

Just because you're playing chaotic evil doesn't mean you're 0, 0. You might be 25 (chaotic) and 25 (evil). That character might be much more manageable than a 0 (chaotic) and 35 (neutral) character.

Of course if you do convince your DM to let you play the character the onus is on you to make sure its not a problem so keep that in mind. :smallbiggrin:

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Not the wanton slaughtering, puppy kicking, baby eater kind. But more the might makes right type.


There's a name for that alignment, and it's Lawful Evil. You can play LE in AL even. Shouldn't be a problem.

[Madbox]

The usual gripe about CE is that it doesn't work well within a party. One way you might get around this is to have at least one high mental stat, and use that as justification for why you will work with the party despite being chaotic and evil. For example...

Intelligence- History has far too many tales of warlords dying when an angered ally stabbed them in the back. You will not fall into this trap and annoy your comrades too much.

Wisdom- There is strength​ in numbers. Angering your allies to the point of making them leave, or killing them yourself, makes as much sense as chopping off your own hand. Maybe you'll do it if it's the only option, but it would be an absolute last resort.

Charisma- you know how to get people to do what you want, and persuasion is a give-and-take sort of thing. It's easy enough to conceal any actions that would upset your allies, and you can be a team player on most days.

[nweismuller]

The example I'd use, perhaps, might be Jayne Cobb from Firefly, who is a great example of a CE character who works (mostly) smoothly with a non-evil party.

[DivisibleByZero]

Write down whatever you want (or don't write anything at all), and play your character however you want. Just remember four words: Don't be a Richard.

To put it in perspective:
I not only ban CE, I ban all evil.
Players who want to write E (and especially CE) on their sheet are often doing so in order to justify playing their character in a manner that will be disruptive to the party.
I will, however, allow players to play a character who might be considered Evil. I just don't allow them to write that on their sheet (so they can NEVER fall back on "Well my sheet says LE, or NE, or CE"), and I reserve the right to react accordingly in the game world, even going so far as to make their character an NPC if things get too far over the line.

[Cespenar]

As others said, the biggest turn off is the "can't work within the party" point. Work around that and you'll be fine. Maybe you're generally CE but you have a special connection to one of the PCs who can ground you, in a sense. Or you're CE to your enemies but TN-LN to your own "brothers in arms". Don't just be "CE", but be a many-faceted character that can be summed down as CE.

[GPS]

Dude, just go NE and play CE. I dare someone to try to call you out. I also agree with earlier assesments, "might makes right" is definitely closer to LE than CE (because that's like the token example of LE), and could totally fit in the LE or NE. Might I ask why you want to make your charafter CE in the first place?


An evil character can follow along with whatever the good guys are doing while sticking to their character concept and avoiding risking a change in alignment - doing "good" things doesn't make an evil person any less evil if they're just keeping up appearances, after all - but a good character has to actually put their money where their mouth is. So, when the evil characters want to do something that is unambiguously evil, and the good characters can't convince them otherwise, they've either got to outright try to stop them or leave the party (both of which basically signal the end of the campaign for some players, if not for everyone), or suck it up, go along with the plan, and gradually find their own alignments shifting to neutral and/or evil (which especially sucks for the poor bastard that chose to be a Paladin).
This is my main problem with both CE guys and people who write CN when they really mean CE. They think they've been given a "need not play well with others" pass, and act accordingly, often screwing over good aligned party members. CE and fake CN players seem to think that it should be the good characters instead of themselves compromising their values, despite the fact that they're not the ones who chose to play CE. Anyone caught playing CN as CE should immediately shift their alignment to evil and save everyone else the trouble defending against their denial.

[Thrudd]

I've always seen evil as a willingness to hurt others as opposed to needing to actively cause it. And I believe the Ideals tend to back me up on this.

I think evil goes more into desire for and taking pleasure in hurting others. Neutral is willing to hurt others to get what they want, but won't for no reason. Good will not hurt others if at all possible.

Otherwise, the neutral/evil distinction is too ambiguous, which is what always happens. I dislike the entire alignment chart, anyway, but if you're at a table playing by the book, it helps for everyone to be on the same page with their definitions. IN the book, chaotic evil is blatantly "arbitrarily violent". If that's not you, you're not CE.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think evil goes more into desire for and taking pleasure in hurting others. Neutral is willing to hurt others to get what they want, but won't for no reason. Good will not hurt others if at all possible.

Otherwise, the neutral/evil distinction is too ambiguous, which is what always happens. I dislike the entire alignment chart, anyway, but if you're at a table playing by the book, it helps for everyone to be on the same page with their definitions. IN the book, chaotic evil is blatantly "arbitrarily violent". If that's not you, you're not CE.

The problem is with the players' perceptions, not with the alignment chart.
Players often see Lawful as some concrete absolute distinction, wherein they can never break "the Law" or they aren't lawful. This is incorrect. They often see Neutral as the abstraction, and can't reconcile that it is neither good nor evil.
Players also often see the Good axis in the same way, and want to not be hindered by the distinction between good/evil, which in their minds automatically makes them evil. This is also incorrect.

They don't want to be "forced" to follow the rules/laws, and they don't want to be "hindered" by conscience, and this leads them to write CE on their sheets by default, when in fact the actual characters are much more often actually CG, LN or N, CN, or LE, instead of the CE that they wrote down as a safety blanket.

[Unoriginal]

You can be lawful good and think that Might makes Right, if you believe that one who has the Might should use the Right to be benevolent and help those who are weaker.

A king who uses his powerful army to enforce his decrees can still be benevolent.

[GPS]

You can be lawful good and think that Might makes Right, if you believe that one who has the Might should use the Right to be benevolent and help those who are weaker.

A king who uses his powerful army to enforce his decrees can still be benevolent.
That actually could make a fun oath of the crown paladin

[Corran]

I was going through building a Barbarian for a PbP and in looking through the examples of Ideals in backgrounds I kept finding that the character I envisioned would fall into Chaotic Evil.

Not the wanton slaughtering, puppy kicking, baby eater kind. But more the might makes right type.

The issue is that this wouldn't necessarily be disruptive to a group, but many DMs outright ban CE, and saying that they're CN just to get them into a game is just outright lying, and could cause issues further down the road.

Anything you can think of to encourage a change in perspective?
I think I get exactly what you are saying.
CE characters dont need to be disruptive, and they can work really well with various and diverse groups imo.
If your DM has issues with CE, forget alignment talk, and just describe to your DM (and to the group, most importantly), the idea of the character you have in mind. If no one has a problem which cant be solved with furthr discussion, then go ahead and play that character. Dont even bother to write an alignment in the end, it is not important to have it noted down. It doesn't really matter if you think you are playing a CE character and another person at the table thinks you are playing a different alignment. As long as there is no friction, everything is all right, even if not everyone at the table doesn't see things eye to eye as far as a more general alignment discussion is concerned.

[Maxilian]

Write down whatever you want (or don't write anything at all), and play your character however you want. Just remember four words: Don't be a Richard.

To put it in perspective:
I not only ban CE, I ban all evil.
Players who want to write E (and especially CE) on their sheet are often doing so in order to justify playing their character in a manner that will be disruptive to the party.
I will, however, allow players to play a character who might be considered Evil. I just don't allow them to write that on their sheet (so they can NEVER fall back on "Well my sheet says LE, or NE, or CE"), and I reserve the right to react accordingly in the game world, even going so far as to make their character an NPC if things get too far over the line.


I don't agree, i don't think most player do it with the intention to disrupt the group, IMHO the easiest way to solve this, is make the players "family" (make the PC know each other, giving the Evil character some kind of loyalty to its group and viceversa).

Though i do agree with the fact that you should write it down.

[GPS]

I don't agree, i don't think most player do it with the intention to disrupt the group, IMHO the easiest way to solve this, is make the players "family" (make the PC know each other, giving the Evil character some kind of loyalty to its group and viceversa).

Though i do agree with the fact that you should write it down.

I don't know. I agree with you on LE and NE, but I feel like people see CE as the free pass alignment, as it allows for that.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't know. I agree with you on LE and NE, but I feel like people see CE as the free pass alignment, as it allows for that.

Precisely.
Players that write CE on their sheet come in a few different varieties:
1) They don't really want to play CE, but they don't want to be bothered with any other alignment's "strictures" so they write CE as a safety blanket.
2) They don't realize that other alignments are not nearly as strict as the player thinks they are (see above about the safety blanket).
3) They want a free pass on any and all behavior, and they write CE so they can point to their sheet as justification when they act like a jerk in game.

That's it.
No other reason is valid.
You're playing a cooperative game with friends. Playing the psychopathic murder hobo with zero conscience and zero respect for anyone or anything who kills villagers for fun because today is Monday (and that's exactly what CE is) is a recipe for disaster.
If that isn't how and who you want to be, then you aren't CE, and you should refer to 1) and 2) above.

[nweismuller]

Just because they're chaotic doesn't necessarily make them 'more' evil- and in fact it's easy to have a CE character that makes a workable team player, in that CE is an excellent alignment for your bog-standard not-very-disciplined thug operating on the range of the moment, and bog-standard thugs are perfectly capable of loyalty to their friends and bosses. Once again, Jayne Cobb. Jayne is both clearly evil and clearly chaotic, and also clearly not a ravening psychopath.

[Maxilian]

Precisely.
Players that write CE on their sheet come in a few different varieties:
1) They don't really want to play CE, but they don't want to be bothered with any other alignment's "strictures" so they write CE as a safety blanket.
2) They don't realize that other alignments are not nearly as strict as the player thinks they are (see above about the safety blanket).
3) They want a free pass on any and all behavior, and they write CE so they can point to their sheet as justification when they act like a jerk in game.

That's it.
No other reason is valid.
You're playing a cooperative game with friends. Playing the psychopathic murder hobo with zero conscience and zero respect for anyone or anything who kills villagers for fun because today is Monday (and that's exactly what CE is) is a recipe for disaster.
If that isn't how and who you want to be, then you aren't CE, and you should refer to 1) and 2) above.

Not all CE character need to be like that, as long as the pc have a line and know why he/she is that alignment, is ok.

(I mean... for example in a Mad Max world, i imagine that most people would be from CG to CE mainly), i do agree that the easier Evil to deal with is LE, but i don't think those are the only reasons the players would play a CE character.

[Steampunkette]

If you DM doesn't want Chaotic Evil characters in their games, don't play Chaotic Evil characters.

It's really that simple.

If you want to make a CE character, find a DM who is comfortable with that alignment at their table.

[Unoriginal]

Precisely.
Players that write CE on their sheet come in a few different varieties:
1) They don't really want to play CE, but they don't want to be bothered with any other alignment's "strictures" so they write CE as a safety blanket.
2) They don't realize that other alignments are not nearly as strict as the player thinks they are (see above about the safety blanket).
3) They want a free pass on any and all behavior, and they write CE so they can point to their sheet as justification when they act like a jerk in game.

That's it.
No other reason is valid.
You're playing a cooperative game with friends. Playing the psychopathic murder hobo with zero conscience and zero respect for anyone or anything who kills villagers for fun because today is Monday (and that's exactly what CE is) is a recipe for disaster.
If that isn't how and who you want to be, then you aren't CE, and you should refer to 1) and 2) above.

A few actually want to RP a chaotic evil being because they think the character is fun or interesting like that.

Or they want to pay an homage to a fictional character they consider CE.

[Contrast]

Playing the psychopathic murder hobo with zero conscience and zero respect for anyone or anything who kills villagers for fun because today is Monday (and that's exactly what CE is) is a recipe for disaster.

Playing a paragon of CE is probably going to be a problem yes. Fortunately there's more to CE than that, in that same way that to play a lawful good character you don't have to immediately hunt down all criminals that cross your path to the exclusion of all else and give all your money to charity. Honestly playing a paragon of any alignment is likely to be problematic. Compromise is always the easiest path and extremes tend to resist compromise.

Lets say you have a street thug who's a bouncer and occasional hired muscle for the local mob. He takes life as it comes and makes most of his decisions on the spur of the moment. He enjoys the sense of power he gets by beating people up but you couldn't hire him to straight up murder someone because he'd be ashamed what his dead mum would think of him.

He's chaotic evil but he's not completely chaotic, nor completely evil.

[lunaticfringe]

I play evil all the time, you have the right attitude I think. The biggest misconceptions that people roleplay while evil:

Evil people don't have friends or care about people

Evil and Chaos are not capable of being pragmatic

Evil cannot be nice, kind or caring

That's horse ****e. The serial killer argument works quite a bit.

Wives, friends, and loved ones of serial killers talk about what wonderful people they are & how shocked they are that they murdered people.

Also, Bill Cosby.

[jas61292]

He's chaotic evil but he's not completely chaotic, nor completely evil.

This. People for some reason are happy to accept that a character can be good without being a champion of all things righteous, but are not so willing to accept the opposite: that you can be evil without being either a psychopath or an archvillain. And this simply need not be the case.

There is plenty of room in the deep end of the alignment pool. There is no need for everyone to have to hang out on the furthest shore.

[scalyfreak]

I play evil all the time, you have the right attitude I think. The biggest misconceptions that people roleplay while evil:

Evil people don't have friends or care about people

Evil and Chaos are not capable of being pragmatic

Evil cannot be nice, kind or caring

These misconceptions unfortunately also taint a lot of DMs when they create evil villains with henchmen. Evil overlords who inspire genuine loyalty in their followers are far too few and far between.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just because they're chaotic doesn't necessarily make them 'more' evil- and in fact it's easy to have a CE character that makes a workable team player, in that CE is an excellent alignment for your bog-standard not-very-disciplined thug operating on the range of the moment, and bog-standard thugs are perfectly capable of loyalty to their friends and bosses. Once again, Jayne Cobb. Jayne is both clearly evil and clearly chaotic, and also clearly not a ravening psychopath.

Except that, once again as I have stated, people are confusing what CE is.
Jayne Cobb isn't CE.
Jayne Cobb is NE.
If he were CE, he wouldn't follow Mal's lead, and would instead do as he pleases. But he doesn't generally do that. Generally, he follows where Mal leads, and follows Mal's orders, even if he disagrees with them. ((("Sure would be nice if we had some grenades right about now....")))
Jayne is not Chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. Jayne is Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.
So this example falls prey to 1) and/or 2) listed above.

Run of the mill street thugs?
They're almost exclusively LE or NE.

[GPS]

Except that, once again as I have stated, people are confusing what CE is.
Jayne Cobb isn't CE.
Jayne Cobb is NE.
If he were CE, he wouldn't follow Mal's lead, and would instead do as he pleases. But he doesn't generally do that. Generally, he follows where Mal leads, and follows Mal's orders, even if he disagrees with them. ((("Sure would be nice if we had some grenades right about now....")))
Jayne is not Chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. Jayne is Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.
So this example falls prey to 1) and/or 2) listed above.

Run of the mill street thugs?
They're almost exclusively LE or NE.
This right here. A lot of the time, people who play CE are actually playing characters who's philosophies are better exemplified by other alignments. At a certain point you have to ask yourself this: if someone keeps playing a CE character with an LE or NE philosophy, are they just confused, or are they intentionally trying to make waves?

[DivisibleByZero]

This right here. A lot of the time, people who play CE are actually playing characters who's philosophies are better exemplified by other alignments.

This right here is QFMFT

From the PBH:
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. <snip>
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seem s best at the time. <snip>
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. <snip>
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits o f a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. <snip>
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. <snip>
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. <snip>

People just use CE as a safety blanket to justify jerkish behavior, when in fact a different alignment is almost universally certainly more appropriate.

[ZorroGames]

Here is an aspect players who don't DM often miss. If you start pushing th NPCs too much then the Reeve or higher ruling types are going to stick a price on your head and/or send some bounty hunters after you (and the other PCs by association.)

I realize Alignment is and was abused but even in the white box era of D&D with only Law/Chaos/Neutral a competent DM would start pushing if a player got too crazy. The best one was the Paladin who was instructed to stop "The Black Cloak" f rom his reign of terror. Yep her boyfriend. Plus a price was on his head, no body attached kind of "on his head." The party wen put after him and when all the shenanigans were over (and screaming and fighting outside of character,) the Paladin lost her Paladin status, the Black Cloak was dead, and hard feelings all around.

Worse case scenario? Yes but it is better to get that resolved before play.

And I would be very hesitant to let a player like that in a campaign. A one off game is different.

And if he/she was let in they already would have a "name" with the local and possibly regional authorities (troublemaker) and probably with other Rogues, Thieves' Guild, and locals because of being a "loose cannon" locally. People seem to think you spring out of the ground as a cypher as a character. It is just as likely you developed your personality and Level 1 "Rep" for better or worse growing up. Strangers are not given a gold star until they show their intentions and locals are already known to some degree.

YMMV.

[Aelyn]

I play evil all the time, you have the right attitude I think. The biggest misconceptions that people roleplay while evil:

Evil people don't have friends or care about people

Evil and Chaos are not capable of being pragmatic

Evil cannot be nice, kind or caring.

Oh joy, I'm stepping into an alignment argument.

Personally, I agree with the above. At the end of the day, a CE character is just that - a character. They have personality, friends family, just like anyone else.

My group played CoS recently, and one of the characters was a CE halfling rogue. I mean, proper CE - at various times, she stole from party members (for insulting her height), willingly and happily ate a hag's pie (knowing full well what was in it, and before the addiction set in) and... defiled the corpses of an elderly couple with a great club (because, in her words, their portrait was looking at her funny.)

She was also friends with the LG Paladin.

Thing was, she was... petty, enjoyed doing her own thing, and tended to be scatter brained. She got interesting relationships with the team thanks to her personality playing off ours - the reason she became frinds with the Paladin was that he once physically stepped over her to protect her, at which point she decided to just hang put under his robes any time something looked a little battle-ready, and it ended up being a standard feature of the marching order.

CE can be friendly with a party, it just needs to happen organically.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is just as likely you developed your personality and Level 1 "Rep" for better or worse growing up. Strangers are not given a gold star until they show their intentions and locals are already known to some degree. YMMV.
This, four or five times over. Make the world a living place, not a two dimensional movie lot from a 1940's western.

[DivisibleByZero]

Oh joy, I'm stepping into an alignment argument.

Personally, I agree with the above. At the end of the day, a CE character is just that - a character. They have personality, friends family, just like anyone else.

My group played CoS recently, and one of the characters was a CE halfling rogue. I mean, proper CE - at various times, she stole from party members (for insulting her height), willingly and happily ate a hag's pie (knowing full well what was in it, and before the addiction set in) and... defiled the corpses of an elderly couple with a great club (because, in her words, their portrait was looking at her funny.)

She was also friends with the LG Paladin.

Thing was, she was... petty, enjoyed doing her own thing, and tended to be scatter brained. She got interesting relationships with the team thanks to her personality playing off ours - the reason she became frinds with the Paladin was that he once physically stepped over her to protect her, at which point she decided to just hang put under his robes any time something looked a little battle-ready, and it ended up being a standard feature of the marching order.

CE can be friendly with a party, it just needs to happen organically.

Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil are both more appropriate.
See 1) and/or 2) above

See, back in my day (dating myself here) evil alignments weren't allowed as per the books.
CN was the go-to alignment back then.
Once evil became allowed, as per the books, that shifted to CE instead. Because a large portion of players don't want to take responsibility for their character's actions.

[jas61292]

Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil are both more appropriate.
See 1) and/or 2) above

See, back in my day (dating myself here) evil alignments weren't allowed as per the books.
CN was the go-to alignment back then.
Once evil became allowed, as per the books, that shifted to CE instead. Because a large portion of players don't want to take responsibility for their character's actions.

To be honest, it sounds like your argument is basically "you can't play a non stereotypical CE, because all CE characters must be stereotypical, or not be CE."

Alignment is just one part of how a character acts, alongside traits, bonds and flaws. It is perfectly possible to exemplify CE, while still having friends and being a decent person in certain situations, because alignment is not the only thing deciding your behavior.

[DivisibleByZero]

To be honest, it sounds like your argument is basically "you can't play a non stereotypical CE, because all CE characters must be stereotypical, or not be CE."

Alignment is just one part of how a character acts, alongside traits, bonds and flaws. It is perfectly possible to exemplify CE, while still having friends and being a decent person in certain situations, because alignment is not the only thing deciding your behavior.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Nope. You're using it as a blanket, to keep you safe and warm from actually having to make a real character with real motivations.
I don't care about your friends, or your bonds, or your traits, or your flaws.
If [arbitrary violence, spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust] doesn't describe you, then find another alignment which does.
If that does describe your character, then why are you playing a cooperative game where it is generally accepted that you are intrinsically supposed to be the heroes?

[Contrast]

A lot of people seem to think to be worthy of the title of chaotic evil you seem to need to be insane or unhinged in some way, while the same doesn't seem to be true of chaotic neutral or chaotic good.

I disagree that this can possibly be the case if the alignment system is to mean anything useful at all (but then I tend to think the alignment system does more harm than good anyway so :smallbiggrin:).

[jas61292]

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Nope. You're using it as a blanket, to keep you safe and warm from actually having to make a real character with real motivations.
I don't care about your friends, or your bonds, or your traits, or your flaws.
If [arbitrary violence, spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust] doesn't describe you, then find another alignment which does.

Except you literally just called a character someone described who does do those exact things not CE because there was more to their character than their alignment. CE characters are no more or less defined by their alignment than anyone else.

You seem to have a bias against the alignment that does not let you accept anything but the worst from CE, but just as not every LG is the epitome of righteous all the time, not every CE is always murdering and stealing all the time. There is far more to a character than that.

[scalyfreak]

Anything you can think of to encourage a change in perspective?

So based on everything that has been said in this thread so far...

Ask your DM why that specific alignment is not an option. Why is CE a problem but not NE? Then address those concerns and do your best to make it as clear as possible that you have no interest in using the alignment as a free pass for being a complete jerk, and that your character will do his/her best to work with the party and be non-disruptive. And then show that you created solid in-character reasons for remaining that way.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except you literally just called a character someone described who does do those exact things not CE because there was more to their character than their alignment. CE characters are no more or less defined by their alignment than anyone else.

Except I didn't do that at all?
I think you need to look up what the word arbitrary means.

[Unoriginal]

A CE character is perfectly capable of following orders.

There is a reason why the higher-ups of the Abyss are called Demon Lords, and not Big-Demons-Who-Are-Constantly-Fighting-Smaller-Demons-And-Cannot-Get-Any-Underlings-To-Follow-Their-Lead.

[jas61292]

Except I didn't do that at all?
I think you need to look up what the word arbitrary means.

Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Sounds like exactly what they were describing.

[DivisibleByZero]

Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Sounds like exactly what they were describing.

I don't even know what you're referring to.
CE is violence for the sake of violence.
If there's another reason for the violence, then it likely isn't coming from a Chaotic place.

[scalyfreak]

I don't even know what you're referring to.
CE is violence for the sake of violence.
If there's another reason for the violence, then it likely isn't coming from a Chaotic place.

Sure it can.

It's coming from a chaotic place that realizes that in order not to be lynched by the rest of the world, the violence that is enjoyed for the sake of violence, needs to look as if there was a valid reason for it. Dexter Morgan is still a serial killer.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sure it can.

It's coming from a chaotic place that realizes that in order not to be lynched by the rest of the world, the violence that is enjoyed for the sake of violence, needs to look as if there was a valid reason for it. Dexter Morgan is still a serial killer.

You're going to try to tell me that Dexter Morgan was Chaotic?
The same Dexter Morgan that lived his entire life by a strict and rigid code was Chaotic?
He contained and harnessed and focused his violence, so as not to unleash it without purpose.
Dexter was LE, through and through.

[jas61292]

I don't even know what you're referring to.
CE is violence for the sake of violence.
If there's another reason for the violence, then it likely isn't coming from a Chaotic place.

This is literally wrong. As you said, it is arbitrary. Arbitrary can be random, but it doesn't mean random. Nor does it man for is own sake. It means without real reasoning behind it. A character you called NE was literally described as committing any act of violence against a body because they thought a picture looked at them funny. That is a perfect example of an arbitrary act of violence. Just because it wasn't literally random, nor done simply because "violence" doesn't mean it is not an incredibly chaotic evil act.

And as was just mentioned, demons, the literal embodiment of CE, can follow order and whatnot. There is more to a character than alignment, and not every single act a character does fits within the typical description of their alignment

[Unoriginal]

I don't even know what you're referring to.
CE is violence for the sake of violence.
If there's another reason for the violence, then it likely isn't coming from a Chaotic place.

You're wrong. The description of chaotic evil literally contradicts what you're saying. Doing something violent out of greed or hatred is not "for violence's sake".

[GPS]

Oh, a final note. If you want to play a CE character and your DM doesn't allow it, either concede and pick some other evil alignment or find a campaign where the DM allows the CE alignment. Please don't put down CN and play CE. It's clearly an attempt to circumvent the kind of game the DM has agreed to run, and comes off as extremely dishonest, reflecting poorly on you as a player. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised and a bit saddened by how often I see people suggest lying to the DM as an acceptable response to banned alignments.

[DivisibleByZero]

You're wrong. The description of chaotic evil literally contradicts what you're saying. Doing something violent out of greed or hatred is not "for violence's sake".

Sure it is.
Your other option is to not do violence for greed. Or to not do violence for hate. You have a choice.
I can want something and not hurt someone to get it. I can hate someone and not punch them in the mouth just because I see them. I'm not CE.
If you aren't defending yourself or working with a bigger picture in mind, you are almost certainly doing violence for the sake of violence, because you have other choices, and choose to ignore those other choices.

[scalyfreak]

You're going to try to tell me that Dexter Morgan was Chaotic?
The same Dexter Morgan that lived his entire life by a strict and rigid code was Chaotic?
He contained and harnessed and focused his violence, so as not to unleash it without purpose.
Dexter was LE, through and through.

If you equate behavior with alignment, and discipline with lawfulness, certainly.

Dexter Morgan rationalized up an excuse to indulge in his love of killing for the joy of killing. He does it according to his own set of rules, The Code, that he follows rigidly. But the code changes and evolves as Dexter does, and the main reason he follows the code in the first place is to avoid getting caught. The main reason for his rigid discipline and regimented behavior is to blend in, to avoid getting caught. To say nothing of the fact that Dexter does his killing outside the legal system he works within, indirectly undermining and opposing it.

So yes, I think it's possible to make a case for Dexter Morgan being chaotic evil, depending on your interpretation of alignments in general.

The assumption that someone of a chaotic element can't be disciplined and follow rules makes as much sense to me as saying that someone of a lawful alignment can never be spontaneous or compromise. But if we're going to assume that a CE character can't exhibit self-control or provide rational justifications when asked for why they did something, we need to apply that kind of rigidity to every other alignment as well, and now we've made lawful good characters just as unplayable, and the group will disintegrate the moment the paladin realizes that the party rogue used to steal things for a living.

Which is why any alignment that comes with a large set of assumptions and stereotypes needs to be discussed with the GM before it's put into play, in my not so humble opinion.

EDIT: So essentially what jas61292 already said... :smallredface:

[Unoriginal]

Sure it is.
Your other option is to not do violence for greed. Or to not do violence for hate. You have a choice.
I can want something and not hurt someone to get it. I can hate someone and not punch them in the mouth just because I see them. I'm not CE.
If you aren't defending yourself or working with a bigger picture in mind, you are almost certainly doing violence for the sake of violence, because you have other choices, and choose to ignore those other choices.

...that's not what "doing something for something's sake" means. Doing X for Y's sake means that Y is the reason or motivation why you are doing it, or that you are doing it to make Y happy.

If you do something for greed's sake, you're not doing it for violence's sake. You could do for both, but it doesn't not to be.

A chaotic evil character could be the kind of character who would want to break the nose of a random commoner who looked at them in a way that displeased them and they feel disrespected. They could be the kind of person who would triple the price they ask for something on a whim, because their interlocutors said something that displeased them slightly, just because they think it's funny to watch desperate people struggle to meet the price, or because they feel they can milk the others even more and they're feeling greedy. They could also be the kind to decide to cheat in a tournament, because they want the glory and privilege the winner get, and figure they'll cripple their opponents because it'll make winning easier.

All of those behaviors could be chaotic evil, yet none of them are "for violence's sake".

[fbelanger]

By being a perfect gentleman LG player.

[Yakk]

CE reads to many DMs as "I don't want to have any restrictions on what I make my character do at all. They will murderhobo whenever they want, and the DM isn't allowed to say 'but, that would be wrong'."

Sometimes they are damaged by previous DMs who used any character trait, flaw or attachment the character has, and bullied the PC into doing something or not doing something. By being chaotic (random) and evil (no morality other than self preservation), they can ignore any such DM requests.

The combat engine is the one engine in D&D where the DM cannot say "no, that doesn't work", because if you deal enough damage (or cast the right spell) your foe simply loses. With CE, you have all the excuse you ever need to enter the combat engine and break free of any shackles the DM places on your characters actions in-game.

If this is the case with your DM, consider finding ways to mollify these concerns, that you aren't doing it for these reasons.

If you are doing it for these reasons, and this is what the DM is concerned about, maybe you aren't compatible in the same game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not the wanton slaughtering, puppy kicking, baby eater kind. But more the might makes right type.

That's Neutral Evil, not Chaotic Evil.

"Doing whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." - Neutral Evil

vs

"act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." - Chaotic Evil


The difference in behavior would be that a Chaotic Evil Barbarian might kill someone for a personal slight without a thought for the consequences; whereas, a Neutral Evil Barbarian might not kill if they thought there were risks to doing so not worth taking.

For even further distinction, a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian isn't going to care overly what consequences might occur, but they also probably wouldn't (necessarily) react violently to any given thing. On the other hand, if the offense was that the Barbarian felt their freedom to choose something was constrained, maybe they would.

[Asha Leu]

I think a lot of the issues with the alignment system come from players and DM's interpreting them much too narrowly and literally. Most people are a fluid mess of contradictions, and its best to treat each alignment as a pretty broad spectrum. This isn't really a criticism of D&D's alignment system itself - which I've always considered to be pretty useful and rather unfairly maligned - but rather the way a lot people use it.

My own broad interpretation of chaotic evil is a pretty horrible and impulsive person with no real social conscience nor respect for the laws of the land. Within that definition you can fit a wide range of different characters, from high-functioning psychopaths who live relatively normal lives and have never killed a single person, to drooling, puppy-strangling, baby-eating lunatics. Remember, standard D&D settings have entire societies comprised mostly of chaotic evil individuals (drows, orcs, the entirety of the abyss) - said societies would be completely incapable of functioning if nearly every member was psychotic murder-hobo impulsively acting on every vile thought that enters their brain.

As for Dexter Morgan, I'd consider him to be on the borderline between Lawful and Neutral Evil, moving more and more towards the latter as the series goes on. Beyond the Code of Harry, he's also a massive neat freak who meticulously organises nearly every aspect of his life, all of which are lawful traits. However, he will happily lie, cheat and break the law if he can get away with it, and continually rationalizes his own behavior and modifies his code when it suits him, all of which - while perhaps not strictly chaotic - are definitely not lawful either.


Oh, a final note. If you want to play a CE character and your DM doesn't allow it, either concede and pick some other evil alignment or find a campaign where the DM allows the CE alignment. Please don't put down CN and play CE. It's clearly an attempt to circumvent the kind of game the DM has agreed to run, and comes off as extremely dishonest, reflecting poorly on you as a player. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised and a bit saddened by how often I see people suggest lying to the DM as an acceptable response to banned alignments.

I have nothing to add to this except that I agree completely.

[Dr. Cliché]

The initial post made me think of this quote:

"There was this to be said about Cohen. If there was no reason for him to kill you, such as you having any large amount of treasure or being between him and somewhere he wanted to get to, then he was good company."
- Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

Now, whilst I'm not sure I'd class Cohen as Chaotic Evil, I think the spirit of the above works quite well for a CE character in a party.


I play evil all the time, you have the right attitude I think. The biggest misconceptions that people roleplay while evil:

Evil people don't have friends or care about people

Evil and Chaos are not capable of being pragmatic

Evil cannot be nice, kind or caring

Agreed. My guess would be that people equate 'evil' with 'psychopath'.



That's horse ****e. The serial killer argument works quite a bit.

Wives, friends, and loved ones of serial killers talk about what wonderful people they are & how shocked they are that they murdered people.

I'd be careful of this line of reasoning, to be honest. Many serial killers are psychopaths and one of the defining features of such is that they're very good at feigning empathy. As in, they are very good at appearing personable and getting others to be their friends, but they don't actually consider those people friends and will betray them in a heartbeat if it suits them.

I make this distinction simply because I think evil people are also capable of having genuine friends and loved ones.

[hamishspence]

It's also worth remembering that there are ways of being Evil that don't involve personal violence. A character who inspires strife, spreading malicious rumors and starting quarrels between NPCs, for their own amusement, is being Evil, without personally injuring anyone.

Combine with a certain whimsicality, and you can have a Chaotic Evil person who does not murder at the drop of a hat.

[Beelzebubba]

My favorite Chaotic Evil character in fiction is Elric.

(For those of you too young to have read 'Your Dad's Formulaic 60's Sword and Sorcery Crap', he was a basically a thought experiment: the exact opposite of Conan. He was physically weak, a sorcerer, king of a decadent culture, his sword gave him all his combat prowess, and he spent his career actively destroying his kingdom.)

He was desperately in love...with his sister. Ew.

He was incredibly loyal to a handful of friends, and spared no effort in protecting them...including sending hundreds of thousands of souls to be devoured by the most evil being in existence.

He loved his kingdom with all his heart...until his throne was stolen by his brother. Then he helped his country's greatest enemies invade, sack, and burn it all to the ground.

He built up many relationships with faithful followers...then discarded them and sent them to their doom the instant it helped him get what he wanted.

I remember the first time I cracked the 1st edition of Dieties and Demigods and saw his entry when I was 13 or 14. My jaw hit the ground. It took me a while to come to terms with it - but it was completely right.

[Gtdead]

If your dm has problems with CE, say you are neutral and play whatever you want. Problem solved.

The CE character in our group was a joy to be around. I liked him better than the NG characters.

[DivisibleByZero]

The CE character in our group was a joy to be around.

.... then he wasn't CE.... Maybe that's what he wrote on his sheet, but either he wasn't actually CE, or you, my good friend, are a sociopath.

[90sMusic]

One of the many reasons I hate alignments and wish they did not exist...

In my games we don't even write down alignments because they are constricting and people are always trying to gauge if an action falls under their alignment or if they should start shifting alignment and a lot of other nonsense that does not add ANYTHING to the game.

People are complex. They can exhibit characteristics of a multitude of alignments throughout a single day.
Hell one of the reasons D&D is great is because you can approach it in a more organic and realistic way. Being strangled by alignments is like playing something like Mass Effect where you just have your "Paragon option" and "Renegade option" for every little choice you make. Sometimes you have to compromise your morality for the greater good, which is why everyone hates paladins in older editions because they weren't allowed to do that.

I'm glad 5e wiped out almost everything that has to do with alignment, maybe the next edition will sweet up the last vestiges of that ridiculous notion of classifying people's morality.

Alignment should be treated exactly like the Bonds, Ideals, Beliefs, etc for character backgrounds. They should only be considered if you aren't sure what type of character you want to play or how you want to shape their personality to give you a guideline to begin from.

If at any point while playing 5e someone brings up a character's alignment, be it a player or a DM, they are crazy because alignment honestly doesn't matter anymore. Even the Detect Good and Evil spells don't work on alignment anymore, they literally do NOTHING now (thank goodness) so there is absolutely no reason to worry about what alignment you fit under and just play your character your way and do the things you think that character would do. Then you live with the consequences for those actions. "evil"ish acts tend to have repercussions if you get caught. You might get a bounty put on your head or at the very least if word spreads towns may refuse to let you enter them or try to kill or arrest you on sight.

The best players will consider the party before taking any actions. If you have a holier than thou paladin who wants to squash out all misdeeds and injustice in the world to a fanatical degree, you are going to initiate an interparty conflict when you decide to murder someone or torture someone. DM's tend to favor the good idiot but don't tolerate the evil idiot. Good idiots are just as bad because if you're unable to ever tell a lie or kill a dangerous foe that you happen upon in their sleep or that you managed to incapacitate, or whatever else, that will cause party drama and tension just as easily as the evil idiot will. There HAS to be moral flexibility between all players/characters because otherwise these alignments just wouldn't work together at all. You shouldn't take an action that you know is going to step over the line and cause massive party drama. It's fine for the party to argue and discuss what they want to do collectively, but if you then go against the party's wishes and act out on your own it's going to piss off your party, ESPECIALLY if it was an evil act in a mostly good party. They would never trust you again and then you put the entire group in this awkward position where you all have to decide what to do about it. Do they ignore what they feel is right and pretend they didn't see you just do that and ignore the fact you went against the party's collective wishes? Do they kill you on the spot or throw you out of the party? Does the DM retcon the situation to prevent this escalation? If your action will ever lead to this, don't do it. That is why DM's hate evil aligned characters is because they love crossing that line then saying "it's because i'm evil, my character would do this". Even evil characters aren't idiots, they aren't going to alienate the party they are with and risk being thrown out because there is obviously some reason for that character to want to be with the party in the first place and you have to ask yourself, "am I SO evil and simultaneously SO stupid that i'm going to give up my long term goals for the sake of this short term evil action?"

It's not hard to think up a reason or way to justify your evil character going with the party's desires and even doing good out in the world as long as it's ultimately working toward their own goal in the long term.

And chaotic evil doesn't even have to mean random acts of violence. Succubi were Chaotic Evil from their inception all the way until 4th edition but they were still intelligent schemers and never rashly or recklessly lashed out at their victims. They played the long con. Their actions led to chaos started by others, but they didn't partake in it themselves usually. They weren't especially violent or even aggressive. Nowadays they're neutral evil and can flip flop to chaos or lawful as they please and choose to serve either demons or devils on a whim. Something they always should've been able to do, but alignment screws up that kind of complexity.

Alignment is silly and pointless in 5e.

[War_lord]

One of the many reasons I hate alignments and wish they did not exist...

In my games we don't even write down alignments because they are constricting and people are always trying to gauge if an action falls under their alignment or if they should start shifting alignment and a lot of other nonsense that does not add ANYTHING to the game.

If by "constricting" you mean it stops people having their character do things that character wouldn't do. Then yes, it's constricting, that's the point. In systems without alignment, you get people murdering a shopkeeper out of boredom, and people trying to out sadist one another. In D&D these people would self-select out of my game when I tell them no evil characters.


People are complex. They can exhibit characteristics of a multitude of alignments throughout a single day.

People don't fly from selfless altruism to sadistic murderous in a day, people who exhibit that kind of behavior are generally considered mentally ill.


Hell one of the reasons D&D is great is because you can approach it in a more organic and realistic way. Being strangled by alignments is like playing something like Mass Effect where you just have your "Paragon option" and "Renegade option" for every little choice you make. Sometimes you have to compromise your morality for the greater good, which is why everyone hates paladins in older editions because they weren't allowed to do that.

People hated the Paladin in older editions, because the Paladin was under enforced Stupid Good, not because their Alignment was Good. The sort of person who constantly has to justify their actions with "for the greater good" is generally not a good person. In fiction it has because almost trite to have the villain stay "it's for the greater good".


I'm glad 5e wiped out almost everything that has to do with alignment, maybe the next edition will sweet up the last vestiges of that ridiculous notion of classifying people's morality.

Alignment has nothing to do with morality. Recreational drug use is a moral question, government is a moral question, freedom of speech is a moral question. Things that people can sit down and actually debate the merits and consequences of. Murder is not a moral question, torture is not a moral question, sexual assault is not a moral question. They're held by society to be awful things, evil things.


Alignment should be treated exactly like the Bonds, Ideals, Beliefs, etc for character backgrounds. They should only be considered if you aren't sure what type of character you want to play or how you want to shape their personality to give you a guideline to begin from.

You have it backwards. Bonds, ideals, personality traits and flaws aren't optional for character generation, they're critical building blocks. You can just make up a personality for your character without doing any background work, but my experience is that when you do that you end up with a character with no internal consistency who takes the path of least resistance every time.


If at any point while playing 5e someone brings up a character's alignment, be it a player or a DM, they are crazy because alignment honestly doesn't matter anymore

Are you arguing mechanics or roleplaying? If you're just playing D&D as a hack and slash dungeon crawl, alignment doesn't matter, because in a straight dungeon crawl, you aren't roleplaying. If you're roleplaying Alignment is huge, because it's a great guide to the lines you will and won't cross in a given situation.


Even the Detect Good and Evil spells don't work on alignment anymore, they literally do NOTHING now (thank goodness) so there is absolutely no reason to worry about what alignment you fit under and just play your character your way and do the things you think that character would do.

You can already do that, but if "what my character would do" is be Mr.Blonde, your alignment is going to shift accordingly, and I'm not interested in playing that kind of game.


Then you live with the consequences for those actions. "evil"ish acts tend to have repercussions if you get caught. You might get a bounty put on your head or at the very least if word spreads towns may refuse to let you enter them or try to kill or arrest you on sight.

See, the problem is that it's not your character living with the consequences of your actions. It's your fellow players who signed on for a typical game, and you're DM who probably put hours of effort into creating that game who are suffering the consequences of your disruptive behavior as a player. That's one of the big differences between a single player CRPG and the cooperative experience of a Tabletop RPG.


The best players will consider the party before taking any actions.

Every player needs to do that, not just the "best".


If you have a holier than thou paladin who wants to squash out all misdeeds and injustice in the world to a fanatical degree, you are going to initiate an interparty conflict when you decide to murder someone or torture someone.

Yes, if you act in an evil fashion, it's going to cause interparty, and more importantly, interplayer conflict. Which is why DMs say no to evil characters at their table. And are naturally suspicious of players trying to avoid committing to an alignment, because it's usually a prelude to "but that's what my character would do" behavior, functionally chaotic evil.


DM's tend to favor the good idiot but don't tolerate the evil idiot. Good idiots are just as bad because if you're unable to ever tell a lie or kill a dangerous foe that you happen upon in their sleep or that you managed to incapacitate, or whatever else, that will cause party drama and tension just as easily as the evil idiot will.

Because the "good idiot" is playing their character, such as a cleric who has sworn to never utter a falsehood, or a Paladin who won't execute a surrendered foe. And the typical evil idiot is murdering townsfolk for giggles. A DM shouldn't tolerate disruptive behavior. It just so happens that a typical source of disruptive behavior is a player who believes that their alignment, or lack of same excuses bad behavior. And Evil, particularly of the Chaotic strain, technically excuses 99% of bad behavior, when you ignore the fact that it should be impossible for someone like that to work with a party for long periods of time.


There HAS to be moral flexibility between all players/characters because otherwise these alignments just wouldn't work together at all. You shouldn't take an action that you know is going to step over the line and cause massive party drama. It's fine for the party to argue and discuss what they want to do collectively, but if you then go against the party's wishes and act out on your own it's going to piss off your party, ESPECIALLY if it was an evil act in a mostly good party. They would never trust you again and then you put the entire group in this awkward position where you all have to decide what to do about it. Do they ignore what they feel is right and pretend they didn't see you just do that and ignore the fact you went against the party's collective wishes? Do they kill you on the spot or throw you out of the party? Does the DM retcon the situation to prevent this escalation? If your action will ever lead to this, don't do it. That is why DM's hate evil aligned characters is because they love crossing that line then saying "it's because i'm evil, my character would do this". Even evil characters aren't idiots, they aren't going to alienate the party they are with and risk being thrown out because there is obviously some reason for that character to want to be with the party in the first place and you have to ask yourself, "am I SO evil and simultaneously SO stupid that i'm going to give up my long term goals for the sake of this short term evil action?"

You're doing a fine job of explaining why DM's typically don't allow evil characters.


It's not hard to think up a reason or way to justify your evil character going with the party's desires and even doing good out in the world as long as it's ultimately working toward their own goal in the long term.

If they're capable of that kind of restraint they're definitely not Chaotic Evil. Also begs the question of why you want to put Chaotic Evil down on your sheet if your character is functionally neutral.


And chaotic evil doesn't even have to mean random acts of violence.

It doesn't mean 20 years of delayed gratification either.


Succubi were Chaotic Evil from their inception all the way until 4th edition but they were still intelligent schemers and never rashly or recklessly lashed out at their victims. They played the long con. Their actions led to chaos started by others, but they didn't partake in it themselves usually. They weren't especially violent or even aggressive. Nowadays they're neutral evil and can flip flop to chaos or lawful as they please and choose to serve either demons or devils on a whim. Something they always should've been able to do, but alignment screws up that kind of complexity.

No, no it's doesn't. Succubus prefer scheming to violence, because their feeding method relies on scheming. That's not complex at all, they're still Evil.


Alignment is silly and pointless in 5e.

You just explained why it's important. I think your view of what constitutes moral complexity is stuck in the 90's.

[Gtdead]

.... then he wasn't CE.... Maybe that's what he wrote on his sheet, but either he wasn't actually CE, or you, my good friend, are a sociopath.

No, he was CE. Just not crazy bloodthirsty. He lied, he murdered, he was vain and tad selfish, but he was a fun character who acted as a friend to the party, keeping our characters in the dark about his intentions.

All you have to do to be a CE character is being whimsical and willing to take lives for your own ends, even if it's just for sport.

You don't have to be crazy and have a disruptive behavior to qualify.

It has to do with how the group (and mostly the dm) perceives the morality system. In a comical setting with lawful good murderhobos, CE has to be worse than the most crazy version of the Joker. In a tighter morality system, it's a lot easier to play a saner version of the alignment that is still in agreement with the phb.

[DivisibleByZero]

He lied, he murdered, he was vain and tad selfish, but he was a fun character

And apparently this person was "a joy to be around" or something like that.
So you have confirmed my second option. A vain, selfish, lying, murdering person was described by you to be a joy.
You, my good friend, are a sociopath.

[Naez]

And apparently this person was "a joy to be around" or something like that.
So you have confirmed my second option. A vain, selfish, lying, murdering person was described by you to be a joy.
You, my good friend, are a sociopath.

idk that sounds like a pretty bog standard serial killer. And most people describe them as good, friendly people.

[scalyfreak]

And apparently this person was "a joy to be around" or something like that.
So you have confirmed my second option. A vain, selfish, lying, murdering person was described by you to be a joy.
You, my good friend, are a sociopath.

You do realize there is a difference between being a sociopath in real life, and playing a character that the other players at the table perceive as a sociopath? Right?

The word "sociopath" is as misunderstood and because of that difficult to use in conversations, and the evil alignments in RPGs. The way the originals ones were written, way back when, the Chaotic Evil especially is so horribly two-dimensionally stereotypical that it's frankly a joke. Which is a a part of the problem. Everyone puts their own spin on it, because that is the only thing that makes it remotely usable to begin with.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Technically, "Might Makes Right" is also the basis of all legal codes IRL.

Your Barbarian sounds LG to me...:smallwink:

[Gtdead]

And apparently this person was "a joy to be around" or something like that.
So you have confirmed my second option. A vain, selfish, lying, murdering person was described by you to be a joy.
You, my good friend, are a sociopath.

You must be having some sort of comprehension problem or you are a lawyer. A bad one.

Lets try it that way. Have you ever watched movies? Some times there are characters that are fun and do bad things, but other people aren't supposed to know about it and they still like being around them.

Let's take James Bond for example. He is a ladies' man, he dresses nice, he has an enjoyable attitude to watch, but he lies about his identity and murders people for a living.

Deadpool, another super fan character. He is a psychopath and loves to murder people and make fun of them after he kills them.

Being likeable is a quality that has nothing to do with how many people you murder or how many of them know your identity and your true intentions. Stop confusing them just because of the meta knowledge I provide and don't blow common qualities like vanity out of proportion. Vain doesn't have to be rude. It can actually be intriguing if done right.

I also said that he acted as a friend to the party, which is the key to playing this alignment and not destroy the experience.

[BB944]

Dead pool maybe a all those things, but his justification is not 'just to kill'

And you are using a person who dances on the thin line of villain and hero, not because he is Evil, but because he murders people. If there was an alignment it would be C/N as fuuuu



C/E is two things. Chaos and Evil.

Lack of stability, regard for rule of law, and desire to do what they please when they please and how they please. Without any regard to accountability to their actions. Chaotic. Can be good, can be evil, can be neither (SLC Punk?)

and this other part...

Complete disregard for the well being of others. Selfish, malicious, and generally wants to watch the world burn. If it please anyone it had better be him, anyone else is just part of the plan. Evil does not care for your life, property, or things you care about. Evil cares only for itself. This can be driven with in the confines of the law, via contract and manipulation. Can be pure in its sense of purpose and has little regard to the overview of society.... or ... well can be the nice combination of the two....

At least .. that was the way it has been intended. But what is it now? I am still firm that Alignment is just a 'tug' in a direction for a character, a general comfort and knee-jerk reactions to events that occur around him/her. but...

I still agreed with what has been stated before. We are of a society (IRL) that is built on good nature, and people who have friends that want to play role playing games with each other also have good nature to them (or they would have a hard time finding any games being such jerks) So to ask a DM to allow a Alignment that is purposed for the single fact to indicate to the reader of the monster manual that "this is a bad guy" is just asking the DM to allow you to do what ever you want how you want and justify it with you alignment. You can do better

[Gtdead]

Deadpool is CE and he kills because the voices tell him to actually, even if the movie version is a bit more sane.

Every time he rejuvenates he is a bit different and he was introduced as a supervillain.

He is as much likely to hug you and kiss you, as to murder you and rape your dead body.

[agnos]

I don't see how CE would work in any party.

[hamishspence]

In a party of "Chaotic Rebels" all seeking to undermine a LE adversary - a CE character might fit just fine.

They will be the one who advocates the most extreme methods, but the goals may be shared.

[Gtdead]

A CE can fit in a escape from prison setting, or when his survival depends on saving something other than himself.

I wouldn't play a CE character in a traditional caravan start because the CE is more likely to steal a horse or something instead of taking a honest job or ride the caravan.

[Vogonjeltz]

You must be having some sort of comprehension problem or you are a lawyer. A bad one.

Lets try it that way. Have you ever watched movies? Some times there are characters that are fun and do bad things, but other people aren't supposed to know about it and they still like being around them.

Let's take James Bond for example. He is a ladies' man, he dresses nice, he has an enjoyable attitude to watch, but he lies about his identity and murders people for a living.

Deadpool, another super fan character. He is a psychopath and loves to murder people and make fun of them after he kills them.

Being likeable is a quality that has nothing to do with how many people you murder or how many of them know your identity and your true intentions. Stop confusing them just because of the meta knowledge I provide and don't blow common qualities like vanity out of proportion. Vain doesn't have to be rude. It can actually be intriguing if done right.

I also said that he acted as a friend to the party, which is the key to playing this alignment and not destroy the experience.

James Bond kills people for Queen and country, not arbitrarily nor out of greed, malice, or envy.
He's actually Lawful Good based on both his motives and his actions. He literally has a License to Kill making it lawful for him to do so, not murder.

DeadPool certainly is erratic, and probably insane. That being said, he does have a functioning understanding of good and evil even if his methods are absurdly overboard. Insofar as I can ascertain from the comics he does not engage in arbitrary violence because of greed, bloodlust, etcetera. He acts according to his conscience, with no regard whatsoever for what others think. So, Chaotic, for sure. Evil? Generally from what I've seen his heart is in the right place even if his responses are sometimes disproportionate.
Maybe Chaotic Neutral.

[LaserFace]

I don't ever say hard-and-fast that evil alignments are disallowed in my games, but I often try to discourage them. The problem is not necessarily some character being selfish, and even maybe doing horrible things. The problem is group dynamic and campaign themes. If the rest of the party wants to be Selfless Heroes in Service of the Goodly King, how does Sir Evil "Oppress The Weak" McMalice fit into that?

Is the character loyal to the party? Because I don't want infighting.

Is the character going to lie, cheat, steal and murder at every opportunity? Because in a Good group, that's probably gonna cause infighting, or alternatively the group will dissolve.

Either way, you'll probably just need new characters, and we should have dealt with that before letting the folks at the table play an incompatible mish-mosh. If we flipped it and said everyone was Evil except for Mister Goody Two-Shoes, I'd tell him we're not doing that, either.

So, how do you get CE to work? You have to somehow convince the DM you'll never do anything to ruin the campaign. Maybe a magical curse compels a CE guy to work with the otherwise LG group. Maybe you can think of something else. But, you shouldn't pick alignments that threaten the stability of the game, and if you can't promise it won't happen, you should just let it go.

[Contrast]

To those who don't feel CE can be anything but an unhinged murderholic I present an alignment chart for discussion:

http://i.imgur.com/8WrjcPV.jpg

So person A is what I would consider the stereotypical CE who flips a coin to decide if you live or die and wants to see the world burn around them.

Point B is also in the CE box but is significantly less evil and less chaotic that person A. Are you saying that there is no noticable difference between how these two people act because they're both CE or can we agree that people can be CE without being maximally chaotic and maximally evil at all times?

In fact person B's alignment is barely distinguishable from the alignments of person F and person E (CN and NE respectively). Can we agree that at the edges of an alignment there may be a lot of overlap and just because someone exhibits some characteristics of another alignment does not mean there are always that alignment?

Now a number of people have said that its impossible to be chaotic evil and be in a party. Lets look at person C and person D (CN and CG respectively). They're more at the maximum end of the chaotic spectrum. This means (according to the interpretation that a chaotic evil person can never control themselves) that person C is completely unpredictable and person D will randomly abandon the party at any given time if they think they can do some good elsewhere. I would argue both of these alignments are equally as unplayable in a party for any length of time as extreme CE. However lots of people play these alignments without being told 'no your character is actually NG not CG' because there is more to an alignment than its most extreme point.

That all said - there are lots of parties or games in which playing a CE character would not be appropriate. I just disagree that there is only one way to play CE and that its the equivilent to Lawful Stupid version of Lawful Good.



Edit -

Also just to respond directly to this:


Alignment has nothing to do with morality. Recreational drug use is a moral question, government is a moral question, freedom of speech is a moral question. Things that people can sit down and actually debate the merits and consequences of. Murder is not a moral question, torture is not a moral question, sexual assault is not a moral question. They're held by society to be awful things, evil things.

I don't disagree that those are awful evil things. But then, as you say, I was raised in a society where they are judged to be awful evil things. There have been other societies (to avoid real world morality arguments lets use drow) who hold different opinions on these issues. Do you think someone in a drow society would react the same way to one of these evil acts as you would? Does that mean that act is a neutral act to them? Would a drow asked to define evil and good acts give the same answers that you would?

What about someone who follows a strict code but its impossible for anyone else to figure out what their code is and their actions appear totally random. Are they lawful or chaotic? What if that code was based on random chance (the roll of a dice or where a falling leaf lands) - does that change things or not?

Alignment is a moral question with no answers that can be backed up by much more than 'well thats what I think anyway'.

...well that's what I think anyway :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

James Bond kills people for Queen and country, not arbitrarily nor out of greed, malice, or envy.
He's actually Lawful Good based on both his motives and his actions. He literally has a License to Kill making it lawful for him to do so, not murder.

Bond kills a lot even in Licence To Kill - when his licence has been revoked. A classic example of how the rules don't matter to him that much. For Bond, what matters isn't so much "is it legal for me to kill them" but "is it right for me to kill them" - in the previous movie (The Living Daylights), he disobeys an order to kill a sniper because he recognises she is not a professional and wasn't shooting to kill - he doesn't see her as a valid target, but as an innocent.

Different Bonds are different enough that one could probably create an alignment chart for most of the variants - but I haven't seen one.


One could also say that "just because a murder has been legalised doesn't change the morality of it - that depends on other factors". Plenty of villainous leaders legalise the murder of those they see as "inferior" or "a threat" too.

[MasterMercury]

Except that, once again as I have stated, people are confusing what CE is.
Jayne Cobb isn't CE.
Jayne Cobb is NE.
If he were CE, he wouldn't follow Mal's lead, and would instead do as he pleases. But he doesn't generally do that. Generally, he follows where Mal leads, and follows Mal's orders, even if he disagrees with them. ((("Sure would be nice if we had some grenades right about now....")))
Jayne is not Chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. Jayne is Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.
So this example falls prey to 1) and/or 2) listed above.

Run of the mill street thugs?
They're almost exclusively LE or NE.

Jayne betrayed his former co-workers for money, betrayed the crew for money and then felt bad about it, and is usually trying to get around Mal's orders.
He follows Mal because he respects him, and probably fears him a little bit, and because he likes money. If Jayne thinks he has a better idea than Mal, he does it his way.
He loves freedom more than anything, and anyone who tries to interfere with that will be killed.
Jayne is definitely more Chaotic evil than Neutral evil. He's just not stupid evil.

Although, he's definitely not Joker level CE. It's interesting to think about. The whole Firefly crew has a strong Chaotic tilt, but they also have some lawful tendencies in following Mals orders. Jayne is the least likely to follow orders, so if anyone is Chaotic, it would be Jayne. He's not a maniac, but I'd say he's justified in CE territory.

Zoe is lawful neutral if you look at her devotion to Mal, but Chaotic neutral if it came to anything else. Likewise, Mal could be neutral evil when you look at his connection with Mal, but if you take his character by himself he's definitely Chaotic evil.

"Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid."

I'd kill a man in a fair fight: NE

or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman: CE

or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid: CE? NE? somewhere in the middle

Only Chaotic Stupids kill for no reason at all


EDIT: It's really late, I'm kind of rambling on.

[Sigreid]

And apparently this person was "a joy to be around" or something like that.
So you have confirmed my second option. A vain, selfish, lying, murdering person was described by you to be a joy.
You, my good friend, are a sociopath.

Or you know, he realizes it's a game and no matter what gets done no one really gets hurt, no one is missing their prized possessions and there's really no reason not to go with it for a laugh.

[StoicLeaf]

Alignment discussions quickly deteriorate, as this and countless other threads demonstrate.

OP, I'd skip the alignment bit and just look at what your character wants and how he'll integrate himself into the group.
All you've given us so far is "might makes right" and that doesn't mean "evil" on it's own.
If you put an evil spin on it, then you're looking at someone who's a bully, basically.
Challenge people for leadership, especially if they're weaker than you.
Lead when there is no leader.
Be disrespectful to the loved king with an understaffed barracks.

So much depends on the DM and the other players.
If you're an RP-lite crowd then all of your backstory is just box art anyway, it's not going to matter.
If your group RPs a bit more and they're good aligned .. then you're in trouble.
That isn't to say it can't work, but I'd think of, say, 3-5 examples of how your character would interact with the others and see if they object.

example:
"The scrawny bard is talking to an informant; he decides that your group will take the sewers to get to your target. It's a longer (and dirtier) route to be sure, but this way you bypass a few guards holding a bridge."

[Sir cryosin]

The example I'd use, perhaps, might be Jayne Cobb from Firefly, who is a great example of a CE character who works (mostly) smoothly with a non-evil party.

I wouldn't call Jayne CE. He's more NE with lawful tendencies. I'm even hasatent to even call him evil.

[Jophiel]

I don't see how CE would work in any party.
It could but you'd need everyone on board. Imagine an orc raiding party. Orcs are chaotic evil but have a society based on a "might makes right" principle where the strongest orc is the chief and the other orcs listen to him or else they get axed in the skull. They still manage to function as a group though and a tough orc could round up some other orcs and set off on a mission. You could say the same about some third-world warlord who keeps his place by being the baddest dude and commands his soldiers into raiding villages or stealing food. Provided the party is willing to play with one guy being the alpha and the understanding that their characters are sufficiently cowed that they don't spend the first night all trying to murder one another, you could run a group like that.

It's worth noting that even chaotic evil societies have some sort of hierarchy or order or else they wouldn't be a society. Some chieftain is telling his guys to keep guard (and they do) and some shaman is doing the traditional rituals as they've been done for generations. The chieftain has to offer sufficient guidance and resources to be worth listening to -- even if you're the toughest orc on the mountain, if you're not bringing in food and keeping the other orcs safe from dwarves, the other orcs are better off just wandering away and you're the leader of no one. What makes them "chaotic" is the scarcity of law and that it boils down to the strongest being leader, not the complete absence of law or structure.

I disagree strongly with the notion that (physical) might makes right is a lawful concept. "Might makes right" is the most nascent form of law. The lawful antagonist does not need to personally spill your brains with his mace, he uses the system to have you arrested or financially ruined or marked by the church or exiled, options more available in a lawful society than in a chaotic warband.

[KorvinStarmast]

A CE character is perfectly capable of following orders.

There is a reason why the higher-ups of the Abyss are called Demon Lords, and not Big-Demons-Who-Are-Constantly-Fighting-Smaller-Demons-And-Cannot-Get-Any-Underlings-To-Follow-Their-Lead. Good point, which gets followed up later by a "might makes right" reference.

Oh, a final note. If you want to play a CE character and your DM doesn't allow it, either concede and pick some other evil alignment or find a campaign where the DM allows the CE alignment. Gee, suggesting that RPG players exercise actual social skills, rather than the fake social skills reflected in a Charisma roll. Checking to see if serious. :smallbiggrin:

CE reads to many DMs as "I don't want to have any restrictions on what I make my character do at all. They will murderhobo whenever they want, and the DM isn't allowed to say 'but, that would be wrong'."
The game involves a lot of killing by design, so what I like to do in alignment considerations is address Everything Else Characters do other than killing ... since Killing is a Thing in D&D by design. D&D is not an emulation of real life. Swords and Sorcery, High Fantasy, Mythic and Epic Fantasy, and a whole lot of gritty fantasy lit (See Thieves World Series) all involve killing/slaying things.

My favorite Chaotic Evil character in fiction is Elric.
Yeah, complex and in the end doomed. Read those books in high school and later, must say I enjoyed that particular take on AntiHero.

All you have to do to be a CE character is being whimsical and willing to take lives for your own ends, even if it's just for sport.

You don't have to be crazy and have a disruptive behavior to qualify. Playing CE well is actually difficult in a group of mixed motivations. Most Role players are not up to the challenge, but a few are.

Technically, "Might Makes Right" is also the basis of all legal codes IRL. Yeah, in LG, LN, LE, the Law has the backing of the mace.

[Sigreid]

Frankly I've usually found LG more disruptive in a group than any of the evil alignments.

[KorvinStarmast]

Frankly I've usually found LG more disruptive in a group than any of the evil alignments. What that says about the people in those groups I'll not comment on at length, but LG can be a challenge to play. It really depends upon how the LG player plays it. I've seen stick-in-the-mud and I've seen O-Chul. And stuff in between.

[Sigreid]

What that says about the people in those groups I'll not comment on at length, but LG can be a challenge to play. It really depends upon how the LG player plays it. I've seen stick-in-the-mud and I've seen O-Chul. And stuff in between.

It's just like real life. If 1 person in a group has a radically different idea of what is socially acceptable and moral than the reat, and insists others meet their preferred standard, they are the problem. At least the CE guy doesn't usually really care what your moral center is, until you interfere with him.

[Jophiel]

Yeah, in LG, LN, LE, the Law has the backing of the mace.
While ultimately true, the primary difference is that, in a lawful society, the weak are able to address grievances and expect protections through the legal code without having to swing a mace themselves. A farmer can go to the magistrate about a moved boundary stone and not have to get into a scythe-fight with his neighbor. In a chaotic society, if you can't personally stop someone from stealing your meat, you just don't get any meat.

Or, from an evil perspective, in a lawful society the 'weak' can manipulate the system to do away with their rivals or gain wealth without needing to lift a mace. In a chaotic society, you'll probably need to do your own dirty work -- or have underlings who are sufficiently afraid of your might to order around. Which is close to the same premise.

While most laws boil down to some form of "might makes right", a lawful character would not be satisfied with such a shallow and vulgar application of resolving societal issues. Obviously things are different in the dungeon or dragon's lair.