chaotic vrs evil, which is -really- worse AL Eberron rules

[Tetrasodium]

In the season 8 AL rules, evil is severely limited in the forgotten realms alpg, in the eberron alpg it's flatly not allowed at all. Yet Forgotten realms is the setting that has absolute morality with eberron having a much deeper & more nuanced take on the good <-> evil spectrum (http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/).

It's so well accepted that "evil" characters are bad for the game that people practically repeat it by rote like a mantra to the point hat WotC even says that evil characters are not allowed or are severely restricted in AL. Really though, how problematic are evil characters? Is it problematic when the evil PC does something that needs doing? Is it problematic when the evil character wrangles problematic group elements together towards the party's goal? Is it problematic when the childish kick the dog evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog) gets told "uhh no... if you do that, the rest of the party is going to kill you or the town guards will have you hanged"?... no not really to any of those things, even if the evil PC goes a bit overboard in the process of doing the majority of those things.

Now, that leaves the real problem on the alignment spectrum, Chaotic, specifically chaotic stupid. There are a near unlimited ways that chaotic anything characters can disrupt, derail, & generally grief a table without even dipping a toe in the waters of evil. Like with 2e Kender, it is very difficult to react with the well deserved knife to the brain because they often have not actually done anything wrong on any one individual crank of the chaotic stupid engine. Law enforcement doesn't hang people for derailing the game. NPC's don't care how much your good & neutral group members want to slit the chaotic stupid character's throat & might even become upset if the rest of the party starts discussing solutions to the problem. Lest not forget... "there is no wrong way to play, don't force me to play a different way just because I'm playing my character" runs roughshod right over the fact that even uttering such a statement implies that every other character at the table should simply shrug & move on no matter how disruptive a given chaotic stupid character is.

yes [/url="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid"]Chaotic stupid[/url] has stupid evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil) & lawful stupid (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid) foils... but if you look closer at those other two they are simple. Lawful stupid is something you don't see as much as in past editions with rigid paladin oaths & absolute morality; but rarely is "No I will not do that" or "No, I will not like it if you do that" something capable to completely upending a game. Similar holds true with stupid evil "for the crime of mass murder, wanton torture, so on & so forth, Hannibal bob is sentenced to death by $whatever" & other simple solutions correct stupid evil. Chaotic stupid spans good neutral and evil alignments and has few defenses other than "bob I never want to see you again at my table" or severe intraparty conflict.


So in your experience... which is really more of a problem... evil characters or chaotic ones?

[Lunali]

There are two types that are the most problematic. First is a character of any alignment that works against the other player characters. The second is a player that plays their character's alignment rather than following their motivations.

[Nifft]

So in your experience... which is really more of a problem... evil characters or chaotic ones?

Neither.

The problem is the sort of players who see evil and/or chaos as an excuse to be jerks.

[Sigreid]

Neither.

The problem is the sort of players who see evil and/or chaos as an excuse to be jerks.

Word! My typical alignment is CN with characters that don't really care at all what the laws of god or man are. They do, however; value and want to help their friends, aren't particularly interested in fighting the power (they'd much rather just ignore it), they aren't interested in causing undue harm to strangers, and will defend their home town. None of this means I have to be disruptive to the game. It does mean I'm not likely to obey the local lord just because he's the local lord.

[Malifice]

Just play good aligned, do tons of really evil stuff anyway (murder, torture, genocide, infanticide, pogroms and so forth... dont hold back, really go nuts with the bloodshed) but just make sure you can frame it as though you're acting 'in the greater good'.

As long as you're killing and torturing them Orcs by the thosands, and smashing those Orc babies against rocks, or tossing them in the fire as they scream, and selling their women into slavery for good reasons, you're obviously good aligned.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Just play good aligned, do tons of really evil stuff anyway (murder, torture, genocide, infanticide, pogroms and so forth... dont hold back, really go nuts with the bloodshed) but just make sure you can frame it as though you're acting 'in the greater good'.

As long as you're killing and torturing them Orcs by the thosands, and smashing those Orc babies against rocks, or tossing them in the fire as they scream, and selling their women into slavery for good reasons, you're obviously good aligned.

Murder hobos are not an example of Goodness and Light.

[Mjolnirbear]

AL is designed to allow complete strangers to come together and play a game. A game which is normally played among friends, who have no problem calling you out (in theory) and say "Dave, dont play that"

Since there is less social pressure, there are more *******s. There is very little stopping Joe ******* from screwing with the while table, upending the story, murdering the quest giver and last-standing it against other players.

Easiest ways to nip these in the bud is to say no to evil. Harder to justify. Easier for DMs to kick someone out.

Chaotic stupid is, granted, still an issue.

[Lombra]

So the answer is that the problem, if it exists, exists within the player, not the alignment.

But, to answer your direct question, I think that chaotic is worse than evil, they aren't comparable tho because the chaos-law axis is a whole different thing from the good-evil axis, (it's like comparing apples to chairs) but I'd rather play with an evil character that plans and schemes, rather than a jumping jack that does stuff just because, I simply find it more intreasting.

Granted, I do play a de facto CN character, not because I choose to follow the alignment, but because it turns out that it is how the character behaves, at our table we didn't start with an alignment in head, instead after some time we asked each other which alignment we think the character were, and the answers were surprisingly accurate.

[Nifft]

Word! My typical alignment is CN with characters that don't really care at all what the laws of god or man are. They do, however; value and want to help their friends, aren't particularly interested in fighting the power (they'd much rather just ignore it), they aren't interested in causing undue harm to strangers, and will defend their home town. None of this means I have to be disruptive to the game. It does mean I'm not likely to obey the local lord just because he's the local lord.

Sounds similar to how I handle Chaos, where I make it basically synonymous with individualism / respect for individuals.

Law then becomes collectivism ("the needs of the many") / respect for hierarchies & institutions.

Interestingly, Feudalism works perfectly well with Lawful subordinates (because your lordship is an institutional hierarchy) and also Chaotic subordinates (because you only really interact with the representative for a region, so you have a tight interpersonal bond with that person, and you don't necessarily care much how they enforce your edicts / raise your taxes).

[LordEntrails]

As others have pointed out quite well, it is a problem with the players and not the characters or the characters alignment.

AL has rules to facilitate organized play. Which means you have to be able to provide an environment that is friendly to new players and strangers.

[Asmotherion]

Stupid Evil and Chaotic Stupid are the problematic behaviors when it comes to Alignments. Namely, people who don't know how to RP their Alignment, and go at it in a Stereotypical Way for reafirmation of their Alignment, or using their Alignment as an excuse to be @holes. Variations of this include "Fun Evil" were you ruin the fun for everyone but yourself, (unless everyone is on the same page), and RandomEvil were you MurderHobo someone just for looking at you funny, and use your Evil OR Chaotic Alignment as an Excuse for it.

When not played Stereotypically, these characters can be very interesting at a table. You just need a Good RPer behind them, who knows were the line stands between a Threat or Implication of having killed Inocents in the past to look Evil and Murderhoboism. (Stated as a simple example)

[Tetrasodium]

I'm enormously surprised at how this thread developed since I started it. The number of people who looked past the direct question & pointed out that it's a player problem rather than an alignment issue was great, likewise with the spread of people saying that chaotic alignments more often a bigger problem than evil ones.

I agree with everyone who said that it's a player problem. With WotC pretending that evil alignments are the problem rather than stupid evil & chaotic stupid, it gives cover for the game derailing chaotic stupid players an umbrella of dsafety to claim "I'm just playing my character". Just a couple weeks ago in a game I'm playing in I watched a chaotic player we picked up from the AL crowd ask an npc in the middle of the group talking with them if they were good or evil & immediately attack said NPC when the answer was evil. The vast majority of the group was left saying things like "wait what?.. I missed something wtf happened & why are we rolling initiative?"

Yes it's easy to say "no evil alignments", but they don't actually do that. In the forgotten realms ALPG you can play an evil alignment under set conditions despite forgotten realms being pretty much built around absolute morality It's a shame wotc took the nonsolution route of dancing around the problem.

[ZorroGames]

I'm enormously surprised at how this thread developed since I started it. The number of people who looked past the direct question & pointed out that it's a player problem rather than an alignment issue was great, likewise with the spread of people saying that chaotic alignments more often a bigger problem than evil ones.

I agree with everyone who said that it's a player problem. With WotC pretending that evil alignments are the problem rather than stupid evil & chaotic stupid, it gives cover for the game derailing chaotic stupid players an umbrella of dsafety to claim "I'm just playing my character". Just a couple weeks ago in a game I'm playing in I watched a chaotic player we picked up from the AL crowd ask an npc in the middle of the group talking with them if they were good or evil & immediately attack said NPC when the answer was evil. The vast majority of the group was left saying things like "wait what?.. I missed something wtf happened & why are we rolling initiative?"

Yes it's easy to say "no evil alignments", but they don't actually do that. In the forgotten realms ALPG you can play an evil alignment under set conditions despite forgotten realms being pretty much built around absolute morality It's a shame wotc took the nonsolution route of dancing around the problem.

Nothing says I have to support a jerk player. I think that PvP started with the alignment question. My answer as a DM to that **** is either, “Good (the NPC’s idea of good) of course,” or, “None of your business!” NPCs are not required to answer those kind of OOC questions nor are PCs required to kamikaze for the sake of the murder hobo.

[Camman1984]

I think it is definately down to the player, I try to avoid and ask my players to avoid chaotic-crazy or evil-psychotic types of character.

alignment is fairly flexible now, and just because a character is evil doesn't mean they go around murdering things for the sake of it or that they can't do good things sometimes.

My rogue is technically chaotic evil in that she doesn't really follow laws being a rogue and doesn't really care if killing just happens to be the easy options and will stoop pretty low if needed. however, the majority of the time it is in her best interests to follow the group and just kill what is agreed needs killing, how is she going to get treasure and further her patrons interests if she is on the radar of every paladin in faerun? or just gets plain murdered by the party? At the moment she is working toward defeating a demonic incursion, she is evil, they are evil, but again her self interest and loyalty to her party/mortals/own skin compels her to fight for the side of good. Our lawful characters are probably also acting mostly out of alignment, murdering worshippers and a thieves guild in a city where the rule of law says they should face trial.

I think sometimes alignment is seen as too black and white, just like chaotic crazy can cause problems if played badly, so can lawful and good. Who here hasnt experienced lawful-stupid paladins in their past? or good characters who cause party fall outs because they don't want to kill things in a game which is largely about killing things and taking their stuff?

[Sigreid]

Honestly, the most disruptive character I've ever played was a 1st edition paladin played to an uncompromising Lawful Good. The rest of the party hated that.

[guachi]

I have no problem with banning evil alignments. No player in my 35 years of D&D who really wanted to play an evil alignment was worth playing with. And I've only met one player who could pull off playing chaotic neutral.

It's not worth my time dealing with evil/CN players as either a player or DM.

[Camman1984]

I have no problem with banning evil alignments. No player in my 35 years of D&D who really wanted to play an evil alignment was worth playing with. And I've only met one player who could pull off playing chaotic neutral.

It's not worth my time dealing with evil/CN players as either a player or DM.

I have always thought of chaotic neutral as the default setting for adventurers. they tend to just follow their own rules rather than specific laws and usually will just do what they are paid to do whether it saving a princess or murdering people

[MoiMagnus]

Any alignement that ends up in "the party against you" is terrible.
A LG character when the remaining of the party is CG and CN will cause troubles if played too rigorously.

Any individualistic characters may create this "the party against you".
Which can include evil & chaotic characters, depending on how they are played.

Evil characters are not a problem if they are loyal to the team
(meaning that they are jerk with everybody other than their team-mates, you know, like non-psychopath evil peoples)
Chaotic characters are not a problem if they are loyal to the team
(meaning that they respect the decision of the team, and don't need to be treated as little children that will do whatever they want as soon as you stop looking in their direction)

Now, lets stop talking about how the player are, and lets talk In-Universe.
Supposing that alignment is absolute and can be detected (which I absolutely hate as being possible), here are the expected reactions of the population:
-LG, NG, LN, N => No problems
-LE => Suspicious. But ok as long as they behave "perfectly", and are skilled and competent enough to be useful to the society
-NE => Not ok. Putting them under systematic arrest and inspection is not absurd. Some peoples will accept them like LE, but other will not.
-CE => Never ok. Probably treated in the same way we treat dangerous dogs. (no freedom of movement, chains, ...)
-CG => Ok, but probably in the same way you consider a political militant. They may be seen as good heated but counter-productives.
-CN => Ok, but... Government may try to get rid of them, because they are rebels, or free spirits. Teenager probably like them because they are "cool". And a lot of people are happy they exist.

So I guess that in Universe, evil is worst than chaotic.

[Tetrasodium]

Any alignement that ends up in "the party against you" is terrible.
A LG character when the remaining of the party is CG and CN will cause troubles if played too rigorously.

Any individualistic characters may create this "the party against you".
Which can include evil & chaotic characters, depending on how they are played.

Evil characters are not a problem if they are loyal to the team
(meaning that they are jerk with everybody other than their team-mates, you know, like non-psychopath evil peoples)
Chaotic characters are not a problem if they are loyal to the team
(meaning that they respect the decision of the team, and don't need to be treated as little children that will do whatever they want as soon as you stop looking in their direction)

Now, lets stop talking about how the player are, and lets talk In-Universe.
Supposing that alignment is absolute and can be detected (which I absolutely hate as being possible), here are the expected reactions of the population:
-LG, NG, LN, N => No problems
-LE => Suspicious. But ok as long as they behave "perfectly", and are skilled and competent enough to be useful to the society
-NE => Not ok. Putting them under systematic arrest and inspection is not absurd. Some peoples will accept them like LE, but other will not.
-CE => Never ok. Probably treated in the same way we treat dangerous dogs. (no freedom of movement, chains, ...)
-CG => Ok, but probably in the same way you consider a political militant. They may be seen as good heated but counter-productives.
-CN => Ok, but... Government may try to get rid of them, because they are rebels, or free spirits. Teenager probably like them because they are "cool". And a lot of people are happy they exist.

So I guess that in Universe, evil is worst than chaotic.


There are a couple serious problems with your list there at the end.

The first fatal flaw is that morality is no longer absolute in 5e & that is compounded by the AL rules allowing evil alignments with restrictions in the setting that traditionally functions on absolute morality while simultaneously blocking them in the setting that has codified morality is relative since its creation. The second fatal flaw in your list is that there is not a way to detect it any longer.Detect evil & good lets you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you. The sprite(mm283) has the ability to determine alignment with a charisma save (DC whopping ten) using the heart sight ability...

Take the examples from the http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/earlier (and again) linked good & evil writeup keith baker did.

A sociopathic serial killer who will kill or rob anyone that crosses his path without any hesitation or remorse.
A soldier who takes pleasure in torturing citizens of enemy nations – even civilians – but who is willing to lay down his life to protect his own people, and abides by the laws of his homeland.
An innkeeper who consistently waters down his ale and pads the bill a little whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
A repo man who ruthlessly reclaims goods on behalf of his employer, regardless of the circumstances of his victim and how the loss will affect them.
tThe first one sounds like a problem yes, but if they are ways to keep even that from being a jailable/executable thing with minor changes... granted, putting a significant percentage of CEO's (https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-often-have-psychopathic-traits-2017-7) in jail might not be a bad start sure, but a cop/bouncer/mob enforcer/etc who sometimes goes a bit too far or likes to party during off time isn't so bad & might even be doing more good than harm

edit... also, here is the 5e alignments, your list seems to hinge off an earlier version.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and m ost gnom es are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orc s are chaotic evil

every single one of the three point on the chaotic alignments is problematic & says my fun is more important than the fun of everyone else at the table. One of the evil alignments is unquestionably almost certainly a problem, but also the chaotic evil one. Out of the remaining two evil points, one is only a problem is the code/tradition/loyalty/etc that they follow is in itself chaotic or similar & the other (NE) is self checked with the "what they think they can get away with" clause

[Sigreid]

Eh, in universe, almost no one would know what their alignment actually is. They would know what they were aspiring to be, but that's different. Over the years I've known people who believe they are the free spirited rebel that can't stand to break even a small rule.

[MoiMagnus]

There are a couple serious problems with your list there at the end.

The first fatal flaw is that morality is no longer absolute in 5e & that is compounded by the AL rules allowing evil alignments with restrictions in the setting that traditionally functions on absolute morality while simultaneously blocking them in the setting that has codified morality is relative since its creation. The second fatal flaw in your list is that there is not a way to detect it any longer.Detect evil & good lets you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you. The sprite(mm283) has the ability to determine alignment with a charisma save (DC whopping ten) using the heart sight ability...

Take the examples from the http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/earlier (and again) linked good & evil writeup keith baker did.

A sociopathic serial killer who will kill or rob anyone that crosses his path without any hesitation or remorse.
A soldier who takes pleasure in torturing citizens of enemy nations – even civilians – but who is willing to lay down his life to protect his own people, and abides by the laws of his homeland.
An innkeeper who consistently waters down his ale and pads the bill a little whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
A repo man who ruthlessly reclaims goods on behalf of his employer, regardless of the circumstances of his victim and how the loss will affect them.
tThe first one sounds like a problem yes, but if they are ways to keep even that from being a jailable/executable thing with minor changes... granted, putting a significant percentage of CEO's (https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-often-have-psychopathic-traits-2017-7) in jail might not be a bad start sure, but a cop/bouncer/mob enforcer/etc who sometimes goes a bit too far or likes to party during off time isn't so bad & might even be doing more good than harm

edit... also, here is the 5e alignments, your list seems to hinge off an earlier version.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and m ost gnom es are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orc s are chaotic evil

every single one of the three point on the chaotic alignments is problematic & says my fun is more important than the fun of everyone else at the table. One of the evil alignments is unquestionably almost certainly a problem, but also the chaotic evil one. Out of the remaining two evil points, one is only a problem is the code/tradition/loyalty/etc that they follow is in itself chaotic or similar & the other (NE) is self checked with the "what they think they can get away with" clause

Agree on the detection. I've forgot that we were on the 5e subforum, my mistake.

For the definition you suggest, my main problem is that they characterize characters that are "extreme" in that alignment. In other words, character that are driven by their alignment rather than alignment used to classify the character.

Characters that instinctively rebel against authority, and fundamentally opposing the way the in-world society works, are chaotic, even if they are not "the most chaotic possible".
What if your character value the freedom of the group of PC above everything else? I would still classify it as CN. Because that way too "anti loyal" to be "pure neutral".
Similarly to a character that care only about a few peoples (like its family), but no one else, is still kind of egoistic, because anti-altruiste.