PDA

View Full Version : What separates Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil?



Zhentarim
2019-04-13, 07:28 PM
Lawful evil is obviously evil done in the name of a higher purpose, and in some cases can even look like Lawful Neutral. What about the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, though? Neutral Evil looks a lot like Chaotic Evil with more common sense. How would three "smart" characters differ if they were the same in every way except one was Lawful Evil, one was Neutral Evil, and one was Chaotic Evil. Assume in the scenario there is an evil king oppressing where they live and they are desperately poor and have lost all their loved ones either directly or indirectly due to the actions of the actions of the evil king and they want revenge. Lets say all three evil characters in this scenario are male level 1 human bards, as well for the sake of keeping things equal.

Genth
2019-04-13, 07:33 PM
Wrong forum friendo, you want this one http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?30-Roleplaying-Games

Zhentarim
2019-04-13, 07:35 PM
Wrong forum friendo, you want this one http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?30-Roleplaying-Games

I did it again. :/

I did a report for the mods to move my post.

Pleh
2019-04-14, 02:25 PM
Lawful evil is obviously evil done in the name of a higher purpose,

Eh, not necessarily. They probably consider it a higher purpose, but it doesn't really have to be.


How would three "smart" characters differ if they were the same in every way except one was Lawful Evil, one was Neutral Evil, and one was Chaotic Evil.

My first thought goes to Batman villains.

Disclaimer: of course alignment question and character analysis will tend to be fuzzy and subjective. I'm presenting my opinions and not purporting them to be facts.

I see Two Face as Lawful Evil, and ruthlessly cunning. Dude was a top lawer and worked as DA for a major metropolitian city. You don't get there without being smart. He went crazy, but we all know insanity tends to target wisdom and leave intelligence intact. He kills randomly half his targets because he views the "fairness" of random violence to be the most important social value. Life for him is about making the world right according to the rules as he understands them.

Joker is the Chaotic Evil. He's wicked smart and, contrary to popular opinion about chaotics, is full of plans and schemes. Main difference being that he doesn't care about anything but watching the world burn. It's not about enforcing or adhering to rules that give meaning and value like Two Face. It's about realizing none of it matters, so you do whatever you feel like. In contrast to Two Face, Joker stands to make the world confess absolute moral relativism in the extreme, that nothing is right and the more you see the world for what it is, the more it drives you insane from the inability to make sense of it.

Then I see Penguin as the Neutral Evil. He cares about rules only as far as they suit his purpose and holds no great moral standards, only viable business policies. He's also not as wild or free spirited as Joker, since he doesn't want the world to burn. He can't make money off a pile of ash. To him, there is no greater meaning, either to wanton hedonism or fairness and order. He'll cooperate with either to the extent it profits him and not a penny more than that. It's not that there isn't value or meaning in observing social contracts or in hedonistic pleasures. It's about having the power to unilaterally make the laws say what you want them to say and also disregarding them later as needed.

Genth
2019-04-14, 02:41 PM
Worth checking these out!

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?449418-By-NE-means-necessary-a-guide-to-Neutral-Evil

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment

The alignment handbooks done by playgrounders are some of the best writings on alignment around. Read em and come back if you still have questions ;)

MoiMagnus
2019-04-14, 03:31 PM
Neutral Evil looks a lot like Chaotic Evil with more common sense.

I mean, by definition, people with common sense are not extreme lawful or extreme chaotic. But you don't need to be extreme of an aligment to be of that alignment.

Rather than common sense, you should talk about self-discipline. A chaotic character do not like to restrict its behavior or do things that are a "sacrifice at short term but have long term benefits". The stereotypical chaotic evil character is too mentally instable to not betray its allies as soon as possible, but you can do more subtle. You can have a chaotic evil character very rational but with the philosophy "I will probably be dead by the end of the year anyway".

Neutral is defined by "not chaotic, not lawful". So if you are evil, but not considering as a duty to follow some honor code or law, but still wanting to follow them when you consider it will give you a long term benefit, you are probably NE.

Kaptin Keen
2019-04-14, 03:50 PM
Lawful evil is obviously evil done in the name of a higher purpose, and in some cases can even look like Lawful Neutral. What about the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, though? Neutral Evil looks a lot like Chaotic Evil with more common sense. How would three "smart" characters differ if they were the same in every way except one was Lawful Evil, one was Neutral Evil, and one was Chaotic Evil. Assume in the scenario there is an evil king oppressing where they live and they are desperately poor and have lost all their loved ones either directly or indirectly due to the actions of the actions of the evil king and they want revenge. Lets say all three evil characters in this scenario are male level 1 human bards, as well for the sake of keeping things equal.

This is entirely my own opinion, so keep that in mind.

I operate only within the confines of 'human evil'. That is amoral things that actual, living people might do - without being insane.

Lawful evil is what corporations are (let's assume maybe it's not automatically all of them): They go to the utter limits of what the law allows, looking for any loopholes they can find, and crossing the line if they think they can get away with it. Think tobacco industry or blood diamonds.

Neutral evil is your most basic selfishness. It's all the things we do for personal gain, with full knowledge of the harm we're doing to others. I'd say NE is mostly greed or pettiness. Racism is NE, for instance.

Chaotic evil is ... generally speaking outside the realm of 'human evil'. It's what crazy people do, strike out randomly for unclear reasons.

For your scenario, the LE bard would lead a rebellion against the King, stirring the populace to rise against injustice - then take over, and reign with an iron hand. Possibly justly. The NE bard would seek revenge by killing the loved ones of the king, and burning down his favourite castle. The CE bard would disguise himself as the king, and go around killing innocents, until a horde of peasants with torches and pitchforks burned down the castle with the king inside.

By my reckoning all of these (well CE less so) are ordinary people who have friends and loved ones, and are capable of living ordinary lives. But every once in a while, someone with a sufficient lack of morals get it into their minds that testing VX gas on 70.000 innocent villagers is a swell idea, and that it's really their own fault for forgetting their place and stirring up trouble.

Silfir
2019-04-14, 05:35 PM
(Quick note: I bolded for emphasis and to help organize my post, not because I'm laying down some measure of universal wisdom. This is also just an opinion.)

A Lawful Evil person thrives within a hierarchical structure. They look at a system of rules and regulations and see tools to further their own personal goals, which can be anywhere from world domination to a cushy, well-paid desk job in middle management that allows them to push all responsibilities and liabilities to their underlings, while gleefully doing all the dirty work that other cogs in the machine are too squeamish to do, like assassinations, mass layoffs and so on. Even if they don't make personal connections (and many will) they derive a sense of personal empowerment from knowing that the system runs on rules that they understand and can exploit.

A Chaotic Evil person thrives within anarchy. When nobody can tell anybody else what to do unless they can back it up with strength, and you can wander freely when you're done with a place because there is no law enforcement to bother you about what you did yesterday, a Chaotic Evil person feels right at home.

A Lawful Evil person who finds themselves outside of a hierarchical structure - their nation collapsed, their corporation dissolved, et cetera - will seek out a different structure to set themselves up in, or start their own. They do not thrive in anarchy; they consider it barbaric, unpleasant, and on a personal level unsafe. Similarly, a Chaotic Evil person is unlikely to do the long-term-oriented work (buttering up superiors, active effort or even personal risk) that a Lawful Evil person might do to climb up the ranks in a big organization that runs on order (and might not even be evil). They might still join a criminal organization for their own personal benefit, since those often run on "you better do what the boss says, or it's your head", because they understand that kind of authority.

What does that mean for a Neutral Evil person? They go both ways. They are motivated purely by their evil impulses (usually self-benefit). Unlike a Chaotic Evil person, they can work within a hierarchical structure like a Lawful Evil person does, but while a Lawful Evil person might actually make personal sacrifices or undertake personal risks to ensure the survival of their ordered structure (because on some level they rely on such a structure to exist) a Neutral Evil person will have an exit strategy; they're far more likely to cash out and run somewhere where authorities cannot track them down and hold them responsible. They don't have an attachment to order - if they feel their goals can be better served through more direct, criminal means, they will do exactly that. In other words, a Neutral Evil person doesn't mind either way about hierarchy or anarchy.



In a setting with a strong Lawful Good presence - a benevolent government with generally non-corrupt law enforcement - Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil are pushed closer together, because laws are more difficult to exploit for evil ends in such a setting. To get a clearer division between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, you'd have to use a setting in which being Evil is easier to do if you work within the system than outside, which requires an authority that's either uncaring about or downright complicit in corruption. Most settings are closer to the former, so the division between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil can be harder to see.

Thundercracker
2019-04-14, 07:58 PM
Think of it this way:

Evil is all about putting your own needs above others. There are different ways of going about that.

Chaotic evil: might makes right. The strongest leads and takes by force, and everyone else swallows their pride and follows, usually in fear, biding their time for a shot at advancement.

Neutral evil: pure selfishness above all else. Take advantage of the law when you can, break it if it suits you and you can get away with it, all that matters is me.

Lawful evil: follow the letter of the law, but ruthlessly and mercilessly exploit loopholes and legally take advantage of those who are too stupid or ignorant to protect themselves. Might also have a personal code of conduct (like never tell a lie, which makes how you word things very important and makes the character more challenging / interesting to play).

Edit:

In the evil king scenario, a chaotic evil character might not challenge openly and directly, because he knows he’d get himself killed. The king is more powerful by far and has demonstrated this power. He’d try to gain personal power somehow, and create a scenario where he has the advantage and strike, maybe when the king is sleeping or traveling. In the meantime he has to keep his head down so he doesn’t get killed.

I could see a lawful evil character allying with disaffected nobles, to firstly bring the king down legally and second to distance himself from the insurrection in case things go south. He would work within the existing legal framework of the kingdom or seek to subtly change it to his advantage, and work behind the scenes to create a scenario where the king would be disgraced / deposed / assassinated.

A neutral evil character would probably be some mix of the two, and try to enrich himself along the way. Would be more open to directly killing or kidnapping (as opposed to LE) in an attempt to draw the king out, and more likely to get others to do the dirty work than a CE character.

AMFV
2019-04-14, 10:16 PM
Well a lot of it depends on what exact scenario they're in, and what their personalities are like. The Alignments aren't things that determine your personality as much as philosophical outlet. Let's take one of the more classic "Adventurer's Dilemmas" and examine how some hypothetical characters might respond.

"We've found some baby Goblins, what do we do with them?"

A LE character might be likely to try to send the Goblins to his higher authority to have them raised to be useful footsoldiers or trap finders or foodstuffs. This is dependent on a lot of factors but basically (to my thinking) LE tends to put their group above everyone else, sometimes more so than them personally. So they would want to do what benefits their organization best, and if they're not in an organization, they'd probably want to establish one.

A NE character might do what the LE character would have done, but only if it would benefit them personally, they're more concerned with personal gain than with the gain of their organization or group. An NE character might sell them into slavery, if he thought the margins were worth it (an LE character might also do this, but probably to benefit his group). An NE character might just outright murder them if it was expedient or they'd enjoy it.

A CE character would probably just kill them outright, he might try to keep them around to serve him, but he's unlikely to have the patience for the job, and is probably going to wind up killing them, probably in some gruesome way.

Quellian-dyrae
2019-04-14, 11:43 PM
For me I'd say it comes down to why they would generally commit evil acts (although of course, this is broadly speaking; it's entirely possible for them to do it for different or "lesser" reasons given sufficient motivation, but in the general sense).

Lawful Evil is most likely to commit evil acts for some greater purpose. This may be a fundamentally selfish purpose (such as a grand personal ambition, say to conquer/rule) or they may twist it to their own ends, but they are most likely to have - and personally care about - something greater than themselves that justifies (or perhaps excuses - "It's not technically against the law" and such) their evil actions, and less likely to commit evil actions when they are not so justified. The Lawful Evil bard would have no qualms killing, stealing, manipulating lives to ruin, and so on, so long as it is justified by, say, "bringing down the tyrant" or "avenging their family". Lawful Evil believes they are in the right, because their greater purpose outweighs mundane moral considerations.

Neutral Evil is more likely to commit evil acts out of pure self-interest. They don't need something greater to justify it, but they do generally have a reason for it, even if that reason is fundamentally selfish. The Neutral Evil bard would have no qualms killing, stealing, manipulating lives to ruin, and so on, if that's what they need to do to get ahead. They might want to bring down the tyrant or avenge their family, and will certainly be willing to do evil to further those goals, but they're not using it as an excuse (at least, not to themselves - they may well use it as an excuse to others, but they don't feel personally obligated to have the excuse to any particular degree). Neutral Evil believes they are in the right, because everybody is fundamentally self-interested and those who pretend to be otherwise are really just hypocrites and liars.

Chaotic Evil is more likely to commit evil acts out of sheer whim. Because they can. Because nobody is strong enough to stop them. Because they're bored and it's the only thing that makes them feel something. Because it's stress relief. Because it's easier than the alternative. Because they can't think of any reason not to. This doesn't necessarily mean they're short-sighted - they can be perfectly capable of restraining their evil tendencies when it's to their benefit to do so. Likewise, they're entirely capable of acting like they have some greater purpose of justification. But fundamentally, the decision of whether or not to hurt someone is based on their inclinations in the moment. The Chaotic Evil bard would have no qualm killing, stealing, manipulating lives to ruin, and so on, if that's what they felt like doing at the moment. It may be nice if it furthers a goal or results in personal gain, but neither thing is a key factor in their decision-making process. Chaotic Evil believes they are in the right, because who cares what other people say?

Frozen_Feet
2019-04-17, 08:03 AM
Forget about the Evil part for a moment and just focus on Law and Chaos.

Law puts the group before the individual. Chaos puts the individual before the group.

Law says "this individual is right because they belong in the right group" and "this act is right because it benefits the group".

Chaos says "this group is right because it consists of right sort of individuals" and "this act is right because it benefits this specific individual".

When push comes to shove, a Lawful person will throw themselves under the buss to save their group. A chaotic person will throw their group under the buss to save themselves.

What is neutrality, then? It is a compromise or principled apathy about this conflict. A neutral person does not have deep commitment to either a group or their self. They have a primary goal to which Law and Chaos are ancillary.

Now we can put the Evil back in there:

A Lawful Evil soldier believes that their kingdom is the most deserving victor in a war. They will stomp on the rights and people of every other kingdom and even sacrifice themselves to ensure victory for their side. Defecting or surrendering would be Unthinkable, because the other side is filthy scum and does not deserve victory.

A Chaotic Evil soldier believes they personally are the most deserving victor in a war. They are willing to stomp on rights of everyone else if it lands then on top and will betray their own side if it is beneficial to them. Defection and surrender are possible if they are to a stronger individual or if they further the soldier's own needs, but sacrificing themselves for benefit of a weaker individual or a group is unthinkable.

A Neutral Evil soldier wants someone, or everyone, to suffer. Not winning is fine as long as the other guy loses. They will pledge themselves to a group or act on their own depending on whether this will lead to the desired end result. Betrayal, defection, self-sacrifice are all on the table as long as they serve the ultimate, spitefull goal.

hamishspence
2019-04-17, 08:10 AM
When push comes to shove, a Lawful person will throw themselves under the buss to save their group. A chaotic person will throw their group under the buss to save themselves.

Selfishness in D&D is more a function of the G-E axis than the L-C axis.

A CG elf warrior has no problem "throwing themselves in front of the enemy to save their elven village".

Conversely, a LE devil might have no problem throwing their fellow devils away, to save themselves, during a skirmish in the Blood War.

That's why "being self-sacrificing" is characterised as Good behaviour, not Lawful behaviour:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Whereas on the L-C axis, self-sacrifice or selfishness, aren't specifically mentioned:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos

That House
2019-04-17, 08:15 AM
Lawful Evil has a code. It may not be a moral code, but it’s an immoral code. The thing is, they’ll stick to it. They’ll honor their word. They’ll do everything they want, as long as it doesn’t conflict with their code of dishonor. Lawful Evil wants to rule legally, if harshly, and if they can’t do that, they’ll bide their time until they can.

Chaotic Evil has no code, and scoffs at anyone with one. Why would you limit yourself like that? Chaotic Evil wants to rule through fear, and if they can’t do that they’ll burn the world down.

Neutral Evil is something in the middle. They just want to rule, and they’ll do it legally or illegally. They might not be willing to wait, unlike LE, but they certainly won’t destroy the world around them to spite reality for not delivering kingship into their lap. Neutral Evil is probably going to be the most successful evil alignment. Quint disagrees, however. CE all the way baby!

That’s my 2¢

Edit: capitalized Evil

Frozen_Feet
2019-04-17, 09:11 AM
Selfishness in D&D is more a function of the G-E axis than the L-C axis.


That's because D&D has on-again-off-again issue with truly separating "Law" from "Good" and "Chaos" from "Evil".

Let me quote 1st Edition AD&D DMG, page 23:

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

This is about as clear cut as it gets. So if you look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil, you should still be seeing the LEs being more willing to sacrifice themselves for their group than CEs.

The important thing to remember here is that willingness to sacrifice yourself for a specific group is not general purpose altruism. It is a difference in self-identity. The LE soldier identifies themselves with their kingdom, and their success and failure is relative to that of their kingdom, just like the CE soldier identifies themselves with their individual person. The LE soldiers won't be any nicer to other kingdoms than the CE soldier is to other people.

hamishspence
2019-04-17, 09:20 AM
Alignment has evolved over time. CN used to be virtually impossible to play well without wrecking games, because it was "the alignment of lunatics". Now, it's much easier to play.

Frozen_Feet
2019-04-17, 09:49 AM
Alignment has evolved over time.

No, it changed over time and that change has largely been lateral; it has not actually made the system better or facilitated more character archetypes.


CN used to be virtually impossible to play well without wrecking games, because it was "the alignment of lunatics". Now, it's much easier to play.

No, CN was virtually impossible to play because it is the alignment for characters who reject groups, but players insisted their characters ought to perform as a group at all times. This is a basic level issue which can be solved either by not playing CNs or allowing characters to go their own ways in a game. Both solutions were and are trivial to implement on a technical level. Changes to alignment were unnecessary, they were caused by a paradox of players insisting on playing CNs while simultaneously insisting that everyone stay a party all the time.

This is what 1st Edition AD&D has to say on the matter:

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

This isn't LOL random or lunatic, this is existentialist, similar to views of Jean Paul Sartre or Albert Camus.

The idea of CN as" the alignment of lunatics", and even further, the idea of lunacy as LOL random, was itself a change brought by people misunderstanding it and playing it poorly.

hamishspence
2019-04-17, 09:50 AM
It was stated outright in the 2e PHB.

Frozen_Feet
2019-04-17, 09:59 AM
Yes, and?

2e changed alignment in several ways due to largely metagame concerns. TSR wanted to market D&D to kids and this involved, among other things, de-emphasizing Evil alignments and making heroic fantasy featuring Good characters into default form of play. This was a departure from D&D's pulp and Sword&Sorcery roots.

Concrete examples of this include how "Thief" became "Rogue" and how half-orcs and assassins were removed as core player characters. In the long run, this became laxer and everything removed came back, but it left a mark on how D&D is approached. 2e also started the trend of people considering Evil characters in general, not just CNs, to be exceptional and hard-to-play.

Beleriphon
2019-04-17, 10:11 AM
That's because D&D has on-again-off-again issue with truly separating "Law" from "Good" and "Chaos" from "Evil".

Let me quote 1st Edition AD&D DMG, page 23:

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

This is about as clear cut as it gets. So if you look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil, you should still be seeing the LEs being more willing to sacrifice themselves for their group than CEs.

The important thing to remember here is that willingness to sacrifice yourself for a specific group is not general purpose altruism. It is a difference in self-identity. The LE soldier identifies themselves with their kingdom, and their success and failure is relative to that of their kingdom, just like the CE soldier identifies themselves with their individual person. The LE soldiers won't be any nicer to other kingdoms than the CE soldier is to other people.

I like to look at it from superheroes because they tend to be less nuanced than other mediums, at least as far as personality goes for the bad guys.

Doctor Doom is LE.
Carnage is CE.
Thanos is NE (the movie version anyways, comic books he's CE)

patchyman
2019-04-17, 04:56 PM
The idea of CN as" the alignment of lunatics", and even further, the idea of lunacy as LOL random, was itself a change brought by people misunderstanding it and playing it poorly.

It was a change supported and described by the sourcebooks themselves. I can’t remember if it was my AD&D sourcebook or my 2nd ed sourcebook that contained a sidebar describing the “perils” of a group pf 9 adventurers with different alignments working together. The CN character was one of only 2 characters to have died in the encounter after charging the gorgon because of LOL random. The TN druid was also described as being willing to switch sides if Good became too powerful.

redwizard007
2019-04-17, 08:55 PM
This has gotten out of hand. Chaotic Evil has never meant kill-them-all-and-let-the-gods-sort-them-out. Numerous races in the core rules have ALWAYS been CE. How do you think that society would survive the way you guys are describing Chaotic Evil? Picture the Dothraki from GoT. THAT is CE.

I am strong, so I take what I want. You get me more stuff (and I might be scared of you) so you get to be in charge. These are basic CE ideals. So how does this apply to the Bard question?

1: why the hell would I waste my time playing a bard? Get the hell out of my way before I hit you with something that does d12 damage.

2: dude broke my stuff (or something. I can't remember, but he sucks.) So I'm going to kill him. Possibly the rest of his line first, so that he understands how badly he screwed up. After that we will play it by ear. Maybe I'll rule from a throne made of his family's corpses, or maybe I'll bug out to a city that isn't a smoking wasteland. Who knows? Who cares? Why the hell are you still looking at me? Get off my damn lawn!


Oh crap! Maybe you guys were a little bit right about CE.

Florian
2019-04-18, 04:12 AM
Lawful evil is obviously evil done in the name of a higher purpose, and in some cases can even look like Lawful Neutral. What about the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, though? Neutral Evil looks a lot like Chaotic Evil with more common sense.

Frozen Feet is entirely right there. The alignments represent a general outlook and an understanding how things should operate on a principal level.

L-C-Axis: Group > Individual to Individual > Group.
G-E-Axis: Willingness to sacrifice to willingness to cause harm.
N: Compromise between or rejection of the extreme positions.

Paizo imho did a great job at reworking the respective alignment outer planes and throwing out trash like the Blood War, at the same time going deeper into the variety within an alignment, as well as focusing on the overlap and contradictions between the alignments.

Champions of Corruption is pretty good at working out the overall meaning of an (evil) alignment, as well as working out exemplary archetypes that fit within the range of the alignment. I´ll only cover the barest basics here, details later when needed.

LE:
Despots: Your commands are all and woe betide those who disobey.
Minions: Be an obedient and useful servant and your master will take care of you.
Swindlers: Anyone who shows weakness deserves to have it exploited.

NE:
Annihilists: Everything crumbles. Who are you to argue with that?
Narcissists: The universe knows what you want. So what does it expect when it doesn't give it to you?
Psychopaths: Do anything you want. Anything.

CE:
Devotees: Chaos is the true nature of existence, and it will eventually reclaim its own, so you help it along.
Furies: If you hurt them, they must have deserved it.
Hedonists: Because you felt like it, that's why.

a_flemish_guy
2019-04-22, 12:45 AM
my view on CE is that they generally do what they want and what they want is to hurt people even if it's not in their best interest to do so

while a NE character would sometimes repress his wants for his musts

let's say that an evil character managed to capture a prince who'se father is a long-standing rival of the evil character and owns an artifact which the evil character needs for it's plans

a NE character generally will at least propose to exchange the prince for the artifact while a CE character will likely just kill the prince

both of these characters wanted to kill the prince but the NE figured that killing the prince was counter-productive to his plans and thus didn't

also this doesn't mean that the CE character was an idiot who didn't see the oppurtunity, he could have very well thought about it but figured that the catharsis of hurting his enemy was worth squandering the oppurtunity

a good look at the contrast between NE and CE is in ASOIAF with roose bolton and ramsay bolton

redwizard007
2019-04-23, 07:34 AM
...How would three "smart" characters differ if they were the same in every way except one was Lawful Evil, one was Neutral Evil, and one was Chaotic Evil. Assume in the scenario there is an evil king oppressing where they live and they are desperately poor and have lost all their loved ones either directly or indirectly due to the actions of the actions of the evil king and they want revenge. Lets say all three evil characters in this scenario are male level 1 human bards, as well for the sake of keeping things equal.

LE: Build support with the nobles to unseat the oppressor and install a new ruler, ideally one with a legitimate claim to the throne and a desire to let you make all the hard decisions for him. The king is arrested, and either imprisoned or executed. *Note that this is kind of the LE Bard's wet dream, and had he (and his family) not been personally affected, he would have worked his way into the king's good graces and prospered as part of the oppressers.

NE: Assassassassassassassination! A knife to the heart and the problem is solved. If there is a chance to seize power in the process, then so be it.

CE: Just poison the wine at a celebration the king will be at. There may be collateral damage, but that's not really your problem. If he survives, a brutal insurgency of Viet Cong/Taliban proportions might not solve your problems, but it will make you feel better.

Keltest
2019-04-23, 07:44 PM
I think Frozen_Feet had the right of it, with one caveat. A chaotic person will throw the group under the bus for the sake of an individual or individuals, not necessarily just themselves. That CG elf somebody mentioned earlier might happily throw themselves on an orcish sword to save their village, but that's because they care for the people in it rather than the village as a group. Likewise, if he thinks he can do better by telling everybody to split up, go to ground in the hills and let the buildings burn, he will say as much. He has no particular attachment to the concept of the village, but he loves the people who live there.

Knaight
2019-04-24, 02:52 AM
The definitions have been pretty inconsistent. One particularly workable one for the specific condition of intelligent villains with reasonably comparable abilities (level 1 bards implies they're fairly charismatic, probably don't have much in the way of followers, and have some combat and magical ability) is to look at personal structure.

The lawful character probably has schemes, plans, and doctrines. If they build up more of a power base this will probably extend downward to followers and be reflected in their choice of allies. When this works this works well, but it's not necessarily particularly adaptable. As they're intelligent they're likely to be good plans.

The chaotic character is likely a lot thinner on that. They'll have goals, they'll pursue them, but it's likely to be a lot more opportunistic. They'll notice opportunities as they arrive, seize them with a variety of strategies, and proactively put themselves in situations where opportunities are more likely to show up. This can work well, but does rely on more in the way of opportunities - though again, they've been specified as smart so they'll notice a lot of them and get a lot of mileage out of small ones.. It's also likely to be reflected in an expanded power base, which can be inherently volatile but is likely to be a little less predictably exploitable by opposition.

The neutral character comes down between the two, with schemes, plans, and doctrines that are a bit more flexible, that are likely to be revised to take advantage of sufficiently good opportunities. It's a solid strategy, it extends very well to a larger organization, but the character isn't likely to be as good at either side as the characters who have a more consistent MO, even if said consistent MO is an eclectic mix of situational strategies.

What any of this looks like in detail depends on a lot of particulars.

Tanarii
2019-04-25, 12:34 AM
What edition? The definitions and purposes of alignment are different in each one.



Let me quote 1st Edition AD&D DMG, page 23:

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

This is about as clear cut as it gets. So if you look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil, you should still be seeing the LEs being more willing to sacrifice themselves for their group than CEs.
That is a far cry from saying Lawful is about self-sacrifice. This does not eliminate self-sacrifice as being associated with being good. A Lawful Evil character using this definition might sacrifice for the good of the group ... but IMO they'd be far more likely to sacrifice someone else rather than themselves. Edit: I'd have to go back and read the AD&D 1e blurb on Good vs Evil to be sure though,

Lapak
2019-04-27, 09:11 AM
I see it this way: Good and Evil are about goals - they separate whether you care more about your own well-being or that of everyone taken as a group; Lawful and Chaotic split out how you think that goal is best accomplished. Neutrality on the Law/Chaos axis means you don't feel strongly either way and/or think a mix of the two approaches is best.

So a Lawful Evil person isn't self-sacrificing (they'd be Good if so) but they do believe that order, structure, rules and laws are the best mechanism for accomplishing what they want, which is their own benefit. They follow rules not because they care about their society or organization, but because getting everyone to follow rules will benefit them in the long run. Some LE folks may believe in a code so strongly that they do things which hurt them in the short run, like obeying a superior officer's orders to hold a dangerous position, but they do it because they sincerely believe that reinforcing that structure gives them more capacity personal power/wealth/fame/etc. in the long term and that the superior's orders give them the best chance to preserve the structure that gives them those chances.

A Chaotic Evil person believes the opposite in that regard. They want to maximize their own success, and they think that any rules beyond 'if you can take it, you deserve to' get in the way of doing that. They will look to tear down anything more organized to create opportunities for themselves; to quote a villain who embodied this worldview despite working in a Lawful structure, "Chaos is a ladder." The disintegration of any organizing principle opens doors for them. A CE villain may also act in ways that hurt them in the short term because they believe that in the long run this will pay off: they may betray a superior when presented with the opportunity even if that superior is a key factor in keeping some other threat at bay, because in the long run shaking up the organization opens the door for them to ascend, even if it means things are a little more dangerous right now.

So where does NE fit in and contrast with this? They either don't care one way or the other as long as they benefit or they honestly think mixing it up is the most profitable way to go. So they'll follow orders or laws that help them, but toss that out the window when they see a chance. The NE character would follow the theoretical superior we've been talking about faithfully and honestly right up until they got an order that put them personally in too much danger; then they'd betray those orders or undermine them or find a way to send someone else in their stead. They don't care about the orders for their own sake one way or the other, only in how they stand to gain.

So: both NE and CE characters are purely self-interested. But a CE character sincerely believes that their interests are always going to be served better in the long run by fewer rules, less organization, more disorder; a NE character thinks that sometimes a little structure is to their advantage.

The Jack
2019-04-27, 09:37 AM
A NE character breaks the rules at convenience and adheres to rules at convenience

A CE character wants to break the rules just because they're there. They'll squirm if they have to conform. Maybe they can look past the little rules for the big picture.

Let's compare serial killers.

A LE killer will target those that they believes society doesn't want or won't miss, or people they find morally reprehensible who they can justify killing. If legal rules permit the killing somehow, they'll try to follow suit, and if the rules could be influenced, that'll do. The killer will likely dispose of the bodies or, if they feel justified enough, will display the bodies as a warning.

The NE killer might follow the LE modus operandi, but they might find that all too inconvenient. They might follow the CE character, but that's effort too.

A CE killer will ideally target people who'll be missed by others. They'll ideally target lawfully aligned or involved individuals. They'll flout laws, and they'll display the bodies on the streets with no regard for who sees them. Their killings would ideally be as disruptive as possible. Of course they're chaotic, so I can only use 'ideally', they don't need to conform to chaos.

This has little impact on say, what kind of ticks they've got for prefered killing (IE Blondes, Twinks, the elderly) or how they do it. A chaotic evil serial killer could be only specifically interested in strangling corrupt merchants and that doesn't make her lawful or not-evil.

Max_Killjoy
2019-04-27, 09:50 AM
A lawful evil "leader" would do everything he could to warp the law and organs of power around serving his needs, using it as a hammer against his foes and biding his time when constrained by it.

A chaotic evil "leader" would do everything he could to skirt the law, avoid the law, bend the law, and flout the law.

A neutral evil "leader" would appeal to the law when convenient to his desires, and deride and ignore the law when it gets in his way. It's evil, with a fat dose of petulant hypocrisy.

And I should stop there.