What is the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil?

[Zhentarim]

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.
I posted this in the wrong place initially, so I reported that post and reposted here.

[GrayDeath]

There are many places here where it is discussed better, especially the respective Lists, but in my opinion it comes down to the difference between the utmost selfish Evil (Neutral Evil) and the Evil that loves to break down things more than Evil itself (Chaotic Evil).

Now for the vague example above: A Neutral Evil LEvel 1 Character and a Chaotic Evil level 1 Character who want to survive will act pretty similar.

Say we are talking about mid Level guys, then the Neutral one will go for his revenge and enjoy it at the expense of everything else, while a Chaotic Evil Character will still enjoy destroying other peoples lives in passing enough not to give it up.

However I do not think the above example is very well suited to detail the differences.

Why dont you ask our Specialist in most things Evil? Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel ^^

[Clistenes]

The way I see it:

-Neutral Evil will do anything, no matter how vile, to benefit itself, and will often make others suffer for funsies if isn't dangerous and doesn't require too much effort from its part...

-Chaotic Evil will do anything to benefit itself too, but it will also love watching others suffer so much that can't stop itself from causing others suffering, even if it will have negative consequences for themselves...

For example:

Neutral Evil villain finds a girl, thinks of raping her, torturing her and sending the corpse to her parents... but wait! She is the princess! Change of plans! Play the hero, return her to her parents, get the huge reward...

Chaotic Evil villain may do exactly the same thing... or he may still go for the rape, torture and murder thing because the faces of the king and queen will be SO hilarious!

[zlefin]

that depends how you're defining chaotic; as it's often rather ill-defined in general. is chaotic referring more to a behavior pattern, or an actual set of ethical norms?

[Torpin]

neutral evil do evil things for the sake of being evil

chaotic evil do evil things to bring about the end of society

[NontheistCleric]

I think one mistake you are making is assuming that the Good-Evil axis is more important than the Law-Chaos one, as demonstrated in the statement 'Lawful evil is obviously evil done in the name of a higher purpose'.

Firstly, Law is not about believing in higher purposes. Any alignment can believe in a higher purpose, which is why any alignment can become a cleric that draws on that belief. Law is about conforming to predefined strictures, which can be imposed from outside or be self-imposed.

Naturally, that's where the Law-Chaos paradigm begins to break down, because even a chaotic individual can have personal codes. Just like Good-Evil, it can't really be used to describe the nuances of the natures of sentient minds in a deeply meaningful way, but broadly, one could say that a chaotic individual's personal strictures, if any, will be looser and more subject to case-by-case modification than a lawful one's.

That aside, we go back to the point about Good-Evil not being more important than Law-Chaos. It's not that the individual's evil will be informed by how lawful or chaotic they are, with the Law-Chaos being a secondary modifier to the Evil; in a vacuum, a Chaotic Evil act is ideally chaotic and evil in equal measure.

So, with that established, the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is the same as that between Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, or even Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.

What characterizes the Law-Chaos spectrum? I don't claim that it is a perfect explanation, but this explains it in a fairly easily-understood manner: A lawful individual will take trouble to conform to strictures and systems. A neutral individual (on this spectrum) will conform or defy as best suits their purpose. A chaotic person will take trouble to defy.

How would this map to your bard examples? Well, the Neutral Evil bard would, for instance, not turn his nose down at a plan that involved infiltrating the king's networks and getting legitimately close enough to him to defy him at a crucial point and probably kill him, while the Chaotic Evil one would likely reject actually having to work for authority, especially the authority that was actively oppressing him and his loved ones, even if that would ultimately lead to his goal of revenge on the king being accomplished. He might instead choose to raise a rebellion against the king. Being evil, both would relish it, if at any point during whatever revenge plan they chose to enact, there was a chance to hurt others unnecessarily.

That, of course, is what the Good-Evil axis is about: A good individual takes trouble to help others when it is not necessary, a neutral person helps or harms as best suits their purpose, and an evil individual will take trouble to harm others when it is not necessary.

After all of that, though, remember the most important point, that even in a D&D world, Good-Evil and Law-Chaos really are insufficient to explain and justify the motives and actions of individuals in an unambiguously meaningful way. Often, the lines are not so clear.

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree that the OP's initial premise is flawed. Law is not a "higher" alignment than Neutrality or Chaos.



For example, let's take a quick look at The Joker from The Dark Knight movie:

Alfred says about him that "Some people just want to watch the world burn." And while there's truth to that, there's also more to it.

The Joker is a self-described "Agent of Chaos" and claims to not be one of the "schemers". But keep in mind that he's a pathological liar, and in fact he uses his high Intelligence to employ many complicated plans and contingencies throughout the movie in order to push the city to the brink of madness. He also says that his plan is "not about the money, it's about sending a message. Everything burns."

For The Joker, watching the world burn (and helping to make it happen) IS his higher calling.

He's a great example of a Chaotic Evil character who is more than just random acts of violence.

[MisterKaws]

I posted this in the wrong place initially, so I reported that post and reposted here.

That description of yours is pretty wrong.

Lawful Evil is the tyrant's style. You like to bring order, in a way that benefits you, and only you. This is the alignment of most nobles and politicians.

Neutral Evil is simply being a selfish ass. You kill people if they have something you want, or if they might end up getting it before you.

Chaotic evil is an utter hatred of peace and order. You dislike anything trying to restrict you, so you OBLITERATE all of it.

It basically boils down to how "honest" you are with your evil: Lawful tends to act nice and backstab. Neutral only acts for the sake of benefit. Chaotic simply rams through anything.

Well, anyway, Red Fel should be coming anytime soon.

[Troacctid]

See, this is why 4e's alignment system is better. I'm just saying.

[Zaq]

What’s the difference between NG and CG, or between TN and CN? It’ll be similar to that, only more Evil.

[Morty]

Neutral evil means "chaotic evil sounds kind of scary, I'll take the less extreme version".

[NontheistCleric]

That description of yours is pretty wrong.

Lawful Evil is the tyrant's style. You like to bring order, in a way that benefits you, and only you. This is the alignment of most nobles and politicians.

Neutral Evil is simply being a selfish ass. You kill people if they have something you want, or if they might end up getting it before you.

Chaotic evil is an utter hatred of peace and order. You dislike anything trying to restrict you, so you OBLITERATE all of it.

I have to disagree with most of these descriptions. They're either overly simplistic or narrow.

Yes, Lawful Evil can be the tyrant. Yet, it could also be the assassin dedicated to fulfilling his contracts above all else, among many other combinations of being lawful and evil. Even a tyrant doesn't just have to be about benefiting themselves and only themselves. The only requirement is that in addition to being strict, they enjoy and take advantage of it when they have an opportunity to punish and inflict harm, which is what separates them from the Lawful Neutral authoritarian, who does only what he feels is necessary, no more and no less, no matter whether he secretly might relish or be disgusted by it, and the Lawful Good benevolent dictator, who wishes that it wasn't necessary, but does it because it is (or at least, because they think it is).

With Neutral Evil, you're not wrong, but just being evil doesn't mean murder needs to be your ideal solution. Granted, I'm sure you know this, but it's not apparent from what you've typed.

Chaotic Evil does not have to be 'utter hatred'. Even demons have their own loose order. It's not all about OBLITERATION; there is so much more nuance to the alignment than the rampant, unreasoning destruction that so many seem to characterize it as. The revolutionary who takes just a little too much pleasure in killing his enemies and taking spoils of war might also be Chaotic Evil.

[Pippa the Pixie]

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.

That is not Lawful Evil. The most basic way to understand lawful evil is that they are lawyers that will inperpert the law in thier favor and take advantage of it if they can. In gamer speak, they don't care about the ''intent" or ''spirit" of a low/rule....only what they can ''get" from using it.

So what alignment is the evil king, we wonder?


Lawful Evil-This bard is likely going to want to defeat the king....from the inside. Join the kings army/guard/court bards. And through evil means...theift, balckmail, deals...rise up in power in the city/country/king's court. They want to 'win' in the rules, so they will be careful not to break too many rules/laws. And they will only use limited violence and such things as it draws too much attention. And if they must kill someone, they will make sure it's done right and they have an air tight allabi and such. The LE person mostly keeps his word....and expects others to do so too....but myabe tosses in a evil twist interptation from time to time. And likely start..or aid...a rebellion against the king. The classics here are to disrupt things in the kingdom...like food production...to make angry people. Then they will rise up and oppose the king...even attack him.....and the bard just has to wait for the right moment to strike.

Neutral Evil-Only cares about themselves. Not much of a ''plan" here....they will just try and kill the king. They won't lead a rebelion...but they would sure join it. The bard likely goes down the assassin or dark warrior type road....useing bard abilities only on themselves...or their disposiable allies/slaves/fools.

Chaotic Evil-The more wild brute bard. Maybe kidnap the princess to get to the king? Maybe rase an army of evil? They won't just kill the king....but they will destroy the kingdom.....AND they will do it in the worse way possible that caused the most hurt, pain, and atroticties. They want thier name to go down in history for all time as ''the most evil possible"...you know, like that guy from Germany, for example.

[Bohandas]

chaotic evil is more impulsive, and less focused and structured. I think the Joker's monologue in The Dark Knigbt conveys it well: "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? I'll tell you what I am, I'm a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon has plans. They're schemers, schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer..."

[denthor]

NE may keep their word. To keep their word or appearance or it does not affect them in a meaningful way.

CE will go who stronger? Me make me keep my word.

[Zhentarim]

That is not Lawful Evil. The most basic way to understand lawful evil is that they are lawyers that will inperpert the law in thier favor and take advantage of it if they can. In gamer speak, they don't care about the ''intent" or ''spirit" of a low/rule....only what they can ''get" from using it.

So what alignment is the evil king, we wonder?


Lawful Evil-This bard is likely going to want to defeat the king....from the inside. Join the kings army/guard/court bards. And through evil means...theift, balckmail, deals...rise up in power in the city/country/king's court. They want to 'win' in the rules, so they will be careful not to break too many rules/laws. And they will only use limited violence and such things as it draws too much attention. And if they must kill someone, they will make sure it's done right and they have an air tight allabi and such. The LE person mostly keeps his word....and expects others to do so too....but myabe tosses in a evil twist interptation from time to time. And likely start..or aid...a rebellion against the king. The classics here are to disrupt things in the kingdom...like food production...to make angry people. Then they will rise up and oppose the king...even attack him.....and the bard just has to wait for the right moment to strike.

Neutral Evil-Only cares about themselves. Not much of a ''plan" here....they will just try and kill the king. They won't lead a rebelion...but they would sure join it. The bard likely goes down the assassin or dark warrior type road....useing bard abilities only on themselves...or their disposiable allies/slaves/fools.

Chaotic Evil-The more wild brute bard. Maybe kidnap the princess to get to the king? Maybe rase an army of evil? They won't just kill the king....but they will destroy the kingdom.....AND they will do it in the worse way possible that caused the most hurt, pain, and atroticties. They want thier name to go down in history for all time as ''the most evil possible"...you know, like that guy from Germany, for example.

The evil king is most likely neutral evil. It just feels right.

[Eldariel]

There's so much more nuance to evil than that. The "I'll make the world a better place by killing criminals" is evil as is the guy who regularly tortures bad guys for information (drawing no pleasure of it but believing it to be necessary for the greater good), or simply the guy who believes everyone is valuable as commodities and thus seeks to ensure no harm comes to anyone (for completely selfish reasons). Thus, there's an incredible amount of nuance to the various different kinds of Chaotic and Neutral Evils too and thus it's quite impossible to deal with either alignment as a single way of thinking. Anyone who kills living things (Outsiders are another deal but let's deal with primates for now) without a good reason ("they pinged Evil on my Evildar" is not a good reason - a certain degree of evil is required of a pragmatic king and that doesn't mean they don't have the best interest of their subjects in mind for instance) is most certainly evil.

But yeah, it does come down to the Law-Chaos axis. Law means respecting existing structure and working through the legal systems and institutions even when just cutting through things would be more expedient. Chaos is more fluid, opportunistic, situational. Law is more systematic, hierarchic, permanent. Thus chaotic evil is more opportunistic and fluid than neutral evil, generally. Also less predictable and perhaps with active opposition to rigid established hierarchies and rules.

[Bohandas]

Other good examples of Chaotic Evil are Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and Bender from Futurama, both of whom do terrible things on the spur of the moment and almost out of pure whimsy.

Shake doesn;t have a reason to try to microwave Meatwad and his pets, or to lie constantly and even the things he does for monetary gain (like his frequent stealing and repeated attempts to sell Meatwad) seem to be spur of the moment things.

Bender has a tendency to laigh at people's misfortunes and to steal things just because he can, and engages in highly immoral get rich quick schemes (in one episodes he adopts some kids in bad faith as part of a welfare scam that he hasn't completely thought out, then when the scam is unprofitable even though he doesn't feed or clothe them he attempts to sell them to cannibals, and then finally the episode ends with him getting arrested for misrepresenting the weight of livestock)

[KillianHawkeye]

Spontaneity and poor planning skills are character traits/flaws and not really relevant to one's moral or ethical alignment stance. :smallannoyed:

[Particle_Man]

The joker burned a pile of money just to show he didn’t need it. A ne dude would likely not do that.

[magic9mushroom]

They want thier name to go down in history for all time as ''the most evil possible"...you know, like that guy from Germany, for example.

Hitler wasn't Chaotic Evil (except maybe at the very end, when he'd gone nuts from methamphetamine addiction and the bleakness of Germany's prospects). Lawful Evil, or maybe Neutral Evil if you really squint. He was a politician, after all, and he did run a rather-disciplined country.

Brigands, highwaymen and pirates are typically better examples of Chaotic Evil than politicians and rulers (of note is their usually-loose organisation). Cults can sometimes go there as well (e.g. Aum Shinrikyo).

I don't really feel like going into much more detail, since beyond these kind of extraordinary examples politics is rarely uncontroversial or clear-cut.

[Malphegor]

One's more chaotic?

Neutrality's always a hard one to define. To quote Zapp Brannigan: "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

To be neither lawful nor chaotic has a lot of options. One is that you're apathetic to that kind of argument. You might obey the law, you might also pirate dvds. You might have a personal code of ethics, but it's not that strict and is flexible.

A chaotic being might abhor restrictions, and a neutral one is meh.

Batman's Joker'd be a decent fit for Chaotic Evil, but Neutral Evil is pretty rare in most examples I can think of. You need someone who is evil, who would do acts of great personal gain at someone else's expense... But isn't particularly bound to any codes, but also doesn't outright reject them.

Maybe some sort of con-man? Neutrality's kinda tricky to pin. It's easier to define the extremes than the middles.

[Particle_Man]

Going back to the bards in the op, I would say the ne would be easiest for the king to buy off (if the bard is an actual threat that cannot other wise be dealt with) and dissuade from revenge.

[Telonius]

For most alignment stuff, I use this shorthand: people on extremes of either axis will go out of their way to support their own end of the axis (or frustrate the other end of the axis). If you're Evil, you're going to be going out of your way to hurt people, disrespect life, and all that fun stuff. Alignment isn't a prescription, either; it's a general tendency. In the words of noted philosopher Heinz Doofenshmirtz, "Just because I'm evil, it doesn't mean everything I do is evil." Two different Lawful Evil characters might go about solving a problem in extremely different ways.

To the question about the Smart Evil trio, this is just a set of examples; the actual characters might do something very different. But I think these would be the "typical" sorts of solutions someone of that alignment might use.

Lawful Evil would arrange things so that he marries the king's daughter, then has king (and possibly wife) assassinated, blaming it on a traditional enemy of the country.

Neutral Evil would assassinate the king himself.

Chaotic Evil would rally the peasants and break out the guillotines, getting revenge and stamping out the monarchy in one blow.

[Segev]

"What is evil?" is a pretty important question, here, too. Does it mean you actively enjoy causing pain and misery? Not necessarily, though if you do, you're probably evil. It does, however, mean you're perfectly willing to do so to serve whatever pleasures you do have.

The Lawful Evil Bard can't exist; they have to be non-lawful. But a Lawful Evil character whose life is ruined by a tyrant will, as another pointed out, want to defeat him "using the rules." This may mean working his way up through the evil empire's ranks...but it could also mean leaving and joining a resistance or even an enemy kingdom and rising through their ranks. It depends a lot on the structure of his setting. But he'll have a plan and stick to it, and he'll shape his Lawful Evil to let him paint the tyrant as worse than him, while justifying (to whatever extent he feels necessary) his own evils. If he doesn't feel a need to justify it, then he'll still likely choose a system of rules to follow that makes him feel superior to the tyrant who's ruined his life: whether with "better" (i.e. different) laws, or the same ones but in ways he feels he can win the game through superior skill.

The real question you asked, though, is the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Both of these can be bards.

Chaos always has some element of whimsy to it. Not that this has to be in any way actually a positive thing. But the CE Bard is going to be bent on revenge, and will do anything to get it. He may or may not have rules he uses as guidelines; if so, they're largely of the "do this to not die" variety, and of the "do this to thrive" variety. He's untrustworthy, save to those who make it too costly for him to betray them (whether by holding rewards out over his head, or threat of retaliation and punishment). He may or may not be unpredictable, but if he's predictable, it will be a failing rather than a useful trait. It will be due to poor impulse control and ability to predict his short-term drives. Chaos doesn't mean you can't have self-control, but it does mean that, if you have self-control, you probably aren't predictable.

Neutral Evil will be more likely to have a set of rules he follows as more than guidelines, but he'll cut the corners regularly whenever he thinks it's safe or he can get away with it. The Neutral Evil character here is also bent on revenge, but if he's got poor impulse control, his Neutral alignment will help him with it a bit by giving him rules to hold himself to when he has to. He is likely to be more trustworthy and predictable because his self-centered goal is really it, for him. Where CE is less predictable the more self-control it has, NE is often moderately predictable regardless of how much self-control it has.


Another way to look at it is to ask: what's the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral?

Neutral Evil is selfish and callous towards others. It's simply Evil. It does what it wants and will use, abuse, and hurt others without a care.

Chaotic Neutral is free-wheeling and guided only loosely by whatever principles it has. It cares nothing for rules beyond whether they're good advice for getting what it wants done.

Neutral Evil cares about rules because others will follow them, and will hold to them as long as they serve its purpose. It will bend or break them while trying to hold others to them, but it will follow them rather than risk its reputation or position.

Chaotic Neutral will not care about reputation for following the rules, as a general statement. It also will actively dislike hurting others, though it can be callous and selfish and careless, and rarely is particularly altruistic about helping others.

Chaotic Evil, then, doesn't care about rules except where they're actively good advice for achieving its own goals, and it will use and abuse people. It doesn't care about a reputation for following the rules, either, unless that care is "I like being known as a rule-breaker."


In general, if you've got an Evil character who makes even a pretense of being law-abiding, or having any sort of even hypocritical adherence to a code, or otherwise tries to hide his rule-breaking and untrustworthy nature, he's probably at Neutral Evil. (Lawful Evil if he actually does care about adhering to the rules non-hypocritically.) If you've got an Evil character for whom there are no boundaries save those imposed by forces he can't overcome or flaut, he's probably Chaotic Evil.

[Bohandas]

but Neutral Evil is pretty rare in most examples I can think of. You need someone who is evil, who would do acts of great personal gain at someone else's expense... But isn't particularly bound to any codes, but also doesn't outright reject them.

How about Emperor Palpatine

[Telonius]

Another shorthand: Neutral Evil will strangle you in your sleep with a pillow. Chaotic Evil will tear off the tag afterwards.

[zlefin]

Another shorthand: Neutral Evil will strangle you in your sleep with a pillow. Chaotic Evil will tear off the tag afterwards.

that makes no sense since it's not illegal to tear the tags off pillows :P

[liquidformat]

Spontaneity and poor planning skills are character traits/flaws and not really relevant to one's moral or ethical alignment stance. :smallannoyed:

^^^ This is very important when analyzing alignment, being spontaneous and having poor planning skills are functions of Int and Wis scores not of alignment. Someone with low int tends to go with their 'gut' and be bad at planning. Someone with horrible 'gut' instincts has low wis.

Lawful Evil- Lawful is working within the system and finding rules to be very important, they will not go against rules/laws if at all possible. This can work just fine with evil some examples are a racist guard who applies rules/laws very harshly to abuse his power and position when dealing with races he doesn't like. Or the guard that prefers to kill criminals whenever possible as they are all garbage that doesn't deserve to be in this world. Often times unless this is a powerful noble or king I see the lawful as more important than the evil in this alignment, this is the guy that follows the laws to their most cruel and twisted extent. The evil merchant who uses his wealth, power, and understanding of laws to subjugate and beat down those below him. However, he takes special care to make sure he does everything to the law. In the example he will climb the ladder keeping his hatred hidden until he gets powerful enough to take on the king from within the system. In fact he is very likely to try and usurp the king once he is powerful enough, as he believes he could rule better.

Neutral Evil- Neutral Evil, the truest most unadulterated of evils. Neutral is inherently selfish and most people are probably neutral something in any given society, they weigh following the law with breaking the law. Following it when it suites them and breaking it when it doesn't. NE are the hardest to predict in their actions. They may choose to work their way up and take their revenge when they get close to the king or may choose to join and support a rebel group. Most of the historic serial killers probably fall into this group more than CE.

Chaotic Evil- Chaos is actively rebelling against the law and actively trying to break down the system. The joker is a classic example of CE. They would do what they could to destroy the system irregardless of bystandards, in fact the more bystandards the better. It helps to get your point across. They aren't interested in reforming the system, just destroying it and all those who believe in it. Survival of the fittest to cruel and twisted extremes is often a good mantra for them.

[Âmesang]

This is a question I've asked myself for ages since I've typically labeled my favorite D&D character (https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/forum/thread.php?thread=69) as "Chaotic Evil," due to being extraordinarily vain, conceited, selfish, self-centered, egotistical, &c.; essentially caring for no one but herself. While she's obsessed with learning all she can about her ancestor's magical power, she doesn't care for her own people except for "what they can do for her" — seeing others as tools to be used, pawns to be manipulated, toys to be played with.

(…and a reason she "plays nice" with party members and defends them is because she doesn't like it when others "break her toys.")

Aside from the fact that her alignment is a prerequisite for a particular feat, I suppose I could label her as "Neutral Evil with Chaotic Evil tendencies" (or vice versa?) since there's been a few instances of her attempting to entice chaos in the populace just for fun, but in the end she tends to act within the law just enough to not get herself into trouble (i.e., not killing commoners at random). Get her behind closed doors, and well… it's not beyond her to kill someone who she just promised their life in exchange for goods/information; after all, she said she'd let him live… but she didn't say for how long.

It's actually why I really like this quote from DRAGONLANCE:

Black Robe wizards embrace the cause of evil. They do not, however, hurl random fireballs at peasant's cottages (at least, not usually), since such activities would abuse and jeopardize their primary loyalty, which is to magic itself. Black Robe wizards may be cruel, but they are also selfish and cunning, and avoid open acts of violence if a more subtle way can be found.
So, admittedly, the spread of chaos for no other reason than to spread chaos is fun when she can get away with it… but not if it interferes with her primary goal of attaining ancient arcane power.

She is fluent in Abyssal (as opposed to Infernal) and aligns herself more often with demons and hordlings than devils or even dæmons/yugoloths, and I feel like seeking dominion or control over others, or just being actively disciplined (aside from her personal goal) is too "lawful" (speaking of mental scores, her high Intelligence/low Wisdom reminds me of the The Trouble with Angels' quote, "I've got the most scathingly brilliant idea!").

I suppose a problem I have is that it seems Chaotic Evil is often seen as an "insane" alignment — i.e., if you're Chaotic Evil then you have to be some sort of mindless, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who attacks everything around them at all times just because… I mean, after all, that's the alignment of demons, right? …forgetting that it's also the alignment of red dragons, and I figured they're aligned as such due to seeing themselves as being all-important and the center of everything — "me me me," and all that.

One thing to note is that whenever I went through this alignment test (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b) "in character," I'd always get a Chaotic Evil result; even when some of the answers ended up being different years down the line…

[Elves]

As vague personality tags, they seem pretty clear. NE represents callous self-interest, CE represents heedless thirst for destruction, LE represents evil in perpetuation of some external order, or the perpetuation of an evil order.

Gray areas:

NE/LE: Someone who benefits from a certain order will strive to maintain that order simply out of self-interest. The difference here comes down to how cynical they are about it -- in practical terms, "what are they willing to do to prove it" -- how you define an ideology vs simply a paradigm, and the quirks of their personality.

NE/CE: Someone who goes around doing whatever they feel like, if what they feel like is Evil. The difference comes down to how self-serving they are about it, and in this case, probably predominantly, personality quirks.

As always the four corner alignments are probably rarer than the center cross since they require more effort, but not by a huge amount. And obviously you could go ham with turning the system into an open graph rather than a 3x3. I don't really see a need to but I don't typically use alignment anyway.

Though if you want to treat Law and Chaos as fundamental forces, it could be different in a couple of ways: in OOTS for example, these alignments are basically clubs or ethical identities, making them primarily behavioral, but if Law and Chaos really are fundamental forces of the universe you might also have Law and Chaos DNA, or Chaos energy might be strong in someone, making it primarily platonic, with the actions they take as a result merely consequences.

[Vizzerdrix]

I`ve always used apples and babies to explain the whole evil thing.

LE- I am hungry. I will ransom this baby for some apples.

NE- I am hungry. I will get MORE apples by selling the baby to a stranger.

CE- I am hungry. Forget the apples, this baby looks delicious!

[Bohandas]

CE- Flagrant impulsive acute straightforward violence

LE- Pernicious calculated lingering contrived violence

[NontheistCleric]

I`ve always used apples and babies to explain the whole evil thing.

LE- I am hungry. I will ransom this baby for some apples.

NE- I am hungry. I will get MORE apples by selling the baby to a stranger.

CE- I am hungry. Forget the apples, this baby looks delicious!

I mean, all of these seem pretty illegal, though, so they'd all be chaotic. They do seem to go in increasing order of evilness, but Chaotic Evil is not more evil than Neutral Evil.

Also, who would buy a random baby from a complete stranger?

[hamishspence]

I mean, all of these seem pretty illegal, though, so they'd all be chaotic.

The opposite of Chaos isn't so much Law, as Order. It is possible to indulge massively in illegal acts, in an orderly fashion.

A crimelord who runs an extremely organised criminal organisation, can be a pretty good exemplar of LE.

Even archdevils (about as Lawful as LE gets) can be crimelords. Glasya was one in 5e.

[NontheistCleric]

The opposite of Chaos isn't so much Law, as Order. It is possible to indulge massively in illegal acts, in an orderly fashion.

A crimelord who runs an extremely organised criminal organisation, can be a pretty good exemplar of LE.

Even archdevils (about as Lawful as LE gets) can be crimelords. Glasya was one in 5e.

While that is true (and I've mentioned it upthread, though using 'strictures' instead of 'order'), the examples I was quoting were all pretty clearly flouting what would probably be the law (a kind of stricture or order) and also not following any kind of pre-established strictures or order. Thus, they come off as chaotic.

As well as evil, of course.

[liquidformat]

I suppose a problem I have is that it seems Chaotic Evil is often seen as an "insane" alignment — i.e., if you're Chaotic Evil then you have to be some sort of mindless, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who attacks everything around them at all times just because… I mean, after all, that's the alignment of demons, right? …forgetting that it's also the alignment of red dragons, and I figured they're aligned as such due to seeing themselves as being all-important and the center of everything — "me me me," and all that.
So on a whole to me your character seems much more NE than CE but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

One of the major issues in d&d is comparing a CE mortal to a demon isn't a fair comparison. Demons are embodiment of chaos as well as evil with a nice dose of what appears to be madness to the mortal eye mixed in. The real point is that since they are made of evil chaos they fundamentally don't process information the same as a mortal. So everyone uses them as a yard stick and says CE = madman who can't make a rational but enjoys killing. When sure that madman might be CE but he isn't CE because he is crazy. It is the same reason that the Chaos alignment doesn't automatically make anything it is attached to crazy. Disassociating mental disorder and alignment is pretty important to understand alignment.


I mean, all of these seem pretty illegal, though, so they'd all be chaotic. They do seem to go in increasing order of evilness, but Chaotic Evil is not more evil than Neutral Evil.

Also, who would buy a random baby from a complete stranger?
I mean it is only illegal so much as doing so is considered illegal in said society. I mean take a modest proposal (anyone who hasn't read it should it is quite interesting) if a society took up the practice of eating babies because it is an easily available food source and other food sources are very scarce; a baby would then become a standard commodity in said society. As such the trading baby for apples and selling a baby to a strange would be perfectly lawful acts, though I can't see the kidnapping and holding it for ransom to ever being lawful.


The opposite of Chaos isn't so much Law, as Order. It is possible to indulge massively in illegal acts, in an orderly fashion.

A crimelord who runs an extremely organised criminal organisation, can be a pretty good exemplar of LE.

Even archdevils (about as Lawful as LE gets) can be crimelords. Glasya was one in 5e.

I disagree law seems just as important as order for the lawful chaos spectrum. But in general I agree with you, for example the leader of a terrorist group would most likely be CE; however, many of the zealot followers of said terrorist group would probably be LE. Strangely for me I have issues picturing Chaotic characters being a part of a group unless they are the leader of the group.

[NontheistCleric]

I mean it is only illegal so much as doing so is considered illegal in said society. I mean take a modest proposal (anyone who hasn't read it should it is quite interesting) if a society took up the practice of eating babies because it is an easily available food source and other food sources are very scarce; a baby would then become a standard commodity in said society. As such the trading baby for apples and selling a baby to a strange would be perfectly lawful acts, though I can't see the kidnapping and holding it for ransom to ever being lawful.

True, but generally, societies don't do cannibalism and sale of infants. Even slaves need to be of functional age.

[BlueWitch]

The way I see it:

Neutral Evil = Looking out only for yourself but in a heartless manner. You'll obey the law only if it benefits you. But you won't go out of your way to break it either. If they have ally's they might consider helping them if its a common goal or enemy. Might even consider saving them, but it's rare.

Chaotic Evil = Next to zero morals. Doesn't even consider the law. Selfishness on steroids. Will fight alongside ally's if its a common enemy but won't hesitate to throw them under the bus to save their own skin.

[Bohandas]

The opposite of Chaos isn't so much Law, as Order. It is possible to indulge massively in illegal acts, in an orderly fashion.

A crimelord who runs an extremely organised criminal organisation, can be a pretty good exemplar of LE.

Even archdevils (about as Lawful as LE gets) can be crimelords. Glasya was one in 5e.

This. "Law" is a misnomer. Crime syndicates are LE.

[Segev]

It does tend to be easier to answer the question, "Is this character NE or CE?" than to give rigorous definitions of them, because the markers are so varied and you have to take a fuzzy, high-level view to get the picture. The truth - which is oft mentioned and then forgotten because we like to argue - is that any given character is likely to be able to qualify as one or both adjacent alignments on the Wheel if you look at a particular slice of his days. It's going to be a long-term picture of where he averages out that makes the determination.

That LG sorcerer will probably seem arguably NG at times, and arguably LN at others. And maybe he'll more often be one than the other, but his determination to at least view himself as LG should be considered as long as he doesn't veer so far as to be "arguably CG" or "arguably LE." Even if he takes an action or few that are "arguably CG" or "arguably LE," one or two actions might be "sins" against his preferred alignment, but aren't going to instantly change his alignment. It's only when he's more often "arguably CG" more often than "arguably LN" that we start to suggest he might be more NG than LG, and that those "arguably NG" moments might instead need to have his LG moments be viewed as "arguably" such.

Taking this further, if he's "aruably LN" as often as he's "arguably CG," he might actually be TN with Good tendencies.


So the difference between a Neutral Evil man and a Chaotic Evil one is how often he's "arguably LE" versus "arguably CN." The NE guy is almost never going to be "arguably CN," but definitely will have instances of "arguably CE" and "arguably LE." The CE guy will have times when you could argue he's CN and times when you can argue he's NE.

This is why it's not always easy to discern, with a brief discussion and one or two examples, the difference between any two adjacent alignments, but you can usually get it down to "somewhere in one of these." And, if you're stuck between three alignments, one of which is between the other two, it's almost certainly because he's that middle alignment.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Chaotic: Values freedom over stability and the individual over the group.

Evil: Seeks personal advancement and/or gratification and is willing to sacrifice others to get it.

Therefore, Chaotic Evil is out for number 1 no matter what. They're not always incapable of friendship or total psychopaths, but if they want something they'll tear down every obstacle in their way and not care who it hurts.

Neutral Evil differs in that it doesn't actively resent restrictions like CE does. Law and Chaos both have their place, peace is pleasant while war is profitable. They'll still gladly throw others under the bus, but perhaps not with the same abandon as their counterpart.

[Red Fel]

Why dont you ask our Specialist in most things Evil? Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel ^^

Yo!


I posted this in the wrong place initially, so I reported that post and reposted here.

Okay. First of all, my thing is Lawful Evil - the only flavor of Evil you have foolishly forgotten to invite to your little party, mortal, and do not think that I forget such insult. I know, it's in the hypothetical, but it's not in the thread title, so I'm going to be offended anyway. Because I can.

Anyhow, a lot of what I would say has been expressed to varying degrees. In short, it's this:

Evil is about power and selfishness. Power as a means and an end, benefiting me and mine at the expense of you and yours. The difference between NE and CE, therefore, is the lens through which those two elements are viewed.

CE brings a Chaotic lens. Chaos, at its heart, is about personal freedom and expression; CE takes that to selfish and destructive extremes, both by trying to dissolve the structures that protect the weak and vulnerable, and by exercising dominance through power over others.

NE, by contrast, is "pure," in a way. It's not about power through adherence to structure, or selfishness through personal expression and freedom - it's just about power and selfishness. In some ways, it's harder to distinguish from LE than from CE. A Lich, for example, who simply seeks to expand his arcane prowess in his studies, may be NE, although his feverish adherence to his pursuits may have some label him Lawful.

Now, let's explore the hypothetical three characters, starting with my obvious favorite:

LE: The Lawful Evil character wants revenge against the King, but doesn't want to destabilize the region. He wants to hurt the man, not the office - as long as there is a King, there will remain order, ideally one that can benefit the character. He will therefore seek to construct a series of events which will ruin the King personally, forcing him to abdicate. Ideally, the character will either put himself or someone under his control in a position to succeed the King.

CE: The Chaotic Evil character wants revenge against the King, ideally in a manner that also destabilizes the region. He wants to hurt the man by attacking the office - by ruining the Crown, he will leave the King an impotent shell of a man, with a worthless title and wealth he can't protect. He will therefore seek to construct a series of events which will drive the people into a state of revolt and rob the King of his supporters, both financial and political. He will drive the kingdom into bankruptcy and vulnerability, encouraging banditry and lawlessness to further undermine confidence in the King's ability to maintain peace and order. Whether the King abdicates is irrelevant; ideally, the King remains King, until either the title means nothing or the mob comes for his head. In all likelihood, this also results in power for the character, either as a "hero" of the revolution or a leader of a newly-formed bandit company. Ideally, the King watches helplessly as everything he worked so hard to control burns around him.

NE: The Neutral Evil character wants revenge against the King, and doesn't care how it impacts the region one way or the other, but as long as he's at it he would enjoy some personal benefit. In short, he wants to take from the King and give to himself. He will therefore construct a series of events that result in the King's death or prolonged agony and his own profit - for example, killing the King in a particularly conspicuous manner in order to create for himself the reputation of a desirable assassin-for-hire, or torturing the King to learn all of his profitable and valuable secrets, or engaging in a bargain with Dark Powers to trade King or Kingdom for some personal gain. Whether the Kingdom remains or burns is not relevant to his schemes, so long as it maximizes his benefit and the King's suffering at the same time.

[Zhentarim]

Yo!



Okay. First of all, my thing is Lawful Evil - the only flavor of Evil you have foolishly forgotten to invite to your little party, mortal, and do not think that I forget such insult. I know, it's in the hypothetical, but it's not in the thread title, so I'm going to be offended anyway. Because I can.

Anyhow, a lot of what I would say has been expressed to varying degrees. In short, it's this:

Evil is about power and selfishness. Power as a means and an end, benefiting me and mine at the expense of you and yours. The difference between NE and CE, therefore, is the lens through which those two elements are viewed.

CE brings a Chaotic lens. Chaos, at its heart, is about personal freedom and expression; CE takes that to selfish and destructive extremes, both by trying to dissolve the structures that protect the weak and vulnerable, and by exercising dominance through power over others.

NE, by contrast, is "pure," in a way. It's not about power through adherence to structure, or selfishness through personal expression and freedom - it's just about power and selfishness. In some ways, it's harder to distinguish from LE than from CE. A Lich, for example, who simply seeks to expand his arcane prowess in his studies, may be NE, although his feverish adherence to his pursuits may have some label him Lawful.

Now, let's explore the hypothetical three characters, starting with my obvious favorite:

LE: The Lawful Evil character wants revenge against the King, but doesn't want to destabilize the region. He wants to hurt the man, not the office - as long as there is a King, there will remain order, ideally one that can benefit the character. He will therefore seek to construct a series of events which will ruin the King personally, forcing him to abdicate. Ideally, the character will either put himself or someone under his control in a position to succeed the King.

CE: The Chaotic Evil character wants revenge against the King, ideally in a manner that also destabilizes the region. He wants to hurt the man by attacking the office - by ruining the Crown, he will leave the King an impotent shell of a man, with a worthless title and wealth he can't protect. He will therefore seek to construct a series of events which will drive the people into a state of revolt and rob the King of his supporters, both financial and political. He will drive the kingdom into bankruptcy and vulnerability, encouraging banditry and lawlessness to further undermine confidence in the King's ability to maintain peace and order. Whether the King abdicates is irrelevant; ideally, the King remains King, until either the title means nothing or the mob comes for his head. In all likelihood, this also results in power for the character, either as a "hero" of the revolution or a leader of a newly-formed bandit company. Ideally, the King watches helplessly as everything he worked so hard to control burns around him.

NE: The Neutral Evil character wants revenge against the King, and doesn't care how it impacts the region one way or the other, but as long as he's at it he would enjoy some personal benefit. In short, he wants to take from the King and give to himself. He will therefore construct a series of events that result in the King's death or prolonged agony and his own profit - for example, killing the King in a particularly conspicuous manner in order to create for himself the reputation of a desirable assassin-for-hire, or torturing the King to learn all of his profitable and valuable secrets, or engaging in a bargain with Dark Powers to trade King or Kingdom for some personal gain. Whether the Kingdom remains or burns is not relevant to his schemes, so long as it maximizes his benefit and the King's suffering at the same time.

I like the lawful evil one best.

Although, I’m not quite disciplined enough to be truly lawful.