What is Chaotic Evil?

[blackjack50]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

[Tanarii]

Since we,re talking about 5e specifically, it’s someone who’s typical but not required overall behavior is to act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Wether Alignment behaviors are motivations or descriptions is up to the individual table and DM. Whether it’s any of the DMs business is up to the individual table and DM.

Personally as a DM I prefer it as a player-only motivation, that they use as one sentence describing personality along with Personality, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw, when making decisions. As a player, seeing it as the most broad motivation, I consider it to be the “fall back” position on how to act when nothing else more specific is driving my decision on how the character should act.

To answer your specific questions, CE in 5e isn’t about self serving, its about arbitrary violence. I don’t have specific cases of it working well, because I’ve only allowed it in a couple of one shots. And CE characters (quite predictably IMO) caused the party more trouble than good, even when they were solidly on the party’s side.

[Jophiel]

In cases where alignment "matters", I usually decide which side of the alignment they care more about and then how the other side supports that. Two examples:

Chaotic Evil - You disdain the ideas of law and order and want to bring the system down. The best way to do this is to commit atrocities that prove to the people that society and rule of law can not save them. Only the strong can survive and the only one you can trust in is yourself.

Chaotic Evil - You care only for yourself and your indulgences, taking what you want from the weaker people and serving your basest desires. The best feeding grounds for this is in the lack of (or ruins of) society, where people are weakest, alone and at their most desperate.

Neither of these are people I'd want to play, have in my party or to DM for.

Making decisions case by case doesn't strike me as Chaotic from an ethics standpoint. Chaotic would be making your decisions with a consistent eye for freedom or dismantling order. Case-by-case sounds more Neutral, where you're not inclined to support either side off the bad and judge it on its merits and what will work best.

Note that most alignments aren't as thought out or intentional as I describe. Orcs are chaotic evil because they only care about their short-sighted personal desires and this keeps them from forming a structured society more complicated than "Strong guy on top", but they don't write manifestos about personal liberty or how law and order oppresses the proletariat.

[Dienekes]

Honestly. I think alignment is best when you don’t overthink it.

The good/evil alignments are easily summed up as:
Good: will try to help others for no ulterior motive
Neutral: will avoid harming others. May help others with some motivation.
Evil: does not care about others unless there are additional factors that play into their wants.

Lawful: believes the best mode or organizing society is through rules. And follows through with those beliefs
Neutral: doesn’t really have a firm thought for or against laws. Will probably follow them unless inconvenient.
Chaotic: believes the world is best lived free from the laws of man. Men should be allowed to follow their own natures.

A CE believes in their own personal freedom above all others and their own desires above other people. Now that doesn’t mean a CE can’t be a functioning party member. But they have to be getting something out of the deal. Perhaps they enjoy someone’s company. So they stick with them. Sure they may not blink if they send 100 men to their deaths. But if they do that then they won’t be able to share a beer with their buddy anymore.

That said. Usually CE is an excuse just to play a deranged murderous lunatic. They often don’t make functioning party members.

[CapnWildefyr]

Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

In my experience, it always ends in a fight. Evil PCs, when played as evil, eventually cause friction, steal from the party, let other PCs die when they could have been saved, kill them, betray them, etc etc. Now if that's fun for your group, OK. For me, I don't allow evil PCs in my games.

[redwizard007]

I guess I'm the outlier here. I've run and played in groups with evil PCs. Sometimes exclusively evil. Sometimes a mix with good and neutral players. It's a fairly even mix between "wild good time" and "went down in flames."

Bad players, and I use that moniker intentionally, will use evil alignments as an excuse to be jerks. They do the same thing with EVERY OTHER ALIGNMENT as well. Every "lawful stupid" paladin was played by the same people that play "chaotic psycho" necrophiliac rogues.

If you use the rule "dont be a jerk to your party" (or the DM) then you should be fine.

[Tanarii]

Neither of these are people I'd want to play, have in my party or to DM for.Also neither of them are what it means to be CE in 5e.


Honestly. I think alignment is best when you don’t overthink it.Unfortunately that’s what you did. CE in 5e just means a typical (but not required) overall behavior is acting with arbitrary violence, spurred on by greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

How a player decides that is best implemented can definitely be overthought.

[False God]

I find that CE comes in two brands of character:

Chaotic Jerk. Is the party having a pleasant conversation with an NPC? Yes. Therefore the CE Jerk must disrupt this because he can. This character is sometimes written as CN, but next to none of their actions are positive or neutral in nature. They look for a reason to cause trouble, usually to the detriment of the party.

Chaotic Babykiller. This guy is all about the shock value. See a puppy? He doesn't want to kill it, he wants to do unspeakable horrors to it, for funsies. Bad guys just killed a town? This guy goes looking for baby corpses to make a hat. Even if he doesn't succeed or the DM says "NO", the audience of the Chaotic Babykiller are the other players, and just putting his disgusting ideas out there gets the reaction he wants.

IME: CN/CE characters are typically problem players. I think maybe once I've seen a CE who was done well mostly as "selfish and cruel", they didn't go out of their way to cause trouble or aggravate the party, but when choices were presented that were to their benefit, they chose them over party benefit, and when choices arose that they could inflict suffering on top of the usual violence, they did so.

I'm fairly strict with "I don't need to hear about your squick." and "Keep your chaos/evil focused outward." My experience is that people who roll CE or CN are not group-activity-friendly players and have trouble following these two rules.

[da newt]

In my opinion CE does not = violent although it may lead you to violence - it means I don't care about anyone but me, I'll do anything that furthers my personal interests with zero fox given about anyone else, and I abhor order/laws/regulation/organization - chaos is what I love.

[Expected]

Personally, I enjoy playing Chaotic Neutral/Evil. I have Oppositional Defiance Disorder and these alignments best fit me as the defiance and independence aspect comes naturally. While I don't support unnecessary conflict in game, I do greatly enjoy combat and won't hesitate to be brutal and ruthless (e.g. if we accept a bounty and successfully kill them, I will not hesitate to decapitate them for proof). For CE/CN characters to work, the player needs to realize that while they will act in a selfish, self-serving manner, they need the party and should not jeopardize their alliance.

Also, isn't it boring to repeatedly play characters that are good? With the recent popularity of superheroes from movies/tv shows, it seems like everyone tries to emulate them. I think that even Lawful Good and other "acceptable" alignments are capable of evil thoughts, but what sets them apart is acting on it. People are capable of unspeakable evils as well as altruistic good, and this should be reflected in game. In my opinion, the most evil characters pretend to be good and use other PC's to fulfill their own goals and then act evil once they've no use for them any longer. A good example would be a Wizard pretending to be Lawful/Neutral Good. At first, they are so weak and need others to protect them. Once they reach higher levels, they can twist reality and single-handedly turn the tide of battle. They'll also be immortal with the use of Clone/Magic Jar and can even become a Lich if they so choose.

[Jophiel]

Also neither of them are what it means to be CE in 5e.
That's because alignment is watered down to the point of being meaningless in 5e and their descriptions are a joke reflecting that fact. "Acts with arbitrary violence, spurred on by greed, hatred, or bloodlust" can apply easily to any evil alignment. A LE warlord can keep strict command and believe in strong order but still personally act on his greed, lustful or violent impulses with impunity, protected by the rule of law around him. In fact, that's how most dictators act.

[JackPhoenix]

That's because alignment is watered down to the point of being meaningless in 5e and their descriptions are a joke reflecting that fact. "Acts with arbitrary violence, spurred on by greed, hatred, or bloodlust" can apply easily to any evil alignment. A LE warlord can keep strict command and believe in strong order but still personally act on his greed, lustful or violent impulses with impunity, protected by the rule of law around him. In fact, that's how most dictators act.

If "LE" warlord doesn't typically behave in fashion consistent with LE alignment's description, he's not LE. Nothing in your description suggest the warlord you're using as an example is LE. Enforcing rules on others does not prevent you from being CE if you don't follow those rules yourself and only use them to stay on top.... see most demon lords.

Your mistake is putting an alignment label on a character and then trying (and, obviously, failing) to justify that. The correct way is that you look at the character's typical behavior and pick the label that fits it best.

[Dienekes]

Unfortunately that’s what you did. CE in 5e just means a typical (but not required) overall behavior is acting with arbitrary violence, spurred on by greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

How a player decides that is best implemented can definitely be overthought.

Right, forgot how stripped down 5e made alignments. I'm kinda still running on 3.5.



If "LE" warlord doesn't typically behave in fashion consistent with LE alignment's description, he's not LE. Nothing in your description suggest the warlord you're using as an example is LE. Enforcing rules on others does not prevent you from being CE if you don't follow those rules yourself and only use them to stay on top.... see most demon lords.

Your mistake is putting an alignment label on a character and then trying (and, obviously, failing) to justify that. The correct way is that you look at the character's typical behavior and pick the label that fits it best.

The problem, comes from having characters that don't really fit any alignment and how rigid the brief sentences in 5e are. For instance, the Joker, usually the character who is lifted up as the pinnacle of Chaotic Evilness doesn't even fit the the CE description, at least not perfectly. To quote Mr. J. "Kid I'm the Joker. I don't just randomly kill people. I kill people when it's funny." That's not arbitrary, and it's not spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust. So by the strict but limited definitions of 5e, the Joker isn't Chaotic Evil. He just also doesn't perfectly fit NE or LE, and I refuse to imagine putting him anywhere else.

It also reminds me of one of my favorite characters I've ever played. He was an old brutal barbarian king who got dethroned and went wandering before attaching himself as something of a lieutenant to the band of heroes. The thing is, he despised civilized society and it's laws. Whenever he could he flagrantly broke them, and delighted in upsetting all those civilized types. And he didn't really follow the traditions of his people either. Part of how he got his throne was by breaking every tradition that would get in his way. So he was definitely chaotic. (Mind you this backfired dramatically on him, but that's not important to determining his alignment). He also was completely unrepentant of his violent and disturbing past, involving the complete destruction of entire cities and petty murder. He was most certainly evil. But he did not fit the definition of CE as given by 5e. But he wasn't going to go murdering people on a whim. How would that benefit him? He wasn't insane. Just evil.

In 3.5, that character would definitely fit into the wiggle room of CE. In 5e, I guess NE.

[Tanarii]

alignment was stripped/watered down because it makes them usable with multifaceted personalities, and the rest of the personality system. As opposed to a one dimensional character. That makes it the best version of Alignment to date.

[Bohandas]

Chaotic Evil, can perhaps best be understood by giving a few example characters

*The Joker, from the Batman movies and comicbooks
*Belkar, from Order of the Stick
*Bender from Futurama
*Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force
*Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars: Rogue One (but NOT the version of the character from the original Star Wars trilogy, who was closer to NE or LE)

[JackPhoenix]

The problem, comes from having characters that don't really fit any alignment and how rigid the brief sentences in 5e are. For instance, the Joker, usually the character who is lifted up as the pinnacle of Chaotic Evilness doesn't even fit the the CE description, at least not perfectly. To quote Mr. J. "Kid I'm the Joker. I don't just randomly kill people. I kill people when it's funny." That's not arbitrary, and it's not spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust. So by the strict but limited definitions of 5e, the Joker isn't Chaotic Evil. He just also doesn't perfectly fit NE or LE, and I refuse to imagine putting him anywhere else.

Just because insane psychopath says his murders are not random doesn't mean he's right. How is killing people for fun not arbitrary and spurred by bloodlust?

[JackPhoenix]

The problem, comes from having characters that don't really fit any alignment and how rigid the brief sentences in 5e are. For instance, the Joker, usually the character who is lifted up as the pinnacle of Chaotic Evilness doesn't even fit the the CE description, at least not perfectly. To quote Mr. J. "Kid I'm the Joker. I don't just randomly kill people. I kill people when it's funny." That's not arbitrary, and it's not spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust. So by the strict but limited definitions of 5e, the Joker isn't Chaotic Evil. He just also doesn't perfectly fit NE or LE, and I refuse to imagine putting him anywhere else.

Just because insane psychopath says his murders are not random doesn't mean he's right. How is killing people for fun not arbitrary and spurred by bloodlust?

[Millstone85]

That's because alignment is watered down to the point of being meaningless in 5e and their descriptions are a joke reflecting that fact.I actually think the PHB gave too many descriptions. Here are the parts I would keep:

Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Let the player determine where their character falls on each axis. Even the Great Wheel is full of intermediary regions, such as Arcadia (LN/LG), Bytopia (NG/LG), or the gate-town of Excelsior (N/LG).

[col_impact]

So when you are a DM and you think a player is literally a psychopath, what do you do?

[Dienekes]

Just because insane psychopath says his murders are not random doesn't mean he's right. How is killing people for fun not arbitrary and spurred by bloodlust?

Because it’s not when it’s fun. It’s when it’s funny. He follows the rules of comedy. Very black schadenfreude fueled comedy. He does what he does not to wallow in blood, but to get a laugh.

At least for some interpretations of the character. Others definitely are fueled by greed. Others are trying to make a statement about how illogical it is to follow the rules of society. Which, for the record, also wouldn’t count as chaotic evil in 5e. The version of the Joker that legitimately called himself the agent of chaos.

[JackPhoenix]

Because it’s not when it’s fun. It’s when it’s funny. He follows the rules of comedy. Very black schadenfreude fueled comedy. He does what he does not to wallow in blood, but to get a laugh.

He doesn't follow "rules of comedy". He does what he think is funny, which very much arbitrary and individual metric. Very few people share Joker's "sense of humor" or would get a laugh from the atrocities he commits. He arbitrarily choose to commit violence to satisfy his bloodthirsty, insane "sense of humor".


At least for some interpretations of the character. Others definitely are fueled by greed. Others are trying to make a statement about how illogical it is to follow the rules of society. Which, for the record, also wouldn’t count as chaotic evil in 5e. The version of the Joker that legitimately called himself the agent of chaos.

Ignoring there's been a lot of different versions of the characters from multiple different authors, again, just because some psychopath calls himself something doesn't make it true.

[Damon_Tor]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

Chaotic Evil doesn't have to mean stupid, random or insane. Be Ra's Al Ghul, not the Joker. As long as it serves the interests of the CE character to align themselves with the group, they will continue to do so. An intelligent CE character will not respond to an insult with murder because the risks outweigh the benefits. He will not betray his party for a few extra gold coins because his party is worth far more to him than that. The other PCs are valuable allies and potentially dangerous enemies, and he knows this and behaves accordingly. And generally speaking, an intelligent chaotic evil character will not act chaotic evil because they know that it is disadvantageous to do so.

As a DM willing to brave having a CE character in a party, make sure the players understand this and are on onboard, and make sure you do not provide an opportunity for the CEPC to achieve their goals via betrayal or you have nobody but yourself to blame.

[False God]

So when you are a DM and you think a player is literally a psychopath, what do you do?

There's no crime for being a psychopath, and not all criminals or violent folks are psychopaths. A psychopath is simply a person whose brain functions differently than ours, often missing out on the irrational emotional elements/connections. They can be fine and functional members of society and even good people, which is probably more terrifying because they're actively choosing to be good, rather than being good out of fear of social punishment.

Now, if what you're saying is "What do you do if my player makes everyone uncomfortable with behavior and language that strikes us as dangerous?" Well then I'd say stop playing with them. If you are afraid of telling them directly, stage a "breakup" of the game, blame work, blame school, blame sickness. Whatever floats your boat. If you're actively concerned about their persons behavior beyond that, depending on the person's age, your country may have services that you can contact.

I had a guy like that in one group, not a psychopath mind you, just a rather deranged kid and there were some times I really thought he was gonna get violent at the table. Eventually the older members (myself included) just broke away from the game and started a new one in a more private setting (we were playing at a public open table till then). The guy still plays D&D, not sure if he's any more or less mentally healthy but their group was recently kicked out of one of the local stores for bad body odor. Which given how pungent their group was, should have been considered a war crime.

[CapnWildefyr]

Check out the MM and DMG descriptions for the Nine Hells, the Abyss, demons, devils, etc. -- it's a lot more useful than the brief blurbs in the PHB. It gets into how evil lawfuls always follow orders, regardless, with expectation of reward, and that evil chaotics follow orders out of expectations of being killed if they don't. Etc. The denizens of the outer planes are supposed to be the 'pinnacles' of that alignment, more or less--they literally can't be anything other than that. A lawful demon is called a devil.

So I see it more like:
Evil: The welfare of others is not a concern in your decisions, except as it might impact you. There are no rights, no privileges, no obligations inherent anywhere.
Chaotic Evil: Might makes right. Who has the might makes the rules others have to live by as long as he has the power to back it up. If you want it, and no one can stop you, you do it. A CE warlord would take food from the peasants and let some of them starve to death because he doesn't want to starve and they can't stop him.
Lawful evil: Society needs rules. You seek to use those rules to every advantage to get ahead. You hold people to the letter of contracts and the law while at the same time try to work outside the letter of the law to overthrow whoever's in a better position than you. A LE warlord would take food from and starve all of his peasants to death because the law says they have to give up X food per year.
Neutral evil: You do whatever it takes to advance yourself, without regard for others. One sided deals, legal loopholes, terror, threats, whatever - as long as you prevail. A NE warlord would take enough food from the peasants that he survives, so some peasants survive, but only because it would be too hard to find more peasants.

As Damon_Tor says, you can have evil PCs in the group, but if the group messes up and allow a loophole, be ready to role up a new character or to snuff his character. That's just the role-playing part. Not the same, of course, as an 'evil' player who just likes to cause strife.

[Tanarii]

So when you are a DM and you think a player is literally a psychopath, what do you do?
Stop playing with them. Call the police if there's any evidence of a crime. Move if they know where you live.

[Grognerd]

Of course, there are the myriad official descriptions of what the alignments mean. However, the application of those descriptions has been as diverse as the number of tables playing D&D, so I like to keep things fairly simply for newer players.

What I have found works fairly well and is pretty simple is this:

Good: Selfless
Neutral: Self-interested
Evil: Selfish

Lawful: Developer
Neutral: Dualistic
Chaotic: Deconstructionist

Obviously all of us can be selfish, and anyone could potentially be selfless. Similarly, even the most chaotic person likes some stability for example in their families, while even the most lawful person believes in certain freedoms. But as broad simple strokes this seems to summarize things fairly nicely, and also reflects the fluff that most humans are neutral.

[Hail Tempus]

So when you are a DM and you think a player is literally a psychopath, what do you do? If you encounter a psychopath in real life, the only thing you should do is stop interacting with them as quickly as possible.

If one of the players in your group is really a psychopath, you need to either kick them out of the group or quit the group.

[Sigreid]

My take on it, which I don't make any claims of being cannon, RAW or a universal authority.

Good/Neutral/Evil: This is primarily based on how much harm, or effort to avoid harm you are willing to be behind to get what you want or need.

Good: You're willing to go put yourself out a fair bit to avoid causing harm to others to get what you need or want. You'll likely be willing to suffer a fair bit of inconvenience to help someone in need as well. Note that this doesn't require you to put yourself at any risk to provide such help or get what you need unless that suits the rest of your personality and talents. A good peasant doesn't have to challenge the bandit and get himself killed trying to protect someone else to still be good.

Neutral: You'll put some effort into not causing harm to get what you need or want. Or at least not intentionally cause more harm than necessary. The neutral thief will rob the wealthy merchant to get his coin instead of the poor laborer, knowing that at the end of the day the merchant will be fine while the poor laborer may would starve. In his mind he may tell himself the laborer probably doesn't have anything worth the effort anyway. And he'll still rob the poor laborer if he's desperate.

Evil: Will do whatever's most expedient to get what he needs or wants without giving any consideration to the harm it causes others. May in fact cause unnecessary harm if that's easier or will make it easier next time. The Evil bandit will most certainly take all the food and valuables from the poor peasant farm. It's not his problem if they starve to death. Heck, if he kills and/or abuses the peasants and burns their farm to the ground, the next farm over may be more compliant.

Law and chaos is respect for rules, organization and tradition. Even the most lawful person will have some rules they don't follow, and the most chaotic person will have some rules they do.

Lawful: Whether good or evil they see some kind of structure and organization as being to their benefit. It makes life easier and provides some measure of protection from those who would harm them or their interests.

Chaotic: Views structure and organization as a kind of invisible prison, and they hate being locked up. They do, however; realize that they are in that prison to some extent and balance what they want/think is right with the consequences provided the shackles of society aren't so tight that they just can't take it. They will tend to do as they please in any situation where they think no one can stop them and the price of doing so isn't too high (such as losing valuable friends and allies that have faced many horrific dangers with them).

Neutral (From a law/chaos perspective): Some rules are definitely good and needed, but frankly rule makers almost always set about making too many. This person will use their judgement as to whether to follow a given rule or not and follow the rules they agree with even when no one is looking.

Special Note: Crazy or crazed beings that act entirely on their whim and mood are unaligned. Incapable of attaching a rational to their behavior.

[Warlush]

You can play literally any alignment. If you play it subtle. Being super on the nose with any aspect of alignment is obnoxious.
{Scrubbed}

Evil PCs rarely work because they are video gamer murder hobos who don't think about cause and effect. They do stupid things that derail the narrative and ruin any plans the other players might have. This is not the behavior of a disciple of Asmodeous, Grazzt, or Vecna.

[Man on Fire]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?
The Joker and Carnage are CE.

[Damon_Tor]

The Joker and Carnage are CE.

Sure, but that's a really narrow way to think of it.

For example, someone like Ra's Al Ghul is Chaotic Evil as well, and he's entirely capable of working with a team and making long term plans.

[ezekielraiden]

First, let me trot out some commonly-associated characteristics of each component. Any individual doesn't necessarily have to exhibit all of these, but it would be really weird for them to exhibit none of these or the antithesis of any of them.

Chaos: Individualism, passion, ad-hoc solutions, absolute freedom, hate for authority figures, cruelty. Preference for situational behavior and general goals that require interpretation at each application over inviolable rules or clear principles. Act first, think later.

Evil: Ambition, amorality (and possibly immorality) acquisitiveness, active disregard for the welfare of others, sadism, narcissism. Pure results-based analysis. Preference for situational behavior and general goals that benefit the self. Desire for power, and in particular, power over others.

The intersection of these is a person who violently throws off any restrictions placed on them by society. Often, such a person relishes in the pain and fear caused by ripping away the safety and security others derive from rules and systems. Authority figures are at best an annoying distraction, and at worst active threats to the Chaotic Evil person's goals or even their very existence. A Chaotic Evil person can still find a place within a society, but they will almost always do so by exploiting holes in the rules or being allowed special dispensation to cause harm. Capricious and duplicitous behavior will be very, very common, as deceiving or tricking others is a great way to get power over them and cause them suffering.

Amorality will be extremely common as well, because Chaos and Evil both deny the existence of anything like principles or rules. CG would say "good men need no rules, they choose to live morally on their own"; LE would say "there is no 'morality' behind an action, just the action itself--but there are still standards and maintaining them is important." CE thus keeps the "there is no 'morality'" concept and the "people don't need rules" aspect, producing an eliminative-materialist, nihilist worldview where all that matters is taking what you want from a world that just exists without meaning or purpose or structure. CE fundamentally boils down to "either you take what you get, or you get what you take."

The main problem with CE is that it often isn't very good at subtlety, ingratiation, or finesse. Both Chaos and Evil chafe at any kind of restrictions, and Chaos in particular is bad at self-restraint (as that is traditionally a Lawful characteristic--holding back one's instinctive responses to things). That doesn't mean CE individuals cannot do this sort of thing. They can and do. But on the whole this is a major limitation for characters of this alignment, just as LG has to deal with the issues of conflicting demands but can still find ways to satisfy them.

Often, Chaotic Evil individuals will view themselves as CN or even CG--hence the common problem of a player insisting that their character is CN when they often indulge in cruelty. This is usually accomplished by attempts at justification or downplaying for their Evil behavior, or by recasting that behavior as Good if viewed from the right perspective. For example, a CE victim of the horrors inflicted by a corrupt, totalitarian government that is actively exterminating (say) orcs or anyone vaguely suspected of being a werewolf (see: Eberron's Church of the Silver Flame); such a person would likely justify unnecessary cruelty directed at soldiers of that government by appealing to the decency of their allies and claiming that these people "deserve" to be punished for their own deeds. Likewise, a CE person may be canny enough to direct their sadistic impulses toward socially-acceptable targets. That doesn't mean they do so because they want to (that would be more NE or even LE), but rather because they aren't stupid, and understand that they don't (currently) have the power to just let their sadism run free. It can be difficult to distinguish the differences here, but as a general rule, look at the way the character behaves when (a) they think no one is watching, or (b) when they know they can deal with or weasel out of the consequences.

Betrayal is a serious risk for anyone choosing to associate with a CE person, because the only things keeping a CE person allied to the group are...whether they feel like it. Now, of course, an LE person may eventually get to a similar point--where their evaluation determines that the cost to their reputation etc. will be less than the rewards of changing allegiances--but the impulsiveness and lack of consistency from the CE person will be a greater risk. The CE person may even engage in a betrayal, not because it would actually be beneficial, but because they just want to enjoy the shock and pain their erstwhile allies will exhibit for doing so. (This can be a really stupid move, so obviously it's not common--but it's a much bigger risk with CE than with any other alignment.)

Simply put, Chaotic Evil is the alignment of sadists, terrorists (but also freedom fighters--it depends on your perspective), particularly vicious anarchists, and anyone who takes very seriously Social Darwinism coupled with Might Makes Right. It's a potent cocktail of selfishness, amorality, ambition, destruction, and viciousness, but its lack of limitations means it often fails to limit itself from doing self-harming activities. This is one of the main things that prevents it from being a complete and unequivocal terror--the other being that opposition to any form of authority usually means opposition to organization, so CE people are often loners or running with a very small group and thus lack the power to just ignore the consequences of their actions. Should a CE person gain that kind of power, however, they are extremely dangerous.


Sure, but that's a really narrow way to think of it.

For example, someone like Ra's Al Ghul is Chaotic Evil as well, and he's entirely capable of working with a team and making long term plans.

I strongly disagree--I think he's very much Lawful Evil, with an emphasis on the Evil. He's a chessmaster and a manipulator, and he's perfectly content to let a plan take 20 years before it comes to fruition. As another example, he's very particular about succession, and tries very hard to get Batman to actually agree with his motives and thus become his willing successor. He also is one of the few people that knows Batman's civilian identity, but chooses not to reveal it out of respect for Batman's capabilities--not something one would usually associate with CE.

Now, perhaps some of this comes down to the writer, as is the case with many supers characters. My experience of Ra's al Ghul is mostly via The Animated Series and related works, where Ra's is very particular about treating his subordinates with respect (he berates his son Arkady Duvall for his sadistic and cruel behavior, and insists on good treatment of all of his subordinates as long as they obey--often even if they fail), maintains a vast and secret network of servants with a fairly strict hierarchy, and trains Damian Wayne (his grandson via Talia) in a brutally regimented and efficient way.

I will, however, grant you that in my description of CE above, I listed terrorism as one of its characteristic examples. Thing is, Ra's doesn't really do the terrorism himself. He's the Moriarty, the spider at the center of the web, pulling all the strings and never getting his hands dirty. Sure, he's brilliant and thus often contributes knowledge or expertise to the cause, but often it is purely his planning and extremely long view that is relevant, not his knowledge per se. Chaotic Evil is almost never a "mastermind"-type alignment, while a well-played Lawful Evil often is that type.

[Damon_Tor]

but its lack of limitations means it often fails to limit itself from doing self-harming activities.

Failure to predict the consequences of ones' actions is a trait of low intelligence, not alignment. Just as a LG low-int character will make choices that he thinks are right, he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see the bigger picture. On the same token, a CE low-int character will make choices he thinks will benefit him, but his inability to think things through will mean his actions may bring him harm. CE is no more prone to the folly of nearsightedness and impulsivity than any other alignment.


Thing is, Ra's doesn't really do the terrorism himself. He's the Moriarty, the spider at the center of the web, pulling all the strings and never getting his hands dirty. Sure, he's brilliant and thus often contributes knowledge or expertise to the cause, but often it is purely his planning and extremely long view that is relevant, not his knowledge per se. Chaotic Evil is almost never a "mastermind"-type alignment, while a well-played Lawful Evil often is that type.

I guess I don't see how long-term planning or the willingness to employ underlings is a factor. If I throw hand grenade that kills 50 people or I pay someone to throw a hand grenade that kills 50 people, the results of my actions are the same. Ra's Al Ghul isn't just a terrorist, he's an anarchist, he's devoted to chaos as a philosophical ideal and he is opposed to civilization as a concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you use the rule "dont be a jerk to your party" (or the DM) then you should be fine. Yeah.

IME: CN/CE characters are typically problem players. --

I'm fairly strict with "I don't need to hear about your squick." and "Keep your chaos/evil focused outward." My experience is that people who roll CE or CN are not group-activity-friendly players and have trouble following these two rules. With a few rare exceptions, I have seen the same.

Right, forgot how stripped down 5e made alignments. I'm kinda still running on 3.5. One of the best bits of advice I ever read on GiTP forums about D&D was: if you are playing 5e, first forget about previous editions. (I mostly played 0 through 2, and only a bit of 3). Treat this edition as though it's the only one. It takes a mental trick to do that, but it works.

When I did that, this edition really came alive for me and some of my. The only change I have made to that approach when I DM is that I still use the OD&D 2d6 NPC reaction table when I need a nudge on how an NPC or monster will react to the party. I usually don't need a roll, but when I do I prefer the 2d6 to the 1d20 from the DMG. (The DMG NPC reaction table if fine, though' nothing wrong with it. )

[blackjack50]

In my opinion CE does not = violent although it may lead you to violence - it means I don't care about anyone but me, I'll do anything that furthers my personal interests with zero fox given about anyone else, and I abhor order/laws/regulation/organization - chaos is what I love.

See. This is essentially how I understand it. It also prevents the player from being the violent jerk. The difference between this and neutral? Neutral would feel guilty. Or might not put themselves first in the decision. They MIGHT sacrifice their life to save a close friend. CE? Nope.

[Willie the Duck]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?


So when you are a DM and you think a player is literally a psychopath, what do you do?

Do either of you really mean players, or do you mean characters?

As for characters being CE, remember that alignment is descriptive in this edition. If the character acts somehow not disruptive to the group, but in a way that you can't say is other than CE, then you have an example of a CE PC that worked well in your group. Do I have an example? Not personally, but I think the observation above that someone like Futurama's Bender would probably be CE, and a PC played like that would work... well, okay-ish in a group (honestly the lolrandom part would be the bigger issue than the sociopathy* or selfishness).
*note: sociopath, not psychopath.

[blackjack50]

Do either of you really mean players, or do you mean characters?

As for characters being CE, remember that alignment is descriptive in this edition. If the character acts somehow not disruptive to the group, but in a way that you can't say is other than CE, then you have an example of a CE PC that worked well in your group. Do I have an example? Not personally, but I think the observation above that someone like Futurama's Bender would probably be CE, and a PC played like that would work... well, okay-ish in a group (honestly the lolrandom part would be the bigger issue than the sociopathy* or selfishness).
*note: sociopath, not psychopath.

I think I agree about the chaotic part. I think people get uptight about evil...mostly because others don’t play it well. And I meant PCs more than characters I suppose

[blackjack50]

Chaotic Evil, can perhaps best be understood by giving a few example characters

*The Joker, from the Batman movies and comicbooks
*Belkar, from Order of the Stick
*Bender from Futurama
*Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force
*Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars: Rogue One (but NOT the version of the character from the original Star Wars trilogy, who was closer to NE or LE)

BENDER!!! Omg!!! If I play CE...I will be him. That is perfect! Thank you!

[Tanarii]

As for characters being CE, remember that alignment is descriptive in this edition.Not really. It's definitely not prescriptive, which is what many people think is the opposite of descriptive. The alignment description as 'typical but not required' makes it clear it's not prescriptive.

But the flow can certainly be from (consider all personality traits treated as motivation) --> (making decision on what character does). That is also an opposite of descriptive. Although I've always struggled with labeling it. It's treating Alignment as part of the personality system, a motivation.

[Demonslayer666]

You don't care about authority or society's structure, and you don't have any morals. Anything is fair game, and you don't hesitate to act on your whims.

If you don't act on your whims, then you aren't Chaotic, you are Neutral.

[Tanarii]

If you don't act on your whims, then you aren't Chaotic, you are Neutral.
What if you only act on your whims when you feel like it?

Or is that too much whimception?

[Demonslayer666]

What if you only act on your whims when you feel like it?

Or is that too much whimception?

Depends on how whimpy the desires are, I guess.

[Sigreid]

I wonder how much of these conversations only occur because originally alignment was just Law, neutrality (balance) and chaos and which side you were on in a cosmic struggle with good and evil being awkwardly bolted on later?

[Willie the Duck]

I wonder how much of these conversations only occur because originally alignment was just Law, neutrality (balance) and chaos and which side you were on in a cosmic struggle with good and evil being awkwardly bolted on later?

Having conversed with some people who were part of the very early game, law was pretty much 'team good guys,' chaotic 'team bad guys' and why are you overthinking this?

[deljzc]

We forget that there are ranges of choices inside the "boxes" that are the alignments in D&D.

If we all start in the neutral box, just dipping your toes into chaotic and evil decisions might make you "chaotic evil", just clearly not as deranged as "The Joker" or a demon from the Abyss.

In almost all cases, humans are "around the center" of neutral and just barely get into the boxes that define alignment.

That's what is cool about the wheel concept. The further away your are from the center, the more rigid you alignment is. Angels can't even ACT neutral. They are literally further away from neutral than a good PC is away from an evil act (which happen).

It's also why when you are close to the center of the wheel, dipping or drifting into those alignments around you is frequent and common. For the most part a LG character might stay in that slice of the pie but because they are so close to the center it is common they might go into the NG and LN slices of the pie as well (in fact, I would argue that most humans today are in that little spot around LN, LG, NG and N).

All chaotic evil are not created equally. Just like all lawful good is not created equally.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having conversed with some people who were part of the very early game, law was pretty much 'team good guys,' chaotic 'team bad guys' and why are you overthinking this? It kind of was, but in those days, from table to table, that varied a bit.

[Grognerd]

Having conversed with some people who were part of the very early game, law was pretty much 'team good guys,' chaotic 'team bad guys' and why are you overthinking this?


It kind of was, but in those days, from table to table, that varied a bit.

Yep, I think this is a fair summary. And I think most of the variation between tables could pretty much be traced to how familiar or interested they were in Moorcock's works. Fans of Moorcock were much more particular (they were the "overthinking it" crowd. :smallwink:), while the non-fans or dabblers pretty much took the good/bad approach. I think that is also why it seems like you saw a lot more Neutral characters in the earlier days of D&D/AD&D than you do since 3e (at least in my experience).

[nweismuller]

I think a good example of a Chaotic Evil that at least more or less functions in a good-ish party is Jayne Cobb, from Firefly. Amoral, mercenary, thuggish, and quick-tempered, but held in check by some level of loyalty to a leader (who got his loyalty by a previous record of good treatment, so the Chaotic Evil can see the relationship works for him).

[Coffee_Dragon]

It was Poul Anderson more than Moorcock, wasn't it? (In Moorcock it was fairly explicit that even though Law looks like good to humans/elves when the forces are in balance, it's very bad for the pendulum to swing too far in either direction, so that wasn't entirely non-overthought.)

[NontheistCleric]

What is Chaos? Some choose to characterize it as an opposition to external authority, or being driven by arbitrary whim, but looking at the Law-Chaos axis as a whole, these are just symptoms of what it really means to be Chaotic.

An example often brought up in discussions of Law is the Lawful Good character who finds themselves in a Lawful Evil society. Does it mean that to continue to act Lawfully, the LG character must abide by the sadistic practices of the LE society? A common argument, especially in the case of paladins and the like, is that the Good of Lawful Good takes precedence over the Lawful, but is this really necessarily the case? Rather, I would argue that Lawfulness is determined only in relation to authorities that the character in question views as legitimate.

Therefore, a Lawful person is inclined to follow authorities that they see as legitimate, while a Chaotic person is inclined to defy authority that they see as legitimate.

Note that 'legitimate' in this case does not mean that the characters necessarily see the authority as one that obligates them to obey, only that they recognize the authoritative entity as having meaningful authority.

Note also that 'authority' includes external authorities, such as governments and the like, but equally also includes such internal forces as personal codes, precedents and promises made to oneself; after all, stating that you will do something in the future is simply projecting the authority of your present self onto your future self, but your future self does not necessarily have to follow that dictate, as no doubt we have all experienced.

It goes without saying that we consider ourselves as having meaningful authority over ourselves.

Then, moving on to the next component of Chaotic Evil, what is Evil? This is slightly simpler. Broadly speaking, we could say that a Good character goes out of their way to help others as a matter of course, a Neutral character helps or harms others only when they have a specific reason for doing so, and an Evil character harms others as a matter of course. It should be assumed that all will act to further their own interests, whatever else they do, though depending on the extremity of Good or Evil, helping or harming others may well take precedence over this.

Note that 'others' does not include people that the characters in question care about or are opposed to, as even Evil can have people it cares about and acts altruistically towards, just as Good can have enemies it acts to do harm towards (in the sense that it works against their interests).


So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

So, what we need to ask is this: Is this character inclined to defy authority they see as legitimate and harm others as a matter of course?

Taking in consideration the above, case-by-case decision making is undoubtedly Chaotic, provided that this character makes it a point to make all of their decisions this way, as this would constitute active defiance of past resolutions and precedents regarding decision-making and instead relying solely on current circumstances and inclinations to come to conclusions.

As for being self-serving, this seems more Neutral than either Good or Evil. To be meaningfully Evil, a character would have to harm others while serving their own interests even when it was not necessitated by the situation, as simply helping yourself is not Evil.

Therefore, from the information provided, this character seems more Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

CE PCs that work well in groups? To work well in a group, all a CE character needs is the same that any other character needs to work well in a group: They need to care about the group.

[Segev]

Therefore, a Lawful person is inclined to follow authorities that they see as legitimate, while a Chaotic person is inclined to defy authority that they see as legitimate.

I think I'd actually phrase it thusly: A Lawful person is inclined to follow authorities that they see as legitimate, while a Chaotic person sees no authority as legitimate.


This isn't to say that a Chaotic person can't respect somebody's word, wisdom, advice, or even follow somebody's orders because they value something they get out of it (or value something they'd lose if they don't), but they don't actually view any authority for authority's sake as worthy.

A Lawful person will give legitimate authority the benefit of a doubt, following it unless he believes it has delegitimized itself. But it is the very belief in the possibility that authority has meaning in and of itself, rather than simply due to consequentialism, that sets Lawful apart from Chaotic.

(Neutral on this axis can believe in the legitimacy of some authorities, and will at least sometimes follow them based on that legitimacy, but will also sometimes ignore it even though they consider it legitimate.)

[Lunali]

To figure out law vs chaos, I typically look at how much a character plans ahead and how much they stick to their plans. For good vs evil, how much they're willing to sacrifice for others or how much they're willing to sacrifice others for themselves.

There are other indicators of alignment, but those tend to be the easiest ones to test.

[NontheistCleric]

I think I'd actually phrase it thusly: A Lawful person is inclined to follow authorities that they see as legitimate, while a Chaotic person sees no authority as legitimate.

This isn't to say that a Chaotic person can't respect somebody's word, wisdom, advice, or even follow somebody's orders because they value something they get out of it (or value something they'd lose if they don't), but they don't actually view any authority for authority's sake as worthy.

A Lawful person will give legitimate authority the benefit of a doubt, following it unless he believes it has delegitimized itself. But it is the very belief in the possibility that authority has meaning in and of itself, rather than simply due to consequentialism, that sets Lawful apart from Chaotic.

I would contend that this isn't true; as I outlined above, a Chaotic person has at least one authority that they recognize as legitimate, and that is themselves. The part where Law/Chaos comes in is when one's previous self has, by dint of being one's own self, made a resolution or promise of some kind, or set a precedent, and the present self has to decide whether to obey or defy that dictate of the past self.

If one doesn't recognize, at least implicitly, one's own self as having meaningful authority over one's own actions, I would say that that is a kind of insanity that is at best extremely difficult to classify in the alignment system.

And, of course, it's also perfectly possible that a Chaotic person might recognize some non-self authority as having some degree of legitimacy; no person is a perfect paragon of any alignment.

You may be confusing 'authority' with 'external authority' e.g. laws and governments. A Lawful person, in my opinion, is perfectly capable of seeing no authority outside his personal codes as legitimate, but also of following those codes to the letter, even unto death.

[Sigreid]

Having conversed with some people who were part of the very early game, law was pretty much 'team good guys,' chaotic 'team bad guys' and why are you overthinking this?

It was actually pretty much a ripoff of Moorcock, or he ripped them off. Not that sure which came first.

[SociopathFriend]

Bear in mind your Alignment is not a permanent yes/no choice. It's not a Bioware game where you must always pick the red option to unlock more and better red options.

You could journey with a bona fide demon- an absolutely Chaotic Evil entity with the goal of general destruction, defilement, and otherwise being a bad influence on the mortal realm that almost everyone would be better off with if he wasn't around.

That does not, however, mean every action the demon ever makes has to be like that. He can have party members he finds useful or delightful to be around and NOT backstab them. Perhaps he views the Lawful Good Paladin as a great cover to keep people from suspecting him? Maybe he thinks the idea of a genuine evil being escorting and protecting the Cleric of a Good-aligned deity a hilarious cosmic joke? Possibly he chooses to save the Barbarian from death because at the end of the day anyone hitting the Barbarian isn't hitting him?

You can make decisions with good consequences for the wrong reasons just as you can make decisions with bad consequences for good ones.

[HappyDaze]

I find that CE comes in two brands of character:

Chaotic Jerk. Is the party having a pleasant conversation with an NPC? Yes. Therefore the CE Jerk must disrupt this because he can. This character is sometimes written as CN, but next to none of their actions are positive or neutral in nature. They look for a reason to cause trouble, usually to the detriment of the party.

Chaotic Babykiller. This guy is all about the shock value. See a puppy? He doesn't want to kill it, he wants to do unspeakable horrors to it, for funsies. Bad guys just killed a town? This guy goes looking for baby corpses to make a hat. Even if he doesn't succeed or the DM says "NO", the audience of the Chaotic Babykiller are the other players, and just putting his disgusting ideas out there gets the reaction he wants.

IME: CN/CE characters are typically problem players. I think maybe once I've seen a CE who was done well mostly as "selfish and cruel", they didn't go out of their way to cause trouble or aggravate the party, but when choices were presented that were to their benefit, they chose them over party benefit, and when choices arose that they could inflict suffering on top of the usual violence, they did so.

I'm fairly strict with "I don't need to hear about your squick." and "Keep your chaos/evil focused outward." My experience is that people who roll CE or CN are not group-activity-friendly players and have trouble following these two rules.

I have a Chaotic Jerk in my current campaign. He's annoying and likely to get his character--and possibly the rest of the group--dead really soon. I'm OK with a TPK, and since they keep on tolerating this guy, they must be too.

[pming]

Hiya!


My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

Go watch the movie "Hobo with a Shotgun". All the bad guys are some form of Evil. Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. GREAT movie for showing what the three Evil Alignments are like.

[Smoothjedi]

For instance, the Joker, usually the character who is lifted up as the pinnacle of Chaotic Evilness doesn't even fit the the CE description, at least not perfectly. To quote Mr. J. "Kid I'm the Joker. I don't just randomly kill people. I kill people when it's funny."

If you believe anything the Joker tells you, he'd probably think your death would be downright hilarious.

[Bohandas]

For instance, the Joker, usually the character who is lifted up as the pinnacle of Chaotic Evilness doesn't even fit the the CE description, at least not perfectly. To quote Mr. J. "Kid I'm the Joker. I don't just randomly kill people. I kill people when it's funny." That's not arbitrary, and it's not spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

That seems like its splitting hairs. Furthermore, I'd argue that he's still more clearly CE than Two-Face, even despite the fact that Two-Face's whole schtick is that he randomly decides who he kills and who he spares.

[Bosh]

The important thing to remember if you're using alignments as morality rather than affiliation is that most people are a pretty mild version of their alignment. The average CE is a penny ante edgelord who is annoying to be around and probably treats their family like **** and likes telling people "you can't tell me what to do" but is relatively harmless to the general population unless given power otherwise given free reign.

[Bohandas]

I agree.

Personally, I think a more apt example Chaotic Evil character would be Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force

[Bosh]

I agree.

Personally, I think a more apt example Chaotic Evil character would be Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Exactly. If we assume anything close to an even distribution of alignments there are huge numbers of CE people all around and in normal conditions they're not running around stabbing people at random.

[Randomthom]

Edit: missed this from nweismuller. Quoting here basically 'cause I agree. Jayne Cobb is what I'd call "playable CE".

I think a good example of a Chaotic Evil that at least more or less functions in a good-ish party is Jayne Cobb, from Firefly. Amoral, mercenary, thuggish, and quick-tempered, but held in check by some level of loyalty to a leader (who got his loyalty by a previous record of good treatment, so the Chaotic Evil can see the relationship works for him).


All of alignment is a scale.

People have (rightly) mentioned the Joker as CE. The Joker is pretty-much the most extreme end of CE, almost a caricature/embodiment of CE. These extremes are pretty-much only good for villains outside of a suicide-squad-style game.

For PCs, more helpful to look at perhaps are "edge cases" and by edge, I mean on the edge of neutral, particularly on the good/evil axis.

Jayne Cobb from Firefly is a character who could initially be described as CE, eventually probably resolving around CN ("If you can't do somethin' smart, do somethin' right"). He's not "comic book evil" but is undeniably selfish, prone to using (and enjoying) violence to get what he wants, willing to double-cross his own allies if he considers it advantageous. He doesn't respect authority except when it's his own ("You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command"). The fact that the good characters around him prevent him from doing these things doesn't change that these were his go-to responses.

There's a key difference though between the Joker & Jayne though. The joker is as much wedded to the ideal of chaos as the quintessential lawful-stupid paladin stereotype is to law and good. Chaos is the goal for him. He will actively tear down structures because they are there. Jayne's relationship with chaos is far more casual. He's not an "agent of chaos" but it does tend to follow him around a bit.

A campaign with an overall "good" goal is a bad fit for characters who want to be agents of chaos or evil. Devotion to those as ideals is in direct opposition to the campaign and are therefore a bad fit. CE characters who are away from the extreme (extremist) end of that spectrum can be worked with, reasoned with, allied with. So long as doing so is in their personal interests, there's no reason why they can't be part of it. Their reasons to stay can also change. Perhaps they're still loyal to their friends, even when there's nothing else on the table for them...

[GreyBlack]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

Chaotic Evil is an alignment that you write on your character sheet, nothing more and nothing less. In 5e, CE is written as


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

As such, Chaotic Evil aren't just self serving, they're actively violent, greedy, and bloodthirsty. The player you mention above doesn't necessarily meet that definition. They could, but not necessarily.

Rather, a Chaotic Evil character would act more like Rick Sanchez from "Rick and Morty" than just being self serving. The character would be quick to violence, quicker to act upon his base desires, capricious, and sustain an absolute loathing of anything beneath him.

[Segev]

The important thing to remember if you're using alignments as morality rather than affiliation is that most people are a pretty mild version of their alignment. The average CE is a penny ante edgelord who is annoying to be around and probably treats their family like **** and likes telling people "you can't tell me what to do" but is relatively harmless to the general population unless given power otherwise given free reign.

Indeed. People behave in ways they feel they can get away with.

A drow with propensities towards CG rather than CE can still live and work in drow society. He is seen as "soft" and "weak" by his peers, and he's probably edging into CN more than CG by virtue of being willing to do what he has to to survive when his Matron tells him to kill those slaves. But he tries to do it as mercifully as possible and, if he could, he'd help them escape. He also, heartbreakingly, might engage in mercykilling if he's put in a position where leaving victims alive would be preferable to the evil drow, but they'd really rather not keep suffering. (Note, I'm not advocating mercy killing as a moral and upright act in general, just talking about how somebody whose proclivities are more CG might be CN with CG tendencies or even CG but corrupted towards CN and still live in drow society without being a masterfully courageous and conniving rebel.)

Likewise, a CE elf living in a typical CG elven community needn't be an idiot who thinks he can get away with flauting all social norms and moral standards. Sure, he wouldn't mind killing somebody for sufficient reward, and he probably has a violent temper and is known for it, but he's not running around murdering people for fun and profit all the time. He takes full advantage of the lack of hard and fast rules, and puts on a reasonable act of fitting in. He likely has learned not to laugh out loud at others' suffering, at least not without some justification for why "they deserved it" that fits the zeitgeist, at least on the surface, of his elven culture's standards.

A CE halfling living in a typical LN-to-LG-but-leaning-towards-TN humanoid city need not be a criminal, mastermind or thug. I mean, he likely breaks laws, a lot, but he can easily just be the sort who breaks the "little" laws. He bribes the official to give him a liquor license for less than the city insists it is due, or the health inspector to ignore the "slightly dirty" kitchen in his restaurant. He jaywalks. ("What? The street was clear enough!") He puts his finger on the scale if he thinks he won't get caught, and if he sees somebody drop a few coins, he's not going to call out to them to return them but rather will take them, himself, and may even fight another scavanger over them if both move towards them at the same time.

Rules apply, but mainly only when he thinks he'll get caught. He might even balk at murder just out of habit. He'd do it, but he's so used to being afraid of being caught for it that he'd have to psych himself up for it and have a stronger motivation than mere convenience. Not, again, because he values the other guy's right to live, but because murder is risky.

[Tanarii]

I agree.

Personally, I think a more apt example Chaotic Evil character would be Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force


Exactly. If we assume anything close to an even distribution of alignments there are huge numbers of CE people all around and in normal conditions they're not running around stabbing people at random.
But Master Shake does run around stabbing people at random ...

[KorvinStarmast]

It was actually pretty much a ripoff of Moorcock, or he ripped them off. Not that sure which came first.

Moorcock's Elric stories came before D&D was first published.
The dreaming city was first published in 1961.

Moorcock acknowledges the work of Bertolt Brecht, particularly Threepenny Novel and The Threepenny Opera, as "one of the chief influences" on the initial Elric sequence; he dedicated 1972's Elric of Melniboné to Brecht.

In the same dedication, he cited Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and Fletcher Pratt's The Well of the Unicorn as similarly influential texts. Moorcock has referred to Elric as a type of the "doomed hero", one of the oldest character-types in literature, akin to such hero-villains as Mervyn Peake's Steerpike in the Titus Groan trilogy, Poul Anderson's Scafloc in The Broken Sword, T. H. White's Lancelot in The Once and Future King, and Jane Gaskell's Zerd in The Serpent.

The story of Kullervo from Finnish mythology contains elements similar to Elric's story, such as a talking magic sword and fatal alienation of the hero from his family. Besides Elric, Kullervo has been proposed as having influence on Poul Anderson's 1954 novel The Broken Sword, and J.R.R. Tolkien's Túrin Turambar.
Moorcock has stated that "Anderson's a definite influence [on Elric], as stated. But oddly, the Kalevala was read to us at my boarding school when I was about seven", and "from a very early age I was reading Norse legends and any books I could find about Norse stories".
Moorcock in the same posting stated "one thing I'm pretty sure of, I was not in any way directly influenced by Prof. T[olkien]". His Count Brass and Dorian Hawkmoon stories also had chaos and law thematics in the background.

[Beleriphon]

Note that most alignments aren't as thought out or intentional as I describe. Orcs are chaotic evil because they only care about their short-sighted personal desires and this keeps them from forming a structured society more complicated than "Strong guy on top", but they don't write manifestos about personal liberty or how law and order oppresses the proletariat.

That's true, but they might express ideas that humans are pathetic because they follow a king that can't personally win a fight.

[Bohandas]

But Master Shake does run around stabbing people at random ...

Meatwad doesn't count. He regenerates like a worm

[Beleriphon]

I'll throw my two cents in using DC Comics examples, because I like comics.

CE: The Joker - he is entirely capricious in his actions, and his first and generally only action in a situation is arbitrary violence. He's nearly incapable of working in an organization where he isn't in completely control (ie. his gang of goons), the only thing that can control him is a threat of extreme violence to his person and even that isn't guaranteed.

NE: Bane - he sees little to no value in social norms and mores, or traditional rules. He'll work within those rules, but doesn't see the need to have them. Capable of long term planning and goals Bane is also prone to fits of arbitrary violence when pressed.

LE: R'as al-Ghul - Ra's is the one that sees value in order and rules. He wants to be the one who makes the order and rules. A very long term planner (being functionally immortal will do that to you) his primary process for making new rules is murder billions and install himself as king of the world.

[ezekielraiden]

Failure to predict the consequences of ones' actions is a trait of low intelligence, not alignment. Just as a LG low-int character will make choices that he thinks are right, he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see the bigger picture. On the same token, a CE low-int character will make choices he thinks will benefit him, but his inability to think things through will mean his actions may bring him harm. CE is no more prone to the folly of nearsightedness and impulsivity than any other alignment.
It's...a bit more complex than that. Chaos in extrema really does do things without paying attention to the consequences--you can be extremely intelligent and still do self-harming things because you did what you felt like doing in the moment, regardless of its benefits. Knowing the consequences is a function of intelligence; caring about the consequences before they happen is not.

I'm not just blowing smoke here; this is quite clearly indicated by both the CN and CE descriptions in the 5e PHB (emphasis in original):

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

The main difference between demons and devils, for example, is that devils have a hierarchy, use precise strategy and logistics, follow rules, and keep formal agreements. Demons are closer to rabid, completely unhinged, chewing the scenery and extremely unpredictable. It is possible to get a devil to do something they don't want to do because it would require them to break a contract if they don't, for example.


I guess I don't see how long-term planning or the willingness to employ underlings is a factor. If I throw hand grenade that kills 50 people or I pay someone to throw a hand grenade that kills 50 people, the results of my actions are the same. Ra's Al Ghul isn't just a terrorist, he's an anarchist, he's devoted to chaos as a philosophical ideal and he is opposed to civilization as a concept.
The results are not actually the same; paying someone else to do it means you are complicit, sure, but it's conspiracy. This matters a lot for a variety of reasons. Conspiracy to commit crime is an important way to deal with, for example, organized crime. If you can prove an agreement formed between two or more people, you can get someone for conspiracy, even if they personally only did things like pay the actual actor a large sum of money or whatever.

Besides that, though? Chaos is deeply concerned with following impulses and doing whatever "feels right" in the moment--of course, someone with high intelligence is likely to intuitively choose effective choices, but they still do so more out of living in the moment than out of a stepwise, careful plan. Ra's is all about the stepwise, careful planning. Slowly building up a complex, multi-stage plot, with contingencies and counter-contingencies, with a vast secret organization under your command...isn't Chaotic.

And I don't actually think Ra's is an anarchist. He does have the destruction of much of humanity as a goal, but it's not because society is organized; it's because society is wasteful and polluting. He sees how society could be harmonious with nature, efficient, perfect. His obsession with finding a suitable heir is, in part, due to his misogyny (he recognizes his daughter is the finest of his children...but she's "only" a woman in his eyes), but in larger part because he wants to found the dynasty that will rule over the remainder of humanity. A perfect society needs a perfect ruler, and while Ra's would like immortality (as demonstrated by multiple attempts to claim it), he's smart enough to plan ahead even if he will eventually die--and he sees Batman as his ideal heir, if it weren't for those pesky morals.

Given his choice of allies during the middle of the 20th century, I don't think he's particularly concerned with anarchy. He certainly wants to eliminate the vast majority of people--but not because he wants to destroy all of humanity or all of society. He wants to rule, and he's carefully constructing a powerbase that, once the genocide happens, can step in and provide the structure and security that the post-collapse world would desperately want.

Or, in other words, what Beleriphon said.



In general though? I absolutely agree that people like the Joker, Ra's al Ghul, etc. are extremes--just as Superman and the Flash are extremes. They're larger than life for good reason; it's part of the point of telling that kind of story. (Just as there's a place for slice-of-life, there's a place for bright primary colors and intense action.) Real people will be lower-key. And player characters are going to fall somewhere between the two--some will be low-key, some will be big damn villains, some it'll be harder to tell. Certain character types--like Paladins and Assassins--lend themselves to those larger-than-life characteristics. Others don't.

Hence why I broke things down into trends, characteristics, patterns.


I would contend that this isn't true; as I outlined above, a Chaotic person has at least one authority that they recognize as legitimate, and that is themselves. The part where Law/Chaos comes in is when one's previous self has, by dint of being one's own self, made a resolution or promise of some kind, or set a precedent, and the present self has to decide whether to obey or defy that dictate of the past self.
But surely we can say, under this analysis, that the past-self and the present-self are not identical. Why should I have to be beholden to that person that I'm not anymore? Why should my future self be beholden to what my present self does? They've become different from me. Sure, there's a historical connection, but there's all sorts of historical connections that have no authority significance.


If one doesn't recognize, at least implicitly, one's own self as having meaningful authority over one's own actions, I would say that that is a kind of insanity that is at best extremely difficult to classify in the alignment system.
Well, no, there's at least two tracks you could take on that. First, determinism. You aren't the authority on your actions because no one is ever an authority on anything--everything is predetermined. You can even take that a step further to a sort of hyper-determinism, where it's not just that the current state of affairs is the only one that could have come from whatever initial conditions started the universe, but that this universe is the only possible universe that could ever have been--it's not just that your actions are determined, it's that your existence and performance of those actions is and always was absolutely necessary. Second, a belief that there is no "self" behind the actions performed (vaguely similar to the concept of anatman)--if you deny that there is such a thing as "I" or "me," or any "selves" at all, then of course there can be no "authority" over "your" actions because there is no "you" to possess that authority. In other words, your argument requires a syllogism--if there is a self that can be called "I," and if authority over actions exists, then I have authority over my actions. Determinism denies the second premise; no-self denies the first.


And, of course, it's also perfectly possible that a Chaotic person might recognize some non-self authority as having some degree of legitimacy; no person is a perfect paragon of any alignment.
Agreed. We speak in trends. Chaos denotes a fundamental denial of legitimacy. Law denotes a fundamental belief in legitimacy. Real people fall somewhere in-between--either having unconsidered beliefs about legitimacy, or having a personal definition which makes finer distinctions than "yes" or "no" toward legitimacy. (It's worth noting, here, that legitimacy itself derives from lex, legis, "law." So in some sense, a belief in legitimacy is, quite literally, a belief in some kind of Law.)


You may be confusing 'authority' with 'external authority' e.g. laws and governments. A Lawful person, in my opinion, is perfectly capable of seeing no authority outside his personal codes as legitimate, but also of following those codes to the letter, even unto death.
No, I don't quite buy that. Or at least I have some serious reservations about it. To be Lawful, I think you really do have to ascribe to some set of ideals external to yourself. They may not be the law of the land, they may not be necessarily written down in full anywhere. But to be Lawful, the rules have to be more than just "I do what I know is right." That is, a Lawful person could, if given time and patience, actually articulate these rules. There almost surely will be exceptions and edge cases--again, we're not talking about diamond absolutes here--but there would be specific rules, and they would be followed reasonably well, and the Lawful character would inherently respect and go along with those who clearly make an effort to follow those rules or represent groups that do so.

Or another way to say this is, looping back to the "authority of past self" stuff: One of the common statements made about Chaotic alignments is that they keep their word if they feel like it. In other words, honesty per se is not valuable; doing what seems most useful/valuable/appropriate in context is what is valuable to the Chaotic mind. Contrariwise, to the Lawful mind, there will be things that you Really Want To Do, but you don't, because doing them would break Da Rules, and breaking Da Rules is a greater fault than doing things you don't want to do (or failing to do things you want to do).

As some extremely general, not-absolute stuff I'd argue for:
Lawful values Consistency and Legitimacy; Good values Decency and Integrity; Evil values Egoism and Ruthlessness; Chaos values Impulse and Spontaneity. Lawful characters become dissatisfied when a situation has been resolved by ad-hoc and one-off means (that is, without procedure). Good characters become dissatisfied when a situation has been resolved by hurtful or disreputable means (that is, without care for others). Evil characters become dissatisfied when a situation has been resolved by indulgent or frivolous means (that is, without pursuing personal power first). Chaotic characters become dissatisfied when a situation has been resolved by officious and punctilious means (that is, without license to act contextually).

A person can be in the "mildly CE" camp if they're selfish and self-absorbed enough to draw on the resources of others without giving anything back (I know someone dealing with a third party that behaves this way), and who so badly hates being told what to do or how to behave that their innate reflex when they're given any kind of order or even order-like statement is to immediately disobey it (I know a completely different person for whom this is literally true: reading "do not eat cookie dough without cooking" literally made them buy a tube of cookie dough and eat it without cooking, not to boast, but just because they had to rebel against it.) Perhaps they get off on the high of victory in competitive gaming, not (strictly) because it demonstrates personal excellence, but because it means they defeated someone else (I've known someone else who was absolutely like this, and willing to cheat to get it--and, yes, I'd call them somewhat CE without being strictly "a bad person.") Perhaps they channel their...emotions...into things like watching Dexter and squicky "real medicine" shows, where they can enjoy the gore easily at home without personal effort. Maybe they impulse-buy things and coerce others into helping/joining them whether those other people like it or not, because the CE person can't enjoy it without "friends." Etc.

There are a lot of ways to be very mildly Evil and very mildly Chaotic. Compared to someone like the Joker, these people are far and away Neutral (after all, it's supposed to be the case that most people are Neutral.) But within the bounds of everyday people, that's what I'd point to.

[Keravath]

Sure, but that's a really narrow way to think of it.

For example, someone like Ra's Al Ghul is Chaotic Evil as well, and he's entirely capable of working with a team and making long term plans.

I'd say the character of Ramsay Bolton from Game of Thrones fits the description of Chaotic Evil also. (though a lot of chaotic evil characters are psychopath/sociopaths of one sort or another)

The OPs suggestion that evil=self-serving is far too broad since almost every character/person has some level of self interest in most decisions they make.

[Willie the Duck]

The OPs suggestion that evil=self-serving is far too broad since almost every character/person has some level of self interest in most decisions they make.

It certainly doesn't leave much space for neutral characters.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

"[Chaotic Evil] means never having to say you're sorry..." :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

My understanding of evil in DND is that it is self serving. For the players anyway. So ultimately wouldn’t a player who makes decisions case by case but ultimately self serving be CE? Do you have examples of CE PCs that work well in groups?

Personality of a housecat. Loves their friends, shows them affection freely (when in the mood), very independent, short-sighted and now-centric, tortures innocent strangers to death for amusement if allowed to by friends.

[Segev]

Evil is self-serving regardless of the detriment to others. Evil, in its pure form, places no value on anyone except in direct measure to how they benefit itself.

Good, while perfectly capable of being self-serving, strongly resists self-service when and where it hurts others. It may even abnegate some self-service, valuing the service to others higher.


In general, Good views other people as at least as valuable as oneself. Evil views other people as worth less simply because they are NOT oneself.


In an example, I was watching an episode of Doctor Who a couple years ago where something stuck with me: the bad guy was sacrificing homeless folks to an eldritch abomination for unspecified services that result in wealth and power for himself and his businesses. When asked how he justified it, why their lives were worth less than his such that he could justify killing them, rather than sacrificing himself...he went on a rant about how he is a businessman and how he brings in money for the Empire (of Britain), etc. etc.

And my thoughts went to my own signature evil character, who has a much simpler response. When asked, "Why is your life worth more than theirs!?" he has a simple answer: "Because it's mine."

[Brookshw]

Meatwad doesn't count. He regenerates like a worm

Still, I'll do what I want, when I want, and how I want is hardly the poster statement for any form of restraint. Also, does stabbing a school bus count?