Chaotic Evil characters with personality traits that play well with a party

[Tanarii]

Idea taken from another thread, going through the random personality traits from backgrounds, looking for combinations that play well with others (a D&D party, even when the character has the Alignment typical but not constantly required trait: Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Play well as in will be motivated to work with the party, and able to focus on a party goal, and that'll help keep them in line, instead of being disruptive.

Feel free to comment, add your own from the PHB or other sources, or just make up your own personality traits that work!

Personality: I see omens in every event and action. The gods try to speak to us, we just need to listen.
Ideal: Change. We must help bring about the changes the gods are constantly working in the world. (Chaotic)
Bond: Everything I do is for the common people.
Flaw: Once I pick a goal, I become obsessed with it to the detriment of everything else in my life.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Bit of a starry-eyed zealot, always willing to do their deities work to improve the lives of the people by going on quests that remove dangers to civilization, preferably with extreme prejudice. Tends to become overly goal-oriented when on an adventure, means and methods do not bother them.


Scam: I put on new identities like clothes.
Personality: I have a joke for every occasion, especially occasions where humor is inappropriate.
Ideal: Aspiration. I'm determined to make something ofmyself. (Any). I'm determined to make something of myself. (Any)
Bond: Somewhere out there, I have a child who doesn't know me. I'm making the world better for him or her.
Flaw: I'm always in debt. I spend my ill-gotten gains on decadent luxuries faster than I bring them in.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Party face/infiltrator. This character will always be in for any quest to help make the world a better place, even if they don't always question the methods. Since they spend money faster than it comes in but want to get ahead in life, they'll also be willing to work on adventures that pay out well or improve their lot.


Speciality: Enforcer
Personality: I always have a plan for what to do when things go wrong.
Ideal: Greed. I will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. (Evil)
Bond: My ill-gotten gains go to support my family.
Flaw: I have a "tell" that reveals when I'm lying.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: An intelligent tactician, if they're not the party leader, they're the one who has the backup plan. In it for the money, but will also do charity quests that keep their family safe, always willing to save the city or the world. Not a nice guy, but very valuable to have on board.


Routine: Instrumentalist, Singer, Storyteller
Personality: I know a story relevant to almost every situation.
Ideal: Creativity. The world is in need of new ideas and bold action. (Chaotic)
Bond: I idolize a hero of the old tales and measure my deeds against that person's.
Flaw: I'll do anything to win fame and renown.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Idolizes a genuine Galahad-type, but doesn't really get what made that goodly hero tick. They're here for the sheer adventure! Especially if it involves carnage. They're also pretty good at figuring out solutions, pulled from the old tales.


Defining Event: A fey creature gave me a blessing.
Personality: If someone is in trouble, I'm always ready to lend help.
Ideal: Freedom. Tyrants must not be allowed to oppress the people. (Chaotic)
Bond: I protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Flaw: I'm convinced of the significance of my destiny, and blind to my shortcomings and the risk of failure.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Cursed! Granted their power to help others, they tend to go into a battle fury. So they took it on the road, seeking out quests to direct that. The party just needs to point them at the target, and keep them quietly in the background the rest of the time. Probably will die young.


Guild Business: Calligraphers, scribes, and scriveners
Personality: I always want to know how things work and what makes people tick.
Ideal: Greed. I'm only in it for the money. (Evil)
Bond: I pursue wealth to secure someone's love.
Flaw: I would kill to acquire a noble title.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: A lowly scribe who fell in love above their station. They're trying to get rich to buy a title and set themselves up, and the means don't bother them. Destined for retirement when they're wealthy, and then tragedy when it doesn't work out the way they planned.


Seclusion: I was searching for spiritual enlightenment.
Personality: I am utterly serene, even in the face of disaster.
Ideal: Free Thinking. Inquiry and curiosity are the pillars of progress. (Chaotic)
Bond: My isolation gave me great insight into a great evil that only I can destroy.
Flaw: I harbor dark, bloodthirsty thoughts that my isolation and meditation failed to quell.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Left the world when dark thoughts started to cause them to lose control. Turns out it wasn't just natural insanity. Probably. Now they're on a mission to save the world. Staying calm is their way of controlling the demons inside, but sometimes they out. Luckily they can usually direct them at the enemy. There is an enemy standing over there, right?



Personality: My eloquent flattery makes everyone I talk to feel like the most wonderful and important person in the world.
Ideal: Independence. I must prove that I can handle myself without the coddling of my family. (Chaotic)
Bond: I will face any challenge to win the approval of my family.
Flaw: By my words and actions, I often bring shame to my family.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: This brat is out to prove themselves. They're mostly valuable because they're motivated to work hard, if you can sell it as proving ones worth. But those family connections don't hurt. At least they seem nice. Voted most likely to experience character growth that results in changing alignment.


Origin: Tribal marauder
Personality: I watch over my friends as if they were a litter of newborn pups.
Ideal: Might. The strongest are meant to rule. (Evil)
Bond: I suffer awful visions of a coming disaster and will do anything to prevent it.
Flaw: There's no room for caution in a life lived to the fullest.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: A once boisterous, if perhaps overly violent, raider. Prophetic visions meant putting aside personal ambitions and stepping up to save the world they someday intend to rule. Truly understands the concept of Us vs Them. Whatever you do, don't end up being labeled part of Them!


Specialty: Researcher
Personality: There's nothing I like more than a good mystery.
Ideal: Power. Knowledge is the path to power and domination. (Evil)
Bond: I've been searching my whole life for the answer to a certain question.
Flaw: Unlocking an ancient mystery is worth the price of a civilization.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Dreams of world domination. Always down for an adventure to increase their knowledge, and thus power. May accidentally implode the world. Do not let near any big red buttons! May become the BBEG at the end of the campaign.



Personality: My friends know they can rely on me, no matter what.
Ideal: Mastery. I'm a predator, and the other ships on the sea are my prey. (Evil)
Bond: I'm loyal to my captain first, everything else second.
Flaw: I follow orders, even if I think they're wrong.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: A loyal hound. Will follow even even the dirtiest orders from the party leader without question. Do not let them take charge!


Specialty: Standard Bearer.
Personality: I'm always polite and respectful.
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins. (Evil)
Bond: Those who fight beside me are those worth dying for.
Flaw: My hatred of my enemies is blind and unreasoning.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Loves being part of a team! Beneath their polite facade lies a real bastard. If no-one is looking, carves trophies from their enemies to remember their triumphs. Even though their teammates would trust them with their life when the cards are down, still makes them nervous.



Personality: I bluntly say what other people are hinting at or hiding.
Ideal: Retribution. The rich need to be shown what life and death are like in the gutters. (Evil)
Bond: I sponsor an orphanage to keep others from enduring what I was forced to endure.
Flaw: Gold seems like a lot of money to me, and I'll do just about anything for more of it.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Street rat, apparently with a heart of coal. In it for the rewards, but refuses to say why they never seem to have any left. Sharp tongued and sensitive about appearing weak. Just make sure their share of the gold is more than they'd get for turning you all in.


(Partly this is for my own fun, and partly it's because I just love the 5e personality system, so I want to see more threads about it.)

[Amechra]

Not done up in the actual personality system, but I have to bring up my current CE character, Zwerrit Humperdink. He's a Fiend Bladelock who (long story short) received his pact after drunkenly challenging a devil to a duel.

He's Chaotic Evil because he's incapable of feeling remorse for killing people. He won't fight people who can't fight back (because it isn't very satisfying), but otherwise? You're fair game. He's a serial killer who happens to be on the party's side, because they have booze and the best fights... and literally does not care about the rest of the plot (I do, he doesn't).

Honestly, the only reason I say that he's Chaotic Evil and not Chaotic Neutral is that he enjoys killing, in the way a normal person enjoys eating a good meal. Part of that is a result of his pact (which also led to him shedding ashes all the time), but most of it's just him. He's a monster, and a pretty fun dude to play.

EDIT: Come to think of it, since his family disowned him... Zwerrit is a literal murderhobo.

[Corran]

Here's one take on the hermit.


Personality: I am utterly serene, even in the face of disaster
Ideal: Power. Solitude and contemplation are paths toward mystical or magical power. (Evil)
Bond: I'm still seeking the enlightenment I pursued in my seclusion, and it still eludes me.
Flaw: I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge.

How it plays: Although the character may never admit that to themselves, the seclusion (hermitage?) did not deliver what it promised (low wisdom score recommended; I am envisioning a wizard whose ambitious research didn't pay off, but that's one of many possibilities). Now they have to make up for all the time that was lost. That's a thought burried deep within the subconscious, and it drives the character in all their decisions. You leave no quests unanswered, no dungeon rooms unexplored, no door unopened. Everything that waits to be discovered, will be discovered. And fast (tone down appropriately if really needed); there is no more time to waste. Curiosity backed up by ambition and a self imposed sense of urgency makes for a character that could please DM's who want their players to explore everything they have prepared for them, and would also fit well in the typical (at least IME) adventuring party.

[Greywander]

I feel like Rick from Rick and Morty is a good example of what a Chaotic Evil character might look like in an otherwise mostly Good party. It helps a lot that Morty serves as a morality pet for him, giving him a reason to occasionally do good things even when he doesn't really care about being a good person.

In D&D terms, a character like this show some restraint (rather than just attacking literally everything) and be willing to work with the party (presumably toward a mutually beneficial goal). They could serve a useful role in a meta perspective by being the guy who shoots first when diplomacy isn't going well, basically the guy who starts combat when it's the best solution even when other characters would have reasons to try and avoid combat.

Really, the proper way to play an Evil character in a Good party is to use it as an opportunity to do bad things when those bad things need to be done (Chaotic probably works best for this because they can get away with being more arbitrary as to when they commit Evil). The party can discuss the situation out of character and agree that it's for the best, and then let the Evil character off their leash. The characters may object, but the players are in agreement. The tricky part is maintaining a reason for them all to be traveling together, while also keeping the Evil character Evil. If they're not really Evil, then it's basically a non-issue anyway. If they are Evil, then you need some good reasons why your Good party is putting up with them.

It's tricky because you need a Chaotic Evil character who is loyal to the party and can show restraint, as well as a party who is willing to look the other way while the Evil character does their thing. That's a pretty specific combination, and you're not going to get the black and white morality that some tables might prefer.

[Tanarii]

Here's one take on the hermit.


Personality: I am utterly serene, even in the face of disaster
Ideal: Power. Solitude and contemplation are paths toward mystical or magical power. (Evil)
Bond: I'm still seeking the enlightenment I pursued in my seclusion, and it still eludes me.
Flaw: I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge.

How it plays: Although the character may never admit that to themselves, the seclusion (hermitage?) did not deliver what it promised (low wisdom score recommended; I am envisioning a wizard whose ambitious research didn't pay off, but that's one of many possibilities). Now they have to make up for all the time that was lost. That's a thought burried deep within the subconscious, and it drives the character in all their decisions. You leave no quests unanswered, no dungeon rooms unexplored, no door unopened. Everything that waits to be discovered, will be discovered. And fast (tone down appropriately if really needed); there is no more time to waste. Curiosity backed up by ambition and a self imposed sense of urgency makes for a character that could please DM's who want their players to explore everything they have prepared for them, and would also fit well in the typical (at least IME) adventuring party.
I like it. The utterly serene personality is an interesting contrast to the failure to find enlightenment and the driven nature of the character.

That's definitely the most interesting of the personality traits for a CE Hermit just because of the seeming contrast with the typical but not constantly required associated behavior. I used it too.



Really, the proper way to play an Evil character in a Good party is to use it as an opportunity to do bad things when those bad things need to be done (Chaotic probably works best for this because they can get away with being more arbitrary as to when they commit Evil).I'm not assuming the party is good. Just functional as a group/team, and not all CE, or even necessarily LE or NE.

[Unoriginal]

Here are my takes, with some of them for either alternate backgrounds or from backgrounds not in the PHB.

[Work In Progress]


Defining Event: Recruited into a lord's army, I rose to leadership and was commended for my heroism.
Personality Trait: If someone is in trouble, I'm always ready to lend help.
Ideal: Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want – what I deserve. (Evil)
Bond: A proud noble once gave me a horrible beating, and I will take my revenge on any bully I encounter.
Flaw: Secretly, I believe that things would be better if I were a tyrant lording over the land.

Sometime, you do everything right, and life still chokeslams you into next week. This character heroically led troops to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but when presented to the local ruler for reward, all they got was a savage beating for upstaging the lord. Left for dead and embittered by the experience, the character now ruminates the unfairness of it all and how different things would be if they were the one in charge, while taking their anger out on any wannabe-oppressor that cross their path. A pretty helpful teammate to have around, despite their motivations.

[Lunali]

A lot of these feel NE, LE, CN or even CG. A CE character should be self serving and reactionary, not altruistic or a great planner.

[da newt]

I guess it really depends on what you define as CHAOTIC EVIL.

For me, CE and works with others are contradictions. CE is the epitome of selfish and zero impulse control, full of hate and violence toward everyone.

If I want to play a PC who gives zero fox, I label them NEUTRAL so that they are unbound by morality.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

A lot of these feel NE, LE, CN or even CG. A CE character should be self serving and reactionary, not altruistic or a great planner.

Agreed, though that might be due to the natural limitations the system imposes on characters that wouldn't play well with a group, as well as the difficulty in defining what is evil, to say nothing of distinguishing it into law/neutral/chaos (though that is, in part, a general consequence of alignment as a system in the first place, but I don't mind that).

I think a Chaotic Evil character is, by necessity, craven, cowardly, self-serving, rebellious, rude, callous, impulsive, mercenary, and/or dishonest. I think the biggest detraction from that kind of characterization is through the Bonds, which ties back to how the system itself kind of limits how 'evil' one can be. CE is, kind of by definition, the one type of character who is least likely to have any sort of bond, so I think that any bonds a CE character would have would need to be either incredibly personal, or warped in some way.

By personal, maybe something like a grudge, or a need to 'get back' at the system, or a Machiavellian determination to acquire something, or a delusion/belief in their own grandeur (like thinking of themselves as the next Napoleon). If a bond is interpersonal or tied to other people, it shouldn't be reliant on honor or duty or any of that, instead it should be based more on selfishness. If they owe someone a debt, then they would make it a point to not pay them back, or to capitalize on that person's good will, or they would feel slighted that someone pitied them and want to get revenge. If they are tied to something (like an institution or a group), it would be reluctantly, or due to ulterior motives - maybe they are cursed, or have a debt they are magically bound to, or something. I don't see a CE character willingly supporting other people if there isn't something in it for them.

[hamishspence]

A moderately easy way - start with designing a CG personality, and then corrupt them a bit.

So - they're a brave, heroic, fighter for freedom - but, they've become unacceptably cruel as well. The kind of guy who tortures their enemies, and doesn't care at all about the "rules of war" - faking surrenders, using cruel weaponry, and so forth.

[Unoriginal]

You don't have to hate the whole world and want to fight everything and be unable to function on a team or to plan to be chaotic evil.

Even Demons can work together, and for each other. The Demon Princes have armies and generals. Gra'azt has accountants counting his treasures. Yeenoguh's signature creations live in packs. Baphomet and Fraz Ulbu play long cons to trick people into joining their cult. Orcus makes deals with mortals. And it's mentioned most Demons consider eating souls to be abhorrant (even if there are some Demons ready to trample this taboo with feet and hooves).

Those are Demons, the literal personifications of the concept of malevolent chaos and chaotic malevolence.

A mortal likely won't go to the extreme Demons go. You can be chaotic evil because you make a living scavenging battlefields and you let some wounded that might have recovered if you helped die in the filth, for example.

[Tanarii]

Here are my takes, with some of them for either alternate backgrounds or from backgrounds not in the PHB.

[Work In Progress]


Defining Event: Recruited into a lord's army, I rose to leadership and was commended for my heroism.
Personality Trait: If someone is in trouble, I'm always ready to lend help.
Ideal: Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want – what I deserve. (Evil)
Bond: A proud noble once gave me a horrible beating, and I will take my revenge on any bully I encounter.
Flaw: Secretly, I believe that things would be better if I were a tyrant lording over the land.

Sometime, you do everything right, and life still chokeslams you into next week. This character heroically led troops to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but when presented to the local ruler for reward, all they got was a savage beating for upstaging the lord. Left for dead and embittered by the experience, the character now ruminates the unfairness of it all and how different things would be if they were the one in charge, while taking their anger out on any wannabe-oppressor that cross their path. A pretty helpful teammate to have around, despite their motivations.Have you been reading the Stormlight Archive by Sanderson? :smallamused: sounds like Kaladin's backstory.


A lot of these feel NE, LE, CN or even CG. A CE character should be self serving and reactionary, not altruistic or a great planner.
No, because the player has written down CE typical but not constantly required associated behavior, along with the listed personality, ideal, bond and flaw, and is using all that when making decisions. Not the NE, LE, CN or even CG associated behavior, combined with the traits listed.

Maybe I need to include the associated behavior with each trait block, because it's part of each one. In fact, I think I'll go make that edit. (And done)


I guess it really depends on what you define as CHAOTIC EVIL.
Here is the typical, but not constantly required, associated behavior:
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Also each character has their own spin on it because of their Ideal. And then their Personality, Bond and Flaw round out the character with specifics that either align or contradict in specific situations or decision making.


For me, CE and works with others are contradictions. CE is the epitome of selfish and zero impulse control, full of hate and violence toward everyone.


I think a Chaotic Evil character is, by necessity, craven, cowardly, self-serving, rebellious, rude, callous, impulsive, mercenary, and/or dishonest.


Thats nice, but it's not what the PHB says.

[Zetakya]

Here's one take on the hermit.


Personality: I am utterly serene, even in the face of disaster
Ideal: Power. Solitude and contemplation are paths toward mystical or magical power. (Evil)
Bond: I'm still seeking the enlightenment I pursued in my seclusion, and it still eludes me.
Flaw: I'd risk too much to uncover a lost bit of knowledge.

How it plays: Although the character may never admit that to themselves, the seclusion (hermitage?) did not deliver what it promised (low wisdom score recommended; I am envisioning a wizard whose ambitious research didn't pay off, but that's one of many possibilities). Now they have to make up for all the time that was lost. That's a thought burried deep within the subconscious, and it drives the character in all their decisions. You leave no quests unanswered, no dungeon rooms unexplored, no door unopened. Everything that waits to be discovered, will be discovered. And fast (tone down appropriately if really needed); there is no more time to waste. Curiosity backed up by ambition and a self imposed sense of urgency makes for a character that could please DM's who want their players to explore everything they have prepared for them, and would also fit well in the typical (at least IME) adventuring party.

This screams "Lore Bard" to me, but I have a certain fondness for Bards.

[da newt]

Thats nice, but it's not what the PHB says.[/QUOTE]

What do you believe the PHB means by "Chaotic Evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." and Chaotic means anti-society / anti-order, and Evil means anti-morality?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I have plans to play a character soon that is chaotic evil, but is both magically compelled to obey the party (a party member will have an artifact housing their soul; this is something I'm working out with the DM. If they don't play ball, the artifact gets dropped in the ocean or down a volcano or etc.) and wants to help them because the BBEG personally put them in a harmless demiplane for decades, so they're willing to get along with whoever they have to and make nice as much as they can in order to get their revenge.

It's not exactly "personality traits", but it does work in terms of motivation.

[Tanarii]

Thats nice, but it's not what the PHB says.

What do you believe the PHB means by "Chaotic Evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." and Chaotic means anti-society / anti-order, and Evil means anti-morality?
It means what it says. It certainly doesn't mean zero impulse control, nor does it mean full of hate and violence towards everyone. Nor does it mean: all the time, under every circumstance. Characters are not one dimensional caricatures of their alignment, always acting like the associated behavior. The PHB is very clear on that. At the minimum, they have other personality traits that may take precedence in certain situations.

[Zetakya]

It means what it says. It certainly doesn't mean zero impulse control, nor does it mean full of hate and violence towards everyone. Nor does it mean: all the time, under every circumstance. Characters are not one dimensional caricatures of their alignment, always acting like it. At the minimum, they have other personality traits that make take precedence in certain situations.

Exactly this. Chaotic Evil characters can be perfectly capable of having friends, telling jokes, and co-operating with others. They aren't (necessarily) mindless blood reavers.

They aren't perfect party members - they'll likely never be the ones to catch a bullet to save an ally, and in fact they may dive out of the way of fire and expose an ally to save themselves - but they can make alliances for specific purposes and understand the value of teamwork in general. At least, if their INT and WIS are high enough they should...

Chaotic Evil includes the Blood Reaver types, but it isn't exclusively populated by them.

[da newt]

Oh - now I understand. Your CE PC is only CE sometimes / a little bit - it's not a defining characteristic of who they are, it's a small piece of flavor no more defining than their background or any of the personality traits or ideals/bonds/flaws.

I think that's where we are talking past each other with little understanding. I've always thought of ALIGNMENT as the most significant overarching characteristic of who any PC really is - I think of it as core, you use it as flavor.

[Unoriginal]

Oh - now I understand. Your CE PC is only CE sometimes / a little bit - it's not a defining characteristic of who they are, it's a small piece of flavor no more defining than their background or any of the personality traits or ideals/bonds/flaws.

I think that's where we are talking past each other with little understanding. I've always thought of ALIGNMENT as the most significant overarching characteristic of who any PC really is - I think of it as core, you use it as flavor.

Well that's how 5e defines alignment.

[Tanarii]

Oh - now I understand. Your CE PC is only CE sometimes / a little bit - it's not a defining characteristic of who they are, it's a small piece of flavor no more defining than their background or any of the personality traits or ideals/bonds/flaws.

I think that's where we are talking past each other with little understanding. I've always thought of ALIGNMENT as the most significant overarching characteristic of who any PC really is - I think of it as core, you use it as flavor.
I think of it as typically the underlying behavior when no other overriding personality factors come into play for specific situations. Those other personality factors may be in conflict with, enhance, or other wise modify/be modified by the typical associated behavior.

IMO that fits the typical, but possibly varying and not necessarily consistent, associated behavior the PHB specifies.

Whereas your method seems to be that all personality traits must be a subset of the associated behavior. That makes it both consistent and non-varying.

[Lunali]

I think of it as typically the underlying behavior when no other overriding personality factors come into play for specific situations. Those other personality factors may be in conflict with, enhance, or other wise modify/be modified by the typical associated behavior.

IMO that fits the typical, but possibly varying and not necessarily consistent, associated behavior the PHB specifies.

Whereas your method seems to be that all personality traits must be a subset of the associated behavior. That makes it both consistent and non-varying.

Alignment is the sum total of a character's behavior, it's the effect rather than the cause. If the majority of your character's behavior is defined by their personality traits, their alignment will be heavily affected by their traits.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Thats nice, but it's not what the PHB says.

Well the PHB gives jack in terms of explanation.


It means what it says. It certainly doesn't mean zero impulse control, nor does it mean full of hate and violence towards everyone. Nor does it mean: all the time, under every circumstance. Characters are not one dimensional caricatures of their alignment, always acting like the associated behavior. The PHB is very clear on that. At the minimum, they have other personality traits that may take precedence in certain situations.

Though I don't see why you would want to be so specific about the definition when you already don't want to adhere to it all that much?




Alignment is the sum total of a character's behavior, it's the effect rather than the cause. If the majority of your character's behavior is defined by their personality traits, their alignment will be heavily affected by their traits.

Well, technically, it's both effect and cause. Creatures are defined as being predisposed to a certain alignment, though alignment can also be used in a descriptive sense regarding specific characters.

[Tanarii]

Alignment is the sum total of a character's behavior, it's the effect rather than the cause. If the majority of your character's behavior is defined by their personality traits, their alignment will be heavily affected by their traits.
I mean, play it that way if you want, but nothing says it must be used that way. And certainly it makes picking an alignment, then playing it, much harder.



Though I don't see why you would want to be so specific about the definition when you already don't want to adhere to it all that much?
Nothing I'm doing makes adhering to it hard. It makes full use of it, while still syncing up with the PHB.

[Damon_Tor]

On the one hand, there's absolutely no reason you can't play a guy as a sort of "pitbull" archetype. He finds great joy in murder, but he has certain people he's very protective of and loves deeply. Said individuals can keep his impulses in check to a point.

So maybe as a kid the CE guy was sold into slavery and raised to be a pit fighter and he grew to love it, becoming really good at it as he became an adult. But he also loved his master, and his master's whole family, and when his master finally died the CE pit fighter slave was freed by his estate. At loose ends, he set out to become a murderhobo in the truest sense of the term. His master's daughter, however, is some variety of good, and recognizes that the CE guy is a danger to himself and others. But he's like a brother to her and she doesn't want him dead or in prison, so she comes with him to try and direct his bloodlust into useful directions.

On the other hand, a highly-intelligent CE character would probably not choose to present as CE. He'll break any promise, betray any ally, lie through his teeth and kill anyone who crosses him... but discretely. Petyr Baelish from A Song of Ice and Fire is this sort of character: "Chaos is a ladder", and he'll tear down the system to create advantages for himself. As a PC this sort of CE character would be prevented from being disruptive by having goals that are in alignment with the party's, while the rest of the players would have to cooperate by not inventing reasons to look too hard into what the CE mastermind is up to.

[Gryndle]

Oh - now I understand. Your CE PC is only CE sometimes / a little bit - it's not a defining characteristic of who they are, it's a small piece of flavor no more defining than their background or any of the personality traits or ideals/bonds/flaws.

I think that's where we are talking past each other with little understanding. I've always thought of ALIGNMENT as the most significant overarching characteristic of who any PC really is - I think of it as core, you use it as flavor.

It really kinda cannot work that way. If it did there would only ever be 9 possible PC personalities; the best you could hope for was mild variations on a theme.

All that is really necessary for any of the evil alignments, including and maybe especially CE is to be needlessly cruel, violent, selfish or greedy (and you really only need a strong affinity for one of those to qualify).

Being CE is not the same as being a sociopath who has no positive emotions. Its entirely possible for an evil character to like, love and even be loyal to someone or something else. They can still have feelings, attachments, relationships. Being CE just means when push come to shove their particular vice has more emotional weight than their feelings towards society or morality.

Alignment (a flawed system to begin with) is meant to be a descriptive trait not a hamstringing, defining feature that locks each pc/npc into one of 9 possible types of people.

[JackPhoenix]

On the other hand, a highly-intelligent CE character would probably not choose to present as CE. He'll break any promise, betray any ally, lie through his teeth and kill anyone who crosses him... but discretely. Petyr Baelish from A Song of Ice and Fire is this sort of character: "Chaos is a ladder", and he'll tear down the system to create advantages for himself. As a PC this sort of CE character would be prevented from being disruptive by having goals that are in alignment with the party's, while the rest of the players would have to cooperate by not inventing reasons to look too hard into what the CE mastermind is up to.

Not with how 5e describes CE. The defining trait of CE alignment is arbitrary violence, and the Littlefinger is definitely not into that. The Mountain and his merry band of psychopaths, Ramsay Bolton or Joffrey fit that much better, Baelish fits "do whatever he can get away with, without compassion or qualms (NE)" more. So does Tywin Lannister... he present himself as following rules, and certainly expects it from others, but breaks them anytime he can get away with it.

[hamishspence]

Petyr does use violence a lot though. He grabs Ned and holds a knife to his throat. He murders the guy who rescues Sansa on his orders. He shoves his wife out of the Moon Door.


It's the "arbitrary" bit that's trickier.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I have a chaotic Evil Unseelie Satyr pc who works with the party because she feels as though her calling is to fight the biggest threats there are to offer. People she deems too weak are a waste of time.

[Lunali]

On the other hand, a highly-intelligent CE character would probably not choose to present as CE. He'll break any promise, betray any ally, lie through his teeth and kill anyone who crosses him... but discretely. Petyr Baelish from A Song of Ice and Fire is this sort of character: "Chaos is a ladder", and he'll tear down the system to create advantages for himself. As a PC this sort of CE character would be prevented from being disruptive by having goals that are in alignment with the party's, while the rest of the players would have to cooperate by not inventing reasons to look too hard into what the CE mastermind is up to.

Being foreword thinking enough to pretend not to be CE means you probably aren't CE. If you're typically weighing the consequences of your actions before acting you're probably neutral or lawful. A chaotic character will act first and then try to manipulate perceptions after the fact. A CE "mastermind" is typically a combination of being lucky and good at telling a story to fit the facts.

[Tanarii]

I have to say the hardest one to write was the Urchin. The only redeeming quality personality trait for an otherwise arbitrarily violent Urchin are "fight to defend my city" and supporting an orphanage. Neither of which are easy to parlay into something that lead to a character being motivated to go adventure. Most of the others have something that encourages them to go direct that violent nature at the party enemies, which is something the party should be in favor of. Either loot or directly acquiring magical power, or some reason to make the world safer from typical PC enemies. Defend the city would work, but only if the adventures are in the vicinity of the city, or directly influence the city. Ie it wouldn't work for a wandering party as well. So I went with orphanages as an indirect loot incentive.

Probably my two favorite ones to play would be the Cursed Folk Hero and the (probably) Insane Hermit.

The Spoiled Noble out to prove himself would be great for a redemption arc character, changing alignment over time to Chaotic Neutral and then Chaotic Good.


On the one hand, there's absolutely no reason you can't play a guy as a sort of "pitbull" archetype. He finds great joy in murder, but he has certain people he's very protective of and loves deeply. Said individuals can keep his impulses in check to a point.That's what I was going for with the Sailor and Soldier characters.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I have to say the hardest one to write was the Urchin. The only redeeming quality personality trait for an otherwise arbitrarily violent Urchin are "fight to defend my city" and supporting an orphanage. Neither of which are easy to parlay into something that lead to a character being motivated to go adventure. Most of the others have something that encourages them to go direct that violent nature at the party enemies, which is something the party should be in favor of. Either loot or directly acquiring magical power, or some reason to make the world safer from typical PC enemies. Defend the city would work, but only if the adventures are in the vicinity of the city, or directly influence the city. Ie it wouldn't work for a wandering party as well.

So I went with orphanages as an indirect loot incentive.

Yeah, that's just not how alignment works, and neither is it what CE, NE, or LE have as associated behaviors.

A chaotic evil urchin could be a anarchist-type who wants to overthrow the current power structures, but has absolutely no interest in protecting innocents or preventing any kind of collateral damage when they cast fireball into a crowd that also happens to contain a noble or two that they're actually targeting. Depending on the group, their goal of overthrowing the status quo could be 100% in line with the good/neutral group's mission, but their selfishness, refusal to contain their violent tendencies would drop them down to chaotic evil; the group may just tolerate them because they're just too powerful/useful or would cause greater damage elsewhere not being pointed at deserving targets with collateral being kept to a minimum.

[Tanarii]

A chaotic evil urchin could be a anarchist-type who wants to overthrow the current power structures, but has absolutely no interest in protecting innocents or preventing any kind of collateral damage when they cast fireball into a crowd that also happens to contain a noble or two that they're actually targeting. Depending on the group, their goal of overthrowing the status quo could be 100% in line with the good/neutral group's mission, but their selfishness, refusal to contain their violent tendencies would drop them down to chaotic evil; the group may just tolerate them because they're just too powerful/useful or would cause greater damage elsewhere not being pointed at deserving targets with collateral being kept to a minimum.
For sure, in the right kind of campaign any Chaotic alignment might work, and in other any Lawful, or any Evil. I was thinking more in terms of a generic standard campaign with adventuring site delving for loot and occasional save the region/world for a threat (with reward or loot) campaign. In those a desire to gain money or power, or some motivation to protect at least someone in the region/world, will align them with party interests. Either that or a tie to protecting allies/friends who fight with them, which is present in several background personality traits.

[OvisCaedo]

I think in general the biggest thing any evil character needs to get along with a party well enough is just any sense of how their actions might come back to bite them in the ass, regardless of how they feel about it morally. But alignments and their exact implications always tend to be kind of sketchy in DnD, which I guess is to be expected of broad moral categories. In the very brief segment the 5e PHB has on alignment, chaotic versus lawful is about their "attitude towards society and order".

An evil person who holds disdain for society and rules has no real reason to also automatically be self-destructively impulsive and stupid. But that seems to tend to be what people think from the word "chaotic", and I wouldn't be surprised if what "chaotic" is meant to mean has itself wobbled around inconsistently over the game's history to sometimes imply it! There's probably some cyclical elements to the whole wider spectrum of what people think an "evil" character should be written to act like based on what they've seen evil characters written as before.

(as an aside, 'adventurer' or 'hero' are probably very attractive occupations for someone who feels an extreme inclination towards violence. Easiest way to live a life of violence without being hounded for it!)

[VonKaiserstein]

I like the idea of using ideals to control your naturally violent tendencies- but remember, a love of violent solutions to problems and excess aggression doesn't necessarily make you a bad teammate. Let's look at two of the greats, who demonstrate how to be a CE follower, and leader.

Starscream is as chaotic and evil as they come. If he believes he is stronger than someone else, he has no limits to how he'll treat them, and he is constantly trying to grow stronger. Balancing that is his firm belief that this is how the world works, so he will work cleverly, and tirelessly for anyone he believes is stronger than him- until they're not. If you find yourself weaker than the party, become their number one henchman, and execute any order or plan they come up with. When no plans exist, do your own thing, and make sure they don't find the bodies of your quest for power- although you'd rather terrorize than kill, because lackeys or contacts that fear you make you stronger, and will be useful when you're leading the organization. You also will find yourself at odds with your leadership. Early on, establish a method of challenging ideas, perhaps through ritual combat, or something else survivable- a cultural thing would be great. Because playing a CE lackey means you will get it into your head to rebel and attempt to overthrow the party, and as a player you'd like everyone involved to survive the process. After all, your opponent will be a powerful follower once you're in charge.

Megatron is the opposite side of the coin. You are stronger than anyone in the party, and in complete control. This doesn't mean you terrorize your party members- 90% of the time you're a wonderful leader, and you're especially supportive of research and development. Look at all the crazy experiments he supports Shockwave in performing. You want your subordinates to grow stronger, because that makes you stronger. And yes, they'll occasionally challenge you because 'we can't kill the sun', or 'these people need that water source to live, not mine diamonds'. And that is when you must make an example of them, and beat them to within an inch of their life. Nothing permanent, that's why you have excellent medical staff. A dead follower is a straight up loss- a beaten lackey will heal up stronger, and more discreet, if not more loyal. Those outside the party, unless they have a particular use to you, are collateral damage waiting to happen. The key thing is to keep everyone in the party growing in power, just not as much power as you. Because when they're stronger and successful, it makes you stronger and more successful.

[OldTrees1]

I have to say the hardest one to write was the Urchin. The only redeeming quality personality trait for an otherwise arbitrarily violent Urchin are "fight to defend my city" and supporting an orphanage. Neither of which are easy to parlay into something that lead to a character being motivated to go adventure. Most of the others have something that encourages them to go direct that violent nature at the party enemies, which is something the party should be in favor of. Either loot or directly acquiring magical power, or some reason to make the world safer from typical PC enemies. Defend the city would work, but only if the adventures are in the vicinity of the city, or directly influence the city. Ie it wouldn't work for a wandering party as well. So I went with orphanages as an indirect loot incentive.

Foreword: I realize this thread is based on motivational alignment rather than descriptive alignment. I will do my best to stay inside that model. Despite using the insights from Descriptive to help find answers.

You want motivational roleplaying cues that fit a CE Urchin fit into a generic standard campaign with adventuring site delving for loot and occasional save the region/world for a threat (with reward or loot) campaign.

I am lonely. With nobody to watch over or provide from me, I had to fend for myself. I have to rely on myself. If I want something, I have to take it and defend it. If I don't fight then it will be taken from me. Like how my friend Gully was taken. There are many things I want, so I take them, and defend them.

You now have an urchin that wants to be with their party and will defend their party. Their go to method of defense is arbitrary violence. They are also completely okay with the arbitrary violence of adventuring life like dungeoneering as long as they see something they want.

Basically if you see CE as a cue for the character being motivated by greed and using arbitrary violence to achieve that greed, then all you need is to give them a greed that works with the party and an environment where arbitrary violence is normal. Aka they want to be with the party of adventurers. Instant compatibility for most characters with most parties in most standard adventures.

Personality Traits: I hide scraps of food and trinkets away in my pockets.
I want to eat later. I have to take care of myself.

Ideals: Aspiration. I'm going to prove that I'm worthy of a better life. (Any)
If I want something, I will fight to take it. I will make my life better.

Bond: I escaped my life of poverty by robbing an important person, and I'm wanted for it.
I have taken many things because I wanted them and the previous owners did not fight back enough. This dagger was from a fishmonger. This coin pouch was from some portly merchant.

Flaw 1: I will never fully trust anyone other than myself.
I know what it is to be alone. I know that when things get tough, nobody is there to support me. I can only trust myself. My Gully was taken because I did not fight over it. I should not have trusted my Gully to handle the fight themselves.

Flaw 2: People who can't take care of themselves get what they deserve.
I defending what is mine. I deserved my Gully being taken away because I did not fight to keep my Gully. If you won't stop me then I deserve what I am taking. If I stop you then I deserve what you are trying to take from me.

[Tanarii]

Foreword: I realize this thread is based on motivational alignment rather than descriptive alignment. I will do my best to stay inside that model. Despite using the insights from Descriptive to help find answers.Next time I'll add some blurb to any OP I make where I just assume it. :smallamused:


You want motivational roleplaying cues that fit a CE Urchin fit into a generic standard campaign with adventuring site delving for loot and occasional save the region/world for a threat (with reward or loot) campaign.

I am lonely. With nobody to watch over or provide from me, I had to fend for myself. I have to rely on myself. If I want something, I have to take it and defend it. If I don't fight then it will be taken from me. Like how my friend Gully was taken. There are many things I want, so I take them, and defend them.

You now have an urchin that wants to be with their party and will defend their party. Their go to method of defense is arbitrary violence. They are also completely okay with the arbitrary violence of adventuring life like dungeoneering as long as they see something they want.

Basically if you see CE as a cue for the character being motivated by greed and using arbitrary violence to achieve that greed, then all you need is to give them a greed that works with the party and an environment where arbitrary violence is normal. Aka they want to be with the party of adventurers. Instant compatibility for most characters with most parties in most standard adventures.Interesting. You've effectively taken the disparate parts of the character personality, and taken the question of "why are they motivated to do X", and then explicitly added a new motivation from it. That could be written out as it's own motivational line even, if it was going to come up constantly! (Keeping in mind that these traits are to help remind the player of their motivations If they've put enough thought into how the original combination addresses X they may not need to.)


Personality Traits: I hide scraps of food and trinkets away in my pockets.
I want to eat later. I have to take care of myself.

Ideals: Aspiration. I'm going to prove that I'm worthy of a better life. (Any)
If I want something, I will fight to take it. I will make my life better.

Bond: I escaped my life of poverty by robbing an important person, and I'm wanted for it.
I have taken many things because I wanted them and the previous owners did not fight back enough. This dagger was from a fishmonger. This coin pouch was from some portly merchant.

Flaw 1: I will never fully trust anyone other than myself.
I know what it is to be alone. I know that when things get tough, nobody is there to support me. I can only trust myself. My Gully was taken because I did not fight over it. I should not have trusted my Gully to handle the fight themselves.

Flaw 2: People who can't take care of themselves get what they deserve.
I defending what is mine. I deserved my Gully being taken away because I did not fight to keep my Gully. If you won't stop me then I deserve what I am taking. If I stop you then I deserve what you are trying to take from me.

See, I never would have come out of that combination with what's effectively, to make up a new Bond:
Bond2: I will fight to the bitter end for any gang I'm a part of. Safety in numbers.

That's very well done!

Edit: if you're feeling it, take a stab at Guild Artisan (or Guild Merchant). I felt that was my other very weak one.

[OldTrees1]

Next time I'll add some blurb to any OP I make where I just assume it. :smallamused:
:smallamused: The OP made it clear enough to me, but we have talked at length about the topic so ...


Interesting. You've effectively taken the disparate parts of the character personality, and taken the question of "why are they motivated to do X", and then explicitly added a new motivation from it. That could be written out as it's own motivational line even, if it was going to come up constantly! (Keeping in mind that these traits are to help remind the player of their motivations If they've put enough thought into how the original combination addresses X they may not need to.)

Yes, if you know the character will be XYZ, then you can ask why. Then build the personality based on the roots of the personality. However this becomes a bit too freeform for it to fit the Trait, Ideal, Bond, Flaw system perfectly. Adding separate motivation notes like:
Motivation: Defend what is mine!


See, I never would have come out of that combination with what's effectively, to make up a new Bond:
Bond2: I will fight to the bitter end for any gang I'm a part of. Safety in numbers.

Based on your examples I assumed I could not add new Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, so I picked the combination that best motivated the desired characterization or would result from the underlying motivation.

In this case this example Urchin would not say "safety in numbers" because they still believe they can only count on themselves. However they will fight to the bitter end to keep their new companions.

On the other hand a different Urchin might agree with the "safety in numbers". Hmm, could the "Bond" framework be improved by having the player fill in an answer to "Why?" at the end of each bond?


Edit: if you're feeling it, take a stab at Guild Artisan (or Guild Merchant). I felt that was my other very weak one.

Sure. Guild Artisan / Merchant looks tricky, but mostly because it is a background that does not fit the standard adventure. The alignment does not seem a big hurdle. Another hurdle is there are so many different kinds of Guild Artisan with little in common overall.

For a Guild Artisan or Guild Merchant I would first ask "Are they still doing their old job?" followed by either "How do you integrate it with adventuring?" or "Why are you still paying guild dues?" because some view backgrounds as ending before the adventure while others continue on. Based on the Guild Membership feature I assume they are still paying dues. If they are still paying dues then I expect they are still practicing their craft. If they are still practicing their craft, how are they also adventuring?

Already I am seeing the Artisan / Merchant being motivated by their craft but facing obstacles in their way of continuing to pursue that craft.

Ideal: Freedom. Everyone should be free to pursue his or her own livelihood. (Chaotic)

But how are they integrating their craft with adventuring? Some crafts directly apply to adventuring (A trapsmith would be an updated version of the adventuring locksmith trope). Other crafts can make use of the resources adventures come across (Merchant or a craft using dangerous ingredient).

Hmm. I am going to have to fight my bias towards Amoral Lawful craftsmen.

Syrah is one tough badass. She has a pop up shop where she sells body parts. You want a griffin's beak? She is selling a griffin head. She also takes commissions with prices that account for discretion, danger, rarity, morals, and logistics. While you consider the possibilities, browse her wares. I see she recently stocked up on some wyvern tails and manticore spines. Oh and do I see some belladona back there? I wonder how much a bandit thumb would cost?

Sure Syrah is a bit reckless and some of what Syrah does after a fight might be a bit squicky, but she is loyal to her teammates. You have to be when being mobbed by Gargoyles.

Trait: I like to talk at length about my profession.
It is so invigorating. You are wandering through dangerous terrain looking for opportunities. Once you see one you have to spring into action to seize the chance before it slips away. When the struggle in engaged there is such an amazing adrenaline rush. *continues droning on about exciting fight with a wyvern*.

Ideal: Freedom. Everyone should be free to pursue his or her own livelihood. (Chaotic)
The obstacles I faced when integrating both of my professions would leave anyone valuing the ability to pursue your own livelihood.

I did not include the Greed Ideal, because Syran enjoys the harvesting process too much to be motivated only by greed. It feels so right when an axe slices through flesh like a knife through butter. However other Guild Artisans could be more driven by greed than driven by their craft.

Bond: I owe my guild a great debt for forging me into the person I am today.
It is a dangerous business. I am glad I was trained in how to handle common issues. Like unruly customers and unfriendly competition. Oh ... and I guess the survival training for gathering materials was valuable too.

Flaw: I'll do anything to get my hands on something rare or priceless.
Yes, even risk my life to slice of the Wyvern tail myself.

[Tanarii]

Based on your examples I assumed I could not add new Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, so I picked the combination that best motivated the desired characterization or would result from the underlying motivation.

In this case this example Urchin would not say "safety in numbers" because they still believe they can only count on themselves. However they will fight to the bitter end to keep their new companions.

On the other hand a different Urchin might agree with the "safety in numbers". Hmm, could the "Bond" framework be improved by having the player fill in an answer to "Why?" at the end of each bond?Not necessarily to using what's there, but I liked the challenge and appreciate a demonstration of how to do it even better!

Cool, I've got a better picture of what you're envisioning for the Urchin now.

Re Bonds, possibly. Or possibly it'd be better just as an ideal instead of a bond.


Syrah is one tough badass. She has a pop up shop where she sells body parts.Okay, just so you know, I got this far and bust out laughing 😂😂😂 so was NOT expecting that!


Syrah is one tough badass. She has a pop up shop where she sells body parts. You want a griffin's beak? She is selling a griffin head. She also takes commissions with prices that account for discretion, danger, rarity, morals, and logistics. While you consider the possibilities, browse her wares. I see she recently stocked up on some wyvern tails and manticore spines. Oh and do I see some belladona back there? I wonder how much a bandit thumb would cost?

Sure Syrah is a bit reckless and some of what Syrah does after a fight might be a bit squicky, but she is loyal to her teammates. You have to be when being mobbed by Gargoyles.

Trait: I like to talk at length about my profession.
It is so invigorating. You are wandering through dangerous terrain looking for opportunities. Once you see one you have to spring into action to seize the chance before it slips away. When the struggle in engaged there is such an amazing adrenaline rush. *continues droning on about exciting fight with a wyvern*.

Ideal: Freedom. Everyone should be free to pursue his or her own livelihood. (Chaotic)
The obstacles I faced when integrating both of my professions would leave anyone valuing the ability to pursue your own livelihood.

I did not include the Greed Ideal, because Syran enjoys the harvesting process too much to be motivated only by greed. It feels so right when an axe slices through flesh like a knife through butter. However other Guild Artisans could be more driven by greed than driven by their craft.

Bond: I owe my guild a great debt for forging me into the person I am today.
It is a dangerous business. I am glad I was trained in how to handle common issues. Like unruly customers and unfriendly competition. Oh ... and I guess the survival training for gathering materials was valuable too.

Flaw: I'll do anything to get my hands on something rare or priceless.
Yes, even risk my life to slice of the Wyvern tail myself.

Excellently done! And looks like a lot of fun to play to boot!

Did you start with the concept then pick the best choices, or start with the tables and the concept kind of came together from there? Or some of each? (I did notice you listed the Ideal before the description, but that doesn't necessarily imply how it worked in your head.)

[OldTrees1]

Okay, just so you know, I got this far and bust out laughing 😂😂😂 so was NOT expecting that!
If you have a craft, why have it be a boring one?



Excellently done! And looks like a lot of fun to play to boot!

Did you start with the concept then pick the best choices, or start with the tables and the concept kind of came together from there? Or some of each? (I did notice you listed the Ideal before the description, but that doesn't necessarily imply how it worked in your head.)

For both of these I started with the constraints, then started to design the concept, then pick the choices that fit best. At that point the choices were just additional constraints that were already compatible with the main concept. This is using the 5E Trait/Ideal/Bond/Flaw system backwards which is one of my "disagreements" with that system.

In the Guild Artisan / Merchant case my pondering the constraints of the dual profession lead me to discover the Ideal before I met Syrah. So I am normally working backwards but in this case the Ideal came before a majority of the concept.

Honestly the adventuring artisan is tricky for me because I have two three (almost forgot a new one) characters devoted to perfecting their craft. From a descriptive alignment they would generally be described prima facie as lawful because they are focused on perfecting the craft. So staying out of that bias was tricky. I had wanted to include 3 artisan examples but ended up reinventing the LN Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide and some greedy knockoff of Grimtooth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimtooth%27s_Traps). With Syrah I focused on enjoying the process rather than perfecting the craft. That works best with performative crafts or when the output of the craft can be sold.


PS: Also when designing a character concept, if I am stuck due to there being too many options (like Artisans the quit vs continued) then I add a constraint to help get the inspiration going again. Artisan is very very broad.

[Damon_Tor]

Not with how 5e describes CE. The defining trait of CE alignment is arbitrary violence, and the Littlefinger is definitely not into that. The Mountain and his merry band of psychopaths, Ramsay Bolton or Joffrey fit that much better, Baelish fits "do whatever he can get away with, without compassion or qualms (NE)" more. So does Tywin Lannister... he present himself as following rules, and certainly expects it from others, but breaks them anytime he can get away with it.

I feel like you're arguing that CE has an int ceiling, something I see a lot in discussions like these. I just don't buy it. Clegane and Ramsay and the like are absolutely CE and I won't argue otherwise, but they don't cause continent-wide chaos knowingly and on-purpose like Baelish does.

There's room I think for a second layer here: behavior and ideology. Think of it like the "Unaligned" vs "True Neutral" concept. The former acts with little regard to good and evil, but the latter actively seeks balance between them: they've chosen neutrality. Along the same vein, Baelish is "true CE" in the sense that he's made a reasoned choice to use chaos as a tool to further his own goals and ambitions. Someone like Clegane is CE just because they're wired that way, but Baelish has chosen his alignment, which makes him a different (and more interesting) sort of creature.

[greenstone]

For me, CE and works with others are contradictions.
That's my understanding as well. Chaotic alignment characters do not play well with a party.

They might stay with a party for a short time, to achieve a mutual goal, but long-term they will leave. Someone with the independant, free-thinking, free-spirited, individualistic attitude modelled by "chaotic" is just not a team player.

[Raven777]

Personality: I might fail, but I will never give up.
Ideal: Immortality. All my exploring is part of a plan to find the secret of everlasting life. (Any)
Bond: I'm secretly in love with the wealthy patron who sponsors my archaeological exploits.
Flaw: I have no time for friends or family. I spend every waking moment thinking about and preparing for my next expedition.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Outwardly your typical endlessly curious dungeon delver, this one is out to obtain the secrets and powers of an eternal existence, possibly at the expanse of anyone or anything else. Undeath, demonic transformation, godhood, they are open to any path. If the world needs saving in the process of securing their own safety, they're in. If the trappings of an adventuring party can guarantee an extra layer of impunity and a few pairs of extra hands, even better.


Chaotic Evil Sorceress who wanted to devise the safest approach possible to turn into a vampire, lich or fiend, yet would have braved hell and back for a smile from the party's Paladin.

[Unoriginal]

That's my understanding as well. Chaotic alignment characters do not play well with a party.

They might stay with a party for a short time, to achieve a mutual goal, but long-term they will leave. Someone with the independant, free-thinking, free-spirited, individualistic attitude modelled by "chaotic" is just not a team player.

Which is exactly why all Demons only work and fight alone.

Wait...

[Cheesegear]

Which is exactly why all Demons only work and fight alone.

Wait...

The PHB literally states that Orcs are Chaotic Evil:
Looks at Orc Hunting/Raiding parties.
Looks at entire Orc societies.

Funny that.

"Chaotic Evil creatures act with arbitrary..."

It's an important word in the definition; When they feel like it, they do the thing. When they don't feel like it, they don't do the thing.

The decision to do anything - or not do something - is entirely arbitrary. That's what that means.

When an Orc wants to start a fight, they will.
When an Orc doesn't want to start a fight, they wont.

Chaotic Evil - it's arbitrary!

[da newt]

I always viewed CE demons or orcs etc working together as 'they do it because they know the more powerful demon/orc will beat the crap out of them if they don't.' As soon as the underling believes they've got a shot at usurping the boss - they will. I believe this is in line with the lore.

CE leaders rule through force and coercion - CE 'societies' are not communes of cooperation, they are hierarchical where the more powerful force the less powerful to comply. There is no morality or code of conduct beyond the strong make the rules and punish those who don't do as they wish (but those rules are for the weak and do not apply to the rulers).

The CE leader does not think of the well-being of his subordinates except as it affects him/her. If that little twerp is more useful to me as lunch than as a soldier in my army, he goes in the pot.

But your version of CE seems more nuanced/subtle. Nothing wrong with that - we all make the game what we think it should be.

[Tanarii]

Personality: I might fail, but I will never give up.
Ideal: Immortality. All my exploring is part of a plan to find the secret of everlasting life. (Any)
Bond: I'm secretly in love with the wealthy patron who sponsors my archaeological exploits.
Flaw: I have no time for friends or family. I spend every waking moment thinking about and preparing for my next expedition.
Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE). I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Comments: Outwardly your typical endlessly curious dungeon delver, this one is out to obtain the secrets and powers of an eternal existence, possibly at the expanse of anyone or anything else. Undeath, demonic transformation, godhood, they are open to any path. If the world needs saving in the process of securing their own safety, they're in. If the trappings of an adventuring party can guarantee an extra layer of impunity and a few pairs of extra hands, even better.


Chaotic Evil Sorceress who wanted to devise the safest approach possible to turn into a vampire, lich or fiend, yet would have braved hell and back for a smile from the party's Paladin.
Definitely dedicated to the cause of the party, as long as they're adventuring site explorers! Good one. But also very likely to switch sides the first time the party goes up against a cult promising immortality, aren't they?

(That's the problem with a lot of the Greed-based ones I created too. A big enough bribe offered by the BBeG might turn the former party member into an NPC.)

[Lupine]

A lot of these feel NE, LE, CN or even CG. A CE character should be self serving and reactionary, not altruistic or a great planner.

I don't think that's really all that fair to CE characters. Using Tanarii's alignment thread as discussion material, it seems to me that a CE character wants to persue their goals, and is willling to break and bend the rules to do so. They might be willing to seem altrusistic, if they want to liked by their peers, and seen as a paragon. That's a very selfish reason, but is still outwardly altruistic.
Likewise, they don't need to be poor planners. Just because they are willing to break law when it serves them, they are also willing to obey it when it serves them, also. The same goes with planning. If it serves their interest to make a plan, they will. If it serves them to leroy jenkins in, they will do that.

To say that they are all self serving and reactionary cuts out lot of otherwise viable characters.
For example, I would say that Crit Role's Caleb Widowghast is a CE character. He's willing to outside the law, and "stick a thumb in the eye of the empire," hence the chaotic, and he also takes a lot of actions that are pretty messed up (like the Asylum episode) Does he work for the good of the world? sure. But he does so because he wants to gain power and resources, rather selfishly. I mean, his line "I want to bend reality to my will," is pretty much as CE as you can get. Despite that, Caleb is one of the better plan makers in the group.

[KorvinStarmast]

My chaotic evil Fisher PC, Saltmarsh Backgrounds:

Tale: It Dragged the Boat. Nearly caught a fish of monstrous size that pulled my boar for miles.
Personality Trait: Luck favors me; and I take risks others might not.
Ideal: Daring. The richest bounty goes to those who risk everything (Chaotic)
Bond: Someone else's greed destroyed my livelihood; I will be compensated.
Flaw: I have lived a hard life and find it difficult to empathize with others


(Note: a lack of empathy seems to be axiomatic for evil characters)

Saltmarsh, CE PC, Marine Background
Hardship: Captured Spent months enduring thirst, starvation, and toture at the hands of our enemies but I never broke.
Personality Trait: I become cantankerous and quiet in the rain. {related to being held in a prison that offered no protection from the rain, I guess?}
Ideal: Embracing. Life is messy. Throwing yourself into the worst of it is necessay to get the job done.
Bond: I. Will. Finish. The. Job.
Flaw: I grow combative and unpredictable when I drink.

[Cyclops08]

Come to think of it, since his family disowned him... Zwerrit is a literal murderhobo.
This is why most DMs will not allow evil characters in the party.
a CE character is a license to betray or kill party members, or in the case above, murder hobo.

Justify it all you want, I have seen nothing in this thread that would make me play with, or allow a CE in my game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have seen nothing in this thread that would make me play with, or allow a CE in my game.
Did you read my two examples?
The Fisherman has a particular axe to grind, and the former marine is unpredictable when drunk, and tends to violence even though the instinct is to work as part of a unit.

CE doesn't have to be an 'always on' button. It can be a button that gets pushed now and again or with certain triggers. Chaotic and impulsive and unpredictable are related to each other.
(See also Dr Jekyl/Mr Hyde, or Doc Bruce Banner/Hulk)

Mind you, CE is hard to play well (IME); most players I have run into can't be bothered to put in the effort, so your instinct is probably good. I don't bother to try any more, since I enjoy any other character type more than CE at this point.

You could argue that I am rather boring in that I am team focused no matter what PC I play.

[Cyclops08]

Did you read my two examples?
The Fisherman has a particular axe to grind, and the former marine is unpredictable when drunk, and tends to violence even though the instinct is to work as part of a unit.


neither example is particularly evil. Those are character flaws. Good men can have such flaws. Every Ranger with a racial enemy has an axe to grind...they are not evil.

I have been with groups where players were kicked out because they turned against the party. Evil alignment is a license to stab a fellow player in the back. Agreements made with the DM are often broken, because: evil.

Evil alignments have been abused way to many times for me to trust a player with it.

[hamishspence]

They don't have to be, though. Players can be honest and abide by out-of-universe agreements even if their characters are supposed to be dishonest in-universe.

While 5e doesn't have much in the way of guidance for playing Evil specifically, previous editions did - and one of the most consistent things was - you don't have to be a backstabber - you can be pragmatic about the benefits of cooperation - Evil characters can have friends, and will generally not backstab them.

[Man_Over_Game]

If a Paladin can justify killing someone, I imagine that an 'Evil' person could reasonably help the party not kill someone, just because the party agreed that it was a better plan.

Evil shouldn't be any more of an extreme than Good, and how many of us play a character that's extremely Good?

Requiring "Evil" to actually do stupid, sadistic things like murdering townsfolk or backstabbing friends just cuts down on so many opportunities for player interaction.

Skimming a little bit of the gold pile is Evil, begrudgingly putting it back when you're caught is Evil, proceeding to add a tiny bit of poison to the Paladin's drink who caught you to give him the runs is Evil, forgetting that he's a Dwarf and he just gets super drunk off of it is hilarious.

[Cyclops08]

I'll give you your thread back. I have just seen way too much abuse to trust blindly in this case.

This is abuse:

Come to think of it, since his family disowned him... Zwerrit is a literal murderhobo.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'll give you your thread back. I have just seen way too much abuse to trust blindly in this case.



A literal murderhobo isn't necessarily there same as the "murderhobo" label. The former just means the character is a homeless murderer, the latter is usually a snide remark at a players behavior.

Anyway, the only chaotic evil character I made was a mistake, someone who only in retrospect I could see was acting out for no good reason. He was a bounty hunter by day and a monster hunter by night, heavy punisher vibes (unintentional, but accurate comparison). He had a code, but it could slip out stretch on a whim and his only redeeming quality was that he was loyal to there party Sorcerer for saving his life, both in backstory and in the early campaign time.

Only after some serious introspection and pleading from the party members who were terrified by some of his behaviors did he start to become the character is intended. He's doing the right things now and is less harsh in his judgements thanks to since good moral influence.

[Gryndle]

I'll give you your thread back. I have just seen way too much abuse to trust blindly in this case.

This is abuse:
[/U][/B]

if you cant trust your fellow players to play well with others, using one arbitrary meaningless tag, then why would you trust those same players at your table just because they use a different arbitrary meaningless tag?

a disruptive player is going to be disruptive regardless of what alignment they put down or whatever rules you put in place.

[Tanarii]

My chaotic evil Fisher PC, Saltmarsh Backgrounds:

Tale: It Dragged the Boat. Nearly caught a fish of monstrous size that pulled my boar for miles.
Personality Trait: Luck favors me; and I take risks others might not.
Ideal: Daring. The richest bounty goes to those who risk everything (Chaotic)
Bond: Someone else's greed destroyed my livelihood; I will be compensated.
Flaw: I have lived a hard life and find it difficult to empathize with others


(Note: a lack of empathy seems to be axiomatic for evil characters) What ties this character to the group and the group to this character?


Saltmarsh, CE PC, Marine Background
Hardship: Captured Spent months enduring thirst, starvation, and toture at the hands of our enemies but I never broke.
Personality Trait: I become cantankerous and quiet in the rain. {related to being held in a prison that offered no protection from the rain, I guess?}
Ideal: Embracing. Life is messy. Throwing yourself into the worst of it is necessay to get the job done.
Bond: I. Will. Finish. The. Job.
Flaw: I grow combative and unpredictable when I drink. This character I can see tied to the group through their Bond.


neither example is particularly evil. Those are character flaws. Good men can have such flaws. Every Ranger with a racial enemy has an axe to grind...they are not evil.
Remember, each in theory has a (not included in KorvinStarmast's post) Alignment associated behavior of 'I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust'. They've got CE built into begin with. The personality traits aren't necessarily what make them Chaotic Evil. They're what make them not one dimensional, possibly even conflicting with alignment typical but not constantly required behavior.

Assuming KorvinStarmast agrees with the motivational view of Alignment of course. If he meant it to be descriptive, and left it out because of that, it's going to depend on in-game actions taken and someone judging after the fact if he acted CE properly. Personality traits written down in advance don't enter into it directly in that case, they're just a partial statement of possible intent, it's all about a post-facto judging of the actions taken for descriptive.

[Raven777]

But also very likely to switch sides the first time the party goes up against a cult promising immortality, aren't they?

(That's the problem with a lot of the Greed-based ones I created too. A big enough bribe offered by the BBeG might turn the former party member into an NPC.)

Eternity's pretty lonely when you're alone.

I never saw Chaotic Evil as willing to betray their nakama (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueCompanions) at the drop of a hat. Willing to do anything to anyone to get what they want? Of course! But the beautiful universal applicability of that mindset is that it is predicated on a person being the one to decide what it is that they want. They might very much want to foster a positive relationship with their group because they find material or even emotional value in it. They might have no other family or friends to speak of. By then, their group might be all they have.

I found it is important to give evil characters some moral anchors. In mine's case, the Paladin and a group she grows fond of. I find it difficult to play a completely unrelatable, unpredictable psychopath. Other players also often react in the perfectly predictable way of rejecting the obvious liability. Machiavelli said it best that you can be feared, but you should take great care not to be hated. In party dynamics, I find it best to translate the advice into developing a strong enough bond that despite the Evil moniker, the party knows without a shadow of a doubt that it can trust you. In Evil's coldly calculating mindset: don't be a liability. Be an asset.



This is why most DMs will not allow evil characters in the party.
a CE character is a license to betray or kill party members, or in the case above, murder hobo.

Justify it all you want, I have seen nothing in this thread that would make me play with, or allow a CE in my game.

I think you are unfair. A player who is into that is free to cause trouble no matter the alignment they write down on their character sheet.
"Betray or kill party members" is a player issue, not a character issue. Players have full control on what their characters en up doing. Session 0 exists to discuss what is acceptable or not at the table, and this should always be part of the talks.

[OldTrees1]

(That's the problem with a lot of the Greed-based ones I created too. A big enough bribe offered by the BBeG might turn the former party member into an NPC.)

In that case, stop using naïve greed? Or start using ambitious greed?

Consider the Urchin example I gave. How would you bribe that urchin?
BBEG: I will give you 1 million gold in exchange for your monk friend.
Urchin: *Throws a knife* Go stick your face in a well.
BBEG: Okay, what about land and a title?
Urchin: *Throws a knife* Never mind, don't taint the well. Go step off the pier.
BBEG: Okay, okay, what about I give your other friends safe passage?
Urchin: *Throws a knife while advancing* On second thought, you might kill of the fish. Dive into the sewers.
BBEG: Fine, what about I reunite you with Gully?
Urchin: *Pauses* You know where my Gully is?
BBEG: Yes.
Urchin: *Charges* Take him alive gang!
<after fight> Urchin: *Spits* *Scoffs* What a fool! 2 is better than 1. Why would I make a trade rather than take both?

If you are concerned with your Greedy character being bribed into betraying the party consider these addendums:
https://fma.fandom.com/wiki/Greed
1) The character values wealth, not coins. They want the finer things in life. Like their companions you foolish BBEG.
2) They character's greed is more ambitious that the BBEG expects. Steal the bribe rather than paying for it.

[Unoriginal]

A greed-motivated chaotic evil character knows that every man has his price, but it's entirely logical to say that a) they won't throw away all the advantages being in the party brings for a "maybe" and b) it would take a truly exceptional price to get them to trust the BBEG to actually pay it.

Greedy doesn't mean you're a fool, and many would think "BBEG has no reason to let me live and pay me once I deliver my side of the agreement." Even if the BBEG agrees to sign a magically binding contract, story books are full of people abusing the wording of those with twists that makes the reward for treachery actively harmful either immediately or in the near future. Being "given" molten gold, for example.

If anything a chaotic evil character would be more likely to demand to be paid at least some before the job, then not respect the agreement and tell the party.

[Cheesegear]

I always viewed CE demons or orcs etc working together as 'they do it because they know the more powerful demon/orc will beat the crap out of them if they don't.' As soon as the underling believes they've got a shot at usurping the boss - they will. I believe this is in line with the lore.

Not even.
As the PHB states, a CE person can act with greed as a motive.

It benefits me to be in this pirate crew, because it allows me to ravage and pillage with impunity with a crew of like-minded pirates.
It benefits me - an Orc - to live in a society, because I know that those more powerful than me will be forced to defend their own society in order to keep it. I don't have to do anything, and those above me, are forced to protect me.


CE 'societies' are not communes of cooperation, they are hierarchical where the more powerful force the less powerful to comply.

Sounds like cooperation. If you don't want to comply, then don't. See where that takes you. Unless you play a Chaotic Evil person, as an idiot. Which this thread seems to be both for and against.


But your version of CE seems more nuanced/subtle. Nothing wrong with that - we all make the game what we think it should be.

My version of CE is: I didn't steal from, and/or kill my friends traveling companions and/or the people I live with. How does that benefit me?
Is there a way that this can change? If yes, what is that circumstance? Can I force the circumstance to the outcome that I want?
If I can't force the circumstance to my choosing, what do I do?

"It benefits me, at this time, to not perform a Chaotic action."

If you don't perform a Chaotic action, to benefit yourself, are you Chaotic?

[da newt]

"If you don't perform a Chaotic action, to benefit yourself, are you Chaotic?"

A fair point - If a PC acts and makes decisions in a logical way and chooses the path that leads to their personal benefit, are they CE? It depends on your understanding / definition of CE and are PC always of their alignment or just sometimes.

I don't view CE as stupid, I view CE as infinitely selfish, unbound by any sense of morality, someone who will do anything that will benefit them, and who is predisposed to arbitrary violence, motivated by greed, hatred and bloodlust.

A CE pirate will do anything that they think they can get away with that will result in more gold or rum for them - including stabbing another pirate in the back, while deep in the hold of a freighter during a skirmish, so they can take the best loot - if no one is looking. A pirate who would recognize that action as WRONG and therefor resist the impulse to do it is not CE (my opinion).

But yes - that CE pirate will also cooperate with another pirate when it is in his best interest and there isn't some other option that is even 'better' for them. It's not that a CE person won't cooperate, it's WHY they cooperate or don't that is or isn't CE.

That same CE pirate will turn on the Captain at the drop of a hat when it's in his personal best interest - CE has no loyalty or code of conduct. They are both chaotic and evil. For me that precludes any sort of belief system or checks on morality and only leaves pure selfishness with no concern for others at all.

A CE person would never sacrifice themselves for another. A CE person cannot be trusted (except to always act in thier own best interest).

That is what CE is to me. Just my opinion.

[Tanarii]

"If you don't perform a Chaotic action, to benefit yourself, are you Chaotic?"

A fair point - If a PC acts and makes decisions in a logical way and chooses the path that leads to their personal benefit, are they CE? It depends on your understanding / definition of CE and are PC always of their alignment or just sometimes.
It's not a fair point, because he PHB is very clear, creatures typically behave like the associated behavior, but not consistently and individual behavior may vary.

So they're always CE, they just don't always do the thing described.

[OldTrees1]

I don't view CE as stupid, I view CE as infinitely selfish, unbound by any sense of morality, someone who will do anything that will benefit them, and who is predisposed to arbitrary violence, motivated by greed, hatred and bloodlust.

A CE person would never sacrifice themselves for another. A CE person cannot be trusted (except to always act in their own best interest).

That is what CE is to me. Just my opinion.

Would a CE person sacrifice themselves for their own interests? Especially when those interests exceed their remaining lifespan?

CE person has lived a long life. They have a few family members / boon companions they care about. They have accomplished a lot in their long life. Towards the end of their life they are given the option to die 1 year early to prevent all of their accomplishments from being undone by some enemy.

Being CE, just like being LG, does not prevent being interested in the welfare of specific others that you care about. Nor does it protect from those interests growing larger than the shrinking interest of self preservation.

[Raven777]

"Adapt to circumstances" does seem like a quintessentially Chaotic thing do do, anyway.

"Chaotic should always do this", on the other hand, feels like an oxymoron.

[Unoriginal]

That is what CE is to me. Just my opinion.

All chaotic good characters are just as chaotic as the chaotic evil ones. Which means that everything you said here applies just as much to chaotic good characters.

[CapnWildefyr]

"If you don't perform a Chaotic action, to benefit yourself, are you Chaotic?"

A fair point - If a PC acts and makes decisions in a logical way and chooses the path that leads to their personal benefit, are they CE? It depends on your understanding / definition of CE and are PC always of their alignment or just sometimes.

I don't view CE as stupid, I view CE as infinitely selfish, unbound by any sense of morality, someone who will do anything that will benefit them, and who is predisposed to arbitrary violence, motivated by greed, hatred and bloodlust.

A CE pirate will do anything that they think they can get away with that will result in more gold or rum for them - including stabbing another pirate in the back, while deep in the hold of a freighter during a skirmish, so they can take the best loot - if no one is looking. A pirate who would recognize that action as WRONG and therefor resist the impulse to do it is not CE (my opinion).

But yes - that CE pirate will also cooperate with another pirate when it is in his best interest and there isn't some other option that is even 'better' for them. It's not that a CE person won't cooperate, it's WHY they cooperate or don't that is or isn't CE.

That same CE pirate will turn on the Captain at the drop of a hat when it's in his personal best interest - CE has no loyalty or code of conduct. They are both chaotic and evil. For me that precludes any sort of belief system or checks on morality and only leaves pure selfishness with no concern for others at all.

A CE person would never sacrifice themselves for another. A CE person cannot be trusted (except to always act in thier own best interest).

That is what CE is to me. Just my opinion.

This is mostly what I think also, but with some nuance differences.

However...Staying with Tanarii's original question: What traits would make a CE character playable in a party?

Well, to me it's a trick question, because the biggest trait isn't inside that character, but inside the party. I look at it this way. What makes an evil character compatible with a party are self-imposed limits. Often, at some point, a CE, NE, or LE character will run into a situation that frees them from their self-imposed limits. And that's when the party-related problems start. Had to kill one more "villain" who deserved it, had to snitch one extra magic item someone else needed, just couldn't let an insult go unanswered, your 2 besties died last week and those player's new characters are not part of your "inner circle," you feel like your former bestie cheated you, whatever. The thing is, when something goes stale, what happens then? I understand this might never come up, depending on the campaign. Cool, if so.

Still, here's my suggested party trait: The party must be expressly, clearly, even violently willing to not tolerate any crud from its members, and to expel or exterminate anyone who messes with the team.

In the end, that's what will keep any CE NE and LE players in the party without a lot of problems. Threat of negative consequences that always outweigh any perceived positives that a CE/NE/LE character might get if freed from any self-imposed limits.

I guess a corollary personal trait would be "I'm not going to get skewered and left to die by my own party, even if I am more deserving of loot and glory or whatever than they are, because I still get more for myself when I'm near them than when I'm not."

[Unoriginal]

Personality Trait: I take great pains to always look my best and follow the latest fashions.

Ideal: Independence. I must prove that I can handle myself without the coddling of my family. (Chaotic)

Bond: The common folk must see me as a hero of the people.

Flaw: In fact, the world does revolve around me.

Born in a position of privilege, this character has rejected it along with their family, and now only seek the appreciation and admiration of the common folks. This Knight in (painstakingly cleaned) Shining Armor has only one issue: everything they do is solely to feed their vainglory. Without a regular reminder of how great they are, their ego crumbles and they are left but an self-hating husk of their typical shining self. And they'd rather face the world's greatest dragon than that.




Personality Trait: I'm well known for my work, and I want to make sure everyone appreciates it. I'm always taken aback when people haven't heard of me.

Ideal: Freedom. Everyone should be free to pursue his or her own livelihood. (Chaotic)

Bond: I created a great work for someone, and then found them unworthy to receive it. I'm still looking for someone worthy.

Flaw: I'm never satisfied with what I have – I always want more.

Possessing a keen political mind and a great interest for philosophy, this character was once instrumental in a scheme to put a certain person on the throne. Only to discover that said person was far from the ideal ruler the courtier sought. Disgusted by the government they helped create, they now travel in the hope of finding someone fit to be the one true Philosopher-King, then help them reach their rightful place. In truth, the courtier is too blinded by their arrogance to realize they're too fickle and flaw-seeking to ever consider someone a fitting ruler in the long term, leading them to always want to replace the one they put in power once the luster of novelty wore off, or to care that people suffer and die during those political uprisings. But so long as you're not getting involved into that "find perfect king" business, this character can be a perfectly fine teammate."




Faceless Persona: A disguise with animalistic or monstrous characteristics, meant to inspire fear

Personality Trait: I think far ahead, a detachedness often mistaken for daydreaming.

Ideal: Confusion. Deception is a weapon. Strike from where your foes won't expect. (Chaotic)

Bond: I am exceptional. I do this because no one else can, and no one can stop me.

Flaw: I am callous about death. It comes to us all eventually.

This character will think and work and plan and work tirelessly to let the team achieve their goals. The thing is, the faceless does not believe any rules apply to them, as rules are abitrary construct designed for those who play a game the faceless has no need to play. Something is dishonorable or shameful? No reason to care about that. It is illegal? Only matters if the law can enact its punishment on the faceless, and it can't. People will die? Everyone will, nothing changes. In consequence, if on their own, there is nothing they wouldn't do to win. But they recognize their teammates can care about those things, so as long as they're presenting their ideas to everyone and are not the one with the final say on what to do, they'll be a great teammate.



Personality Trait:

Ideal:

Bond:

Flaw:

[da newt]

All chaotic good characters are just as chaotic as the chaotic evil ones. Which means that everything you said here applies just as much to chaotic good characters.

Not exactly - the CG person would be just as chaotic (anti establishment / rules / order / government / laws / taxes) but would not be Evil - they would be Good. A CG person may be just as selfish as a CE person, but they are motivated to do the right thing, even though they will fight to ensure that they get to decide what is right - they will not be held to other people's stupid ideals. These are the libertarians of D&D - personal freedom is important to them. Social convention isn't. They are kind to others.

From PHB: CG act as their conscious directs, with little regard for other's expectations.

The implication being that CG people have a moral compass that they follow and it is based on their idea of good.

[MaxWilson]

I have to say the hardest one to write was the Urchin. The only redeeming quality personality trait for an otherwise arbitrarily violent Urchin are "fight to defend my city" and supporting an orphanage. Neither of which are easy to parlay into something that lead to a character being motivated to go adventure. Most of the others have something that encourages them to go direct that violent nature at the party enemies, which is something the party should be in favor of. Either loot or directly acquiring magical power, or some reason to make the world safer from typical PC enemies. Defend the city would work, but only if the adventures are in the vicinity of the city, or directly influence the city. Ie it wouldn't work for a wandering party as well. So I went with orphanages as an indirect loot incentive.

"Fight to defend my city" seems pretty straightforward as an adventuring motivation--just make sure that the city is already conquered when the campaign starts, so that freeing the city is nontrivial and requires seeking additional allies/resources.

Then retire the character once the city is freed.

RE: chaotic evil characters that play nice with other PCs, the majority of housecats probably fit that description. Cthulhu 5E has (sometimes-sentient, Dreamlands) housecats as an actual playable race--mechanically they're not terrific (40' move speed, claws, +2 Dex and +1 Cha if you're playing a Terran cat, can't wear shields or use weapons but can wear armor, Tiny) but I love the flavor, and I think playing a Chaotic Evil housecat would actually be pretty easy. Be loyal to and protective of the PCs, but play up elements like arrogance, arbitrary cruelty to strangers and enemies, and sitting on other PCs/demanding attention/sharpening your claws on their stuff with absolutely no regard for their dismay. Voila! Chaotic Evil protagonist cat.

[KorvinStarmast]

neither example is particularly evil.
Actually, those are the framework around which to build a CE player. It offers baseline for why sometimes they kill out of hand, or resort to violence out of hand, lash out and are somewhat unpredictable (aka Chaotic). That fact that I didn't also cut and paste the CE description, as Tanarii did, is that it seemed to me redundant.

It's the whole exercise: assume a CE character, now set it up so that CE makes narrative sense without the PC just being a donkey chapeau.

And I did.

What ties this character to the group and the group to this character? OK, I'll flesh that out a bit for the old man...

Remember, each in theory has a (not included in KorvinStarmast's post) Alignment associated behavior of 'I act with arbitrary violence, spurred by my greed, hatred, or bloodlust'. They've got CE built into begin with. The personality traits aren't necessarily what make them Chaotic Evil. They're what make them not one dimensional, possibly even conflicting with alignment typical but not constantly required behavior.

Assuming KorvinStarmast agrees with the motivational view of Alignment of course. I figured it was redundant to just C&P that out of your model, I figured that it's assumed. Sorry.

[Tanarii]

I figured it was redundant to just C&P that out of your model, I figured that it's assumed. Sorry.
Yeah, well unfortunately if it's not explicitly written, it seems that people aren't keeping in mind that these are all (at least sometimes) arbitrarily violent people.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, well unfortunately if it's not explicitly written, it seems that people aren't keeping in mind that these are all (at least sometimes) arbitrarily violent people. OK, my reply died yesterday, let me try again. For the Old Man Fisher ...

Why he fits in with an adventuring party:


Personality Trait: Luck favors me; and I take risks others might not. Adventurers are by definition risk takers and are rare. One of the few kinds of people Old Man feels anything in common with.

Ideal: Daring. The richest bounty goes to those who risk everything (Chaotic) No risk, no reward, we don't play for funsies if we play poker ... and if you fail 'sux to be you' or 'tough luck, suck it up' is his take. Plays to win; if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' is part of the sub text here.

Bond: Someone else's greed destroyed my livelihood; I will be compensated. That last bit implies "at someone else's expense, if need be" with no sleep lost.

Flaw: I have lived a hard life and find it difficult to empathize with others As noted before a lack of empathy is axiomatic for most evil characters

Anyhoo, to address your "how does he fit in with an adventuring group?" comment. And, as with most of my characters, approaches it all with "combat as war" over "combat as sport" as the default.

[MaxWilson]

OK, my reply died yesterday, let me try again. For the Old Man Fisher ...

Why he fits in with an adventuring party:

Adventurers are by definition risk takers and are rare. One of the few kinds of people Old Man feels anything in common with.
No risk, no reward, we don't play for funsies if we play poker ... and if you fail 'sux to be you' or 'tough luck, suck it up' is his take. Plays to win; if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' is part of the sub text here.
That last bit implies "at someone else's expense, if need be" with no sleep lost.
As noted before a lack of empathy is axiomatic for most evil characters

Anyhoo, to address your "how does he fit in with an adventuring group?" comment. And, as with most of my characters, approaches it all with "combat as war" over "combat as sport" as the default.

Is Old Man Fisher by any chance missing any garden gnomes?

Sounds like a fun PC to have around, especially the risk-taking part.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is Old Man Fisher by any chance missing any garden gnomes?
*snort*

Sounds like a fun PC to have around, especially the risk-taking part. Yeah, he's an idea waiting for a campaign, not sure if that will happen.

The campaign that I thought was going to begin looks like it is dying before session 1. Too bad. I need to play, have been DMing more than playing and it's starting to wear on me.

[Zetakya]

Yeah, well unfortunately if it's not explicitly written, it seems that people aren't keeping in mind that these are all (at least sometimes) arbitrarily violent people.

Which distinguishes them from any other Adventurer how, exactly?

[MaxWilson]

The campaign that I thought was going to begin looks like it is dying before session 1. Too bad. I need to play, have been DMing more than playing and it's starting to wear on me.

I have never run a game over the Internet before but you seem like you'd be fun to play with and I have some free time coming up. If you're in a timezone compatible with Pacific, or if we can figure out a play-by-post format that works, I'd be interested in DMing a few adventures for you and/or other GITP posters, which could potentially become a campaign (I don't like to assume "campaign" from the start though, would rather let that happen organically). I'd prefer to start the PCs off at moderately high level (character tree of two level 6 characters, only one allowed "onscreen" at a time in an adventure; with any newly-created PCs starting at level 5 and gaining levels whenever someone of equal or higher level gains a level onscreen).

Probably the reason I'm thinking of it is that I've been running 5E Cthulhu-compatible stuff lately, and Old Man Fisher gives me Cthulhu vibes. We can do a Yes/No exercise as a group to decide what kind of stuff is actually included in the game setting though--if there is any interest in having me DM, that is.

[Raven777]

Is Old Man Fisher by any chance missing any garden gnomes?

I think we can agree that the man whom you're referencing might be both at the same time the most iconic Chaotic Neutral Evil tabletop character ever, an absolute success in what it was meant to represent and achieve, and yet the best example of what most people should absolutely never do under any circumstances.

For reference, I urge everyone who does not know of it to look up Old Man Henderson.

"Why the **** did you just kill me?"

"What?"

"You just ******* shot me dead!"

"I shot a random guy who threatened my life and started trying to beat the **** out of me in the middle of a crime scene where I totally just murdered a hobo? Yes, yes I did. What possible reason could I have to NOT shoot you?"

"It's ME you ****! I've already died like three times TODAY."

"That's metagaming."

[Tanarii]

Which distinguishes them from any other Adventurer how, exactly?
Usually the arbitrary part. Sometime the motivation for it: greed or hatred or bloodlust.

I agree many adventurers are prone to violence. No question there. Thats why a CE character can be made that fits in with many a party. They just need reasons to:
- stick with the group
- not screw over the group internally
- not regularly drag the group into their external screw overs
- not regularly make the party want to abandon them or worse

Its not a small order. But the inherently violent nature of many if not most adventurers makes it possible.

Also if that was supposed to have blue text: Ha!

[KorvinStarmast]

I have never run a game over the Internet before but you seem like you'd be fun to play with and I have some free time coming up. If you're in a timezone compatible with Pacific, or if we can figure out a play-by-post format that works, I'd be interested in DMing a few adventures for you and/or other GITP posters, which could potentially become a campaign (I don't like to assume "campaign" from the start though, would rather let that happen organically). I'd prefer to start the PCs off at moderately high level (character tree of two level 6 characters, only one allowed "onscreen" at a time in an adventure; with any newly-created PCs starting at level 5 and gaining levels whenever someone of equal or higher level gains a level onscreen).

Probably the reason I'm thinking of it is that I've been running 5E Cthulhu-compatible stuff lately, and Old Man Fisher gives me Cthulhu vibes. We can do a Yes/No exercise as a group to decide what kind of stuff is actually included in the game setting though--if there is any interest in having me DM, that is.
That would be cool. The trick, as always, is scheduling but PbP is a nice way to mitigate that.

Start at 6, you say? Hmmm.

[Cheesegear]

"If you don't perform a Chaotic action, to benefit yourself, are you Chaotic?"

[...]
That same CE pirate will turn on the Captain at the drop of a hat when it's in his personal best interest

Emphasis mine. Let's continue this thought, specifically around Chaotic Evil groups that can form semi-functional societies amongst themselves (e.g; Pirates and Orcs).

If a Chaotic person, wont commit a Chaotic act, against their own interests - because they aren't stupid - what if they never commit a Chaotic act?

As a Chaotic Evil person, I would very much like to murder simply because I don't like them very much, and at the very least I would very much like to be in charge, instead:

- However, I also know that murdering [insert authority figure] is likely to result in myself getting caught by [other authority figures]. That's not in my interest.
- I also know that I can't exactly commit a murder against a well-protected individual unless the odds are greatly stacked in my favour, which they aren't, and potentially never will be. I'll just end up getting myself killed, really. That's not in my interest.
- [Insert Authority Figure] actually is pretty good at their job, and that results in benefits for me, as long as I follow them; Mates, Gold, Shelter, Resources, Community. If I murdered [authority figure], would I lose those benefits, just by virtue of the fact that [Authority Figure] is no longer the one in authority? I don't want to lose the things I currently have, and potentially will get more of. Because I am greedy, and [authority figure] being in charge is actually the easiest way for me to get what I want - going against [Authority Figure] just isn't in my interest.

Now, in a relatively functional society, that Authority Figure could remain in the position that they're in, for years, maybe decades. Potentially longer, if magic is involed.

A Pirate Captain or Orc War Chief is likely to get [I]themselves killed, by way of activity (or random adventurers Doing a Thing). Bypassing the Chaotic Evil creature's ability to act on their own impulses. The job was done for them, they never actually did anything, even though they wanted to. Are they still Chaotic Evil?

Going into the old cliches; Motive, Means and Oppurtunity.

A Chaotic Evil person has motive. But not necessarily the Means and/or Opportunity.
A Chaotic Evil person - who isn't stupid - therefore, never acts in a Chaotic Evil fashion.
Are they still Chaotic Evil?

A Chaotic Evil person loves to murder and steal.
But an Adventuring Party protects him, provides him with resources, and gives him the means to acquire more resources, and of course to murder and steal from other people and creatures, who just simply aren't themselves.

A Chaotic Evil person, turning against their own party (or society), should be against their own interests. I see no reason why a Chaotic Evil character couldn't join an adventuring party, providing that the party provides them with what they want; Bloodlust and resources...Which is ~85% of what D&D, is.

It's the old thing with the Joker:
Person: "Why are you against this? Aren't you Chaotic Evil? Why do you care?"
Joker: "I live here, idiot!"

[snooker]

I have several options I wanted to play but which my DMs never let me:

- "the freak on a leash". Basically a bruiser who the party keeps as a weapon and purely that. Dangerous, but able to be controlled.

- "the serial killer". A polite member of a polite society, CE on the inside, LG on the outside. Sticks with the party to vent his frustrations on orcs and dr*w. Whenever they stop in a village, even for a day, women start disappearing.

- "the metagaming moneymaxxer". Will do anything for money. Not betray the party, of course, but will be willing to take on any job whatsoever. Kind of like every video game player character ever. No standards, only coin.

[MaxWilson]

That would be cool. The trick, as always, is scheduling but PbP is a nice way to mitigate that.

Start at 6, you say? Hmmm.

Recruitment thread is open here:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631153-Recruiting-3-4-players-for-MaxWilson-s-first-Internet-DMing&p=25038044#post25038044

[Raven777]

- "the metagaming moneymaxxer". Will do anything for money. Not betray the party, of course, but will be willing to take on any job whatsoever. Kind of like every video game player character ever. No standards, only coin.

If we go with video game inspired playstyles, there's also what I call "Wasting Beregost" (back from Baldur's Gate for you younglings) or "Wasting Whiterun" (from Skyrim, closer to today). That's when the player is CE. The player (not his character) has fun aggroing every town guard in a mile radius. Fighting guards and breaking pots is something he has fun doing. And since everyone's at the table to have fun, is it fair that the Paladin's fun should override his 100% of the time?

That's when session zero is super important for the group to set style and boundaries expectations. And maybe make the Paladin agree that, maybe once or twice, the CE character causing a giant brawl of utter chaos in the town square putting the entire party on the run might be fun.

[Ganryu]

Had a CE character once called Gifi. Her whole thing was she felt the party were her friends, and of course she'd help out friends. Friends were a fun thing to have.

Why were they her friends? She needed a goal done (freeing a demon), was told joining the party was the easiest way to do it. The instant she met them she said, 'we're friends now'. {Ironically, she was freeing the demon because it reached out to her, and her reaction was also 'We're friends now'.}

However, whatever was fun, she would also do. Things like... blowing up a church full of people, or blowing up a cult camp, full of people. Finding out church and cult were the same thing. She laughed maniacally at blast shadows. There were hardly any Enemies with stats in it, but it did eliminate a large part of the plot going on.

A Wild Magic Sorcerer who just spammed fireball all day, and reveled in teh chaos, it was up to the party to direct her obvious evil tendencies in the right direction. It ended up solving a lot of problems that they weren't willing to do. Basically role was the knife, cut away what needed to removed in teh campaign. Need a chaotic 5 minutes to get things done? Unleash my character.

Have people you don't like...? Leave them alone with my character for 5 minutes.

It worked well because of one rule. Don't mess with your party. Be as evil as you want. Be as chaotic as you want, don't hurt the party. Work with them. Don't attack them. Don't get in the way of their goals. This is the same rule for LG characters btw. Don't turn the party into hte cops, or smite the necromancer...


Her whole role ended up being, doing the things the rest of the party wasn't able to due to morality. An NPC we needed help from was in jail. Rest of the party was hesitant to break them out. I walked back into camp with the prisoner in tow.

A road was ravaged by a rockslide, and they needed it cleared. The party lied to me and told me there were some small creatures needed killing along the road. 27 fireballs later, and the road was clear of debris.

It worked out really well.

[Witty Username]

A Chaotic Evil character can definitely perform a self sacrificing act. For annother's benefit is probably not a factor in their reasoning, but that does not mean it won't happen. Killing an evil overlord that the character hates personally probably benefits others, but would definitely be something a chaotic evil character might do.
Spite is a powerful emotion.

[blackjack50]

One of the best pieces of advice of gotten is to play it as Bender from Futurama. You love robbing, stealing, and all that chaos. But you are attached to your party (sweet meat bags). And they help get you rich. Anything negative done to the party needs to be more like practical jokes though. That way the actual consequences aren’t substantial

[Merudo]

Definitely dedicated to the cause of the party, as long as they're adventuring site explorers! Good one. But also very likely to switch sides the first time the party goes up against a cult promising immortality, aren't they?

(That's the problem with a lot of the Greed-based ones I created too. A big enough bribe offered by the BBeG might turn the former party member into an NPC.)

In my experience the DM bends over backward to ensure the party stays together.

[Tanarii]

In my experience the DM bend over backward to ensure the party stays together.
I can see that happening if a single group of players has gotten together to play a lengthy (or more commonly unspecified duration) campaign, and the the players are all in agreement about the membership.

[blackjack50]

A Chaotic Evil character can definitely perform a self sacrificing act. For annother's benefit is probably not a factor in their reasoning, but that does not mean it won't happen. Killing an evil overlord that the character hates personally probably benefits others, but would definitely be something a chaotic evil character might do.
Spite is a powerful emotion.

Amen to that.