New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 71
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    You could add "because all my friends were doing it" to the list of motivations (part 4).

    Associations and relationships with CE individuals don't necessitate a fall to evil, but there's a strong possibility that they will, particularly if the CE is the stronger personality, or has stronger motivations. And once you're helping your best friend pillage and murder his way through a paladin base, you can't really argue for an N in your alignment anymore.
    Last edited by Mrs Kat; 2015-10-02 at 05:22 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    Objectivism walks a very fine line between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, because while it is CN to even CG in intent some of the raw extremism associated with it can definitely result in a lapse into CE. Ayn Rand was certainly against deliberately harming others for your own gain, but the big problem with pseudo-anarchy is that it is a major gamble. If fortunes end up going south, people wind up desperate, and a bloodbath can often ensue when there is no other way to obtain food. The fact that the philosophy is aware of this risk and yet still chooses to adhere to it can lead to the issue of knowingly and recklessly endangering innocent lives, which as I mentioned typically qualifies as Chaotic Evil.

    Overall, Objectivism's place on the alignment spectrum is based a lot upon how it is wielded and implemented into the society. If it is implemented strictly as Ayn Rand wrote it Objectivism serves as CN, but when there are so many other economic and sociological factors in play the line becomes blurred.
    I totally agree, and I think its one of the many good examples you provided of how to be awesomely and not murderhobo chaotic evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    I would love to see more guides of this kind on the playground, hopefully for all nine alignments eventually (Red Fel could make an awesome guide for Lawful Evil).
    I have been kicking around the idea of making one for chaotic good....but I don't know if I could meet up to yours. Again, well done sir. Well done.
    Guides
    Monk dipping for pathfinder druids, a mini guide
    Trapped Under Ice-Geddy2112's guide to the Pathfinder Winter Witch
    I contributed to this awesome guide to chaotic good

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    genderlich's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Beautiful. I'm applying some of these ideas to a character I was making for a short module, but it's making me love her enough to want to keep her around for a longer game. And as a person who usually plays Lawful Good, that's saying a lot.
    Previous avatar by Sgt. Pepper.

    Previous avatar by Akrim.elf.

    Current avatar by Cdr.Fallout

    Old Desert Sayings, my RPG blog (mostly Pathfinder homebrew).

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Responding to stress with rudeness is not the same as responding to stress with genocide.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Svata's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gainesville, GA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    I may end up doing one on either NE or CN, which can be quite similar, and have more in common with each other than either does with CE, IMHO.
    Copy this to your signature if you love Jade_Tarem, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    A 20th-level fighter should be able to break rainbows in half with their bare hands and then dual-wield the parts of the rainbow.

    Dual-wield the rainbow. Taste the rainbow.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Somewhere, beyond the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Svata View Post
    I may end up doing one on either NE or CN, which can be quite similar, and have more in common with each other than either does with CE, IMHO.
    Dooooooo it. I wanna see one on Neutral Evil more, because I have no idea what it's supposed to be.

    I'm about halfway through writing one on Chaotic Good, incidentally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook View Post
    A fair number of people don’t quite grok Chaotic Good, since the idea of thinking for yourself while being a good person is apparently confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by linklele
    Look, a strange boy just popped into my room asking for your soul...
    Avatar by linklele, featuring a strange boy. Full signature is here.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Disclaimer: I am, philosophically, a Christian Objectivist. I know this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it isn't if you understand the underlying drives behind Ayn Rand's philosophy in a way she...didn't. She mistakenly conflated government-mandated "charity" (e.g. welfare) and social-pressure guilt with Christian charity; the latter is about loving thy neighbor as thyself, not about feeling guilty if you have more than they do.


    Spoiler: Lengthy Objectivism Discussion
    Show
    Objectivism is, ethically, a neutral philosophy. It values individualism and the freedom to make one's own choices, but recognizes that there is a job for government: protecting people's rights to make their own choices from those who would use their choices to unrightfully deprive them of it. That is, laws exist to define precisely where my face starts and your right to swing your fist stops.

    It is, however, not a pure-Lawful alignment; it has rules that one follows, but strict legalism about precisely what and how they constrain your behavior, particularly in specific instances, is seen as a sign of an over-controlling authority that is stifling one's individual freedom. Perhaps ironically from Ms. Rand's standpoint, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is a very firm part of Objectivist ideals. The caveat is that there is a very specific list of what you should and should not expect to do unto others and to have them reciprocate unto you.

    Morally, Objectivism is either Neutral or Good. The characterization of it as Evil is a gross misunderstanding; it mistakes a recognition that the natural state of Man is one of selfishness with a celebration of man's greed. The phrase "Enlightened Self-Interest" comes up a lot in the philosophy, and for good reason. Self-interest is not quite the same as selfishness or greed; self-interest is the recognition that, if you do not take care of yourself, you have no means to take care of others...and, in Objectivist philosophy, it converts that to a reflective understanding that expecting that you will take care of others means they may expect the same in return, and if everybody expects everybody else to take care of them, nobody is taking care of anybody.

    Objectivism, in implementation, is an attempt to exploit the base nature of man's inherent self-interest and extract the greatest good for all therefrom. One does not get sausage by wishing that animals could regenerate like trolls; one gets tasty tasty sausage by recognizing how it is made and optimizing that process.

    Agree with it or not, Objectivism says that human beings are at their most productive when they keep what they earn. The fruit's of a man's labor are his own, and nobody else's, and he is free to do with them what he will. (Provided the whole "right to swing fist ends at others' faces" thing is respected.) Because people will work harder and be most productive in this circumstance, goes the philosophy, more production and prosperity happens overall. Because enlightened self-interest recognizes that voluntary exchange of goods and services yields the maximal prosperity for oneself in the long run (because a prosperous society has more surplus wealth overall for which one can work and trade), the optimal Objectivist will respect others' property and will trade his specialized labor/product for that of others, who are more efficient and skilled at providing different specialties.

    Where Rand's philosophy most often comes across as Evil is in her celebration of "selfishness" and denigration of "altruism." The truth is, she is guilty of mislabeling the former ("self-interest" and "selfishness" are not the same thing), and completely forgets her own philosophy with the latter. She even, in her novels, goes so far as to work hard to justify genuine charity within her anti-charity framework, as she recognizes that everybody needs help, sometimes, even if it's just to get STARTED supporting oneself. She couches all such charitable acts as "loans," and (furthering the image of Objectivism as somehow evil, despite this really being a neutral position to take) emphasizes that these loans are carefully constructed to be maximally profitable to the lender while still being possible for the borrower to pay back without indenturing themselves.

    Played that way, Objectivism is a philosophy only for the hyper-intelligent with near prognosticative ability, because knowing your borrower's limitations that precisely is not something non-professionals in the field are going to get right often enough. Further, it forgets that humans are also emotional. Charity - genuine charity - is another way of approaching this solution which takes far less calculation: Evaluate the person in need for whether you believe they really are in need or are just lazy, then give what you feel you can if you feel they deserve it. Don't feel obligated beyond what you can - heck, don't feel obligated at all. Just know that a society that is charitable is one which will show you charity when YOU need it, so you should contribute to the general charitability of society as you feel you are able (by giving when you can to whom you feel deserves it). That 100% voluntary element is critical to a successful implementation of Objectivism; obligation based on guilt (or worse, threat of force) diminishes productivity, while voluntary charity is always going to come from what you, yourself, view as excess. So you already have done work and improved your life and thus others' lives through trade.



    The strongest argument, I think, is for Objectivism being a CG alignment, with NG leanings. If the society as a whole fully embraces the philosophy, the need for strict laws is limited to contract enforcement (part of the purpose of contracts is to ensure that all sides know exactly what they're getting and what they're giving, and to thus minimize even honest misunderstandings). The rest is better handled by understanding property rights, recognizing that anything that deprives people of the right to choose whether and what to trade is a form of theft, and protecting people's right to life. They will tend to recognize the need for an authority system, so they're not quite full CG with vigilantism being the norm, but they recognize that generally "good" behavior yields more overall prosperity. And those who lack the Int to really puzzle it out still benefit from the CG society's moral teachings that just let them know charity is good to give, but expecting/demanding it is wrong. It's something for which to be grateful, not to expect as one's "due."


    The beauty of Objectivism is that, properly understood, it only fails when people forget the "enlightened" part of the self-interest, and start to be willing to burn down 30 mansions if it means they get an extra room in their house, and willing to destroy others' livelihoods if it means they personally get a small raise. Such behaviors ultimately make the whole culture poorer, even the supposed "winner" who got that raise, as food/goods/services become more scarce and the increased personal wealth buys less than he could have gotten in a more thriving society with a smaller relative income.

    But just about every alignment, save NE and CE, will ratchet to a prosperous society under Objectivist philosophy. At least, I think so, based on my analysis of human nature. NE and CE are too willing to go for tearing down others rather than building themselves up, and that doesn't allow for Objectivism to be implemented.

    But John Galt, quoted at the beginning of the thread, would be horrified by CE behaviors. CE steals and kills for its own benefit. Galt would balk at both, save in direct self-defense of his own life and property. CE cheats and defrauds; Galt would not do that even at the expense of his own life and property. This isn't speculation; this is directly from Galt's words and deeds in Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's atheist version of Objectivism, property is sacred, and life is the most precious property anybody has. Only by violating others' rights to life and property may your own be righteously infringed (in immediate self-defense, as restitution, punishment to discourage you or others from trying the same, or as a preventative measure to make it impossible for you to repeat your crimes).

    The most "evil" thing Galt did was encourage people to go on strike, and refuse to use his talents in ways he found unethical or immoral. Only a philosophy which believes that you owe your life and property to others for no reason other than they want it could call his actions evil. He would view such as slavery.




    As for how CE acts in general, I still think this discussion goes a bit too heavily into "madness" as the explanation and method. CE is indeed broad-spectrum, but the central key to it is one that's mentioned less prominently than I think it should be: ruthless selfishness. You care about what you want, and only what you want, and everything is a tool to get it or an obstacle to be destroyed. If it's neither, you can ignore it.

    CE is about measuring yourself against others on a relative scale, because CE recognizes nothing save two questions: "Can I do it? Can you stop me?" If another has more power/wealth/ability, they can only be tolerated if they're helping you, but since they could ALWAYS turn on you (after all, you'd do the same if it suited you, right?), it's best to leave them torn down to the point they can't hurt you than to leave them stronger than you. If you can make yourself stronger, great, but tearing them down is almost as good.

    There is nothing "enlightened" about CE self-interest, because CE doesn't trust anything other than its own, personal power. It may respect others', but only insofar as those others can thwart them or hurt them or coerce them.

    NE is willing to try the "scratch your back if you scratch mine, and we'll part amicably" thing; it's a risk, but NE recognizes that a reputation for it makes things easier a lot of the time, and the occasional betrayal of it is best done when it gains maximum advantage for minimum risk of damage to reputation.

    CE will eschange backscratchings, but will expect a knife and, thus, try to be the FIRST to knife, unless the opportunity doesn't arise. This isn't out of chaotic stupidity, but out of fear that the other side will do it, first. Only if the other side remains valuable for future use will they avoid this...and then, they try to make sure they're just as useful for future use to the other side, or backstab proof.

    CE is not always stupid, but it has a different golden rule: Do unto others before they can do unto you. Because they will if you let them; after all, you would, right?

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Svata's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gainesville, GA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    I think I have an opening lines for my NE one of these.

    Rules, Anarchy, Morals, none of them matter. The only thing that matters is satisfaction of the self or one's cause.
    Copy this to your signature if you love Jade_Tarem, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    A 20th-level fighter should be able to break rainbows in half with their bare hands and then dual-wield the parts of the rainbow.

    Dual-wield the rainbow. Taste the rainbow.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stillwater
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Looks like a solid guide to roleplaying. I approve.

    On that note, the only suggestion I'd make is to put this part in bold:
    Not every CE character is an aggressive idiot who just destroys everything
    I like that "not kicking puppies" is bolded and large, but I feel it can't be stressed enough.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    CE will eschange backscratchings, but will expect a knife and, thus, try to be the FIRST to knife, unless the opportunity doesn't arise. This isn't out of chaotic stupidity, but out of fear that the other side will do it, first. Only if the other side remains valuable for future use will they avoid this...and then, they try to make sure they're just as useful for future use to the other side, or backstab proof.

    CE is not always stupid, but it has a different golden rule: Do unto others before they can do unto you. Because they will if you let them; after all, you would, right?
    As I have mentioned before, Objectivism sits as CG-CN in theory, but practitioners can end up slipping into CN or CE simply because, being human, we don't always understand our own limitations. Everyone is capable of going too far in pursuit of their goals, and is as such always one step away from becoming Evil. Look at Bioshock, in which the idealistic society was obliterated because the lines became too blurred between what was self-preservation and and what was encroaching upon the rights of others. Humanoids are not always fundamentally good creatures, and given enough power will often turn it to fuel self-interest at the expense of others (this was the whole point of the Radical archetype). Boundaries are almost never clear-cut as to what they can and cannot do, and when the rules of a society go unwritten (as is the case in most hands-off societies), bending them too far is a simple fact of life in a world where we are all in some way flawed.

    Chaotic Evil isn't always madness, and there is certainly another question besides "can I do it?" and "who can stop me?" That question is "Is it worthwhile?" Constant backstabbing is too risky a behavior in many cases because there will likely come a time when you have to fall back on something (I should have mentioned Crogan's Vengeance in examples, because it outlines very well why CE characters would hold themselves to certain standards). If nobody can trust you, that could mean the forfeiture of longevity or greater success. A well-made CE character usually has a goal, and that goal could as often be detrimental or undermining to good or law as it could support them (in the latter case, the character's extremism would cause them to pursue it in a destructive way). Regardless, the character plays for that end, and may even be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

    A great historical example of a CE character is John Brown, whose steadfast opposition to slavery (definitely a good cause) propelled him into violent and reckless action that ended up taking the lives of many innocent people (chaotic evil activity). He accepted the costs of what he did and was executed cleanly, becoming an icon stronger in death than he ever was in life. In a sense, his CE action paved the way for good people to take a stand, which is how I believe this alignment should work. The ends absolutely justify the means, be they hazardous or altruistic.
    Dark Green, the color of Chaotic Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Altruistorc is leaving me deeply disturbed and intrigued at the same time...

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    As I have mentioned before, Objectivism sits as CG-CN in theory, but practitioners can end up slipping into CN or CE simply because, being human, we don't always understand our own limitations.
    Well that's wholly useless. The same can be said for practitioners of every philosophy.

    As the saying goes; there is no cause so noble that it won't attract fugheads.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Perth, West Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    A great historical example of a CE character is John Brown, whose steadfast opposition to slavery (definitely a good cause) propelled him into violent and reckless action that ended up taking the lives of many innocent people (chaotic evil activity). He accepted the costs of what he did and was executed cleanly, becoming an icon stronger in death than he ever was in life.
    Well, that's because he managed to get ethereal after undergoing conversion to Necropolitan:

    John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
    But his soul goes marching oooooonnnn....

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Okay, in retrospect, my previous argument isn't the most convincing. I think it would be best if I provide a bit more of a concrete example.

    While an objectivist society in which everybody agrees to play by the rules hovers around the CG area, the disruption that the creation of such a society may cause to the world can endanger many people.

    Let's say that the metaphorical atlas figure, a man who is burdened with supporting a great deal of the world, shrugs off his burden to live wholly by his own authority. What happens to all of the people on the metaphorical planetoid he was suspending. Simply shrugging them off and leaving them to fend for themselves quite knowingly places them in danger, as they are dealing with a spontaneous loss of supports that had previously kept the world in balance. The results would likely be dangerous and harmful to a lot of people, and knowingly throwing a dependent world to the curb would probably qualify as a strongly evil act. It may be neutral in intent, but it is evil because it pushes lots of innocent people into the direct line of danger.

    Then again, there come times when somebody has to be the martyr, so in the long run such an act could be worthwhile to build a society based on the objectivist ideals.
    Dark Green, the color of Chaotic Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Altruistorc is leaving me deeply disturbed and intrigued at the same time...

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    tadkins's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Really awesome guide, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. :)

    What about using the Unseelie Fey as an example for CE? Their actions are random and whimsical as well as often brutal and cruel. At the same time though, just as the Seelie court isn't always benevolent, the Unseelie aren't always malevolent. That to me screams CE.

    I had this in mind since I found about the Dark Fey bloodline and thought of a CE character concept I could use with it.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    What an incredible resource!? Good work thealtruisticorc. :)

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Lavos doesn't really work as an example of Djur.
    It's closer to NE or LE rather calculating and cruel. It just appears to be rampaging.
    Last edited by Platymus Pus; 2015-10-07 at 12:39 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    Look at Bioshock, in which the idealistic society was obliterated because the lines became too blurred between what was self-preservation and and what was encroaching upon the rights of others.
    Bioshock is not an example of Objectivism failing; Bioshock is an example of somebody deliberately undermining the system with a contrary, deliberately destructive philosophy. The actions that led to the ruin of Rapture were diametrically opposed to Objectivist philosophy - even as specifically espoused by the founder of Rapture. It was a traitor who respected neither the lives nor property of others who engineered a plot to steal the best technology Rapture had created. None of these are Objectivist behaviors. They're selfish, and any self-interest isn't even enlightened, since it kills the goose that laid that golden egg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    Humanoids are not always fundamentally good creatures, and given enough power will often turn it to fuel self-interest at the expense of others (this was the whole point of the Radical archetype).
    Indeed. It is for this reason that Objectivist-backed authority structures tend towards distributed authority as close to in the hands of individual decision-makers as possible. The stronger and more central the authority, the greater the power invested in one person, and the easier it is to corrupt that position (or have it fall into corrupt hands).


    Objectivism, as a philosophy and an implemented socio-economic system, is designed to accept that human beings behave in certain ways and have certain goals. They will work towards their own self-interest; there is no preventing this. Efforts to force something else, goes the Objectivist philosophy, will result only in people finding other ways to work around, exploit holes in, or directly corrupt the system to still do this. Objectivism seeks to exploit this human nature by implementing a system which causes the natural pursuit of self-interest to also better society.

    Nothing in the philosophy says to exploit, abuse, cheat, or even harm your fellow man. The most cruel thing the philosophy preaches is that nobody owes you anything they didn't agree to give you of their own free will, and that if you cannot or will not provide for yourself, you should starve, because nobody owes you a free lunch. And yes, when you literally CANNOT provide for yourself, that is heartless. Fortunately, very few people who actually understand the philosophy (as opposed to those who either denigrate it as an evil and selfish thing, or those who adopt the denigrated strawman as an excuse for their own evil) really lack the willing heart to provide charity when and where they genuinely believe it is needed.

    (Rand herself wrote exceptions for those who literally cannot provide for themselves, saying that their family and others should care for them. She never, to my knowledge, adequately reconciled that with the rest of her philosophy; I have my own reconciliation of it, though: if you don't like seeing suffering, use your own resources to alleviate it in the manner you feel is most effective, so long as you respect others' lives and property and demand nothing of them they do not willingly give.)

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by tadkins View Post
    What about using the Unseelie Fey as an example for CE? Their actions are random and whimsical as well as often brutal and cruel. At the same time though, just as the Seelie court isn't always benevolent, the Unseelie aren't always malevolent. That to me screams CE.
    Unseelie Fey are a wonderful example of the Varelse archetype. CE can be beautiful, creative, and inventive just as any other alignment is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Nothing in the philosophy says to exploit, abuse, cheat, or even harm your fellow man. The most cruel thing the philosophy preaches is that nobody owes you anything they didn't agree to give you of their own free will, and that if you cannot or will not provide for yourself, you should starve, because nobody owes you a free lunch. And yes, when you literally CANNOT provide for yourself, that is heartless. Fortunately, very few people who actually understand the philosophy (as opposed to those who either denigrate it as an evil and selfish thing, or those who adopt the denigrated strawman as an excuse for their own evil) really lack the willing heart to provide charity when and where they genuinely believe it is needed.
    As I summed up on page one, how far you are willing to go in your self-determination sums up the difference between being a proponent of freedom and being a hazard to the society around you. Would you be willing to disrupt a power structure and jeopardize those who depend on it? If so (as John Galt's "no matter the struggle" sentiment and even the title "Atlas Shrugged" implies), then I would definitely envision this action as sitting within the realm of CE. If not (or if you actively try to mitigate any destabilizing effects resulting from your split), then you probably sit as CN-CG.

    To paraphrase another famous author, the idea of a mutually accepted struggle falls apart as soon as people get caught in the middle. If you aren't able or willing to conscientiously keep the innocents out of harms way when accomplishing your goals, then you will probably step into Evil, because if you screw up and end up making them suffer because of your actions, having been aware that such was a potential consequence, the blood will be on your hands.
    Last edited by Thealtruistorc; 2015-10-07 at 05:39 PM.
    Dark Green, the color of Chaotic Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Altruistorc is leaving me deeply disturbed and intrigued at the same time...

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    As I summed up on page one, how far you are willing to go in your self-determination sums up the difference between being a proponent of freedom and being a hazard to the society around you. Would you be willing to disrupt a power structure and jeopardize those who depend on it? If so (as John Galt's "no matter the struggle" sentiment and even the title "Atlas Shrugged" implies), then I would definitely envision this action as sitting within the realm of CE. If not (or if you actively try to mitigate any destabilizing effects resulting from your split), then you probably sit as CN-CG.
    Except...that's not what he did. He didn't disrupt anything. He simply encouraged those who were being exploited to stop allowing it. He encouraged those who would be enslaved to run away and be free.

    Or do you suggest that the Underground Railroad was a CE organization because, if they could have, they would have taken every last slave out of the South, and that would have caused the immediate collapse of the Southern economy and the starvation of most non-slaves down there?

    Remember: Galt's plan only destroys a society already destroying itself, and then only by giving it exactly what it asked for.

    Chaotic, certainly: valuing individual freedom over laws that would deny it. Evil? Only if you countenance slavery as "good," or at least "acceptable."

    He killed no-one, encouraged no violence, and only allowed a self-destructive philosophy to reach its natural ends. His plan could not have worked - he would not have persuaded so many Atlases to shrug - if the society were not abusing them. Remember that their shrugging cost them all they'd built, too; if their dignity were not worth it to them, they could have held on much longer, prolonging the decline until they were branded criminals and had what was left taken from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thealtruistorc View Post
    To paraphrase another famous author, the idea of a mutually accepted struggle falls apart as soon as people get caught in the middle. If you aren't able or willing to conscientiously keep the innocents out of harms way when accomplishing your goals, then you will probably step into Evil, because if you screw up and end up making them suffer because of your actions, having been aware that such was a potential consequence, the blood will be on your hands.
    So...

    When the orcs raid the village, and start raping, pillaging, and murdering, are you to blame for the death and destruction when you fight back?

    What about when the village elders know the orcs are coming, and make plans to let them have what they want in order to avoid violence. Are you guilty of the slaughter if you fight back against their wishes? What if you COULD have fought back, but chose instead to just leave with all of those who agreed with you that giving the orcs what they wanted was unacceptable?

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Somewhere, beyond the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Two words knock Objectivism out of Chaotic Good right away. Those words: Ragnar Danneskjold

    Anyways, here's what Objectivism sounds like to me, and has since I became aware of it when I was twelve.

    "Rape is fine if I want to rape because your petty morals and talk of consent are nothing but ineffectual hot air against the sheer power of my inherent righteousness, which lets me do whatever I want to whoever I want because I'll just keep ranting at you about how not being allowed to rape people is oppressing rapists."

    It's...kinda like religion for selfish people, really. It's what a certain brand of smugass uses to justify their pre-existing advantages. The philosophy's rotten to the core.

    I probably disappointed someone by stating this opinion, but better you hear it from me than in divorce proceedings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook View Post
    A fair number of people don’t quite grok Chaotic Good, since the idea of thinking for yourself while being a good person is apparently confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by linklele
    Look, a strange boy just popped into my room asking for your soul...
    Avatar by linklele, featuring a strange boy. Full signature is here.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Actually, there's a very strong "respect other people's individual rights" theme.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Somewhere, beyond the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Actually, there's a very strong "respect other people's individual rights" theme.
    I'm still too stuck on Ayn Rand's presentation of rape as heroic to believe that. Heck, Objectivism-as-Written wants the strong rich to have no obstacles in their way. It's a lot like Social Darwinism, in that it's stuff people use to justify being atrocious.
    Last edited by ThinkMinty; 2015-10-08 at 12:47 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook View Post
    A fair number of people don’t quite grok Chaotic Good, since the idea of thinking for yourself while being a good person is apparently confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by linklele
    Look, a strange boy just popped into my room asking for your soul...
    Avatar by linklele, featuring a strange boy. Full signature is here.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    The scene in The Fountainhead didn't really fit with a lot of the later stuff, it is true. TV Tropes YMMV article for it offers a slightly different interpretation.

    Still "no cheating, no fraud, no initiation of violence" gets repeated an awful lot.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2015-10-08 at 01:12 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    Two words knock Objectivism out of Chaotic Good right away. Those words: Ragnar Danneskjold
    Ragnar actually was a Robin Hood figure, if you truly, honestly pay attention to both the Robin Hood story and to what Ragnar is doing.

    Robin Hood didn't "rob from the rich to give to the poor," despite the common tagline. He robbed from the nobility (who taxed the common folk and even lesser nobility to destitution) to return the wealth to those who had originally produced it (said common folk).

    Ragnar Danneskjold stole from government transports which carried goods and wealth taken through excessive taxation (or specialized, targeted taxation), and gave it to those from whom it had been taxed.

    Argument of "need" might be made - Robin Hood's work kept people from starving, while few of Ragnar's beneficiaries were destitute - but that would be a crux of Objectivist thinking: "need" never justifies anything on its own. Your need does not entitle you to another's labor, nor does a lack of need make you less entitled to the fruits of your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    Anyways, here's what Objectivism sounds like to me, and has since I became aware of it when I was twelve.

    "Rape is fine if I want to rape because your petty morals and talk of consent are nothing but ineffectual hot air against the sheer power of my inherent righteousness, which lets me do whatever I want to whoever I want because I'll just keep ranting at you about how not being allowed to rape people is oppressing rapists."
    Um... you clearly didn't actually read and understand it, then. If you mean LITERAL rape, as in sexual assault, Rand portrays that as abominable when it happens. She definitely likes her rough, powerful-people-going-at-it-passionately sex, but the "good" sex in her novels is best epitomized by this line: "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." Her heroines who are "taken" in rough sex actively want it, and her heroes who perform the act with them know it. When her heroes make the mistake of thinking the woman wants it and she doesn't, the woman's disinterest (expressed as passivity) is a turn-off or her refusal (usually expressed forcefully and clearly) causes him to back off.

    Remember: respect of others' life and property are central to Objectivism. One's body is both the vessel of one's life and the most personal of one's property; you do not "take" it without their consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    It's...kinda like religion for selfish people, really. It's what a certain brand of smugass uses to justify their pre-existing advantages. The philosophy's rotten to the core.
    As you seem to understand it? Certainly. But your understanding of it is more in line with the kind of "my need justifies taking what you have because I want it" that Rand's villains embody. You have her philosophy, essentially, exactly backwards.

    The only thing Objectivism says you have a right to is your life and your labor (and the fruits thereof). You can trade labor and its fruits willingly with others who willingly trade back, but you cannot take it by hook or by crook (or by force or threat thereof) and be morally nor ethically justified in Objectivist philosophy.

    It is Rand's villains who blackmail, lie, defraud, cheat, and steal. The closest Rand's heroes come is in dealing with those they KNOW are liars, cheats, and frauds, and allowing the assumptions of those fraudsters to destroy them. (Francisco D'Anconia's copper mines are an interesting example. Pay very close attention to exactly what he did, how he describes it, and whose choices actually caused those who got involved to get hurt.)
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    I probably disappointed someone by stating this opinion, but better you hear it from me than in divorce proceedings.
    I'm...not sure I follow this line. Is it in reference to Rand's rough-sex fetish? Personally, I find little sexy in her sex scenes, regardless of how approving or disapproving the authorial voice is on any particular one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    I'm still too stuck on Ayn Rand's presentation of rape as heroic to believe that. Heck, Objectivism-as-Written wants the strong rich to have no obstacles in their way. It's a lot like Social Darwinism, in that it's stuff people use to justify being atrocious.
    Er, no.

    Rape is not heroic. It is a violation of another's right to life and property. Where rape - the forcing of sex on an unwilling person - actually happens, Rand portrays it as abominable. Her heroes only ever enjoy sex when the heroine isn't merely not saying "no," but is actively participating with full enthusiasm.

    And Objectivism-as-Written wants NOBODY to have externally-imposed obstacles in their way. Her villains didn't just include government agencies imposing restrictions; it also included large corporate interests colluding to exclude competition from their field. The Phoenix Line railroad and the Wyatt Oil fields are a good case study of this. Objectivism advocates the rules - written or unwritten - supporting people's freedom to exchange goods and services as they wish, without external forces coercing them to do so or not to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    The scene in The Fountainhead didn't really fit with a lot of the later stuff, it is true. TV Tropes YMMV article for it offers a slightly different interpretation.

    Still "no cheating, no fraud, no initiation of violence" gets repeated an awful lot.
    Fountainhead is not as good a work as Atlas Shrugged, and is not really an Objectivist piece (despite being written by Rand). It's more a celebration of the individual's creativity and a lambasting of a society Rand viewed as oppressing it. It honestly is a weaker work, philosophically, and is a bit self-contradictory regarding who has rights to what.

    I wouldn't really recommend it to anybody who wants to actually understand Objectivism. To understand Rand's feelings on individualism and heroic drive, sure, but Roark is not an Objectivist so much as just a passionate creator of genius. He has a tendency to philosophically claim as "his" things he sold to others, which is a direct violation of Objectivist principles.

    If the Fountainhead has any real message, it's as an advisory piece about leaving genius freedom to be ingenious, and to avoid assuming that everything is better when done by committee.


    ...and that's really wandering off the topic of Objectivism being CG or CE. To bring it back around, I will re-emphasize that Objectivism is about individuals and their rights to their own lives and property (most particularly an individual's body, mind, and the products of the labor thereof). Any violation of those rights - any effort to take them by force, fraud, or stealth without permission - is abhorrent to Objectivist philosophy. This would tend to include reneging on an agreed-upon exchange after having gotten your pay for it, though rarely does Rand herself provide examples thereof.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Svata's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gainesville, GA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    So you're just gonna ignore the implied "if they can't work, let them starve to death, no, I don't care that they're a four-year-old orphan"?
    Copy this to your signature if you love Jade_Tarem, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    A 20th-level fighter should be able to break rainbows in half with their bare hands and then dual-wield the parts of the rainbow.

    Dual-wield the rainbow. Taste the rainbow.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Svata View Post
    So you're just gonna ignore the implied "if they can't work, let them starve to death, no, I don't care that they're a four-year-old orphan"?
    No, I'm going to reject it as a straw-man, since that is never stated nor even implied. A great deal of disdain is expressed towards those who will not work. Little to nothing is said about those who cannot. One interesting side-effect of teaching people to respect life and others' rights and dignity is that it ironically engenders greater sympathy where it is genuinely deserved. As I've noted in other threads, we tend to cheer for the underdog, the disadvantaged, not because he's succeeding due to having the bar lowered, but because his heroic struggle to overcome his disadvantages makes his successes all the more exciting.

    I don't know how Rand felt about those who were genuinely eternally dependent. I know that I believe that it is up to each of us, individually, to decide what we can and will do to help them. Objectivism says that it is immoral to demand that somebody else give of their substance to help another; while Rand's fear of altruism leads her to comment that one should only give loans as a personal philosophy, her base principles do not support that rule: if it's your substance, you may dispose of it how you like, according to Objectivism. Thus, if you want to help somebody else out with a gift of support...go ahead! Just use your own property and labor to do so. And do not feel OBLIGATED. By all means, if it makes you happy to help, do so. I applaud you for your kind-heartedness.

    It is not kind-heartedness to turn to your neighbor and compel him to help. It is especially hypocritical to then celebrate yourself as the loving giver when you use another's substance.

    This, again, is treated clearly in Atlas Shrugged, when Hank Rearden is giving a generous sum to a "charity" (more Sierra Club-like than, say, Salvation Army-like, though) his brother is in, because he believes it would make his brother happy. His brother ungratefully asks for the money in cash so that his friends don't have to publicly acknowledge their good works were funded by an "evil industrialist" like Hank. They felt they were deserving of the praise for how they spent Hank Rearden's money.

    It gets worse when, instead of Hank willingly giving it and then being snubbed, they turn to force (or threat thereof) by seeking to tax him of it, and still claim they're the generous and big-hearted ones.


    But for those who cannot care for themselves, I expect that a society which truly internalized Objectivism's respect for life would see individuals willingly helping them out. Such is the province first of family, then of increasingly broader community. Tragically, people fall through the cracks of any system implemented by man, but the least harm is done to the least people when there is not a powerful hypocrite able to forcefully take and redistribute and call himself generous for so doing.


    That's the thing that I think most who denigrate Objectivism simply refuse to recognize: at the core of it is a respect for life. This is a recurring theme in all of Rand's works, and contrasts mightily with her villains' obsession with death. Subsumption of the individual to the collective to the point that the individual's life is of no meaning is one of the greatest evils in her moral framework. It reaches its epitome in the expectation that your life's greatest meaning is in how it ends to support the collective. This is abhorrent to Rand, and to Objectivists philosophy in general.

    Don't get me wrong: there are things worth dying for in Objectivist philosophy. But death is not something to court, to herald, to laud. It is an evil inflicted by those who would take away that which is worth dying to keep.



    And if you really, truly believe that Objectivism cannot include generosity, if you believe Rand's heroes are devoid of anything but the most selfish of motives... observe that Hank Rearden WAS blackmailed, not by any shame that would fall upon him, but by shame which would fall upon the woman he loved. He would not countenance this when it was in his power to prevent it...so he allowed himself to be stolen from, his creation taken from him.

    To call Objectivism CE is to either grossly misunderstand or misrepresent it. Objectivism is rooted in a deep respect for others. Respect, not pity. Expectation of competence, not mediocrity. Celebration of life and success, not death and failure. Failure and strife are things to overcome, not to endure and not to hold up as banners of worth. And the Objectivist believes that the greatest good is helping each other realize we can rise above our failures and succeed by the labor of our hands and minds; that the greatest evil is telling each other that we cannot do it, that we are dependent, that we deserve something unearned because we cannot earn it.

    Objectivism is not evil because all of the supposed "evils" of it stem from the cold realities of the world; Objectivism looks at these and asks, "How do we overcome them?" It doesn't ignore them, nor pretend the world and mankind are other than they are; it instead celebrates those aspects of it which make things better, and shapes a society by making the path of least resistance towards natural human drives (success, life, achievement) be those which also most benefit as many as possible. Other philosophies, deemed "kinder" by some, ignore reality and seek to shape societies in unnatural ways, pretending people will go along with the proclaimed good and ignore their natural drives. It punishes those very behaviors which actually lead to greater bounty in the name of fairness, and rewards those very things which diminish bounty in the name of compassion.


    It's like trying to stop optimizers from breaking D&D by banning the Tome of Battle. It's ignoring the real problems and allowing people to run towards those.

    It's like trying to stop currency inflation by banning gold farming. It attempts to stifle the natural human urge to get better things (which the game encourages on the one hand) by simply saying "that way to do it isn't allowed." Rather than trying to exploit that human nature in some way to solve the problem. (But that's getting into game design theory, and what does that have to do with this forum? :P )

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Vhaidara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GMT -5
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Requesting a cessation of this discussion. Or at least move it to another forum. I'm a little surprised the mods haven't stepped in already, but no one wants this thread locked.
    I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.

    Shadeblight by KennyPyro

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Red Fel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Spoiler: How this Objectivism conversation makes me feel...
    Show


    Can't we just have a nice thread about Evil and Chaos?
    My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.

    Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.

    My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Somewhere, beyond the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    ...am I allowed to understand Objectivism while disagreeing with it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook View Post
    A fair number of people don’t quite grok Chaotic Good, since the idea of thinking for yourself while being a good person is apparently confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by linklele
    Look, a strange boy just popped into my room asking for your soul...
    Avatar by linklele, featuring a strange boy. Full signature is here.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Fel View Post
    Spoiler: How this Objectivism conversation makes me feel...
    Show


    Can't we just have a nice thread about Evil and Chaos?
    Sadly, I cannot see that video.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkMinty View Post
    ...am I allowed to understand Objectivism while disagreeing with it?
    Sure! (Heck, if there weren't factual errors in the reasoning behind it being labeled CE by the author here, I'd just agree to disagree.

    It's coming off right now as "The Girl Scouts Of America are evil because they encourage girls to hunt each other down and cook each other into cookies!" level of incorrect, is all.)


    It is perhaps wisest to simply not include Objectivism as an example, for the same reason you wouldn't include Islam or Catholicism or a major American political party.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Orc in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: No Limits, No Regrets: A guide to the Chaotic Evil alignment

    Chaotic Evil is, IMHO, best summed up by Durkula in comic 1007:
    "You are who you are on your very worst day. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain."
    Last edited by jedipilot24; 2015-10-08 at 02:56 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •