Are There Any Chaotic Evil Disney Villains In The Disney Universe?

[Liquor Box]

Yes.

You may have been talking about the 2017 movie, but I think you are the only one. Every script reference and youtube clip posted in the thread has been to the earlier movie.

A.) With that being the only criteria? No. And that's ignoring that Gaston did not believe the Beast was evil.

OK, I'm not that familiar with 5ed, so I'll take you word for it. I don't know why you think Gaston did not believe the Beast to be evil though. That point has been well canvassed in this thread.

The difference is that in the first case, the Beast actually had a right to imprison Maurice. After all, Maurice had broken into his house.

On the contrary, at the time he's kidnapped no one. The two people he kidnapped had both been released by that point. And really, had only been kidnapped for such a short time that Gaston hadn't even noticed they were gone. And neither of them had been taken randomly, one offered and the other was trespassing.

As others have said, Gaston's words contradict themselves, and his actions point to him being a liar and corrupt. There is no reason to take him at his word.

While Maurice did trespass, locking him away for perpetuity seems to have been a grossly disproportionate response. I don't think that is a credible justification for the Beast imprisoning him (or Belle).

Also, if you kidnap someone and the escape or you release them, they were still kidnapped. You could say that they were no longer imprisoned because they had been released, but the Beast had still imprisoned them for a period (perhaps short).

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Show

What's missing in Gaston's case is any clear indication of self-awareness, remorse, the desire to make amends, or a situational where his newly found morality is applied in a non-self-serving way.

I love a good redemption story. One of my favorite semi-obscure comics was Human Target, about an assassin who reforms and becomes a highly capable bodyguard. I find his redemption arc believable--unlike Gaston's--largely because of those elements.

Self-awareness:
Chance, the hero of Human Target, was essentially raised by assassins, who made killing seem normalized. As he gained exposure to the rest of the world, and especially after he reformed, he never denied that what used to be normal for him was morally wrong. Instead of using his upbringing (without which, he arguably never would have become a cold-blooded killer) to somehow justify or excuse his past actions, he never tries to deny that his past acts were evil.

In contrast, Gaston is the poster child for lack of self-awareness.

Remorse:
Chance clearly feels remorse. He's encountered the damage left by his past sins on a few occasions, and it clearly haunts him. The whole reason he turned was because he fell in love with one of his targets--until that point, he tried really hard to be willfully blind to the fact that his targets were people, with hopes and dreams, who loved others and were loved in return. Without this event shattering his wall of denial, he never would have reformed--and even if he did, I would find it hard to think he was sincere.

Meanwhile, Gaston doesn't say or do anything that indicate any sort of internal moral conflict or regret.

Amends:
Chance's entire life becomes about saving lives to make up for the ones he took, knowing that no matter how many he saved he could never truly balance the scales. On top of that, he often tries (with little success) to reform other assassins who were once like him.

Meanwhile, Gaston does nothing to address his evil acts. Even if--for the sake of argument--we assume that Gaston had pure motives for locking Maurice up, the minute he saw the Beast in the mirror, he knew Maurice wasn't crazy. So did he immediately run to have him freed? No. Did he, at the very least, say "Oh my God, I've locked up an innocent man!" Nope. Instead, he immediately moves on to Plan B for getting Belle.

Selfless Change in Morality:
Chance becomes an elite bodyguard who does his job by inserting himself into the target's life (even impersonating him sometimes) to draw the assassin out. It's very dangerous work. Also, because he doesn't believe that wealth should determine whether you deserve to live, he charges a straight-up percentage of your wealth for his services--and he takes on enough poor or working class clients that he's not exactly getting rich off his calling. In contrast, if Chance had never decided that "murder is wrong," and stayed in his old job, he'd be much safer and wealthier. Heck, if he decided on a more neutral stance, and decided to be an elite bodyguard to the rich, he'd also be wealthier. Instead, his newly realigned moral compass extracts a real personal cost, rather than benefiting him.

In contrast, as I've already discussed, Gaston's alleged "change of heart" is entirely self-serving. Condemning the Beasts as evil serves to rally his lynch mob, and gives him moral cover for eliminating a romantic rival. If he had really reached some sort of moral epiphany, it would also apply to reexamining his own actions, no matter how inconvenient they may be.

If the writers had intended a Gaston redemption arc, it would have taken no more than 30 seconds to add a brief scene where he frees Maurice and apologizes, maybe turns out the asylum guard who took the bribe, and offers to surrender himself for trial after the "threat" of the Beast is dealt with. Or they could have peppered varying existing scenes with subtle hints about his internal conflictedness. Such elements are conspicuously absent

.

Are you still addressing the question we had been discussing of whether it is evil to appear to give up in a fight, and then if given respite take advantage of that to attack again? Or is this a more general 'Gaston is evil' post. You were replying to our discussion of the first, but the content seems to go to the second.

On the second, I agree. Gaston never had a redemption arc for imprisoning Maurice. When the conversation started I misremembered the film and thought Gaston had locked Maurice up because he thought him crazy. I have been enlightened on that point. It is reasonable (although perhaps not inevitable) to conclude that Gaston was evil.

Where I continue to disagree with others is on side arguments which sprang up:
- If we apply the same standards to the Beast's imprisonment of Maurice/Belle to get Belle to love him as we do to Gaston's imprisonment of Maurice to get Belle to marry him, whether the Beast's act fares any better than Gaston's. [Peelee disclaimer]
- Whether Gaston was justified in his crusade to the Beast's castle (which often boils down to discerning his motive).
- Whether Gaston proved himself evil be attacking the Beast after appearing to be beaten (what you and I had been discussing).

There is another side argument, which i have not been part of, concerning whether the young Beast was justified in turning away his guest and whether his failure to do so warranted his curse. I think he was justified, and the curse was not warranted.

[Peelee]

OK, I'm not that familiar with 5ed, so I'll take you word for it. I don't know why you think Gaston did not believe the Beast to be evil though. That point has been well canvassed in this thread.

Also true of 3.5, if you're more familiar with that.

Also, Gaston openly disbelieved the Beast to be Evil, through his own words. If you choose not to believe Gaston himself, then there's nothing I can really say to change your mind.

[Liquor Box]

Also true of 3.5, if you're more familiar with that.

Thank you, I am more familiar with that system. But I think you are mistaken.

"[A lawful good character] combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

So in a very brief description 'opposing evil' is listed as one of the few things required to be lawful good.

In case you think that the opposition to evil comes from the lawfulness part of the alignment instead of the good part, the Book of Exalted Deeds' description of the chaotic good says "Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it is evil". It also refers to good fighting evil in various other places (although there is a section saying that redeeming evil is even better than fighting it).

Also, Gaston openly disbelieved the Beast to be Evil, through his own words. If you choose not to believe Gaston himself, then there's nothing I can really say to change your mind.

Oh? Where did he say he thought the Beast was not evil? I remember him saying it would kill the villager's children, but not that it was not evil.

[Xyril]

Further evidence that Gaston doesn't really think the Beast is dangerous are his facial expressions in 0:10 to 0:20 in this clip, which I think pretty clearly depict his satisfaction at seeing the peasants begin to buy in to his false narrative. It's classic propaganda technique: sow fear, let the fear simmer a little, then present yourself as the solution.

He'd have to be twirling his moustache to be less subtle. Which, technically, someone could argue is also an ambiguous gesture.

Are you still addressing the question we had been discussing of whether it is evil to appear to give up in a fight, and then if given respite take advantage of that to attack again? Or is this a more general 'Gaston is evil' post. You were replying to our discussion of the first, but the content seems to go to the second.

I don't understand your confusion. I was addressing this specific argument, which I quoted prior to my reply.

There are heaps of examples in media where someone carried out some naughty action, and redeemed themself by turning and stopping others from doing similar sorts of naughtiness. There are examples in real life too (although maybe not within such a short timeframe).

You seemed to be confused about the distinction between redemption and hypocrisy. I was pointing that--in my eyes, the primary distinction is whether there was a sincere change in his moral viewpoint, or whether the person/character only (allegedly) changed his moral outlook as a matter of convenience. Because this is entirely internal, I gave an example that (I hoped) would illustrate how certain actions are used in fiction to imply the requisite state of mind for true redemption. This, in turn, strongly colors how I evaluate someone.

Beyond what I previously stated, there are other indicators that are not definitive, but tend to be evidence one way or another. For example, permanence of the shift in moral code: If someone keeps changing his mind about whether he condemns or condones kidnapping and extortion, repeatedly, over a short time span, I lean towards judging that as hypocrisy. If the periods where he condones those actions happen to coincide with times he engages in them, like Gaston...

Where I continue to disagree with others is on side arguments which sprang up:
- If we apply the same standards to the Beast's imprisonment of Maurice/Belle to get Belle to love him as we do to Gaston's imprisonment of Maurice to get Belle to marry him, whether the Beast's act fares any better than Gaston's. [Peelee disclaimer]

I didn't address this previously because you seemed to be conflating Beast/Gaston as a whole vs. Beast/Gaston for that particular act, and it was already too confusing for me to keep track.

In case it helps resolve anything for you, my view is that considering only the captivities (and the immediately precipitating context) in isolation, but not the characters' moral arcs as a whole, they're more or less a wash. Beast capturing Maurice leans towards being less evil because it was tenuously provoked/justified by Maurice's real transgressions. In contrast, Gaston didn't even have a fig leaf of sincere justification for what he did to Maurice. On the other hand, Beast gets a nudge towards more evil due to his disproportionate punishment, and the fact that in absolute terms his harm was arguably worse. He was more clearly willing to let Maurice serve a life sentence in that cell. In contrast, Gaston's endgame (if Belle never relented) is less explicitly clear. Ultimately, I think a reasonable person could come down either way for which act was more evil, depending on how they balance these particular motives and these particular levels of harm.

However, in your comments on this issue, you kept mixing in your arguments about those particular acts with a comparison of their morality as a whole. In that respect, I think Gaston compares less favorably.

- Whether Gaston proved himself evil be attacking the Beast after appearing to be beaten (what you and I had been discussing).

This is roughly true, but inaccurate with respect to the nuances of what I am saying. These are my assertions.
1) In most contexts, repaying mercy by immediately taking advantage of the vulnerable position your opponent put himself in by showing mercy is an evil act.
2) Independent of the morality of it, such an act is considered so vile and reprehensible by most people that it's become a bit of a trope or narrative shorthand. It's almost never used as just random flavor in the story of a pure hero--instead, creators will have their heroes do such a thing only when they want to make a deliberate point about their character or morality in general.
3) Gaston was telegraphing Evil more and more throughout the movies. Trying to kill Beast that last time did not, as an isolated act, make Gaston irredeemably evil. However, to me it was one of the acts that removed any shred of ambiguity regarding his character.

As I already stated, there are certainly situations where the hero can repay mercy with treachery and not be irredeemably evil. However, in a storytelling context, this almost never happens except in instances where it is deliberately used to provoke a specific reaction or debate. And if the author wants his audience to believe that the hero is still a Good guy at the end of the day, he'll generally set up a bunch of context so that, after that initial disapproval, everyone is forced to concede that the action might have been unavoidable, or that Good heroes can still do Evil things, or whatever the author's goal is.

Edit: Also, I realized that unlike what I had previously said, in (I think) thelive action movie Gaston explicitly surrendered and begged for his life. So any ambiguity one might argue on that point is pretty much gone.

GASTON: Put me down. Put me down. Please, don't hurt me! I'll do
anything! Anything!

[paddyfool]

One place in Disney's stables where there's a surprising lack of CE, rather than LE or NE antagonists is the MCU. Loki is pretty much all I can point at, and some would quibble that entry, given his strong motivation to rule over others. Maybe some of the lesser antagonists, such as the guy who takes over the Ravagers in GOTG2. Or the CN-leaning-CE antagonist that's the Russian scientist in Iron Man 2, I guess... EDIT: ok, Killmonger as well, as mentioned before. And the Vulture, possibly.

EDIT: otherwise those I can recall I'd peg at
Iron Man 1 guy: LE
Red Skull: LE
Hydra: LE
Malekith: LE
Chitari: ??
Hammer: NE
Yellow jacket: NE
Ronin LE
Ultron: NE
Ego: NE
Hel: LE
Thanos: NE leaning LE
Mysterio: [not sure, haven't finished the movie]

[The Glyphstone]

Vulture is LE. He makes deals - with his enemies - and keeps to them even when it puts him in potential danger, and he preferred crimes that didn't directly hurt people. Actually, considering his motives alongside that he could possibly be a LN villain entirely.

[Kitten Champion]

Vulture is LE. He makes deals - with his enemies - and keeps to them even when it puts him in potential danger, and he preferred crimes that didn't directly hurt people. Actually, considering his motives alongside that he could possibly be a LN villain entirely.

Yeah, a Chaotic Evil villain would never keep his enemies' secret out of an unspoken sense of moral obligation. He's also a villain who isn't chiefly interested in harming anyone. That still happens of course, and is largely why he's Evil at the end of the day, but it's not his goal or preference.

I would say he's equivalent to the stereotypical fantasy Thieves Guild ringleader, in that he's not traditional organized crime nor the top-down crime of corrupt nobility but a commoner group of skilled thieves with a chip on their shoulder against the elite of the world.

If we're including MCU villains, I think Malekith qualifies as Chaotic Evil. Not in his behaviour, certainly, but aiming for the literal annihilation of the universe is nihilistic to the point where I don't think that matters. No villain or villainous group in the MCU could conceivably share such a goal, it's beyond the pale.

The other two I can think of are Mister Hyde from Agents of SHIELD and Abomination from The Incredible Hulk -- which isn't technically Disney but whatever. Hyde does have a character arc where he gets some degree of pathos and redemption but he's very much a violent berserker-type character and Abomination is the Hulk but purely villainous by the conclusion of the movie.

[Forum Explorer]

While Maurice did trespass, locking him away for perpetuity seems to have been a grossly disproportionate response. I don't think that is a credible justification for the Beast imprisoning him (or Belle).

Also, if you kidnap someone and the escape or you release them, they were still kidnapped. You could say that they were no longer imprisoned because they had been released, but the Beast had still imprisoned them for a period (perhaps short).

I would agree that it's a disproportionate response, but it's more that it isn't a random response. Maurice wasn't walking down the street, minding his own business, he went directly into the Beast's domain, wronged him, and that's why Maurice was 'kidnapped'.

That's not the point though. The question is, 'is the Beast a threat?' And while sure, being kidnapped isn't good, it certainly isn't dangerous. And looking at the Beast's record, odds are that you'd be released after a relatively short period of time, and you'd only be kidnapped in the first place if you willingly put yourself into his power by entering his home.

Creating a lynch mob to murder the Beast is a disproportionate response to his crimes, and cannot be honestly said to happen because he was a threat.

One place in Disney's stables where there's a surprising lack of CE, rather than LE or NE antagonists is the MCU. Loki is pretty much all I can point at, and some would quibble that entry, given his strong motivation to rule over others. Maybe some of the lesser antagonists, such as the guy who takes over the Ravagers in GOTG2. Or the CN-leaning-CE antagonist that's the Russian scientist in Iron Man 2, I guess... EDIT: ok, Killmonger as well, as mentioned before. And the Vulture, possibly.

EDIT: otherwise those I can recall I'd peg at
Iron Man 1 guy: LE
Red Skull: LE
Hydra: LE
Malekith: LE
Chitari: ??
Hammer: NE
Yellow jacket: NE
Ronin LE
Ultron: NE
Ego: NE
Hel: LE
Thanos: NE leaning LE
Mysterio: [not sure, haven't finished the movie]

I'd argue that Ultron is CE. His grand plan was to kill basically everyone. And he seems to be highly emotional and relatively unstable to boot.

[hamishspence]

On the CE animated villains front, Tamatoa seems like a good candidate.

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tamatoa

Tamatoa is unpredictable and possibly insane. His mood tends to shift at the drop of a hat, going from cheeky and comedic, to murderous and menacing in a mere matter of seconds.

[Sholos]

Although Good people fight evil, that doesn't mean that coming into conflict with evil people makes you good.
"If you are good, then you fight evil," does not equate to, "If you fight evil, then you are good." Evil people can have their own reasons for fighting other evil people.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I'd actually peg Vulture as Chaotic Evil, leaning CN. His whole thing is essentially rebelling against the laws that abandoned him, and he remains devoted to not killing or even hurting anyone (other than corporations) throughout the movie, only making an exception for the hero who keeps getting in his way (and even then, he leaves Spidey alive under the rubble rather than finishing him off). I think he still crosses the line into Evil, though, because the devices he uses and sells are truly dangerous, even to innocent bystanders that happen to be nearby.

It's still a relatively light shade of evil, especially compared to most of the other MCU villains. Honestly, I really like what they did with his character.

[Ravens_cry]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

[Xyril]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

I think it's arguably ambiguous as written. Like I previously argued, I think you can be lawful while trying to exploit or subvert existing laws or institutions, so long as you have some new order you serve and/or want to have supplant the old. You make a pretty good argument for EC (and the fact that he any dedication to "gentlemanly" crime is just a pretext), but I think the movie was ambiguous enough to read it the other way too. I might be biased though since he's a Moriarty expy, and he's always felt more EL to me.

[Forum Explorer]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

Nah, still LE in my books. Incredibly Evil, and I'd say he isn't inherently lawful, rather being orderly is more an ideal he aims to, but just because he goes berserk doesn't mean he's not trying to be Lawful. He doesn't murder his men randomly, they have to break a rule first. He does honor his deal with the toymaker with no apparent intent to break it. And his plan was to rule over Mousedom as a tyrant. His laws may be unfair, but if you could follow them, he wouldn't punish you.

[Sholos]

The only "law" that Ratigan respects is "don't get in my way". You could maybe make an argument for Neutral Evil, but considering his operation is a literal coup amd his only loyalty is to himself, I'm gonna go with Chaotic.

[The Glyphstone]

Ursula seems Lawful or neutral to me. Engages in bargains, wants to be Queen, embraces hierarchy. I think she is Evil, and just lawful.

Facilier's name is a pun on facilitate, he's like an evil genie who gets his in the end. I would put him at very Lawful.

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

Facilier, yeah, seems very Lawful. His Friends On The Other Side have a definite Chaotic vibe to them, but the man himself plays by his rules.

Now, how about McLeach from Rescuers Down Under? He's a poacher - by definition, breaking the law - and perfectly willing to murder a small child by feeding him to crocodiles while laughing hysterically. The Evil is without question, but is his behavior Chaotic enough to qualify and drop him below Neutral?

[Razade]

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

So do the Baatezu and they're the exemplars of Lawful Evil.

[Forum Explorer]

The only "law" that Ratigan respects is "don't get in my way". You could maybe make an argument for Neutral Evil, but considering his operation is a literal coup amd his only loyalty is to himself, I'm gonna go with Chaotic.

Sure, because he's evil. Most LE villains break the law in one regard or another. And most villains are ultimately only loyal to themselves. Because they are evil and caring about others is typically a good quality.

His end goal was to rule, his coup exploited the law rather than overthrew everything with force, and he never randomly killed or attacked anyone. That all screams lawful to me.

[Tvtyrant]

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

Facilier, yeah, seems very Lawful. His Friends On The Other Side have a definite Chaotic vibe to them, but the man himself plays by his rules.

Now, how about McLeach from Rescuers Down Under? He's a poacher - by definition, breaking the law - and perfectly willing to murder a small child by feeding him to crocodiles while laughing hysterically. The Evil is without question, but is his behavior Chaotic enough to qualify and drop him below Neutral?

That feels like a "letter of the deal" statement to me. Like in Wheel of Time when Mat wishes to go back to reality but doesn't cover "safely" so they hang him by a noose so he is just barely alive when he gets back. If you don't ensure the contract covers the other party sabotaging your efforts, you messed up. Like Hades sending the "titan" after Hercules in the movie, Hercules was the one dumb enough not to write in a "don't murder me" proviso.

Oh that's interesting. Why is he a poacher? If it is for money than probably neutral (accepts implicit assumption of societal definition of value) but if it is because he likes to kill rare animals than chaotic (deliberate rejection of value of life.)

[The Glyphstone]

IIRC, McLeach poached for profit, he sells rare animal hides/taxidermied bodies to collectors. Getting to kill animals in the process is just a bonus for his sadism.

[Tvtyrant]

IIRC, McLeach poached for profit, he sells rare animal hides/taxidermied bodies to collectors. Getting to kill animals in the process is just a bonus for his sadism.

That suggests neutral evil to me. Money is a social construct based on allocation of resources, I can't fathom a chaotic character embracing it.

[Sholos]

Sure, because he's evil. Most LE villains break the law in one regard or another. And most villains are ultimately only loyal to themselves. Because they are evil and caring about others is typically a good quality.

His end goal was to rule, his coup exploited the law rather than overthrew everything with force, and he never randomly killed or attacked anyone. That all screams lawful to me.

He kidnapped the Queen. He didn't exploit a loophole in the law, he replaced the Queen with an imposter and illegally declared himself king. And villains can be loyal to a system or higher power. Like an order of knights devoted to furthering an evil agenda. One of the parts of being Lawful is believing in an order imposed from an outward source.

That suggests neutral evil to me. Money is a social construct based on allocation of resources, I can't fathom a chaotic character embracing it.

Nothing about being chaotic means you don't want money. After all, many thieves have an explicit goal of taking money through chaotic means.

[Tvtyrant]

Nothing about being chaotic means you don't want money. After all, many thieves have an explicit goal of taking money through chaotic means.

Hard disagree. Stealing money isn't chaotic, it's neutral. It's the use of chaotic means to cheat your way up a lawful hierarchy. The Wire has a scene where Omar decides to rob a store for breakfast instead of paying them with stolen money because it irritates him that he is complying with any social standards, that's chaotic IMO. Belkar doesn't obsess over money, he takes what he wants unless it is more convenient to do otherwise.

Imagine if we switched money for rigging the mayoral election in Hobbit Town. Rigging the election is chaotic, but we are using and enforcing existing power structures to do so.

[Pex]

The Siamese Cats from Lady and the Tramp?

[Forum Explorer]

He kidnapped the Queen. He didn't exploit a loophole in the law, he replaced the Queen with an imposter and illegally declared himself king. And villains can be loyal to a system or higher power. Like an order of knights devoted to furthering an evil agenda. One of the parts of being Lawful is believing in an order imposed from an outward source.

Sure. The loophole was that the queen can declare whatever law she wants. Control the queen (by replacing her with an imposter) and you are basically king.

Yes, but those are more rare.

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

[Sholos]

Hard disagree. Stealing money isn't chaotic, it's neutral. It's the use of chaotic means to cheat your way up a lawful hierarchy. The Wire has a scene where Omar decides to rob a store for breakfast instead of paying them with stolen money because it irritates him that he is complying with any social standards, that's chaotic IMO. Belkar doesn't obsess over money, he takes what he wants unless it is more convenient to do otherwise.

Imagine if we switched money for rigging the mayoral election in Hobbit Town. Rigging the election is chaotic, but we are using and enforcing existing power structures to do so.

So in your opinion, any character that deals with money in any way is by definition not chaotic?

Your example of Belkar is demonstrably wrong. He likes money and wealth and uses them to afford creature comforts, like food and prostitutes. Are you arguing that he is not Chaotic?

And if you are digging an election, you are again breaking the rules.

Sure. The loophole was that the queen can declare whatever law she wants. Control the queen (by replacing her with an imposter) and you are basically king.

No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.

Yes, but those are more rare.

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

[Xyril]

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

To me, to be really lawful your need to impose order needs to go beyond a desire to command direct, personal obedience from those in your orbit. The Empire as it shifted from the original trilogy to the post-trilogy Legends continuity illustrates this: Palpatine and his Empire struck me as more lawful because the emperor didn't simply command blind compliance to himself and his lieutenants. Instead, he built of a system that kept his domain largely working in concert, and nominally serving some doctrinal orthodoxy. Even when he personally broke with his stated ideology (putting aliens into power, pitting Vader against Tarkin), he was usually circumspect enough not to subvert that ideology and the unifying effect it had.

In contrast, the Legends continuity Empire post-Endor (the X-wing series, Zahn's Thrawn trilogy, etc) often swung hard into EC territory. The people who tried to continue or reunite the Empire were often warlords who tried to consolidate their own power by getting the nominal loyalty of other Imperial successor warlords, but (perhaps by necessity) they didn't seem to have any ideological goals beyond the loyalty. Whereas Palpatine expected his governors to play nice with each other (beyond the usual political maneuvering), many new Imperial warlords didn't seem to care that their subordinates consorted with pirates or open made war on one another, so long as the winners fell in line.

Great Mouse Detective was a bit thin on this particular motive. In most incarnations, Moriarty seems to genuinely believe that a more gentlemanly and ordered criminal underworld would be better for everyone--beyond the fact that it would benefit him to be at the top. For Ratigan, I don't think we really see enough to be sure either way.

[Tvtyrant]

So in your opinion, any character that deals with money in any way is by definition not chaotic?

Your example of Belkar is demonstrably wrong. He likes money and wealth and uses them to afford creature comforts, like food and prostitutes. Are you arguing that he is not Chaotic?

And if you are digging an election, you are again breaking the rules.



No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.



So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

No, if your goal is money you are accepting the underlying structure of society. Belkar doesn't go out looking to get rich, he goes out to get partied. He gets it via whatever means are available.
The thieves guild are a neutral organization, as would be stealing the Hobbit election. You are using a chaotic means to acquire hierarchical power.

Chaotic implies a disregard or antipathy for power structures, lawful is concerned with their legitimacy, neutral is basically everyone else.

Edit: Another way of looking at it is we have a bad monarch. The chaotic person ignores his rulings because he doesn't care about the will of any monarch, the neutral person ignores his rulings because he is a bad monarch, the lawful person ignores his ruling because he is an illegitimate monarch. Carrot in Diskworld for instance is a good person and a legitimate king, the Patrician is an evil and illegitimate but effective ruler. Which reason a person would side with one or the other is what defines the alignments.

[Forum Explorer]

No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.



So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

Replace the imposter with a hypno-ray. Is there really any difference in the methology and morals of Ratigen in that case?


One or two lawful traits won't make a Chaotic character lawful and vice versa. I would argue that large scale plots and organizations are inherently lawful. Like an army. If an army isn't lawful, it isn't an actual army, but a horde.

[dancrilis]

Thinking about it the witch who curses the beast in Beauty and the Beast likely counts.

This is a woman who shows up at a house unannounced and in disguise and when told to leave curses every member of the household trapping the master of the house (who is a child) in the form of a monster and the rest in the form of furniture until some arbitrary goal is meet which none of the victims have any real control over except to attempt to stockholm syndrome some unfortunate.