Chaotic Evil. What's wrong with it?

[Zed Duke of Banville]

About post #64, if you disagree—what with, and how so? There are two observations and one question in that post.

Alignments in the two-axis nine-alignment system should not be treated as nine separate ethos but instead as the combination of good/evil with lawful/chaotic. However, this leaves the question of just what constitutes "lawful" and "chaotic" behavior, which was never as clear in AD&D as it should have been.

In original D&D, with a single-axis alignment system, lawful more or less equated to good while chaotic more or less equated to evil. Gygax then created a two-axis alignment system where the lawful/chaotic axis was intended to be orthogonal to the good/evil axis. However, he did not clearly define lawful and chaotic as coherent concepts similar in importance to good and evil; instead, lawful and chaotic were a mixture of concepts that did not necessarily mesh well and were not necessarily important in the fantasy setting. The traits embodied by Law & Chaos:

• Determinism/predictability versus randomness/caprice
• Collective/group versus individual/independence
• Artificial/civilization versus natural/nature
• Hierarchy/regimentation versus freedom/volition
• Reliable/proper versus unruly/eccentric
• Laws/order versus anarchy/entropy
• Strict/regularity versus flexible/persuasion

This is based on the "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in D&D" in the Strategic Review #6 (1976), the AD&D 1st edition Players Handbook (1978), and the AD&D 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide (1979), all written by Gary Gygax. Later writers might have expanded the meaning of lawful and chaotic alignments even further, rendering the situation even more muddled.

 

[NecroLord]

About post #64, if you disagree—what with, and how so? There are two observations and one question in that post.

Alignments in the two-axis nine-alignment system should not be treated as nine separate ethos but instead as the combination of good/evil with lawful/chaotic. However, this leaves the question of just what constitutes "lawful" and "chaotic" behavior, which was never as clear in AD&D as it should have been.

In original D&D, with a single-axis alignment system, lawful more or less equated to good while chaotic more or less equated to evil. Gygax then created a two-axis alignment system where the lawful/chaotic axis was intended to be orthogonal to the good/evil axis. However, he did not clearly define lawful and chaotic as coherent concepts similar in importance to good and evil; instead, lawful and chaotic were a mixture of concepts that did not necessarily mesh well and were not necessarily important in the fantasy setting. The traits embodied by Law & Chaos:

• Determinism/predictability versus randomness/caprice
• Collective/group versus individual/independence
• Artificial/civilization versus natural/nature
• Hierarchy/regimentation versus freedom/volition
• Reliable/proper versus unruly/eccentric
• Laws/order versus anarchy/entropy
• Strict/regularity versus flexible/persuasion

This is based on the "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in D&D" in the Strategic Review #6 (1976), the AD&D 1st edition Players Handbook (1978), and the AD&D 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide (1979), all written by Gary Gygax. Later writers might have expanded the meaning of lawful and chaotic alignments even further, rendering the situation even more muddled.

Man, you are a veritable D&D encyclopedia.
I think Gygax said that chaotic evil or neutral evil have "qualities" that would make them unplayable by players. Brutal, cold, ruthless? Why would a player want to play such a character? Playing evil characters is not easy, but it can be done by experienced and mature players without going full lolrandom retard

 

[Norfleet]

Having an evil character in your party can only really be done if your players are in the know and willing to take on a character that is, at some point, going to be load. An example of this is in that stick figure comic. The evil guy is frequently load and functions against the interests of the party, with only extensive character development beginning to mitigate these tendencies. Your playergroup has to be willing to put up with this sort of thing: CN/CE/NE characters, especially the Chaotics, need to be prodded to keep them aligned with the party's wider interests, and you can expect a game with some level of intra-party friction. If your players don't want to play this kind of game, such characters will be a disruptive influence on the game.

 

[somerandomdude]

Having an evil character in your party can only really be done if your players are in the know and willing to take on a character that is, at some point, going to be load. An example of this is in that stick figure comic. The evil guy is frequently load and functions against the interests of the party, with only extensive character development beginning to mitigate these tendencies. Your playergroup has to be willing to put up with this sort of thing: CN/CE/NE characters, especially the Chaotics, need to be prodded to keep them aligned with the party's wider interests, and you can expect a game with some level of intra-party friction. If your players don't want to play this kind of game, such characters will be a disruptive influence on the game.

Chaotic alignments are better suited for solo play, IMO. Lawful evil is easy enough to work in a party. An alignment like lawful evil could be extremely deceptive, and could be cunning enough to gain your trust just to betray you at a later date. Chaotic evil might kill you in your sleep, but lawful evil would incorporate you as a pawn in their scheme.

 

[Norfleet]

Chaotic alignments are better suited for solo play, IMO.

Certainly alignment is far less relevant a single-player scenario, as the DM can form the campaign to accomodate anything, which is easy when there's only one player so everyone's on the same page. Doing a campaign based purely around being a marauding orc or other villain is totally fine. By the very nature of the alignment, though, Chaotic Neutrals and Evils are not great team players, so you immediately have to ask yourself why, in a team-based game, a player would willfully design a character that is explicitly not a team player. Someone who does this is probably a troublemaker.

Lawful evil is easy enough to work in a party. An alignment like lawful evil could be extremely deceptive, and could be cunning enough to gain your trust just to betray you at a later date.

Or not at all, really. Lawfuls fundamentally have hooks that make their behaviors predictable and controllable. It's easy enough to structure a Lawful Evil character into an otherwise mostly-good party, and this forms an effective bad cop in your good cop dynamic.

 

[somerandomdude]

Certainly alignment is far less relevant a single-player scenario, as the DM can form the campaign to accomodate anything, which is easy when there's only one player so everyone's on the same page. Doing a campaign based purely around being a marauding orc or other villain is totally fine. By the very nature of the alignment, though, Chaotic Neutrals and Evils are not great team players, so you immediately have to ask yourself why, in a team-based game, a player would willfully design a character that is explicitly not a team player. Someone who does this is probably a troublemaker.

I mostly agree. For alignments like these to work, there would have to be interesting inter party dialogue and choices, and I don't believe anyone has successfully done this yet.

Or not at all, really. Lawfuls fundamentally have hooks that make their behaviors predictable and controllable. It's easy enough to structure a Lawful Evil character into an otherwise mostly-good party, and this forms an effective bad cop in your good cop dynamic.

It's predictable that lawful evil would infiltrate organizations, governments and churches for entirely self serving reasons, and throw terms out like rules based order to justify their actions. Lawful evil in a group has the potential for creating interesting plot twists. Good cop/bad cop is more of a play between chaotic and lawful good, IMO. Chaotic good could be in favor of vigilante justice, or executing a filthy criminal on the spot vs making theater out of it.

 

[Aghoric Visions]

Chaotic Evil: When being a murder hobo goes too far.

 

[Fedora Master]

Being chaotic involves a certain level of impulsiveness that is at odds with intelligence, so someone who is Chaotic Evil probably isn't the sharpest tool in the shed: He will slip up sooner or later, stabbing someone in a fit of pique or something.

True. However, a medieval fantasy setting allows for plenty of room for these people to do as they please. The classic barbarian "might makes right" society, criminal organisations, "that one tavern in the shitty part of town" etc

 

[NecroLord]

True. However, a medieval fantasy setting allows for plenty of room for these people to do as they please. The classic barbarian "might makes right" society, criminal organisations, "that one tavern in the shitty part of town" etc

A chieftain also needed a shaman or a spiritual advisor, someone he could call his right hand man.
Honestly, many of these primitive societies were pretty sophisticated if one looks more closely. The chieftain also needed the support of his people, he couldn't just force their cooperation through fear and might alone. Fear only works up to a certain point, many of history's tyrants and dictators forgot this lesson.

 

[Silva]

Alignments is a retardo concept taken from retardo religion used by retardo gamers.

 

[NecroLord]

Alignments is a retardo concept taken from retardo religion used by retardo gamers.

Ok nigger.

 

[Norfleet]

Honestly, many of these primitive societies were pretty sophisticated if one looks more closely.

Tribal societies tend to be strongly tradition- and honor-based, with fairly advanced divisions of power and authority, yes. They are by no means Chaotic. If anything, modern societies are actually more Chaotic than tribal ones, as this sort of behavior can really only exist in an environment where individuals have ceased to matter. You can only pursue your own weird personal goals if you have no actual specific function and nobody cares if you even exist.

 

[somerandomdude]

The more developed and sophisticated societies get, the harder it becomes for individuals to pursue their own interests and freedoms. Systems, governments, authorities tent to constantly pile on an increasing amount of laws, rules, regulations and taxes as time goes on. The USA is case and point. This is why someone like me would have been far better suited as being a Viking raider taking a dump on the British isles between 800-1000AD. Or during the early colonial period of North America where I could just homestead my own chunk of land and do what I want with little to no oversight.

Modern society is for weak, gay, retards.

 

[somerandomdude]

When I picture Chaotic Evil, the sort of individual who comes to mind is someone like (((Ira Isaacs))). Scum who pushed scat and bestiality porn.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-sentenced-years-federal-obscenity-case.html

He even looks evil, he's the fitting image of satan in human form.

 

[Norfleet]

The more developed and sophisticated societies get, the harder it becomes for individuals to pursue their own interests and freedoms. Systems, governments, authorities tent to constantly pile on an increasing amount of laws, rules, regulations and taxes as time goes on. The USA is case and point. This is why someone like me would have been far better suited as being a Viking raider taking a dump on the British isles between 800-1000AD. Or during the early colonial period of North America where I could just homestead my own chunk of land and do what I want with little to no oversight.

You neatly illustrate why the curve on this is a hump. When you're living in a tribe of just a hundred people, your role in this society is very neatly described and you have very few options for pursuing your own interests as you are probably mission-critical for the tribe's survival. When you're stuck in a hidebound society of bureaucracy, rules, and regulations, and everything belongs to somebody, you can't do shit, either. Somewhere in the middle lies the freedom to get on a boat or wagon and sod off into parts unknown.

When I picture Chaotic Evil, the sort of individual who comes to mind is someone like (((Ira Isaacs))). Scum who pushed scat and bestiality porn.

Sure, this is disgusting, but is it evil? Has he actually harmed anyone by doing it? Seems more neutral.

 

[NecroLord]

The more developed and sophisticated societies get, the harder it becomes for individuals to pursue their own interests and freedoms. Systems, governments, authorities tent to constantly pile on an increasing amount of laws, rules, regulations and taxes as time goes on. The USA is case and point. This is why someone like me would have been far better suited as being a Viking raider taking a dump on the British isles between 800-1000AD. Or during the early colonial period of North America where I could just homestead my own chunk of land and do what I want with little to no oversight.

Modern society is for weak, gay, retards.

No arguments here.
Democracies seem to tend to spiral into retarded autocratic states.
At best you get a nanny state, where governments tell you what to eat and what not. Still pretty fucked up.
At worst you get a full tyranny of the masses or dictatorship.

 

[somerandomdude]

No arguments here.
Democracies seem to tend to spiral into retarded autocratic states.
At best you get a nanny state, where governments tell you what to eat and what not. Still pretty fucked up.
At worst you get a full tyranny of the masses or dictatorship.

Chaotic could still support common sense rules in a tribe or society, and even (mostly) comply with them. They might even be an integral participant in the discussions about the said rules. The USA was originally founded in order to provide freedom from tyranny, so the founding fathers had a chaotic streak in them, just not chaotic to the point of being irrational.

Modern society appears to be Lawful Evil to me. For example, laws are passed to make it illegal to criticize them, and the ones in power use their authority and positions to go after their critics. Therefore, this is an example where both Lawful Good or Neutral, and Chaotic Good or Neutral alignments could be opposed to the same thing. Where things could greatly differ is what the solution for this problem should be.

 

[somerandomdude]

Sure, this is disgusting, but is it evil? Has he actually harmed anyone by doing it? Seems more neutral.

You don't have to murder or harm someone to have evil intent. There is no neutrality in wildly pushing the boundaries of degeneracy outside of societal norms to the point where even the State of California had a problem with what he was doing......

It's possible for good or neutral to murder or harm someone, the affinity only reflects the reasons for doing it. Chaotic Good or Neutral might put a pedophile's head on a pike, or put Ira Isaacs head on a pike. Chaotic Good might murder or harm someone for moral reasons, someone Neutral might possibly do it for moral reasons, or even monetary/personal reasons, or choose to do nothing at all, therein lies the unpredictability with neutral.

 

[Morality Games]

Hail.
I think we all know the reputation the Chaotic Evil alignment has acquired throughout D&D history. Mad dogs, butchers, insane, psychotic, you name it.
It is rather difficult to play a Chaotic Evil character without having your entire group of players giving you funny looks. How would you redeem this alignment and make it playable without completely pissing off your party and players? Was this alignment only meant for villains and monsters, demons and necromancers?
What makes this alignment so vicious and inhumane?

(a) I'd only let people be Chaotic Evil in an all evil party campaign (unless they agree to restrictions, like being discreet/deceitful about their evil)

(b) that or deceitful, discreet people who can conceal their evil deeds (Owlcat leans hard into this)

(c) they actively defy law and structure while also hating the joy and peace of all living beings

Real answer though is that alignment is a quaint mechanic and a player character's "alignment" should be how their character responds organically to new developments in the adventure

 

[NecroLord]

You don't have to murder or harm someone to have evil intent.

Indeed.
It is way more than intent. It's like a poison that seeps into the heart. That's what the paladin detects when casting Detect Evil.

 

[mondblut]

Chaotic Neutral

Another alignment with problems.
Most dumb players will play Chaotic Neutral in order to justify their constant stealing of everything that's not nailed down, or their "lolrandom" unpredictable behavior.

Being good means being an insufferable dork who always has to act against his own self-interests. Being evil means being a moustache-twirling caricature who wears "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on his sleeve. Being lawful means being an obedient cuck.

Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment that does not require commitment to stupid and cringy behavior.

 

[mondblut]

You can justify some pretty evil shit for "survival".
I don't buy that "Neutrality" is truly Neutral. That's a false premise that only benefits evil at the expense of good. Like grey is to black against white. Or how shadows are relative to darkness rather than light (i.e. the essence of a shadow is darkness, not light).

Oh, I see we've got a Paladin here.

 

[NecroLord]

Chaotic Neutral

Another alignment with problems.
Most dumb players will play Chaotic Neutral in order to justify their constant stealing of everything that's not nailed down, or their "lolrandom" unpredictable behavior.

Being good means being an insufferable dork who always has to act against his own self-interests. Being evil means being a moustache-twirling caricature who wears "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on his sleeve. Being lawful means being an obedient cuck.

Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment that does not require commitment to stupid and cringy behavior.

You're kidding, right?
Nex time try harder.

 

[mondblut]

Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment that does not require commitment to stupid and cringy behavior.

You're kidding, right?
Nex time try harder.

No, I am not. Nowhere it is said that CN must act like a retard, unlike the other alignments. He can, but he doesn't have to.

Most people are not good, not evil and not very lawful. Normally that would make most people TN, but D&D has been explicit in that TN is not for normal people, it's "very rare" and intended only for inane champions of muh balinse in everything. Which leaves CN as the only remaining alignment for people who are unwilling to commit themselves to bullshit.

 

[NecroLord]

Chaotic Neutral is the only alignment that does not require commitment to stupid and cringy behavior.

You're kidding, right?
Nex time try harder.

No, I am not. Nowhere it is said that CN must act like a retard, unlike the other alignments. He can, but he doesn't have to.

Most people are not good, not evil and not very lawful. Normally that would make most people TN, but D&D has been explicit in that TN is not for normal people, it's "very rare" and intended only for inane champions of muh balinse in everything. Which leaves CN as the only remaining alignment for people who are unwilling to commit themselves to bullshit.

True.
But unfortunately not many players are willing to give CN a chance and play this alignment in a mature manner.
Still, a CN does not have to be a dishonest, treacherous, backstabbing and larcenous prick, but that's how most players play this alignment.