Chaotic Evil. What's wrong with it?

[mondblut]

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.

Most people are stupid, duh.

In truth, you won't find "chaotic evil people" this side of the Abyss. You'll find "a little unruly and with a nasty streak". Same applies to other alignments, too. Any outliers, from serial killers to holier than thou paladins, tend to provoke revulsion and contempt.

 

[Norfleet]

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.

Being a murderhobo isn't for normal people, either. TN is the alignment of the archetypal "Skyrim Protagonist", meaning, player characters: Accept quests from anyone, except when it would upset the balance of power between major factions or kill a plot-critical character. Helping old ladies cross the street and shanking a nameless orphan on the same day, because some guy with a ! over his head told you to, not because of any desire for personal gain, but just because you must complete as many quests as possible. That's the crazy TN shit, the Skyrim Protagonist way. Obviously not for normal people, but PLAYER CHARACTERS ARE NOT NORMAL.

 

[mondblut]

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.

Being a murderhobo isn't for normal people, either. TN is the alignment of the archetypal "Skyrim Protagonist", meaning, player characters: Accept quests from anyone, except when it would upset the balance of power between major factions or kill a plot-critical character. Helping old ladies cross the street and shanking a nameless orphan on the same day, because some guy with a ! over his head told you to, not because of any desire for personal gain, but just because you must complete as many quests as possible. That's the crazy TN shit, the Skyrim Protagonist way. Obviously not for normal people, but PLAYER CHARACTERS ARE NOT NORMAL.

That's CN, too. TN, according to D&D, would rather meditate and do nothing at all. And if forced to do quests, he'll keep a tally of all old ladies he had helped and all orphans he had shanked to ensure a pristine balance in his good and evil deeds.

 

[Norfleet]

That's CN, too. TN, according to D&D, would rather meditate and do nothing at all.

But the Skyrim protagonist is far too ordered to be Chaotic. The Skyrim Protagonist doesn't do anything on his own and just faffs around doing nothing if not assigned a quest.

And if forced to do quests, he'll keep a tally of all old ladies he had helped and all orphans he had shanked to ensure a pristine balance in his good and evil deeds.

Sounds about right, yes. This style of play tends to involve carefully keeping your rep balanced between all the opposing factions when such a system exists.

 

[Semiurge]

Which leaves CN as the only remaining alignment for people who are unwilling to commit themselves to bullshit.

Lawful characters are not blind automatons like the beings that lack an alignment. They will not obey laws or orders that go against their morality - or lack thereof. Their morality determines how willing they are to sacrifice their own objectives for the benefit of others.

 

[mondblut]

Which leaves CN as the only remaining alignment for people who are unwilling to commit themselves to bullshit.

Lawful characters are not blind automatons like the beings that lack an alignment. They will not obey laws or orders that go against their morality - or lack thereof. Their morality determines how willing they are to sacrifice their own objectives for the benefit of others.

Lawful characters are the kind that would report their unofficial side income for taxation or stop at the red light despite seeing no cars in sight. I.e. another brand of dorks.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

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.

That's CN, too. TN, according to D&D, would rather meditate and do nothing at all. And if forced to do quests, he'll keep a tally of all old ladies he had helped and all orphans he had shanked to ensure a pristine balance in his good and evil deeds.

The interpretation of True Neutral alignment as necessarily meaning keepers of a cosmic balance between alignments is the product of the misinterpretation of a two-axis alignment system, such that each of the nine alignments must have its own ethos. The proper definition of Neutral Neutral is simply anyone who does not have a strong preference for good, chaotic, evil, or lawful behavior, just as the definition of anyone falling into one of the four corner alignments is someone with a strong preference on both axes, and the definition of anyone falling into one of the four non-corner alignment (aside from Neutral Neutral) is having a strong preference on one axis but not the other.

Even AD&D only offered this particular definition of True Neutral alignment as balance-keepers as one possible interpretation, although over the years it did tend to lean more and more heavily into the idea of each alignment as an ethos.

 

[mondblut]

The interpretation of True Neutral alignment as necessarily meaning keepers of a cosmic balance between alignments is the product of the misinterpretation of a two-axis alignment system, such that each of the nine alignments must have its own ethos.

Even AD&D only offered this particular definition of True Neutral alignment as balance-keepers as one possible interpretation, although over the years it did tend to lean more and more heavily into the idea of each alignment as an ethos.

Because otherwise everyone short of angels and demons would fall into TN camp, duh. Mortals, by and large, are creatures of mediocrity, their virtues small and their sins petty.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

In the first place, any cut-off for strong preference versus weak/no preference is fundamentally arbitrary, and AD&D cosmology does divide mortals across the nine alignments by acknowledging they can be good, lawful, evil, or chaotic even without reaching the purity of the alignments of deities or other metaphysical beings. In the second place, D&D/AD&D campaign settings are not our own world, and the characters in them tend to be less mediocre and more extreme in terms of alignment.

 

[Rincewind]

The proper definition of Neutral Neutral is simply anyone who does not have a strong preference for good, chaotic, evil, or lawful behavior, just as the definition of anyone falling into one of the four corner alignments is someone with a strong preference on both axes, and the definition of anyone falling into one of the four non-corner alignment (aside from Neutral Neutral) is having a strong preference on one axis but not the other.

Isn't this similar to saying the average body temperature of all patients in the hospital room is fine? They might be all healthy with a normal body temperature, or half of them might be dying from high fever with the other half already cold and dead as a doornail—we just wouldn't know from the average.

 

[NecroLord]

their virtues small and their sins petty.

A paladin would take offense at this.

 

[Nortar]

Which leaves CN as the only remaining alignment for people who are unwilling to commit themselves to bullshit.

Lawful characters are not blind automatons like the beings that lack an alignment. They will not obey laws or orders that go against their morality - or lack thereof. Their morality determines how willing they are to sacrifice their own objectives for the benefit of others.

Lawful characters are the kind that would report their unofficial side income for taxation or stop at the red light despite seeing no cars in sight. I.e. another brand of dorks.

Is it that bullshit again that Lawful characters must always obbey all the laws no matter what?
I just skimmed through, maybe someone already said that such a viewpoint is extremely narrow and naive.

Lawful characters like laws, not folow them blindly.
They like order, structure, plans, rules, predictability and hierarchy.
If there are no rules, they will make some.

But it does not mean they must and will follow any and all laws just because.
Mafia is a good example of a lawful (evil) organition that profiteers on breaking civil laws.
And careful tax evader who knows and enjoys all ins and outs of beuracratic schemes is also lawful.

 

[NecroLord]

Lawful characters like laws, not folow them blindly.
They like order, structure, plans, rules, predictability and hierarchy.
If there are no rules, they will make some.

Bingo!
Take, for example, Judge Dredd. The very embodiment of Lawful Neutral, arguably the alignment's main representative.
He likes the Law and follows it because it is the best answer to the sheer insanity of Mega City One. Without it, the city would descend into complete and total madness, depravity and violence.
He still looks for loopholes in laws, not every law is meant to be just and fair, Judge Dredd knows this very well. The alternative to the Law is what he simply cannot accept.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The proper definition of Neutral Neutral is simply anyone who does not have a strong preference for good, chaotic, evil, or lawful behavior, just as the definition of anyone falling into one of the four corner alignments is someone with a strong preference on both axes, and the definition of anyone falling into one of the four non-corner alignment (aside from Neutral Neutral) is having a strong preference on one axis but not the other.

Isn't this similar to saying the average body temperature of all patients in the hospital room is fine? They might be all healthy with a normal body temperature, or half of them might be dying from high fever with the other half already cold and dead as a doornail—we just wouldn't know from the average.

No, the two axes are orthogonal to each other, so anyone strongly committed to a position on both axes falls into "corner" cases, i.e. Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Evil. The error to which I was referring is that many people decide that, for example, Lawful Evil does not mean people who are both Lawful and Evil but instead is described by some philosophy, distinct from that followed by people of Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil alignments.

 

[Rincewind]

The proper definition of Neutral Neutral is simply anyone who does not have a strong preference for good, chaotic, evil, or lawful behavior, just as the definition of anyone falling into one of the four corner alignments is someone with a strong preference on both axes, and the definition of anyone falling into one of the four non-corner alignment (aside from Neutral Neutral) is having a strong preference on one axis but not the other.

Isn't this similar to saying the average body temperature of all patients in the hospital room is fine? They might be all healthy with a normal body temperature, or half of them might be dying from high fever with the other half already cold and dead as a doornail—we just wouldn't know from the average.

No, the two axes are orthogonal to each other, so anyone strongly committed to a position on both axes falls into "corner" cases, i.e. Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Evil. The error to which I was referring is that many people decide that, for example, Lawful Evil does not mean people who are both Lawful and Evil but instead is described by some philosophy, distinct from that followed by people of Lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil alignments.

> someone with a strong preference on both axes

Uh, it was a reading comprehension fail on my part... I read it as "strong preference for both extremes of the same axis", which is nonsense. My bad, it was after lunch...

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

To put it in WH40k terms, Khornate Berserkers are not exactly known for being well-coordinated team players.