so i was thinking, do you think it is possible to play Chaotic Evil without being a blood thirsty psycho?
cant a chaotic evil character have close friends without being tempted to kill them and without them also being evil?
Please consider Belkar Bitterleaf of the Order of the Stick as a template.
while i understand the reference i don't know enough to get the reference.
|
In the Dark Night The joker was Chaotic Evil. He was thoughtful and meticulous.
A chaotic evil character can in fact have friends and not kill them. The feeling that he may well kill them should be present. But he is chaotic, he may well like someone for the carnage they cause and not want them dead because, well he wants to know what will happen tomorrow.
Don't let him get board though. He may catch you horse on fire, because well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
|
|
Belkar is chaotic evil and well he hangs with the good guys. Why well part of it is that he is ordered by the courts to do so and thinks that he will die if he is not near the main character. Also well it is so much more fun to hang with them. They get into all sort of fun encounters. He gets to kill things.
funny, i see what you mean
the reason i ask about this is because i tend to lean toward chaotic evil with a lot of my characters and its not that i kill a bunch of innocent people or try and kill my party members, but i am willing to do anything for my goals and i happen to act chaotic.
i mean i will pick fights from time to time and i never want to take prisoners and i always am willing to torture what prisoners we do have but i never deliberately kill children or peasants.
so i usually get marked chaotic evil but i don't get the chaotic psycho mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cant a chaotic evil character have close friends without being tempted to kill them and without them also being evil?
Yes. A Chaotic Evil only cares about other people as they relate to himself. So, once he makes an investment in a friendship, he's willing to kill or torture others to protect that friendship. Would your Lawful Good friend do that for you? ;-)
i just don't like the stigma of chaotic evil, i play my character according to the world they are in and if the only way to survive is to kill them first or do things other would not then im the guy to do it.
Really just depends how far you want to stretch the alignment
breaking it down for a sec.
what does a chaotic good player do ? tries to do the right thing for others with no regard for local laws or a sense of order, I would argue a CG character is no more likely to fly off the handle than a chaotic evil character in pursuit of their goals.
what you might find useful is to give you character a goal, a goal they could achieve.
I want to rule in a castle.
ok what does that require ... gold and followers
how does one get gold ?
at early levels go around killing things for money ? sound like any adventuring group you know ?
Killing an ogre for 100gold who happens to be tormenting a local village still nets you your goal of 100gold , who care that the village was saved you can even spit in the face of the people who try to thank you.
If killing that ogre requires you steal a farmer cart set it on fire and run it down a tunnel then you've got no problems with that, hell a chaotic good character probably wouldn't have an issue with it either since its for a greater good.
as for followers being evil you would probably think fear and terror and being seemingly powerful is the best way to get followers, so you might kill one of your disobedient followers in from of the others to get them into line, you wouldn't automatically kill everyone following you out of spite, chaotic evil is not automatically insane
there are also degrees of evil
are you simply chaotic with evil tenancies
I'm current playing in rise of the runelords and my True Neutral Mage recently slipped from TN to NE after summoning a demon to resurrect a fallen ally so we could finish a dungeon, he is also now taking levels in diablosit. he's not EVIL EVIL, he's just crossed over the tipping point, it will be years before he gets truly evil
you could easily play someone who's chaotic like a chaotic good player but has just crossed the line from neutral to evil due to some selfish desires.
It's all a matter of degree's
perhaps you character knows they really shouldn't give in to their evil tenancies and try not to, however more than 50% of the time they lose that battle of wills, which means you can tailor your wins to not be evil to when the party really needs you to not be evil and you can lash out when its not going to ruin a game completely
its a fine line but it can be walked if you have a mature enough DM and group
and if there are any grammatical errors in that I apologies its been a long day XD
I'll play devil's advocate here (or demon's advocate, as the case may be).
I submit that you can only play chaotic evil in a solo adventure. By that I mean that you have no companions who adventure with you. Slaves, servants, dominated minions, sure, just not companions who are there of their own free will.
Why?
Good characters won't tolerate a CE character. Sure, Order of the Stick does, but really, that's a comic strip - it's there to make us laugh. In a supposedly pseudo-real world that has any verisimilitude at all, good characters won't keep a CE character around.
Neither will neutral characters. While they may be more willing to look the other way and not ask too many questions, it won't take them long to hang the term "psychopath" on the CE companion regardless of the intent of that CE character towards them. And once they do, they will conclude that their lives and their liberty are in constant jeopardy by an untrustworthy psychopath, and they will seek a more reliable companion.
Which only leaves other evil characters. And there is no way they will trust each other. They know their own twisted evil minds, and they know what's going through that CE guy's mind. They will expect the worst because they themselves would also cause the worst. No trust = dead adventuring group, so if they have a shred of intelligence, they will all ditch each other at their first opportunity (or just kill them and take their stuff).
Which leaves nobody.
No sane adventurer would put their neck on the line, time after time, trusting their very survival to a CE character.
So, what about deceiving the others? OK, you got me there. If you can truly deceive them and keep your companions thinking that you're not CE, then they will travel with you. Until they figure it out, find you out, or you give it away yourself. Then all the above applies. And if you never give it away, never act CE, never ever ever do CE stuff, then (arguably) you're not really CE, so your companions are not traveling with a CE character after all - but that's a different argument entirely...
Meh, I got a sorcerer who is absolutely loyal to "his" people. There is no chance he would harm them in anyway.
However he would be more than willing to hang, burn, pillage, rape, torture, and otherwise plague the rest of the world if it would:
A. Advance his goals for power OR
B. Help "his" people.
He generally doesn't actively go about hurting others yet but that is simply because the rest of the world is generally beneath his notice.
Meh, I got a sorcerer who is absolutely loyal to "his" people. There is no chance he would harm them in anyway.
However he would be more than willing to hang, burn, pillage, rape, torture, and otherwise plague the rest of the world if it would:
A. Advance his goals for power OR
B. Help "his" people.He generally doesn't actively go about hurting others yet but that is simply because the rest of the world is generally beneath his notice.
+1
Meh, I got a sorcerer who is absolutely loyal to "his" people. There is no chance he would harm them in anyway.
However he would be more than willing to hang, burn, pillage, rape, torture, and otherwise plague the rest of the world if it would:
A. Advance his goals for power OR
B. Help "his" people.He generally doesn't actively go about hurting others yet but that is simply because the rest of the world is generally beneath his notice.
That does not sound CE really. More NE then anything.
|
That does not sound CE really.Meh, I got a sorcerer who is absolutely loyal to "his" people. There is no chance he would harm them in anyway.
However he would be more than willing to hang, burn, pillage, rape, torture, and otherwise plague the rest of the world if it would:
A. Advance his goals for power OR
B. Help "his" people.He generally doesn't actively go about hurting others yet but that is simply because the rest of the world is generally beneath his notice.
Running around willy nilly murdering innocent people is Chaotic Stupid.
Saying that evil people cannot love or have no close friends is rather ridiculous. Bonnie and Clyde, anyone? And unless they have deeply troubling family issues, probably wouldn't hurt their own family-in fact, they would kill to defend them.
I don't think a CE person can have "absolutely loyalty" to anyone but themselves. If his pc does he may be LE or NE but not CE. Sure he can have folks he likes but to a CE person there is no such thing as absolutely loyalty.
Raistlin Majere is also Chaotic Evil.
I KNEW he was not to be trusted! Damn, Caramon lied to me!!
right but being Chaotic doesn't mean you cant have loyalty, you don't need to be chaotic about every element of your life.
I disagree, CE might like folks but nothing is put above themselves, nothing. Evil is capable of it however being CE your a sociopath. Nothing is above you, no friends, no family, not a nation. Nothing.
What if helping someone else is the best way to help yourself?
maybe we should agree to disagree.
right but being Chaotic doesn't mean you cant have loyalty, you don't need to be chaotic about every element of your life.
Chaotic Evil can have a pet mouse named Boo, who they cherish more than life itself ;)
What if helping someone else is the best way to help yourself?
Not the same thing, thats helping you. Not helping them for it's own sake. As I said they could have folks they liked, but when it comes down to it CE looks out for themselves and no one else.
But eh ask you GM he may allow it.
|
|
What if helping someone else is the best way to help yourself?Not the same thing, thats helping you. Not helping them for it's own sake. As I said they could have folks they liked, but when it comes down to it CE looks out for themselves and no one else.
But eh ask you GM he may allow it.
And liking someone and willing to die to protect what is "yours" is a CE concept. To CE, people are things that he either does or doesn't "own". Taking away his things makes him angry.
An adventuring party can be his friends, just not in the traditional sense, and they can also be his tools to self empowerment. You can't kill the stone golem to get the treasure all by yourself, so you bring people you can trust with you to help you do it. Some profit is better than none at all.
Think of the character Greed from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Completely selfish, but values his friends because they are "his". He kills to protect his "things".
Think sociopath, not psychopath.
I would peg greed as NE really, CN at best. Now Father on the other hand was CE
a total +1
This is so off topic but I enjoyed the Brotherhood storyline much better then the original.
agreed, i watched the whole series in like 3 days, i loved that show and hated the fact that it ended.
Yes but it was a much more satisfying end and a better over all story arc. It was just more engaging and more enjoyable to me.
And Jared I am not saying Greed was not evil just that he was not CE. He was at best CN, I put him at NE however. Some of the others however ... they ran the whole gauntlet of evil :) Wraith I would peg LE myself he was the most orderly and organize of the lot.
This is so off topic but I enjoyed the Brotherhood storyline much better then the original.Technically, it IS the original. The first anime is only based off of the first book of the manga, while Brotherhood IS the manga.
yeah I knew that, however I have never read the Manga and the first series is "the original" to those who have not read or even know about the Manga. They do that alot with anima it seems, make one then make a 2nd closer to the Manga.
Anyhow Brotherhood is hands down better if ya ask me. And sorry northbrb we kinda derailed your thread :)
Chaotic is often synonymous with freedom of individual will. What about someone that (misguidedly) wishes to destroy all of the gods, good, neutral and evil, to free the world from their meddling? A person that is strongly inclined to help mortals that stand by their own individual strength, forsaking the coddling of society and divinity?
What alignment would you call that?
It's not what they wish - or even the intention behind the actions.
In dnd it has to be the objective actions themselves - as much as i disagree with it for the sake of realism. It has to be objective to work in my experience.
no problem, brotherhood was awesome so i don't mind plus i like the examples of the homunculus in regards to alignment.
ya know I am not sure about Gluttony really. He was more CN then anything at times but he loved to eat people..so CE seems like a good enough fit with CN tendency. Lust I would put as NE, while Envy I would also peg CE. Pride I would put as CE as well but not sure about sloth..is he evil? or just N of some type as he just wants to sleep and does as he is told.
|
I don't think a CE person can have "absolutely loyalty" to anyone but themselves. If his pc does he may be LE or NE but not CE. Sure he can have folks he likes but to a CE person there is no such thing as absolutely loyalty.
Wasn't Riddick labeled Chaotic Evil? I think it's easy to get stuck on the absolute part without realizing most normal people don't have absolute loyalty to anyone or anything either. Regular loyalty is usually enough for most people. I mean, I love my wife and my kids but there are limits to what I would do for them.
Chaotic Evil is probably as subjective as Lawful Good. It's possibly to have no qualms about hurting others or letting others be hurt and adhere to no code and still commit heroic acts. In fact, I would say that given the right motivation, a chaotic evil human could do whatever he felt like doing at any given time. He might not derive any satisfaction from doing something good, but unless he's a sadist, it's not like doing evil is more than just an incidental choice as he floats through life. If he might kill someone who annoys him, what's so out of character if he decides to protect someone he likes?
yes
i totally agree with you, i mean the alignment system isnt about absolutes it is more of a marker of tendencies and what you are willing to do.
being evil shouldn't mean you are absolutely a sadist, just that you are comfortable with doing evil.
yes
i totally agree with you, i mean the alignment system isnt about absolutes it is more of a marker of tendencies and what you are willing to do.
being evil shouldn't mean you are absolutely a sadist, just that you are comfortable with doing evil.
This is the very reason I reintroduced the alignment tendencies from 2e back into my games. I prefer Evil to mean you kill for pleasure. I like (E) to mean you kill for profit. So IMC, you would be (E), rather than E.
I'm not sure you are even chaotic. You could argue that you have a personal code, and are therefore lawful. I had to rework the law-chaos axis because I didn't like how lawful could mean you observe a personal code or law or dogma or are just disciplined. However, the way it is written, you can slap a lawful alignment on just about any character and not vary your actions by that much, though you do generally have to make your reasons for taking those actions sound lawful. It's even easier to make an argument that you are NE.
IMC, law/chaos is about respect for property rights, where chaotic means you are a vandal or steal for fun and (C) means you only steal for profit. So IMC, you would probably only register as N(CE), which is not the worst alignment in the world. Neutral characters can hang with just about anyone, since their actions are always tempered by self-interest, which includes being good if your life or ability to continue a lucrative adventuring career is at stake.
Interesting idea on alignments totoro.
How does a Blasphemy spell (harms non-evil) affect the N(CE) character in your world? The same as Neutral or the same as Chaotic Evil?
How about if he wields a Holy weapon?
*Edit*
I just want to be clear, I'm not trying to be instigating or anything. I'm genuinely interested in the tendencies idea.. but just never could pin down where they would sit in the game rules (should he be treated as Neutral or Evil in those cases, etc).
We use a similar system to Totoro and just have characters with tendencies be affected 'by half' as a rule of thumb. I.e the N(CE) guy would receive an extra 1d6 damage from a holy weapon or from an axiomatic weapon, 2d8 with no blind from a holy smite, etc... Requires a bit on the moment ruling and adjudication but if your groups and DM trust each other, I think it is an interesting system.
An axiomatic holy weapon would inflict a total of 2d6 extra damage on him (4d6 against a CE), etc. His alignment aura is half as powerful in some cases, etc.
I meant if he tried to wield it (gaining a permanent negative level until he drops it). A neutral person can pick up and use a Holy weapon, while an Evil person will get that negative level.
But yeah, I can see where you are going with that.
Roll the d%.
1-50: The character gets the negative level with that weapon every time she/he wields it for 3 days.
51-100: Nothing.
I sometimes apply this 2nd ed rule as well, depending on the actions of the PC's.
I rule that all negative implications apply, ie. 'evil' for sake of smite evil etc.
Just more realistic way to do it, without removing the mechanics of alignment.
That discourages people to play their shades of alignment and just go for bland neutrals.
YMMV, but it's been my experience that players will want to play their characters just for the sake of role-playing, rather than thinking about the mechanics.
I should probably explain it a bit better anyway. For example, say the Ranger started CG, and started behaving in an evil manner. I would let them know that they are starting to have Neutral tendencies. No real penalty or bonus here. Keeping up their evil ways they eventually will display Evil tendencies.
So I would let them know that their alignment is now Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies, CN(E). If they are subject to a Smite Evil, there is evil in their heart and it applies to them. They then repent, seeing the errors of their way, and eventually become CN(G). He then happens to be in the AoE of a Holy Word spell. Having Good tendencies means that he is not affected by the spell.
It is a little complicated, but a lot my realistic in my experience. It actually comes from the 'alignment axis' in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting, which works in 'shifts'.
In the Dark Night The joker was Chaotic Evil. He was thoughtful and meticulous.
In the Bright Day, he was LG and nursed baby birds back to health (which he ate when knight fell again) ;-P
So I would let them know that their alignment is now Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies, CN(E). If they are subject to a Smite Evil, there is evil in their heart and it applies to them. They then repent, seeing the errors of their way, and eventually become CN(G). He then happens to be in the AoE of a Holy Word spell. Having Good tendencies means that he is not affected by the spell.
That screws over Neutral and makes it pointless. If you are going to treat Neutral as a slippery fulcrum between the two opposing alignments, then you might as well do away with Neutral all together.
"Hi, I'm a Druid and I had an evil thought!"
*smite evil kills True Neutral Druid*
The Joker is always CE. CE is sociopathy. You are out for yourself and have no ethics or morals.