|
All this way and absolutely nobody has mentioned Anton Chigurgh?
The things he does he does because . . . well, who knows? But he also
manages to get what's his back, outwit the cop that's pursuing him, and escape
while being an evil SOB the entire time.
Also Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. He might not be a genius, but he hides in plain sight while indulging in very twisted, over-the-top sadism on whims. Heck, he was set off when a guy had a better business card than he did.
Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins is a good video game example. She's brutal, uncaring, in it for herself, thinks nothing of pissing off those around her - but always knows when to stop just short of ruining her plans.
I don't know if I'd call Belakr a good example here :P
Belkar is learning to be a good example. He finally realized that he had to, if only to serve his own desires.
CE doesn't have to be crazy. It just represents a lack of any ethical constraints-- basically a sociopath. He'll do what's best for himself without either benevolence (as with good and to some degree neutral) or honor/tradition/rules/laws (as with lawful and to some degree neutral) to constrain him.
That does not mean he won't act in his enlightened self-interest and be very calculating about it.
Many sociopaths are very shrewdly calculating as to what's best for them. They'll be very nice to specific people, when it's in their self-interest to be, because they fear or need the other person. In real life, most aren't even violent, and instead exploit people in other ways for financial, professional, sexual, or other gain.
CE is complete immorality, but not insanity.
By this description, Lex Luthor or Thanos.
|
Many members of organized crime are CE, especially those who do not view it as clan loyalty or believe in the "rules" such as don't kill bystanders or deal drugs (Marlon Brando's Godfather).
In The Wire: Marlo would be CE. He was organized and had strict rules for his underlings, but he broke any rule he felt like, because his highest rule was to gain power for himself. He did not demand belief in him or his right to rule as much as obedience to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Judge Holden from Blood Meridian by Cormack McCarthy. He is literally the avatar of chaotic evil in my view.
"The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation."
...
"I don’t see what that has to do with catchin birds.
The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I’d have them all in zoos.
That would be a hell of a zoo.
The judge smiled. Yes, he said. Even so."
He claims to be advocating law, but in truth he is just advocating the utter debasement of the world under his personal will. CE.
Chaotic Evil is more than just not liking to be told what to do or not being interested in following the laws. To be chaotic evil, instead of neutral evil, you have to be embracing destruction in some form or another. You have to just want to watch the world burn.
This is a pretty crazy outlook, so it is fairly impossible to be chaotic evil without having the crazy going on.
Now, that doesn't mean that they never back down, don't sometimes pretend to be different or use subterfuge. You can make your plans, and those plans can be clever and certainly dangerous.
What those plans won't do is achieve long term power, success or prosperity, because that isn't what you are all about. You are chaotic evil.
All this way and absolutely nobody has mentioned Anton Chigurgh?
The things he does he does because . . . well, who knows? But he also
** spoiler omitted **
while being an evil SOB the entire time.
Also Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. He might not be a genius, but he hides in plain sight while indulging in very twisted, over-the-top sadism on whims. Heck, he was set off when a guy had a better business card than he did.
Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins is a good video game example. She's brutal, uncaring, in it for herself, thinks nothing of pissing off those around her - but always knows when to stop just short of ruining her plans.
Yes! I quite liked that movie, and felt that Anton was similar to a gritty, more real (less theatrical) Joker, in that they both seemed to just be and do with little predictability. A force of chaos, but all the more scary because it doesn't self-destruct.
American Psycho is also a good suggestion!
Concerning Belkar, he's certainly getting better, but he definitely fit the self-destructive CE trope for a while.
Secret Fire mentioned Tuco.... I actually thought you were referencing Breaking Bad at first :P Tuco is a good character, but he's definitely the opposite of the CE I'm looking for here! Sadly I'm not familiar with the other Tuco.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Evil is more than just not liking to be told what to do or not being interested in following the laws. To be chaotic evil, instead of neutral evil, you have to be embracing destruction in some form or another. You have to just want to watch the world burn.
I disagree, and that wording is not found anywhere in the Paizo rules that I can find. Chaotic evil means a lack of organization, but it doesn't mean destruction -- it can simply mean independence. A stereotypical pirate captain, who recognizes no law but his own whim and rules his own ship by fear, could easily be chaotic evil -- while still recognizing that he doesn't want the world to burn, because it would burn all of the lovely ships he captures with it.
'Selfish' would probably more a more apt description of CE than 'destructive.' Not that they can't be destructive either ;)
Chaotic Evil is more than just not liking to be told what to do or not being interested in following the laws. To be chaotic evil, instead of neutral evil, you have to be embracing destruction in some form or another. You have to just want to watch the world burn.I disagree, and that wording is not found anywhere in the Paizo rules that I can find. Chaotic evil means a lack of organization, but it doesn't mean destruction -- it can simply mean independence. A stereotypical pirate captain, who recognizes no law but his own whim and rules his own ship by fear, could easily be chaotic evil -- while still recognizing that he doesn't want the world to burn, because it would burn all of the lovely ships he captures with it.
From the definition of chaotic evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.
A pirate captain that wants to do what he wants, and take ships for treasure and to accumulate wealth is neutral evil. A pirate captain that doesn't really care about the money, but enjoys the suffering of his victims and seeing the ships he takes destroyed is chaotic evil.
Can you think of an example CE pirate from history? My pirate lore is sorely lacking.
CE is generally considered crazy regardless of the competence of the individual. Society has been trained to view such incarnations of ruin as "wrong". Such entities do not fit to our mental norms. Their desires seem self destructive. Certain agents of doom like Galactus, the Abyss, Death, Diablo (from the games), GW dragons, and Sithis are seen as forces of nature and less people. So their CE tendencies don't mark them for insane because they have a cosmic mandate for their values.
Those of us entwined in the mortal coil who lean CE do not have such a mandate. CE tendencies seem to run counter to what an appropriate human is suppose to strive for. We can understand LE(vice), LG(virtue), CN(personal freedom), CG(societal freedom/unlawful justice), and TN(apathy / balance), but CE has nothing going for it that any sane individual could want (NE may also fall into this category).
NE could be unfettered greed, not too out of place. You have a point about society and CE though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A violent revolutionary who starts out Chaotic Good, but gets bogged down in so many unwinnable moral dilemmas and non-stop gazing into the abyss that he loses sight of the noble vision he was fighting for, or perhaps, it loses sight of him. It's possible to think of Vladimir Lenin this way - and yes, as I've gone over before in another thread, while the Bolsheviks as a whole may have been Lawful, I consider Lenin, as an individual, to have been functionally Chaotic: Someone who stood forever apart from the mob even as he led them, who listened to Moonlight Sonata in his study as people were butchered outside, who eagerly embraced and learned to play the newly-invented theremin, a sure sign of a xenophilia and expansive-mindedness we can have little doubt would never have been found in Hitler or Stalin.
Two other great examples of what I think you're looking for would be Hannibal Lecter and Sweeney Todd.
We have a bad habit on these forums in assuming that acting in self-interest is a bad thing.
Pure sociopathy could be a facet of NE, or it could be TN. I feel that CE has too much moral capacity to be define by a disorder that represents a lack of moral capacity.
Now that I think about it, members of the Darkbrotherhood could be described as sane CE. They glorified in the void, in the comfort of their dark family. There worship did not have the overarching stratagems common with NE mortals or CE abyssal lords. Some were insane. Others did not even revel in the kill. They were simply content with the worship of Sithis. The society in Skyrim or Cyrodiil did not consider them crazy as a whole.
Chaotic Evil is more than just not liking to be told what to do or not being interested in following the laws. To be chaotic evil, instead of neutral evil, you have to be embracing destruction in some form or another. You have to just want to watch the world burn.
{. . .}
Problem with this is that Paizo and before them Wizards of the Coast muddied the water by defining Neutral Evil this way as well. If you look up Daemons and Demons and compare, pretty much both of them want to watch the world burn (and make it happen).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have a bad habit on these forums in assuming that acting in self-interest is a bad thing.
Don't confuse reasoned conclusions with assumptions. I acknowledge that Ethical Egoism is a bad thing; I deny that it's an assumption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had made an NPC duo at one point of a Calistrian Anti-Paladin and an Illusionist Wizard, both CE. They accepted that their individual revenge plots were better done as a pair and, as elves, they tended to take a long view of any situation. The AP was an archer build and the Wizard would use illusions to separate, confuse, and confound opponents. Neither were crazy, really. They just were out for themselves and their goddess. Naturally, some things were short-sighted on their parts, but that's what the Run feat and Contingency Dim Door were for.
I think my favorite example of a Chaotic Evil character that didn't come across as over the top was Bishop from the video game Never Winter Nights 2.
If you played the game he's an obvious jerk at times, but he doesn't do anything outright dickish until very near the end of the campaign when it makes sense. He's one example of CE where I could have accepted his actions and behavior at the table with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the Non-Crazy CE I tend to think of it like this
I'm here for me and I don't care if what I'm doing hurts other people. It's nothing premeditated or deliberate, It's just kind of a TS situation really. I don't really see why I should have to listen to your rules either but I'm not looking for trouble, so I have no problems keeping my head down if it's going to make my life difficult.
To quote a recent movie
"what if I see something I want and somebody else has it"
"That would be stealing"
"...but what if I want it more than he does"
"still stealing"
"you don't understand sir....I want it MORE than he does."
To quote a recent movie
"what if I see something I want and somebody else has it"
"That would be stealing"
"...but what if I want it more than he does"
"still stealing"
"you don't understand sir....I want it MORE than he does."
Which movie is that?
I feel I've seen the scene, but I can't seem to place the scene it seems. (Try and say that 10 times fast.)
Chaotic Evil is more than just not liking to be told what to do or not being interested in following the laws. To be chaotic evil, instead of neutral evil, you have to be embracing destruction in some form or another. You have to just want to watch the world burn.
{. . .}
Problem with this is that Paizo and before them Wizards of the Coast muddied the water by defining Neutral Evil this way as well. If you look up Daemons and Demons and compare, pretty much both of them want to watch the world burn (and make it happen).
From what understand, Demons (CE) want to destroy the world because they love destruction. Daemons (NE) on the other hand want to consume the world. This will destroy it, but the destruction is a side effect, not the particular goal.
Now, for the world in question (or the person in question on smaller scales) the distinction really doesn't matter. But alignment isn't just what you do, it is also why you do it.
To quote a recent movie
"what if I see something I want and somebody else has it"
"That would be stealing"
"...but what if I want it more than he does"
"still stealing"
"you don't understand sir....I want it MORE than he does."
Which movie is that?
I feel I've seen the scene, but I can't seem to place the scene it seems. (Try and say that 10 times fast.)
Guardians of the Galaxy. Rocket's the first speaker.
I'd peg Rocket as CN, though. He's a jerk (and delightfully so), but I feel there's a certain level of actual malice required to move over into evil.
Royce Melborn from the Theft of Swords books counts. (If anyone here has read them.) At least at first meeting Hadrian. Their partnership is an interesting account of what it would be like to have a LG fighter and CE rogue team up. And actually have them become bros for life and better at what they do because of each other.
Though I'd argue they influence each other along their work. Hadrian becomes NG and Royce becomes CN. I'd recommend those books just for that angle as a dnd/pathfinder alignments fan. It's a good read nontheless.
(The series needs more love.)
|
Johnny Ringo from Tombstone is classic example of a non-insane CE character.
Ruthless, loyal to his leader but more out of sense of friendship vs. group association.
Both savage, chaotic and intelligent.
"A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it."
----
And another western - Angels Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) The Good the Bad and the Ugly. Was entirely vicious (wipes almost all the male members of a family, even a kid) - but he wasn't a rampaging loon.
GBU is an excellent example of the Chaotic alignments
Blondie (Chaotic Good)
Tuco (Chaotic Neutral)
Angel Eyes (Chaotic Evil).
Tuco should in fact be considered an exemplar of Chaotic Neutral - non insane and not necessarily evil (or good for that matter).
If you haven't seen these movies I recommend you do, ASAP.
|
To quote a recent movie
"what if I see something I want and somebody else has it"
"That would be stealing"
"...but what if I want it more than he does"
"still stealing"
"you don't understand sir....I want it MORE than he does."
Which movie is that?
I feel I've seen the scene, but I can't seem to place the scene it seems. (Try and say that 10 times fast.)Guardians of the Galaxy. Rocket's the first speaker.
I'd peg Rocket as CN, though. He's a jerk (and delightfully so), but I feel there's a certain level of actual malice required to move over into evil.
I'm with you on the CN, especially early in the movie. But I'd say that as the movie goes along he begins along the path towards CG. Still not there by the end of the movie - but leaning that way.
Try thinking less of evil as active loyalty to doing evil but as varying degrees of amorality. The character doesn't pursue evil but morals may be viewed as chains he won't suffer or simply not his department. Thus a bandit is evil due to the lack of empathy, and chaotic due to the casual disregard of law and order in favor of personal gain.
Try thinking less of evil as active loyalty to doing evil but as varying degrees of amorality. The character doesn't pursue evil but morals may be viewed as chains he won't suffer or simply not his department. Thus a bandit is evil due to the lack of empathy, and chaotic due to the casual disregard of law and order in favor of personal gain.
So if evil is simply amoral, what is neutrality?
Non-crazy Chaotic Evil you ask? Pathfinder. The Technic League. Very calculating, very intelligent, very chaotic, very evil. The alignment system says this organization should have imploded centuries ago, yet it remains because despite the evil and chaotic nature of its members they aren't crazy, they understand that patience and calculation can lead to advancement in the organization's ranks (usually by means of murdering someone and taking their stuff/position). Sounds kinda LE but they are labeled as CE, the organization is governed by chaos and evil, but in a cunning and clever fashion, anyone exhibiting stereotypical CE crazies has already been culled because they're likely to bring the League crashing down and its members' power base along with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try thinking less of evil as active loyalty to doing evil but as varying degrees of amorality. The character doesn't pursue evil but morals may be viewed as chains he won't suffer or simply not his department. Thus a bandit is evil due to the lack of empathy, and chaotic due to the casual disregard of law and order in favor of personal gain.So if evil is simply amoral, what is neutrality?
Neutral, in terms of people, is just doing your thing. Most people are neutral in regards to good and evil. They think good is good, but don't do that much to increase the amount of good in the world or themselves. aka townsperson/npc alignment.
Amoral is to be unconcerned with good and evil, which translates into evil. If you don't care about something, chances are you end up not doing or being the opposite/negative of it.
Let's use cleanliness/messiness to illustrate. A person who is actively concerned about this is likely to be clean. A normal person likes it clean, but still leaves some dishes in the sink longer than they really should. The sink and fridge of the person who doesn't care have gained sentience are are waging war against the heathens of the clothes hamper.
Chaotic = resents being told what to do by others.
Evil = hurts innocent people.
Much much margin there ;-)
"Innocent people" is pretty subjective. A guard who locks me up for something I didn't do, he's just doing his job, is a valid target for violent acts in my view.
|
|
GBU is an excellent example of the Chaotic alignments
Blondie (Chaotic Good)
Tuco (Chaotic Neutral)
Angel Eyes (Chaotic Evil).Tuco should in fact be considered an exemplar of Chaotic Neutral - non insane and not necessarily evil (or good for that matter).
If you haven't seen these movies I recommend you do, ASAP.
Angel Eyes is about as Lawful Evil as they come. Rather than merely taking the money from his first intended victim, he fulfills the proposed counter-contract. Because he would otherwise be stealing.
Tuco, on the other hand, is responsible for a good number of deaths, injuries, destruction. He is directly shown torturing Blondie. It's VERY hard to rationalize him somehow not being evil in spite of all that....
No, Angel Eyes follows his own rules. He didn't kill the man who sent him on the 1st job out of some sense of oath. He just said -
"But you know the pity is when I'm paid, I always follow my job through. You know that."
That's a personal discipline - that has nothing to do with adhering to rules or society.
His men are expendable, and he only has loyalty to himself and making money. And he will murder or lie at every moment to do so. Having a personal credo, oath or methodology doesn't = Lawful. I have no doubts that he would have killed the person who hired him no matter what - because he wanted ALL the gold. The oath thing is just a self-serving quirk. He isn't regimented, law abiding even to the extent of twisting the law - he's just a ruthless, murdering liar who swims in and out of society like a doppelganger to meet his objectives.
Perfect CE, non-raving lunatic.
As far as Tuco - he's just mercenary.
As soon as he realized Blonde had the secret - he went from torturing him (which was revenge for what Blondie did to him earlier) to taking care of him and partnering up with him.
Tuco is the perfect CN - destructive or not. He isn't evil or malicious, not like Angel Eyes, and that's the distinction.
Sure he kills people - no one in the movie who didn't have it coming or who weren't trying to hurt him. He wasn't good or evil. We know he did plenty of bad stuff (according to the law) but we don't see it so it isn't part of his character as depicted by his actions. He does what it takes to live - the ultimate survivor.
He was the perfect CN.
All three characters are outside of society. Each one being a standard for good, evil and neutrality.
------
Now Little Bill from Unforgiven, he's a great example of an LE character, same as Sheriff Behan in Tombstone. Scumbag who uses the law to make a buck, persecute races (anti-Chinese league) and he was working with the Cowboys when he thought it would further his career and make Tombstone a boomtown.
Little Bill and Behan are miles away from Angel Eyes.