Chaotic Evil without the crazy


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

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.

Having a code of honor strongly correlates with Lawful even if it is not the entirety of the definition. Or at least a code that is consistent with what is considered by society to be "honorable" behavior. My recollection is that Angel Eyes does NOT in fact ever lie. Though I will admit that I have not seen the film for quite some time so I will have to concede that you may in fact have a point. I was under the impression for example that Angel Eyes was in fact a union officer from previous viewing... while further investigation seems to suggest otherwise. Considering one's underlings to be expendable is a classic evil trait, not so much a lawful nor chaotic one. Many overtly LE overlords are portrayed in this manner.

Auxmaulous wrote:

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...

This, however, is flat out wrong. Tuco is not a villain, neither wholly unsympathetic...HOWEVER being partially sympathetic does not make a character neutral. You do not get to ignore the deeds he commits off screen. His particulars include murder and rape, according to the judge in one scene. On screen, Tuco cavalierly commits blatant armed robbery (of a gun, no less) and attempts murder. He takes what he wants and exhibits little remorse when his own confederates are killed. These are not traits in keeping with neutrality.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
So if evil is simply amoral, what is neutrality?

Easy : according to the CRB, Good protects innocent people, Evil hurts them, and Neutral does not care enough to act.

A Neutral character is not without compassion. He might even desperately wish he could make a stand and protect the innocent. But he does nothing.

Barathos wrote:
The black raven wrote:

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.

Innocent is indeed not described in the RAW, even though the whole Good-Evil axis is based on this notion.

Since the whole of alignment is absolute, I take it that the notion of "innocent" is likely absolute too. So, I take innocent as meaning "not guilty as far as we know of". And guilty means hurting innocent people (i.e., Evil act).

Note that guilty and Evil are not exactly the same because an Evil person who has not (yet) committed a crime is not guilty (i.e., killing such a person just because he is Evil is still an Evil act). While a Neutral or even a Good person can be guilty of a single Evil act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just as there is a spectrum of characterizations across any alignment, so is there one of Chaotic Evil. All lawful evil characters are not by necessity more benevolent than all chaotic evil characters. (Certainl lawful evil characters may have the follow through with personal grudges whereas chaotic evil characters might just as soon shrug it off and find some other horrible shenanigan to pull off.)

I think that a Chaotic Evil character can be just as much of a dark reflection of his Good counter part as a Lawful Evil character can be. Let's take the villain group from FR the Eldreth Veluthra, a primarily CE group of elven supremacists who want to wipe out humanity because of all the horrible evils it has inflicted. Now, these guys are reflections of their more more good aligned peers in that they love the wildness of nature, hate restrictions on (their) basic freedoms (that happens to coincide with humanity and its nature destroying civilization), and are somewhat fey-like in their actions like elves are. They fight in cells largely independent of each other without much central authority. In these ways, they can be said to be chaotic.

They are also extremely brutal and very often petty in what they do. They often torture their prey and leave violently desecrated bodies for people to see. However, this is more a function of them being evil rather than being chaotic. A lawful evil group might exhibit some of these behaviors too, though it would likely do it for different reasons or in more systematic ways.

Being chaotic doesn't keep the Eldreth Veluthra from thinking they are doing "the right thing" or at least "what needs to be done." Vile, CE people don't HAVE to be without an ideology that drives them. (In fact, many evil people will adopt some sort of twisted ideology to justify their actions as a further form of self deception.) The thing is that their dedication to a cause (whether lawful or chaotic) is tainted by the loss of perspective on what is right and what is wrong. In the Eldreth Veluthra's case, they happen to be dedicated to a cause and employ a methodology that is more classically chaotic then lawful, and they also happen to be evil.

The Survival of the Fittest guy who takes things too far might be another CE archetype that I would find to be at least superficially "honorable" (in that it has a superficial ideological justification beyond being either completely self-serving or completely bonkers.) In his eyes, the dogma of good are but lies to coddle the weak. Humanity's (or whatever race he happens to belong to) true potential, it's true glory only comes from constant savage competition. Order is a tool made by the weak to weight down their superiors. So this guy tells himself he does the world a favor by showing the chattel the truth of the slaughterhouse they live in. He is about destruction, but destruction for a cause- that is finding the strong and bringing them above the lower people. His view of strength just happens to lie with ruthlessness and the removal of inhibitions.

Liberty's Edge

Dreaming Psion wrote:
Just as there is a spectrum of characterizations across any alignment, so is there one of Chaotic Evil.

+1. I always thought that alignment needs an accompanying stat which I would term Jerkitude.

It is a measure of how much of a jerk the character is about enforcing his alignment, and especially forcing it on other people instead of trying to find a way to make things work.

Note that being a jerk (high jerkitude) does not depend on the character's alignment. LG can be as much of a jerk as CE or TN.

Extremists always have high Jerkitude.


Shadowdweller wrote:
This, however, is flat out wrong. Tuco is not a villain, neither wholly unsympathetic...HOWEVER being partially sympathetic does not make a character neutral. You do not get to ignore the deeds he commits off screen. His particulars include murder and rape, according to the judge in one scene. On screen, Tuco cavalierly commits blatant armed robbery (of a gun, no less) and attempts murder. He takes what he wants and exhibits little remorse when his own confederates are killed. These are not traits in keeping with neutrality.

Yeah, it takes a pretty warped perception of the alignment system to consider Tuco anything other than a wonderfully done chaotic evil. He commits many terrible acts without doing anything one could hold up as a good act to counterbalance them. He isn't maniacal or insane, but he is definitely selfish and destructive above all else, and he is definitely chaotic. The OP should really watch the film; it is fantastic for a lot of reasons.

To be honest, Blondie shouldn't be classified as a good character, either. He, not Tuco, is actually an excellent depiction of chaotic neutral.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
This, however, is flat out wrong. Tuco is not a villain, neither wholly unsympathetic...HOWEVER being partially sympathetic does not make a character neutral. You do not get to ignore the deeds he commits off screen. His particulars include murder and rape, according to the judge in one scene. On screen, Tuco cavalierly commits blatant armed robbery (of a gun, no less) and attempts murder. He takes what he wants and exhibits little remorse when his own confederates are killed. These are not traits in keeping with neutrality.

Yeah, it takes a pretty warped perception of the alignment system to consider Tuco anything other than a wonderfully done chaotic evil. He commits many terrible acts without doing anything one could hold up as a good act to counterbalance them. He isn't maniacal or insane, but he is definitely selfish and destructive above all else, and he is definitely chaotic. The OP should really watch the film; it is fantastic for a lot of reasons.

To be honest, Blondie shouldn't be classified as a good character, either. He, not Tuco, is actually an excellent depiction of chaotic neutral.

And this is where both of you are wrong.

While Tuco commits crime (yes, he's a criminal) that doesn't necessarily make him evil.

All those charges railed against him could have been that - charges, and they are off screen so we don't know exactly what happened.
He may have duped and bedded those women (as implied by his "many wives") and those many charges could have been leveled against him by the locals who just hated him as revenge. Not saying he wasn't a scumbag - just not an evil scumbag.

Both of you need to re-watch that movie and rank each characters behavior. All three are chaotic (outside society, breaking the law) - but only one in the movie murders - people in their bed, unarmed men, children. That's Angel Eyes - CE. His personal code is just that, personal. His rank in the army is just a tool to get what he wants (selfish, self serving).

Tuco killed people (all three did) - but he didn't kill anyone who: wasn't trying to kill or capture him, or did him wrong. He didn't kill the gun store owner after he robbed him - sure as hell Angel Eyes would have, without a second thought.

His back and forth with Blonde (desert torture,trying to hunt him down) all stem from revenge.

I just don't think (and this is where we can agree to disagree) that stealing is evil. It is anti-social, chaotic and somewhat destructive behavior. Just not evil. Tuco didn't put a pillow over a guys face and put 4 into his bosses head, that was Angel Eyes. Tuco didn't wipe out a family, that was Angel Eyes. Tuco's crime was that he was a scumbag, survive at any cost kind of guy.

I have no doubt that Angel Eyes would have killed anyone he worked with after getting the gold. Tuco'c confederates were actually his old gang (deleted scene) and I don't think he would have executed them after getting Blonde or the gold. Just two different and distinct working MOs. Angel Eyes was CE, Tuco was CN and Blonde was CG (still a criminal, just not as destructive and not a murderer).


Dreaming Psion wrote:
Just as there is a spectrum of characterizations across any alignment, so is there one of Chaotic Evil. All lawful evil characters are not by necessity more benevolent than all chaotic evil characters.

I definitely agree. Benevolence or lack thereof is a good vs. evil quality, period. CG characters as a group are as benevolent as LG characters, and LE characters as a group lack benevolence (and usually have malevolence) to the same degree as CE characters.

However, LE characters can somewhat be trusted, because while if they make a deal with you, it'll have been made for their own benefit or at least they'll see it as such, but they almost definitely will follow it to the letter, even if they may look for loopholes. So they are more ethical, in some senses, than CE characters, even if the ethics have nothing to do with benevolence: Keeping their word, usually following the law, often opposing you "honorably" if they oppose you.

CG characters, on the other hand, are pretty much as ethical as LG characters, to those who aren't aren't evil or supporting an oppressive regime; they're too benevolent to betray someone who's good or neutral and not knowingly enabling evil or oppression through their actions. CG characters' freedom from the law, tradition and "honor" isn't a problem to anyone who's not doing something they consider very wrong, because they'll only use underhanded tactics for good causes (or at least what they believe are good causes). Often that can make them better at fighting evil than a LG character who's constrained by such things to fight even the evil "fairly" even if that's less effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Oly wrote:
Dreaming Psion wrote:
Just as there is a spectrum of characterizations across any alignment, so is there one of Chaotic Evil. All lawful evil characters are not by necessity more benevolent than all chaotic evil characters.

However, LE characters can somewhat be trusted, because while if they make a deal with you, it'll have been made for their own benefit or at least they'll see it as such, but they almost definitely will follow it to the letter, even if they may look for loopholes. So they are more ethical, in some senses, than CE characters, even if the ethics have nothing to do with benevolence: Keeping their word, usually following the law, often opposing you "honorably" if they oppose you.

The "Personal Honor" type of evil a frequent trope of Lawful Evil, but it is by no means necessarily a must have or even a majority occurrence. I mean, devils lie ALL THE TIME. There's nothing forcing a lawful evil character from keeping his word, especially if she think you're scum doesn't deserve to have her word fulfilled. In fact, if she believes that throwing you to the wolves will serve her master plan, he might be MORE likely to stab you in the back, as sacrifices often need to be maintained in order for the order to be upheld, and better you to have to be sacrificed than me.

Law, especially lawful evil, often downplays the worth of individual people. Further, they will often be more systematic in closing up all the loose ends (meaning offing any associate he no longer has any use for in fulfilling his vision.) A chaotic evil guy might just let it go once he was done with you after everything's done because he liked the cut of your jib or because his whims carry him elsewhere. A lawful evil character may not feel like they have the luxury for personal connections or other irrelevant emotions.

As another example, a lawful evil type whose existence focuses on a maintained order may be more likely to hold a grudge when that order is disturbed. Especially for a bureaucratic type, their identity can become ingrained in their order such that they can't let a disruption of their order go. They can pursue vengeance with a single-minded, methodological and cold sort of resentment. (Think of Temple Fugate, aka the Clock King from Batman:the Animated Series) A chaotic character, by contrast may often have an identity that more fluid and less attached to specific social arrangements than the lawful character. Therefore, they may not be so inclined to carry a grudge for so long or so methodologically, especially if something more lucrative comes along in the meantime.

A chaotic character may also be more likely to entertain vastly different points of view since their identity is often less fixed than the lawful character's is. Dealing with them is no necessarily harder than it is with the lawful character because what you have to do is align your interests with theirs. You are more often appealing to their emotions than their agenda, so if it seems interesting for them to go along with you in just this once, they may be inclined to do so. Indeed, in folklore there seem to be more tales to my knowledge of normally evil creatures (such as fey beings hags) helping out a hero/heroine more out of personal whim than any grand design a lawful character may have.

So I guess when I said continuum for each alignment, I really should have said "archetype" or "prototype" because an alignment is really a general label for a category of traits that come together to define that label in our mind's eye. Different examples will vary in these characteristics from the "Platonic Ideal" of an alignment (if such a critter exists), but as long as they have enough traits to fall under the banner, they're still examples of the "archetype" of Lawful Evil.
Lawful evil is about maintaining an order that tends to be self-serving and taking it far enough to be past the realm of neutrality. So, a dedication to order that is perverse enough to be considered evil. Having a code of personal honor is one form of order or lawfulness. Some other forms include:
a) a dedication to some greater cause that serves order. Ironically, this may cause the adherents to abandon personal codes of honor because the mission comes as a priority over individual sentiments.
b) Being methodological and following procedure to get things done (sometimes in an almost mathematical or scientific fashion.)
c) More of a group-identity orientation/less self identity orientation than chaotic characters.
d) tend to be driven more by larger schemes or agendas rather than personal feels/whims/drivees
E) because it's about maintaining order and order often implies slowly of change, evil seeping into order often comes in the form of stagnation and maintaining that rotting order at all costs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would a lawful good person insist on a fair fight? That means that it is more likely that evil will prevail and, by extension, other good people will suffer thereby. It seems to be another argument in favor of the concept of "lawful stupid".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Westerner wrote:
Why would a lawful good person insist on a fair fight? That means that it is more likely that evil will prevail and, by extension, other good people will suffer thereby. It seems to be another argument in favor of the concept of "lawful stupid".

For certain brands of Lawful Good, "fair play" or "chivalry" are forms of honor so intrinsic they are to be upheld as an end in and of themselves. They may also want to avoid the "ends justify the means" concept that defines the Lawful Evil character, their darker cousins. OTOH, other forms of Lawful Good may find such codes of intrinsic honor to be frivolous and distracting them from fulfilling the duties they owe to their causes. (Personal honor often does have a very individualistic element in defining the code, drawing one as separate from his environment.) For those Lawful Good types who eschew personal honor in favor of serving the cause, they will likely focus what they can to get the job done without compromising their beliefs or tainting the honor or goodness of their cause.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh,since this thread was about Chaos and Evil, I will want to include my idea as to the "archetype" of Chaotic Evil
To me, Chaotic Evil shows the following:
1) an aversion to order and structure/preference for being unfettered or a dedication to disorder, entropy, or freedom (more specifically, one's own freedom)
2) pursuing 1 to the point that other considerations are tossed by the wayside.

To this degree, I identify the following characteristics as among some of the possible elements of Chaotic Evil:
a) a dedication to some cause that undermines or takes apart order (classic example: the bomb-chucking anarchist.) and either replace it with no system of governance or one that only benefits the chaotic character him/herself. Basically, the abolishing of rules, codes, and institutions that fetter or restrict the character's own whims
b) methodology that is less defined by written rules. formally crafted techniques, centralized authority, or the like. Basically, the way of Chaotic Evil tends to be more erratic but also more spontaneous than Lawful Evil. Randomness can sometimes be a big element here too.
c) more of a focus on the self rather than a group identity. Holding one self as apart from the environment/world or opposed to it
d)The character's own personal ambitions, whims, emotions, or feelings tend to be more important than some preset agenda.
e) Chaos, being inherently unstable/influx, often implies change and conflict. As such, when coupled with Evil, this can manifest as harmful and destructive change to the status quo, as opposed to the stagnation of Lawful Evil.

In my view, since every person or thing that is slapped with an alignment label represent an instance of a descriptive archetype, one single component is usually not so essential as having the right combinations of elements to represent an example of that archetype. As such, all of these traits above are trends or generalizations.

Often times you will have a character, group, race, or organization of a given alignment that seems to have a trait or two of the other side that seems to contradict its nature. For example, lawful characters are generally more group oriented and chaotic characters are generally more individually oriented. However, this is not one hundred percent true down the board. The gibberling race (from D&D) are thoroughly chaotic in that they represent random marauding governed entirely by whimsy and chance. However, they are also a very group-oriented race in that they have a near lemming-like "follow the leader" M.O. (Basically a more feral embodiment of how fickle groupthink or mob mentality can be.) The 2e Monstrous Manual describes them as thus: "There is no sense, no organization, and no individuality." True individuality requires a level of stability and cohesiveness that some forms of Chaos might not embody. A more human example of group-oriented chaos would be Galt in Golarion, a place that is perpetually tearing itself apart and ever changing with faction turning against faction and ironically allowing for very little individual liberty.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

note on evil: remember that neutral evil, is the most evil you can get, chaotic evil is lessened evil because they have more of an emphasis on chaos/freedom.

so that guy who mercilessly just does evil acts with no care for anything, probably just neutral evil. chaotic evil at least finds personal freedoms important or at the very least that order is something bad and must be stopped/opposed.

basically, chaotic evil can't be more evil than neutral evil, because neutral evil only focuses on the evilness. most people seem to think chaotic evil is more evil than neutral evil, but that doesn't really make sense with how the alignments are set up.

Demons just want death and destruction and so might cooperate with someone offering them the chance at it, while daemons want to consume your soul and they'll probably torture you before hand as well. they favor death, undeath, torture, sadism, and the ruination of all life.

Demons want to kill things because it's fun, daemons NEED, psychologically, the universe to die.


How about Loki from the Thor movies. Evil without a doubt, and very self centered. Yet he is also one to plan and carry out complex schemes.

For fair fights, I recall any number of scenes that go like this:
REF: "This will be a fair fight"
Fighter 1: "So, none of this" (knee to groin of fighter 2)
Fighter 2: <oof>
Fighter 1: "Or any of this" (poke fighter 2 in the eye)
Fighter 2: (grabs face over eye)
Fighter 1: "Or this" (kidney punch)
Fighter 2: (falls down)
Ref: "Correct....Go"

If the "rules" of the fight have not yet been set, there are no rules to follow. I have one character who thinks a fair fight should only apply to competitions, not life or death.

/cevah


Bandw2 wrote:


note on evil: remember that neutral evil, is the most evil you can get, chaotic evil is lessened evil because they have more of an emphasis on chaos/freedom.

so that guy who mercilessly just does evil acts with no care for anything, probably just neutral evil. chaotic evil at least finds personal freedoms important or at the very least that order is something bad and must be stopped/opposed.

basically, chaotic evil can't be more evil than neutral evil, because neutral evil only focuses on the evilness. most people seem to think chaotic evil is more evil than neutral evil, but that doesn't really make sense with how the alignments are set up.

+1 on this. But this confusion extends to common portrayals of the Alignment Grid from D&D 1st Edition through Pathfinder, in which Lawful Neutral is often portrayed and viewed as Lawful Good Lite, while Chaotic Neutral is often portrayed and viewed as Chaotic Evil Lite, and Lawful Good is often portrayed as the best Good, while Chaotic Evil is often portrayed as the worst Evil, and this rotated view is further abetted by the Paladin-Antipaladin dichotomy (with no other Holy Warriors that ever really caught on, and the new Warpriest isn't going to count). Dreaming Psion's posts above do a good job of explaining how this is skewed.

Bandw2 wrote:


Demons just want death and destruction and so might cooperate with someone offering them the chance at it, while daemons want to consume your soul and they'll probably torture you before hand as well. they favor death, undeath, torture, sadism, and the ruination of all life.

Demons want to kill things because it's fun, daemons NEED, psychologically, the universe to die.

Problem is, this still doesn't sound like much of a distinction unless you analyze it carefully.

To make more of a clear distinction between Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil idealizes a grand free-for-all of life(*) -- and I do mean Free-For-All -- check out some guides to Free-For-All WarCraft III (real-time strategy game), and you'll see that they bend towards Chaotic Evil, with only the least evil managing to be Chaotic Neutral. That aside, add in that Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral types care deeply about their own freedom (in the case of Chaotic Evil, not necessarily about anyone else's freedom).

Neutral Evil types, on the other hand, just want to consume everything, whether for their own profit or just to end it all, without caring about any order or freedom or grand free-for-all except in so far as they can exploit such things for their own purposes.

(*)EDIT: Not necessarily all kinds of life. The Qlippoth version, for instance, sees mortal life and the souls shed by mortal life as invaders, and just wants to destroy them. If the Pathfinder Campaign Setting supported Alignments at multiples of 22.5 ` instead of just multiples of 45 `, the Qlippoths would, after the Demonic invasion, have slightly shifted alignment to be more closely aligned with Tarterus/Carceri, even if they live in the Deep Abyss.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Ethical Egoism

We have a bad habit on these forums in assuming that acting in self-interest is a bad thing.

I think the bad thing lies in thinking in terms of "one's own needs and desires VS those of others" as though there's some inherent conflict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paulicus wrote:
Can you think of an example CE pirate from history? My pirate lore is sorely lacking.

Neutral Evil -- The default pirate morality, sure enough. But there were some exceptions.

Chaotic Evil -- Edward Teach / Blackbeard. He ruled by terror and committed atrocities and acts of destruction just because he felt like it. Once shot his first mate and good friend in the leg just because. Also, he kept lit gunpowder fuses burning in his immense black beard. Tell me that's not chaotic. (Also: along with Rasputin, living proof that humans can have a 20 Con. When they finally killed him, his body had 20 sword slashes and five pistol balls in it.)

Really Chaotic Evil -- Francis L'Ollonais. Blackbeard was a sensitive New Age Man compared to L'Ollonais. This is a guy who once cut the heart out of a living captive's chest and ate it in front of the other captives, just because. He liked torturing people.

Wow, so Chaotic Evil -- Edward Low. Go look him up.

Chaotic Neutral -- Benjamin Hornigold. (Yes, he was a real guy and that was his real name.) Blackbeard's mentor, he's been described as "the Emperor Palpatine to Blackbeard's Darth Vader". But that's not quite right, because where Blackbeard was a ravening engine of destruction, Hornigold was whimsical and sometimes even fun. Like, he once stopped a merchant ship, and -- to the confusion of both its crew and his own -- demanded every hat on the ship, got them, and then sailed away without any other loot. When he got tired of being a pirate, he switched sides and became a pirate hunter; would likely have switched back again if he hadn't died in a storm first.

Lawful Evil -- Bartholomew Roberts, aka Black Bart. The most organized of the great pirates, famous for being merciless but utterly fair and just. Ran a pirate fleet as if it was a professional navy.

Neutral -- Jean Lafitte. Switched sides repeatedly, wasn't pointlessly cruel, kept to the code of a gentleman.

Doug M.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

pirates were largely historically democratic(you had to have the support of the crew to be the captain, if they didn't like you, they voted you out, and if you didn't stand down, things got violent), I feel more likely they're firstly chaotic and anti-government minded, and second "i love stealing things/killing people". at least as far as the default pirate alignment goes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

note on evil: remember that neutral evil, is the most evil you can get, chaotic evil is lessened evil because they have more of an emphasis on chaos/freedom.

so that guy who mercilessly just does evil acts with no care for anything, probably just neutral evil. chaotic evil at least finds personal freedoms important or at the very least that order is something bad and must be stopped/opposed.

basically, chaotic evil can't be more evil than neutral evil, because neutral evil only focuses on the evilness. most people seem to think chaotic evil is more evil than neutral evil, but that doesn't really make sense with how the alignments are set up.

Demons just want death and destruction and so might cooperate with someone offering them the chance at it, while daemons want to consume your soul and they'll probably torture you before hand as well. they favor death, undeath, torture, sadism, and the ruination of all life.

Demons want to kill things because it's fun, daemons NEED, psychologically, the universe to die.

Hmm, there will be a gradient of how deep somebody will belong to a given alignment. Remember that NE just means being evil without getting too caught up with law or chaos in how you manifest your evil. Besides ultimate blow-up-the-universe nihilism, NE can serve as the alignment for "mere" unscrupulous mercenaries/hired guns (even a fair portion of the yugoloths were like this back fighting for devil/demon bosses back with the Great Wheel cosmology.) So I might be able to agree with you that NE might have the greater POTENTIAL for evil than LE/CE because it's less fettered with law and chaos, but in practice, I'd say there's not necessarily a directly inverse relationship of focus on law/chaos and evil. (Some forces will be both highly lawful/chaotic as well as evil.) The potential limiting factor that law/chaos might have on evil is that either could potentially make it inflexible.


Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Paulicus wrote:
Can you think of an example CE pirate from history? My pirate lore is sorely lacking.

Neutral Evil -- The default pirate morality, sure enough. But there were some exceptions.

Chaotic Evil -- Edward Teach / Blackbeard. {. . .}

Really Chaotic Evil -- Francis L'Ollonais. {. . .}

Wow, so Chaotic Evil -- Edward Low. {. . .}

Chaotic Neutral -- Benjamin Hornigold. {. . .}

Lawful Evil -- Bartholomew Roberts, aka Black Bart. {. . .}

Neutral -- Jean Lafitte. {. . .}

These examples bring up the question of why Besmara is officially described as Chaotic Neutral rather than Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. (Also the same question applies for Calistria, Gorum, and probably Groetus.) Seems to be again the issue of the alignment grid being rotated, so that Chaotic Neutral is considered as Chaotic Evil Lite and Lawful Neutral is considered as Lawful Good Lite.


UnArcaneElection wrote:


These examples bring up the question of why Besmara is officially described as Chaotic Neutral rather than Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.

Two reasons. The second and less important is that Edward Teach wasn't any more representative of pirates as a whole than was Sir Henry ("Bloody") Morgan, who was arguably NG. (He was also technically not a pirate, as he was scrupulous always to have letters of marque against his targets, not that that would have saved him, as the Spanish didn't recognize English letters of marque and would have hanged him out of hand.)

For much of the Golden Age of Piracy (late 16th - 17th century), Spain had a monopoly on trade with the Caribbean and so piracy was almost an act of national policy against Spain. Most of the buccaneers were ex-Spanish prisoners or slaves who were, as Bandw2 put it, "anti-government" and specifically anti-Spanish. And, this, of course, is the period that people think of whey they say "pirates."

The second and more important is that Paizo isn't stupid and has product to sell, and the product they're selling isn't Edward Teach or even Bloody Morgan, but Captains Jack Sparrow and Peter Blood, probably with a dash of Zorro and of Han Solo thrown in. Besmara needs to cover both the treacherous bastards as well as the lovable rogues.


The second and more important is that Paizo isn't stupid and has product to sell, and the product they're selling isn't Edward Teach or even Bloody Morgan, but Captains Jack Sparrow and Peter Blood, probably with a dash of Zorro and of Han Solo thrown in. Besmara needs to cover both the treacherous bastards as well as the lovable rogues.

Paizo has a lot of "class gods", and I think they might have benefited from having a good one and an evil one for most classes (like angel/devil sitting on your shoulder).


Mechagamera wrote:


Paizo has a lot of "class gods", and I think they might have benefited from having a good one and an evil one for most classes (like angel/devil sitting on your shoulder).

Possibly, but that's not the direction the designers seem to have gone. Personally, I agree with the designers, just because the God of Good Rogues and the God of Bad Rogues is such an overused cliché.


But let's bring it back to the OP: Chaotic Evil without the cray-cray. Can you? I think so. I think so.

Iago -- Seemingly mostly normal, but you just randomly hate certain groups or individual people sometimes. Some folks just get on your nerves, okay? And then you need to kill them. But the rest of the time, you're fine. You're definitely not crazy. You just have firm, clear opinions.

Tyler Durden -- Okay, kind of crazy. But in an interesting, "up for anything" sort of way. IMO Tyler Durden straddles the border between CN and CE, but let that bide -- the cocky character who's always going to drink the unknown potion, start the fight, or pull the lever is an RPG staple. Don't build him expecting a long life, mind.

Chucky -- Chucky's not crazy. He just likes seeing what people are like on the inside. Heh heh heh. -- In roleplaying terms, this is the character who sees violence as the first and preferred solution. Obnoxious and annoying quite possibly. Dangerous, certainly. But not (necessarily) crazy. (Yes, this is basically Belkar Bitterleaf. But Belkar isn't crazy. Just violent and dangerous.)

Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" -- A variant of the above that adds intense aesthetic enjoyment of some sort: I want to kick someone's head in, and then go and listen to Beethoven.

Sideshow Bob -- I'm clearly better, smarter and more talented than everyone around me. I deserve their love and their applause, and possibly their money and their stuff too. Why are you in my way? Don't get in my way. I can be gracious to inferiors, but don't get in my way. If you truly believe you deserve the best, then you're Sideshow Bob. (If OTOH you deep down have a gnawing fear that you're not good enough, then you're Princess Azula.)

The Talented Mr. Ripley -- People like it when you seem nice, so seem nice. It's a sham, of course -- when nobody is looking, do as you please. Everyone else does. But *seem* nice.

Doug M.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Dreaming Psion wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

note on evil: remember that neutral evil, is the most evil you can get, chaotic evil is lessened evil because they have more of an emphasis on chaos/freedom.

so that guy who mercilessly just does evil acts with no care for anything, probably just neutral evil. chaotic evil at least finds personal freedoms important or at the very least that order is something bad and must be stopped/opposed.

basically, chaotic evil can't be more evil than neutral evil, because neutral evil only focuses on the evilness. most people seem to think chaotic evil is more evil than neutral evil, but that doesn't really make sense with how the alignments are set up.

Demons just want death and destruction and so might cooperate with someone offering them the chance at it, while daemons want to consume your soul and they'll probably torture you before hand as well. they favor death, undeath, torture, sadism, and the ruination of all life.

Demons want to kill things because it's fun, daemons NEED, psychologically, the universe to die.

Hmm, there will be a gradient of how deep somebody will belong to a given alignment. Remember that NE just means being evil without getting too caught up with law or chaos in how you manifest your evil. Besides ultimate blow-up-the-universe nihilism, NE can serve as the alignment for "mere" unscrupulous mercenaries/hired guns (even a fair portion of the yugoloths were like this back fighting for devil/demon bosses back with the Great Wheel cosmology.) So I might be able to agree with you that NE might have the greater POTENTIAL for evil than LE/CE because it's less fettered with law and chaos, but in practice, I'd say there's not necessarily a directly inverse relationship of focus on law/chaos and evil. (Some forces will be both highly lawful/chaotic as well as evil.) The potential limiting factor that law/chaos might have on evil is that either could potentially make it inflexible.

i was saying that grand evil is just neutral evil, as opposed to chaotic evil as everyone's go to alignment for when they want to be ultra evil.


Evil is independent of law/chaos. "Grand evil" is just a measure of how deep into the 'evil' side of the good-evil axis someone is, the law-chaos axis is just different flavors.

Now, people representing CE as the 'ultra evil' is a different matter and probably holds some weight.

I think some of this discussion has shown that the law-chaos alignment axis wasn't particularly well thought-out, though (relative to good-evil, anyway). For many characters it can be ambiguous if they fit into a strongly chaotic or lawful alignment. I know I've had that debate with some of my PFS characters when deciding where'd they fit, and they definitely weren't neutral. Example: I have an inquisitor of Achaekek, who obviously acts strongly like an assassin. Occasionally some people question why he's lawful neutral. If a character has a strong personal code, but that code plays out like a chaotic alignment, which are they? Interesting questions.

On topic, I've been watching the new season of Walking Dead and:

just in case:
I think this new group from Terminus (Gareth & Co.) seem like a solid CE. Heck, if it was PF they would be turning into ghouls pretty quickly :P


Paulicus wrote:

Evil is independent of law/chaos. {. . .}

Now, people representing CE as the 'ultra evil' is a different matter and probably holds some weight.

I think some of this discussion has shown that the law-chaos alignment axis wasn't particularly well thought-out, though (relative to good-evil, anyway). {. . .}

I think the idea was a good one, but even as far back as 1st Edition AD&D the inventors of this system had their implementation of the idea contaminated by the bias in our world that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil, combined with the related inability of most Humans on Earth to handle a multi-axis alignment system. Actually most Humans on Earth can't even handle a single-axis alignment system properly -- remember the (in)famous example from a few years ago of "if you're not with us, you're against us". (Would be interesting to have an Adventure Path in which the PCs travel to Earth and have to try to figure out the US political alignment system, but this isn't going to happen unless Paizo off-shores.)


I agree with you. Overall I enjoy the alignment system, despite its issues. I'd be amazed if designers had (or ever will) been able to make an alignment system that is clear, unambiguous, and all-encompassing. Of course, I'd be amazed if we ever come up with a cheap and unlimited energy supply as well :P

Maybe if we added in 30-some more dimensions on the alignment 'grid' we'd get close, but that's patently unworkable.


^Problem is that clear and all-encompassing are in opposition to each other, with Humans. A system with 30 dimensions might suit some alien beings just fine, but Humans can't manage even 1 dimension.

As for the cheap and unlimited energy supply (for the moment ignoring the one staring us in the face every day, although that is admittedly not exactly cheap), fusion was 30 years in the future in the 1950s, is 30 years in the future now, and will be 30 years in the future in the 2050s.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yeah, they should use positive connotations for the words on the ethical axis. like Liberty and law or something. chaos is mostly opposed on a word basis with Order, which has a less positive connotation as Law, and so Law seems better.

also, no matter what the book says humans favor Lawful good over every other form of alignment(in RL), thus chaotic evil seems the most evil to us.


To me CE is not insanity.

I take my view of Chaotic Evil from real life. You see chaotic evil in politicians for example. I'd say probably most of Walstreet is chaotic evil. These are nice enough people but if you get int their way they steamroll you legally or illegally depending on what they can get away with and which is easier. If you have something they want they figure out ways to legally or illegally to part you from it. Need an example look at what they did with people's homes after 2008. Sure there were a lot of deadbeats but they used that to manipulated foreclosures so they could steal people homes. That's Chaotic Evil and it involves politicians and banksters. When I play CE, that's the type of CE I play. My players are typically shocked at the evil my NPCs portray as I mirror real life. Typically killing the NPC just means another takes it's place. The PC realize just how futile the fight is when they take it on directly. It's sickness that runs deep in these societies. It's kind of scary because you start the good fight in the game and see the problems in real life after the game and how helpless you are.

Sovereign Court

voska66 wrote:


To me CE is not insanity.

I agree

voska66 wrote:
I take my view of Chaotic Evil from real life. You see chaotic evil in politicians for example. I'd say probably most of Walstreet is chaotic evil.

Assuming you're right about the evil - they both pretty much epitomize LE, as they change an manipulate the rule of law to their own ends. Maybe NE in some cases.

voska66 wrote:
Sure there were a lot of deadbeats but they used that to manipulated foreclosures so they could steal people homes.

Assuming the whole thing was evil - the taking of homes wasn't the part that was evil. If anything was - it was convincing people to take out loans that they couldn't afford. The actual taking of the homes when they don't pay is merely the logical end result of that. (A LN action in and of itself.)


Bandw2 wrote:
yeah, they should use positive connotations for the words on the ethical axis. like Liberty and law or something. chaos is mostly opposed on a word basis with Order, which has a less positive connotation as Law, and so Law seems better.

I think I figured out what you mean, although it sounds weird the way you say it, maybe because it is half traditional words and half substitute words. But I think Benjamin Franklin was onto something here -- he spoke of Freedom and Security.

Bandw2 wrote:


also, no matter what the book says humans favor Lawful good over every other form of alignment(in RL), thus chaotic evil seems the most evil to us.

I think you might be giving Humans overall too much credit. Yes, I would agree that they actually somewhat favor Lawful (as long as they can get around it themselves), and they very often SAY that they favor Good, but in practice I would have to say that they favor Evil, so that overall the bias is towards a point somewhere between Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil, although with enough scatter that all of the Lower Planes should be populated well enough to have no shortage of Petitioners, although with the Abyss winding up more rural than you might think.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:


I think you might be giving Humans overall too much credit. Yes, I would agree that they actually somewhat favor Lawful (as long as they can get around it themselves), and they very often SAY that they favor Good, but in practice I would have to say that they favor Evil, so that overall the bias is towards a point somewhere between Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil, although with enough scatter that all of the Lower Planes should be populated well enough to have no shortage of Petitioners, although with the Abyss winding up more rural than you might think.

not really, leaders tend to be greedy(usual reason for being a leader) and thus tend towards evil, and they have a hugely disproportionate influence on world history. The average human does not enjoy war or murder and often is radically opposed to it, and in general favors life or only taking what life you need to take. In fact so much so that someone who commits murder is usually themselves captured and then must be punished either capitally or otherwise, with little thought, and being opposed to death is good in pathfinder. The average person must be pushed hard to commit murder or kill someone.

the gross mass of humanity is both favorable to law, and enjoys themselves more often when performing pathfinder's definitions of good. so they're LG. not paladin levels but they do hover past the line from neutral.

Sovereign Court

UnArcaneElection wrote:
But I think Benjamin Franklin was onto something here -- he spoke of Freedom and Security.

I believe the quote you're referring to is...

Ben Franklin wrote:


Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Though it's been paraphrased into a bunch of different variants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Large corporate banks are run by many types. Primarily though, they are run by people who seek to benefit themselves, their friends and investors. The current era of finance highlights all of the companies who have been shady in their dealings in the media. We may hear about cover ups as well. The reasons and circumstances for cover ups are songs good intentioned (save a friend) and sometimes not (avoid getting yourself sacked for being criminal or stupid).

The corporate structure prefers it's Chaotic aligned people at the top that are flexible strong leaders, whereas the lower ranks are filled with relatively content Lawful aligned people and frustrated Chaotics.

The evil/good axis on banks is less clear. Exploiting "Muppets" is ill- intentioned, and sometimes illegal. OTOH, there exist very strongly Good- aligned people from top to bottom. They do good for people inside and outside the bank (charity, going beyond your job requirements to help, promoting political reform). If sleazy attitudes characterize the organization, these people either try harder to make up for their bank's incompetence or become frustrated with being unable to change things positvely, like Voska66 has pointed out.

My experience in banking shows that harm is more often from incompetence as from malice, and that cover ups usually start from a small group covering something up rather than the organization conspiring for evil. I argue that corporate banks are more often led by Chaotic leaders, but run as Lawful Stupid. We inside the organization empathize with customers and clients, and be unable to help due to legal and regulatory reasons.

Tl; dr - not all bankers on wall street are evil, but we hear the most about the evil and chaotic ones because they make the news.


Bandw2 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:


I think you might be giving Humans overall too much credit. Yes, I would agree that they actually somewhat favor Lawful (as long as they can get around it themselves), and they very often SAY that they favor Good, but in practice I would have to say that they favor Evil, so that overall the bias is towards a point somewhere between Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil, although with enough scatter that all of the Lower Planes should be populated well enough to have no shortage of Petitioners, although with the Abyss winding up more rural than you might think.

not really, leaders tend to be greedy(usual reason for being a leader) and thus tend towards evil, and they have a hugely disproportionate influence on world history. The average human does not enjoy war or murder and often is radically opposed to it, and in general favors life or only taking what life you need to take. In fact so much so that someone who commits murder is usually themselves captured and then must be punished either capitally or otherwise, with little thought, and being opposed to death is good in pathfinder. The average person must be pushed hard to commit murder or kill someone.

the gross mass of humanity is both favorable to law, and enjoys themselves more often when performing pathfinder's definitions of good. so they're LG. not paladin levels but they do hover past the line from neutral.

I suppose in that case, it really boils down to where one draws the line between good and neutral. I find that most people's commitment to good starts dropping the instant they need to make any significant sacrifice to do good. "Oh yeah, I'm all for helping the homeless? What, spend a weekend working in a soup kitchen? Well I'd like to, but..."


Bandw2 wrote:
not really, leaders tend to be greedy(usual reason for being a leader) and thus tend towards evil, and they have a hugely disproportionate influence on world history. The average human does not enjoy war or murder and often is radically opposed to it, and in general favors life or only taking what life you need to take. {. . .}

Again, you are giving most Humans too much credit. We have strong opposition to war RIGHT NOW because of the cost it has been having on people (other than the ones actually getting maimed and killed), with little to show for it, but the population has been pretty easy to drum up for war many times in history, including recent history. The leaders do not do their evil in a vacuum.

Rabbiteconomist wrote:


The corporate structure prefers it's Chaotic aligned people at the top that are flexible strong leaders, whereas the lower ranks are filled with relatively content Lawful aligned people and frustrated Chaotics.

No, Chaotics don't work well as corporate types. Corporatism requires a heirarchical framework of exploitation, and the leaders have to respect that to work within it, even if not in the same style as the rank-and-file. Thus, corporations and their leaders span the spectrum from Lawful Evil (insurance company types) to Neutral Evil (types trading very high-demand commodities such as energy and weapons, that can continue profiting handsomely even with an admixture of chaos).


I always like to play my Chaotic Evil characters as followers of Rovagug, or in the similar vein of wanting to destroy all of creation. This is reminiscent of Chaotic Evil creatures like Demons wanting to sow destruction but is differentiated by the motivation to not only destroy but to obliterate.

This way I can play the character in pretty much any disposition While the character at its core Evil and Chaotic due to their desire to end reality, they can help act helpful or even kind as long as they never lose site of their end goal. Playing a character this way lets you have your Chaoticly Evil cake and eat it too; as you have this goal of supreme destruction but have a reason to work cooperatively with the rest of the party in order use them to get in the position to do real harm.


As far as people tending to think LG is the best and CE the worst, I don't think LG is necessarily the best. LG, NG, and CG all have things going for them, and I tend to prefer NG and CG, though I think a solid case can still be made for LG.

On the other hand, CE is worse than LE in my opinion.

The reason for the lack of symmetry is that Lawful means the character is restricted by something, be it a personal code of conduct, tradition, honor, truth, the written law, keeping promises, etc., usually several of those. Chaotic means there are no restrictions on those lines.

Good means the character is constrained by caring about others at least as much as himself. Neutral on the good/evil axis has enough care for others not to do heinous things, especially to people who treat you well. Evil has no such constraints.

So, whether someone is LG, NG, or CG, they can be counted on to show a good amount of benevolence. Therefore, a good character can be trusted regardless of Law/Chaos. The constraints of Law aren't important in constraining the character, due to the character's benevolence. The same is mostly true with neutral on the good/evil axis as long as you're an ally and have treated the character decently.

An evil character might decide it's in his best interest to work with you, but if he decides it isn't, he'll harm you...except, LE characters will have certain measures they won't take due to Lawful constraints. CE characters have no constraints. If they feel they'll gain from it, they'll kill you in your sleep. Some LE characters might, but many would find that dishonorable or wrongfully promise-breaking or the like. NE vs. CE is open to a lot of interpretation, but LE is easier to deal with than CE, even as LG and CG are virtually equal in terms of being trustworthy within a party that shares their general goals.

Some of those who believe LG is the best good might believe so because LG is the most constrained, bound by both benevolence and honor/laws/traditions/truth, etc.. I think that's confusing the most difficult moral code to live by with the "best," though.

I think most real humans are Neutral on the Good/Evil axis, not many are Good, but even fewer are Evil...but most prefer Goodness and most of those aspire to it, but most fall short.

Sovereign Court

UnArcaneElection wrote:

No, Chaotics don't work well as corporate types. Corporatism requires a heirarchical framework of exploitation, and the leaders have to respect that to work within it, even if not in the same style as the rank-and-file. Thus, corporations and their leaders span the spectrum from Lawful Evil (insurance company types) to Neutral Evil (types trading very high-demand commodities such as energy and weapons, that can continue profiting handsomely even with an admixture of chaos).

Well - someone certainly doesn't like corporate types. :P While I agree about the lawful, why is someone in insurance evil? Assuming it isn't one of those fly-by-night insurance companies - most consistently hold to the policies, paying out when warranted etc. - a LN action. (don't believe how it was portrayed in The Incredibles - that guy was LE :P) Giving more than what the person needs would be stealing, as it isn't their money that they're giving out, but the company owners'. (A decent chunk of which are virtually always the policy holders.)

I would say actually - that Chaotic types would often be the type of enterperneurs who can't make the jump from a small business to a corporate style structure.

Also of note - I've read that sociopaths make up about 5x as much of a % of Fortune 500 execs than are in the general populace. However, they tend to do rather badly as enterperneurs. Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath) doesn't inherently make one evil on the alignment axis. (few are probably on the good end of the spectrum though)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Oly wrote:

As far as people tending to think LG is the best and CE the worst, I don't think LG is necessarily the best. LG, NG, and CG all have things going for them, and I tend to prefer NG and CG, though I think a solid case can still be made for LG.

On the other hand, CE is worse than LE in my opinion.

The reason for the lack of symmetry is that Lawful means the character is restricted by something, be it a personal code of conduct, tradition, honor, truth, the written law, keeping promises, etc., usually several of those. Chaotic means there are no restrictions on those lines.

Good means the character is constrained by caring about others at least as much as himself. Neutral on the good/evil axis has enough care for others not to do heinous things, especially to people who treat you well. Evil has no such constraints.

So, whether someone is LG, NG, or CG, they can be counted on to show a good amount of benevolence. Therefore, a good character can be trusted regardless of Law/Chaos. The constraints of Law aren't important in constraining the character, due to the character's benevolence. The same is mostly true with neutral on the good/evil axis as long as you're an ally and have treated the character decently.

An evil character might decide it's in his best interest to work with you, but if he decides it isn't, he'll harm you...except, LE characters will have certain measures they won't take due to Lawful constraints. CE characters have no constraints. If they feel they'll gain from it, they'll kill you in your sleep. Some LE characters might, but many would find that dishonorable or wrongfully promise-breaking or the like. NE vs. CE is open to a lot of interpretation, but LE is easier to deal with than CE, even as LG and CG are virtually equal in terms of being trustworthy within a party that shares their general goals.

Some of those who believe LG is the best good might believe so because LG is the most constrained, bound by both benevolence and...

except chaotic isn't supposed to be "free of restraint" it is a devotion or inclination that people should not be tied up by traditions, laws, or expectations. a CE character should be capable of working with a CG character if it meant that it favored chaotic ideals, this is impossible with how they warp chaos in CE. or should be at odds with LE just as often as with CG.

if someone is full on unabashedly evil, they are NE. CE should be more about seeing people's freedom ensured through evil methods. Such as most anti-government groups that rely on bombs or assassination attempts.

CE is not evil unleashed, the G-E and L-C charts are about motivations, you aren't motivated as CE to perform evil with out restriction, as without restriction isn't a motivation it's a way you can perform evil, and thus is just an aspect of NE.

chaos isn't insanity, it is an inclination for nati-government or tradition and the right that people have the ability to choose their own destiny, or that outside powers have no right to influence something or people.

a CE outsiders should be something that wants to see cities and other organizations destroyed. NE is the outsider that should just want to see everyone dead (which they do, but CE just as much :/).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
not really, leaders tend to be greedy(usual reason for being a leader) and thus tend towards evil, and they have a hugely disproportionate influence on world history. The average human does not enjoy war or murder and often is radically opposed to it, and in general favors life or only taking what life you need to take. {. . .}

Again, you are giving most Humans too much credit. We have strong opposition to war RIGHT NOW because of the cost it has been having on people (other than the ones actually getting maimed and killed), with little to show for it, but the population has been pretty easy to drum up for war many times in history, including recent history. The leaders do not do their evil in a vacuum.

yeah they followed the leaders because they're LAWFUL and were told their actions were doing GOOD. people don't in general ask for war, they're told they need it.

WW1 for instance was started for absolutely no reason other than ones between leaders, and then were told everyone had to participate if they wanted to protect the Father/Mother-land.

WW2 for equally political reasons.

When Rome and Carthage went to war, it definitely wasn't the citizen's idea.

of course as always, the Mongols are an exception.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath)

Please don't pretend to psychological knowledge you don't have.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath)

Please don't pretend to psychological knowledge you don't have.

I never claimed to be a psychologist, I was just pointing out an interesting / relevant stat, and that particular clarifying point was made in the article I read. (I do understand my stats.)


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath)

Please don't pretend to psychological knowledge you don't have.

I never claimed to be a psychologist, I was just pointing out an interesting / relevant stat, and that particular clarifying point was made in the article I read. (I do understand my stats.)

That particular "clarifying point" is wrong. The distinction between "psychopath" and "sociopath" is of historical era only. "Sociopath" was the preferred term for a very badly defined diagnosis from about 1930 to 1950, displacing the earlier "psychopath," which had been used since the 19th century. With the development of actual diagnostic standards (e.g., the DSM, first published in 1952) neither term is used. DSM-IV uses the term "antisocial personality disorder."

Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.


Oly wrote:

On the other hand, CE is worse than LE in my opinion.

The reason for the lack of symmetry is that Lawful means the character is restricted by something, be it a personal code of conduct, tradition, honor, truth, the written law, keeping promises, etc., usually several of those. Chaotic means there are no restrictions on those lines.

I would actually disagree on this, because Lawful Evil is far more dangerous and effective, and can more easily reach a large scope.

Chaotic Evil, by its very nature, doesn't do well at creating large-scale, enduring organizations. Chaotic evil creates a street gang that mugs a couple dozen people. Lawful evil creates a megacorp that robs from millions.


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Chaotic Evil, by its very nature, doesn't do well at creating large-scale, enduring organizations.

On the other hand, it's great at creating uncoordinated mass movements, which are often harder to defeat than organizations. There's a reason that terrorist groups (which are typically highly chaotic) use a cell system.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:


Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.

So - Psychology Today is run by quacks? (I'm actually asking - no sarcasm intended.)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath- psychopath


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.
So - Psychology Today is run by quacks? (I'm actually asking - no sarcasm intended.)

Or edited by them, anyway. No actual psychological, psychiatric, or other professional organization endorses the use of those terms, and you'll get a paper bounced from an APA-affiliated journal if you use them.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.
So - Psychology Today is run by quacks? (I'm actually asking - no sarcasm intended.)
Or edited by them, anyway. No actual psychological, psychiatric, or other professional organization endorses the use of those terms, and you'll get a paper bounced from an APA-affiliated journal if you use them.

A quick Google says it's very much pop psychology.

101 to 150 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Chaotic Evil without the crazy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.