@ Bandw2
If chaotic evil is defined by their opposition to law that makes their actions predictable and not chaotic at all.
What you are describing as neutral evil (acting on a whim with no rhyme or reason) sounds more like chaotic evil to me.
chaotic alignment isn't just pure chaos. outsiders sure, but a person running around to gain chaotic evil alignment has to do something chaotic to get that alignment. killing for pleasure is in no way chaotic.
They would have to do actions that promote chaos, since evil is inherently destructive, they're more likely to perform destructive actions against the law than constructive actions in favor of chaos.
Only if you leave the really evil people out of the lineup. If you line up the most evil people of the twentieth century and aren't a blatant communist apologist you're going to wind up topping the list with mostly lawful evil tyrants. The only maybe neutral evil who might possibly make the top five is Mengele and chaotic, hah. Chaotic evil is the alignment of pikers. You need a whole horde of chaotic evil to even approach the evil that can spread from a half dozen lawful evil people and they'l still lack the discipline to be effective against civilization.It is interesting that nobody has put forward an argument that Chaotic Evil is the most evil alignment in this thread.
I have seen it stated in other threads in these forums that Lawful Evil is the least evil and Chaotic Evil the most evil.
it's because you asked the question in the opposite direction.
if you lined up 3 people, said which was worse and then told people to give them an alignment, I almost assure you in a vacuum most people would put the worst people as CE.
like i said, people seem to attach chaotic evil to people who aren't even that chaotic.
that's because chaotic people in general would not be leaders and thus aren't very noticeable in the grand scheme. Leaders have a greater capability to commit evil, and lawful tendencies make a strong leadership that is resistant to falling or being overthrown.
However, if we're counting personal actions and not the policy of their government, I feel people would call "chaotic" people more evil.
Chaos isn't necessarily strict opposition to the law, just as Law isn't necessarily strict adherence to the law. That's definitely a facet to them, but its not the only facet. A Chaotic Evil character could be someone who murders people just because he's free to do so, and loves exercising that freedom. A Lawful Evil character could be a crimelord who follows a strict code of honor.
Chaos isn't necessarily strict opposition to the law, just as Law isn't necessarily strict adherence to the law. That's definitely a facet to them, but its not the only facet. A Chaotic Evil character could be someone who murders people just because he's free to do so, and loves exercising that freedom. A Lawful Evil character could be a crimelord who follows a strict code of honor.
evil alignments try to destroy the opposition alignment. LE tries to remove freedoms(while LG probably wouldn't care about existing freedoms), and a CE would try to destroy lawful establishments. Neither try to promote stuff.
Never said otherwise. Just that a CE doesn't HAVE to be actively against law, he can just have a complete disregard for it.
Never said otherwise. Just that a CE doesn't HAVE to be actively against law, he can just have a complete disregard for it.
then as I have mentioned what action do they perform that are chaotic?
They still refuse to work inside the law, placing personal freedom over the system. That's still one of the hallmarks of Chaos, they're not all freedom fighters.
They still refuse to work inside the law, placing personal freedom over the system. That's still one of the hallmarks of Chaos, they're not all freedom fighters.
but that isn't an action in of itself, how long do you have to ignore lawful people to become chaotic? I don't think that's the point, they have to actively pursue chaos to become chaotic.
this is why I think most people are labeled CE just because they're crazy, when they don't really perform any chaotic actions ever.
Is any one form of good more good than the others?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignments three evil alignments aren't any more or less evil than each other: but the characters that have those alignments are going be all over the map.
As an example, imagine a loan shark who beats people within an inch of their life while shouting the cliche "where's my money!?". I'm pretty sure we can all agree that's evil, but could swing between lawful or chaotic depending on other factors. Now let's compare him to an evil cultist who kidnaps children as human sacrifices to fiends. Depending on whether you like demons, daemons, or devils that could swing the gamut of chaos to law. It's extremely obvious which of these two is more evil, and it has absolutely nothing to do with their position on the law/chaos spectrum.
Now, Pathfinder villains aren't your run-of-the-mill evil. They tend to be over-the-top extremes that have more in common with the child-murderer than the loan shark I described above. The reason for that is obvious: they make more unambiguous and unsympathetic antagonists for the PC's to defeat. This can obscure the fact that they aren't typical, that most evil characters are not supervillains but just nasty and immoral people, and individually run a broad gamut from "more evil" to "less evil". When viewed in that light, asking which alignment is more evil than the other doesn't really make sense. You can certainly ask it about individual characters, but I don't feel that you can say so from the alignment itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is any one form of good more good than the others?
the blue one.
the most evil is the one that masquerades as good hiding his true nature as he leaves evil in his or her wake.
paladins on a crusade murdering anyone or anything that gets in his/her way. doing evil because he or she is "protected" by god.
no one is evil in their own stories and they can't do wrong. people who stand against them are the evil ones.
In D&D 5e Paladins can be lawful evil. I think it would make for an interesting character if they thought they were doing good by killing evil even though their methods were questionable.
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.
Oh really?
LE is corruption.It erodes the belief in a just system.
Drives into apathy, where you can trust nobody and no justice.
CE might horrify us, but LE's systematic vileness is just as horrible.
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.Oh really?
LE is corruption.
It erodes the belief in a just system.
Drives into apathy, where you can trust nobody and no justice.
CE might horrify us, but LE's systematic vileness is just as horrible.
Meh. Who's worried about injustice when the Daemons are trying to eat your soul?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.
it depends on if you'd rather die than be controlled like that or not.
it's really a personal thing.
rather die on my feet than live on my knees sorta thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not Paizo published.
well if we're going that route
There is no 'most' evil. There is just evil.
wasn't published by Paizo either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.it depends on if you'd rather die than be controlled like that or not.
it's really a personal thing.
rather die on my feet than live on my knees sorta thing.
I mean in that scenario you shouldn't worry, you're definitely the first ones LE kills and uses as an example to get the rest to submit.
I mean in that scenario you shouldn't worry, you're definitely the first ones LE kills and uses as an example to get the rest to submit.I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.it depends on if you'd rather die than be controlled like that or not.
it's really a personal thing.
rather die on my feet than live on my knees sorta thing.
nah generally acts that make examples of passionate rebels mostly brew resentment and friction. It usually makes more problems for the nation. public political executions are almost always from chaotic regimes anyway. looking at you France.
much more likely to make it an accident.
in which case they'd have to find you as you're probably already a rebel in the hills.
anyway doesn't this undermine your point, you agree that they'll still aggressively try to kill people who wouldn't concede, and terrorize those who do?
Neither was this. I guess there is no canon answer.Not Paizo published.well if we're going that route
There is no 'most' evil. There is just evil.wasn't published by Paizo either.
neither was that, so I guess there isn't even an answer to whether there's a canon answer.
hint hint for anyone listening in, this is all non sequitur.
CN = CEVIL
When I play with a CN that isn't CE, I will change my view of this as an ABSOLUTE! But I've only been playing into my fifth decade and have yet to see this 'unicorn'. I place it in the same category of 'honest politician' and 'bigfoot'.
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.
I can see a case for lawful evil being the most evil. The logic being as follows: imagine the multiverse is being run by a super computer, the alignment system is a set of rules that allows the computer to unambiguously determine which alignment a character's actions represent. Lawful evil characters are more likely to consistently follow the rules of evil and therefore are the most evil. By the same logic lawful good is the most good. Of course the alignment system doesn't have to work that way.
CN = CEVIL
When I play with a CN that isn't CE, I will change my view of this as an ABSOLUTE! But I've only been playing into my fifth decade and have yet to see this 'unicorn'. I place it in the same category of 'honest politician' and 'bigfoot'.
yeah people in general put chaotic alignment too much into being an incarnate of pure "lol so random" and chaos.
anyway doesn't this undermine your point, you agree that they'll still aggressively try to kill people who wouldn't concede, and terrorize those who do?
No, because they will engage in it in a more methodical way.
CE and NE will often kill indiscriminately for the pleasure of killing. LE wants someone to rule, and will generally only kill those who wont submit and make trouble.
Terror is a tool used by all forms of evil, but for LE its purpose is to control. For other evil it is not a means to an end, but rather the goal itself.
This is why I made the BBEG in my campaign "True Evil." No questioning that that he's the most Evil.
He's also the guy who invented Evil, so there's that.
It's not a very serious campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I've only been playing into my fifth decade
You've played Pathfinder for five decades?
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.
You've obviously never read 1984. Or Kafka.
Evil is a matter of expression. Any of the three evil alignments can be equally evil, whether they are lawful, chaotic or neither only means they travel different roads to the same end.
The novel 1984 does not strike me as a lawful evil society. For starters there are no laws, who is in power is determined by whoever assumes power. They erase history and start again on a whim. They also declare war on a whim.
The novel 1984 does not strike me as a lawful evil society. For starters there are no laws, who is in power is determined by whoever assumes power. They erase history and start again on a whim. They also declare war on a whim.
It's eminently lawful because it's not ruled by a single all powerful strongman, nor is it ruled by Democracy. It's ruled and maintained by the Party. That's overriding consistently oppressive Law. every so called change is determined by overriding hiearchy.
And it's also a situation far more complex and detailed than what's accomodated by a wargaming mechanic.
anyway doesn't this undermine your point, you agree that they'll still aggressively try to kill people who wouldn't concede, and terrorize those who do?No, because they will engage in it in a more methodical way.
CE and NE will often kill indiscriminately for the pleasure of killing. LE wants someone to rule, and will generally only kill those who wont submit and make trouble.
Terror is a tool used by all forms of evil, but for LE its purpose is to control. For other evil it is not a means to an end, but rather the goal itself.
is indiscriminate killing more or less evil than methodical, industrial and planned killing? who can tell.
I disagree. The concept of double think (holding two contradictory ideas in your mind at once and accepting them both as true) is clearly illogical and therefore chaotic.
The ministry of love being a place of torture is a chaotic premise. A lawful evil society would name that institution what it truly is.
The total lack of consistency in policy is pure chaos. One minute they are at war with Eastasia, the next Eurasia.
The "party" is just whoever happens to be in charge at any one time. There are no rules about who belongs where.
There are no laws because they would interfere with the arbitrary use of power.
History is completely rewritten and all contrary evidence is destroyed on a whim. The society described in 1984 is a good example of chaotic evil.
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.You've obviously never read 1984. Or Kafka.
Evil is a matter of expression. Any of the three evil alignments can be equally evil, whether they are lawful, chaotic or neither only means they travel different roads to the same end.
I personally prefer 100 years of solitude for my lawful evil.
nothing says lawful evil like mass exploitation and mass graves.
I disagree. The concept of double think (holding two contradictory ideas in your mind at once and accepting them both as true) is clearly illogical and therefore chaotic.
The ministry of love being a place of torture is a chaotic premise. A lawful evil society would name that institution what it truly is.
The total lack of consistency in policy is pure chaos. One minute they are at war with Eastasia, the next Eurasia.
The "party" is just whoever happens to be in charge at any one time. There are no rules about who belongs where.
There are no laws because they would interfere with the arbitrary use of power.
History is completely rewritten and all contrary evidence is destroyed on a whim. The society described in 1984 is a good example of chaotic evil.
1. it's cognitive dissonance, and it's a fairly normal occurrence. You have the right to go over the speed limit because you need to, everyone over the speed limit is breaking the law and should be punished for their reckless driving.
2. Evil loves to lie
3. chaos itself does not define chaotic as the alignment, at least when describing humans.
4-6 I don't want to go into it anymore how being crazy isn't being chaotic. a lawful good person could be crazy, etc etc etc.
My argument is straightforward
Kafka describes a bureaucratic nightmare, therefore lawful evil.
1984 describes the arbitrary oppression of people where there are no laws , therefore chaotic evil.
Nineteen Eighty Four isn't totally chaotic -- at least in the area where Winston Smith lives, you don't have warlords, and a rigid routine is maintained most of the time, interspersed with chaotic shifts. I would classify the regimes as Neutral Evil -- actually more or less the average for Communist regimes, being willing to use oppressive order or chaos or some mixture thereof to achieve the utter consumption of all for their own benefit. They may have shifts to the Lawful or Chaotic sides of Neutral Evil (depending upon who or what is in power), but they average out to more or less in the middle of the Law-Chaos axis.
Nineteen Eighty Four isn't totally chaotic -- at least in the area where Winston Smith lives, you don't have warlords, and a rigid routine is maintained most of the time, interspersed with chaotic shifts. I would classify the regimes as Neutral Evil -- actually more or less the average for Communist regimes, being willing to use oppressive order or chaos or some mixture thereof to achieve the utter consumption of all for their own benefit. They may have shifts to the Lawful or Chaotic sides of Neutral Evil (depending upon who or what is in power), but they average out to more or less in the middle of the Law-Chaos axis.
I agree that it isn't totally chaotic, but it is chaotic enough to qualify as chaotic evil. To be neutral evil there would need to be some laws, even if they aren't always followed. In 1984 there are quite literally none.
I don't want to go into a book that I haven't read, but it sounds like each given state is more or less lawful evil, while a consistent event happens that is chaotic evil, turns it into a different form of lawful evil.
The book is called 1984 because that is the year the main character: Winston, guessed it to be. He doesn't know and there is no objective way for him to find out. That is how chaotic society has become. Nothing is illegal because there are no laws, but everyone is afraid of drawing the attention of the thought police who punish you for arbitrary thought crimes, it is classic chaotic evil.
Too much of a rigid heirarchical organization for the Abyss, though -- I'd put parts of it in Hades/Grey Waste (PlaneScape for Abaddon) and parts of it in Tartarus/Carceri (what PlaneScape had in between Hades/Grey Waste and the Abyss).
Too much of a rigid heirarchical organization for the Abyss, though -- I'd put parts of it in Hades/Grey Waste (PlaneScape for Abaddon) and parts of it in Tartarus/Carceri (what PlaneScape had in between Hades/Grey Waste and the Abyss).
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you must be as chaotic and evil as the Abyss to be considered chaotic evil?
The book is called 1984 because that is the year the main character: Winston, guessed it to be. He doesn't know and there is no objective way for him to find out. That is how chaotic society has become. Nothing is illegal because there are no laws, but everyone is afraid of drawing the attention of the thought police who punish you for arbitrary thought crimes, it is classic chaotic evil.
The system itself, the hierarchy doesn't change. It in fact maintains it's consistent structure by denying people, even itself facts that can distract the hiearchy or lead people to question it. But the process itself is eternal and unchanging. The governing process, the Party itself, is frighteningly stable, because not even it's leadership is exempt from it's checks and balances.. it's not Galt, but the complete opposite.