Chaotic Evil

Anyone who wants "survival of the fittest" based on the fact that they constitute "the fittest".
Maybe the villain from Metal Gear Rising?

Read this
killsixbilliondemons.com/comic/kill-six-billion-demons-chapter-1/
You can thank me later

>He's all about satisfying his urges, sating his lusts, and no means are too foul to reach the ends.
t. everyone

They are someone who is by their nature at odds with mainstream society. Like the soldier who comes home only to live forgotten on the streets, or the ex-con who who only understands life in jail; for whatever reason attempting to live in a lawful, regimented world for this person is like being a fish on a beach, desperately flailing around in the sand trying to walk alongside crabs. They were made for something different.

Also, they are entirely willing to cause others suffering in ways that are unjustifiable by "ends justifies the means" in order to reach their goals.

Other people have things called 'morality' and 'restraint' that generally keep them from doing nothing but try to satisfy their base urges

Someone who has no socialized mechanisms or innate qualms with violence, but who also isn't very concerned with personal gain or safety in any generalized sense. They don't want much, or have many problems with things, but the arbitrary things they do want will be taken regardless of consequence and the things they have problems with will be destroyed even if they seem unimportant or counter intuitive to long term structural goals.

>Other people have things called 'not having these things readily accessible' and 'not enough time' that generally keep them from doing nothing but try to satisfy their base urges
FTFY

post more chink sluts

Clare Quilty is Chaotic Evil.

Humbert Humbert, however, is Neutral Evil.

>most humans are Lazy Neutral, or Lawful Lazy depending

Main character of A Streetcar Named Desire is Chaotic Evil

Closest thing I came to a CE character was in a Warcraft game.
>Leader of a Troll warband in service to an ancient and once powerful empire
>Said empire believes the world exists in cycles, and that the fall of their empire is the mark of the end of the current cycle.
>the end of each cycle begins with the destruction of the world and devouring of its inhabitants by their patron deity, only to be reincarnated in the following cycle
>but this world has stagnated and the lesser races keep progressing. On top of that they keep trying to stop god from eating them. Actively stopping every new distaster meant to destroy the world and its inhabitants.

>Which is why it's my job to single handedly wreak as much wanton destruction as one man possibly can. Murder everyone I can, bring enough suffering to the ones left alive that life isn't worth living, every building- every city to every dirt hut- will be burnt to ash, and every supremely powerful being responsible for the wellbeing of the planet will be either slaughtered or warped into some twisted wicked shadow of its former self

TL;DR: Have their explicit goal to be as destructive and hurtful as possible for the sake of some greater purpose.

...

Wasn't chaotic evil originally supposed to be someone who was not sane? As though there were no justification for a living person to ever align themselves that way so it defied sanity to even be like that?

Chaotic Evil was re-envisioned later but I think to restore sanity to Chaotic Evil one might by necessity take something away from Neutral and Lawful Evil which once belonged to they and they alone.....

Don't be surprised if what makes a Chaotic Evil character not seem like a raving lunatic or a complete jackass turns out to be their somewhat neutral or lawful-looking moments.

Don't forget 'fear,' 'physical limitations,' 'shame,' and 'self-delusion.'

This also applies to all other forms of life, organic or otherwise.

LIVE spelled backwards is EVIL. Did you really think that was a coincidence?

You know that guy who always listens to everythign you have to tell him, nods agreeably, then does somethign completely out of left field, totally disregarding what you had to say about it? Not that it was random - he's thought about it and it looks like he has a clue, it's just not the way you would have done it (or anyone ELSE would have done it). He's the kind of guy whon sees some loner and sits at his table and strikes up a conversation regardlessof what other people think of the person he's talkign to. He's the one who takes initiative with class assignments, and then never turns any of them in. He's the person who dresses down when everyone else is dressing up, and yet acts like he's just as dressed up as the rest of them; and when they're supposed to be blending in, he's standing out in the crowd, but not near the people who are trying to blend in because he'ss not out to cause them trouble.

He's not That guy - he's the one who takes That guy seriously, and then turns the campaign on it's ear by outdoing that guy unironically and purposefully, yet doesn't make the campaign worse by doing it and instead makes it better.

An individualist who respects others' wishes and individuality alike, and doesn't cause shit just to cause shit. That is Chaotic Neutral done right.

The character believes on a philosophical level that society and community are preventing people from becoming worthwhile on their own. That relying on others is a weakness. He sets out to prove his point, to prove that the constructs of society will inevitably fail, and to teach his lesson of self-reliance. He also belives pain and suffering to be the greatest teacher.

>This level of pseudo-intellectual edge
Jesus user, you're an artist. For a second, I loved irony and parody again.

this man

>Fat
>Rei
You're almost as bad the rebuild faggots.

...

Wank it while you kill someone because death is the only way you can get it up now. Death and leather nazi paraphernalia.

Does this guy count as Chaotic Evil?

He certainly didn't hold anything back in his pursuit of... er...

Donald Trump

Simply someone who doesn't quite grasp that other people matter. Incredibly selfish, almost solipsistic.

>in his pursuit of... er...
Decadence.

Perhaps.

A wealthy billionaire who made his millions very deliberately producing products that would work just well enough to get widely used, but poorly enough that it would frustrate people to no end when something they came to depend on broke in some critical and user hostile way. He spends his excess money hiring drug dealers to prey on elected officials, and leave them in the lurch at critical moments, as well as spending money funding anti-government protesters. When asked why, he simply states that he was always fascinated at how ants scurried about when the hill was kicked, but would stay put as long as the hill wasn't too damaged, and he wants to see if humans react the same way.

Two come to mind immediately, one is a character I'm running right now. The other is a character from a web serial named worm.

Let's go over Web serial dude, his name is Jack Slash. He is all about conflict. He's the leader of a roving band of murder hobos called the slaughter house nine, and has earned a reputation on par with faux eldritch abominations. The thing that makes him work is that he keeps things in a near constant state of flux. His team members change regularly, he'll never use the same tactic twice (besides his opening, though thats to sate the ego of a team mate), and any scene he's in is inherently tense because no one knows what he'll do next. Highly recommend him as a case study.

My current character is a Swedish war profiteer in the 30 years war. He's lied, bribed, and outright blackmailed people just for the sake of money, which he uses to pull of successively more extreme schemes. The cycle continues until something goes wrong and things fall apart explosively, at which point Ezra will throw as many people as possible on the fire until he can stand safely above the flames. The only reason the party tolerates him is because he is absurdly well connected and will compulsively protect anything he deems an asset while in the execution stage. The central irony is that Ezra is effective mostly as a force multiplier, despite being an incredibly self centered character

Someone who pulls pranks everywhere he goes.
Some examples are whoopie cushions, leaving fake poo in a kitchen,switching someone's water with alcohol, putting laxatives in soup, putting a child's head at the foot of their parents' bed, sleeping with the mayor's wife, poisoning a well, putting thumbtacks on a chair, oiling up pigs and releasing them in a building,
Basic pranks and stuff.

A philosophical anarchist who believes throughly in the idea of disorder and chaos being the natural order of things; who takes no compulsions against doing horrible things to achieve his goals, but often does no more nor no less.

He has taken a whole people for hostage, and strived to take out the embodiment of peace and harmony in the world because she fundimentally is counter to what he believes is right in the world.

He has taken down a monarchy, and doesn't care for dealing with the aftermath.

The best Chaotic Evil character that comes to mind, that is taken seriously every time they are encountered.

So what really makes the difference between chaotic neutral and evil? Motive?

>roleplaying a rapist

Pretend sex is all you'll ever get.

Originally, D&D had only

Law

Chaos

&

Neutral.

None of this "Good vs Evil" faggot bullshit.

you salty bro?

Once played a D&D campaign as a mostly Neutral human dude who had a Symbiont from Eberon attached to him.

The dude was pretty easy going but the arm registered him as Chaotic Evil so I figured it would give my character a challenge when spending time around NPCs with Detect Alignment. it didn't, the DM never acknowledged character alignment after creation.

I'll admit, the character was heavily inspired by the Berserker character in DFO.

But his aim was to actually make America for everyone again, not just the rich, powerful, and corrupted. He was evil, but not because of his goals, which were NOT survival of the fittest. That was just how he planned to break down the system.

I have a gun right in front of me, I have a history of violent behavior, and I'm not killing the room-mate I hate who is in the next room, sleeping.

Here's your (You).

No more salty than the Trump Supporters trying to vehemently deny that he's selling us out to Russia in exchange for the election.

a being who is impulsive, devoid of morals, playful, easily manipulated, and holds grudges over petty things

Their actions are not lolrandumb but neither are they one to form a plan much in advance.

(You)
Can go do a flip, faggot.

The easiest way to clarify that is to remind you of the way D&D alignments were originally framed: Law vs Chaos.

Law tended toward a stable social order over one's individual priorities with an eye toward a world that was predictable and orderly, and thus Good. Chaos tended toward an unpredictable social order that favored exploring individual advantages over that of the greater social good, and thus Evil.

So it is Law vs Chaos that is the basic morality operation in alignments, not Good vs Evil as everyone is used to thinking.

To bring it back, a Chaotic Evil character will be constantly thinking and working at how he can get his way. He may be quite law-abiding if it is in his best interest, or if he sees that his enemies are too powerful for him (hiding behind the law when he needs its protection only to discard it when he doesn't is classic CE). But given a way to gain an advantage with minimal risk to him, he will take it, legal or not.

The Hegel-Nietzschean concept of the Superman would thus be quite at home in the mind of a CE character. After all, any ideology that justifies his efforts to bend the whole world to his will is certainly one he can get behind.

That's not to say he's a psychopath or has no use for either rules, manners or etiquette. To the contrary, they all can be exploited for tremendous social gain, and the intelligent CE character would seek exactly that. I would not be surprised in the least to find a CE character able to recite from memory the most picayune rules of any card game. After all, he can use them to nullify the advantages of his opponents, and if it came to it, to justify his killing of his opponent in a scuffle (he dealt himself a card from the bottom of the deck officer, and when i objected his hand went to his gun-what was I supposed to do?)

I liked Pact way better than Worm, but they're both better than Twig. I don't know why McCrae picked "biopunk" over "near-future gameshow where players are kidnapped, have masks bolted to their face and must kill each other or die" as a setting.

I frequent the CE role. Our DM prefers one of us always plays a pot stir up as he calls it. It's usually me.
My current character seems like an upstanding fellow. At face value he is a great guy. I took an arrow for out cleric. Saved our paladin's skin in the midst of a goblin ambush and Got out fighter out of some extremely bad business with some slum lords... but I needed that trust. They all have things I want and need. Our Thief had figured it out and confronted me after following me into the sewers to find me trading gold off to an assassin.
He did not leave those sewers.

That is one of the ways I play CE.

I like the idea of a guy who has a noble goal/goal aligned with the rest of the party who just has no limits about what he'd do to see that goal realized.

Like if the party was going to save the world from a big bad villain, he'd be totally on board with saving the day, but he'd rob a store for supplies, torture people for information, or stab through a hostage to reach the villain without blinking.

Judith Jergern

youtube.com/watch?v=Jts9suWIDlU

Someone who cleverly tricks the system into fighting itself while still keeping their urge to destroy as a priority. In towns they're sneakier and away from the group with a good excuse and doesn't leave behind evidence. You can still bribe guards, rig conspiracies and get cronies to do your bidding without having to be a neutral or lawful guy.

after all, how else do you get to level 3?

His reasoning seems to be LG though...

Gordon Gecko is the easiest.

Jayne, from Firefly.

Chaotic evil is honestly rather impractical, there are few situations where a well balanced individual reasonable enough to see the likely consequences of there actions to indulge in chaotic evil.

"Smart" evil tends to be lawful or neutral.

Having read the thread more closely, I should point out that most of the Chaotic evil characters mentioned fail to meet the qualification of sane and not stupid.

Most examples have the character acting in a mentally unsound manner or with shortsightedness and a poor understanding of how to achieve their desires.

The street mugger who killed your parents

Holy crap, people actually believe the Russian meme...

You know how "tricksters" are usually chaotic good? Just make them chaotic evil.

A lawful evil character is a dark knight, someone who desires to dominate and oppress but can be bound to his word. Neutral evil goes either way and chaotic evil is the unscrupulous opportunist who will not only resort to deception and blackmail when possible, but actively uses it as part of his repetoire.

Chaotic Evil is often depicted as entirely stupid (see: ) but if played well Chaotic Evil can actually be the smarter evil, if only because they don't cut out certain very useful though very underhanded tricks out of some kind of code. A chaotic evil "knight" can swear an oath of loyalty to serve his king until death only and specifically for the sole purpose of winning the king's trust so he can choke him to death later.

Would the knight still be chaotic evil if he isn't particularly honorable and he only serves the king because it allows him to kill people?

... Kylo Ren?

Depends on whether or not he holds a certain code of chivalry. If he just revels in battle but does respect certain rules like not attacking non-combatants, I'd call him Lawful Evil. If he just slaughters everything in the general direction his king points him to, I'd call him chaotic evil. That's actually a pretty interesting mechanic: a "knight" under the servitude of a lord only because it benefits them both: the "knight" gets to kill without ending up on the gallows, and the king would be better off with a guided projectile than an unguided one. He directs the "knight" at the enemy so he's not going around killing his own subjects.

Sounds kind of like The Mountain from Song of Ice and Fire.

Couldn't Genghis Khan qualify as Chaotic Evil?

I think Chaotic Evil is muddled because people view Chaotic Neutral a lot like Chaotic Evil (I do whatever I want).

I'd say that they should very similar alignments. Both being individualist and maybe a bit self centred. The Chaotic Neutral character probably has friends who they care about and would give for. The Chaotic Evil person is only in it for themselves though.

But Evil without insanity is hard any way. Unless you're some Charles Manson pariah you wouldn't actually self-identify as evil. And even he doesn't admit to being evil. Evil is kind of a dumb concept and you won't be able to write good characters that are also classified as evil per definition.

Someone who is simply there to destroy all order, no governments, no rules. He'd be hedonism incarnate.

...

>Hundred year stab
Who knew that Bleach of all anime would have the most brutal execution?

That was Mayuri's best look. I wish he kept it for longer.

...

You're describing CN potentially, is the trouble. Not caring about other people's problems is a highly neutral perspective.

>you wouldn't actually self-identify as evil

Where does this meme come from?

Who self-identifies as evil?

There was an npc companion/follower I made in a campaign I ran named Ka'Navarro who was basically best friends with the party thief
I think he may be the most successful evil character I have made that has been well received by my players, I could tell Veeky Forums about him

Reluctant evil doers maybe. People who know what they are doing is wrong but feel they have to or that they can't help it.

'Hmm could it be maybe
SATAN?!

Isn't it more chaotic neutral in this way ?

He's Lawful to his very core

Lawful good in fact

Bellatrix Lestrange

Describe? Surely my reputation precedes me by now!

neither stupid or insane

Ramsay is neither: just vicious and impulsive.

...

Man i love apollyon

Someone who delights in the highly sane enjoyment of dominating and subjugating his fellow man. I'm sure none of you nerds have any experience with this, but the rush of beating the absolute shit out of another person (especially if you really think he has it coming) is not something to take lightly.

Oh, and the character also feels no need to be consistent or conformist.

This goes all the way back to Plato's Meno-everyone seeks "good" as they construe it. So even a CE character would not think of himself as evil. He is just doing what is needed in his eyes to achieve his goals, which are obviously good (for him). And yet it is HIS goals that are always more important in the calculations of his mind, and that is the mark of evil.

The difference is in the way he takes his actions. Whereas a lawful character would strive to work within a social and legally acceptable framework, a chaotic character sees that framework as irrelevant-nice when it's on your side, and handy when you can use it against an enemy, but not worth bothering with if it's the only thing stopping you from getting what you want. The attitude of "rules are for losers and suckers" is quite fitting.

spot on I gotta say

Someone free from morality but enslaved to their desires. Just like how a hero is bound by their code of honor, the villain is bound by their often self-destructive tendencies. It's what keeps evil from winning. Sure, if you want to play a Moriarty-type then you can largely mitigate those urges, but you can never eliminate them.

No, it's a highly evil perspective. A Neutral person still cares about friends and family.

Good: You generally care about everyone
Neutral: You generally care about friends and family
Evil: You generally care about only yourself.

Lawful: You are generally rigid in thought and action
Neutral: You are generally flexible in thought and action
Evil: You are generally spontaneous in thought and action.

>evil evil

...

This. Should be end of thread.

No,good means you are prone to self sacrifice for others, neutral means you are not willing to harm others for selfish reasons but you aren't prone to inconviencing yourself for them either, evil means you are willing to harm others for selfish reasons.

>An individualist who respects others' wishes and individuality alike

I have to disagree with this part, but interestingly enough most game versions include this point. To an extent it's true but it's much more accurate to say the Chaotic Neutral respects a system (ironic descriptor, more like "way of life") where people are free to make their own choices, and he respects those that do. However, he has no respect for people who cannot take control of their own life and can't think for himself; he is an individualist after all. This is the part which is also included in official descriptions which doesn't make much sense if you put the original two together: since he is neither good nor evil he has no real motivation to hamper or help people in achieving their freedom. Therefore, since he is generally opposed to oppresion, he'll fight for his own freedom, however since he is in individualist he won't fight for anyone else's freedom. A real chaotic neutral character has no qualms about things like slavery, as long as he is not the slave.