Chaotic Evil

Which is why classic 9-way D&D alignment needs to be taken with a handful of salt, and requires the people to actually understand what the system represents, and is ultimately absolutely redundant when defining a character's personality.

I don't know. Does it?
>what the system represents
A way to categorize characters based on their behavior and personality?
>redundant
More like ambiguous, I think

No, not really. Chaotic basically means "fuck the police", not "I will go out of my way to be the exact opposite of law abiding citizens". A CE character can have a sense of duty, he can keep his word and he can have friends and family he loves very much. Even a "fuck the rules, I live by my own rules" character can be chaotic. A stereotypical loose canon cop who doesn't play by the rules could be a CG character, even if he has his own personal code. His LG counterpart would be his hilariously mismatched partner who does everything by the book.

>More like ambiguous
Sure, it is that, you're not wrong. But it is redundant if you actually want to flesh out a personality.
You'll notice how that label doesn't really bring anything in, at worst it just constricts you.

Fair enough.
Even if it's constricting I think it's a decent guideline as to what you can expect from a character, though you're right that it's redundant.

it can, you need a basis of beliefs rather than "doing it for the evluls".

my mad scientist believes in rules of nature. only the strong survive. so i make strong animals to protect myself, align myself with the strongest in strength and power to wipe out the weak in my way, and promote evolution both biologically and forcefully. if someone steps in my way its kill or be killed, and they are an evolutionary dead end as far as i care.

Yes. Play a nihilist, a "survival of the fittest" guy, a debauched hedonist, just off the top of my head.

You can't play a CE character and expect your party to trust you.
A party of Evil PCs won't even trust you. In fact, they'll ESPECIALLY not trust you.

>Play a nihilist
Student of humanities nihilist or cold-hearted capitalist nihilist?

>MUH COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODE

>be a decent guy with a few close friends that you like too much to ever harm
>be cruel and needlessly violent with anyone who crosses you
This is CE, but it's trustworthy (if you're his friend).

>cold-hearted capitalist nihilist?
That's LE, so probably the former. "Nothing matters so I'll do what I want" etc

Yes.

Thats LE

how is it LE, I didn't mention a set of rules or anything. If the guy I described is only nice and caring to his small circle of acquaintances (because he likes them, not out of a sense of obligation, which is why it's not lawful), but is an asshole to everyone and everything else, it's enough to be considered CE.

how? having someone you dont want to kill doesnt mean lawful. your thinking chaotic = i dont care about anything but me(which could apply to most evil).

Neither. The "fake" nihilist that says "life has no inherent meaning, so literally nothing I do matters, therefore I can do whatever."

Which of course is all wrong. The whole point is that life lacks inherent meaning so you overcome that "abyss" and do your own thing and FILL that abyss with meaning.

> is all wrong.

That depends though. If your idea of overcoming the abyss isn't linked to finding meaning but rather accepting meaninglessness, then what you said above can be considered valid
It's absurdism but that's just a specific interpretation of nihilism

>you will never take Jack to town picking up sluts so she can carve one up and crawl inside her for as long as she wants
>you will never wash her afterwards, dispose of the body and enjoy breakfast together watching the sun rise

How is this not lawful evil? Explain the distinction.

Many anons have reached this understanding in their own way - except the meaning is literally cocks.

Your character was Gregor Clegane?

>but would it be necessary to expect betrayal at some point or another
Why would it be?

>or can CE have some limits without being LE?
Of course they can. They just need to be sporadic limits, based on no clear system.

See LE is rigid and fair but ruthless, CE is just ruthless. There's no assumption of fairness in a principled CE.

lawful = by the books established over the years
chaotic = by my feelings at the spur of the moment
neutral = abit of both

how is this hard to understand?

It's wrong, though, since you're implying chaotic is incapable of planning or making decisions that don't rely on feelings.
Chaotic just means they're not bound to any sort of constraint.

So long as it's tempered by an understanding of their own mortality.

what Lupin III movie is that from?

Can CE feel guilt or empathy?

im not saying that chaotic cant plan, im just stating general beliefs. self moral code and code written in a book are two different things. one is more personal and the other an umbrella a bunch of people follow.

I don’t recall BW having any such understanding

Just play a guy who's mostly normal and not a Joker caricature. He can even have friends or loved ones.
But give him a particular obsession, or goal (that's getting closer to NE though) or outlook on life, and have him pursue that thing with no regard to the suffering of random people and the damage he might cause to society.
He might be a traveler who lives for the gathering of magical knowledge and is willing to commit atrocities to further his understanding of the arcane, but won't bother (yet won't ever refrain himself from) hurting randoms if he doesn't want or need to.
Like in the pic, he can be a cop who just enjoys killing but other than that is a pretty cool guy.
Or he can just be a simple hedonist but just be a bit too much of an asshole to be considered CN.
There are lots of possibilities for non-edgelord chaotic evil characters.

CE =/= not caring about anything else but yourself.

its a mostly selfish alignment, generally a CE person might not feel so hot after killing a long loyal servant, person, friend, even lover. but the guilt might reside because they knew what opposing you meant. there would be some internal conflict or none depending on the person.

in the end, alignment charts are a guideline, not an end all be all categorization for everything under the sun. its a generalization that can be justified given the right wording and situation.

...

From the top of my head and it's a shitty example, but Tuco from Breaking bad is CE yet cares a lot for his family.

Make it funny, and make it hurt mostly people the PCs don't care about. Then have it become personal and let your players realize they've been giving a nutjob slack because he's not really been their problem.

Always playing CE as nutjobs is boring

He knows not to start slaughtering people at the drop of the hat because the player character beat the shit out of him when they first met. He could kill anyone else who tried to take him, that much is made pretty clear for the most part.

For a CE player character, they're not going to be the one man army that whirlwind is so they would have to restrain themselves a lot more often.

>DG and SH
How the fuck are you not just shoving hot ash in your face?

DG you twist your fingers to puff and can flick the ash off easily. SH you gotta twist your wrist to puff and shake the ash off, or just inhale from the lit end and spit out the ashes like a Scruffy Holligan you are.

plz respond

Sure, there are levels of evil. "But I'd never hurt a child!" And then you burn down your rival's house with his kids inside and feel like shit.

But if you feel bad about it, you're not really evil.

>The player characters are your close friends.
>Talk to other players and work out a compromise so that you can go around doing irrevocably horrible shit every now and then, while also allowing them to do goody two shoes thing.
>The compromise should allow both sides to avoid stepping on each other's toes.

Bam, wham, done.

Why?

Evil is selfish and doesn't give a shit, especially CE. You're thinking of CN.

evil =/= cant feel feelings or care

seriously guys, evil doesnt mean complete sociopath. evil can be just a selfish prick, but that doesnt mean he dont have people they care about that love em too.

>Manson didnt care
or
>Manson WASNT CE

Pick either one and you're a fucking idiot, pick neither and you're wrong.

that sounds more neutral than evil, to be evil is to specifically want to do things that are evil, simply being ok with doing evil things does not make you evil

You mean "Manson cared" right? Or else you're confirming what I said

Read, don't skim.

>Manson didn't care and wasn't CE
So what was he? I thought Manson was textbook chaotic evil.
Either way, are there any good example of fictional characters who aren't sociopaths yet can be considered CE?

DG you're holding your hands palm-out when you inhale. SH you put your curled fingers above your top lip and inhale from the right side of your mouth.

They don't have to be a 'hoo-hoo I'm so kooky xD' nutjob.

The only correct choice was to pick neither, and then they would be wrong about CE meaning you can't care. What's so hard about this for you? Do you have brain damage?

>pick neither and you're wrong
>The only correct choice was to pick neither

...

CE does whatever occurs to them to do. Some people simply don't have certain things occur to them. The Joker is textbook CE but he'll never kill Batman because that would ruin his fun.

>Can it be played? Or is it irredeemable?

The D&D alignment paradigm has done the hobby of roleplaying a terrible disservice. It attaches emotionally-charged dualistic labels to broad, ill-defined, and often overlapping categories of people, actions, and things. The game systems which use it often force gamers to argue about their characters' stories through this narrow and distorted worldview. It largely cannot tolerate ambiguity; all things, people, and actions must be assigned one of these hugely divisive labels for the game to proceed.

Alignment is poison to discussion of ethics in roleplaying. The hobby has been de-emphasizing it for good reason. The sooner we can discard it completely, the better.

Oh ok you just can't read got it.

Not my fault you're so retarded you can't write coherently, moron

Sure. Maybe you killed the maid because they used your notes to stuff your boots, but then later you're like "Fuck, I shouldn't have done that. Who's going to make my Sunday night casarol now?"

I think they should have a standard list of values: truth, money, comfort, justice, power, love, vengeance, integrity, suffering, etc.
You make players choose like 5 or 6 or six values and they can shape their character around that

Not him, but why force players to quantify their motivations in game terms at all?

kinda hard to explain my whole character in few word.

he doesnt do it for evil, he does it to further his genetic research under the belief he is taking a hand in evolution itself by improving things to their best potential. its progress for progress sake, and he doesnt think that the endgoal creation will end up trying to kill him. he is a saturday morning cartoon mad scientist and prone to flipping out over small details that matter only to him. thats what makes him chaotic, all ideas and pride but no endgoal in sight.

oh fuck, that busted my guts. im such an oldfag, that crystal pasta shit man.

It is your fault for being so American you can't figure this "conundrum" out where being wrong about CE was the conclusion if you could read, no wrong about the choice like it was either or. Correct choice was neither but it made you wrong about CE, which was the point, you utter fucking shitbrain.

>doesnt mean he dont have people they care about that love em too.
Pic related

Or you can just treat her like a daughter and love her unconditionally. That keeps her docile.

>Excessively petty to the point of hilarity
>Makes the citizens of his utopian city utterly reliant on him
>Has people put into grinders for things as minor as being a twin or littering
>Considers profanity and complaining to be "verbal littering"
>Absolute dictator and completely insane
>Extremely violent, merciless, and a backstabber. Once gouged a guy's eyeballs out with a spoon and sent hitmen after his grandmother okay fine his grandmother deserved it.
>Put his own daughter through endless suffering despite loving her
>Pretty awesome antagonist overall
>Definitely falls into Chaotic Evil territory

I'd play with someone who could pull off Handsome Jack

yeah thats a pretty good example, i hate the half assed CNs that play anything "like deadpool" and use it as a "do what i want scot free" card. doesnt stop the consequences. the best part was believing he was the good guy because he was colonizing the wasteland and bringing civilization of a planet despite his methods. but hey, he dug himself up to the crazy CEO chair. all the companies in BL are fucked up, but business is business.

it would be interesting to play up the murderhobo aspect like this, justifying their actions as "were the good guys! its okay to kill/torture/deface them!". or even punish players for powering though everything by having some nations regard them as bloodthirsty barbaric hooligans because of all the people munchkins kill.

pic semi related. boy becomes a big evil friendly cyborg with good intentions but does horrible crap.

I mean I tend to quantify my own motivations so why wouldn't my characters have some understanding of theirs?
For example I know that some people care about appearances and reputation to a flaw... I gave up caring awhile ago so reputation wouldn't be inn my list
Also some people are more spontaneous, whereas I need a plan before I act

Defining virtues/values and corresponding vices is way more interesting with given words with deeper meaning rather than "my guy likes ale" "my guy follows the good Gods"

Words like bravery, comraderie, silliness, and even nihilism can affect a character greatly. You define things to understand them. I feel this is a good base line. Way better than 9 boxes. Way better than 12 zodiacs. Way better than good v evil.

Are hedonists CE by default?

depends how far they go to get their kicks

CN by default

Isn't that existentialism? Existence preceding essence?

Where do you draw the line?

You're all wrong, the best way to do this is to remove neutrality, refine definitions, and add even more alignments. The best way is to make things way more complicated.

Neutrality is stupid, especially how it's defined in D&D. True neutrality is basically just a weird pseudo-lawful. So get rid of it. Instead of neutral each character leans toward one axis more than the other. So an LG character can be LLG or LGG.

----------

Law: External. My moral code comes from an external, objective source. Anyone who doesn't live the way I live is capital-W Wrong and in need of correction.

Chaos: Internal. My moral code comes from within me and is not objective. I might clash with people who disagree with it, chaos isn't relativism, but I don't ascribe metaphysical Truth to my morals.

Good: Protective. Power should be used to help those without power.

Evil: Abusive. Those with power can use it as they please, those without power are to be used.

----------

LLG is a crusader who seeks out and punishes those who harm innocents without mercy. A vengeful paladin is LLG.
LGG is a protector who aids victims and shows mercy on evildoers. A local cleric is LGG.

CCG is a free spirit who thinks people should do their own thing as long as it doesn't harm others. A kind wanderer is CCG.
CGG is selfless and goes out of his way to help other people without expecting them to follow his particular morality. A woodland healer is CGG.

LLE is a social darwinist who sees oppression as the natural order of things. Altruism is unnatural and wrong. Ayn Rand is LLE.
LEE is iron-fisted, abuses the weak, and would see his mandate enforced worldwide. He believes it's his place in the world to rule over others. A slaver lord is LEE.

CCE is selfish and abusive and takes what he wants from those who can't stop him. A ruthless street thug is CCE.
CEE is malicious for its own sake and not a realistic alignment for a sane human. A night hag is CEE.

>True neutrality is basically just a weird pseudo-lawful.
Only if you play it as that retarded muh balance alignment. TN can just be apathetic. Just cares about himself but doesn't go out of his way to hurt others, doesn't really care about society but doesn't break laws for the hell of it.

Defining Good and Evil like you do is too restricting as well. Good is selfless, Evil is egoistical, that's the most basic definition.
The way you describe the Law/Chaos axis is pretty weird as well, why do you associate a moral code to chaos?
Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean you have no values, but it simply implies that your decision-making is in no way affected by an external set of rules (you're right about that)
However chaotic individuals can still have very strong convictions and beliefs they're willing to fight for and that they consider as an objective truth. The nature of these beliefs usually define whether they're chaotic or lawful; i.e. a set of well-defined rules is lawful, while a general impression of how the world is (and thus how I should act) could fit a chaotic character.
Social darwinism is, at heart, chaotic evil, but rationalizing it by extrapolating a set of specific rules from it is lawful.

You ever notice how people like this never define "chaotic" with the meaning od chaotic, but by defining "not lawful"? Chaotic means impulsive, lawful means regimented. Once you understand that the alignment system makes more sense.

A lawful evil person abides by their code, a chaotic good person does what's right instinctively and without regard for consequences.

As dumb as this game is, I actually believe that Kled is a good example of a chaotic evil character done right. He just wants to live on his fucking land in peace, and will kill anyone who goes near his land. He isn't "I'm going to burn this camp to the ground because I like fire". He's "I'm going to burn this camp to the ground because they settled on my land.

Maybe morality is the wrong word. Why does the character do what he does? If it's because it's the objectively correct way to do so and not doing so is Wrong, then he's lawful. If he does it because he thinks it's best, and he doesn't think it's inscribed in the fabric of the universe, then he's chaotic.

>Chaotic means impulsive
But that's wrong.

that's from the series

Your system is shit because it implies everyone has a moral code. You've fallen for the "lawful" trap everyone else has.

Is it? What is chaos? Unpredictability. If a person is impulsive, what are they? Unpredictable.

I say the alignment system should be Selfless-Selfish X Disciplined-Impulsive. This works much better because these are character traita that have actual meaning. Lawful is clearly confusing, and good and evil have relative meaning.

No, chaos is independence/freedom of action without being constrained by rules.

>my mad scientist believes in rules of nature. only the strong survive
AND THEY RUN WHEN THE SUN COMES UP

So classic Punk philosophy?

checked

hedonists are seeking to make themselves happy but due to their love of pleasure they dont want to be in dangerous situations. a typical hedonist will lounge about doing drugs and fucking and eating grapes and such. because they seek pleasure and will typically ignore laws in favor of pleasure they are chaotic, however they do not really engage in evil acts

however a hedonist that has lived for a long time, perhaps an unnaturally long life, will eventually get bored of the same old drugs and sex and may develop... stranger tastes

so an immortal hedonist might eventually only get pleasure from ritualistic baby rape, thus making them CE

this user had it right