Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xorauth 05-22-07, 12:52 PM	Hi ! My character, an half-elf sorcerer with an heavy draconic legacy (he has the feat of the same name), just turned from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil has a decision of my Dungeon Master. I'm not against playing a whole different alignment. However, i'd like to have some ideas about how i should roleplay this change. What do you think about it ? Thanks for your ideas.
fiendish_platypus 05-22-07, 04:36 PM	Well how did you roleplay before? It's not a big jump, most people play Chaotic Neutral so tehy can do Evil things and say it's okay.
Xorauth 05-22-07, 05:06 PM	In fact, i'm used playing it as a "twisted" character... I mean : he often cares about nobody except himself, sometimes enjoy to do good things and be known as a heroes but, as he inherited his natural abilities (breath) from a green dragon ancestor -known for their cheatings -, he also loves intrigues and may be even sometimes violent. I managed til today to keep it "on the line".
fiendish_platypus 05-22-07, 05:15 PM	In fact, i'm used playing it as a "twisted" character... I mean : he often cares about nobody except himself, sometimes enjoy to do good things and be known as a heroes but, as he inherited his natural abilities (breath) from a green dragon ancestor -known for their cheatings -, he also loves intrigues and may be even sometimes violent. I managed til today to keep it "on the line". Then keep doing the bad things and stop doing the good things, you don't need to be some sadistic priest or an Orc warrior to be Chaotic Evil you know.
Xorauth 05-22-07, 05:51 PM	Ok.I'll do this. Thanks for your advice.
Westbound 05-23-07, 12:54 AM	The new description for Chaotic Neutral is what I consider "amoral," meaning that you do not make decisions based on morality (I have some philosophical problems with this, but we'll go with it). To go to Chaotic Evil, you are now utterly "immoral," meaning that what you do is sociopathic in nature but you don't care. You have to think of yourself first and foremost, and you take what you want when you want it. You might be wary of law enforcement, which might prevent you from doing certain things (after all, you don't want to get caught). Concerns about the law only matter to you so long as you don't get caught. Any other concerns matter if you let them. You don't care for other people's well-being, you never put yourself in their shoes. Why would you? To do that might be unpleasant, and why do it if you don't have to? Those that are weaker than you must suffer to your whims. Those that are stronger than you will be heeded, until you can put a dagger in their back. Some notable characters that are Chaotic Evil: Blackbeard, the Pirate. Hannibal Lecter (He might seem Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil, but trust me, he's Chaotic Evil - he's a sociopath). Jack the Ripper Smaug The Dragon (from The Hobbit) Gollum (Again, some might consider him Neutral Evil, but he's willing to do almost anything to get the Ring from Frodo, and he's not altogether sane, by the way). Ming the Merciless (Some may consider him Lawful Evil, but this guy makes his law as he sees fit. He is at the top, as far as he knows, and he rules with an iron fist. He is utterly ruthless, and he is even willing to torture and potentially kill his own daughter to achieve his ends.) Galactus, from the Marvel Universe. Venom, Marvel Universe. The Joker, DC Universe Darth Maul Darth Bane Asajj Ventress You get the idea.
LiquidDarkness 05-23-07, 09:29 AM	Darth Maul, and Venom are Lawful Evil. Maul being a tool utterly devoted to Sidious, and Venom depending on the writer held to a strict code of conduct (don't hurt innocents), while on the other hand Carnage was Chaotic Evil. Also to me Galactus seemed to be more of a True Neutral, as he was more of a force of nature than an entity, again depending on the writer. Other than that I totally agree with you.
Westbound 05-23-07, 10:58 AM	Darth Maul, and Venom are Lawful Evil. Maul being a tool utterly devoted to Sidious, and Venom depending on the writer held to a strict code of conduct (don't hurt innocents), while on the other hand Carnage was Chaotic Evil. Maul was Chaotic Evil. You're confusing necessity and devotion with using the framework of laws and tradition to achieve one's goals. According to the stories given in the Expanded Universe and in the TPM novelization, Maul was a savage creature, a pitiless monster honed for combat and strong-armed to his master's will. Only necessity and risking his master's wrath kept him on a tight leash. Venom was different, though. He might be Neutral Evil now, but he certainly wasn't when he first started out. One thing you got to understand about Lawful Evil is that laws and traditions of a given society have to be of use to that person. That's why I put Galactus as Chaotic Evil. He's Chaotic Evil because when he wants to feed, he cares nothing for whatever lifeforms may reside on the victim planet. No rule governs his existence except the laws of survival. It may seem like he's a force of nature, and indeed there are cosmic repurcussions if he is somehow removed from existence, but that only reinforces his evil nature. It could be a terrible excuse (I mean "terrible" as in "terrifying") to justify his actions, but evil is evil, and if Galactus was Good he would do everything in his power to prevent harming innocent lives. If he were Neutral, again he might consider that life serves a purpose perhaps greater than to serve his own existence, and would work to find alternatives to satiate his hunger. But he doesn't, because he doesn't think the lifeforms that exist on the worlds he eats matter. Sure, he uses them from time to time as heralds, but that's mainly in an effort to direct his own resources more efficiently.
Fithero 05-23-07, 11:01 AM	This is the way ive always looked at it Good = Put others before yourself and not willing to hurt them to get what you want Evil = Put yourself before others and willing to hurt them to get what you want) Neutral = put yourself before others, but not willing to hurt them to get what you want It's a pretty simplistic view of the whole Good/Evil axis, but it allows you alot of room to move about. In your case, its a pretty simple move, you still go for what you want, your just more willing to hurt others to get it. Hope this helps.
Stormbrand 05-23-07, 11:02 AM	The new description for Chaotic Neutral is what I consider "amoral," meaning that you do not make decisions based on morality (I have some philosophical problems with this, but we'll go with it). To go to Chaotic Evil, you are now utterly "immoral," meaning that what you do is sociopathic in nature but you don't care. You have to think of yourself first and foremost, and you take what you want when you want it. You might be wary of law enforcement, which might prevent you from doing certain things (after all, you don't want to get caught). Concerns about the law only matter to you so long as you don't get caught. Any other concerns matter if you let them. You don't care for other people's well-being, you never put yourself in their shoes. Why would you? To do that might be unpleasant, and why do it if you don't have to? Those that are weaker than you must suffer to your whims. Those that are stronger than you will be heeded, until you can put a dagger in their back. Some notable characters that are Chaotic Evil: Blackbeard, the Pirate. Hannibal Lecter (He might seem Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil, but trust me, he's Chaotic Evil - he's a sociopath). Jack the Ripper Smaug The Dragon (from The Hobbit) Gollum (Again, some might consider him Neutral Evil, but he's willing to do almost anything to get the Ring from Frodo, and he's not altogether sane, by the way). Ming the Merciless (Some may consider him Lawful Evil, but this guy makes his law as he sees fit. He is at the top, as far as he knows, and he rules with an iron fist. He is utterly ruthless, and he is even willing to torture and potentially kill his own daughter to achieve his ends.) Galactus, from the Marvel Universe. Venom, Marvel Universe. The Joker, DC Universe Darth Maul Darth Bane Asajj Ventress You get the idea. A slight disagreement with your logic. Here, the description presented of Chaotic Evil seems to be simply more and more evil. Neutral Evil is just as much a sociopath - doing 'whatever they can get away with'. Lawful Evil can be just as destructive. The implication in that post was that Neutral Evil somehow has some morals.
Westbound 05-23-07, 03:14 PM	A slight disagreement with your logic. Here, the description presented of Chaotic Evil seems to be simply more and more evil. Neutral Evil is just as much a sociopath - doing 'whatever they can get away with'. Lawful Evil can be just as destructive. The implication in that post was that Neutral Evil somehow has some morals. There are variations of a theme, but where Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil differ is in approach. They all want their cake and eat it too, but each approaches acquisition of what they want in different ways. Strahd von Zarovich, the Vampire-Lord of Barovia, is Lawful Evil (last time I checked). He is the undisputed master of Barovia, and even before he became a vampire he was Lawful Evil. He rules Barovia with a stern iron fist. He tolerates no crime within his borders - most, if not all, are punishable by death. However, he is a responsible ruler. He knows that if he dispenses too much abuse upon his people, one of three things will happen. One, the people will revolt, and he may be able to take most of them down, he might not take them all down, and if they themselves don't try to take them down, fate has a nasty way of sending brave heroes their way to take him down. Two, the population dwindles, and this isn't good for him because he needs a steady population from which to feed from, and he would prefer buxom young ladies than dirty, hairy old men. Three, he has rivals in Ravenloft. So he uses his power judiciously to achieve his aims. This is Lawful Evil - to achieve one's particularly selfish goals through a framework of laws and traditions. Strahd is an example of an nearly all-powerful ruler who judiciously uses his political and vampiric power to exact his will upon Barovia and beyond. Lawful Evil wants his cake and eat it too, but is willing to wait and potentially share if it'll achieve this goal. Other notables that fall in this alignment: Darth Sidious; Darth Vader; Agent Smith in the first Matrix film; Megatron from Transformers; Captain James Hook; Marcus Licinius Crassus; Julius Caesar. Dr. Victor Frankenstein is Neutral Evil. If you read Frankenstein, Victor knows precisely what he's doing. He wants to play God; he wants to create life of his own making mainly for his own personal glory, to cheat death and foster immortality, and to sort of thumb his nose at God. He spares whatever he can to achieve this goal. And when he does create the Monster, he rejects it out of hand because it is hideous, and he refuses to take any responsibility for his creation. When the Monster kills his fiance', Victor chases him to the ends of the earth to kill him. Neutral Evil is the guy that wants his cake and eats it too, and is willing to do anything, bide any amount of time within reason, and within his power, to get it. If he can prevent others from eating the cake, that would be good too. If all he can get is a taste, that'll be fine with him too, for now. Other notables: Professor James Moriarty; Tiberius Caesar; Captain Nemo; Khan Noonian Singh; Malificent (from Sleeping Beauty); The Queen, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves; Sauron. You're right, LE and NE can be sociopathic, but it's not really a requirement. Strahd actually feels some sympathy for the women he seduces and their families, and has, from time to time, spared lives in certain circumstances, but he loves his "unlife" too much to be completely moral and end his wretched existence. For Chaotic Evil, sociopathic behavior is absolutely essential. Let's come what I consider to be the quintessential definition of Chaotic Evil: Dr. Hannibal Lecter. If you read The Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, and Hannibal, you will find that Dr. Hannibal Lecter's only official clinical problem is that he's a sociopath (actually, he's a megalomaniac, but the novels nor the movies never go into that aspect of him). Beyond that, he is not insane. Rather, he is frighteningly sane and lucid. In the scene where Clarice Starling first meets Dr. Lecter, she passes by examples of clinically insane people behind simple bars. Dr. Lecter is not behind bars, he's behind a thick plexiglass screen and you have to be careful what you give him because he's so clever that he might use what you give him to escape or harm people. Yet, he's the most calm, effusive, and polite inmate in the sanitarium. Dr. Lecter has absolutely no qualms about killing others. He is an absolute elitist; he believes by virtue of his intellect alone that he is superior to most, if not all, human beings on this world. His own ability to dissect people psychologically only adds to this mania. Before he was captured law enforcement said that he killed and ate 9 people. He eats his victims because his own sister was cannibalized by retreating Nazi soldiers in WWII, and he, in turn, cannibalized those that killed and ate his sister before heading to America; developing a taste, you might say. According to the novels, he has rationales for his murders, but these are mere excuses the sociopath gives himself for his own vanity. He says he kills only those that are rude, or out of revenge, or out of a sense of poetic justice. Note that in his own discourses with others, he can be extremely rude himself, often making very impertinent and vulgar statements in order to savor another's emotional response. Even those whom he dialogues psychologically are his victims in the sense that what he is doing isn't necessarily helpful, but is rather serves his own appetites to feel the suffering in others. He consumes those around him, even if he doesn't lay a finger on them. Others, with extremely few exceptions (Clarice and Barney), are mere toys for his amusement, to be used and discarded as he sees fit.