Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hasmead_Guy 01-20-06, 02:01 AM	I've always thought of Chaotic evil meaning worse than neutral evil, but now I'm not so sure. It just means they're more independent right? Or is it as bad as it sounds?
Cymraegmorgan 01-20-06, 02:43 AM	CE is the worst, because you never know what to expect. LE: If you know their code, you know what to expect. NE: Self serving means not self-destructive, so knowing what they need means knowing where they draw the line. CE: You just never know...
Morbid 01-20-06, 03:07 AM	Chaotic evil isn't so much more EVIL.... but it's more chaotic... Neutral evil might follow some laws or think before breaking one. Chaotic is much faster to break laws. Like murder is illegal, and neutral evil may not kill for a sacrifice, and find other means. Chaotic evil will more thna likely slay someone, anyone, for a sacrifice.
NinjaHedge 01-20-06, 03:42 AM	CE is the worst, because you never know what to expect. LE: If you know their code, you know what to expect. NE: Self serving means not self-destructive, so knowing what they need means knowing where they draw the line. CE: You just never know... wow, that's not true CE is not neccisarily someone who's behavior you can't predict. For example they could be someone who wants to bring down civilization and society, certainly a character like that has certain behaviors you would expect in certain circumstances. A LE character could be unpredictable. He could be a family man, upstanding citizen, who pays his taxes and has a government job, and also kills random people occationally. You don't know when or who he's going to kill, and it'd be far more difficult to even know he was a killer then your average CE person. LE people can also be very dangerous because they work within the system. They have friends and minions. They have people who look after them and who they can call on for a favor. They may be a baron or a king. NE people aren't neccisarily just self-serving, and very well could be self-destructive. They may very well delight in the pain of others and be willing to go to all ends to get it. NE could probably be considered the "most evil", on average, because they're alignment reflects nothing but evil. Someone who was an an emodiement of everything that is evil, for example, would be NE. Someone whose consern is doing nothing but evil, regarless of the lawfullness or chaos involved in the act, is NE. However, there are more then 9 different types of people in the world, and each alignement represents a wide spectrum. A NE character or NPC very well may be only somewhat evil, and a LE person could be terribly evil and dangerous. A LG party could even find itself in conflict with another LG party, the ideals of one LG person can be so different then the ideals of another LG person.
grelna 01-20-06, 03:54 AM	I've always thought of Chaotic evil meaning worse than neutral evil, but now I'm not so sure. It just means they're more independent right? Or is it as bad as it sounds?Worse, hmm - well, that depends. Some players, not understanding the alignment system, play CE as random, crazy evil. That does not automatically follow from the alignment. What CE means is that someone with that worldview in its purest form will do whatever feels good with ZERO regard for anyone else, and will pay minimal attention to laws, rules, and regulations, except insofar as they attempt not to get caught after the fact. They often enjoy inflicting pain, but don't actually have to be crazy; however, other people's standards of sanity are not particularly relevant to them. A CE NPC can even be methodical and precise in carrying out her plans; the evil baroness who bathes in the blood of three murdered virgins every week because she thinks it will keep her young might well be CE. A NE or LE NPC would probably worry about retribution down the road and might well have certain lines they wouldn't cross. CE means that there are no lines. That's just plain scary. However, their disregard for others' opinions and for society's rules is so strong that they often alienate others and generally have only the kind of "friends" that enjoy sharing in their twisted pleasures. Neutral Evil is the alignment of selfishness and spite. NE characters are probably actually more likely to enjoy inflicting pain on others than any other evil alignment, although sadism is a prime hallmark of evil, and thus can be found across the whole evil side of the spectrum. However, Neutral Evil characters are not as likely to openly flout societal norms, although they'll certainly do so if they think they can definitely get away with it. In that regard, they're a bit more "buttoned down" than the CEs. However, for that very reason, they are less like to be noticed, caught, and punished, and more likely to rack up an impressive body count (or whatever) over the course of decades. They aren't actually any less evil, but because society depends upon a modicum of order as well as standards of right and wrong, the fact that they obey at least some rules they don't like at least some of the time makes them better neighbors, although some people might prefer to know from the start that their neighbor or co-worker is a totally evil **** by his outward behavior, rather than realizing it far too late when they wake up chained to a basement wall. Of the various evil alignments in the game, Lawful Evil is the most player-friendly. Although the game is not really designed for evil players, you can play a LE character who is obviously evil without the other party members necessarily distrusting him, because your character is more likely to have certain lines he won't cross, and even a sense of honor, albeit a twisted one. They have internalized more of society's rules than CEs and NEs. As well, Lawful Evil people often care quite a bit about what others think. They are often very invested in being seen as strong, and like to boss others around, if possible. If they are too weak to boss people around on their own account, they'll settle for giving orders in someone else's name. Naturally, not everyone who is evil, of whatever flavor, is going to be a murderer. Most evil people aren't. There are varying degrees and kinds of evil, and some evil people don't get the slightest pleasure out of hurting others physically. What evil really comes down to is the willingness to sacrifice the welfare of others to benefit yourself, and that willingness might be shown in various ways: stealing from the till even though you know your boss can ill afford it (or stealing from anyone who can't afford it), seducing innocents (or exploiting them in any way for your own profit or gratification), selling addictive drugs to children, or even just boosting your own ego by constantly belittling others. Last word: the most dangerous evil opponent is one who is smart, wise, and charming, because that person is wise enough to realize the importance of picking his times and hiding his tracks, intelligent enough to do a good job of it, and charismatic enough that no one suspects. Think of all the "devoted family men" that get outed in the newspaper every year as monsters with horrific crimes going back decades, and then stop to wonder how many never get caught.
nastynate 01-20-06, 04:10 AM	The neutrality/law/chaos portion of the alignment spectrum, doesn't really have anything to do with how evil, a character may be. That just defines the methods towards which he approaches his evil actions. Lawful evil characters plan their actions. They often feel their behavior is justifiable, and even patriotic. They tend to focus on control and domination, to achieve their ends. Typically they place more value on power than any other alignment. Militant dictators (like Hitler) are lawful evil. Neutral evil characters tend to focus more upon their personal motivations, than on aspects of law or chaos. They will act spontaneously, and cut down the pick-pocket who tried to steel their purse, just as often as they plan a crime. They may act lawful or chaotic, as the circumstances (or their emotional state) warrant. Hired killers are often neutral evil. Chaotic characters are prone to completely disregard all that society is built upon. Rules are made to broken, and they don't care about morality at all. A chaotic evil character will do whatever he wants, whenever he can get away with it. He usally doesn't fit in anywhere, because he doesn't follow the rules, or care about the consequences of his actions (assuming they don't effect him personally). We call them sociopaths in our society.
Vaelan 01-20-06, 05:26 AM	LE: If you know their code, you know what to expect. Whether or not a person follows a code is just a small part of whether or not a person is Lawful or Chaotic. A person simply isn't purely Lawful or purely Chaotic. There exists a subtle mix, and this mix simply makes it impossible to generalize in such a way. An Evil character who actively promotes and uses the law to oppress others and exert control over them would most closely fit the Lawful Evil alignment, even if he had no particular inclination to follow the law or any kind of code himself. Further, having a personal code is not necessarily a lawful trait. I would argue that it is more of a chaotic trait as it is your personal code and individuality is an attribute more commonly associated with Chaos. The PHB seems to agree with me as it states, "Chaotic characters follow their consciences..." If your conscience isn't a personal code, then I don't know what is.
Raxmei 01-20-06, 07:10 AM	This sort of discussion reminds me of the article on Modrons. It tells us it is pointless to try to explain good and evil to a Modron. It will simply equate good with law and evil with chaos. The society we live in is more lawful than the D&D game world, so we value law more highly than D&D characters. As a result our views are skewed so that law looks good and chaos looks evil.
Hasmead_Guy 01-20-06, 08:30 AM	All these are really interesting, but I always thought the whole N/L/C axis was extremely arbitrary. Good/Evil are easy to grasp- I mean, we all know what they both roughly mean. But Lawful and Chaotic can easily be present at the same time. A lawful PC can answer to an evil dictator and torture those beneath him if he so pleases. A guy who follows his own path can be neutral, but he can also very well be considered chaotic. And Chaotic Good doesn't really make sense to me- if they disregard the law in the name of good, they could be neutral or chaotic, but if they accomplish their means by accruing a few casualties, then we're getting into the evil side of things. I guess the main confusion lies around Neutral and chaotic: somebody who bucks the law and can neutral, or chaotic. I don't see what makes what.
celtredleg 01-20-06, 11:33 AM	As you are asking about the evilness of the act, and not its randomness, NO CE is not more evil than LE, at least generaly Individuals will vary of course.
High Octane 01-20-06, 11:57 AM	No its not. By definition, Neutral evil is the ultimate evil. Lawful characters may be unwilling to do evil acts because it would break their rules, or traditions, etc. Chaotic characters may be unwilling to do evil acts because they would involve servitude or being under the command of another's rules or traditions. Loyalty or individuality will get in the way of utter self service if you are unwilling to abandon each for your greater gain. That is why Neutral evil is the ultimate evil.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 01-20-06, 07:04 PM	I can say for a fact that we have to deal with generalizations here. There are different levels of evil here. LE, NE, CE. There's still a great amount of variety there. There can be especially evil LE types (Sauron, anybody?), while there can be not-so-bad CE types. For example half-Rahkshi (of my own creation), that are lost to their darker nature. They've become Chaotic Evil, with the emphasis on Chaotic. They're Chaotic in an Evil sort of way, while Demons are Evil in a Chaotic sort of way. So consider it relative. And dependent on how you define evil. A Paladin of Honor (standard paladin) would think CE to be the worst, while a Paladin of Freedom (CG paladin variant) would consider LE the worst. What have we learned? Evil is how you interpret it. The Omnirahk.
Callista 01-20-06, 09:52 PM	I've always thought of Chaotic evil meaning worse than neutral evil, but now I'm not so sure. It just means they're more independent right? Or is it as bad as it sounds? Neither is more evil than the other. While Chaotic Evil is more likely to take joy in evil for its own sake, it is also impulsive and generally does not plan too much. The individual CE opponent will be stronger than the average LE/NE opponent; but CE individuals do not work well together, so that Lawful or Neutral Evil can often be more dangerous, since they can cooperate. Conversely, a single CE Blackguard sowing chaos and evil can't do nearly as much damage as a group of 50 NE mercenaries working together; he is harder to defeat than any one of those mercenaries, but probably easier to face than all of those mercenaries together. CE is individually more powerful; corporately weaker; and no more or less evil than, NE.
nastynate 01-21-06, 12:42 AM	I couldn't disagree more about neutral evil being the "most" evil. The L/N/C axis has nothing to do with the G/N/E axis. A lawful evil person won't be any less evil because he thinks laws are important; he will use the laws to his advantage to commit evil acts. He will control people through propoganda, and manipulation. He will mercilessly execute people for defying him. He doesn't view the laws as a barrier preventing him from attaining his goals, but as a tool used to accumulate power. The chaotic evil person does view the laws as a barricade at times, but that's only because the laws are a system of control, to which he will not submit (chaotic good people feel the same way too, I might add). The chaotic evil character simply refuses to bow to the mechanisms of control established by society. A nuetral evil character, sits on the fence. If the laws can be used to further his goals he follows them, if not he disregards them. He is not more focused on evil; he just views the established laws of society differently. He is not polarized in that regard. He's not likely to act completely randomly, nor is he likely to plan his every move. In the big picture all the evil characters are committing evil acts, they just approach them with different methods. It makes no difference if you execute somebody, kill them for cash, or kill them in a fit of rage, you are still killing them. Examples people might understand better: 1. a dictator's concentration camps (lawful-organized method of control and extermination) 2. a hired hitman (neutral-personally motivated murder to further his own goals, in this case the cash payment incentive) 3. a serial killer (chaotic-killing whatever unlucky victim that happened to be wandering alone in the park at night aka the random victim) They're all still murdering people, and all still evil, but who's to say anyone of them is more evil than any other. It's difficult to say, because we don't know their motivation or the extent of their evil deeds. We don't know if any of them have soft-spots for various charities, or loving families at home that they care for. Maybe the dictator takes sick pleasure in watching people die, but the serial killer seeks attonement at church every day for his crimes. Maybe the hitman is torturing his victims for fun, or maybe he does it as quickly and painlessly as he can. The degree of their depravity isn't reflected in the L/N/C portion of their alignment, and it never has been. This dynamic is equally applicable to good people as well. The Knights of the Round Table are lawful, Robin Hood is chaotic, and D'artagnon is somewhere in between. Their lawfulness (or lawnessness) really doesn't have anything to do with their righteousness, nor does it make any of them more or less heroic. :D
Hasmead_Guy 01-21-06, 09:04 AM	Hey, that kinda made something click- so you're saying Lawful can be a synonym for organized? Or methodical?
ehrin 01-21-06, 12:54 PM	Lawful, in DnD terms, has little to do with legal or illegal and laws... It would have been better served by being named "ordered", rather than lawful. (Usually, legal and illegal are more telling on the good/evil axis). "I am an Ordered/Good Paladin. Thee are a Chaotic Good warrior. I may not believe in your world view to all extents, but we are both champions for good, so let's go kick some heinie!" Order is the opposite of chaos. Good is the opposite of evil. Just replace Lawful with "ordered" or "organized", and you will be happier. IMO.
Jonrea 01-21-06, 01:09 PM	Usually, the main difference between LE and CE is scope. CE is usually the shortview, with LE being the worldview. For example, a CE person may slaughter a town, lead ruthless bandits, or be a head priest in a bloodthirsty cult. Conversely, a LE person may conquer nations, be head of the complex power structure of corruption in the capital, or cause genocide. Examples of LE: Nazi-Germany, Rome (at times), and the conquistadors. Examples of CE: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, school shootings, etc Its harder to name CE villains than LE villains because LE villains are just that much more dangerous. Correction: CE is more dangerous at the moment, but LE, once it sets itself up, is the most dangerous in the long run. Of course, the degree of evil depends on one's views. Is it more evil to slaughter the inhabitants of a farm or to impress a country into slavery?
cynical 01-21-06, 01:43 PM	I would really like to Choke the person who first published that chaotic had anything to do with breaking the law. This has cause more alignment questions then answers. I look at alignment purely on in philosophy. The solves all alignment questions. We are just going to look at lawful here as it would take to long to look at all three. You can apply the same theories to chaotic and nuetral. Lawful Has nothing to do with obeying laws. Law is Order. A lawful person is neat, order , regimented and most importantly focused. These things can lead to a greater respect for laws but don't prevent anyone from breaking a laws. A really lawful person could have an obsession with systems and structures and anything the break or doesn't fit within the structure is frustrating to them. They will tend more to following laws because they will also tend to make them. There personal life is orderly and imposing a little order On the world around them can only work to the benefit of all. They fail in their focus those because they tend not to look at other thing beyond this focus and will have a harder time react to the seemingly random elements (like the fact people don't want to be told when and where they are allowed to go to the bathroom) but this is An extreme all lawful people are not ****-retentive. A more realistic lawful is organized with direction and focus. They would be a little more flexible. Thus be able to react faster to new situations. Think of lawful in three different steps. You have your Autistic (lawful not be choice but by nature. This person NEEDS order and a change in environment or routine upsets his/her world so much it seems to cause physical pain. The next step would be accountant neat orderly regimented type A personality. The third would be the DnD rules lawyer. "The rules are there for a reason, don't change them unless you have a very good reason to or it upsets the game" Each of these people can break laws and rules (although for completely different reasons). More lawfuls will fit into the accountant type then the other types. Yes in a lawful person will tend towords not breaking as many laws, but it is for the reasons above not because the word LAW is in lawful.
ehrin 01-21-06, 02:20 PM	thanks cynical.. you said what i was trying to. I always felt that it should be order and chaos, not law and chaos... a lawful person believes in contracts, documents, and people doing what they are supposed to do because of who they are in society: police should be good, judges honest, criminals bad. They believe that the process will create such distinctions over the large scale. a chaotic person is more inclined to believe the word of a man rather than a paper document. A handshake between warriors is a bond. They don't trust people because of their role in society, they trust people that act "proper" in their eyes. THey believe that there are crooked cops, honest criminals, and foolish judges, and perhaps believe there are MANY more of them than is real. a lawful person can be "ripped off" by someone who has a great, well planned "con", full of reasons and scheming. a chaotic person is more likely to be ripped off by a charismatic con man with a simple sob story: they fall for the PERSON, not the scheme. The chaotic will simply loan the man a gold for his troubles, while the lawful gives the man a gold expecting some return from a system. Both are ripped off, but the chaotic doesn't care about the system, just that the man "looked honorable" or that it felt right to him (gut instinct). The lawful man doesn't care so much about the person, but the scheme was "too good to pass up".
Lord_Mordecai 01-21-06, 02:20 PM	There is no greater evil of the three alignment choices; all are equally dangerous to organized civilization and the tenets of free-will. The impact a given evil alignment may have is certainly variable, but, all told, evil is going to be self-serving and make demands of others. Good will work for the general aid of the world and uphold the ideas based on freedom. If I had to pick a true evil, I would say the various evils that inhabit the Abyss. Take a CE barbarian and put him beside a NE demon. Which is the more powerful and, in the grand view, the larger danger to organized and good societies?
Leap_UK 01-21-06, 03:02 PM	LE is what people become when they give up on good. Its the "oh **** the lot of you I'm looking out for number 1 from now on" alignment. CE is what LE sinks to when it gives up in the rat race of LE. LEs say "CE is more evil than LE" CEs say "CE is more evil than LE" Good says "erm, helloooo, its evil either way"
Ashtaroth 01-21-06, 05:58 PM	As has been pointed out by everyone who is correct, law / chaos does not impact on good / evil -- that's why they are part of a different moral axis. They just don't affect oneanother. What has been missed by the group is that there are in fact degrees of evil. In much the same way as we know donating small change to charity is a good act, but that donating a kidney to someone you don't know is more good -- there are degrees of evil. Someone who meticulously plans how to poison someone has committed an evil act. Now in D&D their alignment would be Lawful Evil -- because it was meticulously planned. Someone who plans how to poison someone, then carefully extracts all of their vital organs and puts them in labelled jars on display so that members of the victim's family can see them has also committed, in D&D terms, a lawful evil act. Now, while both acts are lawful evil, the second must surely be the more evil of the two. So the answer to which alignemnt is more evil is not about law / chaos, but about degrees of evil itself.
Vaelan 01-21-06, 07:47 PM	Just replace Lawful with "ordered" or "organized", and you will be happier. That's certainly a... simple answer. It is not, however, supported by the PHB. I believe that this is the wrong way to go to simplify Law and Chaos. I would instead opt to go with the second edition version which, instead of dictating one's personality and actions, which both editions agree is not alignment's job, instead gives an idea of what the person's general attitude is, which both editions agree is alignment's job. Here are a few quotes for you. Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches. The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance of forces in the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny and are fond of anarchist nations. Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society. As you can see, the third edition alignment section is basically a dumbed-down version of this made for people who cannot meaningfully extrapolate how a particular alignment could affect one's personality. The generalizations made by the 3.5 PHB inspires the generalizations you and many others have made in this thread and elsewhere. Someone who meticulously plans how to poison someone has committed an evil act. Now in D&D their alignment would be Lawful Evil -- because it was meticulously planned. The PHB does not support this view. The ability to plan is in no way represented as a Lawful trait in the PHB. Further, good sense flat-out contradicts it. Chaotic people aren't stupid and they aren't insane. They are perfectly capable of making a plan and executing it effectively. I really dislike these shallow generalizations.
NinjaHedge 01-21-06, 10:29 PM	What has been missed by the group is that there are in fact degrees of evil. In much the same way as we know donating small change to charity is a good act, but that donating a kidney to someone you don't know is more good -- there are degrees of evil. Yeah....the group missed that....except that "the group" said that about a half a dozen times already. Like when I said However, there are more then 9 different types of people in the world, and each alignement represents a wide spectrum. A NE character or NPC very well may be only somewhat evil, and a LE person could be terribly evil and dangerous.
Rocketboy13 01-22-06, 02:15 AM	I would say that they are not more evil, just a different type of evil. LE: Mussolini, Darth Vader, Lex Luthor NE: Doctor Octopus, Dracula (both real and myth), Mystique, the Scarecrow CE: Osama Bin Laden, the Joker, Sabertooth, Apocolypse (the Xmen villian, not the biblical disaster) All of these figures can and do evil, the extreme nature of each is defined by the individual not by their law versus chaos meter, though the level to which they are successful is usually related to their Lawful or Chaotic bent in relation to time and society. :thinks:
Bob Loblaw 01-22-06, 11:52 AM	I would say that they are not more evil, just a different type of evil. LE: Mussolini, Darth Vader, Lex Luthor NE: Doctor Octopus, Dracula (both real and myth), Mystique, the Scarecrow CE: Osama Bin Laden, the Joker, Sabertooth, Apocolypse (the Xmen villian, not the biblical disaster) I was going to post something similar, I just didn't have the chance to go over some villians yet. The only change I would make to your list is to move Osama bin Laden to LE.
Orcmonk89 01-22-06, 12:03 PM	In my view, it's not. Evil is truely evil only if you're unsure on how it will behave. NE could be Lawful one minute, Chaotic the next. In my view, the only true evil is Lawful evil. It acts in ranks, and can be a lot more deceptive. Why is Blackguard LE? Because LE is EVIL!!!!!!!!