D&D General How do you do smart chaotic evil?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Chaotic Evil enjoys hurting people; hurting people feels good. Hurting people feels just as good when they're bad people, and usually even better. Hurting people is even better when someone else thanks you for it.

Richard Kuklinski was allegedly a professional hit man who got caught & sentenced. By the testimony in his case and subsequent interviews- if true*- he was legitimately a serial killer who had also found a way to monetize his passions.

Darkest version of “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”







* he confessed to over 100 killings, but was only convicted of 5. Investigators were unable to corroborate most of his confessions, but believed he was credibly guilty of at least 15.

 

[Lanefan]

As a player though, your "villain" character is supposed to win. And that can be really... icky. D&D is all about heroic fantasy where evil always loses. Pretty much every published scenario, right from day 1, presumes that the PC's are going to be heroes and they are going to win. The idea that your PC's go into (to pick a REALLY old example) Slave Pits of the Undercity, take over the operation and begin being slavers themselves is not supported at all by anything in the game. There is zero presumption that the PC's are going to join forces with the slavers. And, frankly, that's something that would be very uncomfortable to play out at most tables, IMO.

Pre-2e D&D didn't assume this so much. You might have been taking out the slavers in A-series for altruistic reasons, or because doing so promised lots of loot, or because they were competition with what you were doing yourselves.

It was 2e that (sadly) brought in the "PCs are expected to be heroes" vibe as a direct response to the Satanic panic of the day; while at the same time banning classes that might not be so heroic (e.g. Assassin). Stupid move then, stupid move now; and WotC has leaned into it big time.

When I ran some of the Slavers series a while back, one of the main PCs* actually had "Slaver" as her randomly-rolled secondary skill. This gave the party some extra insight into the slavers' operation but also meant it was entirely possible she'd talk the rest of the PCs into taking over the slaving operation, as this character hadn't entirely left her old profession behind...

* - her most famous quote, on the party subduing some bandits: "Stop taking prisoners, start taking inventory".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's fine. I'm just going by how the game puts it. You're free to run it any way you like and reject whatever parts of the game you want to.

I just peeked at 4e's CE alignment and it's even worse when it comes to CE being an alignment of insanity. So every edition treats as an insane and reckless alignment.

"Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly contribute to their interests."

I don't see that as indicating being ruled by one's whims and emotions. This says what they do do, or at least are willing to do without a qualm, not that they are constantly and chronically backstabbing, burning bridges at every single turn, etc. Indeed, it specifically says, in the party you bolded no less, that their worldviews can be that...which means they aren't inherently that.

Which is more or less all I'm asking for. The wiggle room for some small percentage of perfectly legitimate, unquestionably Chaotic Evil villains...who are also extremely smart.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pre-2e D&D didn't assume this so much. You might have been taking out the slavers in A-series for altruistic reasons, or because doing so promised lots of loot, or because they were competition with what you were doing yourselves.

It was 2e that (sadly) brought in the "PCs are expected to be heroes" vibe as a direct response to the Satanic panic of the day; while at the same time banning classes that might not be so heroic (e.g. Assassin). Stupid move then, stupid move now; and WotC has leaned into it big time.

I mean, I don't think it's THAT stupid of a move, mostly because, from all data I've ever had access to, it turns out most people favor being good, even if it is less beneficial than choosing something wicked/bad/un-good.

It's not like anyone's ever been able to force you to not do evil stuff. And the Assassin even came back in 2e as a kit...the same year that 2nd edition launched. So it's not even like they cut the stuff out; they just covered it up.

But of course I agree with you that Assassin is very much a worthy class-fantasy and it's unfortunate that D&D has instead gone the route of trying to make all Rogues be Pretty Assassin-y and Pretty Thief-y, but I suspect we have radically different reasons for holding this belief!

When I ran some of the Slavers series a while back, one of the main PCs* actually had "Slaver" as her randomly-rolled secondary skill. This gave the party some extra insight into the slavers' operation but also meant it was entirely possible she'd talk the rest of the PCs into taking over the slaving operation, as this character hadn't entirely left her old profession behind...

* - her most famous quote, on the party subduing some bandits: "Stop taking prisoners, start taking inventory".

Oof. That would be....rough for me. Slavery is pretty high on my Absolutely Not list, at least in terms of any friendly/allied/supportive entity practicing such. To the tune of it wouldn't really matter what character I was playing, there are going to be problems if one of my supposed allies is a slaver.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

So LE. Replacing one evil system with your evil system is still.........................LE.

Sorry, but, since when are revolutionaries replacing evil systems? History is replete with revolutionaries and coups that are fighting very much good, or at least, not evil, systems.

And, a system where you are the sole leader no matter what? That's chaotic evil, not Lawful. Lawful systems work regardless of who is in the big daddy chair. Chaotic evil systems only function while the Dear Leader is leading.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

To the tune of it wouldn't really matter what character I was playing, there are going to be problems if one of my supposed allies is a slaver.

Although... if one of your allies was impersonating a slaver...

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

It was 2e that (sadly) brought in the "PCs are expected to be heroes" vibe as a direct response to the Satanic panic of the day; while at the same time banning classes that might not be so heroic (e.g. Assassin). Stupid move then, stupid move now; and WotC has leaned into it big time.

Dragonlance would like a word.

And, even if there was a presumption that the PC's would be mercenary, there was zero presumption that the PC's would be outright evil. That's why the basic plot of every single module ever printed presumes a non-evil party.

 

[AlViking]

You misread what I said. I didn't say that ONLY those people were CE. I said that they were the only ones listed in the post I quoted. Big difference there.

I think they are insane. CE and CN are two alignments of insanity. Look at the prime examples of CE. Thanos. The Joker. The Kurgan. Joe Pesci's character in Good Fellas. Belkar. All of them are off their freaking rockers in some way or other. You don't end up CE unless your mind is warped. Same with CN.

Saying that everyone and anyone that is CN or CE is insane makes the alignments useless and leaves out the majority of personality types that would qualify for those alignments. I view options for someone being chaotic as someone who believes in personal freedoms, ignores law, does not automatically obey or respect someone simply because of their title or position of authority as chaotic. They may value anarchy over structure, a lot of people do. Perfidia from One Battle After Another is chaotic - whether she's good, evil or in-between is a matter of opinion (and an oversimplification) but I don't think she's insane.

I think the best take on alignment was in the 3e books where they actually spend a couple of pages talking about what it means, what you describe is either chaotic insane* or chaotic stupid which makes it pointless. People of every alignment can be insane. Unless of course you're extremely lawful and believe anyone that doesn't think in a proscribed manner is insane which would be a very LN way of looking at the world.

*Also someone no one would want in their party. It's a very 2e take on CN - someone that follows the "You might switch sides in the middle of battle to see what happens" will soon find out that what happens is that they're no longer part of the group. It was a dumb take on the complexity of people's outlook and motivations then and it still is IMO.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Dragonlance would like a word.

And, even if there was a presumption that the PC's would be mercenary, there was zero presumption that the PC's would be outright evil. That's why the basic plot of every single module ever printed presumes a non-evil party.

Plenty of earlier edition modules consist of an adventure location with no explanation about why you are there, or assume you are looking for treasure with no "plot". Some of the ones with plot mention alternate reasons for non-good parties to be interested in the adventure (usually bribes).

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see that as indicating being ruled by one's whims and emotions. This says what they do do, or at least are willing to do without a qualm, not that they are constantly and chronically backstabbing, burning bridges at every single turn, etc. Indeed, it specifically says, in the party you bolded no less, that their worldviews can be that...which means they aren't inherently that.

Which is more or less all I'm asking for. The wiggle room for some small percentage of perfectly legitimate, unquestionably Chaotic Evil villains...who are also extremely smart.

Okay. So 4 editions clearly talk about whims, recklessness and being driven by emotion. ONE(4e) just makes them super insane.