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

[Toe Knee Nose]

A tyrant may be a dictator, a dictator may not necessarily be a tyrant. You are making them one and the same.

That's because they are,

Tyrant and dictator are synonyms.

I do not think dictatorships are inherently evil.

aaaaaand, we're done. We are most certainly not going to be able to have a conversation here. We fundamentally disagree on basic terms, which means all we're going to do is talk past each other.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That's because they are,

Tyrant and dictator are synonyms.

You may want to switch to a language that agrees with your assertion, because English does not.
I suggest you Google it.

aaaaaand, we're done.

Fine by me.

 

[nevin]

That's because they are,

Tyrant and dictator are synonyms.



aaaaaand, we're done. We are most certainly not going to be able to have a conversation here. We fundamentally disagree on basic terms, which means all we're going to do is talk past each other.

no. A dictator can be a tyrant. A dictator can also be someone given ultimate authority by the ruling body to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis. An evil dictator would probably not step down after that a non evil dictator would relenquish power when the time was over. Now people given absolute power tend to abuse it so it's often assumed all dictators are evil. (I'll grant you most turn out that way) But that would be an assumption that has nothing to do with the definition of the word.

The original definition was the Roman definition and they actually declared the person given ultimate authority "Dictator" . The dictator was appointed for 6 months to rule the empire. there were many who did not exceed thier 6 month time frame. Ceaser was once a dictator of Rome. The interesting thing about how the Romans did it was that the Dictator could not be held acountable for anything till after their period of service was over.


from the dictionary.

a
: a person granted absolute emergency power
especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see senate sense 1b) of ancient Rome
b
: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
c
: one ruling in an absolute (see absolute sense 2) and often oppressive way
fascist dictators


2
: one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates (see dictate entry 1 sense 1)

 

[nevin]

Someone mentioned earlier that Roman society would be LE. I'm not sure - or, rather, it really depends on the time period. After all, for a long time, the Roman Empire had no rules of succession. Every time an emperor died, they basically had a murder fest and whoever was the biggest murderous bastard became the next emperor by dint of everyone else with any claim to the title was dead.
Yes, I know that's an exaggeration, but, not totally off base either.

In any society, whether it's a local group of a few dozen to an empire, if the guy running the show is not bound by anything other than fear of reprisal, that's chaotic. And typically very evil. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge is a perfect example of a CE society.

So, to go back to the OP - that's how you do smart CE. The smart CE is horrific. It's groups that are fanatically loyal to an individual. In D&D terms, probably the best examples of this would be cultists. Rakshasa work well for this as well as evil fae. Actually, evil fae are fantastic examples of smart CE. There is an adventure in Candlekeep Mysteries where a group of evil fae drive the local people into insanity, causing them to murder each other in horrific ways.

Thinking about it a bit, horror does provide some pretty decent CE archetypes. Freddy Krueger is a great example of CE. He delights in the pain and torture he inflicts and he has no bigger plans than his own gratification (I suppose you could make a decent NE argument here). Lucifer from the Supernatural series is a FANTASTIC example of Chaotic Evil done right. Hannibal Lecter also works. Lecter has zero interest in anything other than his own gratification and dominating everything and everyone around him. He wants to turn everyone around him into his personal puppets for his own amusement.
-------------------
At the end of the day, that's how I thread this needle. Chaotic Evils want to dominate everyone around them. They want to be surrounded by people who will do whatever they are told to do no matter what. Whether that's achieved by sheer power and fear or through gaslighting and manipulation doesn't really matter. Whatever achieves that goal of domination.

Lawful Evils, OTOH, aren't so much interested in dominating everyone around them but are more interested in creating a system where everyone is loyal to the system itself with the LE individual at the top of that pyramid. They create an organization, or, better yet, co-opt an organization where everyone in that organization is loyal to the organization, which means that everyone is loyal to the person above them. The LE wants to climb that ladder and will do anything to climb that ladder, but, at no point do they want to burn the ladder. The ladder itself has value. LE groups tend to be longer lasting since they will survive the death of any individual - the organization keeps going on. Lawfuls tend to be better organized than chaotics.

Is one method more successful than the other? Well... that depends on how you define success. Longevity of the group is important to the lawfuls, but, the chaotics couldn't really care less what happens after they are gone. "I'm at the top of the heap, all hail to me!" is the goal of the Chaotic Evil.

I agree with most of what you said but LE could be built on one powerful creature or individual believing they are the most powerful therefore the one who should be the ultimate arbiter of the system. (Asmodeus), The dukes of hell come close to your assessment but there is no one fits all any alignment. reality, personality, the system the individuals in the system all change everything in ways little and big. LE could end up as something like the Roman empire, it could also end up as one big ass black dragon in charge of everything as the ultimate arbiter because he or she is more powerful than everyone else and the law's interpretation is never corrupted or flawed with one arbiter. As I've said before in this thread, the ideology driving the behavior will determine the alignment. The outcome is not always going to be simple and easy to guess.

Though I do run the outer planes as The ultimate mirror of what that alignment should be at the level of the Gods and powers who are arbitrating it. So in that case Your LE version would be something Hell would most likely agree with and support. Though as I pointed out, I doubt Asmodeus would give up his spot in hell for the good of Hell. But that's a theory not a fact.

 

[Zardnaar]

no. A dictator can be a tyrant. A dictator can also be someone given ultimate authority by the ruling body to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis. An evil dictator would probably not step down after that a non evil dictator would relenquish power when the time was over. Now people given absolute power tend to abuse it so it's often assumed all dictators are evil. (I'll grant you most turn out that way) But that would be an assumption that has nothing to do with the definition of the word.

The original definition was the Roman definition and they actually declared the person given ultimate authority "Dictator" . The dictator was appointed for 6 months to rule the empire. there were many who did not exceed thier 6 month time frame. Ceaser was once a dictator of Rome. The interesting thing about how the Romans did it was that the Dictator could not be held acountable for anything till after their period of service was over.


from the dictionary.

a
: a person granted absolute emergency power
especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see senate sense 1b) of ancient Rome
b
: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
c
: one ruling in an absolute (see absolute sense 2) and often oppressive way
fascist dictators


2
: one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates (see dictate entry 1 sense 1)

That and a democracy can definitely vote for evil things as well.

Smart CE. Very few people actually see themselves as evil.

They're self aware enough to realize society at large probably wont tolerate their activities if their CE tends towards violence.

If theyre in a position of authority they can enforce their will via violence. Or charisma.

If its nation state level their immediate circle probably wants to be NE types maybe LE ideally LE type enarmored via charisma or blood ties. The NE types need to be self aware as well.

They need to appoint LE types or subvert a LE or LN bureaucracy.

Basically only theor immediate circle needs to know. Theyre loyal either fear, charisma or what's in it for them. Other evil types might tolerate the CE antics if its not directed at them or they xan to benefit from it.

At best the CE types in it for themselves. At worst they're a champion of CE.

Some can also put themselves into a position of power using fear. But the fear doesn't turn into hatred. Perhaps a representative of a god of fury type vs demon worship. Evil storm god cones to mind. Placate the god via their CE acolyte.

Doesn't have to be threatened of immediate violence. Loss of job, influence or packed off the bumblescum nowhere to manage a chicken farm.

Power, wealth woukd be the apple. No regard to anyone else but might not be personally violent psychopath/sociopath. Can pretend to pass as "normal" or normal enough.

 

[Mecheon]

They're self aware enough to realize society at large probably wont tolerate their activities if their CE tends towards violence.

Are they even going to care? Like, when it comes to 'smart chaotic evil', my brain goes to Zenos from FFXIV who is a complicated character but most likely falls into that 'chaotic evil' side of things. And he's not a dumb character. He's someone raised to end up ruling an empire, something he finds no interest in, and despite all of his skill, has never had a real challenge. The only things that break through any of that is anything that breaks that shear enui. He'll murder and destroy nations just to feel something

Spoilers for FFXIV.

Spoiler: FFXIV Zenos Spoilers

While he ends up in a position of power, he does.... Absolutely nothing with it in terms of really 'ruling' and more 'runs it into the ground'. Because ruling isn't what he wants. He wants a grand fight with you. He burns countries, destroys cities, causes massive harm to hundreds, if not thousands, and doesn't even blink an eye because 'ruling' is something he doesn't care about and its all in service to pissing off you so much you have the mother of all one v ones with him. He kills his father because he's developing a ready made warcrime that has the risk of killing you. You dying? That's risking his big, dramatic battle. So his father has to go.

Chaotic is the individualism route. Chaotic ones don't really tend to end up ruling all that much, because that's moreso the lawful side. If they're someone who's bothering with leading or appointing people, I question if they're really being fully chaotic.

also I know I absolutely hate alignments but the idea of 'a champion of chaotic evil' is genuinely kind of stupid. But then again I think championing any of the alignments is kind of stupid.

 

[Zardnaar]

Are they even going to care? Like, when it comes to 'smart chaotic evil', my brain goes to Zenos from FFXIV who is a complicated character but most likely falls into that 'chaotic evil' side of things. And he's not a dumb character. He's someone raised to end up ruling an empire, something he finds no interest in, and despite all of his skill, has never had a real challenge. The only things that break through any of that is anything that breaks that shear enui. He'll murder and destroy nations just to feel something

Spoilers for FFXIV.

Spoiler: FFXIV Zenos Spoilers

While he ends up in a position of power, he does.... Absolutely nothing with it in terms of really 'ruling' and more 'runs it into the ground'. Because ruling isn't what he wants. He wants a grand fight with you. He burns countries, destroys cities, causes massive harm to hundreds, if not thousands, and doesn't even blink an eye because 'ruling' is something he doesn't care about and its all in service to pissing off you so much you have the mother of all one v ones with him. He kills his father because he's developing a ready made warcrime that has the risk of killing you. You dying? That's risking his big, dramatic battle. So his father has to go.

Chaotic is the individualism route. Chaotic ones don't really tend to end up ruling all that much, because that's moreso the lawful side. If they're someone who's bothering with leading or appointing people, I question if they're really being fully chaotic.

also I know I absolutely hate alignments but the idea of 'a champion of chaotic evil' is genuinely kind of stupid. But then again I think championing any of the alignments is kind of stupid.

A chaotic still has to exist in society.

They woukd need to be so powerful they can ignore things. Ir hide things.

D&D tends to be fairly simplistic. CE is evil stupid.

OPs asking about smart CE. IRL the violent types tend to end up dead or in prison. Non violent ones very unpleasant to be around.

A smart charismatic one might have devotees.

 

[Cergorach]

Alignment is separate from intelligence. But what entails intelligent behaviour in a D&D fantasy world is very different from what is intelligent behaviour in our real world. In our real world, the range of personal power is very limited. In a D&D fantasy world PCs can attain levels of personal power where they can tear apart modern battleships by hand, return from the dead, and be immune to most damage types. NPCs can go even further on that personal power scale. While in our real world the most powerful person (with virtually no personal power) in the world can still be shot permanently dead by a commoner with a handgun...

As such, a Chaotic Evil person in a D&D fantasy world with very little personal power will act very differently from one with lots of personal power. The first is limited by their actions by others with more personal power, while the later has a lot less forces to deal with with more personal power, hence a Red Dragon will do more bad stuff openly in a low fantasy setting then a low-level bandit that's also Chaotic Evil.

I also think there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom actions. A smart low level noble might act foolishly because they do not recognize that their power isn't personal power.

Just because you're CE doesn't mean you'll put your hand in the fire because you want to, when you'll get burned. If you're immune to fire, that might be a different situation. If you like pain and can easily be healed, that might also be a different situation... In our real world burning your hands have real long lasting permanent consequences.

 

[Zardnaar]

Alignment is separate from intelligence. But what entails intelligent behaviour in a D&D fantasy world is very different from what is intelligent behaviour in our real world. In our real world, the range of personal power is very limited. In a D&D fantasy world PCs can attain levels of personal power where they can tear apart modern battleships by hand, return from the dead, and be immune to most damage types. NPCs can go even further on that personal power scale. While in our real world the most powerful person (with virtually no personal power) in the world can still be shot permanently dead by a commoner with a handgun...

As such, a Chaotic Evil person in a D&D fantasy world with very little personal power will act very differently from one with lots of personal power. The first is limited by their actions by others with more personal power, while the later has a lot less forces to deal with with more personal power, hence a Red Dragon will do more bad stuff openly in a low fantasy setting then a low-level bandit that's also Chaotic Evil.

I also think there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom actions. A smart low level noble might act foolishly because they do not recognize that their power isn't personal power.

Just because you're CE doesn't mean you'll put your hand in the fire because you want to, when you'll get burned. If you're immune to fire, that might be a different situation. If you like pain and can easily be healed, that might also be a different situation... In our real world burning your hands have real long lasting permanent consequences.

Thats more a player PoV.

DM might have a different opinion. Killing the king in personal combat may not be that hard.

King might be backed by a dragon, gid, a church etc

 

[Cergorach]

Thats more a player PoV.

DM might have a different opinion. Killing the king in personal combat may not be that hard.

King might be backed by a dragon, gid, a church etc

That king might be backed by others far more powerful, but that's not personal power. Those connections can be broken far more easily then actual personal power. The dragon might be reasoned with (before or after), a church might be shown that the king does not represent the church's ideals (and there's a better choice), etc. Alliances might be (easily) broken. That does not mean that other kinds of power are inconsequential, they do matter. But a church would think twice to oppose a 20th level character or an ancient dragon when their own forces lack such powerful individuals.

In our reality heads of state have been assassinated by common individuals, with no regard for their own safety. When that's done, it's done, in a D&D fantasy world, such individuals could be resurrected or brought back from the dead by other means. A commoner trying to kill a level 5 character is pretty much impossible unless you start equipping them with stupidly powerful magical items that would cost an equivalent of $2 million (Necklace of Fireballs for example) in our real world currency...

What I'm getting at is that regardless of the indirect power someone wield, personal power also means a lot. A common Bandit won't be overbearing against a guard unless they are bluffing or really stupid. But a Bandit Leader might do something that would be plain stupid for a common Bandit, a Bandit Lord even more so... A wise noble might be careful against a Bandit lord, but an unwise one might lean too much on their indirect power and ignore the direct personal threat.

In our world a common street thug might think twice when they have to face a famous MMA fighter in a fistfight, but they would be way more confident with a gun and some distance. No matter how skilled the MMA fighter, they can't teleport and get to the gun, they don't have hp, they die quite easily when they can't use their skills. The D&D fantasy world is very different and a LOT of people tend to forget that.

I also think that's a huge disadvantage of the current D&D 5e NPC system where there are no longer leveled NPCs. While a hereditary noble might be an inconsequential 1/8th CR NPC, a first generation noble would be a whole different kind of animal... There's generally a very good reason on why they were made a noble of the realm.

I would say that information is WAY more important in a D&D fantasy world then in our reality, there's only a small range of power an individual has, with a very hard limit. In the D&D fantasy world, the person dressed like a simple physician might be a level 10 Monk... When a Bandit Lord dresses like a common Bandit... You better find out before hand who this person is, and how powerful they are, either by magic or by reputation (which might be wrong)...

Hence what we would consider Chaotic Stupid in our reality, might not be Chaotic Stupid in a D&D fantasy world. Theoretically there might be many, many Chaotic Evil people in our world that don't act on their impulses because they are smart and wise, the risks and consequences are higher then what they are willing to pay...