Alignment change - Playing Evil

[Ranillon]

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't suggest that my disagreeing with you regarding the definition of alignment is somehow tantamount to sexism. It's a ridiculous claim, and insulting.
-----------------------------------------------

What I am talking about is an >instatutionalized< bias in a game, one that is easily proved if a person does the proper reading of psychological material. In that sense it is no different than any other "ism" you care to name. The only difference is that some "isms" like racism or sexism are well-known and therefore actively discouraged while others exist "under the radar" and are missed. That doesn't make this particular "ism" any more justified.

In a more practical sense this sort of oversight limits role-playing while encouraging stereotypes (which admittedly is hard to prevent at times). In that sense alone this error is worth fixing -- it would make for a better game.

And, you aren't disagreeing with me, you're just disagreeing with the facts. Like I said, do the necessary research and this aspect of the game becomes rather clear.

 

[Al]

Ranillon and Lord Pendragon:

The irony of the situation is that your arguments are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible for both of you to be right.

Lord Pendragon's fundamental argument is that chaotic is a disregard for any form of principle based on the establishment of society. Chaotic by definition places no inherent value on authority, the establishment or even his own word. Chaotics tend to be the most flexible, but can also be perceived as dishonourable. The crux is in the actions as a result- CG will openly violate laws and even violate his own oaths if he belives that some good will come as a result. CE, by contrast, will violate the laws and his own oaths if he feels he will gain by doing so.

Yet conversely, this is not a measure of 'Chaotic Dumb'. The above oath-violator only does so because he feels that he will gain, either in the long term or the short term. Indeed, it may be expedient to honour the oaths, for long-term gains. The argument I am making is not that Chaotic Evil will wantonly seek immediate gratification, but that gratification is the character's one and only goal. If the character needs to comply with a few laws or make a few allies in the furtherance to this long-term goal, this does not contrast with his principles. There is absolutely no reason why the CE character could not travel with the party as he feels that this benefits him most, but at the first sign of a better offer, he will betray the party as necessary.

Chaotic does not mean short-term. It means that there is no inherent value placed on tradition, authority or oaths. In the case of CE, that lack of inherent value means that these can be followed- but only if the CE character gains in the long-term.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well said, Al. Well said.

 

[MerakSpielman]

An intelligent chaotic evil person is quite capible of blending into any group he desires (especially if he has ranks in bluff). He can rescue Timmy from the well, and get a small reward and be happy. He can be payed to drop Timmy head-first down the well (as long as he knows he won't be caught) for the same sum.

A neutral evil person isn't in it for themselves. They want to bring evil into the world. They like evil and want more of it everywhere.

A chaotic evil person doesn't care about the "Great Cause of Evil." Evil could rule the world or not. They really don't care, as long as they are on the winning side either way.

A chaotic evil person might, on a whim, might seduce a beautiful young woman with delightful romance and gifts, just so he can get a piece of a$$ before he moves on to bigger and better things, leaving her without a second thought.

OTOH, a neutral evil person would go out of their way to seduce beautiful young women in every town they visit, just because they like the feeling of having ruined people's lives.

A chaotic evil alchemist might sell poison and drugs on the side, not caring for who dies or gets addicted. He just makes a bit more money, and that's all that matters to him.

OTOH, a neutral evil alchemist might sell poison and drugs on the side with the deliberate intention of killing lots of people and promoting the degridation of society through addiction. They might even give both away for free just to cause havoc.

A chaotic evil wizard might build his tower over the most holy site of the local tribesmen because of the added power the spot gives him.

OTOH, a neutral evil wizard might build his tower over the most holy site of the local tribesmen because he wanted to cause pain by destroying their religious culture.


Evil's greatest power is the ability to blend in. Evil people can pretend to be good and lawful in their daily lives and still be just as evil. Good people can't pretend to be evil in their daily lives.

Evil people can never get the opportunity to commit an evil act and still be just as evil because of their philosophical outlook and the way they feel about events they witness in their lives.

 

[Ranillon]

Lord Pendragon's fundamental argument is that chaotic is a disregard for any form of principle based on the establishment of society.
-------------------------------------------------

That part I agree with. What I most certainly do not -- or, at least, would argue is NOT in keeping with those people who have such personalities in real life -- is the notion that Chaotic = no standards of conduct. Quite the contrary such individuals can and usually do have standards, they just derive from their own individual opinions and self-experience. On that basis a Chaotic person can be just as structured, organized, and disciplined as any Lawful person, it's just the basis for such will be fundamentally opposed.

To suggest that Lawful people are the ones who are organized and disciplined while Chaotic people -- as nice as they may otherwise be -- pretty much lack any such traits is to perpetuate a >modern< social bias, one based on externals. That is, the "structure" of Lawful individuals -- since it tends to be in keeping with cultural and social assumptions -- tends to be more obvious. After all, they are demonstrating structure in a way that their collective labels as being "structure". However, in truth that is not the only possible basis for personal discipline and organization. Those standards can just as easily be wholly individualistic. Perhaps not in keeping with cultural "shoulds", but nonetheless just as strong and valid. To suggest otherwise is to offer up a superficial -- and more importantly broken -- appraisal of human personality.

Why is this important? While it's never a good thing to perpetuate social prejudice more importantly D+D ends up encouraging poor role-playing.

------------------------------------------------
Chaotic does not mean short-term. It means that there is no inherent value placed on tradition, authority or oaths. In the case of CE, that lack of inherent value means that these can be followed- but only if the CE character gains in the long-term.
-------------------------------------------------

I agree in the case of Chaotic Evil because that is the result of Chaos >AND< evil. However, what you are suggesting seems to be that Chaos in effect promotes "evil" actions by definition, it's just that the >intent< is different. Come on, a person without any standards of conduct is pretty much the definition of evil for all practical purposes, although I suppose you could try to make the the argument it's merely selfish and idiosyncratic. Regardless, the result is a definition of "Chaotic" that clearly makes the alignment inferior to Lawful.

Looking at this subject in more depth as I have given here at least brings logic to the activities of a Chaotic individual, demonstrates they can be just as structured and virtuous as anyone, and restores the balance between the alignments. Why perpetuate a social bias that ultimately doesn't make sense even buying into its own assumptions?

 

[Umbran]

Chaotic does not mean short-term. It means that there is no inherent value placed on tradition, authority or oaths. In the case of CE, that lack of inherent value means that these can be followed- but only if the CE character gains in the long-term.

I'd agree with that, partially. Chaotic doesn' mean short term, certainly. But I think it's a bit more than not placing inherent value in tradition. I think it's an active rejection of such things. The chaotic will generally choose to break with tradition and social mores, will actively seek to tear them down.

My tendency is to look at alignments first from the neutral perspective. Reading the PHB, pg 88, gives me the basic impression that the difference between neutrality and the extremes is basically committment to an ideal.

Neutral characters don't kill innocents, but they won't generally risk themselve for others, either. Neutral characters feel respect for authority, but don't feel a compulsion to obey or rebel. People at the extremes, who actually carry a label like "good" are generally devoted, or are activists.

There are, of course, shades - some folks are more devoted to an ideal than others. Some evil folk are evil in the "it's not like I plan to kil others, but it's easy and gets me what I want" way, and others a little further out in the "I bring torment to feeling creatures because it's cool" extreme.

From this point of view, a fully Chaotic character not only doesn't feel a need to obey law or tradition - he is going to actively oppose it. To him, laws and restrictions are *wrong*. That still doesn't mean he's irrational, or acts on the short term - he can have an organized, long term plan designed to bring the downfall of social order, and may well "play along" in service of that scheme.

 

[Al]

Ranillon- You either misinterpret or misrepresent me.

Essentially, my core point was not that chaotic people had no values per se, but that their values were based on two core tenets: firstly, that the fundamental tenets held on society are not inherently better than anyone else's; and secondly, that these values are more important to be bound by 'law'.

In the first instance, this is not to say that the character necessarily disagrees with the values espoused by his society- but that he agrees with them only if he independently comes to his own conclusion that they are right. A CG character may independently comes to the conclusion that a liberal democracy is the best form of government in today's society; whilst a LN character may support it simply because it is the status quo.

Secondly, the values are not proscribed by 'law'. This is not to say that chaotics cannot think in the long-term. CG needn't be a crazy zealot who is shot to pieces by the overlord's archers whilst he tries to storm the keep; nor need CE necessarily be executed for fireballing the marketplace. Yet the fact is that they place no inherent value on 'law'. If the CG character sees that the long-term good could be achieved better by breaking laws and codes, he is more likely to take that option; if the CE character sees his long-term interest benefits from breaking the law, he will take that option. However, they will not necessarily take the option simply because it is there (unless on the extreme ends of CN).

However, the interesting attitude is CN. CN comes most closely towards Umbran's interpretation of chaotic (which I believe unsuitable to CG and CE). CG and CE both have a moral long-term goal: the betterment of society or the self. Yet CN has no such 'moral' goal- his desire to rebel against society first and foremost because that is his desire. Of course, CN can be tempered- but pure CN rebels purely for the act of rebelling.

This, is my mind, is the core difference between CG/E and CN.

 

[MerakSpielman]

If it helps the discussion, I think many action-movie heroes are Chaotic Good. Often, the situation with the bad guys becomes Personal. Against direct orders from his superiors, the hero "goes in alone against incredible odds" to do what's right.

James Bond is classic CG. How many rules and regulations does he stomp on in each film? How many times does he follow orders to the letter, trusting M to know better than he what's best for Britain and the free world? He honestly seems to go out of his way NOT to follow orders, to give his bosses a hard time (or ignore them completely), and trash every cool car he gets. And he's still Britain's top agent.

Sometimes a CG hero is just what a LG society needs, when laws, rules, and regulations just get in the way of what needs to happen to get the job done.