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

[Toe Knee Nose]

Very little is 100% and outside of something like a demon and I'm not saying it should be, but "smart" play wouldn't have a PC be ruled by whim or emotion even as high 25% of the time. And if your CE PC is avoiding being CE 75%+ of the time, he isn't CE. He's LE or NE with a small streak of C somewhere in there.

But, again, you don't have to be ruled by emotion ALL THE TIME to be Chaotic. You don't have to be completely clueless about consequences all the time to be chaotic. Just like being evil, you don't have to be evil every single second of every single day in order to qualify as evil.

The aspiring cult leader who is convincing those around him (or her) that they know the "one true way" to salvation is chaotic.

The aspiring gang leader who claws his way up to the top of the gang by virtue of being the nastiest bastard around is chaotic evil.

The smart chaotic evil is the one who surrounds themselves with fanatical followers who are so brain washed that they will literally sacrifice themselves on demand.

Cult leaders, "freedom fighters" (of various stripes), warlords who raid villages to turn children into child soldiers, slavers, servants of chaotic evil deities. There is a lengthy shopping list of horrible people who are very much chaotic evil and (unfortunately) very successful at the same time. Even in the real world, there are individuals and groups that fit the bill pretty well.

At a thought, the Kazon from Voyager work pretty well as an example of Chaotic Evil. The Predators are a perfect example of how chaotic evil works.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

You...did pick out the one and only example I gave that could be analyzed that way...

Ok, let's take a look at your definition of smart:

Smart people care about long-term consequences and, generally, about efficiency and efficacy, desiring victory not at "any" cost, but rather at any reasonable cost. Even those who are reckless are usually not so to the degree that they throw away their resources.
Smart people leverage the resources at their disposal, they don't squander them nor invest them frivolously. The cavalier, lackadaisical attitude you describe is one of the things we expect smart people to NOT do.
Smart people keep their petty and/or whimsical impulses under control. That doesn't mean they never indulge in pettiness or whimsy; it means they do so with good reason, or at appropriate times, or when the costs (both direct and opportunity) are minimized, etc.
Smart people adjust their basic/ordinary beliefs in response to new data. They don't need to be having no commitments at all to higher beliefs, they just need to recognize when a situation has changed and to try to adapt to those changes reasonably.
Smart people re-evaluate their own methods and approaches. That doesn't mean they have to be right nor that they can't choose wrongly. It means that they are at least somewhat self-reflective when they face challenges, especially if they lose or only win after struggle.
Smart people understand that the emotions of others can be useful in some circumstances. That's a cold and kind of off-putting way to say it, but it's true. Emotions, beliefs, desires, all of these things can let you manipulate or convince others, even if you personally have no special interest in them.
Smart people understand that increasing your available resources is always better than decreasing them if you have a choice, all else being equal. Victory at cost is always worse than victory with extra gain.

See, I don't see any of this as particularly intellectually smart. I don't. You can be incredibly intelligent and refuse to adjust beliefs in response to new data, for example. Being smart does not, in any way, mean immunity to dogmatism. Being self-reflective isn't a trait of intelligence. Nor is impulse control. There are incredibly smart people out there with zero impulse control.

You are equating emotional intelligence with intellectual intelligence. A very intellectually gifted Chaotic Evil individual will have pretty much zero emotional intelligence. Sociopathic behavior would typically be the result. There are all sorts of highly successful sociopaths out there in history and fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

But, again, you don't have to be ruled by emotion ALL THE TIME to be Chaotic. You don't have to be completely clueless about consequences all the time to be chaotic. Just like being evil, you don't have to be evil every single second of every single day in order to qualify as evil.

Me: It doesn't have to be all the time.
You: but it doesn't have to be ALL THE TIME.

Well, yeah. I didn't say it did. But if they aren't chaotic evil(ruled by whim and emotion) most of the time, they aren't chaotic evil. They are some other evil with a chaotic stripe.

The aspiring cult leader who is convincing those around him (or her) that they know the "one true way" to salvation is chaotic.

The aspiring gang leader who claws his way up to the top of the gang by virtue of being the nastiest bastard around is chaotic evil.

The smart chaotic evil is the one who surrounds themselves with fanatical followers who are so brain washed that they will literally sacrifice themselves on demand.

Cult leaders, "freedom fighters" (of various stripes), warlords who raid villages to turn children into child soldiers, slavers, servants of chaotic evil deities. There is a lengthy shopping list of horrible people who are very much chaotic evil and (unfortunately) very successful at the same time. Even in the real world, there are individuals and groups that fit the bill pretty well.

At a thought, the Kazon from Voyager work pretty well as an example of Chaotic Evil. The Predators are a perfect example of how chaotic evil works.

Freedom fighters are usually not CE. Freedom fighters are moving towards a goal. Want to overthrow the tyranny so that a better place can be had. Usually have some sort of code(however twisted) that they follow.

Freedom fighters are LE. And revolutionaries, who have an organization with them, are even more lawful with their evil. Cult leaders are also usually LE. Cult leaders almost always have personal codes, cult rules, organization, etc. Slavers? They very often act within the evil laws of certain countries, using those laws to justify their enslavement of others. Warlords? Also usually LE for their running of their organization, rules, etc.

The only one you list that is typically CE, are the servants of CE gods.

 

[timbannock]

Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight.

Similarly, Cory Ellison from The Morning Show. Takes advantage of both friends and enemies for personal gain, tells the truth just as often as he lies in order to gain an advantage, and both has a nose for seeking out and sows chaos in order to both take advantage of it and sometimes just to revel in it. He shakes things up often, usually for personal gain, but more than once just to see what it stirs up.

It helped him out a lot early on, and it blew up in his face BIG TIME at least twice. But even then, like Batman, he knows how to just pick himself right up again and get back in there. Perfect parallels there to Joker. It works out for Joker more often than not in Dark Knight because it needs to for the story, but frankly, there's at least a couple scenes where he could have ended up dead if it weren't simply for dumb luck. (Same in The Joker; he's only put on a pedestal by others because of the social climate of the time, and he only gets away from the cops because cars drive on streets, ya know? He doesn't even realize it all until after the fact, and only then starts to take advantage of it. He's chaotic evil to the core.)

Arguably you could see this as Neutral Evil, but frankly if there's not some overlap in people's definition of alignment, then I can't agree with their view on it. The point is that the lines are foggy, because that's where you get betrayal, disagreement, faction interplay, and all sorts of great drama.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You could just focus on making interesting characters and not worry about what label gets attached to them. Like writers do.

So much this.

 

[AlViking]

Me: It doesn't have to be all the time.
You: but it doesn't have to be ALL THE TIME.

Well, yeah. I didn't say it did. But if they aren't chaotic evil(ruled by whim and emotion) most of the time, they aren't chaotic evil. They are some other evil with a chaotic stripe.

Freedom fighters are usually not CE. Freedom fighters are moving towards a goal. Want to overthrow the tyranny so that a better place can be had. Usually have some sort of code(however twisted) that they follow.

Freedom fighters are LE. And revolutionaries, who have an organization with them, are even more lawful with their evil. Cult leaders are also usually LE. Cult leaders almost always have personal codes, cult rules, organization, etc. Slavers? They very often act within the evil laws of certain countries, using those laws to justify their enslavement of others. Warlords? Also usually LE for their running of their organization, rules, etc.

Depends on what they're fighting for and why. First of all, not every individual is going to have exactly the same motivation but there are people that just want anarchy. They don't really need a goal other than tearing down the establishment with no thought of what comes next. If they do have a thought of what comes next it's that they'll continue to rule the roost through violence and intimidation with no laws other than might make right.

The only one you list that is typically CE, are the servants of CE gods.

Nah. There are plenty of people in the real world I would classify as CE even though we don't have gods.

Your strict reading of a single sentence as if it's the only way that anyone anywhere can use the alignment system as inspiration on how to run a character is pretty myopic. Are they sometimes going to do things on a whim? Sure. That doesn't mean they're insane.

 

[bsss]

So much this.

This thread could be a good cautionary tale for any kind of "alignment-first" approach to making a realistic personality, other than as a very crude shorthand.

 

[AlViking]

This thread could be a good cautionary tale for any kind of "alignment-first" approach to making a realistic personality, other than as a very crude shorthand.

I use it as a thought starter or shortcut for someone I don't need any depth, not as a straightjacket. But yes if you expect a single line of text to describe every aspect of a fully realized complex individual it's not going to work.

 

[GreyLord]

Raistlin is a good Chaotic Evil character.

Ironically, though not indicated by that and the author says they are not...Elminister could, in theory, actually, be the perfect Chaotic Evil Character as well.

Many CEO's of some major Corporations (if you know them...you know them) are absolutely Chaotic Evil. They are smart, many are very charismatic, and very good at certain things. They also, at times, will disregard any rules if they feel they can get away with it to get ahead in the world.

 

[Stormonu]

Slightly off topic, but I simply cannot play Evil characters. I cannot even play Neutral. And not even just in TTRPGs, but also in solo play video games. I do not understand the desire to do so.

As a player, I find it difficult too (antihero not so much), but as a DM playing the villains ... I can get cruel.

The more I think about it, the more bizarre hypocrisy it feels like.