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

[EzekielRaiden]

The definitions of CE don't match up with many monster descriptions. How could gnolls have "friendly relationships" with other humanoids?

Well I mean back in 4e it was perfectly possible, because the lore wasn't structured to make gnolls just the worst and instead making it so some of them could be cool.

So the answer is "don't blame us for WotC deciding to make gnolls horrendous rapacious monsters"?

How can hill giants keep pets and raise children?

I mean don't they have to do the latter to sustain their species...? Beyond that, just read the 5e description:

"Among hidden valleys, pristine waterfalls, and game-filled slopes, hill giants usually find their needs met by nature's bounty. What the wilderness doesn't provide, hill giants make, crafting clothes, tools, and weapons from rocks, wood, and hides. When they encounter strangers, hill giants might be suspicious and protective of their territories, but some might be convinced to share their bounties with travelers willing to entertain them.

Disaster, invasion, or want might drive hill giants from their homes into other people's lands. Some displaced hill giants might steal what they need or seek revenge for their losses by causing ruin among smaller beings. Others might take up lives of raiding or serve other giants in return for protection."

Sounds like they do just fine raising pets and children, so long as disasters don't strike!

How can you have a tribe of humanoids, living in difficult terrain, that is incapable of long term planning?

You can't.

That's why it's stupid to force the Chaotic Evil alignment to be THE "Stupid Alignment". Like why would you WANT an alignment made of stupid? I'm not saying every CR creature has to be Lex Luthor intelligent. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be defining "Chaotic Evil" in such a way that it is congenitally incapable of shrewdness, patience, and cunning.

CE works fine for demons, undead, and solitary monsters, but dont make sense for anything that acts like a society.

And I assert that this is incorrect. It can be sensible for such things, some of the time. Not often, indeed I would say it is uncommon to rare! But I think it needs to be possible. Otherwise we deprive ourselves of some of the best villain archetypes out there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

You may note that I have not cared a ton for alignment as a structure in most editions. And that's entirely because the convenient shorthand is actually really misleading and gets people to think in far too rigid terms about things that should be much more complicated (not to mention flexible?) I still disagree with your characterization of CE in 4e, but that's neither here nor there.

An alignment set aside solely for Dumb Destructive Idiots is not an alignment I think merits inclusion.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I think we can all agree Foucault was chaotic evil: the question is whether he was smart.