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.

 

[nevin]

This is true... one could say, if arguing personality and "smart" in absolutes, that LE are incapable of being "smart" as well. Considering flexible and creative thought are more approaching the domains of Chaos, if you arguein an absolute, personality basis, you may say all Lawful characters lack independent wits. sudden brilliance from some unknown well is chaos. The classic idea of "either he's a genious or a complete moron". The Nutty Professor is extremely "smart" scientifically, but he sure is a chaotic hot mess.

no....you are pulling yourself back into the black hole of populist alignment thought. flexible thought can be anyone....Chaotic alignments believe people should be free to do thier own thing. Lawful Alignments believe law should be instituted to keep order and power in the right places. (whether those things are for good, evil, or a balance depends on the rest of the alignment). Romans were very LE society and they had intelligence, education and quite flexible thought because they prized these things and taught them. It's why the roman empire lasted so long. But it was definitely a LE society. Might made right the empire always came first. A Chaotic Anarchist could believe bombing and destruction are the only way to cleanse the planet. They could refuse all flexibility in thought because everyone needs to die to save the world. Or not because those patterns and traits have nothing to do with belief in chaos, law, evil or good. Any person of any alignment could have those traits.

QUIT............tying personality, intelligence, emotional intelligence, goals, ambitions or anything else completely to the Alignment. Many a creative flexible ,LE, personable friendly Roman wiped out many a culture throughout history. LG people can be terrified to stand up to the evil in front of them and crawl back into thier houses and do nothing and still be LG. Survival can trump alignment. Alignment has nothing to do with how flexible your thought is, how intelligent you are, how educated you are or how dedicated to your moral principles you are. Those are personality traits, education and interests not alignment.

Alignment is just your beliefs and moral compass not your personality traits or driver of your actions.

 

[nevin]

Keep in mind also that those definitions are trying to portray evil in the most negative light possible, in order to make evil characters less attractive to play.

I think you're a bit too hung up on "whims" with all this, at least in the immediate sense. A whim "I'm gonna overthrow the king and put myself on the throne!" might lead to years of - perhaps on-and-off - planning and buildup in order to make that whim reality.

A CN or CE person can also be mostly an instigator of trouble, looking to cause chaos and disruption on a scale bigger than personal.

Entirely depends on what those whims are and-or lead to. Rational does not equal logical.

Keep in mind also that those definitions are trying to portray evil in the most negative light possible, in order to make evil characters less attractive to play.

I think you're a bit too hung up on "whims" with all this, at least in the immediate sense. A whim "I'm gonna overthrow the king and put myself on the throne!" might lead to years of - perhaps on-and-off - planning and buildup in order to make that whim reality.

A CN or CE person can also be mostly an instigator of trouble, looking to cause chaos and disruption on a scale bigger than personal.

Entirely depends on what those whims are and-or lead to. Rational does not equal logical.

AD&D has both unintentionally and intentionally perpetuated screwed up thinking on alignments for a long time. Part of the problem is that for a DM it's a good way to make a functional NPC for the world. I need an enemy of the king, fine I have a LE Noble who believes he would be a better king. Boom 2 dimensional brick in my story. Using it like that I'd argue it works as intended behind the scenes.

Problem is sometimes DM's take it too far. We've probably all played those games where the Evil Cultists never run and are always ready to die to the last man woman and child simply because they are evil. Then later that DM starts to whine about the murder hobos who just kill everyone. HMMMM who trained that party to think that way?

Then you get the attention seeking player who wants to play lets say in this instance CN (kookoo crazy nutbag) who just does random naughty word to get attention. To begin with anybody of any alignment could be an attention seeker or have a problem with authority, or be a bit of a narcissist but somehow it's always the CN, Narcissist, character who acts out whenever told what to do. Sadly all CN means is that people should be free to do their own thing and I come first from an alignment perspective. I come first in a normal social structure if the NPC or character is intelligent should all by itself add some behavioral brakes to the behavior. If you believe you come first and you do random crazy unpredictable things if your intelligence is even average you should know, you are going to die early probably hanging from a gallows because you burned up the wrong ship with the wrong noble on it.

Using alignment as a shortcut to create a type of character is ok but I do wish people (and DM's ) would spend a bit more time remembering that everyone but the crazies typically avoid bad consequences. Of course if the player is going for crazy then I just throw consequences at them. But that only works if you the DM aren't throwing stuff at the party that could make anyone crazy. The misuse of alignment in games tends to run strong at both ends of the table.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

no....you are pulling yourself back into the black hole of populist alignment thought. flexible thought can be anyone....Chaotic alignments believe people should be free to do thier own thing. Lawful Alignments believe law should be instituted to keep order and power in the right places. (whether those things are for good, evil, or a balance depends on the rest of the alignment). Romans were very LE society and they had intelligence, education and quite flexible thought because they prized these things and taught them. It's why the roman empire lasted so long. But it was definitely a LE society. Might made right the empire always came first. A Chaotic Anarchist could believe bombing and destruction are the only way to cleanse the planet. They could refuse all flexibility in thought because everyone needs to die to save the world. Or not because those patterns and traits have nothing to do with belief in chaos, law, evil or good. Any person of any alignment could have those traits.

QUIT............tying personality, intelligence, emotional intelligence, goals, ambitions or anything else completely to the Alignment. Many a creative flexible ,LE, personable friendly Roman wiped out many a culture throughout history. LG people can be terrified to stand up to the evil in front of them and crawl back into thier houses and do nothing and still be LG. Survival can trump alignment. Alignment has nothing to do with how flexible your thought is, how intelligent you are, how educated you are or how dedicated to your moral principles you are. Those are personality traits, education and interests not alignment.

Alignment is just your beliefs and moral compass not your personality traits or driver of your actions.

You misread what I was trying to put out there. I was saying, if you go by the personality argument that you stated as flawed... then by that flawed view, you could apply it to LE in such a way. Not that that is what I believe, but putting the shoe on the other foot by that rationale