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

[AlViking]

And you can disagree. But all the parts I bolded are objective things that do count as reasons to believe what I believe. As I said, you can believe otherwise, and I could be wrong, but they ARE in fact reasons. All I said was that your claim that there was no reason to believe what I am saying is objectively wrong, not that your beliefs are objectively wrong.

As for mad schemes, there's no credible interpretation of that sentence that doesn't involve being some amount of crazy. That's what "mad" means. Had it just said schemes, your interpretation would be credible. That you had to take it out of context and leave out both "mad" and "havok" is telling.

I don't know where you're getting "mad" from, my book says "Chaotic Evil (CE). Chaotic Evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their hatred or bloodlust. A villain pursuing schemes of vengeance and havoc is probably Chaotic Evil." Just because they sometimes act with arbitrary violence does not mean they always act with arbitrary violence.

I objectively agree that you wrote those things. Doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion.

 

[AlViking]

If you don't use the alignments as written (your interpretation aside), why are you digging in on book definitions in a thread asking for and full of suggestions and alternative interpretations to meet a certain purpose? No one is asking to have the book read for them.

I don't care what alignment my player's characters are either - all I ask is that they don't run evil characters.

I do find alignment useful as a general idea of how an NPC or monster thinks by default, frequently it's all I need. Sometimes I even use it as a starting point for my own characters, one of many aspects that define who they are. If I can't have a label for someone that rejects all laws and external mores while doing what they think is right without them being insane people where every choice is random then I'd be missing a label.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't use the alignments as written (your interpretation aside), why are you digging in on book definitions in a thread asking for and full of suggestions and alternative interpretations to meet a certain purpose? No one is asking to have the book read for them.

I don't believe those alignments can be played smart for the reasons listed. If you use alignment as written/defined by every edition, and the CE person plays smart, he's really LE or NE. That or you've redefined alignment for your game, which he can of course do, but he didn't need to come here to redefine alignment. He came here to find out how the CE alignment could be played smart.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Morgoth Bauglir

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know where you're getting "mad" from, my book says "Chaotic Evil (CE). Chaotic Evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their hatred or bloodlust. A villain pursuing schemes of vengeance and havoc is probably Chaotic Evil." Just because they sometimes act with arbitrary violence does not mean they always act with arbitrary violence.

3e shifted language without telling people in-between printings. That's interesting. Back during 3e we had a different argument between two of my players, both insisting they were right about how something was worded. It wasn't until they both pulled out their PHB's to prove their position that we noticed the change.

At some point either "A villain pursuing schemes" turned into "The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes" or vice versa. You also might be looking at the actual 3e book and not 3.5e, which is what I'm looking at. Just in case we're both looking at the 3.5e PHB, the printing I'm looking at is the first printing in July of 2003.

I objectively agree that you wrote those things. Doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion.

You don't have to. They are still reasons, regardless of your agreement. Your agreement or disagreement can't change that fact. And again, reasons don't have to be correct to be reasons.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps fortunate, then, that I don't give xp for treasure.

Im not a fan either. If you play 2E again bit give more generous xp for non combat stuff you can level up at the same rate.

 

[bsss]

I don't care what alignment my player's characters are either - all I ask is that they don't run evil characters.

I do find alignment useful as a general idea of how an NPC or monster thinks by default, frequently it's all I need. Sometimes I even use it as a starting point for my own characters, one of many aspects that define who they are. If I can't have a label for someone that rejects all laws and external mores while doing what they think is right without them being insane people where every choice is random then I'd be missing a label.

It's not about that, it's about coming into this thread and telling the OP "what you're asking for is impossible per my interpretation of what the book says; never mind that I don't do alignment by the book anyway, the book says your idea is impossible and I cannot be convinced otherwise".

 

[AlViking]

3e shifted language without telling people in-between printings. That's interesting. Back during 3e we had a different argument between two of my players, both insisting they were right about how something was worded. It wasn't until they both pulled out their PHB's to prove their position that we noticed the change.

At some point either "A villain pursuing schemes" turned into "The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes" or vice versa. You also might be looking at the actual 3e book and not 3.5e, which is what I'm looking at. Just in case we're both looking at the 3.5e PHB, the printing I'm looking at is the first printing in July of 2003.

You don't have to. They are still reasons, regardless of your agreement. Your agreement or disagreement can't change that fact. And again, reasons don't have to be correct to be reasons.

The fact that you interpret alignment differently than I do is hardly a surprise, nor does it change anything. I want all alignments to be useful and it's not if entire groups of species or cultures are insane (e.g. the CE drow) are all off their rocker.

 

[Zardnaar]

Using some real life examples.

CN
Guy I worked with. Didn't care much about rules or being reliable. Could be insensitive. Like his drugs a lot. Just did whatever he wanted. Ended up hooked on said drugs destroyed his family and everything. Outright admitted to doing it and admitted he didnt care. Found out a couple of weeks ago he died 3 or 4 years ago. Must have been close to last time I saw him. Lost all his friends ex wife was like " I cant help him". No one could.

Know him for over a decade he just didnt care start to finish.

Another person I worked with. Similar attitude but cruel. Outright made people's lives around her miserable including mine. Had multiple people quit because of her. Not a single friend in the workplace. Always in trouble always someone else fault. Unreliable don't lend them money ever. Enjoyed hurting people. Outright admitted to being mean. CE imho she just lacked the agency and power to do much more than bully everyone. Few redeeming qualities. At best could be pleasant to some people she liked until generally there was a blow up eventually.

I've met worse people i didn't have to deal with them on a day to day basis.