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

[Toe Knee Nose]

Hogwash.
That is a silly sweeping statement.

Why would you say that? Dictatorships, where you have a single voice who has ultimate power and that power is used for selfish, self-serving ends, is the definition of chaotic evil.

That's the point of a dictatorship and very often why dictatorships rarely outlast the lifetime of the dictator. There are exceptions of course, but, in general, most dictatorships rise and fall on a single person.

 

[Maxperson]

Having laws has absolutely NOTHING to do with lawful alignment.

Were you conflating dictatorship with ditcator?

A dictatorship that has robust laws to help it function would be a lawful one. You can't have a chaotic evil dictatorship with a strong system of laws to help it function. Those laws create order and stability for the country, which is anathema to chaos. A chaotic evil dictatorship would have few to no laws, with those in charge just deciding everything as the mood strikes them. A dictator of a lawful dictatorship could be chaotic, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would you say that? Dictatorships, where you have a single voice who has ultimate power and that power is used for selfish, self-serving ends, is the definition of chaotic evil.

No, that's a dictator. A dictatorship is the country, not the person. A strong set of laws prevents the dictatorship from being chaotic. Some of those laws can be evil, but they end up creating a LE dictatorship, not a CE one.

That's the point of a dictatorship and very often why dictatorships rarely outlast the lifetime of the dictator. There are exceptions of course, but, in general, most dictatorships rise and fall on a single person.

Looking around the world, the opposite seems to be true. The line of succession isn't typically familial, but the dictatorship typically continues under a new dictator unless revolution got rid of it. And even revolution often just replaces one dictatorship with another.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why would you say that?

Because dictatorships should not be caricatured as it is commonly done for a WWE-loving public.

Dictatorships, where you have a single voice who has ultimate power and that power is used for selfish, self-serving ends, is the definition of chaotic evil.

Please repeat after me King Solomon was a selfish, self-serving chaotic evil king.

That's the point of a dictatorship and very often why dictatorships rarely outlast the lifetime of the dictator.

The west loves to demonise and caricature dictators because reasons we are disallowed to elaborate on.

There are exceptions of course, but, in general, most dictatorships rise and fall on a single person.

I'm not arguing this point, the reason a dictatorship falls is more likely because the very structure of it is fragile and not because of some supposed inherent evil nature. Think closer along the lines of Sole Proprietor vs Corporate and their longevity.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

A dictatorship is the country, not the person. A strong set of laws prevents the dictatorship from being chaotic. Some of those laws can be evil, but they end up creating a LE dictatorship, not a CE one.

Dictatorships, by definition do not have a strong set of laws that prevent the dictator from doing anything. That's WHY they are dictatorships. A nation that has a strong set of laws generally isn't a dictatorship since the dictator would then be subject to the laws of the nation which means that that dictator is no longer really a dictator.

As @AlViking says, dictatorships are "fragile". I totally agree. They're fragile because their structure in inherently unstable. And, frankly, I can't really think of any reason why we shouldn't demonize dictators. They are among the most evil, horrific individuals in history. There is no such thing as a "good" dictator. There are very, very good reasons we spent centuries getting rid of kings and emperors.

Conflating dictatorships with corporate governance is really not a valid comparison. A corporation whether a sole proprietorship or a public corporation is subject to so many outside elements, both legal and social, that while within a very, very small area, they might have a great deal of authority, it's extremely limited and circumscribed. Or, to put it another way, a company that beats its workers will very quickly cease to be a company. A dictatorship which enslaves groups of people suffers no consequences.

A dictator (or tyrant) is not subject to any real limitations. Again, that's why they are a dictator. And that's why that particular state/group is called a dictatorship.

/edit to add - I'm sorry, but are you seriously arguing that a dictatorship isn't evil? That a dictatorship isn't all about domination?

 

[Maxperson]

Dictatorships, by definition do not have a strong set of laws that prevent the dictator from doing anything.

So what. The dictator being able to do anything has no bearing on whether or not the dictatorship as a whole has a strong set of laws. One person being an exception and 30 million being subject doesn't equate to a shaky legal system.

A nation that has a strong set of laws generally isn't a dictatorship since the dictator would then be subject to the laws of the nation which means that that dictator is no longer really a dictator.

There are several real world examples that say you are wrong.

As @AlViking says, dictatorships are "fragile". I totally agree. They're fragile because their structure in inherently unstable. And, frankly, I can't really think of any reason why we shouldn't demonize dictators. They are among the most evil, horrific individuals in history. There is no such thing as a "good" dictator. There are very, very good reasons we spent centuries getting rid of kings and emperors.

I didn't say anything about not viewing dictators as horrible people, though there are a few examples of benevolent dictators who would probably be LN and not evil. Those are very rare compared to the corrupted and evil dictators, though. I do agree that no dictator is good.

A benevolent dictator is still a very, very bad idea, because the next guy to come along most likely won't be nice about it and the system will already be set up to give that next guy total control.

Conflating dictatorships with corporate governance is really not a valid comparison. A corporation whether a sole proprietorship or a public corporation is subject to so many outside elements, both legal and social, that while within a very, very small area, they might have a great deal of authority, it's extremely limited and circumscribed. Or, to put it another way, a company that beats its workers will very quickly cease to be a company. A dictatorship which enslaves groups of people suffers no consequences.

I didn't do that. Someone else equated them to corporations.

/edit to add - I'm sorry, but are you seriously arguing that a dictatorship isn't evil? That a dictatorship isn't all about domination?

Again, that wasn't me. You seem to have missed a step in your quoting.

 

[DammitVictor]

Behaviors, mental traits, talents etc have nothing to do with Alignment. Alignment is how you believe the world should work. Not how organized, disorganized, insane, emotional or rational you are. Those things have nothing to do with alignment. [...] Crazy, hungry, afraid timid, unpredictable, and many other adjectives have nothing to do with alignment. 'The other guy who said disorganized people are chaotic aligned has confused alignment with chaos being generated by being bad at organization. Two completely unrelated things.

To their credit, that nonsense has been canonically stated in the descriptions of alignment–and other game mechanics based on it–from Gygax AD&D until the end of Third Edition, fully thirty years from 1977 to 2007. There's practically no way to criticize this without it being a personal attack on somebody, but there are a whole lot of people who believe that D&D's alignment system is actually representative of some kind of coherent moral philosophy or philosophies; this idea is so pernicious that people use it (and argue about it) who've never played D&D at all or read how the alignments work in any D&D rulebook.

That's why I hate it so much. It destroys moral nuance and immersive roleplaying, the exact qualities that its supporters argue that the system is necessary to promote.