The Joker is definitely a CE character, but it feels like you're falling for the old "CE is crazy stupid evil" just like people think Chaotic Neutral is "I'm an idiot YOLO" type of personality.

That's a possible kind of character under that alignment, but CN doesn't necessitate that.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but to take a stab at it:

Lawful Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others, but have a code of honor.
Neutral Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others by whatever means are convenient. You might follow the law, but only because it gets you what you want easier.
Chaotic Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others without giving any weight to the law or honor. You might follow the law, but only because you have no choice at the moment.

So it's a pretty fine line. Which is what made me post about Lawfulness being confusing in the LG thread as well.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;840007When does it become Chaotic Evil then? CE would be just as fine hurting others and breaking any rules to get what it wants.

But ultimately, they USE the system to get/keep what they want; a Chaotic individual, should want to dismantle the whole thing. He/she has no regard, no interest in retaining, the mechanisms of ordered society.

I was thinking V from "V for Vendetta", might qualify; he's an anti-hero we can sympathize for, but ultimately, he wants to undo the gov't, and is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, to meet that goal.

Quote from: Novastar;840031But ultimately, they USE the system to get/keep what they want; a Chaotic individual, should want to dismantle the whole thing. He/she has no regard, no interest in retaining, the mechanisms of ordered society.

I was thinking V from "V for Vendetta", might qualify; he's an anti-hero we can sympathize for, but ultimately, he wants to undo the gov't, and is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, to meet that goal.

They don't necessarily have to WANT to destroy order. Just not think it's inherently valuable.

Like a CE character would be perfectly happy to use an organization to further their own ends, or even be part of one, but they'd only be in it because it helps them get what they want, not because they think that a system of order or the organization are inherently a good thing.

Really that's true for any Chaotic character. They aren't dedicated to overturning order. They just don't factor it into their decisions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;840029The Joker is definitely a CE character, but it feels like you're falling for the old "CE is crazy stupid evil" just like people think Chaotic Neutral is "I'm an idiot YOLO" type of personality.

What gives you that impression? I don't think anyone would characterize the Joker as stupid.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;840029That's a possible kind of character under that alignment, but CN doesn't necessitate that.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but to take a stab at it:

Lawful Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others, but have a code of honor.
Neutral Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others by whatever means are convenient. You might follow the law, but only because it gets you what you want easier.
Chaotic Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others without giving any weight to the law or honor. You might follow the law, but only because you have no choice at the moment.

So it's a pretty fine line. Which is what made me post about Lawfulness being confusing in the LG thread as well.

I'm curious as to why you make reference to the law in the NE and CE cases, but not the LE case.

For me alignment doesn't just inform us about how someone goes about getting what they want, it informs us about the nature of the thing(s) they actually want, and the person's relationship to the things they want (perhaps over time).  Playing with each of these elements can give you a richer palette of Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Good, or whatever, to create or describe something.

If asked to imagine the alignments represented as a diagram, and then asked what I saw, I'd say "good and evil on the vertical axis, and law and chaos on the horizontal axis."  As opposed to, say, "a 3x3 grid."  Either of which could be valid, but that's where my head goes.

In my imagined diagram, Neutral is not a co-equal party to Good and Evil, it's the middle ground at y=0 where neither good nor evil dominate.  Similarly, with its relationship to Law and Chaos. You can get all the range on an axis mixing Evil and Good (white and black), rather than requiring a separate Evil, Good, and Neutral (red, green, and blue).

A quick take on what my personal rework of your guide above might look like:

===
Lawful Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others, and it is likely that those desires manifest themselves with themes of domination, hierarchy, and codification.  You likely find organizations to be both a tool of enforcement and a worthy end. You are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to sticking with an existing plan than to a newer approach.

Chaotic Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others, and it is likely that those desires manifest themselves with themes of personal power, indulgence, and independence. You likely find organizations to be a tool of expression and demonstration of those themes, but they have no inherent value beyond that. You are more likely to try new approaches to achieving your desires, and more open to new expression of those desires, at least for some period of time.

Neutral Evil: You pursue your desires at the expense of others, and it is unlikely that those desires are characterized in the same broad strokes of LE or CE. You also see organizations as tools, but are more likely to be pulling the strings externally or behind the scenes. You are entirely pragmatic about approaches to achieving your desires, so don't have consistent preferences or proclivities in that regard.
===

The symmetry can be somewhat forced, but I think it's necessary to a certain degree to have a useful yardstick.

See, this is why I prefer the individual vs. society defintion more useful: you can actually figure out what the hell the alignements mean.

LE: You seek to maximize your society's utility relative to, and when you think you can get away with it at the expense of, all other societies.

NE: You seek to maximize your group's utility, even at the expense of other individuals, groups, and even your society when you think you can get away with it.

CE: you seek to maximize your utility at the expense or others when you think you can get away with it.

So E in general sees the world as competitive and zero-sum, and are out to get whatever they can for themselves. L for their society, N for their group/gang/clan/neighborhood/village/etc., C for themselves. The Joker cares only for his own benefit, and since he likes playing with Batman he may on occasion protect him from others since he sees Batman as his personal toy. The Operative from serenity is LE since he places the welfare of his society over all individuals and groups within that society, and also over those outside the society (Browncoats, Reavers). The Sopranos or The Godfather would be examples of NE, where loyalty to the group is paramount, and anyone outside the group is fair game.

It seems to me that a lot of representations of "Neutral Evil" are only defined in context to CE and LE, like it was just something not quite chaotic enough to be CE and not quite lawful enough to be LE.  

But anyways, I've now started another thread, this time on trying to pin down just what famous villains would actually be Neutral Evil.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840662It seems to me that a lot of representations of "Neutral Evil" are only defined in context to CE and LE, like it was just something not quite chaotic enough to be CE and not quite lawful enough to be LE.  

That was explicitly my take upthread, that neutral is not a primary color.

I'll throw Highsmith's "talented" Tom Ripley in the CE bin for good measure.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;839918Snowman, you're thinking of John Wayne Gacy, but really that's ALL clowns, right?

Don't know where your going with that question.  I thought I made it clear that killer clowns were evil.  How that covers all clowns is beyond me.

Quote from: Snowman0147;840724Don't know where your going with that question.  I thought I made it clear that killer clowns were evil.  How that covers all clowns is beyond me.

It was just a joke about the trope that all clowns are creepy and evil. Nothing more.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;840727It was just a joke about the trope that all clowns are creepy and evil. Nothing more.

Your avatar is kind of clownish...

Quote from: RPGPundit;841053Your avatar is kind of clownish...

It's the "killing on the inside" kind, I guess.

I think the CE = psychotic concept is valid, but rather limiting. After all, if we accept that the archetypal orcs are CE, we need to take into account tribal loyalty, pyramidal authority, strategy and foresight.

I think rejection of accepted societal codes, and that done in a brutal way, is key. I've not watched Sons of Anarchy, but I'm thinking that mirror might apply.

Quote from: Motorskills;841102I think the CE = psychotic concept is valid, but rather limiting. After all, if we accept that the archetypal orcs are CE, we need to take into account tribal loyalty, pyramidal authority, strategy and foresight.

I think rejection of accepted societal codes, and that done in a brutal way, is key. I've not watched Sons of Anarchy, but I'm thinking that mirror might apply.

Orcs were originally LE. That always made more sense to me.

Quote from: apparition13;841204Orcs were originally LE. That always made more sense to me.

Tolkien orcs, maybe.  And I've run them that way a couple of times; but I tend to prefer the CE orcs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;841387Tolkien orcs, maybe.  And I've run them that way a couple of times; but I tend to prefer the CE orcs.

I've frequently seem them presented as BBEG minions, just some brutal warriors looking for a leader because they want to submit to someone who will tell them who to fight.