Like the Lawful Evil thread, but for the exemplar of Chaotic Evil.
Alec from A Clockwork Orange. :D
jg
"For the lulz."
Lolth in one of the D&D novels. She was actually depicted as fairly chaotic and definitely evil.
Any serial killer. But that's because I go with the individual vs. society viewpoint of L vs. C.
No one had ever mention the Joker from the Batman comics, tv shows, video games, and movies? I thought this would be the first one to be pick.
I mean the first clowns were court jesters who are tricksters and often mock authority figures. You don't know what they are going to say, what they are going to do, and frankly have a disregard for order. This also comes with the fact that the clown make up and "face" are just alter ego of a person so you have no idea who is the real person behind the make up. That is pretty chaotic.
As for evil? My god had you ever heard of clown killers? Evil as fuck human beings that attract children into their white vans and soon enough they bury those children in a place no one will ever look. I think in the 1970's they actually caught a real serial killer that did just that. They found the bodies in a secret room, or compartment in the serial killer's house. Add with the creepy factor of clowns and you got yourself a scary as hell evil threat.
Yeah, I think the Joker might just be the Exemplar here.
Now here is a Tricky one.
Mr Blonde....
Now we know he tortures people for fun, we know he can't stick to a plan and just starts shooting people for fun but .... he was in prison for a long while and he didn't rat anyone out.... Does he have a code?
Don't know if Mr. Blonde had a "code". He knew what talking would have gotten him vs. keeping quiet and made the decision accordingly.
The hard part is coming up with a real example of C/E that isn't just "C/E equals psychopath". Than again, maybe in humans, C/E is psychopathy.
Chaotic Evil is just anyone who doesn't care what they have to do to get ahead.
Quote from: James Gillen;839626Alec from A Clockwork Orange. :D
jg
Quote from: Snowman0147;839662No one had ever mention the Joker from the Batman comics, tv shows, video games, and movies? I thought this would be the first one to be pick.
I mean the first clowns were court jesters who are tricksters and often mock authority figures. You don't know what they are going to say, what they are going to do, and frankly have a disregard for order. This also comes with the fact that the clown make up and "face" are just alter ego of a person so you have no idea who is the real person behind the make up. That is pretty chaotic.
As for evil? My god had you ever heard of clown killers? Evil as fuck human beings that attract children into their white vans and soon enough they bury those children in a place no one will ever look. I think in the 1970's they actually caught a real serial killer that did just that. They found the bodies in a secret room, or compartment in the serial killer's house. Add with the creepy factor of clowns and you got yourself a scary as hell evil threat.
I can't come up with anything better than Alex DeLarge or the Joker.
Snowman, you're thinking of John Wayne Gacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy), but really that's ALL clowns, right?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;839912Chaotic Evil is just anyone who doesn't care what they have to do to get ahead.
That sounds more like neutral evil to me.
Quote from: Snowman0147;839662No one had ever mention the Joker from the Batman comics, tv shows, video games, and movies? I thought this would be the first one to be pick.
Probably because it was so obvious, I wanted to use another example. ;)
JG
Quote from: Natty Bodak;839918That sounds more like neutral evil to me.
When does it become Chaotic Evil then? CE would be just as fine hurting others and breaking any rules to get what it wants.
Also - Belkar Bitterleaf. :D
JG
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.
I agree that CE would be just as fine hurting others and breaking any rules to get what it wants. The difference, to me, is in the nature of the desires, and the methods taken to achieve them.
I'd propose that CE would be more likely to do what takes their CE fancy, even if that is not the thing that gets them ahead.
Take the Joker (and let's go for Ledger's) for example, who fine folks here seem to think is a shoe-in for the position of CE poster boy. The Joker gets so caught up in what he see as a symbiotic dynamic between himself and Batman that he sidelines some of his energy from devolving Gotham into chaos, and threatens to kill the guy who would blow Batman's cover on live TV. Presumably, his goals would have been better achieved if he had let Batman's cover be blown.
Admittedly, I'm not a Batman scholar, and await with determined acceptance for the schooling/corrections they may have for em.
NE is less driven by lawful and chaotic elements, and is not beholden to them.
That's my take, anyway.
Where do you see the line between NE and CE being?
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. :)
Quote from: apparition13;841402I'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. :)
But that sounds Chaotic to me. Submitting to a powerful leader doesn't make you Lawful.
Dark Albion doesn't have orcs at all. Of course, if it did (and there's no reason a GM couldn't put them in there if he really wanted) they'd definitely be Chaos-aligned, because pretty well all intelligent non-humans are Chaos-aligned.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;841430But that sounds Chaotic to me. Submitting to a powerful leader doesn't make you Lawful.
Having a preference for hierarchy isn't lawful? Wanting and needing a leader to follow, feeling incomplete if you don't have one, is chaotic?
Quote from: apparition13;841896Having a preference for hierarchy isn't lawful? Wanting and needing a leader to follow, feeling incomplete if you don't have one, is chaotic?
If you are only following the leader because you want a convenient outlet for your rampage, then it has nothing to do with being Chaotic or Lawful.
Lawful would be if you believed in having an organization in principle, that it's inherently a good thing. Orcs just want someone to make it easier for them to smash things. Needing a leader to follow is just a personal weakness, not an alignment.
I'd go with Littlefinger -the guy who stirs up chaos and disorder and would gladly watch everything burn so long as he gets to stand on the ashes.
Norman Osborne seems like a really obvious choice here. He can make long term plans, but they're all really fucked up and he's likely to abandon them to go throw pumpkin bombs at Spiderman again.
Joker is pretty obvious, but been said. Carnage, Venom, yeah. Most serial killers from slasher films. Angelus, from Buffy. Juggernaut.
It's like the alignment of the comic book villain, really.
I'd also lump spree killing fucktards like Charles Whitman and the asshole currently on trial for shooting all those people in a movie theater in Colorado as Chaotic Evil.
Quote from: Elfdart;841991I'd go with Littlefinger -the guy who stirs up chaos and disorder and would gladly watch everything burn so long as he gets to stand on the ashes.
That doesn't quite match with my vision of Littlefinger. I think the guy is enormously ambitious; yes he's totally ruthless, but he's doing it with an overall plan in mind.
On the Marvel side.
Carnage pretty much exemplifies CE. So does Venom to a certain degree.
Quote from: RPGPundit;842593That doesn't quite match with my vision of Littlefinger. I think the guy is enormously ambitious; yes he's totally ruthless, but he's doing it with an overall plan in mind.
Yeah, I'd argue Littlefinger is an excellent example of CN. Gregor Clegane is a much better fit for CE.
Quote from: RPGPundit;842593That doesn't quite match with my vision of Littlefinger. I think the guy is enormously ambitious; yes he's totally ruthless, but he's doing it with an overall plan in mind.
I'm going by the TV version, and a number of the things he does really do come across as being done on a whim, like killing off Varys' hooker/spy and bragging about it. He did something evil (handing someone over to be tortured to death by Joffrey) and boasted of it for the LULZ to his main enemy.
Littlefinger was my example of Neutral Evil.
jg
Quote from: Elfdart;842654I'm going by the TV version, and a number of the things he does really do come across as being done on a whim, like killing off Varys' hooker/spy and bragging about it. He did something evil (handing someone over to be tortured to death by Joffrey) and boasted of it for the LULZ to his main enemy.
I think that there are personal grudges involved in his choices, undoubtedly, but I also think it's quite clear that on the whole he's playing a very long game.
Remember, he was pretty much the main architect of the War, and it's clear that everything he's doing is part of a fairly elaborate master-plan. Of course, none of that means it'll work out for him; he reminds me of some players who think they're more clever than they are and make these really intricate schemes when something simpler might have been better (as elaborate plans tend to have trouble adjusting if individual parts of it go wrong).
I'm thinking the difference between Chaotic and Lawful is self versus societal.
Thus orcs are Chaotic Evil since their tribal culture is about self at its core, survival of the fittest.
And I think Littlefinger therefore does count as Chaotic Evil.
And Varys is just possibly Lawful Good (n.b. not Lawful Nice). Tywin is likely Lawful Evil. Tyrion is likely Chaotic Good, Bronn is Chaotic Neutral.
Lord Varys: I did what I did for the good of the realm.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.
Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.
Quote from: jibbajibba;843096Lord Varys: I did what I did for the good of the realm.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.
Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.
A good point.
Cugel the Clever.
Seriously. Rapes at least one woman, threatens another into sex, sets up a traveling companion to be killed by thugs for absolutely no reason, has no scruples, no morals, cares about absolutely no one other than himself...
The Dying Earth is full of utter assholes, but he stands head and shoulders above them all.
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.
I think, as has been said, that the above typifies neutral evil. To me, NE has always been the most selfish alignment. Anything, lawful or chaotic or otherwise, to get what I as an individual want. But as someone said earlier, it's WHAT the character wants that defines what kind of evil you are. If you WANT to torture or kill for no other reason than the thrill of it, that to me is chaotic evil. You're not doing it for some rational (albeit selfish) goal like greed or a lust for power, like a NE character would. Which is why the Joker fits this alignment so perfectly. He kills, tortures, kidnaps. . . just for laughs. He burned a huge pile of money, in front of a gangster that could have potentially killed him for doing so, just to prove a point: I'm not in it for gain in the traditional sense. A NE character would consider such behavior a waste of time, because it diverts him from his goals of satisfying his own selfish (but rational) desires. He wouldn't torture or kill someone just for the fun of it, because there's no point - no utility - to his doing so. But he'd torture a person if they were withholding information he needed, and kill someone that got in the way of his goals.
All that having been said, I don't think that requires that a CE character be batshit insane. In one of the other alignment threads, there was a discussion of Ramsey Bolton from GoT. He enjoys torturing people, and does so in instances where it's not necessary (or to a greater extent than he needs to where it is). But he does not otherwise act rashly. He's not batshit insane (although he may "suffer" from sadistic tendencies).