Because I don't believe in objective morality to the extent that one would have to believe in it to have 'good' and 'evil' alignments, I tend to think of 'good' as 'altruistic' and 'evil' as 'selfish'. (And I'm not talking about 'look out for your interests' selfish, I'm talking 'put your desires and whims above the needs and rights of others' selfish). Then neutral becomes just that, neutral, as in leaning neither excessively towards selfishness or altruism, someone who looks after their own interests but is happy to help a friend move, for example.
So written, chaotic evil would be someone who does whatever the hell they want when they want to do it in such a way that their actions are unpredictable (the chaotic part) and whose desires tend strongly towards selfishness (the evil part). I think that you can probably see a glimpse of chaotic evil in the behavior of abusers, both physical and emotional (the way that they will swing, often unpredictably, from abusive to kind to abusive again), and some of the charismatic madmen of history have probably shown chaotic evil tendancies.
Personally, I think that chaotic evil gets over-used in D&D as "the ultimate evil". Sorry, it ain't. Lawful evil is all the more gruesome because it's more calculated and more insidious.
(I think of myself as true neutral leaning towards neutral good. I respect rules and follow them when it's sensible to do so, but I'm not opposed to going my own way when I feel that the established way won't work for me, as it often doesn't. I don't do charity work or donate a lot of money, but I do tend to do a charity project or two a year, and I take great pleasure in dropping everything and helping my friends from time to time.)
Well, to be more clear, it'd be more like the 'good-evil balance of D&D alignment'.
I'm still torn in terms of 'lawful/chaotic'. Someone who obeys the laws of their personal land, for example, might go from lawful to chaotic if they moved to another land where their laws were illegal, assuming they tried to stick by their laws instead of adapting. So is a paladin in an evil country chaotic? It's a fine line. But at the same time, you don't want to determine lawfulness by someone who's most willing to abide by the laws of the particular land where they happen to be, because hardline lawfullness shouldn't be (IMO) so wishy-washy. On the other hand, you could have someone who obeys a rational and internally consistant set of personal laws -- except, that includes storybook robbers and pirates, who live by various theives codes, including the storybook version of Robin Hood, who is universally cited as an example of chaotic good.
This whole debate, BTW, came from a game I played in for a while where the characters were encouranged to be as well-developed as people as possible, and where the GM determined our alignment and our alignment shifted quite a lot during game play. There were plenty of situations where people were extremely surprised to learn that their behavior was giving them an evil alignment, and thus it was important to be clear and logical about what sorts of behaviors would cause what sorts of alignment shifts.
The game was fun, and it was really cool to watch people who'd started out intending to tell a heroic story wind up telling a tragedy once they had it pointed out to them that their characters were, with all the best intentions, sliding steadily towards evil. One by one, they started embracing it, and by the end of the game, we were pretty much all evil, with the exception of ONE lawful neutral monk who was trying so very hard to save us and who was being steadily dragged down in the process (he'd started out lawful good).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Thoughts on you, quirks of mine
Date: 2005-12-31 05:39 am (UTC)So written, chaotic evil would be someone who does whatever the hell they want when they want to do it in such a way that their actions are unpredictable (the chaotic part) and whose desires tend strongly towards selfishness (the evil part). I think that you can probably see a glimpse of chaotic evil in the behavior of abusers, both physical and emotional (the way that they will swing, often unpredictably, from abusive to kind to abusive again), and some of the charismatic madmen of history have probably shown chaotic evil tendancies.
Personally, I think that chaotic evil gets over-used in D&D as "the ultimate evil". Sorry, it ain't. Lawful evil is all the more gruesome because it's more calculated and more insidious.
(I think of myself as true neutral leaning towards neutral good. I respect rules and follow them when it's sensible to do so, but I'm not opposed to going my own way when I feel that the established way won't work for me, as it often doesn't. I don't do charity work or donate a lot of money, but I do tend to do a charity project or two a year, and I take great pleasure in dropping everything and helping my friends from time to time.)
Re: Thoughts on you, quirks of mine
Date: 2005-12-31 05:49 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts on you, quirks of mine
Date: 2005-12-31 07:19 am (UTC)I'm still torn in terms of 'lawful/chaotic'. Someone who obeys the laws of their personal land, for example, might go from lawful to chaotic if they moved to another land where their laws were illegal, assuming they tried to stick by their laws instead of adapting. So is a paladin in an evil country chaotic? It's a fine line. But at the same time, you don't want to determine lawfulness by someone who's most willing to abide by the laws of the particular land where they happen to be, because hardline lawfullness shouldn't be (IMO) so wishy-washy. On the other hand, you could have someone who obeys a rational and internally consistant set of personal laws -- except, that includes storybook robbers and pirates, who live by various theives codes, including the storybook version of Robin Hood, who is universally cited as an example of chaotic good.
This whole debate, BTW, came from a game I played in for a while where the characters were encouranged to be as well-developed as people as possible, and where the GM determined our alignment and our alignment shifted quite a lot during game play. There were plenty of situations where people were extremely surprised to learn that their behavior was giving them an evil alignment, and thus it was important to be clear and logical about what sorts of behaviors would cause what sorts of alignment shifts.
The game was fun, and it was really cool to watch people who'd started out intending to tell a heroic story wind up telling a tragedy once they had it pointed out to them that their characters were, with all the best intentions, sliding steadily towards evil. One by one, they started embracing it, and by the end of the game, we were pretty much all evil, with the exception of ONE lawful neutral monk who was trying so very hard to save us and who was being steadily dragged down in the process (he'd started out lawful good).