Chaotic Evil-Andrew Jackson

Right, another alignment thread, brief. Here is the thing, i've noticed a trend on alignment arguments for people to dismiss Chaotic Evil as a bunch of crazy Charlie Manson styled nut cases, and that none of them could function in society. Here is the thing, Chaotic Evil is like Chaotic Good, they are just more willing to resort to evil actions. Charlie Manson would be Neutral Evil i'd say, he was acting purely out of Self indulgence but wasn't exactly chaotic, just nuts. Hitler would be Chaotic Evil, due to the totally insane and haphazard manner of running his own nation. But here is the thing, in reaction to people who say Chaotic Evil can't be organized or efficent. Andrew Jackson. Chaotic? Certainly, everything about him, from his background, to his mannerism to his entire political view point, this guy hated institutions, he hated bureaucracy, and the Federalists. Even through we was the first President to make the Office strong in its own right, that was more out of his own personal force of personalty rather than a direct effort to institutionalize the system.
"I would sincerely regret, and which never shall happen whilst I am in office, a military guard around the President. "
Right, so Chaotic. Now there is also the fact that he was responsible for the Genocide of the Native Americans (Trial of Tears....), so evil. Hey, Chaotic Evil President of the United states. But he was a very good general, a competent administrator, and one of the bravest presidents we have ever had. And he wasn't insane or a psychopath, just cruel and hilariously racist. But say what you want about Jackson, he is a good example of a Chaotic Evil person who is actually competent.
from
EE

Very small alignment Homebrew

nitpick homebrews for the win

Basically, since I have pretty much lost all of my documents, I’m just going to post on of the few I’ve manage to recover, a minor alignment homebrew. Basically, when the player makes his/her character, the player will choose the character’s alignment. However, the DM will be the one who knows the Alignment, and keeps track of the character’s real moral positioning. However, with the exception of characters who’s powers rely upon there alignment, paladins and druids for example, the character’s aren’t aware of there real alignment unless they have a magical item. Thus, a good ranger who murders innocents for food doesn’t suddenly get warned he is evil, because nobody has something that convenient. So the DM is the only one who knows the PC’s alignment, unless the PCs have magic (or are a special class), which makes the whole moral element as little more hard to gather for PCs, as it should be. Because unless they are a special class, again Paladin, the line between good and evil can be blurry, which is a good role-playing situation, and it also keeps people from using there good and evil as a sort of “karma meter”, where people can keep track of how many evil actions they can commit before slipping. It’s a minor rule, and I normally would have never posted it if I didn’t literally lose everything else. Enjoy

From

EE

First homebrew/briefly aligniment system

Apparently the place I went to for a short vacation has computer access, and so while I don’t have my various other works, I can write a short piece. I was lurking on Order of the Stick forums, and I noticed an interesting alignment discussion about a party who accidentally kills orc non combatants unknowingly in the middle of the raid. Now, most Alignment discussions tend to boil down to lots of mudthrowing and insults, but this one was actually, shockingly civil and maturely handled, the presence of Tempus Fanatic, Fixer, and hamishspence most likely was a major factor in that, cause they are awesome. But the debate quickly diverted onto the idea of how to properly handle generally evil races like orcs and non combatants. The Book of Exalted Deeds says that killing noncombatants is clearly evil unless they are posing a direct threat, like actively attacking you, and says that a good adventurers should try their best to remake the society after destroying it in a good image. A daunting prospect, but hey, good is never easy. Anyways, the question arose of how many orcs within a society would be evil, and the consequences of judging creatures based upon their alignment. Now, D&D makes it clear that you can’t kill a creature based upon its Aligniment, being evil isn’t a crime, its when you’re evil and doing something hurtful that its bad. For example, the Viking raiders are most likely evil, but that doesn’t justify just going into their homes and murdering the whole lot, same with various corrupt businessmen. You can kill or hurt them to prevent them from hurting others, but only if they are actively doing something evil. Killing a band of orcs who are living in there own land hunting is far different from say, killing a band of orcish raiders, even if both are evil. Now, within D&D, aligniments are presented within different context, such as “Usually Chaotic Evil” means that there is still a sizable non CE population within the creature’s demographic, opposed to “Always Chaotic Evil” which means something about the race of creatures themselves makes them inclined to evil, like demons or devils. In 2nd edition, evil races, like drow or orcs (opposed to evil creatures, like demons or devils) were still almost entirely evil, with very rare exceptions. That’s why Drizzt in R.A. Salvator’s books seems like one of the rare exceptions, which seems odd when in “modern” Forgotten Realms, IE, 3.5, non evil drown are quite common, cause Drizzt was invented earlier. However in 3E, a greater distinction was made. Some races are Often evil, some are usually evil, and some are always evil ect. Basically, I’ve changed this within my games, to cover more ground, but the system itself is sound. So I suppose, my first homebrew, sorry if it is unimpressive.
Basically, when it comes to determining a creature’s alignment, and how much of the population follows the conventional one, this is how I do it. I’m using Chaotic evil as the example for this case
1) Frequently Chaotic Evil. The creature/group has no physical/magical ties towards the evil alignment and the culture isn’t especially disposed to cruelty or brutality, they do have cultural predisposition to evil. About 40% of the group is evil, with the rest of the alignments being greatly mixed. For example, the British Army in the America revolution, would frequently be Lawful Evil, as many acts were tolerated at the time that aren’t today (slavery, mistreating women, cruelty towards non whites, killing natives) not to mention various evil acts against the Americans (I know most of those were exaggerated, Boston Massacre being the most famous example, but there were some) so the army would be generally Lawful Evil (lawful because well, the British Army). But there was plenty of room for other moral views within the ranks, many good or neutral. Its just the most common percent, but not the majority of the population. A chaotic evil example might be, but I’m not an expert on the culture, the Gaelic tribes before the Romans took over, while the warriors would lead brutal raids, and the world was unlawful, the civilians were pretty content to stay home and try to keep the family alive (I don’t know if they had slavery or evil customs like sacrifice).
2) Commonly chaotic evil. The race is still not magically inclined to evil, but the culture is very much given to evil, but it isn’t so prevalent that every single member would be evil. Maybe 50-60% of the population is a single alignment, with the rest being a mix of moralities and ethics. For example, I’d say Ancient Rome, at least before the time of Marius and Sculla, would be commonly Lawful evil. Slavery was legal, women were treated badly, conquered people’s were oppressed and the roman’s were infamously brutal when they took over an area (the sack of Carthage for example, through many Romans objected to this). However, while the slave owners and many of the solders would be evil, along with many of the average citizens but, many people were just content to be left alone to do there own thing. Even some ethical people who wanted to reform the system, most likely after reading a bit too much Greek poetry, but they would be few and far between among the Romans at least. But still, people who try to help the poor existed, as well as those who worked for the betterment of the common man. A Chaotic Evil example might be the Vikings, who’s raiders and slavers were very cruel (through not total monsters), but the people at home and the non combatants would be more focused on just bettering there lives.
3) Often Chaotic Evil. The population worships an evil Deity, and has strong cultural connections to evil, but they aren’t supernaturally compelled to do evil, nor is there society rigid enough that evil is forced upon them. The About 70% percent of the population. Spanish conquerors of America would be a good example of often Neutral Evil, as they are actively engaged in oppression, rape and genocide, through not every single one was actively engaged or even supported the regime, they certainly weren’t complaining.
4) Usually chaotic evil. The society is generally evil by nature, actively worshipping an evil god, involved as a race in evil schemes, or has customs/practices that make everyone involved evil. While the race isn’t magically compelled to be evil, and a child stolen from that culture and raised on its own is no more inclined to be evil than any other race, and small communities can exist who follow a different ethical code, as well as those within the main society who’s ethics different from the rest. 85% of the race would be this alignment. Drow in D&D are the prime example, not inherently evil, but strongly culturally evil, Aztecs and Nazi Germany might be real life examples of always Neutral Evil.
5) Always Chaotic evil. This group has some sort of connection, of a supernatural nature to evil, which compels them towards evil inherently. There very nature is made up as evil, and thus, unlike all of the other examples, it is more ok to assume evil first (through murder is still murder). 99.5% of this race is Chaotic Evil, and that tiny amount left is mostly some other form of evil or neutral. Now, while they are supernaturally inclided towards evil, it isn’t totally irredeemable. No real life examples obviously, but a D&D example would be the Dragonspawn of Tiamant, or Lichs/Vampires, creatures who’s nature is evil, and often turn towards evil, but still have the possibility of free will. While there very nature is abhorrent, there is a absurdly remote chance of redemption. Within my games, it pretty much assumed that these guys are evil, thus the murder rules are a little more hazy, but that really depends how these creatures are played in your games. And if one of them does do something to demonstrate that he is the exception then murder is still evil. Dragons are lumped into this category, but that is a rule that even core D&D doesn’t seem to take seriously, so I always put them in the “Usually” or “Often” evil category.
6) Always Chaotic Evil/Evil Subtype- These creatures are evil. There very nature is evil. They are spawned out of pure evil. Evil is inherent in their very existence, they are beings who’s mere existence is an evil action. Simply thinking about good deeds goes against there very nature, violates the very purpose of their existence, threatens the very nature of their being. These creatures, quite simply, have no souls, and are abominations who quite simply…must be purged. Demons, Devils, Daomons, and other such beings are literally, the literal manifestation of evil within the universe, who’s very existence is a violation of all that is good and holy about the world, and make up the realms of Hell, the Abyss and other absurdly evil planes. As of such, these beings are not protected by the same rules as other evil beings. Killing them is always justified, simply because there existence is an evil act. Torturing them for information, such as pouring holy water on them til they talk, is permissibly as is using other wise “Dishonorable” methods, like special poisons or mind control (the latter is a separate alignment issue). The only rule is that the good person in question should not torture them for his own personal enjoyment, simply to get the job done, and must be sure it is in fact a fiend. However, there existence is an abomination, so anything goes. There are two exceptions to this rule, however slight. One is that special spells/items exist that can change the alignment of a being, now matter what it is, and thus force it to be good. However, the creature is still evil, just acting against its will, but even so, it will detect as good, so then different story. The final exception to this rule is, that, by the rules of the system they are 100% evil, but sometimes the nature of the universe has glitches, and a non Chaotic evil one might appear, but these absurdly rare creatures make up less than .1 percent of the population, and most of those would be some other form of evil. However these absurdly rare examples are fluxes, mistakes, freaks within the system, who somehow possess free will. Should a paladin learn of the creatures special existence, then he is obligated to treat the creature like any other good being, but killing such a being unknowingly is not an evil act, cause it is a flux in the system, and even if the creature is good, its existence is still evil.
7) Finally, Evil Subtype, without Always evil Alignment. These creatures are magically drawn to be evil, but are only slightly more likely to be evil than an normal person in that category. These creatures are normally half Fiends of some sort.
So first homebrew yeah. Insert self mocking statement here
From
EE

Defining the pretty easily definable, the alignment of Rorschach, Scar, and Light (some spoilers) part 1 Rorschach

Don't try this at home..........however cool it might have been

Vigilantes are interesting.  They ignore the rules of law, and go fight evil, unhindered by petty concerns like the government, morality and basic decency.  America has a kinda hero worship of these people who go outside the law and hunt down and assault people they don’t like.  Personally, I dislike vigilantism, or the glorification of it, as in real life, it is almost always….well evil.  We always have people without professional training going out and causing massive damage to those around them, even if they are doing it for a good cause (Damnit John Brown).  And in fiction, we have these kinda disturbing glorification of these people, as the movie dramatizes there torturing people for information and murdering people who can’t fight back, see also Dirty Harry and anything by Frank Miller.  But here I’m going to do the alignments of the three vigilantes I like best, because the writers didn’t try to glorify there ideals while making them badass.  And I’m in a comic mood, so yeah, theme there.  But lets do the Watchman one first

"This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.:

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save Us!"...:

...and I'll look down, and whisper, "No".:

 

“I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me”

“No.  Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon”

 

Right, going on with the Watchman theme, I’m going to briefly go with the alignment of my favorite character from the series, which says a lot to Alan Moore’s writing style considering that I am morally opposed to everything this psychotic believes in.  Rorschach is a moral absolutist, a radical right wing anti communist vigilante, who is determined to hunt down and destroy evil wherever he can find it.   He is basically  the personification of what real vigilantes are, and why our justice system is designed to prevent that from happing (see also, vigilantism is horrible).  Rorschach tortures people for information, innocent or not, murders anyone who he feels is in his way, and generally acts upon a very utilitarian ideal (a letter he writes as a child reveals that he supported Truman’s nuking of Japan, innocent civilians there be damned).  So why do I like him?  Because he is the most interesting character, and unlike many people who espouse utilitarian ideals , he honestly believes in it, and in a bit of a quintessential vigilante, considering his mask his “true face” and going so far as to not eat or bath, but just walks around New York killing crimes.  I like him because he is the only character who doesn’t compromise his beliefs, and is brave to the point of absurdity, but both of those come because he is a freaky psychopath but hey.  Anyways, alignment.  Now lets make this clear, he is evil.  Even before his “Transformation”, he tortures at least 20 innocent people before he tortures the right man to get information.  When he captures a serial killer, he chains him up and burns him alive as the man is burned alive.  Yes, you might say “But he is a serial killer” but as I’m a fan of Fitz Lang’s “M” even child murderers are people, and deserve a fair trial.  He tortures anybody who gets in his way, murders peoples people who are trying to beg for mercy (the midget) after his transformation.  So evil, certainly, but what kind?  Well, I’m going to assume the Chaotic Evil is not in there, as he certainly has a motive and a code he keeps too.  So its between NE and LE.  Now, I’d be tempted to say NE, because while he has a code, it isn’t a very clear one, I mean, as he will break any rule to accomplish his current mission, so it is kinda variable.  But based upon the way he generally acts, I’d say LE.  He is very orderl in how he handles himself, as seen by his mechanic, detail oriented manner of taking notes and talks to people, straight to the point, stating the facts in a very robotic manner.  He also has a very strict code, flexible his methods might be.  For example, his deal with the unlicensed gun, and not trying to deny murders he had committed.  Or for that matter, the strict life style he leads.  So I’d saw Lawful evil.

from

EE