MitD XIII: Learning is happening

[Darth Paul]

Still, i'd argue a Chaotic being wouldn't do something it hates for no reason other then "I was told to".

Now this I agree with.

I agree that many of those are good indicators that someone might not be as Chaotic as they think, but as with the waffles example, the problem is that one can't measure L-C position on the actions, but should be done on the reasons why the actions were taken (in that sense, the one you underlined is the only one I fully agree with).

To take the first two, I can see a Chaotic individual swearing fealty at a given point because it was the thing to do to accomplish their objective, in full knowledge that oaths mean ****-all and that when the time comes, he can walk away from said fealty oath if need be, and have no issues with it.

Similarly, I don't see why a Chaotic person that feels an individual needs killing wouldn't step up to the plate to perform an execution - the crucial thing is he is not doing it because the code of law had duly determined this, but because he happened to agree with this particular conclusion of the law. The same individual might then go and break a different person out of jail because in their opinion, this second person does NOT deserve killing, no matter what the law says. Heck, two birds and one stone, signing up to be the executioner might be step one in the plan to both make sure the first guy dies and the second one doesn't.
Grey Wolf

And these as well.

Chaotic essentially means, as I understand it, using whatever means are necessary to achieve my (Good, Neutral, or Evil) goal. If something within the Law helped me along the way, that doesn't break my Chaotic alignment. It's not a mandate to oppose the law for the sake of opposing Law. Chaotic is not the same as Anarchic.

My group has had a blanket ban on Chaotic Neutral PCs over the years because so many players couldn't comprehend the difference between Chaotic Neutral meaning "flexibility in pursuit of goals" and "decides actions based on rolling a die regardless of how it screws over the rest of the party".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Chaotic essentially means, as I understand it, using whatever means are necessary to achieve my (Good, Neutral, or Evil) goal. If something within the Law helped me along the way, that doesn't break my Chaotic alignment. It's not a mandate to oppose the law for the sake of opposing Law. Chaotic is not the same as Anarchic.

I'm a bit wary of the phrasing "using whatever means are necessary to achieve my (Good, Neutral, or Evil) goal". I think I know what you mean, but I can see it easily misconstrued. Maybe if you threw in (Good/Neutral/Evil) before means it'd sound less ominous.

My group has had a blanket ban on Chaotic Neutral PCs over the years because so many players couldn't comprehend the difference between Chaotic Neutral meaning "flexibility in pursuit of goals" and "decides actions based on rolling a die regardless of how it screws over the rest of the party".

A key characteristic of Chaotic individuals is that they do not see consistency as a virtue, and by that same measure, don't see inconsistency as a defect. E.g. yesterday, they might have agreed that objective A was worth pursuing via means B, today they are reconsidering both A and B. Flexibility of action is hand-in-hand with unreliability of action, just as in the other end, reliable adherence to commitment comes with inflexibility in the face of changing circumstances.

And as with G-E, one must always remember that the extremes are not supposed to be humanly achievable. A lawful/chaotic human(oid) is never going to be completely single-minded/unreliable. These are supposed to be broad preferences. Just as a Chaotic companion in a party should be flexible but ultimately reliable, a Lawful companion is supposed to be reliable and dependable without being foolhardy or outright suicidal in the pursuit of goals.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Ok thanks. Does that mean that chaotic people are actually more GOOD than lawful people?

If a cgaotic person is following the law it is because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Not becauseit is the law.

No, a chaotic evil person might follow the follow because it's the right thing to do.

To quote somebody cleverer than me, speaking of something else entirely, but being weirdly appropriate:
"I commit exactly as many murders as I want to".

If a chaotic character follow a law, it is a matter of coincidence (or maybe convienience) but not because it's the law.

Confronted with an unjust law, a Chaotic Good character might decide to start a revolution, destroy the system and create a better one, while a lawful good one would more likely try to reform the system to get rid of the bad while preserving the good.

[lio45]

That...doesn't sound plausible.

That was the point ;)

Calling a Glabrezu an "embodiment of evil" really isn't specific enough. Its a demon, so it'd be an embodiment of *chaotic* evil. Expecting an embodiment of chaotic evil to only act when given specific orders to follow would be pretty unlikely.

Nice point, that.

Personally, my main problem with the idea that MitD is a Glabrezu is that he's clearly doing tons of stuff that's incompatible with being an embodiment of Evil, but you're correct that another unrelated problem that makes the Glabrezu an even worse fit is that MitD is also doing things that are incompatible with being an embodiment of Chaos.

[Wizard_Lizard]

That was the point ;)


Nice point, that.

Personally, my main problem with the idea that MitD is a Glabrezu is that he's clearly doing tons of stuff that's incompatible with being an embodiment of Evil, but you're correct that another unrelated problem that makes the Glabrezu an even worse fit is that MitD is also doing things that are incompatible with being an embodiment of Chaos.

maybe he is an embodiement of neutrality? some law some good some chaos some evil?

[Peelee]

maybe he is an embodiement of neutrality? some law some good some chaos some evil?

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Wizard_Lizard]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Or a general lack of the above characeristics

[Aspheric]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

What is a man? *throws wine glass* Nothing more than a miserable little pile of secrets!

[lio45]

maybe he is an embodiement of neutrality? some law some good some chaos some evil?

Let's put it this way: if a candidate was ever suggested that was a perfect fit on all counts, and that also happened to be an Embodiment of Neutrality, I would still consider it the one front runner by far.

[MartianInvader]

People in this thread seem to be saying there are no values associated with Chaos - that being Chaotic essentially defines how you pursue your values. I always thought some values, like freedom and individuality, are considered Chaotic. Am I in the minority here?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

People in this thread seem to be saying there are no values associated with Chaos - that being Chaotic essentially defines how you pursue your values. I always thought some values, like freedom and individuality, are considered Chaotic. Am I in the minority here?

Values are nice. What you attempt to attain is considered positively in OotS's quasi-final judgement. But ultimately, it's how you put those values into practice that is who you are - especially if you keep going for them when you fail, as per canon. Put another way: you can talk the talk all you want, it's how you walk the walk that's important.

Look at Nale. Claims to be CE. Talks a lot about it. But in the end, he was closer to NE than he admitted to himself, regardless of the values he professed to prefer.

Grey Wolf

[MartianInvader]

Values are nice. What you attempt to attain is considered positively in OotS's quasi-final judgement. But ultimately, it's how you put those values into practice that is who you are - especially if you keep going for them when you fail, as per canon. Put another way: you can talk the talk all you want, it's how you walk the walk that's important.

Look at Nale. Claims to be CE. Talks a lot about it. But in the end, he was closer to NE than he admitted to himself, regardless of the values he professed to prefer.

Grey Wolf

Sure, but that's not what I was trying to get at. Let me rephrase.

Some posts here are saying that Chaos means pursuing your goal in the optimal way, regardless of rules or values. I'm saying that if you pursue your goal by making an intricate plan, where everyone needs to do exactly as they're told, with contingencies and back-ups in place and everything and everyone completely under your control, then you're not being Chaotic even if it's the optimal way to achieve your goal. Because it betrays the Chaotic values of individuality and freedom.

Maybe I'm not being controversial, or misunderstood previous posts. I suspect from what you wrote about Nale you agree with me.

Edit: It was Darth Paul:

Chaotic essentially means, as I understand it, using whatever means are necessary to achieve my (Good, Neutral, or Evil) goal.

Now, that was stated essentially to argue that Chaotic individuals don't break the law just for the sake of law-breaking (which I agree with), but I think that blanket statement goes too far. What I'm saying is that I don't think chaos is just a lack of lawfulness, it's also an embrace of a certain set of its own values.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Some posts here are saying that Chaos means pursuing your goal in the optimal way, regardless of rules or values.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone saying that? Closest is Darth Paul's "pursue goals regardless of means" - but that doesn't mean that the method is optimal, just that it places no restrictions on them. As I said, I have an issue with the phrasing, but I understand it to mean that a chaotic individual has no limits on their actions other than those they impose on themselves. That doesn't make their methods optimal, though, because optimal is a) very hard in the best of cases and 2) depends on the individual making the decisions to become optimal.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

Some posts here are saying that Chaos means pursuing your goal in the optimal way, regardless of rules or values. I'm saying that if you pursue your goal by making an intricate plan, where everyone needs to do exactly as they're told, with contingencies and back-ups in place and everything and everyone completely under your control, then you're not being Chaotic even if it's the optimal way to achieve your goal. Because it betrays the Chaotic values of individuality and freedom.

I guess the way to resolve this apparent paradox at first sight is to decide that if you are the kind of person who actually often feels that the optimal way to pursue a given goal is a long-term intricate plan with contingencies and back-ups in place under your full control, then you're not Chaotic.

The people I know who are the type who may regularly want to "optimize" things... definitely aren't the Chaotic type. So if you're sitting and carefully pondering what elaborate long-term plan would be the "optimal" way to move forward, right there you're already not being Chaotic. You can pursue short-term goals in ways that you feel optimal at first sight, I guess, but IMO the notion of "long-term optimal plans" is just too joined at the hip with the idea of careful planning and sticking-to-plan to be compatible with Chaos.

[MartianInvader]

I like your resolution of the paradox, but I do think it's entirely possible to do long-term planning in a chaotic way as well - it's just that your plans will rely more on, for example, someone figuring out a way forward for themselves when needed, instead of handing them the details of what to do ahead of time. Indeed, being too rigidly organized can be a bad idea for long-term planning - no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I like your resolution of the paradox, but I do think it's entirely possible to do long-term planning in a chaotic way as well - it's just that your plans will rely more on, for example, someone figuring out a way forward for themselves when needed, instead of handing them the details of what to do ahead of time. Indeed, being too rigidly organized can be a bad idea for long-term planning - no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that.

like leonard snatt from the flash.
step1 devise tge plan
step2 attempt the plan
step3 forget the plan
step4 improvise

[Squire Doodad]

From what I understand, Chaos is not "break the rules". Chaotic Evil is sorta this, but still.
Chaos is "rules exist, disregard them unless you are being forced to". A mildly Chaotic entity (one headed towards neutral) could be "rules exist, disregard them as needed", a slight but notable difference.

A bit of a tangent: MitD cannot be a Good Embodiment because RC wouldn't let one on the team. He can be a Neutral or an Evil one. He can be an Evil embodiment even with his Good tendencies because 1. spectrum diagram thingy and 2. perception. Think of Hilgya dying honorably, but for petty self-centered reasons. MitD wants to help the Order and stop Xykon because it would make O-Chul happy, no one else (though he's beginning to understand what's going on). However, the main reason why he wants to make O-Chul happy is because O-Chul being happy makes MitD happy. Basically, he wants to help so that the people he cares about (i.e. the ones who make him happy) are fine, thus making him happy. So he's technically Evil in the "self-serving" sense, not the "burn the village down 'cause its fun" sense, as long as you are willing to heavily rules-lawyer it and take O-Chul's Good presence into account.

[Ruck]

I'm saying that if you pursue your goal by making an intricate plan, where everyone needs to do exactly as they're told, with contingencies and back-ups in place and everything and everyone completely under your control, then you're not being Chaotic even if it's the optimal way to achieve your goal. Because it betrays the Chaotic values of individuality and freedom.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Knowingly going about your goals in a suboptimal manner isn't Chaotic. Chaotic doesn't mean "refusing to plan."

[Aspheric]

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Knowingly going about your goals in a suboptimal manner isn't Chaotic. Chaotic doesn't mean "refusing to plan."

Definitely. It's also a short step from the Chaotic Stupid interpretations of CN (and CE and CG, but mostly CN) as needing to break every rule, by ironically adopting a very conventional way of making choices. "If I'm told to do X, I will do anything but X," is kind of a schematic approach that isn't really in the chaotic spirit of giving preference to your own ways/wants of doing things.

I'm not really sure I get how a Chaotic personality is less capable of carrying out a plan. Chaotic and Lawful have more to do with how one carries out certain actions. Lawful mindsets prefer conventional, structural approaches to problem solving. If the plan isn't working well, work within the preset parameters to make it more efficient. Chaotic mindsets prefer improvisational or personalized approaches. If the plan isn't working well, adapt it so that it works according to your way of doing things. If the plan works well, it caters to both mindsets, so there's no need to change it (barring any other circumstances). Sometimes it's easier to have a conventional plan for what you'll have for breakfast and stick to it. At other times, it's easier to adapt to situations on the fly or go with your gut.

[Crusher]

Nice point, that.

Thanks!

Personally, my main problem with the idea that MitD is a Glabrezu is that he's clearly doing tons of stuff that's incompatible with being an embodiment of Evil, but you're correct that another unrelated problem that makes the Glabrezu an even worse fit is that MitD is also doing things that are incompatible with being an embodiment of Chaos.

Well, I'd agree that he does things that don't seem like the kinds of things an embodiment of Chaotic Evil would do. However, The Giant has always been pretty firm in cautioning people against assuming too much about alignments based on what we read in the strip since we don't see everything that happens and we very rarely find out exactly what was going on in the heads of the characters performing the actions. I would *certainly* agree that MitD being an embodiment of some kind of neutrality would make a lot more sense than Chaotic Evil (Glabrezu) or general Chaos (Slaad), which is why I asked about embodiments of neutrality. Sadly, I couldn't find any promising Rilmani(?) related candidates.

Anyway, I agree that being an embodiment of Chaotic Evil isn't promising, but I view it as comparable to how the MitD's eyes being apparently unchanging in shape or relative location on his body is for the Protean. If you think about it, its a pretty serious problem, but one that you can at least think of ways it could potentially be worked around and isn't automatically disqualifying.

[Darth Paul]

From what I understand, Chaos is not "break the rules". Chaotic Evil is sorta this, but still.
Chaos is "rules exist, disregard them unless you are being forced to". A mildly Chaotic entity (one headed towards neutral) could be "rules exist, disregard them as needed", a slight but notable difference.

It's not really this either, I feel.

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

"Chaotic means that the person is unwilling to give up personal freedoms for the good of society. They do not want to follow laws or be restricted by social codes. Chaotic characters tend to act on a whim, with little regard for laws or codes of practice."

But, if the law or social code doesn't infringe on the character's freedom at the moment (think of Elan celebrating New Year's in Azure City!!), they're quite happy to go along with it. Being Chaotic doesn't, as I've said before, mean disregarding or breaking rules for the sake of breaking them. If the law works to your fulfillment; Hey, great law!!!! But if not; Rules were made to be broken!

It may be the case that someone like Elan would be amazed to find the law encouraged one night a year of dancing naked in the street, but that doesn't mean they're unwilling to take advantage of that law to do what they might have done anyway, with the advantage that this way they don't have to run from the City Watch or whoever afterwards.

[Crusher]

Sadly, I couldn't find any promising Rilmani(?) related candidates.

Its funny, I was going to revise this by noting that Aurumach Rilmani aren't *great* candidates (STR is too low at 24 and they look like humans with golden metal skin and a glowing aura thus probably not weird enough for the circus scene), but they aren't bad candidates (high DR, smart, and can "grant another's Wish 1/year").

But I notice they're already on the list of proposed candidates, and I have a vague suspicion I might have been the one to propose them. I need to find some new splatbooks.

[lio45]

MitD wants to help the Order and stop Xykon because it would make O-Chul happy, no one else (though he's beginning to understand what's going on). However, the main reason why he wants to make O-Chul happy is because O-Chul being happy makes MitD happy. Basically, he wants to help so that the people he cares about (i.e. the ones who make him happy) are fine, thus making him happy. So he's technically Evil in the "self-serving" sense, not the "burn the village down 'cause its fun" sense, as long as you are willing to heavily rules-lawyer it and take O-Chul's Good presence into account.

That's... interesting.

A Very Evil being happens to fall in love with a paladin, and decides that what it wants above anything else from now on is to make that friend/lover happy, so it selfishly goes on to do whatever aligns with the paladin's (obviously Good) goals, to the detriment of any other plans it may have had. Would that cause a switch to Neutral eventually (if all you do is Good stuff), or not (because you only do all that Good stuff for the "wrong" reasons)?

In Rich's own universe, doing Evil things for the "right" reasons (Miko and other SG paladins) demonstrably causes paladins to fall, so it's not only the reasons that matters. Evil MitD doing Good things while imagining he's still being Evil would be an equivalent situation to Miko doing bad things while believing she's doing Good; and we have precedent to suggest that in such cases actions > intent.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Definitely. It's also a short step from the Chaotic Stupid interpretations of CN (and CE and CG, but mostly CN) as needing to break every rule, by ironically adopting a very conventional way of making choices. "If I'm told to do X, I will do anything but X," is kind of a schematic approach that isn't really in the chaotic spirit of giving preference to your own ways/wants of doing things.

I'm not really sure I get how a Chaotic personality is less capable of carrying out a plan. Chaotic and Lawful have more to do with how one carries out certain actions. Lawful mindsets prefer conventional, structural approaches to problem solving. If the plan isn't working well, work within the preset parameters to make it more efficient. Chaotic mindsets prefer improvisational or personalized approaches. If the plan isn't working well, adapt it so that it works according to your way of doing things. If the plan works well, it caters to both mindsets, so there's no need to change it (barring any other circumstances). Sometimes it's easier to have a conventional plan for what you'll have for breakfast and stick to it. At other times, it's easier to adapt to situations on the fly or go with your gut.

for breakfast youshould always gowith your gut.
It is th kne who as to deal with it.

[Squire Doodad]

That's... interesting.

A Very Evil being happens to fall in love with a paladin, and decides that what it wants above anything else from now on is to make that friend/lover happy, so it selfishly goes on to do whatever aligns with the paladin's (obviously Good) goals, to the detriment of any other plans it may have had. Would that cause a switch to Neutral eventually (if all you do is Good stuff), or not (because you only do all that Good stuff for the "wrong" reasons)?

In Rich's own universe, doing Evil things for the "right" reasons (Miko and other SG paladins) demonstrably causes paladins to fall, so it's not only the reasons that matters. Evil MitD doing Good things while imagining he's still being Evil would be an equivalent situation to Miko doing bad things while believing she's doing Good; and we have precedent to suggest that in such cases actions > intent.

The idea basically rides on the concept that MitD, if Evil, is the least Evil being possible that is still technically Evil. Basically, he is 9/10 of the way to Neutral, but because of his interactions with O-Chul being done for self-serving ones (which inadvertently leads to preventing the end of the world and going against MitD's old buddies because MitD cares about O-Chul more) MitD can still exist without accidentally tearing a hole in the fabric of himself.

An Embodiment of Evil MitD would be a living case of Terminal Loophole Abuse.

[Crusher]

An Embodiment of Evil MitD would be a living case of Terminal Loophole Abuse.

That's not quite right. Remember, there is no such thing as an "embodiment of Evil", at least not that I know of. If MitD is a Glabrezu, he's an embodiment of *chaotic evil*, not just evil. Its a fine point, but imo an important one and may give a bit more room to maneuver.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's not quite right. Remember, there is no such thing as an "embodiment of Evil", at least not that I know of.

The Devas are, if I am to believe Kish, not tied to any L-C alignment. That makes them embodiments of Good alone. If so, it is not a particular stretch to believe that they'd be embodiments of Evil alone as well.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

The Devas are, if I am to believe Kish, not tied to any L-C alignment. That makes them embodiments of Good alone. If so, it is not a particular stretch to believe that they'd be embodiments of Evil alone as well.

Grey Wolf

Eugene hijacked a being of pure Law and Good so it might be that some devas embody LG, some NG and some CG.

[Crusher]

Semi-new splatbook found (the famous Immortals Handbook: Epic Bestiary). I've seen it before, but it was years ago and our discussion was in a somewhat different place. Plus, it came out sometime in 2005 which is a problem.

But, what the hell. A new candidate is a new candidate and its been a while. So, I present to you, discerning consumers of obscure monsters, the Nexus Dragon. It, um, has some flaws but if nothing else, its definitely not too weak to be the MitD. I'm going to assume its a wyrmling.

Nexus dragons are surreal, extra-dimensional dragons that somehow "prey on the laws of physics". They mostly exist between dimensions but occasionally sneak onto actual planes and cause trouble. Visually, they're pretty mind-blowing, and the art presented with them is basically a fractal. In a nutshell, they appear to get bigger and less distinct over time as you look at them until you seem to be inside them and they encompass all of reality. Or at least it looks that way. Even then, its hard to tell where exactly they are.

Here's their description: "At first glance it appears a vast, hexagonal scaled, grey serpent stretches before you. With six translucent wings made of light that seem to pass through each other and a pulsating spiral maw. However, as seconds tick over it seems to expand to encompass the periphery of your vision, as if growing geometrically with each passing moment. But the more you gaze at the creature the less defined its appearance becomes, until the image in front of you cracks like a broken mirror in one sanity shattering moment and you realize that the incomprehensible vision before you was never meant to be seen by eyes such as yours."

Tests:

1. Escape Scene - All Nexus Dragons have the ability "Alter Reality(Su)" which allows them to cast any regular spell or Epic spell with a DC of 419 or less as a free action, once per round. So, Teleport w/o Error or Wish is no problem.

2. Tower Scene - Wyrmlings have a STR of 86, and DR415/Cursed (I'm not sure what that is).

3. Circus Scene - Its got weird-looking in spades.

4. Isn't an impossible category - Nope! Dragons aren't an impossible category.

5. Existed before strip #100 - Eh, maybe.

6. Size no bigger than "Huge" - Kind of. It exists along an entirely different set of physical laws than we do. It can be perceived as encompassing the entire universe but it could project a smaller portion of itself into our reality.

7. Is vulnerable to mind-effecting abilities - Kind of. On the one hand, its technically vulnerable to charms and mind-controls and the like. On the other hand, because of its Transdimensional Fortitude and Will, it auto-succeeds all Will and Fort saves. So, it would have to be a charm spell that doesn't allow a save (or assume the MitD intentionally failed), and overcomes its 490 Spell Resistance.

So, as a wyrmling its a CR 416 monster and is generally pretty silly, but its certainly bizarre looking.

Edit - I've got a link, but its to a site that might not be entirely on the up and up so I'm refraining from posting it.

[woweedd]

That's not quite right. Remember, there is no such thing as an "embodiment of Evil", at least not that I know of. If MitD is a Glabrezu, he's an embodiment of *chaotic evil*, not just evil. Its a fine point, but imo an important one and may give a bit more room to maneuver.

Nero, as his name might suggest, is probably a Daemon, embodiment of Evil, without difference to Law or Chaos.