It means that the individual is not bound to believe anything in particular or act in a certain why. Does that mean they can't believe in anything or that they can't do the same things? Of course not. A chaotic good person (CG) believes in goodness, not because someone else tells him to believe in it or accepts what others deem to be "good" and "evil," but because by their own free will and independence they have come to their beliefs and they just happen to be what others term as "good." Does this CG always have to act in a "good" manner? Not if in the particular situation they believe the "normal" reaction is wrong. Just because others deem it an appropriate time for a good to act a certain way doesn't mean they have to, but by their own volition they can choose to act that way if they believe it a proper time to act in the manner they choose to act.

As far as chaotic evil (CE) is concerned, it's similar to CG in that they are (or should not be) preoccupied with being "evil" -- they are doing as their free will and Chance desires and determines, it is others that deem him to be "evil." Thus, it reverts back to what is good and evil (which I'll have to leave to another time). A CE is, in essence, someone who is evil by action and/or Chance and who seeks his desires via chaotic means and whose desire and/or aspirations may change at any moment, but who does not restrict those changes to ensure that they stay "evil." It just so happens that by his own volition he usually if not almost always ends up doing what others term as "evil."
----------------------

Here is where I always disagreed with you. I haven't actually played in quite some time, but I like to monitor these boards...

I think that if you are "chaotic" in the sense of Chaos and Entropy, you leave pretty much everything up to chance. This being said, CE or CG in the manner you depict are actually more NG or NE as to some extent they manipulate random chance, willingly or unwillingly, to create actions suiting their alignment. Long ago when I was playing Restricis there was an Entropy bard (I can't remember his name, but I believe his title was something like "The Philosopher of Chaos") who I believed made the most salient points on this argument. He used to post all the time on the subject--I wish they were still around somewhere. He was an elf who constantly came under criticism for un-elflike behavior, and his defense always was, "I do what I feel like when I feel like it and don't consider the consequences. Your value system is artificial and isn't even a blip on my radar" which I always thought was almost the definition of chaotic behavior in relation to society.

But then again, I always was more of an old-school Ishmaelite Entropist--the do what you want when you want kind--which in my case pretty much ended up being whatever amused me the most at any given point.

A year or two back I asked you if you had been influenced by Derrida. I believe you said you had heard the name but never read the work, but your argument certainly sounds like his cup of tea. We can't really ever know ourselves, but we're nonetheless caught up in a stream of signification that will cause us to attempt to act in certain ways. In other words--guided chaos.

I liked your post and I could comment on several aspects of it, but I think it boils down to one question before we could reasonably talk about the other points. From an objective viewpoint that has a system of morality which can be observed, does the good and evil in a world of Chaos cancel each other?

From your post, it sounds like when someone does what they want, when they want, how they want it is morally counter-balancing. That's certianly a legitimate viewpoint, but I don't believe it's the only one.

Here's my thinking. Action->Reaction is a law of nature. Laws can't exist in a world of Chaos. Thus, in a world of Chaos, a person cannot hope to perform some action trying for a specific outcome. It may happen, but there's no way to know. As such, a person can do what they want, when they want, how they want (or, for that matter, what, when, and how they don't want to) because it's irrelevant to the outcome. Thus, the only real question when it comes to Chaotic morality (remember, "morality" in the objective sense, not the character's perception of it) is what moral landscape results from a world of Chaos. True, an amoral or morally balanced world is one possibility, but there's nothing that says it can't be good, evil, somewhat good or evil, etc.

As an example, I had a CG Sloth character once. His worldview (if he could've expressed it as such) was that he wanted to be left alone to do nothing all the rest of his life. The catch was that evil makes you work (stay on guard, wear clothes that were protecting and/or deterring to others, etc.). An Orderly or even ethos-neutral society would be actively countering evil and this was work too. Thus, only Chaos could provide the shield against evildoers that would keep my character protected. If everyone was at the mercy of randomness, all would be treated fairly and evildoers would have to fight through that just to get to him.

I'm not saying my role was flawless, but I think it's certainly a valid example of how a character can believe that Chaos has a moral outcome to it (and not necessarily an evil one, which is the bias of Orderly real life).

I certainly agree that Ishmael and I had different approaches to Chaos. But I don't think it was because he didn't believe CG and CE were valid roles. His approach to characters and evaluating them was very instictive, whereas mine is quite cerebral. I think both have their place and provided Entropy with a beneficial contrast.

I think this explanation works a bit better for me. I'm glad you included the caveat on CF-Chaos in relation to alignment vs. Chaos Chaos. I've always been fascinated on how CF treats this subject, which seems to me to be a lot more difficult (and yet, somehow, fundamental) than whether or not nature lovers can get along with magicians, etc. Unfortunately for me, I have always lacked and will continue to lack the patience to play a truly "cerebral" chaotic character (which is probably why my characters and Pico have never "gotten along")...if I do come back to CF, I'm sure they'll be the same do-what-I-want-when-I-want chararacters I've always had; although, hopefully not "chaotic stupid." Oh for the days when applicants would send me notes written backwards because that, of course, had to be original and chaotic...

You might know that a few months ago my character had a 5 minute stint in entropy, inducted by Mayesha than kicked out by the blob, presumably you.

At the time, I didn't really understand the reason through the communication we had, but now that I read this:

That superficial Baron usually comes out in the form of an anarchist, anti-lawful, person who is obsessed with who is persecuting them. While this used to be a commonly accepted role for Entropy, when I looked at what the cabal stood for, this role to me seemed not to fit into Entropy's actual philosophy. Sure, a chaotic outside of Entropy could feel free to play it, but if Entropy was truly about Chaos, it should not allow itself to be bound down by the forces that would try to impinge upon it. Chaos is different that Order insofar that it seeks its own ends with no regard to its antithesis. However, Order must do so in due course, not only promote Order, but also to banish Chaos. If Chaos is the dominant force that leaves everything at its mercy, then promoting Chaos is all that is necessary. As Chaos reigns, Chance will determine what happens. If Order remains, fine; if Order is toppled, again fine -- because it is all part of the Chaotic storm, what Chaos intended, even though Chaos can not intend for anything to happen.

It makes a lot more sense now that I think about it. Anyway, you can be sure that my next character when I'm finished with my rager will try to go for a Pico tat. Thanks for all the support with these posts and such.

Anarch

This has reminded me of the question I keep managing to not ask: Why did Entropy close down? Well, now I think I know. I thought over that portion Timmy quoted, and I realize that Entropy was never truly a war oriented cabal, even back when those anarchists were a part of it (my only two Entropy members were present then, but weren't anarchists). So, even though Entropy could still exist, especially as Nexus seems to me very order oriented, making a conflict for Entropy on two fronts now, it's precisely that conflict the Barons didn't care for. To oppose another cabal directly is far too ordered, so like the chaotic beings they are, the Barons dissolved and went independent. Perhaps they're still around as individuals, and that's really the way they're most likely to do the most for the causes of chaos. Two of which (in my book anyway) are personal freedom and individuality. Do we need more people promoting the idea of finding and following one's own path? Maybe not, but it's kinda fun to do it anyway.

----Quislet,
once tattooed by Nighthawk, but never by Pico.
Will that change? Who knows? Who cares?

Entropy went away mostly because there were no longer any mortal-present Imms to run it (i.e., other than me). Entropy Imms usually failed for one reason or another. Saher, Nighthawk, and I were the only successful ones to come up from mortal ranks (coincidentally, we were more or less contemporaries).

But you're also right. The direciton I took it did not promote a diametrically opposed battle with anyone. You could say they were at war with everyone -- or no-one. I think that was more true to its "charter" but it did have its downsides.

I hate to keep sounding like a Staunch Ish-for-President advocate, but didn't he come up from the mortal ranks? I seem to remember him running around causing trouble as a mort (the hyena is laughing at you!) right around the time I started cf.

Yes, the original Ish was a contemporary of mine in mortal realms (we both died a lot in the days before con loss). We were around 25 levels behind Nighthawk and Saher. He Imm'd after the purge, I believe. He made it to 54, I think -- not that he couldn't do the job, but IIRC got distracted with real life.

I don't think I was the blob or the one who uninducted you. Very well could've been the person who inducted you in the first place. Last year or more I pretty much left the cabal up to Grum and May and was there as a resource for them.

Glad you learned something here. This thread, and the other posts here, are meant to get players thinking generally about character philosophy, specifically about Chaos and how that concept influences a character and the Entropy cabal. As the proverb goes, I'm trying to teach people how to fish for Chaos, not give it to them.

Now that Entropy is gone (and I won't confirm or deny rumors of its return), Pico's tattoo is the only imm-based Chaotic "reward". But I'm not very active in the mortal realms these days, so don't pin your hopes on it.

But that and Entropy's disappearance doesn't mean the roles aren't valid or fun. Hopefully people enjoyed the Chaotic characters they played and won't stop because there's no cookie.

Can you offer any hints tips and ideas as to how you approach an Immortal such as yourself to get induction into the barons because the player (myself) wishes a baron character but the character is just dondering along being chaotic. I can't wait to be noticed as I am lucky if I ever coincide log in times with most Imms, let alone yourself.

-----Abernyte

A CE
>is, in essence, someone who
>is evil by action and/or
>Chance and who seeks his
>desires via chaotic means and
>whose desire and/or aspirations may
>change at any moment, but
>who does not restrict those
>changes to ensure that they
>stay "evil." It just so
>happens that by his own
>volition he usually if not
>almost always ends up doing
>what others term as "evil."
>

My question is this. Yes, this of course is a valid and dare I say "logical" explanation of what a chaotic evil is. At least looking at it through the lense of our current culture.

My question is this, really. Is there any room in the Barons for a character who has a slightly different view of chaos and how it affects what they do and why they do it?

Somewhat specifically, I have spent the last few months ordering and studying referance material from the Library of congress. Now, I won't say I did that just for Cf because I would have done so without cf in my life, but all this study that I have done about a certain ancient Culture has lead me to a fairly deep and interesting understanding of how they looked at chaos and order.

Without going into specifics that might publicly give the character away, my interest in how they looked at things differently lead me to write a role that I had hoped to take into the Baron cabal.

But reading this, I am having second thoughts about even playing this character. Is there room for other historical takes on chaos than the one you just put forth? If not, I will either have to work hard to mutate the character to another path, or drop it all-together.

"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

>My question is this. Yes,
>this of course is a
>valid and dare I say
>"logical" explanation of what a
>chaotic evil is. At
>least looking at it through
>the lense of our current
>culture.

Yes, my intention (which is stated in one of the other posts on this forum) is that for myself I wanted a purely logical and comprehensive understanding of Chaos and its implications for Thera. I chose to do this so that I can better judge applicants for Entropy to determine if they are really Chaotic or not. For a player, my hope is that they also have an understanding of the Chaotic role they are playing. I realize that a Chaotic role can be played without really knowing what you're doing, but my hope is that the player knows why they're Chaotic so that the character can roleplaying Chaotically within the game. I think this is necessary since Chaos and Entropy have no prescribed beliefs so the burden of knowing what to do is on the player and not the tablet in the cabal headquarters.

As for the "lense of current culture" I can not distance myself totally from the culture that surrounds me (the player of Pico). What I hope I've brought to Chaos is getting rid of the silliest notions of Chaos being anti-Order (i.e., anti-current culture) and that being Chaotic is instrinsically bad/evil. Chaos is amoral and should be defined by what it is (i.e., randomness, chance, free-form) rather than what it isn't (i.e., unlawful, disorganized, confusing).

>
>My question is this, really. Is
>there any room in the
>Barons for a character who
>has a slightly different view
>of chaos and how it
>affects what they do and
>why they do it?

I should hope all Barons have a different view of Chaos. However, be careful about the chasm you're jumping over by switching from a discussion on Chaos to one about Entropy and being a member; while they may be related, they're not the same.

>
>Somewhat specifically, I have spent the
>last few months ordering and
>studying referance material from the
>Library of congress. Now,
>I won't say I did
>that just for Cf because
>I would have done so
>without cf in my life,
>but all this study that
>I have done about a
>certain ancient Culture has lead
>me to a fairly deep
>and interesting understanding of how
>they looked at chaos and
>order.
>
>Without going into specifics that might
>publicly give the character away,
>my interest in how they
>looked at things differently lead
>me to write a role
>that I had hoped to
>take into the Baron cabal.
>
>
>But reading this, I am having
>second thoughts about even playing
>this character. Is there
>room for other historical takes
>on chaos than the one
>you just put forth? If
>not, I will either have
>to work hard to mutate
>the character to another path,
>or drop it all-together.

Well, you don't give me much to work with, so I can't really offer a specific answer to your question about whether the character's role will work or not. I'll try to offer a generic answer and if that doesn't satisfy you, suggest you email me at pico@carrionfields.com so you can be more specific in private.

First, I'd be interested in any interpretation of the duality of Order and Chaos. By no means am I a philosopher or have really gone to any length to research the topic. As I've written before, my understanding of Chaos has been a gradual development over the years I've conducted Entropy interviews and managed the cabal. My effort to understand Chaos in theory has been driven by the fact that I want to understand the issue at its core so that I can fairly judge all interpretations of Chaos. I'm sure I'm not perfect in my judgments, but I attempt to be.

As for joining Entropy. First, you can play any role you wish (within reason, of course -- no sexual predators or anything that would be construed as breaking the rules). Joining a cabal does not validate a character's role or existence and it doesn't mean that uncabaled characters are somehow worthless. Cabals have certain purposes and thus only certain roles fit in them. If your character doesn't fit one of the cabals' philosophies, then you don't fit, nothing more. Don't throw away a valid role just because it doesn't fit into any cabal.

Secondly, again I'll mention that you need to be careful about equating Chaos and Entropy. Your character may be Chaotic (i.e., embodying Chaos and not just having a "chaotic" ethos), but that doesn't automatically mean you belong in Entropy. Yes, Entropy is closely related to Chaos, but those who wish to join Entropy should understand why their character would want to join a cabal, albeit the least restrictive in terms of adherence to a defined code of conduct. Entropy is not the Chaotic elite (I use a capital "C" on purpose here) -- it's a cabal whose purpose in the game is to spread Chaos in Thera. I believe that for the cabal's purpose within the game that those spreaders should be Chaotic themselves, but by no means are they the epitome of Chaos.

Hope that helps.

I am trying to come up with a role for a chaotic evil person but am having a hard time. The help files says:

The strong have a right to what they want, and weak are there to be exploited. Leadership among CEs is based on power, with the leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience.

Sounds pretty much like your play ground bully. For some reason, it does not sound very chaotic.

Also, let's say in my role I have a certian trait that I have really no control over and cannot seem to stop. For example, I hate the smell of elves and everytime I get around one, no matter what, I end up attacking them (just an example). Is that anywhere near chaotic? The action doesn't seem chaotic. I mean, I will always end up doing it. But if you consider I will do it no matter what? No regard for anything else. Then it starts to seem chaotic in its own little way. Sorta of like a hyper kid after you give him a bunch of suger. He really cannot control himself.

Any further help for the simple minded would be useless. Maybe you can give some good examples of past chaotic evils that had really good roles?

First, I'd like to state that a chaotic evil person is not more evil than a lawful or neutral-ethos person. This is not a universally held belief, but it is prevalent. I think it is a carry-over from real life where the unpredictable evildoer is more feared than the plotting evildoer. Obviously if you have a lawful character you may believe the CE character is more evil than the LE, but in the OOC setting where roles are devised and players judge the roles of others, evil is evil.

>
>
>I am trying to come up
>with a role for a
>chaotic evil person but am
>having a hard time.
>The help files says:
>
>The strong have a right to
>what they want, and weak
>are there to be exploited.
>Leadership among CEs is based
>on power, with the leader
>capable of bullying his underlings
>into obedience.
>
>Sounds pretty much like your play
>ground bully. For some
>reason, it does not sound
>very chaotic.

I definitely won't say that this is the most stellar definition of chaotic evil, but it has the general idea. Also keep in mind this is the definition that was there when I started CF in 1994.

The definition is correct insofar that it stresses that there no external structure which gives a person leadership or power, but that this is based on factors which are transient and could disappear from the situation at any moment. The playground bully is an apt description. The bully is "on top" so long as he can maintain his position by whatever means necessary, but if someone bigger, smarter, or older comes along, he could be a nothing in an instant.

My only problem with the definition is that it implies that chaotic evils typically are in a group where there is a leader. While there is nothing to say that chaotics can't be in groups and that the group has an acknowledged leader, it's also as likely that the group is so fickle that no one member would ever come forward and distinguish himself as a leader.

Perhaps more importantly, the definition doesn't relate the tendency for chaotics to not be in any type of group. Groups are usually formed and maintained through some sort of organization -- either at a group level working toward a common purpose or at the individual level through personal relationships and/or a desire to be around those that have similar interests. A chaotic (evil, good, or neutral) may tend toward a loner type (e.g., Saher's religion) or, at the very least, never stick to one thing long enough to have any sort of group affiliations whatsoever.

>
>Also, let's say in my role
>I have a certian trait
>that I have really no
>control over and cannot seem
>to stop. For example,
>I hate the smell of
>elves and everytime I get
>around one, no matter what,
>I end up attacking them
> just an example). Is
>that anywhere near chaotic?
>The action doesn't seem chaotic.
> I mean, I will
>always end up doing it.
> But if you consider
>I will do it no
>matter what? No regard
>for anything else. Then
>it starts to seem chaotic
>in its own little way.
> Sorta of like a
>hyper kid after you give
>him a bunch of suger.
> He really cannot control
>himself.

If you've read my other posts in this forum (I forget which post it is exactly) you saw my comments about using gimmicks to appear chaotic. I'd be careful about using a trait as a means to appear chaotic to others. More generally, I think this is a reasonable trait to have and, in and of itself, doesn't make you lawful or even un-chaotic. I could see two angles on this trait. First, if you want a tragic character, this could be his fatal flaw. His enemies are never able to contain him adequately because of his chaotic nature, but uncover this trait and use it in their plans to bring your character to his demise. Second, maybe you don't always react violently and attack when you smell elves. Perhaps sometimes the smell is so strong you faint, sometimes it makes you throw up and the smell of vomit makes you run, etc.

>
>Any further help for the simple
>minded would be useless.
>Maybe you can give some
>good examples of past chaotic
>evils that had really good
>roles?

You should think of a "chaotic evil" role as a single concept (just asyou should chaotic good, lawful neutral, etc. as a single philosophy and not separate and/or competing beliefs). However, when you (as the player) are trying to come to an understanding of it, it may be beneficial to think of "chaotic" and "evil" separately and then combine them. Ask yourself what it means to be "chaotic" and what it means to be "evil." Once you understand those, think about why a chaotic person might be evil AND why an evil person might be chaotic. Meld the two and see what you come up with.