And chaotic characters don't even need a good reason to hurt others.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
In your understanding, evil characters should always become pitiful and kind, redeeming, in order to become stronger (develop)? To me, it doesn't, and that doesn't make them stupid.
I dunno. The idea of killing your allies rather than paying them a compliment seems a bit stupid, doesn't it? Is that what being "evil" means to you? Stabbing people just because it's the evil thing to do? That's the definition of "stupid evil".

In D&D lore: "good" means collectivist/selflessness, "evil" means individualist/selfishness, "lawful" means honest/honourable and "chaotic" means dishonest/dishonourable.

So imagine a chaotic evil character, Mr Moneybags, who selfishly wants to become wealthy and is willing to break the law and kill other people to acquire wealth. However, what if Mr Moneybags learns that it's more efficient to acquire that wealth by being friendly and cooperative and by following the law? Then why not do that instead?

Being "chaotic evil" alignment doesn't mean becoming the murder hobo. Sometimes being evil means being good. You catch more flies with honey and all that.

Honestly, I think the whole alignment system in D&D is just a bit of lazy convenience anyway that really just ends up getting confusing once you start telling complex stories. Alignment isn't a big thing in BG3, and seems to be getting phased out of D&D in general. I approve of this.

Originally Posted by Nyloth
For changes, the character doesn't have to become kinder or redeem something.. Otherwise, every good character would have to experience the "fall arch", but WOW, for some reason, this does not happen. They remain the same kind and no one says that they do not have growth. Or in your understanding ,the "evil" character is always "stupid" because he is evil? Also strange.
The key element in any character arc is the internal flaw and the character arc is the process of overcoming that flaw.

If a character is "stupid evil", then they are by definition flawed. Like Mr Moneybags for example -- a character who's too stupid to realise that murder is not the only way to get rich. If Minthara is doing something stupid then that's a huge opportunity for a character arc.

A character arc doesn't always mean "become nicer". Sometimes it can be the opposite. Many stories have been told where the climax is the protagonist learning to "love themself more" or "fight back against the bully" or whatever.