Why is Chaotic Neutral "BAD"

[CyberThread]

You can have all the other alignments, but why do DM's and players cry in fear if another player is CN?

[Xerxus]

It's often taken as a free pass to do exactly what you as a player want to do. Instead of actually trying to be chaotic neutral ie maybe Ayn Rand.

[Amnestic]

Generally it's used by players who want an excuse to act Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid) (TVTropes Link) which tends to derail campaigns. Some people play it well, though those are generally few and far between.

[Coidzor]

It's the "evil" alignment for games that ban evil characters.

[Emperor Ing]

Because CN is the quintessential alignment of THAT GUY. That Guy who plays the amoral, self-serving jerk who other players and their characters have to tolerate in order to maintain some group chemistry. That Guy who goes out of their way to wreak havoc and chaos even when it's impractical to do so. That Guy who causes players and GMs alike to quit the game in anger and frustration over That Guy's shenanigans.

More specifically, CN is a license for players to do whatever they want whenever they want regardless of how amoral, unethical, or plot-derailing it may be. In one game I played, a CN character used some Mass Suggestions to rile a crowd in a marketplace into a frenzy against my and someone else's character (both of whom could easily slaughter the crowd without difficulty) because it was amusing to their CN snowflake. Did I mention this was one of those games where our characters are supposed to be working together? :smallannoyed:

CN CAN be done well, it's just very difficult for me to imagine any good examples of it, and the players that are capable of pulling it off while maintaining positive party and player chemistry...well...if you can find those players then you might as well try your luck at the lottery as well.

[Suddo]

To help with others arguments. Tyler Durden, from Fight Club, can be considered Chaotic Neutral. Do we see now how the alignment can derail a "good" campaign where even a Lawful Evil character wouldn't.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, all of the above. Players think CN means they can do whatever whenever, and if someone objects, they go "but I'm Chaotic Neutral!" They're usually a moron, that's what.

It's a perfectly legit alignment for, say, wild barbarians who detest civilization and only respect might, or selfish thieves who aren't cruel or murderous, etc., but too often players take it too far.

[Gildedragon]

+1 to everything stated here.
Though I'd argue a barbarian that only respects might is verging on E. The Barb. needs something else to temper their alignment. A respect for good deeds and selflessness or seeing selflessness as a sort of strength.

It'd be good if you ask players what their motivation for a certain alignment is; though with problematic alignments sometimes straight out ban is useful.

In my own experience CN can be the free spirit that would like to be good, and might often act good, but is either a good behavior derived from selfish reasons, or is countered by a selfish self-serving nature. Asks for payment for their heroics, but backs down when recieving disapproving looks from the party or even if the saved act stunned, and tries to pass the backing down as magnanimity.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Because most people think that Chaotic Neutral is a "get out of ethics debates free" card. They think it let's them do things like taking a dump on an orphan they just sold to a witch as a slave.


I'm playing a CN character, he's far from bats**t crazy, he makes plays, improvises like crazy and turned people he insulted and abducted into allies. When stuck on a boat and surrounded by angry merfolk, he resolved the situation and even got said merfolk to do his bidding.

THAT is how you play CN properly, by being a sly bastard and looking to turn every situation, no matter how dire, vile or hopeless, to your advantage.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's often taken as a free pass to do exactly what you as a player want to do. Instead of actually trying to be chaotic neutral ie maybe Ayn Rand.

Dude, Ayn Rand is CE. I mean, really, c'mon.

That said, Chaotic Neutral is despised because people have either experienced someone playing it obnoxiously and assumed there is no alternative or, far more likely, read some horror story online about how terrible chaotic neutral characters are and held that post as an ironclad, inescapable rule. Honestly, I feel like just about any alignment is a death sentence in the hands of a bad player; the Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral characters who start try to kill members of their own party for littering, the Chaotic Good characters who are basically the "Threw It on the Ground" guy, the various and sundry potential pitfalls of evil alignments. I guess True Neutral is largely safe from Those Guys starting PVP or killing NPCs for no reason, but it has the flip side of being the alignment of every boring PC with literally no personality whatsoever. Any alignment can be terrible, CN is just the most common scapegoat because of its self-perpetuating reputation; if CN is the most frequent alignment of "That Guy," it's because people tell That Guy it's the alignment of his character. Similarly, because of the backlash against it, most people never make a more "serious" CN because they are never allowed to do so.

[Kadakism]

My biggest issue with CN though is in role-play. My players mostly all picked CN so that they wouldn't have to role-play any allegiances to factions in my world. Because apparently having a character who can say "screw you, I do what I want" to the duke of the place you live in is better than having ties to a potentially powerful ally.

[Emperor Ing]

Don't bring up Ayn Rand you'll devolve this thread into a political debate :smalleek:

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get, as said before, characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.

[Fyermind]

Chaotic Neutral is played as C/E lite. Or not so light depending on the player. A lot of beginners who don't understand the idea of shared role playing and mutual enjoyment who take up C/N characters play them as chaotic disrespectful. When I DM I encourage players to have a personality first and an alignment second. I also make an explicit requirement that all characters be team players somehow. Too many young teens take C/N as a chance to not be a team player. The only time I have intentionally killed a character as a DM was a C/N rogue (who I told had become C/E due to his actions) after he tried to pillage a church... again. They fought a Trumpet archon as a pair of level 13 characters. It was pre-buffed to the nines. It only wanted to kill the single player. I hated having to do it, but the player and I had agreed beforehand that his character concept had been flawed, and he couldn't imagine the character turning himself around. The player came back with a C/N Hexblade who fit in much better. He was a jerk, but he worked with the team, and didn't keep getting them into serious trouble.

[Deathkeeper]

I'm currently playing a CN character. He's really not that amoral and is bordering CG, but so far has stayed within N since he's easily irritated and has moderate anger issues, which has kept him from acting very Good to pretty much anyone who isn't the Party.
So yeah, he really isn't that disruptive.

[TaiLiu]

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get the, as said before, the get characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.
Hm. What if the character was an ardent believer of freedom? Would that count as Chaotic Neutral? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Essentially there's mass confusion where people seem to think that CN = CE.


Don't bring up Ayn Rand you'll devolve this thread into a political debate :smalleek:

It's already an alignment debate, after all.

[Yogibear41]

Hm. What if the character was an ardent believer of freedom? Would that count as Chaotic Neutral? :smallconfused:

or Chaotic Good, or even Chaotic Evil what matters is his definition of freedom and who he is willing to share it with.

Could potentially be a lawful character if his aim is to provide freedom through changing of laws or something.

I think its a little hard to sum up an alignment with just one or two sentences personally. Its probably one of if not the most complicated things in the game IMO.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Don't bring up Ayn Rand you'll devolve this thread into a political debate :smalleek:

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get, as said before, characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237456) have a read of my character, Aquarius. He's CN to the core, an improviser, liar and all round sly bastard. He's done far more for the campaign than any other character.

[Emperor Ing]

Hm. What if the character was an ardent believer of freedom? Would that count as Chaotic Neutral? :smallconfused:

You'll have to be more specific. Freedom to what end or freedom for freedom's sake? If the latter than as I said before, their being CN is a prelude to either CG, where freedom begets good, CE, where freedom exists so they can do what they want when they want, or TN, where they develop and follow at least some sort of pattern or system, even if it changes depending on the situation. The prelude CN character actually can work, because you can have character development over the course of the campaign.

[TaiLiu]

You'll have to be more specific. Freedom to what end or freedom for freedom's sake? If the latter than as I said before, their being CN is a prelude to either CG, where freedom begets good,
Does it, though? Freedom [for freedom's sake] does not need to be Good. They might release the prisoners of an Evil nation, or the prisoners of a Good one. Wouldn't that mix of Chaotic Good and Evil fall into Chaotic Neutral?

[Bakeru]

CN CAN be done well, it's just very difficult for me to imagine any good examples of it, and the players that are capable of pulling it off while maintaining positive party and player chemistry...well...if you can find those players then you might as well try your luck at the lottery as well.My group has had mixed experiences with CN (and pseudo-CN CG). Everyone remembers Taurnil fondly (or at least with good humour), except me, who played him. I just didn't get the "Chaotic" right - it's "Chaotic", not "Random". My next chat was Chaotic Good, but "pretended" to be CN (as in, he followed CG in his actions, but gave CN reasoning for them). He ended up transformed into an Orc when I rolled to decide if he'd steal donations from a church of Wee Jas. That was when I banned myself from playing chaotic characters, and since I dislike lawful alignments, I now go with Neutral Good.

On the other hand, we have a great CN fighter/barbarian. He's a nice guy. If he likes you, he likes you, but if he doesn't, don't make him angry. He's old friends with other PCs in our group, so we're pretty secure on his good side, but he doesn't care about stuff like "good" or "evil" - If they're enemies of his friends, they're his enemies.

[Emperor Ing]

Does it, though? Freedom [for freedom's sake] does not need to be Good. They might release the prisoners of an Evil nation, or the prisoners of a Good one. Wouldn't that mix of Chaotic Good and Evil fall into Chaotic Neutral?

Again I have to ask: To what end? If freedom is an end to itself that's pretty shallow in my opinion. Which as I said before, can work if you're interested in character development.

[Coidzor]

Oh, what was that term, Chaotic something Ninja Assassin Drow?

[Keneth]

There's nothing bad about the Chaotic Neutral alignment. It's players that play Chaotic Stupid characters that give it a bad rep.

[Seharvepernfan]

I've noticed that a lot of the people who play D&D, probably even the majority, tend to see themselves as LN. The opposite of LN is CN, so that's why CN behavior peeves off most D&D players.

Many people think that a group should work together, follow the rules, and never cause trouble. Most people want their group to be like Picard's star fleet, but the CN guy wants to play Tyler Durden (or, for a CE example, the Joker).

The problem is group interaction. Is CN different from the rest of the group? Yes? Well, that's probably going to be a problem. Is the LN guy the only non-CN guy in the group? He's going to cause problems there just as much.

As long as the CN character has the same motivations (or is motivated to do the same thing as the rest of the group), then it shouldn't be a problem.

Bottom line: it's not the alignment, it's the player(s) or the DM.

[navar100]

Dude, Ayn Rand is CE. I mean, really, c'mon.
.

No, she's not. You just disagree with her.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get, as said before, characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. CN is a "bad alignment" because CN is essentially defined to be a bad alignment. If you say that any Chaotic Neutral character who isn't the worst strawman of one isn't "actually" chaotic neutral, yeah, all chaotic neutral characters are terrible. Of course, one could just as easily make the same argument for any other alignment.

[Emperor Ing]

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. CN is a "bad alignment" because CN is essentially defined to be a bad alignment. If you say that any Chaotic Neutral character who isn't the worst strawman of one isn't "actually" chaotic neutral, yeah, all chaotic neutral characters are terrible. Of course, one could just as easily make the same argument for any other alignment.

Incorrect. The reason CN gets all the flak is because when someone wants to make their character a complete jerk, who derails plots and blows up orphanages "for the lulz," they don't play LN. They don't go NG. Hell they don't even go CE. They go CN.

[Vent Reynolt]

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get, as said before, characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Monkey_D_Luffy.png

Admittedly, though, Yolo McDowhatIwant The Third would be incredibly applicable here for multiple reasons.

[Xerxus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Monkey_D_Luffy.png

Admittedly, though, Yolo McDowhatIwant The Third would be incredibly applicable here for multiple reasons.

Luffy is clearly CG.

[Emperor Ing]

I don't watch One Piece. The reference is lost on me.

[Cyan Wisp]

I think the Neutral morality is a tricky line to walk along and maintain balance.

With Lawful Neutral, you can fall back on the Law to determine the "right" course of action. Judge Dredd may be a good example of this, where moral dilemmas are trumped by the word of the Law. Good and Evil have already been nutted out and written into laws and honour systems so actions can be justified by this codified system.

With Chaotic Neutral, the individual determines their own path, their own guidelines or honour system (if any) and their own, perhaps inconsistent, reaction to moral dilemmas. How many deeds are morally neutral in an adventuring party? How many decisions don't affect anyone in the world? How do you maintain that balance when whimsy rules?

I think each character/player starts to tend one way or the other... more goodness or more evilness depending on the rest of the party (toeing the party line even if it for their own benefit in the long term or railing against the party line) or just personal preference. They may not be fully committed to the extremes and still flip-flop regularly, but the trend is there longitudinally.

Perhaps the CN alignment should be written in with "tendencies" CN(G) or CN(E) to show the general (though inconsistent) moral trend. Maybe pure chaos is only achievable by zealots, madmen and the slaadi.

[Mithril Leaf]

What about a character who generally ignores the laws while being prone to both intense kindness and intense cruelty? A character that helps the group when they go and save an orphanage, but when he finds a little kid out in the woods he kills it without telling the party because it would cramp his style. He can still frequently go along with the party, because that's a tendency, which isn't non-chaotic (just look at all the frogs in limbo).

[Emperor Ing]

With Chaotic Neutral, the individual determines their own path, their own guidelines or honour system (if any) and their own, perhaps inconsistent, reaction to moral dilemmas. How many deeds are morally neutral in an adventuring party? How many decisions don't affect anyone in the world? How do you maintain that balance when whimsy rules?

Following a personal code is kind of a definition of Lawful. Inconsistency and the code changing with the circumstances throws it into Neutral (law-chaos axis) territory.

[MukkTB]

I enjoy running C/E characters as pragmatic and self centered guys who don't enjoy baby slaughter or other garbage. As a career adventurer most of the tim the behavior isn't any different than any other character. Slaughter things for the xp and loot. Its even convenient to do that under righteous guise on occasion.

Then when the party does something dumb and evil I don't have a problem with the evil part. I have a problem with the dumb part. I once spent some time with a thug of the kill babies and wear them as a hat variant of c/e. I spent some time explaining why it would be more convenient if he didn't kill witnesses and giving him a few other pointers. I played it pretty low down until it became time to perpetrate an event after which the DM turned to me and said, "You are now Evil. Change your character sheet." Then I said, "Thats what it says on my character sheet."

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

No, she's not. You just disagree with her.

I intended the comment to be descriptive, rather than normative, sorry if I caused confusion or offense. Regardless of my own moral opinions, D&D largely defines Good and Evil as the battle between extreme altruism and extreme selfishness (or at least, from the various descriptions, I would contend that that is the most coherent view of the alignments as written, whether or not that is how they ought to be defined) and Rand, proudly and admittedly, falls on the far extreme not only for selfishness, but against altruism. Again, I don't mean to say that this makes her philosophy bad, merely where it would fit within the alignments, as I read them. You're obviously welcome to disagree with how I interpret the alignments, but, again, I want to make it clear that I'm merely talking about how I understood them, not how I think they ought to be.


Incorrect. The reason CN gets all the flak is because when someone wants to make their character a complete jerk, who derails plots and blows up orphanages "for the lulz," they don't play LN. They don't go NG. Hell they don't even go CE. They go CN.

Sure, but as I said earlier, there are plenty of ways to make characters complete jerks who derail plots, and That Guy will make a character who does it with any alignment; make him be CG and that guy refuses to work for any king because they're all tyrants, make him be LG and he'll attack a member of his own party for stepping on the cracks in a sidewalk, &c.

CN is the alignment people ban because there is a self-fulling prophecy and self-perpetuating trend that turns it into a bad alignment. You said yourself that any Chaotic Neutral character "done right" has to be another alignment. If you define it as bad, it's always going to be bad.

In other words, the enforced perception that Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of That Guy pretty much makes it the alignment of That Guy; while he can be any alignment, That Guy will only amount to a small percent of lawful good characters, but he'll make up 100% of CN characters because, by the self-perpetuating definition, nobody but That Guy can be a CN character.

[Coidzor]

Following a personal code is kind of a definition of Lawful.

Yes and no.


Inconsistency and the code changing with the circumstances throws it into Neutral (law-chaos axis) territory.

No and yet also yes.

[Squirrel_Dude]

In my experience it's because chaotic neutral is too often played as neutral evil. AKA: I'll do anything I can get away with. It's also just generally kind of a dickish/team-unfriendly alignment. Decision making is arbitrary, unpredictable, and selfish. They are the person who goes by the dungeon bastard motto that, "you can't make an omelet without picking the pockets of a six hit point farmer."

They're the rogue refusing try to disarm traps because they might get hurt (even though they're the only one who can do it), or the fighter who won't go into the cave and save someone unless he is handsomely rewarded. Those aren't even bad or unrealistic characters. They're just frustrating for storytelling and team dynamics.

[Vent Reynolt]

Luffy is clearly CG.

To make my case as succinct as possible, (And to hopefully not derail things too much) I'll just stick with this:


Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)
When Vivi was at her most frantic in trying to stop the civil war brewing in Alabasta, Luffy's response was, "People die." He didn't particularly care about them because he's not their friends. He doesn't know them. Now, he was just getting Vivi to realize that she will need to risk people's lives in order to stop Mr. 0, but the main point is that Luffy was committed to the fight, not out of some desire to stop a civil war, not to save lives, but because his friend was committed to doing just that, and she'd get herself killed if she continued to try to do that all by herself.


I think that too many of these ideas about Chaotic Neutral seem too focused on the idea of erratic good and then evil behavior without acknowledging the fact that neutrality has its own characteristics as well. That is why I posited Luffy as a CN character. His commitment is to his friends first and foremost, with his primary motivation ultimately being greed. The fact that he's also a very friendly person and very easy to make friends with doesn't really matter, for alignment purposes. That just means he's got a high Charisma. :smalltongue:
As for the Chaotic part, I think the whole "Pirate" thing makes that self-evident. (Despite the fact that pretty much the only time he did actual piracy was to people who didn't value gold at all... and who were going to give him something far more valuable anyway)

[Garret Dorigan]

In my experience, the best way to approach any of the ___ Neutral or Neutral ____ alignments in roleplay and get it "right" is to think of your variable axis.

In a dungeon of a great enemy, you come across some malnourished prisoners and free them. What is your alignment reaction/motivation for freeing them?

CG: I free them because it's the right thing to do as per my morals and the general countenance of society.

CE: I free them so that they will be beholden to me and I can use them for whatever I please in the future, even their souls.

CN: I free them to extract information on my enemy, playing their thankfulness into what I require to do what I'm here to do.

Alignment is intent behind action. Any alignment can do any action, it's the why you're doing it that is different. Whereas CG characters are interested in what's the best path for everyone regardless of the law, CN characters are inherently selfish. They aren't supposed to be "That Guy", they are calculating individuals that don't necessarily care about others. It's your Tyler Durden versus your Robin Hood.

I find that people have more issues playing CE right than they do CN, but people screw up CN quite a lot I must admit.

[Emperor Ing]

You said yourself that any Chaotic Neutral character "done right" has to be another alignment. If you define it as bad, it's always going to be bad.

I said that a CN character is also a character who has room to develop where they would become another alignment.

[The Trickster]

Eh, some if the issues of the "CN" character can also describe a TN character though. At least with CN, you know that the character is going to ignore the laws of the land a little bit. With TN, they just do whatever they want.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

One of the examples of a chaotic neutral character provided in Complete Scoundrel is Snake Plissken (http://www.explore-science-fiction-movies.com/images/snake-plissken-jacket.jpg), which is a pretty good example of a chaotic neutral character who doesn't fit the negative stereotypes but couldn't be better classified in another alignment.


I said that a CN character is also a character who has room to develop where they would become another alignment.

Ah, I was going by your claim that "if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN," which I took to mean that a chaotic neutral character done right would necessarily not be chaotic neutral. My apologies for the misinterpretation, though I fail to see the point in bringing up that a character can change alignments since, again, it applies to any alignment.

[Sgt. Cookie]

@PN: I disagree, TN is more of a "How does this situation benefit me?", whereas CN is more "How do I make this situation benefit me?"

TN is more about being willing to consider all available options, while CN is about looking at those same options, discarding them all and making a new one.

[NilsRichter]

My favourite example of a "CN PC well done" is based on the Trickster archetype. His main motivation is to question authority. He does this by messing with people's heads (think Hagbart Celine or Till Eulenspiegel).

He is strongly Chaotic, because he opposes Lawfulness with a passion.

He is clearly not Good, because he is okay with "inconveniencing" people, risking their well-being in the process.

He is clearly not Evil, because he doesn't do it to harm anyone, but to enlighten them, eventually helping them. (Should they come to harm, they will have learned something about "accepting rules" and "following orders").

Yes, he is disruptive. He might get hung up about a stupid guard, who is not important to the quest, and waste time and resources teaching him a lesson.
The DM better make sure that he has a reason to participate in the adventure and to advance the plot.

But isn't that true for every PC?

[BWR]

John Constantine is a good example of Chaotic Neutral. A **** who can be loyal to friends, but has no problem using them or sacrificing them to get the job done. A guy who is a pathologcial con man, a magic junkie who detests any and all authority and will often screw people over just because he doesn't like being told what to do. "He dances on the edge of the known, pitting himself against Heaven and the Pit because he is John Constantine and because he is alive"

Or even Tom Bombadil. He's a nice guy, genial and welcoming, but he has no agenda, no concerns beyond himself and his woman, no interest in the world at large. He is free, master of no one, mastered by none.

[Yahzi]

Rand, proudly and admittedly, falls on the far extreme not only for selfishness, but against altruism.
This is a good example of the difference between Chaotic and Stupid. The random, evil-for-fun regardless of the consequences character is not Chaotic; he is insane.

In my alignment system, CE means "respects only strength," which pretty clearly includes Rand, but does not necessarily equate to random destruction.

Too many people treat CN as psycho, and hence, as you said, it's become tantamount to being psycho. So much so that my alignment system doesn't even have it (or LN). :smallbiggrin:

[DeltaEmil]

Some people think that being Chaotic Neutral means killing little babies, and then helping old ladies over the street to balance it out.

But that's just a Chaotic Evil person who's a moron.

[Emperor Ing]

Ah, I was going by your claim that "if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN," which I took to mean that a chaotic neutral character done right would necessarily not be chaotic neutral. My apologies for the misinterpretation, though I fail to see the point in bringing up that a character can change alignments since, again, it applies to any alignment.

Obviously any alignment can be done poorly. But my interpretation is that the motivations of CN characters, when they are done in a way that's believable, are done in one or two ways.

One, their motivations are shallow. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can represent a character who's more interested in the 'do' than the 'why.' When they have an answer for the 'why' I imagine they'll fall into a different alignment.

Two, they're teetering. They represent a precarious balance between the virtuous morality and unenlightened selfishness of CG and CE respectively, and they will, by their actions and choices, be drawn one way or the other over the course of the campaign.

There may be others (I can see a character who pursues neutrality as an end to itself potentially being CN) but for most characters this is how I see CN working. Both have a good opportunity for interesting characters and potential side-plots in addition to including other characters, who may or may not be interested in guiding this CN character one way or the other.

[Gnome Alone]

Some people think that being Chaotic Neutral means killing little babies, and then helping old ladies over the street to balance it out.

But that's just a Chaotic Evil person who's a moron.

Man, that should've have been the leader quote in a sidebar about getting Chaotic Neutrality right in the PHB.


I've noticed that a lot of the people who play D&D, probably even the majority, tend to see themselves as LN. The opposite of LN is CN, so that's why CN behavior peeves off most D&D players.

I don't think CN isn't the opposite of LN; CG and CE are closer to being its opposite. I mean, we're simplifiying quite a bit here and all, but Neutrality, or one of the ways Neutrality can manifest, is being more committed to another goal or principle than to concepts of right and wrong; so a LN person who's committed to enforcing social order at all costs, or a CN person who's committed to total human freedom without worrying too much about the consequences, share a certain commonality. Or we can take it down a notch and say that moral concerns might not be on the radar of a Neutral person at all - that's another way to play it.

You really think most Dungeon and Dragonistas see themselves as LN? I don't see it - I mean, I do see a lot of blind devotion to RAW, as if having an objective standard is just the end-all-be-all, no matter if it sucks or makes no sense, but... well, I hope not. Man, I think LN is one of the worst alignments, to me it makes me think of a really mechanistic thinker - like, someone permanently stuck in Kohlberg's fourth stage of moral development. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development).

{Click spoil-y box for lightly derail-ish explanation of Gnome Alone's own alignment, were that a thing people actually have and not a gameplay mechanic}
Personally, I thinks of meself as Chaotic Good - I wanna do what's right, help people out, and I don't give a good gods-damn about the law as such. (I know that legality is not really what Lawfulness is about... It's like one of six or seven attributes in the description of the Law-Chaos axis, right? Suffice to say I'm not a particularly orderly or organized person.)

[Skysaber]

+1 what everyone has said about That Guy.

Now my group has no problem role playing chaotics. I once had a Cleric of Inconvenience (some clerics worship principles, inconvenience was his). Another once attacked an armed enemy warship wielding only a rubber chicken, golf balls and silly putty. And another player whatever the alignment on his character sheet reads, plays the most perfect Chaotic Neutral you ever saw. I've known him all his life and I still can't predict the wacky things he comes up with.

On the other hand, there is no denying the massive subculture of those who put Chaotic Neutral on their character sheet just because they really mean Evil, but don't want to admit to it.

The problem with those sorts is almost always solved when the DM switches to alignment tracking, ie, instead of telling someone "No, you wouldn't do that, that's not your alignment" saying, "ok, that's four points towards Evil."

Dragonlance when they first came out with it in first ed had a lovely little chart where you had a starting point for each on the Good/Neutral/Evil axis, and a range of ten points on either side of your starting point where you stayed your original alignment. Then another ten points of 'border territory' between alignments. But if you consistently acted one alignment, that swiftly became your alignment.

So instead of "I act that way because that's my alignment" it becomes "that's my alignment because of the way I act." a subtle yet powerful difference. Yet they have plenty of warning as it creeps up on them, point by point - and they have full power to reverse the shift at any time just by acting appropriately. So they are left without excuse when it does happen.

Anyway, because we've all had bad experiences with party-slayers, 'secretly' evil guys who ruin the game for everyone, and other such 'oh, I'm only roleplaying my character' nonsense (and who have driven more new players away from the game than anyone else I can think of) we also borrowed a rule from Star Wars D6

To whit: Any character who goes over to the Dark Side (ie, Evil) immediately becomes an NPC under the DM's control who fixates on destroying his former friends (ie, The Party) for all the many Wrongs he imagines they have done to him.

Of course, we have unusual clarity on our opinions of Good/Evil, as most nights when we have a full table, our gaming group has the unusual situation where all but one of us are ordained priests. In Real Life, lest you mistake. So we've all devoted years of our lives to study to know precisely what is moral and what is not, rather than picking it up from comic books and Hollywood movies like most everybody else does (note I said most, I'll admit there are exceptions. But fewer than most folks realize).

And based on that body of experience, we disagree with the official stance on what Neutral means as an alignment. Because nobody is interested in Balance - everybody is seeking the maximum good they can in life, according to whatever they define good to be. Good might mean to them being eco-friendly. It might mean personal pleasure, or wealth, or power. But however they define 'good' they are always seeking the most they can get of it.

Outside of a joke, nobody comes home and says "Wow, that was a truly excellent vacation. I feel so great. Now I need someone to kick me in the nuts to balance that out."

Even Druids aren't about Balance, they are about Nature, and Nature isn't Balanced at all - it's about cycles where first one thing, then another, get out of hand. Is Winter Balanced? No, it's too much cold, too much snow and not enough other things. Summer? No, that's too hot and too dry. Spring? No, that's completely unBalanced in favor of growing.

There is nothing in all of nature where you can say "yes, everything is in Perfect Balance with each other." At any given time something is ascendant and something else is on decline, and that's cycles (Until someone leaps in to defend their preconceptions by yelling "Nu uh! Cycles ARE Balance!" )

Nature is all about Life, and Life is all about Change, either rising or falling. Balance is static, and change destroys it, so druids cannot be concerned about balance and still be druids.

So if Neutral isn't Balance what is it? Simple. The Lack of Strong Convictions. A Neutral character is the quintessential "to get along, go along" guy, the one with mottos like "don't make waves" and so on.

He stands for nothing, so he'll go along with anything.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Well, rather than neutrality itself, there are also characters who simply pursue goals outside of the Good/Evil moral framework, whose values and ideologies are based on something outside of the rubric of altruism and selfishness. In example, a character who relentlessly pursues the truth for its own sake, rather than to help others or for personal gain. At that point, the character has a very defined "why" which is neither inherently good nor evil, and all that's left is determining how said character interacts with rules, hierarchies, and social norms, which can, of course, fall firmly on the side of chaos. If, for some reason, one would argue that pursuing truth is somehow inherently lawful (which I wouldn't buy, but just the same), one could replace it with beauty, or any other central value which doesn't necessarily align with the framework of good and evil. In general, not a character teeters between virtuous morality and unenlightened selfishness, but one who follows his or her own, "higher" cause.

[Sgt. Cookie]

@Skysabre: That sounds TN to the core to me. Not CN.

[Porthos]

I think a decent part of it is the legacy idea of CN = Insane from prior editions. Turns out, very few people actually like playing with characters who are just as likely to fireball you as your enemies in a battle.

One of the best things 3e did was move away from the CN Equals Insane paradigm. Sadly, the tradition has proven hard to break. :smallyuk:

[Lord Raziere]

well let see.

neutral will always side with good over evil, because evil is a threat to everyone and neutral cares about protecting themselves and their personal stuff.

but will neutral go out of their way to spread good? no.

chaotic, will probably just not care about other peoples rules, and just be free.

HOWEVER.

the chaotic is balanced by restraint of good neutral or evil.

good is the most restrained, using the chaos towards good.

evil is the least restrained, using chaos however he wants and just doing whatever he wants regardless of ANYTHING, whatsoever.

therefore, while chaotic neutral isn't completely restrained, he isn't stupid.

he will still try to steal stuff, but he knows that killing people is unnecessary for the job. he isn't the thief that leaves a trail of corpses, he is the thief that leaves a note going "lol took your diamond, I'm going to use it as paperweight."
and no has any clue how he got in there while not disturbing anything or anyone in between.

if he is hired to go kill someone, he will go to that person, come up with a plan with him to fake that person's death, then when the person is "dead" he collects the reward without actually having killed him, then splits the money 50/50 with the person he was supposed to kill. in fact, he is probably a con artist assassin, who is known for his business at faking deaths, collecting the reward money and sharing it with his "marks".

he is the dynamite wielding maniac who makes sure that only specific people are inside when he blows up a building. probably people he hates. not anyone else, why would he want to blow up anyone else?

Yes I think the chaotic neutral is a person of petty, selfish desires who fulfills them through clever plans of startling competency. he is the master swordsman who mastered years of training with the blade just to show off a few cool tricks to people and show off his master swordsmanship. the thief who steals whatever he wants, yet makes sure that no one is harmed in the process. the wizard who masters illusions just so he can troll everyone with weird images.
It is competency and excellence used for the small and underwhelming. Or to carve your face into the mountainside just to prove that your worthy of having your face carved into the mountainside, whatever.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Well, I think even that was something of a misunderstanding. I always took that to mean that insane characters are chaotic neutral, not that chaotic neutral characters are invariable insane, like squares and rectangles.

[tadkins]

This thread kind of feels like a challenge. To play a good CN character to it's fullest potential, prove that it can be played, and dispel a lot of misconceptions.

Had a character idea that I've been mulling over that might work. A human wizard who fully recognizes and subscribes to the philosophy of chaos. He'll likely be a transmutation specialist who strives to "keep things interesting", and intervene when things become stagnant.

A LE villain coming to power through seductive wit and charm? Let's transmute some strange, ugly features onto him and see how he's able to progress! Jokes become literal, and each day is a new, fantastic experience!

While CN, he'll still be a contributing party member, so nothing he does will be detrimental to the party's progress. Pure chaos would be his goal, believing that it's the only true factor in the universe, with good and evil requiring a balance.

What do you guys think?

[Porthos]

Well, I think even that was something of a misunderstanding. I always took that to mean that insane characters are chaotic neutral, not that chaotic neutral characters are invariable insane, like squares and rectangles.

From the 2e PHB

Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose to gamble everything away they have on a single role of the die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only thing reliable about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

From the 2e DMG (on Area Alignments)

Chaotic Neutral: There is no government. Anarchy is the rule. A stranger to such a town might feel he has ridden into a town of madmen.

Compare/Contrast to:

From the d20 SRD:

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

----

I had long and drawn out arguments with more than one DM back in the day about CN (Almost Always) Equaling Insane. When 3e shifted to Free Spirit, I was more than a bit thankful. :smallwink:

Also, that last line in the 2e description was supposed to be the represenative of what type of person an alignment was. All of the other alignments had similar descriptions. That they didn't give an alternative to the 'lunatics and madmen' was... Well the opposite of the Alignments Aren't Straightjackets philosophy. :smalltongue:

[Rhynn]

From the 2e PHB

AD&D 2E really messed up alignment. It's where the Insane True Neutral came from.

But AD&D 1E CN is actually a bit ... weird, too. It's very strongly philosophical, and probably not a common alignment at all.

1E PHB:

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

1E DMG:

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of no concern. After all, life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end. Therefore, life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combatted, and in the end it too will pass into entropy.

Yikes! So, Planescape Dustmen, basically. 1E alignment is pretty strongly cosmically philosophical - which I suppose makes sense, since originally D&D alignment is about your place in a cosmic struggle.

But both editions acknowledge this isn't straightforward, simple, or clear-cut.

I really prefer simple principles and little elaboration. If good is altruistic, evil is cruel, law is community-minded, and chaos is individualistic, then Chaotic Neutral is neither overwhelmingly altruistic nor cruel, and is individualistic. Thus, the independent, even solitary barbarian who acknowledges no law but strength, or the selfish thief who does not have the heart to kill for profit but holds no loyalties, et cetera.

[Emperor Ing]

You do realize how difficult it is to categorize thousands and thousands of years worth of philosophy and debate from the greatest minds Mankind has ever known into nine simple categories, right? :smalltongue:

I don't think we can conclude that any one edition or game's definition of "chaotic neutral" is correct. The question is, what would a character who, for the most part, eschews any concept of authority while remaining ambivalent or otherwise neutral to the concept of good and evil (or moral and amoral if you prefer,) look or act like?

[CIDE]

You want chaotic neutral?

Tyler Durden.

Otherwise, my Druid that had chosen to throw a Drow city into a frenzy that resulted in all but one of the houses getting wiped out in a large scale civil war through politics and only politics. All the while trying to also arrange to have the remaining drow force(s) wipe out the party members that the Druid felt were responsible (only 'cause the Druid lacked information) for the death of her very close animal companion.

[White_Drake]

From the 2e PHB

Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose to gamble everything away they have on a single role of the die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only thing reliable about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

From the 2e DMG (on Area Alignments)

Chaotic Neutral: There is no government. Anarchy is the rule. A stranger to such a town might feel he has ridden into a town of madmen.

Compare/Contrast to:

From the d20 SRD:

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

----

I had long and drawn out arguments with more than one DM back in the day about CN (Almost Always) Equaling Insane. When 3e shifted to Free Spirit, I was more than a bit thankful. :smallwink:

Also, that last line in the 2e description was supposed to be the represenative of what type of person an alignment was. All of the other alignments had similar descriptions. That they didn't give an alternative to the 'lunatics and madmen' was... Well the opposite of the Alignments Aren't Straightjackets philosophy. :smalltongue:

Didn't somebody have an "Alignments Through the Ages" thread? I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Aha! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14393535&postcount=1) First post is on Chaotic Neutral. That's handy.

[Rhynn]

You do realize how difficult it is to categorize thousands and thousands of years worth of philosophy and debate from the greatest minds Mankind has ever known into nine simple categories, right? :smalltongue:

Alignments don't really have much of anything to do with that, though. I don't think any edition's alignment descriptions show a lot of familiarity with philosophy, especially ethics. (Which is appropriate, because alignment originally had little to do with ethics, IMO.) They've got more to do with a few specific authors' worlds' cosmic metaphysics.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't think any edition's alignment descriptions show a lot of familiarity with philosophy, especially ethics.

They don't, because the game designers aren't philosophers by any stretch, but an individual group interested in philosophy can alter alignments to kinda sorta fit ethical philosophy better. This article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-All-About-Alignment) on mapping real-world ethics onto alignment has some good suggestions along those lines.

[Golden Ladybug]

[Relatively Unrelated]


Luffy is clearly CG.

Well, I could see an argument for him not being Good. He's fiercely loyal to his friends, but he isn't altruistic or even particularly moral. He can be cruel to those who aren't a part of his Nakama, or even his immediate circle of friends. He is a pirate, by definition a criminal and despite their being some obviously bad eggs in the world government, they seem to be doing what they're doing for the overall good of the world, and often have sympathetic, kind and relatable characters doing their best to protect the world (Ship-Cutter T-Bone, Smoker, Garp, Coby). The show is a major example of Protagonist Centred Morality.

Also "I'm not a Hero, because Heroes have to share their meat"[/Relatively Unrelated]

Don't mind me :smallwink:

[Slipperychicken]

In a group which knows what monstrosity can be wrought from CN, the guys who would take it usually migrate to TN, act CE, and say the same nonsense as the CN guy:

"He's not evil, he's greedy."

"He's not evil, he's crazy."

"He's not evil, he's a jerk."

"He's not evil, he has multiple personalities."

"He's not evil, he's just having good-hearted fun stealing your personal belongings and running away."


It's all garbage. You're playing a team game, where unexpected and unwanted PvP can shatter sessions, campaigns, gaming groups, and even friendships. If you can't bring yourself to at least ask for the group's policy on PvP before playing such a character, you're probably That Guy.

[PlusSixPelican]

On Ayn Rand, her whole thing is about not only the rejection of altruism, but the active defiance of it, and the defense of the personal freedom to be selfish, so yeah, she's a Chaotic Evil philosopher, as far as alignment is concerned. The fact that I (or anyone else) disagree(s) with her is irrelevant to how alignment is defined.

Chaotic Neutral, by itself, isn't really the 'Chaotic Stupid' stuff, it's more about hedonism, cynicism (which is different from being an *******), or some kind of anarchism or libertarianism; or some wacky lovechild of any number of those.

Personally, I'm probably Chaotic Good. I care about other people, but laws, rules, and 'order' have a tendency to disenfranchise people arbitrarily based on notions of assumed inherent inferiority by virtue of assigned categories, rather than being compassionate and egalitarian like a proper society would be.

[TuggyNE]

"He's not evil, he's just having good-hearted fun stealing your personal belongings and running away."

Special mention here to Kender, who take it up to 11 by being allegedly Good. :smallyuk: (Yes yes I know the whole explanation for why their kleptomania is totally innocent, and I don't really care. :smalltongue:)

[CyberThread]

!!!!!!

Wow you folks responded

[Slipperychicken]

Special mention here to Kender, who take it up to 11 by being allegedly Good. :smallyuk: (Yes yes I know the whole explanation for why their kleptomania is totally innocent, and I don't really care. :smalltongue:)

To be fair, though, who takes Kender seriously? Their fluff is some of the most obnoxious mary-sue garbage I've ever read in D&D. It's as though the race description itself is part of an elaborate attempt to troll your game with Kender shenanigans.



Wow you folks responded

This is what happens when you post an alignment thread in giantitp :smallbiggrin:

[Mirakk]

http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

Here's a nice little read about the alignment. It'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about what really constitutes Chaotic Neutral. Most often it's not the alignment itself that's the problem- it's players who don't understand the alignment when they choose it.

[navar100]

On Ayn Rand, her whole thing is about not only the rejection of altruism, but the active defiance of it, and the defense of the personal freedom to be selfish, so yeah, she's a Chaotic Evil philosopher, as far as alignment is concerned. The fact that I (or anyone else) disagree(s) with her is irrelevant to how alignment is defined.
.

To be evil is willingness to do harm to others. Ayn Rand does not believe in doing harm to others. Objectivism is a Chaotic Neutral philosophy. Being selfish is not D&D evil. It's in someone's signature around here. Paraphrasing: Being selfish means looking out for number one. Being evil is looking out for number one while doing harm to number two. Objectivism supports pursuing your own interests. It rejects pursuing your own interests while harming others pursuing their interests. It calls such people "Looters".

Obligatory: No, I'm not an Objectivist.

[Sylthia]

I once played a CN Cleric. He was a tad batty. He worshiped himself as a deity. (You can worship a cause.) The chaotic part came from not like organized society since they were always trying to deny his godhood. He would also do harmless, but silly things like trying to preach about how great he was to any gathering he could find. He was a team player though, after all, he had to help his followers. (Only half the party acknowledged his godhood, but one can serve without pledging their faith he reasoned.)

[Raven777]

CN is about doing what feels right to you. It really is an ever shifting, spur of the moment thing. I could totally see my CN Sorcerer:

*Spend an afternoon with her Faerie Dragon familiar doing prestidigitation tricks for children at a local market place...

*Slowly make her way up the floors of a merchant guild compound with ties to the party's current enemy, setting fire to everything and killing every employee as she goes, raising the dead as skeletons.

*Arguing with rebels in a kingdom ruled by vampires that hell no, she would not just start charming vampiric guards and clerks with Command Undead to lure them to the rebel hideout just so they could be killed with impunity. They're sentient beings who rule thousands in a civilized manner, and starting to murder public servants indiscriminately because they're undead is no better than the current tyrants they seek to oust. If I help these rebels with anything, it will be against the actual rulers who are jerks, regardless of them being humans or vampires.

All in a day's work, she would have went from entertaining innocents (because I liked to see them smile), to slaughtering innocents (because they were my enemy), to defending theoritically evil innocents (because I had no personal reason to want their death and I have a soft spot for undead). But at the time, all these things would have felt like the right thing to do.

[Deathkeeper]

To be fair, though, who takes Kender seriously? Their fluff is some of the most obnoxious mary-sue garbage I've ever read in D&D. It's as though the race description itself is part of an elaborate attempt to troll your game with Kender shenanigans.

And yet they wrote one as a main character in the DragonLance books, and kept him alive for three trilogies. Why, I'll never understand.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

To be evil is willingness to do harm to others. . . Being selfish is not D&D evil. It's in someone's signature around here.

I've not been particularly keen on the notion that evil is based around a willingness to kill or harm, at least in D&D terms. While it's mentioned in a few alignment descriptions, just about every player character around would be evil, which is very clearly not the intent of the alignments. Willing to harm an aggressor to defend an innocent is almost unambiguously Good, in D&D, while plenty of inherently selfish characters who don't cause harm — at least not through direct violence — are considered evil. Carl Denham from King Kong is one of the Complete Scoundrel's examples of a chaotic evil character, for instance. Compare Denham with a figure like Plissken; the latter is far more willing to do harm, but his motivations are less wholly selfish than Denham's.

[hamishspence]

On Ayn Rand, her whole thing is about not only the rejection of altruism, but the active defiance of it, and the defense of the personal freedom to be selfish, so yeah, she's a Chaotic Evil philosopher, as far as alignment is concerned. The fact that I (or anyone else) disagree(s) with her is irrelevant to how alignment is defined.

The philosophy does come with "do not initiate force against others"- as well as heavy emphasis on "do not steal" "do not defraud" and so on.

So maybe closer to Neutral than Evil.

[Jopustopin]

Did someone call for Chaotic Neutral (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh1RkW1of6E)?

[Amnestic]

And yet they wrote one as a main character in the DragonLance books, and kept him alive for three trilogies. Why, I'll never understand.

Success is not necessarily correlated to competence.

[Hikarizu]

Success is not necessarily correlated to competence.
cough*cough*twilightsaga*cough*shadesofgrey*cough* cough
Now for the kenders. I've read the books long time ago(I should probably reread them) and I always liked Tasslehoff and his shenanigans. Now that I think about it a whole race of people like him running around is a terrifying thought.

[MukkTB]

Well the neutral part is pretty simple. Just gets along more or less covers it. Doesn't enjoy inflicting pain. Doesn't go out of their way to be a saint. The chaos manifests best as pragmatism or and a desire not to be impeded. A focused artist could easily be chaotic neutral. Art doesn't help or hinder in an immediate sense, and focusing on it while being annoyed at distractions seems chaotic enough to me. Maybe a scientist with some crazy idea like how the Earth revolves around the Sun. He didn't think it up becuase he wanted to help or hurt, but he certainly didn't stay with the party doctrine of how the Sun revolves around the Earth.

This leads me to believe that one way to roleplay a chaotic neutral character is to focus on some goal or project that isn't strongly associated with good or evil, and to pursue that project without regard to tradition.

[CIDE]

CN is about doing what feels right to you. It really is an ever shifting, spur of the moment thing. I could totally see my CN Sorcerer:

*Spend an afternoon with her Faerie Dragon familiar doing prestidigitation tricks for children at a local market place...

*Slowly make her way up the floors of a merchant guild compound with ties to the party's current enemy, setting fire to everything and killing every employee as she goes, raising the dead as skeletons.

*Arguing with rebels in a kingdom ruled by vampires that hell no, she would not just start charming vampiric guards and clerks with Command Undead to lure them to the rebel hideout just so they could be killed with impunity. They're sentient beings who rule thousands in a civilized manner, and starting to murder public servants indiscriminately because they're undead is no better than the current tyrants they seek to oust. If I help these rebels with anything, it will be against the actual rulers who are jerks, regardless of them being humans or vampires.

All in a day's work, she would have went from entertaining innocents (because I liked to see them smile), to slaughtering innocents (because they were my enemy), to defending theoritically evil innocents (because I had no personal reason to want their death and I have a soft spot for undead). But at the time, all these things would have felt like the right thing to do.

I love this.

[Water_Bear]

I think a big part of the reason CN is seen as problematic is because of the legacy of the old one-axis system where Chaos was the alignment dedicated to the destruction of civilization. It's the same reason 4e made Chaotic Evil into the "most Evil" alignment and Lawful Good the "best" one.

If the Law-Chaos axis is actually morally neutral, neither Good nor Evil, then Chaotic Neutral shouldn't be any more likely to kill orphans or save damsels than any other alignment. They should just be more flexible and resistant to authority, which honestly makes them seem more fitting as an adventurer than Lawful alignments who really ought to be working for a liege-lord rather than freebooting it. This is a problem which exists in the minds of the PCs rather than with the alignment itself.

(I've had some bad experiences with Players who used CN as an excuse to play Stupid Evil characters... in a game where Evil characters were allowed. :smallsigh:

The solution that worked for me was reminding the guy that he could actually play an Evil alignment if he wanted to. Believe it or not, this dude's Chaotic Evil character was one of the best roleplayed and most reasonable PCs in the game.)

[Venger]

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. CN is a "bad alignment" because CN is essentially defined to be a bad alignment. If you say that any Chaotic Neutral character who isn't the worst strawman of one isn't "actually" chaotic neutral, yeah, all chaotic neutral characters are terrible. Of course, one could just as easily make the same argument for any other alignment.

there is a name for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

[Piggy Knowles]

I'm in a campaign right now with a CN character that literally rolls a die before he makes most decisions so that he can make them randomly, and really play up the "chaos" aspect. He has had long arguments with me that essentially amount to, "Anything you bring up isn't really CN, because it's not random enough. True chaos is completely random."

As you can imagine, it's... sometimes frustrating.

I've seen CN characters well done, though. And I'm playing a CN character in the above-referenced campaign (although he almost leans toward TN). He is very much focused on survival of the fittest. He has his own personal code, which he follows as best he can, but believes that those who follow the codes of others are weak-willed at best.

[Venger]

I intended the comment to be descriptive, rather than normative, sorry if I caused confusion or offense. Regardless of my own moral opinions, D&D largely defines Good and Evil as the battle between extreme altruism and extreme selfishness (or at least, from the various descriptions, I would contend that that is the most coherent view of the alignments as written, whether or not that is how they ought to be defined) and Rand, proudly and admittedly, falls on the far extreme not only for selfishness, but against altruism. Again, I don't mean to say that this makes her philosophy bad, merely where it would fit within the alignments, as I read them. You're obviously welcome to disagree with how I interpret the alignments, but, again, I want to make it clear that I'm merely talking about how I understood them, not how I think they ought to be.


one handy way to deal with this is to, as you've done, capitalize Good and Evil when talking about alignment things, since the terms, like Law and Chaos, have some descriptive text in the game that makes them different from how they function outside of D&D.


The problem with those sorts is almost always solved when the DM switches to alignment tracking, ie, instead of telling someone "No, you wouldn't do that, that's not your alignment" saying, "ok, that's four points towards Evil."

cool, I don't know many priests who play this game. thanks for not being scared off by jack chick and tom hanks, skysaber, we all appreciate your openmindedness.

I agree with what you said about true neutrals being the "just following orders" mentality, it's something that's always bugged me about the printed TN fluff by wotco.

I do, however, disagree with a system of good/evil/law/chaos points being the way to avoid alignment problems. in my experience, it creates more problems than it solves. as mentioned earlier, players who are new to RPGs, being most familiar with morality engines in video games, can simply game the system by as someone else said earlier, "killing babies and then helping old ladies across the street" to maintain a zero balance.

a system of "xyz acts will get you alignment points" only reinforces this rather than making players act in a character's best interests. also of course there's the inherent subjectivity of such a system (as you can see with some of the handful of charts of alignment points, as in the fiendish codex II's charts for obeisance points)

[Arbane]

Anyway, back to the topic, my group has a Chaotic Neutral in it who seems to be hellbent (limbo-bent?) on living up to the alignment's bad reputation. He's constantly picking up new delusions he propounds to all and sundry with the fervor of an evangelist, he keeps offering to use NPCs (or at least their body-parts) in his 'experiments' (he's got levels in Alchemist, the Pathfinder 'mad scientist' class), he wanders off on his own and survives through a combination of freakishly good luck, GM's amusement, and actually good play, and the rest of the group has an agreement to keep him AWAY from anything that might lead to social interaction unless we WANT a fight.

Utterly aggravating. (And often funny at the same time OOC)

The player's a great guy (with an uncanny ability to read the GM's mind), it's just that he can't seem to make a character without using the DSM-IV as a checklist.


I enjoy running C/E characters as pragmatic and self centered guys who don't enjoy baby slaughter or other garbage. As a career adventurer most of the tim the behavior isn't any different than any other character. Slaughter things for the xp and loot. Its even convenient to do that under righteous guise on occasion.

"You know who's got 'feelings'? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with golf trophies, that's who. Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

[Haluesen]

Well, it looks like the OP got the right answer from a lot of people here on why it is seen as bad, but I have to say that most of this goes over my head. I think that is because I've played CN characters and dealt with them in my games and others', but have never seen them to be problematic, because I've never seen a CN character that anyone here is describing. Is it really that common?

Here is just another small example of a good CN character my friend played. She was very limited in what she cared about in the world, but defended and supported it with vigor. She was calm and controlled in serious times, but otherwise could be pretty loony. In particular she had a running gag where she would use a Pyrokineticist power to light my character on fire every time he did something stupid, which was frequent. But it was all great fun and she never pushed things to downright ridiculous levels.

On the other hand there was a LN character a different friend played in the same campaign. He was definitely LN because he was a soldier devoted to his government and his people, and to the king of another nation as long as the 2 didn't clash, was very noble and honorable, etc. But underneath that, he caused more havoc than any other player I'd ever been around. He threw insane tavern parties (city parties at high level and fame), pulled weird pranks on the unsuspecting populace, had the most ridiculous catch phrases for entering combat (he made a list and rolled on it for every few fights), and was just...pure unpredictability. He also messed around with my goofy character (he was the bard, and intentionally a goofball one), but they included things like kidnapping him in his sleep, putting him in a wagon, and pushing him down a hill into a forest. And similar others. He was more CN than the other person playing intentionally as CN. It's mind boggling. :smalleek:

Okay that went on long, storytime done.

[Suddo]

I'd be interested in seeing a Chaotic Neutral character done right but what i've seen so far gives me no confidence. I WANT to see a CN character done right. I really do. But if a Chaotic Neutral character was done right, they'd either be CG, CE, or TN. A CN character done right is probably some sort of nebulous in-between that really, at best, seems to be some prelude to a more grounded set of beliefs. Like a thief trying to figure out their way or something. At worst we get, as said before, characters such as Yolo McDowhatIwant the Third.

Sorry for leaving this thread for a day. Tyler Durden I still hold up as Chaotic Neutral. He doesn't care what happens he just want to tear down structure and let people choose. You can argue evil because of the destructive nature but I could argue he's merely bringing about the removal of law. He's very meticulous in his actions he doesn't randomly act he want to tear down law.

[Komatik]

I think a big part of the reason CN is seen as problematic is because of the legacy of the old one-axis system where Chaos was the alignment dedicated to the destruction of civilization. It's the same reason 4e made Chaotic Evil into the "most Evil" alignment and Lawful Good the "best" one.

Which is profoundly silly. Agricultural civilization is a self-propagating piece of social programming that's hellbent on controlling everything and basically devours functioning ecosystems and turns them into deserts and lots of hungry people (who have been made dependent on said civilization psychologically and often concretely).
Throughout the ages, it's usually been dependent on slavery to exist at all, and it's standard response to free people has been to enslave or to kill them, because the existence of a stateless, uncivilized space is a threat to the existence of said state. People very literally ran for the hills in ages past.

Smart men have concluded that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home" for a reason.

[Raven777]

Which is profoundly silly. Agricultural civilization is a self-propagating piece of social programming that's hellbent on controlling everything and basically devours functioning ecosystems and turns them into deserts and lots of hungry people (who have been made dependent on said civilization psychologically and often concretely).
Throughout the ages, it's usually been dependent on slavery to exist at all, and it's standard response to free people has been to enslave or to kill them, because the existence of a stateless, uncivilized space is a threat to the existence of said state. People very literally ran for the hills in ages past.

Smart men have concluded that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home" for a reason.

I think...

I think that I love you...

[Water_Bear]

Which is profoundly silly. Agricultural civilization is a self-propagating piece of social programming that's hellbent on controlling everything and basically devours functioning ecosystems and turns them into deserts and lots of hungry people (who have been made dependent on said civilization psychologically and often concretely).
Throughout the ages, it's usually been dependent on slavery to exist at all, and it's standard response to free people has been to enslave or to kill them, because the existence of a stateless, uncivilized space is a threat to the existence of said state. People very literally ran for the hills in ages past.

Smart men have concluded that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home" for a reason.

So how are you enjoying your internet? Your medicine? The laws keeping the neighbors from killing you for the fun of it? Every other thing which separates modern middle-class life from crouching in the woods scraping bugs out from under rocks to get at their protein?

If you want to enjoy the wilderness, feel free; more civilization for the rest of us.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Thinking the path down which civilization has traveled was and is not the ideal path does not equate to despising all that could be associated with it. One can see the advantages (and disadvantages) of technological advancement and still consider the dominant societal model under which that technology came about to be toxic.

[Bakeru]

I think...

I think that I love you...*Starts shipping*


If you want to enjoy the wilderness, feel free; more civilization for the rest of us.Well, his AV is a druid, what did you expect?

And no, my actual opinions have nothing to do with my jokes. I'm not touching that can of worms this discussion would inevitably turn into.

[Komatik]

So how are you enjoying your internet? Your medicine? The laws keeping the neighbors from killing you for the fun of it? Every other thing which separates modern middle-class life from crouching in the woods scraping bugs out from under rocks to get at their protein?

If you want to enjoy the wilderness, feel free; more civilization for the rest of us.


The advances in medicine made by certain people in Germany some years ago are irrelevant to the morality of how they accomplished those advances. Likewise, civilization has done a lot of fancy and/or good things, but that doesn't excuse slavery or what some people call ecocide.

A life without civilization does not mean a life without law or a life without order - it can mean that, but it may not. That depends on the people.

Middle-class lifestyle, well, good for the middle-class people. Less so to the third-world farmer displaced from his own land by a multinational corporation. Less so to those whose wells are run dry by water arrangements to supply the cities and especially industry. Less so to the people driven from their lands when the civilized farmers of old came and took it when they had desertified their own. Less so to those whose land is torn by war to acquire oil, which industrial civilization needs to live. And so on.

Hunter-gatherers in healthy ecosystems don't actually need to work all that long to acquire a week's sustenance - perhaps a day or so. A horticulturalist (a gardener), a few hours a day. Far less so than the average farmer throughout the history of mankind. Said farmers tended to experience famine and epidemic disease more often, as well.
Our current situation in the West is good for us, but largely a temporary anomaly that's pretty much destroying everything we need to live on the planet while people speak of solar panels to fix the cluster****. Yes, I'm enjoying that wholesale destruction very much.

EDIT: And the laws do jack to prevent my neighbors from murdering me. They are words on a piece of paper, enforced by a bunch of uniformed people who won't be here until long after the deed is done. The discouraging fear of punishment and other social pressures in no way demand civilization to exist.

[Komatik]

Thinking the path down which civilization has traveled was and is not the ideal path does not equate to despising all that could be associated with it. One can see the advantages (and disadvantages) of technological advancement and still consider the dominant societal model under which that technology came about to be toxic.

Furthermore, people have very concretely chosen to de-civilize themselves. That civilization is a one-directional "ascent" of hunter=>gardener=>farmer=>industrialist is the background story of civilization that it tells itself. It is part of the culture, part of civilization's DNA. The belief that their way is the only way worth living. We're civilized people. Of course that is the story we hear, or piece together from the background noise of our daily lives. We may have never even been told it, it's just a background assumption we've formed over time from bits and pieces. Telling the other part of the story is not productive.

It's not even solely about the way that technology came about - it's the technology itself. Lots of our manufacturing processes are one-way affairs that consume huge amounts of resources like drinkable water - fracking for example poisons insane amounts of clean water. I don't think I need to mention the tar sands in Alberta. Things that destroy good resources pretty much irrevocably, especially on a human timescale.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

And no, my actual opinions have nothing to do with my jokes. I'm not touching that can of worms this discussion would inevitably turn into.

Yeah, similarly, I want to clarify that I wasn't commenting on the opinions involved, but rather the methods of argumentation; I'm not on anybody's side but discourse's.

[Tvtyrant]

I think chaotic neutral is a perfectly acceptable alignment if played well. Reminds me of the main character from God of Highschool.

"What is our clan motto?!"
"Do what you want!!"

[BWR]

The philosophy does come with "do not initiate force against others"- as well as heavy emphasis on "do not steal" "do not defraud" and so on.

So maybe closer to Neutral than Evil.

Isn't that more like "do not steal what other rich people have, but it's ok to ruthlessly abuse those below you for economic gain"?

[Coidzor]

To be fair, though, who takes Kender seriously? Their fluff is some of the most obnoxious mary-sue garbage I've ever read in D&D. It's as though the race description itself is part of an elaborate attempt to troll your game with Kender shenanigans.

As though? No, no, it is.


*Slowly make her way up the floors of a merchant guild compound with ties to the party's current enemy, setting fire to everything and killing every employee as she goes, raising the dead as skeletons.

All in a day's work, she would have went from entertaining innocents (because I liked to see them smile), to slaughtering innocents (because they were my enemy), to defending theoritically evil innocents (because I had no personal reason to want their death and I have a soft spot for undead). But at the time, all these things would have felt like the right thing to do.

Either you or your character don't seem very clear on what an enemy is. Also, what innocent means. :smallconfused:

[nedz]

There's nothing bad about the Chaotic Neutral alignment. It's players that play Chaotic Stupid characters that give it a bad rep.
this

Incorrect. The reason CN gets all the flak is because when someone wants to make their character a complete jerk, who derails plots and blows up orphanages "for the lulz," they don't play LN. They don't go NG. Hell they don't even go CE. They go CN.
and this,
and several other posts also.

I used to play CN quite a lot, mainly illusionists.
"You canna change the laws of physics", ..., "Well, apparently, ... I can."
You see it depends upon which kind of laws it is which you are intent on breaking.

I have always put character before alignment and CN does describe some characters very well. I define how the character operates, and then I choose the alignment which best matches this, and then I stop worrying about it.

[Duboris]

I think we're all, for the majority, forgetting something rather important to this quaint little debate. The people behind the characters, themselves. If a character is innately disruptive, it's because the player wants them to be disruptive, and frequently so.

I, myself, am not one of these people. My most preferred alignment is that of Neutral evil and Lawful evil. Now, this brings up a question of when I play them. Always. "But Duboris, why do you only play Lawful evil and evil? Isn't that highly disruptive?" No, no it's not. It would be if I was actively seeking to destroy the fun of those around me, however, I'm not.

Any alignment can actively disrupt any game. It just so happens that CN is for some of the idiots that like to be free. Paladins, the lawful good paragons of all that is good could easily, and most often, do, in the wrong hands.

Chaotic neutral can be played right. Drug addicted Alchemists, the Creeper, Philosophers of good vs evil, a man that was sent to prison for the wrong reasons and will prove anything that he didn't do what they say, a man who watches, a mercenary who'd trying to feed his family that does things without involving his conscious.

Now there's a character. A mercenary that doesn't bring his thoughts into his work. He has his reasons to seek money, but he doesn't even so much as think of what his employers grand scheme is. Punch-clock villain, Punch-clock good guy, that sort of thing.

Characters who remain solidly chaotic neutral don't experience much character growth, and if they do, they grow towards selfishness, which is a characteristic of chaotic neutral. There should be a circle in the top left corner of the alignment square that says "For everyone" and in the bottom right, "For myself."

Chaotic evils are the most selfish, ruling by power, and require the need of being kept in check often should they ever grace an adventuring party. They are selfish, ruthless, but, at their core, fearful of those of a higher power. If a chaotic evil ever makes it into an adventure party, and, for any reason, he is stronger than anyone, the campaign may as well be over already. Subjugation is in their nature.

Long story short, I believe that CN isn't all it's cracked up to be on the insane side of the board, and it's not just for mere lunatics. For me chaotic neutral are the guys who are the chew toys of fate. The guys who get thrown into their situation from every day society and don't know how to handle it. The guy who needs money, but doesn't care how he gets it for his village, or, rather, anyone who gets thrown into having to be an adventurer of any sort.

[Scow2]

I think we're all, for the majority, forgetting something rather important to this quaint little debate. The people behind the characters, themselves. If a character is innately disruptive, it's because the player wants them to be disruptive, and frequently so.

I, myself, am not one of these people. My most preferred alignment is that of Neutral evil and Lawful evil. Now, this brings up a question of when I play them. Always. "But Duboris, why do you only play Lawful evil and evil? Isn't that highly disruptive?" No, no it's not. It would be if I was actively seeking to destroy the fun of those around me, however, I'm not.

Any alignment can actively disrupt any game. It just so happens that CN is for some of the idiots that like to be free. Paladins, the lawful good paragons of all that is good could easily, and most often, do, in the wrong hands.

Chaotic neutral can be played right. Drug addicted Alchemists, the Creeper, Philosophers of good vs evil, a man that was sent to prison for the wrong reasons and will prove anything that he didn't do what they say, a man who watches, a mercenary who'd trying to feed his family that does things without involving his conscious.

Now there's a character. A mercenary that doesn't bring his thoughts into his work. He has his reasons to seek money, but he doesn't even so much as think of what his employers grand scheme is. Punch-clock villain, Punch-clock good guy, that sort of thing.

Characters who remain solidly chaotic neutral don't experience much character growth, and if they do, they grow towards selfishness, which is a characteristic of chaotic neutral. There should be a circle in the top left corner of the alignment square that says "For everyone" and in the bottom right, "For myself."

Chaotic evils are the most selfish, ruling by power, and require the need of being kept in check often should they ever grace an adventuring party. They are selfish, ruthless, but, at their core, fearful of those of a higher power. If a chaotic evil ever makes it into an adventure party, and, for any reason, he is stronger than anyone, the campaign may as well be over already. Subjugation is in their nature.

Long story short, I believe that CN isn't all it's cracked up to be on the insane side of the board, and it's not just for mere lunatics. For me chaotic neutral are the guys who are the chew toys of fate. The guys who get thrown into their situation from every day society and don't know how to handle it. The guy who needs money, but doesn't care how he gets it for his village, or, rather, anyone who gets thrown into having to be an adventurer of any sort. I disagree. That last paragraph is more Neutral than Chaotic Neutral, and the Mercenary you mentioned (Putting the job before personal thoughts and feelings) sounds more Lawful than Chaotic. Chaotic characters are almost all about their thoughts and feelings, and prone to working on emotion and intuition.

Also, saying chaotic characters need to "Grow out" of their alignment or be flat characters is a great disservice. Also - they tend not to be the chewtoys of fate as much as those who defy what's commonly-accepted to be fate... often successfully. They have the greatest potential to be movers and shakers.

A lot of the antics of a True Chaotic character can be difficult to distinguish from Chaotic Stupid - the difference being that True Chaotic characters have either put thought into their actions, or are acting on a spur-of-the-moment whim prompted by the situation - Seizing a sudden opportunity that presents itself or acting on a suddenly surfaced thought they agree with, not "I wiz on the king!" (Unless the character is deliberately showing his disgust and disdain for the ruler in the most offensive way possible. Chaotic characters CAN flagrantly defy acceptable social behaviors in such a dramatic manner - of course, they don't get off scot-free from it. Law likes to smite Chaos as much as Good likes to Smite Evil.)

However, there are no hard-and-fast rules or guidelines for chaotic characters - Rules and guidelines are for those on the Lawful end of the spectrum.

[Sylthia]

We're starting to skate dangerously close to a political debate here.

[navar100]

Isn't that more like "do not steal what other rich people have, but it's ok to ruthlessly abuse those below you for economic gain"?

No, not at all. Harming no one means just that. Why is that so hard to understand? Objectivism does instruct to earn your keep, i.e. don't be a Moocher, and you don't take stuff from other people, i.e. don't be a Looter.

[The Grue]

Example of a well-written Chaotic Neutral (and safely fictional) character:

Kreia.

KotOR2 spoilers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1aDMnh1ksE)

She manipulates the Exile, the Republic, the titular Sith Lords and the remnants of the Jedi against one another to further her own agenda. She distorts the truth, heck she flat-out lies not once but twice in the very first conversation the Exile has with her. Try playing the Sith Lords Drinking Game next time you replay KotOR2; every time Kreia says something that isn't true, take a drink. You'll pass out before you leave Telos.

She was once a Jedi, then a Sith, but now is neither. She rejects the dichotomy of Dark Side versus Light Side, and holds that to truly understand the Force one needs contrast rather than adherence to a single idea.

She is neither good, nor evil. She rejects the static teachings of both schools of Force Users, and rebels against what she perceives as the deterministic nature of the Force. Ultimately she desires to free the galaxy from its manipulation. If that's not Chaotic Neutral I don't know what is.

[The Viscount]

I agree strongly with what has been said by many, it is not chaotic neutral itself that is the problem, it is type of play that often accompanies a CN alignment. It is by no means the only disruptive alignment, as said before any alignment can be disruptive, but it is frequently problematic.
Part of the problem that rises with CN in my opinion is the lack of clarity about the Law/Chaos axis. Lawful and Chaotic are used when describing alignments as refinements on good and evil. Devils and demons are lawful and chaotic, respectively, but we don't see much about that. What matters is that they're evil. Similarly, we don't see the Eladrin and Archons squabbling. We cannot look to the iconic neutral outsiders for guidance, as they don't exactly receive much of a description, nor do yugoloths for that matter. The formians are dedicated to building and expanding, but their heavy reliance on slave labor sounds rather evil. The Slaadi are chaotic, but that's pretty much it. We know nothing of the slaadi motivations, if they even have any. The Rilmani have more characterization. There are categories of feats and entire books dedicated to good and evil. While some feats are classes may require lawful or chaotic, it's not quite the same level of emphasis. Lawful neutral characters are described with slavish dedication to lawfulness, as there is no good or evil to focus on. Chaotic characters don't necessarily hate laws, as lawful characters don't have to support them. They like freedom, but that's not exactly a hugely descriptive thing. They cannot care about other people's freedom, as to want to increase or decrease it would make them good or evil, so they don't really have a focus other than their freedom. As a consequence, we have characters who say "I do what I want" because there's no other way to reflect their alignment.

[Joe the Rat]

Yes, I think you've got it. All of you.

Yes, even the guy working on his philosophical treatise on the inadequacies of social contract theory.

Oh, and Ayn Rand is Batman. Look at the alignment coverage - it fits.


So, Did I make you chuckle a little? That's Chaotic Neutral the right way.
Did I disrupt the discussion? That's Chaotic Neutral the wrong way.
Was that not Chaotic Neutral? Then perhaps it's not the alignment that's the issue, but the players.

Playing Chaotic, Playing Evil, Playing Kender, Playing Drow... Unless screwing with the other player's characters is part of your normal party dynamic, playing these to be disruptive is straight up being a donkey's scrotum. You want to be manic or irredeemable or crazier than Gary Busey on monkey cleaning day, you damn well better make it work for the other players. I've said this before - playing wacky and gonzo is not a right, it's a responsibility. You are an adherent of chaos, or perhaps simply unfettered. You could just walk away once your needs are met... or you can choose to stay. Because Choice - Options - Freedom - That's what it's about. Not taking a leak in the collective cornflakes of the game.

I will say one thing - As much as we hate the Chaotic Stupid, at least they are honest about it. As soon as you see "Cartoon Network" on That Guy's sheet, you know that player's going to be a schmuck. No, it's those sneaky Lawful Good ones you've got to watch out for. "Look at me, I'm a jerk because my moral code says you all suck. I'm the Shiny Hero, and this story is about me. Memememe." Livestock Nether-regions occur in any alignment.

[MOLOKH]

For the most perfect representation of a Chaotic Neutral character ever, I'd suggest people look into the story, motivations and attitude of the Prince from Prince of Persia (the reboot).

[The Giant]

Wow. Did you all really think this was a good topic of conversation? Really?

I see real-world politics all over the place, and the very topic is a good example of the old "Morally Justified" thread, i.e. "Why do people think Chaotic Neutral isn't morally justified?" Throw in some real-world religious and philosophical content, and this thread is ready to be triple-locked.

And expect someone to come through and scrub/warn/infract some of these posts, too.