Alignment Issues

[RingofThorns]

I have been reading through the site and I have been slightly surprised by something I have seen. Why is it that not only DMs but many players as well seem to hate/or get very annoyed at players using Chaotic Neutral as there alignment?

[SPoilaaja]

Chaotic neutral was the alignment for crazy people in previous version of D&D. Also many players tend to play "lul random" characters and decide to train wreck scenes and not comply with the party for the sake of "being chaotic neutral". Also in many non evil campaigns, chaotic neutral is just another name for chaotic evil.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Because the alignment system doesn't make any sense and every alignment ever is going to have at minimum an entire troupe bitching about it.

No, really, it should never have been implemented. Homebrew out while you can, before the arbitrary insertions of you/everyone don't play [insert alignment here] right and heated discussions ensue.

[Omegas]

Because the alignment system doesn't make any sense and every alignment ever is going to have at minimum an entire troupe bitching about it.

No, really, it should never have been implemented. Homebrew out while you can, before the arbitrary insertions of you/everyone don't play [insert alignment here] right and heated discussions ensue.

I disagree. It is true there are gray lines but neutral does not always = chaotic generic. The alignments have been a useful tool to many players.

One; if someone is stealing and exploiting innocent NPCs then there are a great many classes they can not train in.

Two; it is not always clear who the BBEG is. Having the ability to discern a targets alignment gives you a better sense of their intent. Not all DMs play it that "Hey the Enemy in front of you is the bad guy!" Some times you have to figure it out and having more tools helps.

three; there are a whole host of spells and abilities that now discriminate against a character's past choices in life. You can have a holy sword and it will not overly damage good people.

The only time Alignment fails to work is when DMs fail to use them for their intended perpose.

[Drachasor]

A lot of people have encountered players who use Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to play insane murder hobos who are really Chaotic Evil. Kill an innocent because they annoyed you? That's ok, Chaotic Neutral! Take the Reward for the quest and then burn down the town? It's ok, Chaotic Neutral! Start a fight in a bar and kill everyone there? Well, duh, Chaotic Neutral!

And that's not just Chaotic Evil, but it is the most disruptive kind of Chaotic Evil that can easily wreck a campaign session as the other players have to figure out how to keep things going because they are forced to adventure with someone their characters would leave to rot. And if you try to talk to the player, they get upset that you are telling them how to (role)play.

Despite how it sounds, I haven't had to deal with this personally. I've just seen a lot of people complain about this kind of thing.

[Prehysterical]

Chaotic neutral was the alignment for crazy people in previous version of D&D. Also many players tend to play "lul random" characters and decide to train wreck scenes and not comply with the party for the sake of "being chaotic neutral". Also in many non evil campaigns, chaotic neutral is just another name for chaotic evil.

This. I've seen people use the Chaotic Neutral alignment get around DMs that don't allow Chaotic Evil characters in the party. I've always thought about CN as "all about ME. I don't care if other people get hurt and I don't care what the law says, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make random people miserable."

Many people who play CN do it just as an excuse to mess with and de-rail the plot. Not everyone who plays a CN character is like this, but there are many people who play CN to "pull a Henderson".

[Drachasor]

This. I've seen people use the Chaotic Neutral alignment get around DMs that don't allow Chaotic Evil characters in the party. I've always thought about CN as "all about ME. I don't care if other people get hurt and I don't care what the law says, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make random people miserable."

Many people who play CN do it just as an excuse to mess with and de-rail the plot. Not everyone who plays a CN character is like this, but there are many people who play CN to "pull a Henderson".

CNs should still care about their friends and they have compunctions against harming innocents. A prankster in a school might well be CN.

[Prehysterical]

CNs should still care about their friends and they have compunctions against harming innocents. A prankster in a school might well be CN.

They care about their friends because they are their friends. I already covered the part about harming innocents intentionally.

[HaikenEdge]

I think people in general don't really understand how chaos works; most people try to play some level of The Joker when they play chaos, particularly when playing CE or CN, when, in reality, free spirits are considered Chaotic in D&D terms.

That's to say, people tend to take chaos too far, and it ends up being detrimental to the campaign. When players can play subtle, I'm-not-ruled-by-convention-but-I'm-also-not-a-maniac chaotic neutral, it's actually rather interesting, but most people just don't get how to play that when they play chaotic characters.

[Red Fel]

I think that a lot of the hate directed at CN, or frankly at any alignment, comes from one of two primary places:

1. The alignment system generally. The alignment system has some serious flaws. If it didn't, we probably would have nearly as many "horse, mule, horse, mule" threads about alignment. Some people just dislike how the system itself breaks down alignments; therefore, for example, someone dislikes CN not because of what CN is, but because of what the system says CN is.

2. Anecdotal experience. For example, I'd say many, probably most, of the people on this forum have encountered a Paladin played as "Lawful Jerkwad" instead of Lawful Good. It's not hatred of the alignment itself, but hatred of how that alignment has been played in a poster's experience. Chaotic Neutral, as others have mentioned, is the same way - many inexperienced players may play CN as an opportunity to be "Chaotic Backstabbing." Many posters here expect to see CN coupled with "it's what my character would do" excuses for jerkish behavior. Again, it's not that CN is a bad alignment, but that many have seen it played badly; this is also why some DMs will simply ban it outright, rather than risk dealing with it.

Personally, I like CN the alignment. I think it can represent something really nuanced and impressive, when played well. The problem is finding a player who plays it well; absent that, it can be generic at best, or disruptive at worst.

[Drachasor]

They care about their friends because they are their friends. I already covered the part about harming innocents intentionally.

Imho, it's a bit stronger than you said. It's generally against their character to harm innocents. CNs will avoid harming innocents if possible...but they aren't willing to make personal sacrifices to do so.

Not harming innocents intentionally can easily be construed as it is ok to have reckless disregard for innocents -- you didn't mean to kill a half-dozen in that market, but you really didn't care enough to bother paying attention. Oh well! A CN would actually be bothered if they killed innocents like that,* but often a player CN isn't.

*Though they might get annoyed with someone coming down on them for it and "telling them what to do".

[Sian]

yes ... the alignment in itself is probably one of the more interesting ones ...

But together with Lawful Good (usually only Lawful Stupid Paladins through) its the one most often blatantly misplayed into something thats very hard to handle both as co-player or DM

[RingofThorns]

these are all very good points, I have always viewed CN to be played more 'me and mine' kind of way. One example I was playing an assassin and set up the fall of a kingdom to not only save a friend of mine but to get payback on the king that had sentenced him to death. The king in question that was overthrown had been our ally up to this point, however we had a bard in our party that had a really really..reeeeaalllyyyy high Charisma score. So yeah he seduced the princess..and the queen..thank you DM for allowing that to happen. After that happened we tried to reason with the rather pissed off king about simply banishing our friend of perhaps a large number of lashings. The King said no..soo yeah he had to go.

[Anxe]

The campaign I'm playing in has a CN party. We're fighting an evil dude, but we're not doing it in the most respectful way. Our MO is to sail into a local town and do whatever we need to while looking for the bad guys accomplices. Basically, the ends justify the means for our party.

[albeaver89]

I think if you want to model what CN should be, look no further than Captain Jack Sparrow.

Edit: If anyone watches(ed) Avatar (the TV show not the movie, don't watch the movie) a CN would be Mai.

[Omegas]

Its hard to believe you guys never used the alignment meter.

Click on the spoiler!

Alignment Meter

Often it is difficult to justify an alignment shift and it usually upsets the player. By offering them a method to track their alignment progress, you can often defuse any dispute or drama. A common concept is that a 100 x 100 point grid can be placed over the standard 9 alignment map. Good and lawful have high scores while evil and chaos have very low scores. A graph takes up to much room so tracking alignment can be made significantly easier by merely tracking two numbers.

Whenever the PC is given a moral choice (like accepting a quest), then how they react should adjust their alignment score. Alignment points should only be adjusted when the PC performs an “act” that can be defined as good, evil, chaotic, or lawful. Agreeing to do something is not the same as doing it. Alignment represents a characters wilful deeds more then their moral beliefs or intentions. However, a character should not be penalize for unintentional accidents, actions forced upon them, or actions performed based on the deception of a NPC. The direction that shifts the most takes precedence; meaning an act that opposes their alignment is more significant. Once per in game day a PC’s alignment can shift as follows.

_____ Law vs Chaos & _____ Good vs Evil
+/–1pt Completing actions that follow a character’s alignment.
+/–2pt Avoiding actions that follow a character’s alignment.
+/–3pt Completing actions that oppose a character’s alignment.
Starting (25) (50) (75)
0-32 Evil & Chaos / 33-66 Neutral / 67-100 Good & Law

Rules to determine the direction of an alignment adjustment.

1) When a PC is given the opportunity to make a moral choice, each option needs to be broken into one of the three categories based on the PC’s current alignment. Keep in mind that allowing or looking away from an act is a moral choice.
— Normally players are offered a choice that either follows or opposes their alignment. In this case, follow the table listed below the meter. Lawful & good choices result in positive changes whereas chaos & evil are negative.
— When a player is given two choices that can be considered within the same alignment, then one choice should be defined as the lesser choice. If these choices oppose the PCs alignment then the lesser choice can be considered forced and thus it should not effect their alignment. If these choices are within the PCs alignment, consider the lesser choice as avoiding their alignment and adjust the score (in the opposite direction of their current alignment).

2) When a PC is within the neutral alignments, they can not be deemed avoiding or opposing their alignment. This is limited to the alignment axis that designates the character as neutral. Example; A lawful neutral character can still be considered “avoiding or opposing their alignment” by performing a chaotic act or making the lesser of two lawful choices, but Good and Evil choice only adjust their alignment by one point.

3) When a PC makes a choice that can effect two different alignments, then they may choose which alignment they are acting on. Example; When they have killed a helpless peasant by order of the king; was it do to Loyalty or Disregard of life? Only the player can define their PCs motives, and each act should only affect one alignment at a time. Good and Evil should not trump Law or Chaos, all alignments are fundamentally equal.


Optional Enforcement = Any score equal to 1 or 100 is considered being on the wall. Any character within 5 points of a wall is an extremist. Given the flexibility this meter offers the player, DM’s are urged to enforce = Extremists take – 4 to their saves to resist opposing alignment spells and double the harmful effects of alignment based magic. This should be limited to the opposing alignment(s) that have designated them as an extremist.


Missions & Campaigns = Alignment adjustments should also be done at the conclusion of each mission and campaign. Characters should not be penalized for failing a mission/campaign unless the failure was intentional. Giving up on a mission is chaotic and choosing to allow innocence creatures to suffer or die when it can be stopped is evil. Unlike normal alignment shifts, mission and campaign adjustments can affect both axises of the alignment chart at the same time. The DM may consider an outcome both lawful good, chaotic good, lawful evil, or chaotic evil. When this occurs evaluate each alignment shift independently.

If the campaign is to save a noble, then spending a session finding out where they were taken can be considered a side mission. The missions outcome should be evaluated and each character should receive double the effects of a normal alignment shift, campaign conclusions should triple the effects.

Evaluating the mission/campaign outcome can be easier, but keep in mind each character’s conduct is their own. The decisions of the party and their successes do not always fully reflect each character. If a majority of the party supports an outcome that one character was reserved or resistance to because it might conflict with their alignment, then that character was following their alignment to the best of their circumstances. Any penalty subjected to character that strongly opposed a conflicting outcome should be reduced to exclude the mission/campaign multiplier. A character may not agree with the majority, but it is their choice to follow the group, and thus they are in part responsible for opposing outcomes.

[Subtype] Creature Exceptions = A subtype is the word in brackets like this = Medium outsider (Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful). Most creatures with a subtype have an alignment that matches. The difference is their ability to choose their actions. Creatures with a subtype are constantly compelled to act within their subtype. When players chose to play creatures with a subtype and continually opposes the subtype, then the DM may want to consider enforcing a will save (DC = the difference between the PC’s current score and the starting alignment score of the sub type).

Any harmful or negative action against an [Evil] subtype creature is a good act regardless of the nature of that act, this however is not true of evil aligned enemies. Example = Killing a baby Bugbear is an evil act considered the unnecessary murder of a innocent member of a savage race, like when Settlers killed American Indian or an Australian aborigine. Killing a baby Devil is a good act considered smiting [Evil].

Use of Subtype Magic = The use of alignment base magic with [subtype] can also shift an alignment, slightly. Example = Cloak of Chaos, Abjuration [Chaotic]. Casting subtype spells can shift an alignment by one point in excess of the daily limit. The use of positive energy is normally a good act while the use of negative energy is normally an evil act, with the exception of using it against the inappropriate subtype creature. Summon or Calling a creature with a subtype is consider a [subtype] spell.

Note the following effects when using [Subtype] spells on [Subtype] creatures.


[Good] spell cast on a [Good] creature or an evil aligned creature are Good acts.
[Good] spell cast on an [Evil] creature are normally Evil acts.
The exception to this is if the [good] spell had a negative effect on the [evil] creature.
[Evil] spell cast on a [Good] creature or an evil aligned creature are Evil acts.
[Evil] spell cast on an [Evil] creature are normally Good acts.
The exception to this is if the [evil] spell had a positive effect on the [evil] creature.
[Lawful] verses [Chaos] is a different morality entirely.
[Lawful] spells are lawful acts regardless of who they are used on.
[Chaotic] spells are chaotic acts regardless of who they are used on.


:mitd:

[albeaver89]

Also my favorite CE character is Bender Bending Rodriguez from Futurama.

[Omegas]

Also my favorite CE character is Bender Bending Rodriguez from Futurama.

I would say he is more CN then CE as he still valued the lives of his friends and fought to get them back when they needed help.

Often people view lawlessness as evil when it real is more chaotic

[HaikenEdge]

The campaign I'm playing in has a CN party. We're fighting an evil dude, but we're not doing it in the most respectful way. Our MO is to sail into a local town and do whatever we need to while looking for the bad guys accomplices. Basically, the ends justify the means for our party.

This reads like neutral evil and not chaotic neutral to me; "whatever it takes, no matter the cost" is basically a heroic neutral evil, as opposed to a chaotic neutral, since you're not above hurting/sacrificing innocents to get what you need.

[albeaver89]

I would say he is more CN then CE as he still valued the lives of his friends and fought to get them back when they needed help.

CE can value the lives of their friends...He steals indiscriminately, rips off things like 'suicide booths', uses his friends for his own ends, and he is super self-absorbed.

If I were to discribe CE to someone who has never played before I's point them at Bender...This is also to keep them away from 'The Joker' I'm-going-to-kill-everyone-for-****s-and-giggles CE.

[albeaver89]

Often people view lawlessness as evil when it real is more chaotic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bender_(Futurama)#Personality
"Bender often exhibits sociopathic behavior, is a pathological liar and rarely shows any empathy (his most frequent catchphrase to any bothersome person is: "Bite my shiny metal ass!"). He has a mostly voluntary morality and constantly steals, ranging from the petty theft of wallets to crimes such as kidnapping Jay Leno's head and stealing Fry's blood. He also once stole Amy's earrings while giving her a hug. It was shown in "Roswell That Ends Well" that even in a disassembled state, his individual limbs carry on attempting to steal anything in proximity; the hand on his dismembered arm steals a wallet out of a scientist's pocket before becoming inactive again."

"Bender is a classic narcissist. He considers himself flawless, a "towering inferno of physical perfection",[3] and refers to himself in both the first and third person. In "The Farnsworth Parabox" Bender seemingly falls in love with an alternate gold-plated version of himself, stating that he has finally found someone "as great as me". Even his personal email address, [email protected],[7] reflects his self-absorbed nature."

[Omegas]

CE can value the lives of their friends...He steals indiscriminately, rips off things like 'suicide booths', uses his friends for his own ends, and he is super self-absorbed.

If I were to discribe CE to someone who has never played before I's point them at Bender...This is also to keep them away from 'The Joker' I'm-going-to-kill-everyone-for-****s-and-giggles CE.

True but I can not recall if he has actually killed anyone for his own gain. That is anyone who did not casually come back. That a good point. Cartoons make bad examples because there is no partical cost to their actions. in the cartoon univers he could kill Kenny (so to Speak) every episode and it would not be an evil act as the victim returned to life unharmed everytime. I mean was the Whily Coyote CE for trying to eat the Road Runner or was he simply Neutral because it necessary for him to survive? The fact is that he is a cartoon and could starve forever so there is no real justification in designating him under an alignment.

Also Alignment is the sum of someones actions not their feeling or beliefs.

[Sith_Happens]

I think if you want to model what CN should be, look no further than Captain Jack Sparrow.

I've also seen Luffy from One Piece cited as a textbook CN at least once, though I'm not familiar enough with the series to verify the claim.

[Anxe]

This reads like neutral evil and not chaotic neutral to me; "whatever it takes, no matter the cost" is basically a heroic neutral evil, as opposed to a chaotic neutral, since you're not above hurting/sacrificing innocents to get what you need.

We've actually been having in character discussions on throttling back on the evil stuff lately. One of the current issues we've been having is whether we should enslave our enemies, kill them, or exile them. Executing them has been thrown out by nearly everyone, but I'm unsure if that's the right choice. If we were the legitimate authority in a region, wouldn't we have the right to execute them? It's confusing. Part of why the alignment system is so fuzzy.

[albeaver89]

Also Alignment is the sum of someones actions not their feeling or beliefs.

I usually go with a mix of thoughts and actions.

[albeaver89]

I've also seen Luffy from One Piece cited as a textbook CN at least once, though I'm not familiar enough with the series to verify the claim.

Deadpool is a good example for CN, but he may be more CE?

[HaikenEdge]

We've actually been having in character discussions on throttling back on the evil stuff lately. One of the current issues we've been having is whether we should enslave our enemies, kill them, or exile them. Executing them has been thrown out by nearly everyone, but I'm unsure if that's the right choice. If we were the legitimate authority in a region, wouldn't we have the right to execute them? It's confusing. Part of why the alignment system is so fuzzy.

There are no right answers; depending on what your enemies did to become your enemies, doing anything can be good, neutral or evil, because, according to the alignment system, killing evil creatures is itself a good act (even if you murder them after you lull them to sleep with drugs in their wine).

Personally, I don't see what the problem is, doing evil stuff; if that's your characters, then that's how they are. Players making the decision OOC to be less evil violates how a character would normally behave, ie, they would have to be making a meta-game decision they wouldn't actually be aware of existing.

[Sith_Happens]

Deadpool is a good example for CN, but he may be more CE?

He's also more on the "the 'C' stands for 'crazy'" side of things, which is what it's much safer to try and avoid in play.


Players making the decision OOC to be less evil violates how a character would normally behave, ie, they would have to be making a meta-game decision they wouldn't actually be aware of existing.

Not necessarily. In-character I imagine the conversation would go something like "Was anyone else as uncomfortable doing [X] as I was? Maybe we should stop doing that."

[HaikenEdge]

Not necessarily. In-character I imagine the conversation would go something like "Was anyone else as uncomfortable doing [X] as I was? Maybe we should stop doing that."

Except the poster said that this was the groups MO for a while, so it would have come up earlier, rather than a sudden desire to dial it back.

[Rosstin]

Alignments are broken and illogical; people use Chaotic Neutral to be cray-cray. Don't use alignments.

[Tragak]

Alignments are broken and illogical [Personal Opinion]; people use Chaotic Neutral to be cray-cray [Anecdotal "Evidence"]. Don't use alignments[Personal Preference]. If I may:

There are people who use the alignment system in one way, and when done that way it works really well for them.

There are other people who use the alignment system in a different way, and when done that way it doesn't work as well for them.

[Anxe]

It wasn't sudden. One of the characters has been voicing concerns for awhile. Then we recently had a battle where the enemies were unknowing accomplices with the Big Bad (A lich. Definitely worth opposing him). We killed three of the unknowing accomplices in the battle and its something we'd like to avoid in the future. We're supposed to be protecting them, even if they're tricked.

Other issues include enslavement of humans. We've done it in the past; but, again, there were objections. We're still okay with enslavement of lesser races (ones not represented in the party). This is the one we're talking out in the party. Execution seems too harsh for the lesser mooks that join the Big Bad. Is enslavement a better punishment? Is it even a punishment if they don't have lives to return to after we've removed the henchman of the Big Bad that was controlling them? What else is a level 1 guy gonna do? We could let them go, but they might just join the Big Bad again, which is another thing we want to avoid.

It's just as complicated for the henchmen that we capture. Do we maroon them on an island? Just let them go in the world somewhere else? Execute them? Enslave them? Enslavement isn't really an option in their case as they'd almost certainly kill whomever we sold them to. Execution seems harsh as well. We captured them or they surrendered. It feels like we'd be killing a POW instead of executing a criminal. Maiming them is another idea that's been thrown out, but that seemed way too gory.

Getting back to the CN discussion. Our characters have little respect for the local authorities in our campaign. That makes us chaotic as far as I'm concerned. We do questionable things to oppose a great evil. We also do good things (slay local monsters, fund local enterprises, throw festivals, etc.). We decided it was a wash that landed us at CN.

[Tragak]

Getting back to the CN discussion. Our characters have little respect for the local authorities in our campaign. That makes us chaotic as far as I'm concerned. We do questionable things to oppose a great evil. We also do good things (slay local monsters, fund local enterprises, throw festivals, etc.). We decided it was a wash that landed us at CN. Sounds reasonable.

Personally, I like to look at Law-Chaos in terms of whether or not somebody cares about the strong and Good-Evil in terms of whether or not somebody cares about the weak.

[NichG]

In general, it shouldn't be a problem, but there are specific cases where its chosen to use as a shield to basically justify being a jerk OOC. Basically, its a common source of the old 'but its what my character would do!' excuse. When abused like this, CN is usually used to justify stealing from other PCs, nonsensical derailment of events (I moon the king! Now the game is about preventing me from being executed rather than what was happening before!), etc.

LG has a lot of that too, but it tends to be of a different nature - more of the 'you will all do what I say because I am lawful and I won't tolerate you not being lawful around me' type of thing. It tends to happen more with LG than LN because LG also has the 'I can't let you guys do immoral things' aspect.

That said, these are all examples of alignment abuses, so its not like these are something you should expect whenever a player brings in a character of this or that alignment. But certainly there have been DMs who have had to deal with one player doing the same gimmick over and over, so for them it's going to seem disproportionate.

Outside of abuses, there's a minor issue with CN, which is that its hard to use the character's alignment to motivate them (and it may indicate in general that the character is 'not going to care about things', which may make it hard to actually have the campaign go forward at all). That's something that could happen without the player abusing the alignment at all, but could still be a problem. The real issue is seeing alignments as the de-facto hook to use to pull PCs along, rather than using other aspects of the character instead (but also, many players make the mistake of playing a character who is just their alignment and has very little personality outside of it).

[Sian]

on a bit of an tangent, but what i feel could be very interesting, would be to get into a campaign where the primary fight is between lawful and chaotic elements, with LE-LN-LG in an uneasy alliance against CE-CN-CG (with just an uneasy alliance) instead of the stereotypical Good vs Evil

[Omegas]

I usually go with a mix of thoughts and actions.

In real life I would agree, but if you read in dept, many of the religious classes view the alignments as the evident stains left on our soul as a result of our actions. To me that says sum of our deeds not our desires.

The truth is that there is a parody between character nature and demeanor that the current alignment system does not account for. Though when you think of it what would defining a characters nature really accomplish? An Evil characters may be the result of a lack of choices in their life but there is nothing stating they can not wish or long to be good. Again what does that mean? Does it lessen their crimes or reduce the harm they have caused? It should not, so defining that they are good hearten really does not change anything.

In D&D the actions of A character are the only thing that matter. That is why you can have the jerkwade paladin or the angel that tells the fat dwarf jokes. These ideologies are not necessary but they are also not wrong.

[Scow2]

This reads like neutral evil and not chaotic neutral to me; "whatever it takes, no matter the cost" is basically a heroic neutral evil, as opposed to a chaotic neutral, since you're not above hurting/sacrificing innocents to get what you need.Not if the ends are indisputably Good and consistently achieved. If a character/party's actions force the cosmic balance of good and evil toward Good, they're Good. If it tilts it toward Evil, they're Evil. If they don't tilt it either direction, they're Neutral. Most "Ends justify the means" types, though, have Ends that aren't justified by the means, or the Ends never come to pass... or come about through different means entirely.

[tadkins]

I've taken the generally bad reputation that the CN alignment has and sort of seen it as a challenge, to try and be one of those players who do it well. I've come up with three characters over time that are CN that I think do okay at it.

First one is a necromancer wizard. She generally has a good heart, seeks out lost knowledge and lore for the benefit of the world, and helps people who ask, stubbornly going about it all on pretty much her own terms. She'd probably be a straight up CG if not for the regular use of [Evil] spells, so most DMs would probably flag her as CN as a result.

Second is a druid. He's a bit of a drunk and a loner who does his own homebrewing at his shack in the middle of the woods. Basically, a D&D interpretation of a redneck. As a druid, he of course follows the tenants of nature and strives to maintain a balance, though he revels more in the chaotic side of nature, shouting and laughing madly at thunderstorms and such.

The third is a transmuter wizard who actively adheres to the philosophy of chaos. Typically uses spells with flashing, shiny colors (via Spell Thematics), and mixes things up a bit when things are getting too dull. One day he'll put the strong melee buffs on the fighter, the next he'll let the cleric have some smashy-face time by putting the buffs on him instead. Makes liberal use of polymorph spells.

It's a fun alignment, and I think can definitely be more than "Chaotic Stupid" or "Chaotic Evil where CE isn't allowed".

[hamishspence]

Not if the ends are indisputably Good and consistently achieved. If a character/party's actions force the cosmic balance of good and evil toward Good, they're Good. If it tilts it toward Evil, they're Evil. If they don't tilt it either direction, they're Neutral.

This will depend on the DM though.

Some will be less concerned with "how much the cosmic balance is forced" and more "is the character committing acts that ping as evil, a lot, without repenting them".

"tilting the cosmic balance" may be a long term thing - and DM may be more interested in the short term.

[RingofThorns]

Well these have all been very good points for the most part, and have more or less answered the question I was wondering