Exactly what defines Chaotic Neutral?

[Nettlekid]

This is something I've been trying to ponder over for a while. It feels like Law is much more clearly defined than Chaos. Law has its own rules and style, and as Chaos is the antithesis of Law, it should follow that Chaos either has rules and a style which run opposite to Law, or have no rule or style at all. And that's where it breaks down a little.

I don't want to think of Chaotic Neutral as being a freebie alignment for someone who doesn't want to deal with moral repercussions, and who just wants to say "My character does whatever they feel like doing at that moment, which is what I want them to do." I don't want to think of it as Chaotic Stupid, the "cross a bridge or jump off it" type, because that's just ridiculous. I don't want to think of it as the direct opposite of Lawful Neutral, and in the same way that a Lawful Neutral character wouldn't break a promise because there's no reason not to, a Chaotic Neutral character wouldn't keep a promise because there's no reason to do so (and thus actively seeks to break promises all the time) because that kind of guideline seems like too much of a rule, and that runs counter to Chaotic Neutral. I've seen it described as having a personal code as opposed to following a code set by others, but I've also heard that being described as still Lawful behavior and a Chaotic Neutral character wouldn't even accept a personal code.

So what IS it?

[Vrock_Summoner]

I'd say, think sort of James Bond-ish, but with less killing for money (usually). Rebel without a cause. You follow your own guidelines about what you will and won't do, you get angry about people trying to tell you what to do or pin you down, you ignore and disrespect tradition and structure. You aren't necessarily stupid or have no moral code, but you give no craps about any standards except those you set for yourself, and as a rule, they tend to be the types to bore quickly of plans and repetition unless it has to do with a particular hobby, like painting or something.

Remember, they're Neutral, not Apathetic Evil. They still tend to have consciences and some amount of compassion. But they tend to do what suits themselves and their own life ideals rather than trying to do things because they're "the right thing to do" or anything like that. It's usually more complex internally than this for the character, but if asked why they do something, it will probably be answered with "because I wanted do", and that's just simplified, not a lie.

... Well, that's one perspective, anyway. You can't really categorize the alignments, because you could probably take an alignment and create five completely and utterly different characters while still fitting in that alignment. But it's the first guideline I go to.

[Slipperychicken]

I imagine it has to do with being a free spirit (disregarding others' expectations, doing his/her own thing instead of following a prescribed path), but only seriously hurting or helping others when he feels it's absolutely necessary.

[erok0809]

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but the first thing you don't want, the "I kind of do whatever because I feel like it." My main PC is CN, and I basically play him as practical. He'll kill people in cold blood if it's necessary. He'll save a little girl from bandits and ask for no monetary reward if that's what needs to be done for a different greater purpose.

An actual scenario that came up was when my friend rolled up a ranger and got an animal companion. In-game, he found a wolf pup next to its dead mother that he decided he was going to raise. Before he had decided to take it, I offered to kill it, because otherwise it was going to die on its own, but slowly and painfully. Better to put it out of its misery. My party was shocked, but I was just doing what I felt was right. Luckily for the puppy, one of them tackled me before I could do it so my friend could have his animal companion, but the point stands. He basically does whatever seems like it's logical and practical to do at the time, whether it's good or evil. He'll follow laws if he knows that there'll be tons of problems if he doesn't, but he's just as likely to kill people if they offend him and he can gain something from it without repercussions later. Not randomly killing people, as in CE, but if there's a reason for him to kill, he'd do it.

I don't know if that helps you at all though, since that was kind of one of the things you wanted to avoid, the person who does whatever they like.

[Lord Raziere]

This is something I've been trying to ponder over for a while. It feels like Law is much more clearly defined than Chaos. Law has its own rules and style, and as Chaos is the antithesis of Law, it should follow that Chaos either has rules and a style which run opposite to Law, or have no rule or style at all. And that's where it breaks down a little.

I don't want to think of Chaotic Neutral as being a freebie alignment for someone who doesn't want to deal with moral repercussions, and who just wants to say "My character does whatever they feel like doing at that moment, which is what I want them to do." I don't want to think of it as Chaotic Stupid, the "cross a bridge or jump off it" type, because that's just ridiculous. I don't want to think of it as the direct opposite of Lawful Neutral, and in the same way that a Lawful Neutral character wouldn't break a promise because there's no reason not to, a Chaotic Neutral character wouldn't keep a promise because there's no reason to do so (and thus actively seeks to break promises all the time) because that kind of guideline seems like too much of a rule, and that runs counter to Chaotic Neutral. I've seen it described as having a personal code as opposed to following a code set by others, but I've also heard that being described as still Lawful behavior and a Chaotic Neutral character wouldn't even accept a personal code.

So what IS it?

Chaotic Neutral Done Right:

1. Chaotic Neutral DOES have limits. Its not a free ticket to do whatever you want
You want to do anything you want and not get an alignment change? Be Chaotic Evil. If you disagree with me, then you don't know what Chaotic Neutral is. Because the first thing I found that makes Chaotic Neutral, is the things they will never do. There has to be something that separates CN from CE. A Line They Never Cross. Chaotic Evil has no lines- it has already crossed all of them by being Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Neutral, despite all its love of freedom, its distrust of law and authority and its selfish focus, has things it will never do no matter what. Often, this is not harming the good guys and innocents.

2. Chaotic Neutral above all, is self-consistent
Sure, your character might be freedom-loving, not particularly focused on helping others and an individualist, but that doesn't mean they are random or mercurial. The way they do things, the rules they follow, may not match up with the rest of the world or how it thinks, but they are self-consistent about how they think it. They are their own system, their own way, and it only works as long as they are self-consistent about how they go about it. The rules they follow might be loose and flexible, but they are self-consistent no matter what.

3. Chaotic Neutral recognizes Good and Evil
Chaotic Neutral people are not blind to alignment just because they like their freedom-if anything they are very good at recognizing when somebody is morally higher than them, and know who to fight and not to fight, who to oppose to fight for their freedom, and who to ally with to keep their freedom. After all, if the good guys win, Chaotic Neutral wins too, if Evil wins, that probably means less freedom- even if its a Chaotic Evil villain. After all, Chaotic Evil, does not care about what it does. Chaotic Evil will stomp over anyone else's freedom for their own freedom, and that includes Chaotic Neutral's freedom. Chaotic Neutral on the other hand is more live and let live.

4. Chaotic Neutral can be negotiated with.
Just because they are free, doesn't mean they are stupid or that they force everything to go their way. They might follow their own self-consistent logic and not care about doing good all that much, but they know when to make a deal, when to change tactics, when to stop fighting and talk. If negotiation and restraint will help them keep their freedom better than any sword or spell, they will use it. If anything, they're probably more open to negotiation than Lawful Neutral- LN has rules that must Always Be Followed No Matter What, and is inflexible about carrying them out, following their code no matter the situation. Chaotic Neutral however knows when to cut a deal, when to be smart and pragmatically negotiate to secure their freedom.

5. Chaotic Neutral is flexible for their friends
Following up, its this: Chaotic Neutral can be flexible about how they do things for the people they care about. If their friends wish them to stop stealing, they will do so- at least in their presence and if nothing forces them to steal anyways. They will still feel nothing bad about stealing in general, they will just be smart enough to not to do it when their friends would disapprove of it, or when they could get caught. They won't think it bad that they do this, they just figure "hey what they won't know, won't hurt em". Since they themselves are free, they know that others are free to, and respect their choices, even if they don't agree with them. Lawful Neutral however is inherently inflexible about their code, and while to Chaotic Neutral this just means they need to be particularly careful about not doing something that the Lawful Neutral won't like in their presence, Lawful Neutral is not as open to negotiation and there will be conflict if they find out if Chaotic Neutral has broken a rule.

6. Chaotic Neutral doesn't want to tear down the law, but to avoid it.
This may seem strange to hear, but Chaotic Neutral doesn't actively work against the law. Chaotic good may oppose the law for more freedom for everyone if its tyrannical, Chaotic Evil will probably oppose any law that gets in the way of their selfish desires, but Chaotic Neutral, while often breaking the law, isn't exactly opposing it implicitly. They are just following their own self-consistent train of thought, and it just so happens to clash with the rules around them. If anything, they try to avoid the law.

If faced with a tyrannical city, CG will go in and try to change it for the better, CN is more likely to escape it and find somewhere else to be free, where its easier to be free and not have to jump through as many hoops to get their freedom. Staying in a tyrannical city is a good way to get killed by its laws after all. Though this may vary, some Chaotic Neutrals might desire an interesting, risk-taking life and go into it not to spreading freedom and good to everyone else, but just as a challenge to see if they keep up their life amidst an oppressive regime. However if faced with no other choice, they will stop avoiding and fight against unjust laws for their freedom right alongside Chaotic Good.

[Duke of Urrel]

Lord Raziere, I bow before you. What a thorough exposition!

[ryu]

I would disagree with the idea that a chaotic neutral has a line they never cross necessarily. Chaotic evil means taking active pleasure in the harm you inflict on others. Evil isn't some blase lack of borders outlook that makes harming people an option. It's the simple mental state of enjoying the harm you inflict on some level. Is a chaotic neutral person likely to kill someone they don't even know for no reason? No. They very well might if there's something real to be gained from it.

[holywhippet]

Another facet of chaotic neutral alignment is being outright crazy. If you've played the old Planescape: Torment game you'll recall Ignus who was chaotic neutral. He was straight out crazy being only really interested in power and not people. The other CN characters you could have are Annah who is impulsive and Nordom who is socially dysfunctional.

[Jergmo]

Chaotic Neutral means:
-Placing the most value in individual freedom and expression as opposed to upholding the order of society
-Placing the most value in one's own needs and the needs of those closest to them

It doesn't mean you're crazy, or random, and it doesn't mean you are helplessly inappropriate and impulsive... someone who has those traits is simply more likely to be Chaotic Neutral.

[NichG]

Even though actions determine alignment in D&D, Chaos versus Law seems to me to be very much about values and philosophy more than specific actions.

The Chaotic alignment is in some sense the philosophy that spontaneity, intuition, zen, freedom, improvisation, and other such things are 'better' than structure and systems of rules. This doesn't mean randomness, however, or even antagonizing structure, but rather philosophies such as the idea that one shouldn't limit one's options until choice is necessary, or that the right actions come from being the sort of person who makes the right choice rather than pre-defining what choices are right and wrong before even making contact with the situation.

In other words, the Chaotic alignment philosophically favors flexibility of various forms - the ability to adapt one's responses to the details of each situation as it comes up. A Chaotic person might have a moral code, but if asked to explain it they would probably express it slightly differently every time - they would have an intuitive understanding of what feels right or wrong, rather than having a set of rules 'X is right, Y is wrong'.

If there is too strong of an attempt to organize a Chaotic person's ability to make choices on the fly, it would likely feel somewhat stifling. This doesn't mean that a Chaotic person could not make long-term plans, but to a Chaotic person those long-term plans would not be held as 'absolute' but rather as guidelines which can be changed dynamically at need if the situation changes. If they felt 'obligated' to the plan somehow, it might chafe (e.g. if someone commands them 'no matter what happens, do X')

To contrast, Law seems to philosophically believe that formalizing things - rules, laws, explicitly stated moral codes, roles in groups and society, etc - is somehow desirable or effective (for them personally, or in a larger fashion). A Lawful person asked to state their moral code would likely be able to state it in the same way every time (or might want to make reference to an external source in which it is recorded). Lawful people would be more likely to see the value in standards and other collective structures (e.g. doing something personally inefficient because it makes society as a whole more efficient). This doesn't necessarily mean that a Lawful person would always like societies with more laws (if they're unnecessarily convoluted), or would desire to obey the laws of a specific society (e.g. if they're badly written), but they would probably consider that some sort of law would be a good way to organize society or achieve a societal effect just as a method of action.

(One could even imagine a Lawful person who breaks laws all the time, because they understand and rely on society as a whole having a very predictable reaction to them doing so. The predictability and order of society is still philosophically 'satisfying' to them even if they do not feel that the law is something they personally have to follow.)

So thats the LC axis. What's the Neutral part like? To me, that suggests that in some sense the ideas of Good and Evil are not compelling to the person - that doesn't mean that they will kill babies half the time and save orphans the other half of the time or anything like that, but the ideas they use in their mind in order to choose what kinds of actions to take, how to look at things, etc, do not really make strong reference to the ideas of absolute Good or absolute Evil. Rather, they would be likely to have some other philosophy that guides their values; utilitarianism, or a hierarchy of values ('family is important to me, so I will protect my family'), or whatever.

Of course this isn't exclusive - they could find Good and Evil compelling but have difficulty holding to their principles in some way, such that they balance out to be neutral. Perhaps the most likely way for this to happen in a CN character would be that they are willing to make compromises that toe the line between the two - e.g. they like the idea of Good, but they are sometimes willing to use Evil means to achieve what they see to be a greater Good.

[Captnq]

It's sort of like rain jumping out of a tin dog, but GREENER.

[Flickerdart]

Chaotic Neutrals crave freedom, but they also understand it and value it. While they would rarely go out of their way to help someone else gain more freedom, they would consider denying freedom to somebody to be the most diabolical thing a person can do. A CN character would be unlikely to make a promise in the first place - binding themselves to another? Unthinkable! - but if they did, they would be just as likely as anybody to keep it (and do it as soon as possible), to rid themselves of the burden of that obligation.

[Vrock_Summoner]

For cool points, a Chaotic Neutral character is the most likely person to help somebody who had previously helped them, and explain it off as "I just don't like owing people favors."

[squiggit]

Just go across the chart. Chaotic characters resent being ordered what to do, they're free spirits, but also reckless. Adaptable, but not necessarily honorable either, you can't trust a chaotic character to keep their word.

Neutral characters tend to be self centered, but not destructively so. They won't throw themselves at risk to help someone else, but they also won't hurt someone unless they felt they needed to.

So smash those two together to get your CN: A self centered free spirit who resents authority and believes in putting themselves first, but they aren't going to go around hurting people for profit either.


Chaotic Neutrals crave freedom, but they also understand it and value it. While they would rarely go out of their way to help someone else gain more freedom, they would consider denying freedom to somebody to be the most diabolical thing a person can do
That's a good possibility, but I could also see a CN simply not caring enough about someone else to be willing to protect their freedom or have any compunctions against throwing someone into chains (again, if the need arises for whatever reason)


For cool points, a Chaotic Neutral character is the most likely person to help somebody who had previously helped them, and explain it off as "I just don't like owing people favors."
Or be just as liable to not give a damn about their debts in the first place. Keeping a favor or a debt is more of a lawful thing.

[CIDE]

What is chaotic neutral?

This guy:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-a_YWc3Pc/TVEn7rsKIlI/AAAAAAAAABc/2KPfqrXou5E/s1600/778253-tyler_durden_large.jpg

[Jeff the Green]

Just go across the chart. Chaotic characters resent being ordered what to do, they're free spirits, but also reckless. Adaptable, but not necessarily honorable either, you can't trust a chaotic character to keep their word.

Neutral characters tend to be self centered, but not destructively so. They won't throw themselves at risk to help someone else, but they also won't hurt someone unless they felt they needed to.

So smash those two together to get your CN: A self centered free spirit who resents authority and believes in putting themselves first, but they aren't going to go around hurting people for profit either.

I tend to think of Law/Chaos as being governed by rules/ruled by whims. The LG paladin does Good by strictly adhering to his code to ensure he does no evil while the CG ranger does Good by following his desires that just happen to comport with Good. The LE assassin does evil by obeying rigid monastic order he belongs to, while the CE blackguard does Evil because he enjoys burning women and raping farms.

So the LN crusader does Neutral (or a mixture of Good and Evil) by following the dictates of his church that isn't terribly concerned with either the common welfare or tyranny, while the CN shadow dancer does Neutral by doing whatever he wants at the time, which is never either remarkably heinous or terribly beneficent.

On a cosmic level, the inevitables/modrons are literally mechanistic and follow set (if complicated) patterns and routines defined before the beginning of time, while the slaadi are literally insane and have nothing other than whims.

Edit:
I suppose I should note how this is different from either being equally likely to jump off a bridge or cross it or being no different from doing whatever the player wants.

For the first part, Slaadi probably are equally likely to jump off a bridge as cross it (and as equally likely to eat it, mate with it, or compose epic poetry about it), but then they also have damage reduction and fast healing. Non-[Chaotic] Chaotic creatures aren't capable of that sort of pure whimsy and so even if they might follow their whims most of the time, they do have certain minimal rules they follow, like "don't jump off bridges" and "don't French kiss a Bebilith." Those rare mortals that do achieve such perfect oneness with the plane of Limbo generally get committed.

For the latter, whims are not themselves random. The Lawful general doesn't slap the king when he's being an idiot because it's against the King is his lawful superior, while the Chaotic queen doesn't slap him because she loves him and the idea of hurting him wouldn't even cross her mind (unless he takes up with that dryad hussy again, and then he'd better watch out). Whims are unpredictable in timing and specifics, but they are consistent in nature.

For example, let's look at one of my favorite current CN TV characters at the moment, Neal Caffrey of White Collar. Neal is a con artist who specializes in art forgery. He could probably make more money and have less of a chance getting caught with simple grifting (he's played by Matt Bomer, who could probably seduce Fred Phelps via Snapchat if he wanted to, and played with enough charm to sell the character's rakish personality) or bond forgery, but it's more fun and he likes painting better. He's on parole, but he's been shown to be able to escape almost trivially and does this for relatively trivial reasons. Despite this he stays because he loves NYC and respects his FBI handler. He will seduce nearly any woman he can (and, being played by the aforementioned Matt Bomer, is nearly all of them), even when he knows it's probably a bad idea, because he can't help himself. While he knows all the cons, he doesn't really use them if he doesn't have to because he'd rather make things up as he goes along; you can pretty much guarantee he's conning you unless you're one of his cadre of a few friends, though.

In other words, Caffrey is utterly unpredicable from moment to moment because he follows his whims, but from year to year he's pretty constant because his whims have distinct flavors to them.

[Lord Raziere]

I would disagree with the idea that a chaotic neutral has a line they never cross necessarily. Chaotic evil means taking active pleasure in the harm you inflict on others. Evil isn't some blase lack of borders outlook that makes harming people an option. It's the simple mental state of enjoying the harm you inflict on some level. Is a chaotic neutral person likely to kill someone they don't even know for no reason? No. They very well might if there's something real to be gained from it.

:smallbiggrin:

Nope. See there is a big confusion in my view, between Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil. and your post brings that up.

Chaotic Neutral is about following their own way no matter what. They march to their own drum beat first, foremost and last. They just don't want to harm anyone because of following their own direction. That doesn't mean they follow their own way because its beneficial. A Chaotic Neutral will do things because they like doing those things, and do them for the sake of doing that thing. A Chaotic Neutral doesn't say, go and be a pirate because they can GAIN from it, thats not the point. The point of going and being a pirate for a Chaotic Neutral is yay, I can act like pirate, and speak in a funny accent and dress like one and ooh maybe I can get a bird that goes "squawk! polly wants a cracker!"
even this makes him an enemy of all lawful navies everywhere, which isn't beneficial to them at all. They do it because they like it, its fun to them and derive pleasure from it.

Neutral Evil is the alignment thats all about Gain. It doesn't matter if they inflict pain or not, follow the law or not, or if they derive pleasure from it or not, if it benefits them, they'll do it. sure, both Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil are very flexible alignments, but Neutral Evil is the one doing anything because they gain from it. if they gain from the system, they support it, if they don't, they ignore it.
Kill a child for fifty dollars? kay. Neutral Evil will do it, then use the money to buy say an optimal hat for protecting yourself. Chaotic Neutral however, if confronted with the same scenario goes "why can't I just kick your ass then take your fifty dollars and use it buy a cool hat?" then ignore the child completely. (Chaotic Good kicks your ass then uses the fifty dollars to give the child food)

Chaotic Neutral does things for selfish pleasure, because they desire so- within reasonable limits.

Neutral Evil does it all for gain, no matter the cost. your talking Neutral Evil.

Chaotic Evil is the "evil for pleasure" kind of thing where the guy enjoys another person's pain.

Know the difference.

[omegalith]

What chaotic neutral is is simple:

It means that a cursory glance over the character's personality traits have led to placing it in that one of the nine available boxes. Develop personality first, then tag alignment as an afterthought.

90% of alignment debates arise from forgetting it's nothing more than a targeting system for spells and effects that only come up once in a while.

...Unless you're a Paladin, in which case it come up quite a lot.

Which is why the other 10% are Paladin debates.

I suppose the exception is outsiders who do assign alignment first then personality, but in those cases their minds are heavily biased by the conceptual elements making them up. If you want to redo Slaads as something more compelling than WACKY MURDER FROGS, you'll have your work cut out for ya.

[Trilby]

LN and CN directly translate to 'True Law' and 'True Chaos' in my mind. So then we come to the age old question of what exactly is defined along that axis.

I've heard it explained as 'ruled by external perceptions' versus 'ruled by internal perceptions'. So, a lawful character is defined by adherence to a (the?) system outside of himself, and a chaotic character is ruled by adherance to his own internal system. The more flexible nature of Chaos would then be explained by the relative ease with which you can change your internal beliefs, whereas changing a system largely placed outside yourself (Law) is beyond the scope of most characters.

My two cents, such as they are.

[Telonius]

Regarding lines they won't cross - even Chaotic Evil characters might have some standards. What differentiates CE from CN, in my opinion, is how far out of their way they'd go to harm others. CE inflicts pain whenever it thinks it can get away with it. CN might end up hurting people, but suffering is rarely the end goal.

[Morty]

I think it you want a good example of a Chaotic Neutral character, you could look at Conan in Howard's original stories.

[Jon_Dahl]

I do things in the easy way. I read the rules and check if the PC fulfils the requirements.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

1. A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.
2. He is an individualist first and last.
3. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.
4. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions.
6. 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).
Not a requirement: 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.

So we have six (6) definitions for CN. The character must follow whims, he/she must be extremely and utterly individualistic, he/she must value his/her liberty and not do much to protect the freedom of others and no intentional organization destruction rampage. Unpredictability is not necessary.

If these definitions do not define the character, he/she is not CN. Simple as that.

[HammeredWharf]

If these definitions do not define the character, he/she is not CN. Simple as that.

"Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."

Besides, by your rules, some characters don't have an alignment.

[Sception]

For my money, the main defining feature of Law/Chaos is a matter of faith in community, social orders & social contracts as means of achieving ones goals. The Lawful character sees social order as a tool by which their objectives can be advanced. For the Lawful Good character, the social order provides protection and belonging, a safety net to ensure the well being of the unfortunate and a system of justice to hold the guilty accountable. For the Lawful Evil character, the social order provides a system for attaining power over others, laws and regulations that can be twisted or manipulated to ensnare & bring down their rivals while funneling money and influence into their coffers.

For the Chaotic Character, social order is instead seen as a barrier in the way of their goals. For the Chaotic Good character, the rule of law stands in opposition to the rule of compassion, and is an invitation to tyranny. The system of civilization, by placing individuals into compartmentalized roles, restricts their potential for development and encourages petty lust for money or influence. For the Chaotic Evil character, law and order is nothing more and nothing less than a pathetic attempt by the worthless hordes of the weak and feeble to impede the free reign of the strong, to stop the strong from using and abusing the weak as is their right.

The chaotic neutral character sees Law as an artificial barrier, a sad and ultimately futile attempt by those comfortable with their role in the current order to lock that order into place forever, as if they could halt the sands of time. But fighting against change only leads to stagnation and decay. Chaos isn't merely disorder, it is growth, birth, and renewal. It is progression and evolution. It is the realization of potential rather than its containment. And potential unrealized is itself a tragedy worth mourning. The chaotic neutral character simply pursues the limits of their own potential, unfettered by the constraints of social orders and contracts, and with comparatively little concern for the impact of their potential's manifestation on others, whether for good or ill.

[Jon_Dahl]

"Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."

Besides, by your rules, some characters don't have an alignment.

Well, I am using them as guidelines. That means that I don't follow them strictly, but there are RAW definitions for different alignments.

A character without alignment is True Neutral.

[NichG]

Incidentally, I would say that belonging to one alignment does not automatically have to imply contempt for the component-wise opposites, just that one doesn't like to do things that way. A chaotic character may respect a lawful character, but be thinking 'thats just not for me' (the aforementioned Neal Caffrey is probably a decent example of this sort of pattern). I also don't think that belonging to one alignment necessarily means an inability to understand the other alignments' points of view - just that one has come down on a certain side of the issues.

[Jeff the Green]

For my money, the main defining feature of Law/Chaos is a matter of faith in community, social orders & social contracts as means of achieving ones goals.

That's not at all true. Corellon Larethian, for example, offers the Community domain. There are CG nations for sure, and Rousseau pretty well fits the definition of CG.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Bikers. Big hairy bikers.

Or cooks. Go make friends with cooks. Meet with them, hang out and drink. That's CN.

It's a mind set of "You've got your ways, I've got mine. That's all fine and dandy so long as you keep your ways offa mine and I'll do what I can to keep mine offa yours". $.02

[HaikenEdge]

:smallbiggrin:

Nope. See there is a big confusion in my view, between Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil. and your post brings that up.

Chaotic Neutral is about following their own way no matter what. They march to their own drum beat first, foremost and last. They just don't want to harm anyone because of following their own direction. That doesn't mean they follow their own way because its beneficial. A Chaotic Neutral will do things because they like doing those things, and do them for the sake of doing that thing. A Chaotic Neutral doesn't say, go and be a pirate because they can GAIN from it, thats not the point. The point of going and being a pirate for a Chaotic Neutral is yay, I can act like pirate, and speak in a funny accent and dress like one and ooh maybe I can get a bird that goes "squawk! polly wants a cracker!"
even this makes him an enemy of all lawful navies everywhere, which isn't beneficial to them at all. They do it because they like it, its fun to them and derive pleasure from it.

Neutral Evil is the alignment thats all about Gain. It doesn't matter if they inflict pain or not, follow the law or not, or if they derive pleasure from it or not, if it benefits them, they'll do it. sure, both Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil are very flexible alignments, but Neutral Evil is the one doing anything because they gain from it. if they gain from the system, they support it, if they don't, they ignore it.
Kill a child for fifty dollars? kay. Neutral Evil will do it, then use the money to buy say an optimal hat for protecting yourself. Chaotic Neutral however, if confronted with the same scenario goes "why can't I just kick your ass then take your fifty dollars and use it buy a cool hat?" then ignore the child completely. (Chaotic Good kicks your ass then uses the fifty dollars to give the child food)

Chaotic Neutral does things for selfish pleasure, because they desire so- within reasonable limits.

Neutral Evil does it all for gain, no matter the cost. your talking Neutral Evil.

Chaotic Evil is the "evil for pleasure" kind of thing where the guy enjoys another person's pain.

Know the difference.

The only part of this that I disagree with is that the neutral evil guy won't just kill the person offering the job. Part of being neutral evil is taking whatever is the easiest route to your goal, so if the goal is to get 50 dollars, there's no reason why, if the person offering the job was just as much as a challenge as the child, the NE character won't kill the prospective employer instead, because it takes less effort to kill the guy in front of you, than the guy you have to walk over there to kill.

I think, to me, the best way to explain heroic Neutral Evil is "Goal oriented, regardless of cost."

[dps]

CN is the alignment of hippies and even moreso that of beatniks.

[FabulousFizban]

Freeeeeeeedddooooom!!!!

[The Insanity]

Garett from the new Thief is a good example of CN alignment.

[ZX6Rob]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but here's my take. CN may be self-oriented, but outright self-interest, to the exclusion of all others, is kind of what defines the Evil alignments to me. If a CN character is offered $50 for doing a job, his debate is going to be "how much do I want that $50? Am I going to do what this fella' wants, or am I just going to tell him to go fly a kite?" I think that the moment a character starts debating, "Hm, $50... Well, should I do what this fella' wants, or should I just kill him or take what I know he has by force?" then that's pretty squarely in the Evil-with-a-capital-E camp.

A Chaotic Neutral character is motivated by self-interest, but cognizant of the needs and wants of others. They live their life by trying to get ahead for themselves, maybe by breaking a few laws here or there, but nothing major. They are the con artists, the silver-tongued rogues, the guttersnipes stealing food to get by for another day. A CN character doesn't see the need to crusade for the greater good, whatever that may be, but will occasionally find themselves doing things that serve the cause of Good anyway, even if it's only to get the reward for doing so. A CN character likewise doesn't go out of their way to serve Evil, and probably balks at things like stealing from orphans, killing the defenseless, or forcing their will on others, but may not have a problem with taking things from those better off or disregarding some of the more easily-broken the laws of the city when it suits their interest. Someone with this alignment might have few or no qualms about killing if they find it necessary, but won't go out of their way to do so.

Someone else above said something about how CN is defined more by what someone won't do that what they will, and I think that's actually pretty accurate. A CN character won't kill a bound and helpless person just because they might be an inconvenience later -- someone like a level-one mook guarding a bandit camp. A CN character might kill someone they have a major grievance with, even if that person is helpless -- the evil dark knight that has been terrorizing the populace, or the leader of the hobgoblin tribe that killed your loved ones -- but it should be a pretty major point for that character.

By contrast, a professional assassin who kills for money is pretty much Evil in my eyes -- you've effectively taken the stance that anyone's life is only worth a handful of coins. Someone who kills unaware guards so that they don't become a problem later is pretty Evil -- you've just snuffed out the life of another sentient being to make your life more convenient. A person doesn't necessarily need to take pleasure in killing to be considered Evil.

Chaotic Neutral gets a lot of flak from DMs because, as other people have mentioned, some players, usually immature ones, take the alignment as a way to say, "I do whatever I want," and then proceed to do just that. The issue is that CN is absolutely not the "I do whatever I want" alignment -- that's Chaotic Evil. The full phrase that describes these players is actually, "I do whatever I want all the time, and I don't care about the consequences because I'm pretty sure I can kill anyone who tries to stop me." Chaotic Neutral is more... "I do more or less what I feel like at the time, but I'm not a monster. I don't steal from my friends, I don't kill without good reason, and I don't go kicking cats even if I do think they're just the worst. I'm not a monster."