PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic GOOD or CHAOTIC Good?



arivilar
2007-02-09, 10:22 PM
It's always bothered me: Is a CG character basically good, basically chaotic, or is it up to the character?
In clarification, are an LG character and a CG character in fact complete opposites, or just two nice guys who have different concepts of how the justice system should work?

Dhavaer
2007-02-09, 10:27 PM
Up to the character.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-09, 10:27 PM
Basically, it works like this-

However the player wants it to be played.

Seriously, don't let all of your characters fall into a specific stereotype as per their alignment. It's like stocking an entire world with cardboard cutouts. In this instance, it all depends on the character in question, as it's perfectly reasonable to lean either way and still be considered chaotic good.

Jaguira
2007-02-09, 10:28 PM
I think LG and CG are two nice guys with completely different concepts of how the justice system works. And I think a Chaotic Good character is an even mix of both Chaotic AND Good, just as a Lawful evil character would be an even mix of Lawful AND Evil.

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-09, 10:32 PM
LG vs CG can be the most interesting conflict, truth be told, not unlike CE and LE. I love it in a campaign, when LE and LG non-divine classes will sooner team up than be with those of the chaotic bent. :D

But yeah, it's kind of a 'by ear' thing.

TheOOB
2007-02-09, 10:34 PM
Lawful Good and Chaotic Good work just fine together. Think about every buddy movie you've ever seen. You got one lose cannon guy who doesn't play by the rules, and one by-the-book classic good guy. Wacky hijinks ensue as they learn to appriciate one-another and eventually even learn the true meaning of friendship, possibly even saving the world, or relizing their dreams, or making it to White Castle in the process.

arivilar
2007-02-09, 10:42 PM
I think LG and CG are two nice guys with completely different concepts of how the justice system works. And I think a Chaotic Good character is an even mix of both Chaotic AND Good, just as a Lawful evil character would be an even mix of Lawful AND Evil.

But that's where I see the conflict. If they are a perfect mix, what happens when the line is drawn: kill the hated LN aristocrat who abuses his power within the law, or spare said LN whimpering guy who is obviously about to lose the fight?

JaronK
2007-02-09, 11:52 PM
Yeah, I love playing CG characters with a LG foil. One group I was in recently had me as a CG spellthief companion to a paladin... that lead to all kinds of trouble.

And to answer the OP... that's entirely your call.

JaronK

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 12:36 AM
Nothing beats being the CG rogue partied with the LG paladin. Remember- his skill point total is 2+int, and intelligence is one of the very few stats the MAD-heavy paladin doesn't need :D

Paladin: Hmm, you appear to have way more gold this morning then when we came in to town. Where'd you get it?
Rogue: Overseas bank account.
Paladin: I will accept that answer, because I'm clearly skill-retarded.

Ivius
2007-02-10, 12:41 AM
Hey, having -1 skill points per level isn't all that bad.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 12:48 AM
Oh, but it starts getting so wonderfully hilarious by level 10. Let's say they both had even intelligence and were humans- the paladin has 39 skill points, while the rogue has a whopping 117. What I'm saying is that the rogue can lie about anything, and the paladin will believe him every time.

J_Muller
2007-02-10, 12:50 AM
Up to the player. Alignments are just guidelines anyway--the player is the one who determines his character's personality and actions.

Raistlin1040
2007-02-10, 12:52 AM
Lawful Good and Chaotic Good work just fine together. Think about every buddy movie you've ever seen. You got one lose cannon guy who doesn't play by the rules, and one by-the-book classic good guy. Wacky hijinks ensue as they learn to appriciate one-another and eventually even learn the true meaning of friendship, possibly even saving the world, or relizing their dreams, or making it to White Castle in the process.
I saw this post and thought Rush Hour.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-02-10, 12:56 AM
The way I think of it is...don't think about alignment componants as two pieces attached together like legos. Think of them as liquid ingredients that may sway your character one way or the other. Little dash of good, little dash of chaotic...nutmeg for flavor, wala.

Seatbelt
2007-02-10, 01:19 AM
The way I think of it is...don't think about alignment componants as two pieces attached together like legos. Think of them as liquid ingredients that may sway your character one way or the other. Little dash of good, little dash of chaotic...nutmeg for flavor, wala.


I'm only correcting you because I used to make the same mistake. It's viola. :P

kamikasei
2007-02-10, 01:48 AM
I'm only correcting you because I used to make the same mistake. It's viola. :P

It's voila. A viola is a string instrument resembling an oversized violin.

:smalltongue:

TheOOB
2007-02-10, 02:02 AM
The way I think of it is...don't think about alignment componants as two pieces attached together like legos. Think of them as liquid ingredients that may sway your character one way or the other. Little dash of good, little dash of chaotic...nutmeg for flavor, wala.

Acually, I don't see alignment as flavoring. Alignment doesn't dictate your personality and actions, rather your personality and actions dictate your alignment. A well role played character won't do or not do something because of two words writen on their character sheet (unless one of those words is paladin, buts thats a subject for a different threat), a character will do something because givin the situation at hand that character with their own personality and past experiances would take a certain course of action.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-02-10, 04:27 AM
Acually, I don't see alignment as flavoring. Alignment doesn't dictate your personality and actions, rather your personality and actions dictate your alignment. A well role played character won't do or not do something because of two words writen on their character sheet (unless one of those words is paladin, buts thats a subject for a different threat), a character will do something because givin the situation at hand that character with their own personality and past experiances would take a certain course of action.
I didn't mean it literally as game flavor. It was just a little joke. The metaphor was really supposed to mean how you're supposed to care about your characters personality over his alignment, and the Chaotic and Good were supposed to be very small ingredients, not huge chunks of the lego creation that stick out like blue and yellow on a field of grey.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 04:38 AM
You can play the combos so many ways it's not even funny.

Cg, CG, cG, cg is the least of it.

Put the emphasis where it suits the personality of your character best.

The alignment system really is not that restrictive.

***

As for 'will CG get on with LG' - it'll depend on the characters far more than on their specific alignments.

If your character is far more chaotic than good and the LG guy is far more lawful than good, the characters might hate each other. If both place good highest, they'll probably get on, at least morally/ethically.

We are talking about people here, though, and it's quite possible for them both to be really good but otherwise have nothing at all in common and so not really get on...

Alignment doesn't really determine your friendships :)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-10, 05:42 AM
The way I think of it is...don't think about alignment componants as two pieces attached together like legos. Think of them as liquid ingredients that may sway your character one way or the other. Little dash of good, little dash of chaotic...nutmeg for flavor, wala.

That's more or less how I've always thought of it.

Chaotic Good doesn't mean "Chaotic and Good" it means "Kind of like Robin Hood"

Shotaro
2007-02-10, 05:51 AM
I'm playing a CG wizard atm, he's taken a disliking to the paladin because logically it might sometimes be necessary to bend or even break the law for the greater good. I'm playing him as a guy almost straight out of Wizardry school after 23 years of education and he's essentially still a child. Very naive but agonizingly clever - doesn't realize what he says can upset people, setting off alone in pursuit of an invisible flying monster.

I think as he matures on the battlefield and realizes how his actions can and will affect others he's going to become very cold and logical and eventually become a drunk. When that happens depending on how the groups doing or how the story goes I'll either retire the character and pick up a melee type or I'll keep going until he gets himself killed - he may even do something he knows will kill him or something else along those lines.

I see CG as someone whose priorities are

Self
Greater Good
Law

although thats because this is only my 4th character and the first time I've played CG - next time i'll do something different.

squishycube
2007-02-10, 06:07 AM
In my opinion, that's exactly what it not means. In my opinion, Chaotic Good does mean Chaotic and Good. Funnily enough, I agree with Krimm too :D.
Besides, a very good argument can be made why Robin Hood is lawful (mainly fighting for the true ruler, King Henry (it was Henry, wasn't it?) and resisting the unlawful sheriff. (With whom The Law (aka the King) would certainly disagree))

Dhavaer
2007-02-10, 06:11 AM
(mainly fighting for the true ruler, King Henry (it was Henry, wasn't it?)

Richard the Lionheart.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-10, 06:12 AM
In my opinion, that's exactly what it not means. In my opinion, Chaotic Good does mean Chaotic and Good. Funnily enough, I agree with Krimm too :D.
Besides, a very good argument can be made why Robin Hood is lawful (mainly fighting for the true ruler, King Henry (it was Henry, wasn't it?) and resisting the unlawful sheriff. (With whom The Law (aka the King) would certainly disagree))

It was King Richard. But John *was* the lawful King, Richard was away on crusade, and somebody had to run the country.

But the self same argument makes it impossible to be a Cleric of a Chaotic deity.

If you define "Lawful" as "believing strongly in a particular set of tenets" that means that *all* Clerics should be Lawful, since they all live by the tenets of their deities. Since a Cleric (outside Eberron) cannot have an Alignment more than one step removed from their Deity, a Chaotic deity can have no clerics.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 06:24 AM
John was the lawful regent not the king.

Robin opposed him because he felt the law under John was unjust and needed changing. I'd put him at NG or LG, personally.


If you define "Lawful" as "believing strongly in a particular set of tenets" that means that *all* Clerics should be Lawful, since they all live by the tenets of their deities.

Depends on the tenets. Not every religion needs to have a massive set of laws or standards to live by. All good people also follow moral codes, but that doesn't make them lawful.

Someone who is impulsive, never plans anything and hates any kind of rigid structured approach is chaotic. Nothing stops them being either good or a cleric.

A chaotic god would not be big on structured religion anyway, if you think about it :)

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-10, 06:28 AM
Self
Greater Good
Law

What? No, putting your self above the good of others is generally neutral at best, and evil at worst.

It shouldn't be on such a simplistic scale, anyway.

JadedDM
2007-02-10, 06:54 AM
It's always bothered me: Is a CG character basically good, basically chaotic, or is it up to the character?

I'm pretty sure it's not an 'either/or' kind of situation.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-10, 07:28 AM
As always, depends on the case.
For instance, I'm using Fax's paladin variant in a local game that allows Chaotic alignment.
And he's Chaotic to the letter. Least paldiny paladin to ever pal a din.
...I got nothin'.
He's Good and true and all, but he's still more Chaotic than good.

I'm also running a much, much more Good than Lawful paladin in another game.

lordmarcoos
2007-02-10, 08:53 AM
If this helps, the way I personally see alignment in my head is like a coordinate plane, where you went from 100% chaotic on one side, 100% lawful opposite it, 100% good on top, 100% evil on bottom.
Anything past 50% on any way gives it that descriptor, and spells, abilities, whatever that target alignment affect that person as such. So I'll think up a character, his general life philosophy, and then decide, say, that he's at about 80% good, and about 45% chaotic. That would mean he's fairly set in his goodly ways (but might be willing to cross a line for the greater good if he had to), and neutral on the Law/Chaos, but more often then not, favors individuality and freedom, just, maybe doesn't hold them as virtues. I'd call him neutral Good, or maybe neutral good with chaotic tendencies, but in my head, I'd always just see my little graph.

PirateMonk
2007-02-10, 09:12 AM
Has anyone played a roleplaying paladin? A non-LG character who tries to force people into their alignment and moral code?

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 11:46 AM
Has anyone played a roleplaying paladin? A non-LG character who tries to force people into their alignment and moral code?

Yes, actually. My LE cleric of Hiddukel loved pretending to be a paladin or knight for exactly that reason.

It's amazing what you can justify as the greater good' with enough smooth talking :D

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-11, 09:38 AM
John was the lawful regent not the king.

Good point, but still, he was lawfully appointed.


Robin opposed him because he felt the law under John was unjust and needed changing. I'd put him at NG or LG, personally.

"Rob from the rich, give to the poor" that's *textbook* CG. King Richard's laws outlawed banditry as well, after all.


Depends on the tenets. Not every religion needs to have a massive set of laws or standards to live by. All good people also follow moral codes, but that doesn't make them lawful.

Which is exactly why the "follows a code" definition of "lawful" is silly.


Someone who is impulsive, never plans anything and hates any kind of rigid structured approach is chaotic. Nothing stops them being either good or a cleric.

If they devoutly believe in the teachings of their deity, then that makes them Lawful by the "follows a code" definition.


A chaotic god would not be big on structured religion anyway, if you think about it :)

But that's the thing, it's not a question of structure, it's a question of adherence to the teachings of the deity.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-11, 12:28 PM
Hmmm... Good points, Dan...

There is always a dichotomy at the heart of Chaos anyway, in that constant change is still a constant, however...

I think I'm going to retreat to my own definitions on this one:

Law: is the force of stability and pattern (and has nothing to do with criminal law in any way shape or form). Lawful people enjoy working as part of a team, and will often be involved in organising, planning and general preparation. Lawful people generally think before they act.

Chaos: is the force of randomness and change. Chaotic people are impulsive, and prefer to work alone rather than as part of a team. They dislike planning, finding it boring, and are always interested in new things. Many are highly creative. Chaotic people usually act before they think.

Having a personal code can amount to things you will or won't do, and doesn't have to be all that structured. It certainly doesn't have to involve organising or planning anything.

All of us, however impulsive or otherwise, have our personal limits. Humans are not Chaos Unbound any more than they are Law Enchained - we are all a mixture of both, as with good and evil.

Alignment is simply that part or ourselves which usually predominates over all the rest.

I think that makes sense. I hope so, anyway :D

Skyserpent
2007-02-11, 01:58 PM
Funny thing...
http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/choaticneutral.jpg

Elliot Kane
2007-02-11, 02:00 PM
ROFL!

That's great, Skyserpent :D

Skyserpent
2007-02-11, 02:00 PM
That was Robin Hood... Let's see if I can find a good... ah here we go.

http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/chaoticgood.jpg

Ramza00
2007-02-11, 02:19 PM
V is definitely not a Chaotic Good, movie or comic version

Where are you getting those images?

Arceliar
2007-02-11, 02:39 PM
I agree with Ramza00 on that. V is opposing a government which was willing to kill and manipulate it's citizens in an effort to gain power through fear.

Meaning it was (and this is a bit of an oxymoron) an unlawful government. Remember, they talk that his actions are like an equation "for ever action there is a reaction" and such. That seems pretty lawful to me.

Don't forget the "With my hands around your neck" line. That entire battle seemed pretty planned out considering it ended exactly as V predicted. Not to mention the incredible amount of planning that goes into destroying parliament...

My point is, V seems (to me) to be a good example of someone you'd think is chaotic if you weren't looking at things through his eyes. There's at least as much lawful to him as there is chaotic, if you ask me.

As for the CG, Cg, cG, and such.. The easiest way I've found to describe alignment is Means (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) to an End (Good, Neutral, Evil). That's not the most accurate way of doing things, but it's always been good enough for my use. As a rule of thumb, Good/Evil PROBABLY takes priority over law/chaos. It seems more likely that a robin-hood-style CG hero will put up with behaving lawfully from time to time to save people's lives than watch a dozen peasants get hanged because he felt like acting wild. In my opinion anyway. The one glaring exception might be lawful evil, as that's the type of evil that seems more likely to let the hero walk away unharmed because the BBEG wouldn't have been able to kill the hero in exactly the way the BBEG wanted. Just like in Bond movies.

HealthKit
2007-02-11, 03:13 PM
First off I'm pretty sure that the V for Vendetta motivational poster is a joke.

Second, V was opposing a government that was LAWFUL EVIL.
His methods were chaotic but his intentions were good.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-11, 03:15 PM
V (Comic version)... is incredibly complex, but we never truly know him well, I feel, because we see him through the eyes of others. Moore created this immensely larger than life character who orchestrates so much behind the scenes that he seems to be Lawful, but on the other hand he also seems to be wildly impulsive sometimes, and he's absolutely an anarchist...

The govt in V is definitely LE, and V is doing what he does to free the people from tyranny, but his methods can sometimes be incredibly cruel, as when he tortures Evie to 'show her the way' as it were.

Overall... I'd go with TN.

And if anyone (Adults!) hasn't read the OGN - do. It's a terrific read :)

Arceliar
2007-02-11, 03:22 PM
Definitely good intentions on V and evil on the gov't, no arguments about that coming from me. I still think the amount of planning and precision in execution of V's plans seems far, far, far too coordinated to be chaotic. I mean, even when he steals stuff he's just reclaiming it, "you can't steal from the censor" or whatever he said..

I mean...he even plans out an appropriate death for his assassinations. He kills a priest by feeding him a poisoned communion wafer, because the priest's faith dictates that anything he blesses for communion will become the body of Christ. Heck, even GitP talked about how Lawful Good means you acknowledge the existence of unjust laws. It says in the PHB that a paladin doesn't lose any paladininess from disobeying an evil and unjust ruler.

Overall I'd probably consider V to be Neutral Good, or leaning slightly towards lawful. You can't replace a fundamentally corrupt gov't without taking it down, that can't make you chaotic in and of itself.

Scalenex
2007-02-12, 02:34 PM
I see Chaotic Good as Libertarian. In a nutshell, that philosphy is you have freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not harm other people. So in other words a Libertarian wouldn't mind people killing themselves or destroying their health with drugs, but they will oppose people driving a dcar while drunk or high. They want their governments to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others but otherwise leave them alone.

Another alternative for a real-world example would be liberation theology. I visited a mission sponsored by my Church near Los Angeles that really was Chaotic Good. They provided meals and shelter to the homeless without preaching at them. They really didn't turn away drug users or anyone like that unless they caused trouble. In which case social pressure would be applied. If they still wouldn't straighten up they had to leave. There were hardly any formal rules on what constitutes bad behavior, they just had to not be disruptive. They quarreled with the city government a lot and they have to deal with beuracratic attempts to close the shelter because the city hopes that if they don't provide services to homeless, they'll leave (they declared their sheltering homeless in the pews a fire code violation). They got formally kicked out of their Synod for having an openly gay pastor. These among many reasons give them a disdain for lawful institutions which they constantly have to overcome in order to help the common good. In the case of the mission, Good takes precedent over Chaotic and if the Lawful institutions helped rather than blocked them at every oppurtunity, they wouldn't be so antithetical to it.

Wolf53226
2007-02-12, 02:58 PM
You can tell I have small children: the conversations goes to Robin Hood and I immediately start humming the Disney songs from the movie...

"To late to be known as John the first, he's sure to be known as John the worst!"

Now to add to the subject:
RH is Neutral because he is willing to steal from anyone, not just those that are taking the money, but any rich lord or baron, while his intent is the good of the poor, he doesn't care about who he harms to get there. He is commonly thought of as chaotic for working against the current government, he certainly is willing to bring down the current officials. But, he also sees Richard as the sovereign lord and will follow his command, so he seems more along the Neutral side of that access as well, course that might change if I can find a good version of the book to read.

Talya
2007-02-12, 03:55 PM
The Blood War sums up the answer to this very well.

In the beginning there was only chaos, the endless mayhem and confusion of the abyss and nothing more. From this chaos sprung all other manners of realities, be they good, evil, or lawful. (Yes, I know this violates Thermodynamics. Shut it.) This chaos consumed entire realms, countless Prime Material Planes, (Sorta like the Snarl in OotS), as often as it spawned them.

The Blood war was started when lawful alligned beings were commissioned by the forces of good to battle back the abyss, to bring a little stability to this endless chaos. These beings were warped and corrupted by the abyss, becoming evil, becoming devils. Hence was born the bloodwar, the eternal battle between Law and Chaos.

Onlookers soon saw this corruption, and realized good and evil were more important in the end than law or chaos. So it is that among good beings, especially celestials, they can overlook the differences between them on the law-chaos axis in favor of their similarities. Good looks for common ground, it looks for peace, it finds redemption, it sees the best in everyone. Evil has no such compunction against violence, and so the bloodwar continues.

Josh Inno
2007-02-12, 05:01 PM
If there are two axies, good vrs evil, and chaos vrs law, there is a square centered around the origin in which one is true neutral, this box is defined by 4 lines. If one is past the boundary line in the chaotic direction, and past the boundary line in the good direction, one is chaotic good. How chaotic one is, and how good one is, within this area of the graph determines if one is more chaotic than good, more good than chaotic, or balanced between the two (on the 45 degree line).

It is up to the individual.

Similarly, Paladins I tend to play have far higher numbers on the 'good' axis than on the 'lawful' axis.

If the lord of the land is a tyrant who says that it is illegal to give a starving orphan child bread, then he is no longer deriving his mandate to rule from the people's will, but from their lack there of as he beats it out of them, and is no longer a legitimate authority. A true paladin would then give the orphan child some bread, and go on a quest to remove the Tyrant from his perch.

If that makes any sense, hopefully the illistration on the good/lawful side will help clarify the good/chaotic side.

On the lawful side: "In general, a well run government, and it's laws are for the good of it's people.Government is good only for it's self, it is no longer legitimate, and it must be toppled for the good of it's people." is more good than lawful.

On the Chaos side: "I hate rules. They clamp down on freedoms, and deprive people of their rights... but... If the rules are there to protect people and their freedoms and rights... I can put up with them and follow the line." is more good than chaotic.

Narmoth
2007-02-12, 05:11 PM
I think the good or evil issue i smuch more important than a lawfull vs chaotic, since if you are good or evil has a much more impact on what kind of quests you take (help the extremely old lady with the pedant of eternal life to save her great granddaughter or kill her and steal the magic item?) and who can work in a group together. After all Lawfull and Chaotic works just fine, while evil characters (except for maybbe LE ones) usually have problems with working even with eachother, not to mention anyone with a more altrusitic view of life.
Still in a campaign where all the players play good, the difference between lawfull, neutral or chaotic suddenly matters a lot more

Arceliar
2007-02-12, 05:13 PM
The Blood War sums up the answer to this very well.

In the beginning there was only chaos, the endless mayhem and confusion of the abyss and nothing more. From this chaos sprung all other manners of realities, be they good, evil, or lawful. (Yes, I know this violates Thermodynamics. Shut it.)

You're dead to me.

Seriously though, I've always thought the 'only chaos' thing seemed inherently illogical. I mean, how can there be only chaos? Wouldn't the fact that there is only chaos make it completely (and hence predictably) disorganized and hence less chaotic? I mean, if there's only chaos then there's 0 chance of something happening as one would expect, except that one would know this and hence expect it. "I don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you what's not" and the like.

I'm going to stop myself there--this is way too much like the time travel paradox for me to deal with on a monday.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-12, 05:15 PM
(I know this is now off topic, but I don't want to read the intermediate banter yet.)

When I DM, I make my players pick. If they select CG, I ask if they are Chaotic with good tendencies or Good with Chaotic tendencies? Same with every other alignment. I have a whole new set of homebrewed rules to go along with their selection. Makes alignment more useful, IMO.

Quietus
2007-02-12, 05:55 PM
My DMs frequently tell characters that if they aren't sure about their alignments, that they should start Neutral, and in a couple of sessions, they'll reassess. That seems to work out fairly well, because characters tend to change over the first couple sessions - you learn what works for them, and what doesn't. I've got a human rogue (now a wererat) who started out being an opportunistic theif, CN. Since then, I've realized that he's more of a scout-type than a theif, and that he has a soft spot in his heart for those people who are being put under by stronger groups. I'm playing that game again this Thursday, and I'll be announcing his new CG alignment to the DM.

Talya
2007-02-12, 06:12 PM
You're dead to me.

Seriously though, I've always thought the 'only chaos' thing seemed inherently illogical. I mean, how can there be only chaos? Wouldn't the fact that there is only chaos make it completely (and hence predictably) disorganized and hence less chaotic? I mean, if there's only chaos then there's 0 chance of something happening as one would expect, except that one would know this and hence expect it. "I don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you what's not" and the like.

I'm going to stop myself there--this is way too much like the time travel paradox for me to deal with on a monday.


Douglas Adams, rest his soul, could build a starship drive out of this conversation.