PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic Stupid



kirbsys
2007-06-28, 01:52 AM
I have heard alot of people bash chaotic neutral in several different places, so Im wondering out of curiosity and the fact that one of my players just informed me that she's panning on playing a CN character, whats with the bad rap? And is there anything I can do to avoid the usual annoyances with this alignment?

Cheers
Kirbsys

Yechezkiel
2007-06-28, 01:59 AM
I think a lot of people use Chaotic Neutral as a liscense to... do whatever, without really reading the description and then trying to put that into the mind and soul of a character.

Here's a really decent Alignment quiz (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b) WotC has put out, that you are supposed to take as though you were your character. I suggest it for players you think need help determining what they are truly going to play.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-28, 02:01 AM
Just that some people think that having no preference on the good/evil scale and being less than consistent with their lifestyle means that they can do whatever they want. Which in many cases is harmful to the party, and gets people ticked off.

This won't always/normally be a problem; it really depends on the player (kind of like how some players can make LG into Lawful Anal). You can warn her that CN should not equal CStupid in advance, or you can punish her if she starts using her alignment to justify any course of action.

[Edit:] I R Ninja'd.

The_Chilli_God
2007-06-28, 02:04 AM
The reason why Chaotic Neutral gets a bad rap for it, IMO, is that a few players out there take it to mean that "I can do whatever the heck I want with no consequences whatsoever! And it's good roleplaying!" and then use this misconception as a basis for acting against DM alignment restrictions (such as acting chaotic evil in a good-&-neutral-only campaign).

In order to regulate this type of behavior as a DM, you will need to look at exactly what all the PC's do (not just the Chaotic Stupid guy) that may have lasting effects on alignments. If the Chaotic Stupid guy continuously performs evil acts (even if he blames it on being chaotic neutral), then make sure to change his alignment to something-evil and act accordingly.

There isn't much you can do to prevent this sort of thing, except by telling players how you are going to regulate alignment or by simply banning Chaotic Neutral.

Rettu Skcollob
2007-06-28, 02:06 AM
I love chaotic neutral. The idea of an eccentric character who free-wheels around the land really appeals to me.

Lucky
2007-06-28, 02:17 AM
Chaotic Neutral can be a great alignment, when played under control. As long you trust your player enough not to use it as justification to do whatever they please, it can add a very interesting piece to a party.

I've been a fan of Chaotic Neutral since I started playing, but I've learned the limits of what I should/should not do, and that is probably the most important part of letting a player play CN.

nerulean
2007-06-28, 08:54 AM
CN is often taken to mean 'no one can tell me what to do!' which, to some extent, is true and perfectly within the alignment description. However, if a person is desperate to play by that mantra no matter what other considerations there may be in a situation, then sparks are going to fly. Essentially, as with most things, CN played by a mature player is fine, CN played by someone who's just using the alignment as an excuse is not so fine.

SadisticFishing
2007-06-28, 09:08 AM
Wow, I've always hated CN, and now I understand why!

... plus, irl I think I'm CN irl, so that could have something to do with not wanting to rp it

truemane
2007-06-28, 09:24 AM
I hate "Good Roleplaying" as a means of justifying inter-PC conflict. Good Roleplaying means making choices that make things more fun for everyone. Good Roleplaying serves the STORY, not the PC's (or the DM's) ego.

Anyway...

The way I keep a handle on that sort of thing to get my prospective players to describe and write down their prospective character's personality first. Have a discussion with them about it. Ask them what they would do in circumstance A, B, or C. Ask them how they feel about things, and why.

Once you and the player have a decently concise definition of who the character is, THEN choose their alignment.

That tends to cut out the people who are using Alignment as a license to be disruptive. It also cuts out the people who can't string a cohernet tought together as well.

"What would your character do if he found out that he had been betrayed by a friend?"

"Ummm....welll...I gots a +4 to hit with my Shortsword. So I guess I would use that."

And ALL my players get told before we start:

This is a collaborative enterprise. That means it only works when everyone is working together and having fun. The moment your CHARACTER starts making trouble for the other PLAYERS, I'll write you out. I don't care if it's consistent with your alignment.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-06-28, 09:25 AM
I think nerulean hit my view on the matter quite squarely on the head.

Yeah, CN is only such a trouble maker when in the hands of someone that either doesn't understand the alignment system or is just plain immature and doesn't care about what these things actually mean. In the case of the former, you can always hold a discussion and try to explain things, and hopefully things will work out fine. In the case of the latter, this player is likely to be a troublemaker no matter what alignment he or she says his or her character is. You probably don't want that sort of player in your group to begin with.

Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank trying to come up with a few good examples of fictional Chaotic Neutral characters at the moment. Otherwise, I'd make a few suggestions.

Selv
2007-06-28, 09:32 AM
You know who I think of when I think of Chaotic Neutral?
Malcolm Reynolds.

(I've tried to avoid spoilers. It's Firefly, if you have no idea what I'm on about).

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Alright, the "Whims" part seems a little out of character for the sometimes-sombre Captain, and at his better moments (and especially by the end of Serenity) he's crossed into CG. Still, I think he makes a lot of statements that are just CN all over.

I always saw his argument with Inara in Shindig to be the canonical Lawful/Chaotic alignment clash.

Morty
2007-06-28, 09:43 AM
Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank trying to come up with a few good examples of fictional Chaotic Neutral characters at the moment. Otherwise, I'd make a few suggestions.

Tasslehoff from Dragonlance? I've read only one book including him, but he seemed like epitome of CN character.

The_Werebear
2007-06-28, 09:54 AM
I would say Mal is more CG. While he is anti government, he is more chaotic because he finds it the best way to do good. Serenity reinforces this more than Firefly, where he does indeed seem closer to the border between CG and CN.

For CN, I would have to say the best example is Jack Sparrow. He lies, double crosses, and sees only to his own advantage first. He prefers not to kill, and while he occasionally betrays his friends and joins the enemy, he only does it so he can buy time and eventually betray them as well. Overall, Sparrow drifts through life without particular maliciousness, but is concerned primarily with his own survival and reputation.

banjo1985
2007-06-28, 10:07 AM
Captain Sparrows a very good shout for CN, and a little bit for Chaotic Stupid to, can you imagine being in a campaign where one of the other characetrs acted like that all the time?!

Tasselhoffs more CG from what I've read, he's unwilling to betray people, and is carefree and kind, (as well as incredibly annoying) which seems to point towards CG.

Roland Deschain from Stephen Kings Dark Tower books is another example of CN, he kills when needed, does what he has to survive and reach his goals, but he keeps his few friends close and genuinely cares for them.

There's no real problem with letting someone play CN in a party, but you need to be able to trust the player not to play silly buggers!

nerulean
2007-06-28, 12:19 PM
Yes, good call on Captain Jack, and what an excellent way to illustrate the point.

If you have a sensible person playing CN with a good DM and a cooperative group of players, then you can get a game that's great fun and full of twists and turns that no one expected. Just like the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.

If you get an idiot playing CN to cause trouble, or several people playing CN to the extreme of the alignment, or a DM who can't cope with it, then you get a game that's so befuddled by unpredictable behaviour, double-crossing and general chaos that there's nothing left resembling a structure or a plot, only a lot of second guessing everyone around you. Just like the third Pirates of the Caribbean film.

Piccamo
2007-06-28, 12:37 PM
Alignments describe characters. Have the players come up with personalities for their characters and assign alignments based off of that. Doing it the other way may lead people to try to fit into their alignment.

Brother_Franklin
2007-06-28, 12:41 PM
My rules for CN charaters is that they must consider the party their friends and not just co-mercinaries by the end of the first session.

ALL CHARATERS from LG to CE are good to their friends and family.

I had one charater, after some theives waylayed the party tied up the unconcious leader and then healed him to conciousness. After the briganed failed to give of important info, I decided to unheal him (with my mace). Unfortuneatly, one of my LG partymates stayed my mace. I grumbled a bit but decided it was not worth upseting my companions.

So to me a CN charter does have moral flexabilty but will tend towards good simply by being in a good group. This may eventually lead to an alignment change but not nessiarily.

Miles Invictus
2007-06-28, 12:45 PM
I think Roland is actually Lawful. Chaos implies flexibility, and it's pointed out several times through the series that he thinks very rigidly. Plus, he's shaped his life around the Gunslinger traditions. Eddie is the chaotic one.

Wraithy
2007-06-28, 01:20 PM
Yes, good call on Captain Jack, and what an excellent way to illustrate the point.


but jack is clearly CE (except for about 3minutes in the second film)

Yechezkiel
2007-06-28, 01:23 PM
but jack is clearly CE (except for about 3minutes in the second film)

.....
What?

The_Werebear
2007-06-28, 01:53 PM
but jack is clearly CE (except for about 3minutes in the second film)

While I admit, he hovers closer to the evil side than the good side, I would never say Jack Sparrow is evil. In his lists of crimes, murder is never mentioned. He generally doesn't kill people even when it would be more convenient (Will in the first movie, when he draws a gun during the swordfight). His selling of Will's soul (and promising more) was merely to buy time, he planed to blackmail Jones into calling the Kraken off, and presumably get off of paying his debt with his friends. He even returned after attempting to run away and abandon his crew.

Overall, I would say pretty solid CN.

valadil
2007-06-28, 02:28 PM
Not killing people doesn't keep him from being evil. He is in it only for himself. I'm sure he'd kill if he absolutely had to, but usually he has better ways around it. I think Jack's real flaw is his shortsightedness. He'll sell anyone out at the first opportunity, even if they'd be more useful to him late on.

As far as Dark Tower goes, I agree that Roland is pretty damn rigid, but I don't think he fits neatly into any one category. Honestly, if he was just one clear cut alignment throughout the story I wouldn't have read all 7 books about him.

herrhauptmann
2007-06-28, 02:40 PM
If you read Star Wars.
Dash Rendar is a great CN character. Aside from hating the empire, he's only interested in profit. Even then, if you want his help against the empire, he'll only give you a discount.

Han Solo and Lando Calrissian I think were both decent CN characters at the start. Solo would be CN, but not willing to sell his friends up the creek. Further he hates slavery.
Lando, was perfectly willing to sell Solo to Vader and Fett, yet even he had his limits. Like torturing Solo, or giving Organa and Chewie up as prizes to Vader.

Quietus
2007-06-28, 02:43 PM
Not killing people doesn't keep him from being evil. He is in it only for himself. I'm sure he'd kill if he absolutely had to, but usually he has better ways around it. I think Jack's real flaw is his shortsightedness. He'll sell anyone out at the first opportunity, even if they'd be more useful to him late on.

As far as Dark Tower goes, I agree that Roland is pretty damn rigid, but I don't think he fits neatly into any one category. Honestly, if he was just one clear cut alignment throughout the story I wouldn't have read all 7 books about him.

I haven't gotten hold of Wolves of the Calla or anything past that (Susannah's Song and The Dark Tower, weren't they?), are the rest as good as the first four were?

@the Jack Sparrow bit - I think Jack hovers between CE and CN. His disregard for anything but his own desires certainly puts him in CE, but he's got enough of a conscience that he does end up helping people - not good enough to bring him to Good, not even close. But it keeps him hovering on that line.

I think that's fairly representative of Chaotic Stupid, as well. Most times they hover closer to the Evil end of the spectrum. Unless they're gnomes.

valadil
2007-06-28, 02:58 PM
I haven't gotten hold of Wolves of the Calla or anything past that (Susannah's Song and The Dark Tower, weren't they?), are the rest as good as the first four were?

@the Jack Sparrow bit - I think Jack hovers between CE and CN. His disregard for anything but his own desires certainly puts him in CE, but he's got enough of a conscience that he does end up helping people - not good enough to bring him to Good, not even close. But it keeps him hovering on that line.

I think that's fairly representative of Chaotic Stupid, as well. Most times they hover closer to the Evil end of the spectrum. Unless they're gnomes.

I didn't enjoy the 5th and 6th books as much, but I'm still glad to have finished the series and will be reading it again at some point.

Jack is just evil enough without being so nasty that people kill him on sight. They just threaten to. Any worse and he'd have been shot dead by now. It's in any character's best interest, especially a self absorbed one, to not get himself killed. This is why I don't understand CE characters who play DnD like its GTA3. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're trying to get the cops to chase you. Jack understands this and is right at the upper cusp of how abrasive he can be towards society without getting shanked.

The_Werebear
2007-06-28, 03:20 PM
I didn't enjoy the 5th and 6th books as much, but I'm still glad to have finished the series and will be reading it again at some point.

Jack is just evil enough without being so nasty that people kill him on sight. They just threaten to. Any worse and he'd have been shot dead by now. It's in any character's best interest, especially a self absorbed one, to not get himself killed. This is why I don't understand CE characters who play DnD like its GTA3. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're trying to get the cops to chase you. Jack understands this and is right at the upper cusp of how abrasive he can be towards society without getting shanked.

Thing is, abrasive isn't evil. They hate Jack Sparrow because he is an giant jerk, annoying, and somehow keeps coming out ahead in every situation. Remember, jerk != evil. There are characters a lot more evil than Jack, but very few who are more annoying to everyone around them.

valadil
2007-06-28, 03:27 PM
No, they hate him because he does so at their expense. He's evil, just not evil with a capital e.

Diggorian
2007-06-28, 03:29 PM
The core of CN problems comes a from a misunderstanding of Neutrality I think.

Chaos is easier to grasp being an extreme on the ethical axis, it can be defined in itself and against what law is. I've met players that think Neutral means you do as much evil as you do good: for every gold piece you give to beggar creates a credit you can cash in to kill someone casually later. Wrong, that's just evil with a guilt complex.

Neutral is merely the moral range between the sacrificing selflessness of good and the violent selfishness of evil.

Tallis
2007-06-28, 04:38 PM
I've had fellow players tell me that: "CN is the best alignment because you can do anything you want." That thinking is the root of the alignment's bad rep.
I've played CN myself. The character valued his freedom and wasn't particularly concerned about doing good, but he also wasn't inclined to evil. He cooperated with the group because it was in his best interests. He was more of an outsider than anything else. He didn't grow up among humans, so he just wasn't concerned with them (his companions excepted).
When played by a reasonable roleplayer CN can be just as good an alignment as any other.

My 2 cents in the Jack Sparrow debate:
I do not think he's evil. He actively avoids killing people. Barbosa points out that that's why his crew originally mutineed against him. It would have been easier on him to just kill their targets and loot the bodies. He was willing to share the knowledge and location of a great treasure with his crew (right before they mutineed). One of his first actions in the first movie weas to save Elizabeth who he'd never met. He also risks his life to save her her in the second movie (against the Kraken). He does betray his friends, but always with a plan to save them. He wants the Black Pearl because it represents freedom, he doesn't show any particular greed in the first 2 movies (I haven't seen the third yet). He is a schemer, but not a malicious one. His main fault is cowardice. He protects himself first, but he tries to protect his friends as well.

Mike_G
2007-06-28, 04:51 PM
but jack is clearly CE (except for about 3minutes in the second film)

Let's not forget that one of Jack's first actions is to save Elizabeth from drowning, with no hope of reward, and at some risk to himself, both of drowning and attracting attention. Hardly the act of an evil man.

(Aaargh! Ninja'ed! And in a Pirate thread of all places!)

And his good deed almost gets him hanged. So much for Lawful.

I think Evil mean actually enjoying the pain and suffering of others, going out of you way to cause it. Just being out for one's self seems much more CN than CE to me.

Wraithy
2007-06-28, 05:07 PM
Let's not forget that one of Jack's first actions is to save Elizabeth from drowning, with no hope of reward, and at some risk to himself, both of drowning and attracting attention. Hardly the act of an evil man.

(Aaargh! Ninja'ed! And in a Pirate thread of all places!)

And his good deed almost gets him hanged. So much for Lawful.

I think Evil mean actually enjoying the pain and suffering of others, going out of you way to cause it. Just being out for one's self seems much more CN than CE to me.

these incidences are the exception, not the rule.
it's annoying that so many people believe that it is impossible to be an evil passivist, (admittedly that would make them LE through predictability, bad example)
here is my view of alignment axis:
Law= long term, you do this. period. indefinate date
Chaos= short term, you might do this. perhaps. indefinate date
good= selfless, what i do is for others
evil= what i do is for myself/my group
this may just be my twisted take on the alignments. i won't go into neutrality because it's all very complicated, with too many different types of neutral (passive or active and many more).
the point is that jack sparrow planned for the short term and only for himself, thats what i call chaotic evil.

Tallis
2007-06-28, 05:23 PM
these incidences are the exception, not the rule.
it's annoying that so many people believe that it is impossible to be an evil passivist, (admittedly that would make them LE through predictability, bad example)
here is my view of alignment axis:
Law= long term, you do this. period. indefinate date
Chaos= short term, you might do this. perhaps. indefinate date
good= selfless, what i do is for others
evil= what i do is for myself/my group
this may just be my twisted take on the alignments. i won't go into neutrality because it's all very complicated, with too many different types of neutral (passive or active and many more).
the point is that jack sparrow planned for the short term and only for himself, thats what i call chaotic evil.

Your definitions are good, but I disagree with your assessment of Jack. He did not only plan for himself. His plans were Machiavelian, but he seemed to try to include a way to protect or rescue those he put in danger. Also he did put himself in danger several times to rescue other people.
I'm not saying he was good. He did bad things, but not out of maliciousness and there was no sign that he enjoyed it. He was only willing to put others in danger with no contingency plan when he was afraid for his life. Even then he seemed to be tryng to buy time until he could come up with a plan.
Even when he turned Will over to Davey Jones he was trying to buy time to get to his heart. If he stayed true to established character he would have freed Will once he got it.

Muz
2007-06-28, 06:10 PM
Jack Sparrow was the 2nd fictional character I immediately thought of when trying to think of someone CN. The first was Chiana from Farscape...which no one has ever seen. :smallbiggrin:

ImpFireball
2007-06-28, 06:17 PM
Chaotic Neutral quite often identifies that of an ignorant, I'm sorry to say. Either that or someone who's very isolated and INCREDIBLY strong on his/her beliefs. They're often undecided however, so they can fall into the path of rebellious against the system (chaotic, think your typical teen rebel), and neutral (not holding any actual favour for your culture, whether or not that culture is generally 'evil' and counter-culture in comparision to every other culture in the gameworld... in addition, they are passive on the law unless it gets in their way).

CN's are often identified as undecided, with a teenage mindset, and thus unofficially 'stupid'. The character becoming such an allignment might have to hold some very integral beliefs and exhibit some great mental independance (all roleplaying of course) in order to avoid such a classification.

Really it's just a culture bias that identifies these characters as stupid. I mean, they might even have trouble taking 'sides' or getting others to follow their cause if they aren't completely 'with' said character's culture or mutual political beliefs (that often tend to exist in the middle ages, due to an immense lack of actual media).

An evil character generally holds no interest for others. They're often mentally unstable in many or small ways, plain greedy, holding immense hate for others, etc., etc. Evil characters don't generally HAVE to enjoy the suffering of others. Some evil people for example, might say that it is 'fate' that is forcing them to do something. That person might also be identified as 'insane' whether by the DM or players, but are officially put down as 'evil' on the character sheet. Of course, if they're confined to a belief or system (whether cultural or legal) they might be lawful evil. Same with a hideously corrupt politician or even a certain mafia crimelord who is simply too powerful.

Evil people can take advantage of anything including cultural fads, or the suffering of certain minorities (even the poor) to further their own cause.

Believe it or not, Evils are human (or humanoid) too. :P
Not particularly souless. Though such a thing would probably automatically make them evil if exploited AND with very little roleplaying personality too. >_>

So yah, things pretty much remain to be very open and I believe all DM's should take this into consideration.

psychoticbarber
2007-06-28, 06:19 PM
Jack Sparrow was the 2nd fictional character I immediately thought of when trying to think of someone CN. The first was Chiana from Farscape...which no one has ever seen. :smallbiggrin:

Chiana is perfect! And yes, I have seen Farscape.

Mike_G
2007-06-28, 06:38 PM
these incidences are the exception, not the rule.
it's annoying that so many people believe that it is impossible to be an evil passivist, (admittedly that would make them LE through predictability, bad example)
here is my view of alignment axis:
Law= long term, you do this. period. indefinate date
Chaos= short term, you might do this. perhaps. indefinate date
good= selfless, what i do is for others
evil= what i do is for myself/my group
this may just be my twisted take on the alignments. i won't go into neutrality because it's all very complicated, with too many different types of neutral (passive or active and many more).
the point is that jack sparrow planned for the short term and only for himself, thats what i call chaotic evil.

I disagree with your definitions of Good and Evil. A hermit who withdraws from society and lives alone in the wilderness does nothing for others, only himself, but is that Evil? Or just Neutral?

I see Good as striving to help others, Evil as enjoying harming or dominating others, and Neutral as striving neither to aid or injure others.

What do you see as Neutral?

SadisticFishing
2007-06-28, 06:49 PM
Han Solo is CG, not CN. Lando, CN maybe. Han? No.

And no you cannot be an evil passivist in D&D, really. He doiesn't steal from people who can't afford it, he doesn't kill people, Jack Sparrow is unquestionably CN (except I haven't seen 3 yet, thanks for ruining it :P).

Gralamin
2007-06-28, 06:53 PM
Chaotic Neutral huh? Well whenever their is a question of alignment, I generally point out the creature that is to be height of that alignment (Slaadi in this case), and then scale it back to a more human level. The problem is, their is very little information on the Slaadi.

Then I turn to what it is not:
It is not doing an equal amount of good and evil (that would either be any evil or Lawful Neutral.)
It is not taking down governments, because it is the right thing to do (CG)
It is not killing people because you feel like it (Chaotic evil - Stupid)

Like any alignment, it is hard to pin down, and depends largely on the DM.

Valdyr
2007-06-28, 06:55 PM
My rule for Chaos is that it really should be anti-order. My experience is that the Neural X alignments are the ones where you do what you want for your own benefit.

Someone who only wants to benefit themselves (Raistlin from Dragonlance or Jayne from Firefly) and does so in a non-good manner is NE. Malcolm Reynolds is concerned for his own ship/crew yet actively fights against the Alliance whenever he can, and is good, therefore he's CG. The anti-Alliance aspect is what, in my mind, makes the shift from NG to CG. If he was just concerned for his ship/crew I'd say Neutral was the better fit.

Most "I do what I want" characters are True Neutral, in my view. Most people have the Good-Evil distinction down in their heads but the Law-Chaos divide is not as well understood. But I believe it follows logically that if good is the antithesis of evil and vice versa, chaos must be the opposite of law. Thus, any character with Chaotic in the first part of their alignment should be against (if not actively against) order.

Jack Sparrow is a great CN character. Chiana as well.