The difference between CE and CN [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : The difference between CE and CN

TheManicMonocle

2017-05-17, 07:25 PM

Ok so like, I really don't get the difference between chaotic evil and chaotic neutral. It seems to me they're both "I do what I want," type of people

lunaticfringe

2017-05-17, 07:34 PM

Chaotic Neutral: I value autonomy & personal freedom and Good & Evil are really just a matter of perspective.

Chaotic Evil: I'm passionate and lack any sort of genuine empathy, trying to control or manipulate me only raises my ire.

Tetrasodium

2017-05-17, 09:18 PM

LG: Society thinks that everyone should wear plaid on tuesdays, so I shall wear plaid on tuesdays while doing whatever good deeds need doing; but I shall not compromise my morals too much unless I can look the other way... or maybe just pretend those refugees & extreme poverty funny looking people are evil
NG: I'm kinda like that last guy but don't really try so hard if it's going to be too difficult... too unrewarding... or maybe I'll wait till the rain stops... or.. well you know
CG: Every year on the winter solstice I cast alter self on myself & give random peasants a platinum piece... that... or there is some blue & orange morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality) going on; but since the phb/dmg still doesn't really mention that kinda thing, I tend to seem a bit bizarre
LN: I have a moral compas & code of my own & follow it... look at those innocent little girls torturing that impoverished goblin, girls could you do that somewhere else because It's interrupting my meditation
N: I'm bigger than that, it looks tasty, I think it might bve a threat to my young... well you get it
CN:Bacon necktie y0!! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)
LE: When everyone else is too squeamish, inward looking for meaning, searching for a better reward, or whatever... I'm the one who casts Alter self on myself before breaking the arms & legs of those sadistic little girls on my way to the town council meeting I'm schedules to run.
NE: urrrrraahhhh brainnnnsss.....
CE: I ate all but one of the little girls the one wearing the polkadot dress was wearing polka dots though... plus I murdered my cleric & slit the wizard's throat because those mind flayers were offering a better deal to join them.

denthor

2017-05-17, 09:35 PM

5 e always seem a little different but

CN I can be selfish but in this case it is more to my advantage to willingly help. I could go and loot the party has this handled. I will just stab this bad dude in the back take his things and give some of it to the party. They had a plan it was stupid so I will make the adjustments. My neck is the most important

CE I am selfish can I take the party? Can I just take what I want to become more powerful so that I can take the party? I was doing a very important job guarding the rear since you are all beat up and I am still at full strength I want this piece no objections good. The one that can convince the stupid to do the what they need to get done knowing that a minor buff will still get them killed but I can finish up after everything is said and done maybe I can attack them as well. So long as I can get away and paid who cares who else dies. How can I get more power?

SharkForce

2017-05-17, 09:40 PM

a CE character will generally do whatever they want and doesn't care if anyone else gets hurt (with the exception of any people the CE character may personally care about; just because they're evil doesn't mean that they can't, say, fall in love, or want their children to succeed). a CN character will generally do what they want, but will generally avoid causing major harm (though depending on the individual, it is entirely possible that *minor* harm - humiliatiing someone, stealing some money, pranking someone just for the lulz - is acceptable to them). they don't generally just kill people because they can, and if it doesn't cost them much to help someone who is in major trouble (say, if a tree fell on them and the CN person can use a lever to lift the tree off their leg so they can get away and not die alone in the wilderness), the CN character will probably do it, because neutral people still care somewhat about other people, they just generally aren't going to take any massive risks without compensation (so, for example, while a good character may or may not defend a town from bandits because the people need help, a chaotic character isn't likely to do that unless the bandits are a trivial threat to them, or they're getting some form of reward, which need not be money - it could be fame, expectation that they'll impress someone, revenge, excitement, or any number of other things).

i don't buy the "good and evil are a matter of perspective" nonsense. neutral characters aren't okay with murder. they would probably greatly prefer to have good or neutral people as neighbours, and would probably be as happy as anyone else to see truly evil people punished for their crimes. they just don't feel *strongly* about doing the right thing; again, a neutral character (even a chaotic neutral character) will generally help someone without expecting compensation if the need is great and the cost to them is low. they do care about others, most of the time... but they're not gonna take a bullet for you. or, for that matter, a major financial loss, or a hit to their prestige, etc.

(the exception being creatures of pure chaos, which indeed most likely genuinely don't care about good or evil. like slaads, for example. but there are a lot more chaotic beings than there are beings of pure chaos).

Ninjadeadbeard

2017-05-17, 10:28 PM

[list]

Or...

LG: Good is Inherently Lawful. People follow the rules because the rules are (hopefully*) good and people want to be good.
NG: Good is in the Balance of Law and Freedom. Laws make society run, but let's not lose sight of the need to be Free.
CG: Freedom is Inherently Good. Laws can do good, but you'll see the Best in People when they are allowed to be Free.
*If the rules aren't Good, MAKE THEM.

LN: Lawful is Inherently Good. Good people follow the laws, and the laws protect good people.
TN: I look out for myself and my own. Other peoples' worries aren't my concern.
CN: My own Personal Freedom is Good, as is Freedom for those I care about or emphasize with. Anyone else can go hang.

LE: The Law is a Tool which I can use to further my goals. Whether bending the Law or Enforcing it, I will have victory.
NE: I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty in the pursuit of my dreams. Sometimes you need to break a few eggs...
CE: My own personal gratification/freedom is all that matters. Civility, camaraderie, social graces...these are a mask which hides the Monster inside*.
* Edge, edge, edge, edge, edge, edge, edge....

Specter

2017-05-17, 10:32 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

TheBirba

2017-05-17, 11:15 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

Don't think you can put it any better than that. +1

Gtdead

2017-05-18, 12:25 AM

I think the observable difference is telling. But it's kinda hard to put it in words. Basically you are in a rebel bar. People there are making dirty jokes, harass the waitress, drink too much etc. These are generally CN. Some of them may be CG but anyway.

CE can be cut from the same cloth visually, but his eye has a certain glint. The waitress generally is used to the harassment but she just can't stand that guy because she is afraid of him. When he drinks he may raise the stakes and try to play some murderous game (think Russian roulette) and his dirty jokes are creepy as ****. He also stares too much and people feel him in the back of their necks.

Neutrality can be a very confusing concept if you look at things at face value. While a LG character will not condemn any person to death, even when that person is very dangerous to the community, a LN and a CE can condemn him casually.

My point here is that the "do what I want" criterion you are using is too general to even begin to describe the general properties of the alignments.

Blacky the Blackball

2017-05-18, 02:28 AM

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-05-18, 02:43 AM

I think a decent guideline for neutral is that they don't cross any lines normal people just wouldn't cross. A Chaotic Neutral person is not going to let the world end when the button to stop it is right there, no matter how silly and unpredictable that would be. A CN person would not seduce their best friends partner just for the yolo. They might still end up in bed with them, but alcohol will usually be involved, and the next day they're sorry, they feel genuinely bad. A CN person can be something like a bandit or a bank robber, but they'll be professionals, and they don't kill anyone in the process of robbing them unless there's no other clear way for them to win. In fact, if the target was clutching their money while sirens can already be heard they'd probably run off empty handed. That purse is not worth someone dying over. (although this gets weird in D&D where everyone just kills all the time, so maybe adapt it to the setting a little.) They can be selfish, dickish and all sort of other things, maybe even a tad sociopathic, but they're still a person, not some caricature of one. If an evil dictator would need propaganda infested child soldiers to do something, the CN guy will have no part of it (unless he'd get killed otherwise, he wouldn't like it if he was dead).

hamishspence

2017-05-18, 06:22 AM

All the chaotic alignments are concerned with doing what's best for themselves rather than what's best for society - and in some cases this might involve doing things that hurt others.

The difference is that the CE person actually enjoys it when their actions hurt others and will sometimes go out of their way to do so unnecessarily, whereas the CN person doesn't enjoy it but just shrugs it off as unfortunate collateral damage.

The CG person, of course, will go out of their way to avoid hurting others and will try to find a way to get what they want without it being at anyone else's expense.
Good is all about Unselfishness and Altruism - a CG person isn't focused on "what's best for themselves" but "what's best for people in general"

However - they have a "compulsion to rebel" (in earlier editions at least) - generally, they distrust rules and order.

So, whenever they find "rules and order" in conjunction with Evil - they will be the first to oppose it - not just out of distrust, but out of a genuine belief that this opposition is "in the best interest of the individuals of the world".

Blacky the Blackball

2017-05-18, 03:02 PM

Good is all about Unselfishness and Altruism - a CG person isn't focused on "what's best for themselves" but "what's best for people in general"

The two aren't mutualy exclusive. They want what's best for the people in general, and for themselves in particular. They won't sacrifice the former for the latter (they are CG rather than CN) but if they can come out ahead without anyone else having to suffer they'll be all for it.

Being scrupulously fair is for the Lawful types.

TheManicMonocle

2017-05-18, 03:18 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

I think that's the best one here

Demonslayer666

2017-05-18, 03:40 PM

I see the difference as a frequency of occurrence.

Neutral is mostly good, and evil when it's deemed necessary.

Evil is evil whenever it wants to be, and doesn't even justify it.

If you are CN and deem it necessary too often, you are in fact CE.

Biggstick

2017-05-18, 04:25 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

Additional upvotes!!

Vogonjeltz

2017-05-18, 06:19 PM

Ok so like, I really don't get the difference between chaotic evil and chaotic neutral. It seems to me they're both "I do what I want," type of people

Chaotic Neutral does whatever they want and doesn't like any limits on their personal freedom.

Chaotic Evil does whatever they please and damn the consequences. If they are greedy, they take whatever they want (Bandits, Pirates). If they are angry with someone they kill without caring who the opponent is or what society might say about it. (Violent gang member, insane cultist)

A chaotic evil character might be able to get along with a group, so long as nobody gets in their way, or has anything they want but won't give it up.

They contrast from Neutral or Lawful evil in that they simply don't care what the consequences of their actions are.

GlenSmash!

2017-05-18, 06:21 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

Nailed it.

2D8HP

2017-05-18, 06:33 PM

*sigh*

This again.

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

In the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:

Only if you're stuck in old edition thinking ...

*looks at who posted*

Oh, never mind. Carry on. :smallbiggrin:

Ooh! Fun fact (IIRC), Mind Flayer's were the first monster to be identified in D&D as both Lawful and Evil.

I'll try to dig up my oD&D books tomorrow and see (I think it was in Eldrich Wizardry).

:smile:
Yes it was!

Lemiel14n3

2017-05-18, 07:08 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

I'd argue that Deadpool is CE, he fights for the good guys but he has absolutely no qualms about his methods or his targets. Half the time it seems like he's specifically doing things in order hurt people. He's pretty dang CE.

Dr.Samurai

2017-05-19, 09:52 AM

"I do what I want" isn't really what Neutral means though. I think part of the problem is a watering down of what Good and Evil mean, so they seem closer to Neutral than they really are.

But most people would probably be Neutral. Even if you don't have a mean bone in your body, it doesn't mean you're Good.

Think of Game of Thrones. Some characters uphold the virtues of Goodness. Others are down right Evil. But most are somewhere in between.

hamishspence

2017-05-19, 09:55 AM

Depends on the edition, and the setting. Some take a "30% of humans are Good, 30% Evil, 40% Neutral" approach (or close approximation) - others have "Most humans are Neutral" (significantly more than 50%).

Personally I prefer the former.

2D8HP

2017-05-19, 10:04 AM

Specter

2017-05-19, 10:43 AM

I'd argue that Deadpool is CE, he fights for the good guys but he has absolutely no qualms about his methods or his targets.

You just described a neutral guy.

Segev

2017-05-19, 10:54 AM

Since it may have been lost in my big 'ol post, I'll just put this here:

https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

Thank you for posting that image. It is one of my favorite summaries of the alignment grid, and while not PERFECT, it serves as an excellent reminder when we get too far into the weeds.

Starting from here, a CN person doesn't play by the rules, but is neither particularly nice nor particularly a jerk. He isn't out to hurt anybody, and while he isn't going to bother over his choices inconveniencing others, he also is going to generally balk at actions which cause real pain to others who don't deserve it. He will often have varying degrees of how much he cares about whether his actions harm you based on whether he thinks you deserve it or not. And whether he thinks it's "real" harm or just a minor inconvenience ("Why should I wait ten minutes to save you ten seconds?" for example). If he can justify something as "they'll never even notice," then he really has no compunctions. (Neither, likely, does the CG person, though, if it really is that 'harmless.')

A CE person is a PRICK about not playing by the rules. He'll laugh as he steals an orphan's last copper piece to buy himself a slightly better meal, even if the kid's going to starve. He may or may not get a kick out of sadistically causing pain and suffering, but the only thing that stops him is when he decides he wouldn't like it. He can be cowed with threats of retribution, but if he is convinced he can get away with it, and he wants to do it, he will. And screw anybody who might object for any reason. As others mentioned, he might have friends and loved ones. People he'll even put himself out for, because he likes seeing them happy and likes their company. But anybody not on that (probably quite short) list had best watch out, because they're no more than traps and obstacles to be overcome and exploited.

Side note, a CG person is a nice guy who doesn't play by the rules. He likes helping others, and seeing others happy, and if the rules get in the way of that, screw 'em.

DivisibleByZero

2017-05-19, 10:58 AM

The difference between CN and CE?
The real answer was summed up nicely with the Deadpool/Joker metaphor.
The answer that most people use at the table is that there is no difference, because most people write CE when they're really playing CN.

Segev

2017-05-19, 11:04 AM

MadBear

2017-05-19, 11:26 AM

Probably not as relevant, but my group has made some short descriptors for our views on alignment. These are rules of thumb, not absolutes.

good: willing to risk self help others, and not willing to harm innocents
Neutral: Not willing to risk self to help other, and not willing to harm innocents
Evil: Not willing to risk self to help others, and willing to harm innocents

Lawful: Thinks mostly about long term ramifications of actions
Neutral: Pragmatically thinks about the ramifications of actions
Chaotic: Thinks about the short term ramifications only

So using that:

Chaotic Neutral: Willing to neither harm nor help people, and thinks about only the short term consequences of their actions.
Chaotic Evil: Willing to harm innocents, and thinks only about the short term consequences of their actions.

Socratov

2017-05-19, 11:28 AM

hamishspence

2017-05-19, 01:11 PM

I'd argue that Deadpool is CE, he fights for the good guys but he has absolutely no qualms about his methods or his targets. Half the time it seems like he's specifically doing things in order hurt people. He's pretty dang CE.

You just described a neutral guy.

"Fighting for the good guys" while being Evil is a very common thing:

Token Evil Teammate (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate)
Heroic Comedic Sociopath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicComedicSociopath)
Sociopathic Hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SociopathicHero)

Sigreid

2017-05-19, 01:22 PM

My take:

CN: Values their independence above all else, but isn't a psycho and won't go looking for opportunities to hurt others...until they infringe on the person's liberty. Generally not interested in infringing on the freedom of others either. Doesn't really care what the law says, will do as they damn well please, but lacking true malice.

CE: Values their independence, but is a psychopath. Doesn't care about anyone else's freedom or welfare. Takes what they want without regard to the harm it does others. Frequently views killing as the simple answer to a problem. This part is a hold over from older editions: Thinks freedom is only deserved by those with the strength to hold onto it. Doesn't really care what the law says, will do as they please, with extreme malice.

Sigreid

2017-05-19, 01:27 PM

All the chaotic alignments are concerned with doing what's best for themselves rather than what's best for society - and in some cases this might involve doing things that hurt others.

The difference is that the CE person actually enjoys it when their actions hurt others and will sometimes go out of their way to do so unnecessarily, whereas the CN person doesn't enjoy it but just shrugs it off as unfortunate collateral damage.

The CG person, of course, will go out of their way to avoid hurting others and will try to find a way to get what they want without it being at anyone else's expense.

I disagree quite a bit here. IMO the CG person believes that few hard rules and greater personal choice are better for society than having a lot of rules for everything since it allows people to pursue what makes them happy without cost to others while preventing "the man" from becoming powerful and corrupt.

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-05-19, 01:27 PM

Personally I view the chaos vs law axis as specific vs. general.

A lawful person will follow the law, even if it hurts a good person because the laws are meant to exact the most effect for the greater good (whatever you opinion on what qualifies as 'The greater good' may be).

A chaotic person will far sooner draw a line: if a good person is hurt by the Law, the Law must be wrong and thus changed.

Just for viewing it like that some people would put you in the lawful category. :smallwink:

While some chaotic characters definitely believe that there can be a just society with good laws, or at least something close to it (Robin Hood was mighty glad when Richard came back), there's also a distinct possibility of these characters just not putting much faith in the concept of laws. They might think there will always need to be exceptions, they might figure that any society that gets too used to boxing itself in with laws is going to lose those things that make life worth living, they might think too much rules pave the way to dictatorship. They could be moral relativists figuring that no law can ever catch the full complexity of any and all situations that could occur. Killing is bad, generally, but of the top of my head there are at least a dozen broad exceptions and probably hundreds of smaller ones, you can't write rules for that. Their dislike might even have nothing to do with actual large scale laws at all, they might just chronically dislike small scale rules like personal rules, the party paladin letting a guy go because he was underage and pleading for his freedom. Hello, after half a day of captivity that guy would have been drinking tea with us and spilling all the evil secrets, surely the safety of the world is worth a little bit of that guy's time? They could dislike rules of engagement. The captain can talk about hearts and minds all he wants, but if I'm in the field it's my call, and if I think a building needs to be blown up right now I need to have explosives with me.

Or, put differently: lawful and chaotic are very broad and vague concepts, but they're definitely not limited to how a character thinks about the current laws of a location he's in. In fact, a lot of people who want to change the law are at least for some small part lawful, because why else would they care about what the laws say?

Jophiel

2017-05-19, 01:35 PM

I find it helpful to pick one dominant alignment aspect. The other aspect is essentially a route to attain the dominant.

Chaotic Neutral: Freedom is most important. Whether that freedom is attained through good or ill means is less important than not being shackled by law and regulations.
Chaotic Neutral: The balance between good and evil is best attained by allowing people to choose their own path, free of laws set by others. When everyone is free, the balance between good and evil will arrive naturally.

Chaotic Evil: Freedom is paramount and the best way to achieve it is through violence and terror. When people see that the rule of law can not protect them from harm, they will reject the law and choose personal freedom and liberty.
Chaotic Evil: My own needs and desires come before anything else. I am justified in ignoring the rule of law to act upon my own whims and, in fact, lawful structures only exist to shamefully protect the weak and worthless.

DivisibleByZero

2017-05-19, 01:46 PM

You see? This is exactly what I was talking about.

I find it helpful to pick one dominant alignment aspect. The other aspect is essentially a route to attain the dominant.

Chaotic Neutral: Freedom is most important. Whether that freedom is attained through good or ill means is less important than not being shackled by law and regulations.
Chaotic Neutral: The balance between good and evil is best attained by allowing people to choose their own path, free of laws set by others. When everyone is free, the balance between good and evil will arrive naturally.

Chaotic Evil: Freedom is paramount and the best way to achieve it is through violence and terror. When people see that the rule of law can not protect them from harm, they will reject the law and choose personal freedom and liberty.
Chaotic Evil: My own needs and desires come before anything else. I am justified in ignoring the rule of law to act upon my own whims and, in fact, lawful structures only exist to shamefully protect the weak and worthless.

Your entire description for CN is appropriate.
Your description for Chaotic Evil is appropriate. But your description for Chaotic Evil is not a description of that alignment, and would be NE or CN instead depending on other fatcors.
This is what I meant when I said that people write CE on their sheets, but are actually playing CN (or sometimes NE).

Blacky the Blackball

2017-05-19, 03:03 PM

I disagree quite a bit here. IMO the CG person believes that few hard rules and greater personal choice are better for society than having a lot of rules for everything since it allows people to pursue what makes them happy without cost to others while preventing "the man" from becoming powerful and corrupt.

I'm not sure we do disagree.

What you said and what I said are compatible with each other, and are likely two beliefs both held by the same CG person.

Jophiel

2017-05-19, 03:06 PM

But your description for Chaotic Evil is not a description of that alignment, and would be NE or CN instead depending on other fatcors.
I disagree. Placing your own desires first and paramount over anyone else's welfare is innately evil so CN can not apply. An (x)N character would not place their own personal desires over anyone's welfare on a consistent basis (though they may feel the ends justify the means of promoting the (x).) That said, an (x)N character wouldn't go usually out of their way to assist others without any personal gain either. "If you were drowning in a well, I'd probably toss you a rope but I wouldn't toss you my towel".

A deep disdain for the structure of law is innately chaotic. An N(x) character would not hold law in utter contempt but rather see it as one possible avenue towards promoting (x) to be balanced against personal liberty -- or feel both can be equally discarded.

A Neutral Evil character would care first and foremost for his own whims but feel that both law and chaos are equally foolish notions: The LE tyrant needlessly complicates things, the CE psychopath is needlessly obsessed with "freedom" when the only one who matters is oneself. The NE character would find the Joker's tirades against social order tiresome and a waste of energy that could be spent indulging oneself. Who cares whether the government of Gotham stands or falls so long as you've got yours?

I think my biggest gripe is word "chaotic" itself. The D&D alignment system wants it to mean "freedom & liberty" in some aspects, "general disorder" in others and then people take it to mean "lol so randumb" as well. The Joker is CE because he's directly opposed to the concepts of social order, not because he doesn't plan things or acts randomly (most of his schemes require a great deal of forethought).

Segev

2017-05-19, 04:25 PM

Chaos is about not playing by any rules. You might have principles, but they're not rules, more guidelines that help you balance your goals. CG types have amongst their goals making others happy, helping the innocent, etc., and so their principles will reflect those goals and center around refraining from hurting the innocent while being willing to punish the guilty (especially to help the innocent). CN types will also value respecting others as they want to be respected, recognizing that others are also people, even if they don't feel a particular impetus to actively seek to help. CE types don't value others just on the basis of those others being people; they might have a small or even large group they consider "people," towards whom they might exhibit CN or even CG behavior, but there is at least a group they are willing to treat as non-people. Objects to be used, exploited, or even disdained and destroyed.

So the difference is whether the C* person views others as people or not. The CE person disregards others' personhood in pursuit of his goals, and respects no rules save those of pragmatism ("Don't make the guy who can kill me angry").

FreddyNoNose

2017-05-19, 04:30 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

All the upvotes!

Jophiel

2017-05-19, 04:39 PM

I think a clearer description of Chaotic Evil (and one DivisibleByZero may agree more with) is the mirror side of Lawful Evil.

Lawful Evil: Your own desires and wants are paramount and a hierarchy of laws and rules you can manipulate or oppress by is best way to attain those wants.

Chaotic Evil: Your own desires and wants are paramount and those wants are best satiated by taking advantage of social disorder and collapse.

In these instances, the primary driver is your own wants and law/chaos are the routes you think will best get you there.

Naez

2017-05-19, 06:36 PM

Basically, it's the difference between Deadpool and The Joker.

I'd say they're both CE. Now Deadpool is certainly LESS evil than Joker, but still evil. He kills people and desecrates their corpses because he thinks it's funny or to prove a point. His day job is killing for money. He once in a while helps the good guys, often by killing the bad guys the others would have otherwise taken alive and sent to prison. He's even tortured people.

Doing bad things to someone who deserved them doesn't make them any less evil. A serial killer that kills serial killers is still evil.

Even if you want to say "Well he's not a murderous psychopath" well actually... He is legitimately, clinically insane. and he beats or murders (or at least attempts to) pretty much anyone who crosses him who isn't sporting some hefty plot armor.

DivisibleByZero

2017-05-20, 07:23 AM

I think a clearer description of Chaotic Evil (and one DivisibleByZero may agree more with) is the mirror side of Lawful Evil.

Lawful Evil: Your own desires and wants are paramount and a hierarchy of laws and rules you can manipulate or oppress by is best way to attain those wants.

Chaotic Evil: Your own desires and wants are paramount and those wants are best satiated by creating or taking advantage of social disorder and collapse.

In these instances, the primary driver is your own wants and law/chaos are the routes you think will best get you there.

Edited slightly to something I could get behind.

lbuttitta

2017-05-20, 07:47 AM

There are Alignment Handbooks written by people more qualified than me to explain the alignments: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment) is the Chaotic Evil one, and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448806-We-re-Rebels-Without-A-Clue-A-Chaotic-Neutral-Handbook) is the Chaotic Neutral one.
Also, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread) is the superthread for the Alignment Handbooks.

Unoriginal

2017-05-20, 08:04 AM

Sir cryosin

2017-05-20, 08:36 AM

When I think CN some people that come to mind is
Star Lord from guardian's of the Galaxy
Kar from bullet proof monk
Pretty much any thift rogue type from Adventures movies, books, TV and media.
Someone that's about themself but does have a bit of a moral set of rules.

CE are sociopath, murderhobo's, tools, ****'s, terrorist.
They sow evil because they know no better, they get off on it not sexually but there have been a few like that. They believe people or ideas are evil and need to be destroyed.
People that come to mind are
The infamous Joker from Batman.
Any bad guy from horror films.
Your advice video and tabletop player.

Blacky the Blackball

2017-05-20, 02:58 PM

One thing that I think people often forget in alignment discussions - and I'm seeing some people do it in this thread - is that alignments aren't single points. They're whole areas.

For example, let's look at the standard alignment graph from the AD&D Players Handbook:

http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0576_1.png

If we imagine that the "origin" (co-ordinates of 0,0) is in the middle of the Neutral area in the centre, then the whole chart can be said to go from, say, -10 to 10 in both axes. So the "Saintly" corner is at (-10,10), the "Beatific" corner is at (10,10), the "Diabolic" corner is at (-10,-10) and the "Demoniac" corner is at (10,-10).

When trying to describe the Chaotic Evil alignment, a lot of people get stuck in the "psychotic sociopath" cliche - which would be at around (10,-10) right in the corner. But that's only the very extreme. Someone at around (2,-2) is also Chaotic Evil. They're in the upper left corner of the Chaotic Evil section, only just outside the Neutral centre, but they're still Chaotic Evil. But these people aren't sociopaths. They're not psychopaths. They're just rather unpleasant and rather unpredictable.

Someone just as unpleasant but far, far more unpredictable (e.g. 10,-2) wouldn't show up as evil at all. Their unpredictability overwhelms it and they're in the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

But people like that are very rare. Normal distributions being what they are, the majority of people fall in the (-1,-1)-(1,1) region and therefore mostly count as True Neutral, and the vast majority are within the (-2,-2)-(2,2) region. Sure there are the occasional psychopaths further down the good/evil scale and the occasional paragons further up; just as there are the occasional eccentric people further to the left or right. But most people - not even most Chaotic Evil or Lawful Good people - simply aren't that extreme.

And that's always a problem in alignment discussions because some people assume that "evil" automatically means "psychopath" and therefore that anyone who isn't that extreme is neutral; and similarly that "good" automatically means "saintly" and anyone who isn't perfect is neutral (the latter being a particular problem when it comes to Paladins and alignment) - while others have the view that anything above the central axis is "good" and anything below it is "evil" and don't leave room for neutrals in the middle.

mephnick

2017-05-20, 03:44 PM

The difference between evil and good is their reactions to situations. Good people will rush to help and will not hesitate to see if the help is truly needed. They will protect themselves or others if needed, but will hesitate to cause harm until they realize it is their only option. They will require proof and justification for this harm. Evil people will be reluctant to help and hesitate until they see something in it for them or realize it's their only option, but they might still help. However, they will not hesitate to condemn, vilify or hurt others and require no proof to justify their actions other than their whim or dogma. Everyone wavers between these two opposites in every situation. How far you trend to one side determines whether you are Good or Evil. Neutral characters take the wussy side of both paths. They may hesitate to help others until they decide the help is truly needed or there's something in it for them. They will usually protect themselves first, and they may or may not help others, but they will still require some proof that it is justified to cause harm to others.

This, of course, is a massive sliding scale and everyone lands somewhere on it and not in 9 stupid categories that don't matter. Alignment is stupid. Deadpool is evil. Get over it.

Vogonjeltz

2017-05-20, 07:30 PM

Nice person? Good

Jerk? Evil

Rules follower? Lawful

Rulebreaker? Chaotic

In between? Neutral

I think that sums it up.

Nice and Jerk aren't neatly synonymous with Good and Evil. (Good manners aren't good acts. Bad manners aren't bad acts).

It's more like Selfless vs Selfish.
Compassion vs Indifference
Mercy vs Cruelty

The good are selfless, compassionate, or merciful.
The evil are selfish, indifferent, or cruel.

Neutral comes quite close to evil in that, when applied to the moral scale it implies not caring about the outcome (which might be tantamount to evil), except they aren't driven by greed/violence/hate. That's the line that the PHB draws in the Alignment section. (PHB 122)

Chaotic Good would be compassionate, merciful and so forth, no matter what society might say or do about it.
Chaotic Neutral goes where they please and does their own thing without caring what society might say or do.
Chaotic Evil is greedy, violent, or hateful no matter what society might say or do about it.

Similarly, Lawful Good/Neutral/Evil are all adherents to some code/tradition/etcetera, but they have different motivations in doing so.
A Lawful Good character might show mercy insofar as its allowed by the law, a Lawful Neutral character sticks to the code, and a Lawful Evil character is selfish but self-limits to whatever that code is.

Neutral Good/True/Evil characters are respectively those who do what they can to help, those who change sides as circumstances dictate, and those who consider repercussions of their actions but only hold back if the repercussions would be problematic. (Neutral Evil doesn't adhere to a code, but they won't do something that might get them in serious trouble. Chaotic Evil would. Lawful Evil would be restrained by the code).

Specter

2017-05-20, 08:19 PM

I pretty much agree with Vogonjeltz on his general approach above. But there's one more thing I think is important: many stories involve a CN character against an evil antagonist. The first things that come to mind are Pirates of the Caribbean and Deadpool, as mentioned, but any movie/book/etc. where the protagonist doesn't care about society's structure and is dragged into saving his skin/saving his loved ones is a good example of this.

Thrudd

2017-05-20, 10:14 PM

Neutral - will act greedily or selfishly sometimes, doesn't always try to help others if it isn't convenient. You act morally for the most part, but if presented with a moral challenge, you will likely take the easiest path. If something seems hard or dangerous, you probably aren't going to do it unless the benefit to you is high. Too much danger might cause you to abandon your friends. You would probably stop short of betraying or killing a friend or companion unless it was a real Sophie's Choice type situation. Neutral people can have friends that they care about, and only tough dangerous situations would make you abandon them. You won't give your own life to save someone else, but you'll make an effort not to let them die.

Evil - you always act greedily or selfishly, only help others if there's something in it for you (and you'll try to find a way to get what you want without helping anyone if at all possible). You have no morals, you always choose the easiest or most profitable path. You enjoy hurting and maybe even killing people and making them afraid of you. You like to feel powerful and show that you're more powerful than others in various ways depending on your individual personality.
Too much danger and you will definitely abandon your companions if you can - calling them friends would likely be a stretch. Given a chance to greatly profit or become really powerful, and you will absolutely betray or kill a companion.
Evil people have few if any real friends - that's the nature of the beast. You have people that are convenient or necessary companions who help you get what you want. As soon as they don't, your involvement with them can quickly deteriorate.

Good people go out of their way to help others, even when it costs them something. When they see someone suffering, they want to help and they try to help, even if it's dangerous. Good people are trustworthy friends. They won't abandon a friend and will be very likely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of another if they need to. They will give up a chance for profit or power if it means hurting innocents or sacrificing their friends or compromising their morals in some other way. Faced with moral dilemmas, they will always try to uphold moral ideals rather than taking an easy path.

Envyus

2017-05-21, 02:01 AM

Though I should point out that many types of personalities fall into the same alignments. Just because two people are lawful good does not mean they will have completely the same values or personalty type.

The utterly alien and Insane tend to be folded under chaotic neutral. Take the Slaadi for example. The inhabitants of limbo. They are super dangerous to be around, due to having no moral compass, and an insane and alien mindset. While they could be friendly they are just as likely to be hostile, and even if they are friendly staying around them too often is a bad idea cause they might suddenly change their mind and become hostile. About the only constant about Slaadi is that they do have a fear of death, and as a result will obey stronger types of Slaad.

hamishspence

2017-05-21, 02:35 AM

But people like that are very rare. Normal distributions being what they are, the majority of people fall in the (-1,-1)-(1,1) region and therefore mostly count as True Neutral, and the vast majority are within the (-2,-2)-(2,2) region.

While I'd agree with the latter, I'm not so sure about the former, given that the PHB said "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" and that the DMG doesn't make TN power centers vastly more common than others (over 50% total). Nor does Cityscape make TN "community alignments" (for large communities) vastly more common.

Those are 3rd ed - but similar principles may apply in 5e - with True Neutral humans being a bit more common than others, but not necessarily "the majority".

Sigreid

2017-05-21, 03:07 PM

While I'd agree with the latter, I'm not so sure about the former, given that the PHB said "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" and that the DMG doesn't make TN power centers vastly more common than others (over 50% total). Nor does Cityscape make TN "community alignments" (for large communities) vastly more common.

Those are 3rd ed - but similar principles may apply in 5e - with True Neutral humans being a bit more common than others, but not necessarily "the majority".

I doubt most people would be able to identify they're alignment. I think most of us have idealized pictures of what we would like to be, or unfairly negative views of what we are.

In general I would classify most people as neutral with their desired image of themselves pushing them up a bit towards good.

Most people I've met are decent enough. They tend to help people when the people are in front of them and they are asked, provided the cost to themselves isn't to great. They value their connections to their friends and family so they go more out of their way for them. In general, they follow the rules that they think are necessary for their self image as a good person, but enjoy breaking rules that they think are insignificant or stupid when they can get away with it. They aren't out to hurt anyone they don't see as a threat, but taking care of themselves and their friends and family is their priority. Heck, even their self image as a good person usually boils down to wanting to be seen as "good folk" and respected more than any fervent need to be on the side of right.

Trouble is, those who are passionate about what they see as right and wrong make all the noise.

Jophiel

2017-05-21, 04:31 PM

Again, part of the issue is the dual nature of "neutral". Neutral can be construed to mean "seeking balance" or "unbiased" or "ambivalent" which are all different. Imagine a fight between a good force and an evil force. A "Neutral" character could reasonably think:
"Good is about to over run evil with a massive force and take over the world entirely. Light is meaningless without darkness and the scales can not be allowed to topple -- we must ensure that Good does not entirely prevail."
"In the interest of peace, I will hear both sides as arbiter and arrive at a solution I think will benefit both or at least limit suffering"
"I may not allow myself to interfere at all. Although the suffering is terrible, this is a fight that I may only observe and record, not entwine myself within."
"I don't care who wins"

In reality, most people don't really have an alignment because most people don't really have an ethos*. We tend towards Lawfulness because we generally agree that it's nice not to have our house burnt down or our car stolen by bands of thugs but most people aren't so much committed to the ideals of law and structure so much as we self-servingly enjoy having roads and postal service. We tend towards good and give lip service to the ideal but few people make any effort to seriously sacrifice or to put themselves out there. History (and the modern era) is full of examples of people largely keeping their heads down and trying to get by while terrible things happen around them. At the same time, calling people "True Neutral" can be taken to mean that we're a bunch of first edition AD&D druids, sagely trying to restore some cosmic balance or making a thoughtful efforts towards neutrality which obviously isn't the case. Alignment isn't meaningful unless it's actually an relevant part of who you are.

* (Obligatory "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism...")

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-05-22, 02:05 AM

Imagine a fight between a good force and an evil force. A "Neutral" character could reasonably think:
"Good is about to over run evil with a massive force and take over the world entirely. Light is meaningless without darkness and the scales can not be allowed to topple -- we must ensure that Good does not entirely prevail."
"In the interest of peace, I will hear both sides as arbiter and arrive at a solution I think will benefit both or at least limit suffering"
"I may not allow myself to interfere at all. Although the suffering is terrible, this is a fight that I may only observe and record, not entwine myself within."
"I don't care who wins"

Or, of course: "I wold myself I would not get involved, but those goblin forces are overrunning villages left and right, leaving behind a trail of bodies. So I guess it's another Christmas in the trenches for me."

A neutral person is often a normal, non-heroic person. Neutral does not mean, in my opinion, that they have to see equal value in what the good and the bad guys want. Look at the order of the stick. V needed to be put in pretty extreme duress before accepting help from the directors, I bet he would have been much more eager to accept help from angels. And he's fighting Xykon, while he actually helped (to some degree, in the arc on the ships) Azure city. Han Solo came around to fighting for the rebels as well, he did not kill a rebel soldier for every stormtrooper he shot. When the bad guys win, bad things often happen. Neutral people tend to not like that.

And yes, that absolutely falls under neutral on the alignment chart.

Jophiel

2017-05-22, 08:24 AM

No argument. Neutral is a big catch-all that can span a fervent "The Balance must be kept!" mindset to "Eh, whatever". Most people are Neutral, but much closer to the "eh" end of the spectrum (or self-preservation) than the ancient druid mindset.

I do think that "need to kill a good guy for every bad guy" is an exaggeration of even the "Balance" mindset. Rather, a Balance-Neutral aligned character would believe that Light is meaningless without Darkness and, without balance to test them, a world under the heels of paladins would soon become corrupt and collapse. That doesn't have to mean "Well, I killed seven bugbear shamans today, so now I gotta kill seven holy clerics..." but they could legitimately see a need to stop the Good Guys from using a relic to wipe all the evil off the map. "Without shadows, unending blinding light burns away that which it meant to help grow" and all that.

V would indeed accept divine help and only accepted infernal help under duress but there's the basic self-serving point as well that infernal help comes with strings attached and sinister motive. A simple calculation of the odds would tell you that you're better off with the extra-planar presence whose very essence means they're less likely to jerk you around (or to lie about it).

Scots Dragon

2017-05-22, 08:33 AM

Blacky the Blackball

2017-05-22, 09:49 AM

Since some people don't like the Deadpool and Joker example, here's a slightly different one.

Jack Sparrow and the Joker.

Captain Jack Sparrow is pretty much the iconic rogue type, concerned only with his own well being, not even especially concerned about his ship and crew so much as he is about having complete and proper ownership of the ship in question as a personal status symbol, and thumbing his nose at authority in any instance he can. He's not even especially loyal to his friends and his conscience is at best very limited, with a laundry list of betrayals and backstabbings against even his most fervent allies. Still he's not actively malevolent; he won't pointlessly kill for arbitrary reasons, and he'll even save someone's life on a random whim if he thinks he might be able to benefit.

Captain Jack Sparrow (he's very particular about that) is a good example for chaotic neutral, but I think The Joker is a terrible example for chaotic evil.

The Joker is an insane psychopathic sociopath, and using him as an example of chaotic evil gives the false impression that all chaotic evil people are like him.

A better example - from the same source as Jack Sparrow - would be Captain Barbossa. He's got the same anti-authority and personal freedom feelings; but he's far less likely to save anyone's life, has fewer allies that he gets on with, and is much more likely to kill (or at least try to kill) people.

MadBear

2017-05-22, 10:11 AM

Captain Jack Sparrow (he's very particular about that) is a good example for chaotic neutral, but I think The Joker is a terrible example for chaotic evil.

The Joker is an insane psychopathic sociopath, and using him as an example of chaotic evil gives the false impression that all chaotic evil people are like him.

A better example - from the same source as Jack Sparrow - would be Captain Barbossa. He's got the same anti-authority and personal freedom feelings; but he's far less likely to save anyone's life, has fewer allies that he gets on with, and is much more likely to kill (or at least try to kill) people.

Joker is a better example of classic Chaotic evil, and Barbossa is a better example of PC chaotic evil. The joker as a CE villain would be a fun challenge. The joker as a PC would be a nightmare for other PC's.

Segev

2017-05-22, 12:56 PM

I hesitate to say that CE would do something that would get them in trouble. I mean, obviously, they would, but it's not a distinguishing factor from LE, in general.

CE isn't going to break rules just to break them. They will break them when they can get away with it. They only care about rules insofar as those rules can be enforced against them.

This differentiates from NE in that NE will tend to adhere to laws unless it becomes too big of a hinderance.

CE flat-out doesn't care about rules, unless they come with consequences that are too difficult/costly to avoid.

NE cares about rules. NE is just willing to break them if the incentive is high enough vs. the risk-adjusted costs of punishment for being caught breaking them.

But CE is not INHERENTLY stupid. The CE character can easily be smart enough to choose to follow rules when he can't afford to be caught breaking them.

CE and NE characters are why rules need punishments for breaking them, after all. If punishments didn't work, they wouldn't bother assigning them.

Unoriginal

2017-05-22, 03:44 PM

The difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil is that chaotic evil is for people who are most of the time deliberately malevolent, while chaotic neutral are just people who don't go out of their ways to be benevolent.

No argument. Neutral is a big catch-all that can span a fervent "The Balance must be kept!" mindset to "Eh, whatever". Most people are Neutral, but much closer to the "eh" end of the spectrum (or self-preservation) than the ancient druid mindset.

I do think that "need to kill a good guy for every bad guy" is an exaggeration of even the "Balance" mindset. Rather, a Balance-Neutral aligned character would believe that Light is meaningless without Darkness and, without balance to test them, a world under the heels of paladins would soon become corrupt and collapse. That doesn't have to mean "Well, I killed seven bugbear shamans today, so now I gotta kill seven holy clerics..." but they could legitimately see a need to stop the Good Guys from using a relic to wipe all the evil off the map. "Without shadows, unending blinding light burns away that which it meant to help grow" and all that.

The "Balance" mindset is not really a thing anymore in 5e. Most people who seek to maintain a supposed "balance" by killing good people or stopping them from helping others in 5e would fit the lawful evil alignment.

"There must be bad people, otherwise the good people will become bad people" is kind of nonsensical. Maybe an organisation devoted to doing good can become corrupt, but the solution is to help make it less corrupt or prevent the corruption, not helping the ones who want to do evil.

Sigreid

2017-05-22, 04:07 PM

My input for a fictional CE character, Carol from Archer:

1. Doesn't really help anyone and often goes out of her way to not help
2. Starts fires for fun, dreams of buying an orphanage and burning it to the ground
3. Sniffs glue
4. Facilitates her friends destructive behaviors for her own amusement (directs Pam to more cocaine to keep her Hulk thing going)
5. Absolutely no issue with murder
6. Happily lets her best friend get kidnapped in her place, going so far as to mislead the kidnappers about who is who

The list kind of goes on and on. And for all that, she's understated enough in her evil that I could see her function in a group.

Jophiel

2017-05-22, 06:44 PM

"There must be bad people, otherwise the good people will become bad people" is kind of nonsensical. Maybe an organisation devoted to doing good can become corrupt, but the solution is to help make it less corrupt or prevent the corruption, not helping the ones who want to do evil.
A real life example would be the belief that a political group requires a "loyal opposition" to keep them in line and, without it, they tend to excesses that damage their own ideology and cause a wild swing to the other side. Likewise, a a "Balance" True Neutral philosophy may hold that some evil threats to keep the Holy Paladin Order on point is preferable to an Order that grows corrupt from lack of function until you have 80% evil corrupted paladins fighting the 20% remaining devoted ones.

Like the discussion about V, your average True Neutral would be more apt to assist or help the forces of good on a day to day simply because the forces of evil probably want to burn their forest down and salt the fields. But they also recognize the value of opposing ideologies and powers whereas the holy warrior would say that the only worthwhile bugbear is a dead one. Even in cases of intervention, it's unlikely that a Balance-oriented character would engage in open bloodshed or war against good aligned forces but may deny them passage through lands, misdirect them, warn the other forces to give them a chance to fall back, etc.

You're right though about True Neutral in 5e being watered down considerably. I guess I'm a traditionalist :smalltongue: Also, of course, most True Neutrals aren't Balance-oriented but tend towards one of the other flavors of neutrality.

Unoriginal

2017-05-23, 09:10 AM

A real life example would be the belief that a political group requires a "loyal opposition" to keep them in line and, without it, they tend to excesses that damage their own ideology and cause a wild swing to the other side. Likewise, a a "Balance" True Neutral philosophy may hold that some evil threats to keep the Holy Paladin Order on point is preferable to an Order that grows corrupt from lack of function until you have 80% evil corrupted paladins fighting the 20% remaining devoted ones.

Like the discussion about V, your average True Neutral would be more apt to assist or help the forces of good on a day to day simply because the forces of evil probably want to burn their forest down and salt the fields. But they also recognize the value of opposing ideologies and powers whereas the holy warrior would say that the only worthwhile bugbear is a dead one. Even in cases of intervention, it's unlikely that a Balance-oriented character would engage in open bloodshed or war against good aligned forces but may deny them passage through lands, misdirect them, warn the other forces to give them a chance to fall back, etc.

But it makes no sense. Being benevolent is not a political ideology. This is like saying "misery builds character", so you will inflict misery on someone who has done nothing bad.

Deliberately opposing benevolence is kind of too much of a jerk move to be neutral.

At best you could say that some neutral characters would consider that they should keep the good organisations in check in order to avoid corruption, but it's not the same as opposing them.

Jophiel

2017-05-23, 10:40 AM

Deliberately opposing benevolence is kind of too much of a jerk move to be neutral.
Disagree. A Balance-Neutral character would be taking the long view and could legitimately see that a short-term opposition now is better off for the future. It's an alien mindset to most but that's what makes that alignment style rare and hard to play (or people feel it's simply 'one for A, one for B' rather than a greater balance).

This is like saying "misery builds character", so you will inflict misery on someone who has done nothing bad.
I don't wish to stray into real life theology so I'll limit this to pointing out a number of stories and teachings revolve around this very notion. The same concepts can certainly apply to a fantasy world with its own ideologies.

Thrudd

2017-05-23, 12:08 PM

The "active force of balance" interpretation of neutral alignments only makes sense in a setting where there is an ongoing cosmic struggle between opposing forces that are trying to exterminate each other. The white team and the black team and the red team and the blue team are all trying to exterminate each other in a never ending war, and the grey (neutral) team needs to make sure that none of them actually get completely exterminated.

This is not the case in all or most settings. In a setting where the alignments are not cosmic armies fighting each other, but just descriptions of how people act, neutral is the alignment that does not take sides or have strong ideals or ambitions, or falls in between the extremes. The details will depend on your job and position in society and personal goals.

A neutral person will fight to protect their family and their village from attacks, but won't want to risk themselves to go help the neighboring village. A good person will defend their village, and then offer to help other villages if they need it. An evil person will defend themselves and their family, but wouldn't be upset if their rich neighbor died in the attack and some of their gold just happened to go "missing"- or would negotiate with the attackers to go attack the neighboring village instead, and even offer to help them, as long as they left your village alone.

A neutral adventurer will accept a job to protect a helpless village from attack if they are getting compensated for it or doing so helps further their goals. They could refuse that job and walk away if they felt it wasn't worth it to them. A good adventurer would never turn down a request for help from a helpless village, even if they wouldn't be paid for it. An evil adventurer might accept the job if it had the right compensation, but would have no qualms about betraying the village and looting it if that would be better or more profitable than fighting the attackers in some way. or they would try to extort the village for extra payment after preventing the attack with threats or might just plain steal stuff if they thought they could get away with it.

Neutral people don't automatically look at two sides in any conflict, and then side with whoever looks like they're losing so that everything is "balanced". That is a mentally ill person, or someone following very strange religious precepts.

A chaotic person would not be motivated by social conventions of behavior or observe the rules of external sources of authority. They don't go out of their way to break any rule they hear about, they just don't believe in the value or power of rules in-of themselves. You'll act the way you want to act, unless there's somebody that can force you to do otherwise.

A chaotic good does whatever they think is right, helpful, compassionate, kind regardless of any rules that might be in place.

Chaotic evil does whatever brings them more power, wealth, personal pleasure regardless of rules.

Chaotic neutral does what they feel like, pursues their goals in the way they see fit without consideration for rules, but still observes some conventions of basic human(demi-human) decency. They probably have some sense of morality, that sense just isn't strong enough to convince them to endanger themselves on behalf of strangers.

Unoriginal

2017-05-23, 12:25 PM

Disagree. A Balance-Neutral character would be taking the long view and could legitimately see that a short-term opposition now is better off for the future. It's an alien mindset to most but that's what makes that alignment style rare and hard to play (or people feel it's simply 'one for A, one for B' rather than a greater balance).

Well, that's a nice opinion the balance-persons would have of themselves, as I can totally understand that people would think they're in the right to do that, but it won't make their alignment neutral. Alignements aren't about what you think you are.

Doing things like making benevolent people fail in their goals to help others because you think they're winning too much is nothing short of malevolent.

I don't wish to stray into real life theology so I'll limit this to pointing out a number of stories and teachings revolve around this very notion. The same concepts can certainly apply to a fantasy world with its own ideologies.

Those stories either involve a jerk learning a lesson, or a benevolent person being tormented for no reason.

Jophiel

2017-05-23, 12:31 PM

Jophiel

2017-05-23, 12:34 PM

Well, that's a nice opinion the balance-persons would have of themselves, as I can totally understand that people would think they're in the right to do that, but it won't make their alignment neutral. Alignements aren't about what you think you are.

Doing things like making benevolent people fail in their goals to help others because you think they're winning too much is nothing short of malevolent.
That's an opinion that righteous people hold when they are stymied in their missions and fail to see the long view :smallwink:

Sigreid

2017-05-23, 01:20 PM

Well, that's a nice opinion the balance-persons would have of themselves, as I can totally understand that people would think they're in the right to do that, but it won't make their alignment neutral. Alignements aren't about what you think you are.

Doing things like making benevolent people fail in their goals to help others because you think they're winning too much is nothing short of malevolent.

Those stories either involve a jerk learning a lesson, or a benevolent person being tormented for no reason.

I just want to say that there is widespread disagreement as to what is the tight thing.

Thrudd

2017-05-23, 03:18 PM

For the record, the "Balanced" Neutral type was one of four or five different versions of "neutral" that I presented (and it's a distinct minority position). That was my original point, that "neutral" covers a wide spectrum of possible motivations from actively protecting a cosmic balance to trying to act as a peacemaker to caring primarily for your own to complete ambivalence. So saying that someone os "neutral" is somewhat meaningless -- or easily misconstrued -- without further explanation and someone handed a character sheet with "True Neutral" in the alignment section could legitimately play that character in a myriad of ways.

Again, that is a very short-term view. A longer term view would be to consider what the results of their victory would be and try to ensure that the long-term results bring harmony and balance. And "balance" doesn't mean one bugbear for every paladin; by its very nature evil brings more disruption than good does so a more appropriate balance may be that 90% good benefits from 10% evil to keep the good focused and on point so that good does not collapse on itself and swing the scales to 90% evil with the long term disorder that would bring. This was the original archetype of the druid: seeking balance and recognizing that all things had their place and role on the land. That, while goblins may be a handful and need to be culled to manageable numbers, they had a role to fill and wiping them out was as foolish and destructive as allowing them to run rampant.

Yes, that is representative of the druid religion from AD&D, but this form of neutral really only applies on an organization or on the systemic scale. It requires a high-level view of societies and the world to make such decisions about what requires balance and where, and long-term observations. Any given individual does not have the ability to see or make such decisions. A person may be taking orders from an organization or a supernatural source that has this goal, and only make actions in accordance with their orders. In this case the organization may be "neutral", but the individual could actually hold any of a range of alignments, and someone who always follows the orders and tenets of an organization is probably personally lawful.

How does an individual person know the overall demographics of goblins relative to humans and the ratio of good to evil in the world? They don't. Unless they have orders from somewhere else, they make choices based only on what they immediately observe. So goblins attacking their territory or their friends will be fought - goblins that leave them alone will be left alone. They are going to behave in a somewhat consistent way relative to goblins, all the time. Tomorrow, they won't choose to have the party flee from the goblins, or help the goblins, because yesterday they killed a bunch of them.

The alignment in respect to a PC is really only describing how that character makes choices and what sort of choices they make. A character that follows the tenets and commands of a religious order to the letter, even when it means helping "evil" against "good" sometimes, or doing things that "good" people consider morally questionable like turning a blind eye to the activity of raiding monsters, is pretty much the definition of lawful neutral.

A true neutral character in an organization follows orders most of the time, but might choose to go against their orders if it seems wrong to them or too dangerous, like if they are told that goblins are endangered and not to kill any, but goblins are invading a town where their friends live. They aren't acting to "preserve the balance" in the global sense, they couldn't possibly have a sense of that - they preserve the balance in their own life, by staying alive and making sure the things that are important to them don't get destroyed. You live and let live, and generally try to keep your head down and get along in the world. You don't get involved in other people's fights. You try not to take more than your fair share, but you don't hesitate to take what you need even if it sometimes means someone else get less.

Jophiel

2017-05-23, 05:05 PM

You're over complicating it. A fledgling Balance Neutral character primarily worries about keeping the harmony and balance of his own glade, forest, dale, etc. As he or she gains experience and resources, so too does he expand the territory under his auspice and involve himself with grander things. You don't need to know the global population of goblins, only if the local ones are disrupting the balance of your lands. An adventuring character would attempt to learn about the local balance before making major decisions. Also, this is a fantasy game; the Balance Neutral character has the potential benefits of divination, the ability to speak with plants and animals, rapid travel, intuition and wisdom, etc. And, heck, that's not even to say that they're correct 100% of the time.

There's benefits to an organization of sorts (which is how AD&D structured it for druids with the Hierophants, etc) but even at a more regional level you can have a feeling for the local flavor and terrain without a voice on high telling you that gnoll activity is up 2.7% so go, go, go :smalltongue:

The-0-Endless

2017-05-25, 11:32 PM

CE-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7htydQMyjFc

CN- I do what I want, but sometimes I don't because that would be predictable.
Also I sometimes do unspeakable things with the corpses of small animals and then go feed the poor a hero's feast.
Or I just cast Mordaniekens magnificent mansion for the homeless and make it full of death traps and gaseous happiness.
Or I break the 4th wall in character.