PDA

View Full Version : I'm Chaotic Neutral!



Hallavast
2007-12-19, 11:29 PM
I've read about (and played through) a lot of horror stories about how Chaotic Neutral should NOT be played, but I'd like to hear some good examples of how it should be played. I'm curious as to how a sane, believable character would actually portray a chaotic neutral alignment. I've never seen this done correctly. Is it just a myth? Is chaotic neutral really just "chaotic stupid"? Or can this actually be accomplished? Discuss.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-19, 11:31 PM
Jack sparrow. That's pretty much the only chaotic neutral I've ever seen really work out well.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-19, 11:32 PM
To me, chaotic neutral characters are disorganized and generally follow their minds instead of their hearts (chaotic good/evil) or the law (lawful). They are thinkers, but they are iusually prone to mood swings, erratic behavior, or odd idiosyncrasies.

Often, Chaotic Neutral people follow rather than lead, as they either lack the conviction to make a good leader or lack the desire or drive to be one at all.

Catch
2007-12-19, 11:34 PM
Jack sparrow. That's pretty much the only chaotic neutral I've ever seen really work out well.

Han Solo. He switches around to good eventually, but as a smuggler, I'd say he's pretty CN.

JackMage666
2007-12-19, 11:39 PM
I'm Chaotic Neutral... It's basically an Anarchist who doesn't want to hurt anyone, but doesn't particularly want to help anyone (though they would argue that Idealist Anarchy would help everyone). You don't follow rules, you don't listen to others, you basically go by your heart. However, you aren't malicious towards others, and you don't wish to harm them if there's another way around it. However, you don't particularly feel inclined to help people who can't repay the favor at some point or another.

Xefas
2007-12-19, 11:41 PM
My previous campaign had a person playing a Chaotic Neutral character very well, with no real issues. Her mood would swing back and forth to extremes, though she did it in such a way and at appropriate times as to purposely not disrupt the game. One moment, she'd be giving away money to total strangers and risking her neck for people she hardly knew who happened to be kind to her, sticking up for the downtrodden, and generally doing good, and then she'd go on to mutilation, torture, and baby stabbing once dealing with the evil-doers.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-19, 11:43 PM
I'm Chaotic Neutral... It's basically an Anarchist who doesn't want to hurt anyone, but doesn't particularly want to help anyone (though they would argue that Idealist Anarchy would help everyone). You don't follow rules, you don't listen to others, you basically go by your heart. However, you aren't malicious towards others, and you don't wish to harm them if there's another way around it. However, you don't particularly feel inclined to help people who can't repay the favor at some point or another.

I'd think of it more as 'whatever's easier in the end'. He might save the girl under the wagon if she looks like she could pay him well enough for the rescue. He might not kill a guy if to do so would turn the town against him. He might kill the guy if it probably wouldn't turn the town against him. He doesn't care for rules, but he likes to hedge his bets.

Tengu
2007-12-19, 11:46 PM
The easiest Chaotic Neutral character is the greedy thief who does everything he can to get his grubby hands on more valuables, but won't go out of his way to really hurt anyone (he won't kill people when robbing, for example). He doesn't give a damn about helping people who aren't his friends, and, more importantly, will not betray his companions.

TheOOB
2007-12-19, 11:49 PM
A chaotic neutral person is anyone who won't take significant person risk to help an innocent person, but also won't purposefully hurt and innocent person(neutral), and cares more about their day to day struggles and what is immediately around them rather then global and or long term struggles(chaotic).

The bard who travels from town to town, playing his songs for coin, never staying at the same place twice is CN, as is the mercenary warrior who quit being a soldier to be his own boss and see the world.

Chaotic Neutral is just like Chaotic Good except that they won't take an undue risk or give significantly to help people they don't know(conversely, they are just like Chaotic Evil except they don't usually harm innocents unless they absolutely have too).

It is far better to take a character concept and apply an alignment based on their actions then base their actions off of alignment.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-19, 11:50 PM
Chaotic Neutral leaders are awesome. See: Kaneda, from Akira.

JackMage666
2007-12-19, 11:55 PM
I'd think of it more as 'whatever's easier in the end'. He might save the girl under the wagon if she looks like she could pay him well enough for the rescue. He might not kill a guy if to do so would turn the town against him. He might kill the guy if it probably wouldn't turn the town against him. He doesn't care for rules, but he likes to hedge his bets.

Killing is an evil act, not even neutral in the least bit. If a character ever actually tried to justify killing as "easiest" then they're committing an evil act.

Note - This does not include self defense or in war-time. If a person is charging you with a sword, and looking for blood, Instinct takes over and either activate Fight or Flight. And, since Instincts are inherently Neutral, that's neutral. However, slipping into the Enemy camp while they're asleep and slitting all their throats when you could just sneak through the camp, that's Evil.

In the real world, the one we live in, there are VERY few Good or Evil people. Evil people kill because it's the easiest course of action, while Good people actually have to go out of their way to be good just for that sake. Almost everyone falls along Neutral Morality. Ethics is more realistically varied in our world, but morality is kind eshew.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:04 AM
K. Let's see if I can cover everyone's contribution in one post...

Squish Ah, but I wouldn't call Captain Jack Sparrow sane. :smallwink: Otherwise, yeah good one.

Fax That's an interesting formula. Can you provide an example?

Catch I'd argue that Han Solo started as Neutral. He was more selfish than rebellious, IMO.

JackMage Ok. I'd agree with the assessment. But have you ever met someone like this in RL? I haven't.

Xefas That chick is crazy.

Squish again Your description sounds more like a neutral person. Don't see much chaos there.

Tengu That description sounds exactly like an old example of a Neutral character from the 3.0 PHB

OOB That works, actually. Spot on. Why don't I ever get to meet any of those characters?

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 12:05 AM
I don't have any examples other than characters I've played, unfortunately.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:07 AM
I don't have any examples other than characters I've played, unfortunately.

And you think that, for some reason, I wouldn't want to hear about them? I'm desparate for material here, man.

JackMage666
2007-12-20, 12:10 AM
In real life, I'm Chaotic Neutral, and I've had several friends who were as well... We weren't particularly malicious or cared about other people (their feeling in particular), but we also broke alot of rules and alot of social standards.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-20, 12:14 AM
Killing is an evil act, not even neutral in the least bit. If a character ever actually tried to justify killing as "easiest" then they're committing an evil act.

Note - This does not include self defense or in war-time. If a person is charging you with a sword, and looking for blood, Instinct takes over and either activate Fight or Flight. And, since Instincts are inherently Neutral, that's neutral. However, slipping into the Enemy camp while they're asleep and slitting all their throats when you could just sneak through the camp, that's Evil.

In the real world, the one we live in, there are VERY few Good or Evil people. Evil people kill because it's the easiest course of action, while Good people actually have to go out of their way to be good just for that sake. Almost everyone falls along Neutral Morality. Ethics is more realistically varied in our world, but morality is kind eshew.

So, wait, killing is an evil act?
I disagree. If you know for a fact that someone who declined a surrender and you decided not to kill is more than likely to kill someone else, then their demise is wholly justified in my book.

I should have put more of a situation in my suggestion, though. Said man you are killing/not killing is a drunkard attacking you.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:15 AM
In real life, I'm Chaotic Neutral, and I've had several friends who were as well... We weren't particularly malicious or cared about other people (their feeling in particular), but we also broke alot of rules and alot of social standards.

...so you're an anarchist?

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 12:15 AM
Silence Mordekai (see signature) was a CN Shadowcaster. She felt that knowledge and learning was better than anything, and that emotions got in the way of daily life. She battled against them constantly to keep them under control, but she was only occasionally successful.

Silence always took the opportunity to snark and ridicule others, only occasionally meaning it in a joking fashion. She regarded herself as superior to most people, but subordinate to nature as a whole.

When it came to personal belief, Silence found that government and religion both held the same problems: since they were designed for the masses, she was not able to find a spot within them that worked well for her. As a result, she shunned both and became something of a hermit.

Silence was also highly disorganized. Her dress had many pockets, and she was only very rarely able to find what she was looking for on the first try.

Another side effect of Chaotic Neutrality is excess, and Silence's vice was books: her home was literally filled with books on all subjects, to the point where she was unable to actually find anything she needed.

That about sums it up.

Raroy
2007-12-20, 12:25 AM
Chaotic neutral and lawful neutral are the hardest to role pay. Mainly because they aren't as exposed as other alignments. People would use chaotic neutral as an excuse to do whatever they like without being evil. LN is probably the least used alignment. Someone who is CN would be chaotic but would have no real cause(Good or evil) that extents beyond them selfs.

I would never give myself an alignment because I am so complex(Mental dysfunction can be your friend). I'd have to say I'm a mix of lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic neutral, and chaotic good. NG maybe? I'll just say that I don't believe alignment exists.

TheOOB
2007-12-20, 12:26 AM
The problem with chaotic neutral is that most people play it one of two ways. A)I'll do whatever I want, when I want, and screw everyone else(aka chaotic stupid, which is usually closer to chaotic evil) or B)I'm dedicated to the concepts of freedom and/or chaos, which is, ironically, usually closer to lawful neutral(or at least true neutral), as someone who devotes themselves to such a cause over the long term or on a large scale is showing many of the hallmarks of lawful.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:29 AM
Silence Mordekai (see signature) was a CN Shadowcaster. She felt that knowledge and learning was better than anything, and that emotions got in the way of daily life. She battled against them constantly to keep them under control, but she was only occasionally successful.
See, that's interesting. I always hear about the hedonistic stereotype that goes along with being chaotic neutral. Your character seems to break from that.



Silence always took the opportunity to snark and ridicule others, only occasionally meaning it in a joking fashion. She regarded herself as superior to most people, but subordinate to nature as a whole.

When it came to personal belief, Silence found that government and religion both held the same problems: since they were designed for the masses, she was not able to find a spot within them that worked well for her. As a result, she shunned both and became something of a hermit.

Silence was also highly disorganized. Her dress had many pockets, and she was only very rarely able to find what she was looking for on the first try.

Another side effect of Chaotic Neutrality is excess, and Silence's vice was books: her home was literally filled with books on all subjects, to the point where she was unable to actually find anything she needed.

That about sums it up.

Again interesting. Your character sounds like someone I know in RL, except that the person is very functional about his dress, and usually makes an effort to look cleaned up and organized in public. Also, he is similarly somewhat of an isolated person (maybe not a hermit, but detatched from mainstream society for sure).

Yet a key difference is that this person feels that, while the current government may be flawwed, that doesn't mean government or authority is intrinsically bad. Quite the opposite. My friend feels that man has simply not found the right form of government yet. So I must ask, why does Silence feel government is inadequate by its nature? Because, if this is the only difference between the two, your character and my friend are very similar, yet I would categorize my friend as more lawful than most, while you (who obviously know your character better than anyone) would say that she is chaotic.

JackMage666
2007-12-20, 12:32 AM
...so you're an anarchist?

Yes, but not in the "Destroy everything!" sense. More of a "People should be inherently good and not try to take advantage of others" sense. I don't believe government rule is the best form of course.

TheOOB
2007-12-20, 12:35 AM
Yes, but not in the "Destroy everything!" sense. More of a "People should be inherently good and not try to take advantage of others" sense. I don't believe government rule is the best form of course.

For the record, that, along with everyone sharing their work and resources as one is the basic tenements of communism.

JackMage666
2007-12-20, 12:45 AM
For the record, that, along with everyone sharing their work and resources as one is the basic tenements of communism.

And Idealist Communism isn't a bad idea in itself, it's when the people who lead it are corrupt and power-hungry, resulting is a corrupt system. People are the things wrong with Communism and Anarchism, not the systems themselves.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:46 AM
Yes, but not in the "Destroy everything!" sense. More of a "People should be inherently good and not try to take advantage of others" sense. I don't believe government rule is the best form of course.

So... not to put you on the spot, but if an establishment is not the solution, what is? That is to say, how would you (the architypical CN for the purpose of this discussion) go about practicing this (hypothetically)?

Wordmiser
2007-12-20, 12:46 AM
The Law/Chaos axis is not well defined. Many examples of a LN character can be supported just as well as CN, so I wouldn't give it too much worry. It seems that the way I try to play them is to think in the long-term for my Lawful characters (taking sacrifices in the immediate future if necessary to reach a later goal) and to think in the short-term for my chaotic characters, taking whichever route is fastest to reach the character's goals. This usually means that for Chaotic characters I deliberately block out most forethought and try to rely as much as I can on spur-of-the moment descisions.


LN is probably the least used alignmentI'm not sure about that, it's probably the alignment I play most often and it seems to show up pretty often in my groups. NE tends to be the one I see least.

Theodoxus
2007-12-20, 12:47 AM
I'm currently playing a CN rogue and I would say that to me, the whole alignment is about minimal conflict. Going with the flow, at its most base.

There are occasions where I'm looked upon as a leader, and when I lead, things quickly stagnate or fall apart, because being a leader typically forces one to go against the grain - pushing your party members to go in a direction they might not naturally go; interacting with NPCs to gather sufficient information to move the plot along, etc. Not to say that I don't do these things, just if I'm pressured into a leadership role, 'bad things happen.'

The chaotic nature is where people fall into issue with the alignment - much as Lawful Good has been debated and essayed to death, CN has had its share of the limelight. But if Law and Chaos are looked at in the light (of individual alignment rather than corporate) as Order and Disorder - it becomes much clearer as to how to act if your alignment is truly along that axis. (There is a lot of difference between playing a Chaotic Neutral character and playing a character who is Chaotic Neutral - TheOOB touched on it earlier.)

An ordered character could almost be described as Obsessive/Compulsive. Meticulous in demeanor and needs, always following the same pattern. The ordered (ie Lawful) fighter would tend to look at an opening battle with tactics in mind. He'll have a number of opening moves, much as a Chess player - and decide which to use based on a number of criteria. Success reinforces his compulsion where failure causes him to re-evaluate but not necessarily change anything - after all, the fickle finger of fate may have influenced the battle unjustly against him.

At it's opposite is the disordered (ie Chaotic) person who follows his whims wherever they may take him. Battle is a time to experiment, try new options but definitely use ones that worked in the past. This type of person doesn't mind following an ordered character, as it makes it easier to do what they want (people aren't expecting them to behave as a leader.) They can be as loose or as rigid in following orders or the law as they want.

Take that Order/Disorder grid and lay it over the Neutral aspect, and you'll find it a rather easy concept to work with. Neutral means 'I'm more important in my world view than you are.' There are exceptions, to be sure, but you're not looking to help the common man, nor are you out to hurt them either. A Lawful Neutral person with this paradigm of thought will be very structured - almost autistic in his approach to life. His place setting at dinner will be exact, his sword will hang the same everyday from his hip, his spellbook will be scrupulously written with the same neat handwriting and probably in order of power and name.

On the other hand, a Chaotic Neutral person will tend to be more sloppy (it doesn't have to go all the way to slovenly, to be sure, CN can be as neatly dressed and clean as anyone else, they just tend to not have that 'snap' present in the truly Lawful.) They meander through life, not following a shiny star directing the course of their destiny, but more caught up in the allure of thousands of fireflies, erratically going from one light to another, in search of satisfaction. Given the exact same scenario two days in a row, the Chaotic personality could do things completely differently - not for the sake of 'I did X yesterday, I must do Y today - it proves I'm chaotic', but for the sake of 'yesterday, I thought X was the better way to handle the situation. Today I really think Y would be better.' But then, there's nothing that says they can't do X two days in a row. Their action isn't typically random (as would imply insanity) but is rather one of resistance.

There is a reason that Chaos is often associated with water - it goes with the flow and follows the path of least resistance. A Chaotic Neutral person likewise goes about doing what is best for him (neutral) in a manner that takes the least amount of effort or hardship (chaotic). Not because of any inherant laziness, but because conforming to rigid plans is truly alien to his thinking.

TheOOB
2007-12-20, 12:50 AM
And Idealist Communism isn't a bad idea in itself, it's when the people who lead it are corrupt and power-hungry, resulting is a corrupt system. People are the things wrong with Communism and Anarchism, not the systems themselves.

Communism would be great if it works, I'm just far to cynical to think it would ever work.

Anyways, I acually think LN is one of the more common alignments, it's the alignment most soldiers, merchants, leaders, and aristocrats have. They work on the long term for something large in scale, and don't take great risks to help others(soldiers don't usually count, they take risks for their paycheck/out of loyalty to their country, neither of which are inherently good), but won't hurt innocents either.

JackMage666
2007-12-20, 12:54 AM
So... not to put you on the spot, but if an establishment is not the solution, what is? That is to say, how would you (the architypical CN for the purpose of this discussion) go about practicing this (hypothetically)?

If I'm allowed Hypothetical, easily -
People are theoretically supposed to be honest and good, not trying to take advantage of other people in order to be better than everyone. They're supposed to help people in need, rather than be selfish and hoard everything they can.

However, it doesn't actually work, because a great majority of people are immoral, corrupt, and overall bad people. On a massive scale, you'd have far too many people abusing the system, murdering, stealing and commit other crimes against man, being no justice force to stop them. It is, in truth, impossible.

But, I still believe it is the utopian form of government, if it worked. It doesn't, and that's a shame, but I'm not going to change my belief just because other people screw it up.

Theodoxus
2007-12-20, 12:56 AM
For PC's, I've never been in a game with a coded CE or LE. There have been times when people have certainly played those alignments, the dead paladin in my current game fell after going CE on a group of innocent orcs.

So, those two would be, in my view, the least played alignments. NE is what most rogues actually play - it's all about ME and what I want. Give me the goods, I'll pay the cost later. Stealing from the party, stealing from the beggers, stealing from anyone who's spot check is less than my Sleight of Hand - mmm thank you very much.

After that, I think real LG is the rarest 'common' party alignment.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 12:56 AM
Yet a key difference is that this person feels that, while the current government may be flawwed, that doesn't mean government or authority is intrinsically bad. Quite the opposite. My friend feels that man has simply not found the right form of government yet. So I must ask, why does Silence feel government is inadequate by its nature? Because, if this is the only difference between the two, your character and my friend are very similar, yet I would categorize my friend as more lawful than most, while you (who obviously know your character better than anyone) would say that she is chaotic.

The difference is that Silence finds that all government types and religious institutions are intrinsically flawed as they account only for the lowest common denominator. Silence believed that, since each individual is inherently different, rules and regulations that applied generally were impossible and ones that applied to the individual were not to be set by the state or by faith. She felt that the individual should determine one's actions. She also felt that morals were an abstraction and a tool of the church used to blind their followers into obligation, and as such did not follow any sort of moral code. Instead, she did as she needed, no more, no less.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 12:57 AM
If I'm allowed Hypothetical, easily -
People are theoretically supposed to be honest and good, not trying to take advantage of other people in order to be better than everyone. They're supposed to help people in need, rather than be selfish and hoard everything they can.

However, it doesn't actually work, because a great majority of people are immoral, corrupt, and overall bad people. On a massive scale, you'd have far too many people abusing the system, murdering, stealing and commit other crimes against man, being no justice force to stop them. It is, in truth, impossible.

But, I still believe it is the utopian form of government, if it worked. It doesn't, and that's a shame, but I'm not going to change my belief just because other people screw it up.

I completely agree. But if utopia is unachievable, what do you seek to achieve in the mean time? Or do you just give up?

What I mean is, I can agree that "communism" is the way to go and that it is also unachievable. But what do I do about the current government? Do I continue my efforts to denounce it if I'm not prepared to point out a viable alternative?

Theodoxus
2007-12-20, 01:00 AM
If I'm allowed Hypothetical, easily -
People are theoretically supposed to be honest and good, not trying to take advantage of other people in order to be better than everyone. They're supposed to help people in need, rather than be selfish and hoard everything they can.

However, it doesn't actually work, because a great majority of people are immoral, corrupt, and overall bad people. On a massive scale, you'd have far too many people abusing the system, murdering, stealing and commit other crimes against man, being no justice force to stop them. It is, in truth, impossible.

But, I still believe it is the utopian form of government, if it worked. It doesn't, and that's a shame, but I'm not going to change my belief just because other people screw it up.

FWIW, I just watched 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' for the first time since it was in the theaters, what, 25 years ago. And it hit that on the head. Unfortunately, to be that 'innocent' and 'uncorrupt' practically requires a subsistance level of existance (feeding off the land) with a large family group (30-40 members lead by a patriarch/matriarch) who have at least a hundred square miles to forage in, alone.

The movie is awesome for pointing out that technology and the 'evil's it brings poses a far greater risk to our enjoying a happy life than it does to actually providing said happiness.

TheOOB
2007-12-20, 01:02 AM
Heck, I played a lawful evil wizard who got along perfectly with his primarily good and neutral party, he just happened to be on the quest for a bit more petty reasons to start (though saving the world is something even an evil person would do, it direct ally benefits them), and he would use methods the others didn't use(consorting with demons, dominating others, dealing with those in his way in a quick and efficient(often lethal manner). We worked well together, we just got in many philosophical battle(and I also "solved" many of our problems without our groups knowing how I did so).

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 01:10 AM
The difference is that Silence finds that all government types and religious institutions are intrinsically flawed as they account only for the lowest common denominator. Silence believed that, since each individual is inherently different, rules and regulations that applied generally were impossible and ones that applied to the individual were not to be set by the state or by faith. She felt that the individual should determine one's actions. She also felt that morals were an abstraction and a tool of the church used to blind their followers into obligation, and as such did not follow any sort of moral code. Instead, she did as she needed, no more, no less.

I see... well that's what it all boils down to then, eh? Trust.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 01:13 AM
I see... well that's what it all boils down to then, eh? Trust.

That's my personal understanding of it, yes. Lawful characters trust institutions, chaotic characters don't. Lawful plays by the rules (even if they're dumb rules), chaotic characters don't.

JackMage666
2007-12-20, 01:17 AM
I completely agree. But if utopia is unachievable, what do you seek to achieve in the mean time? Or do you just give up?

What I mean is, I can agree that "communism" is the way to go and that it is also unachievable. But what do I do about the current government? Do I continue my efforts to denounce it if I'm not prepared to point out a viable alternative?

Well, the alternative is people become basically good and moral. It's not really viable. However, most Anarchists now don't particularly try for Anarchy, so much as the remove of laws that restrict fair freedoms. For example, fighting for Freedom of Speech or for Freedom of Religion. They fight to gain back freedoms that were taken from them - While this isn't a particular problem in America anymore, there are still several countries with Anarchist revolutionaries fighting to regain their freedoms. While it's not true Anarchy in itself, it's the fight for freedoms, and freedoms are generally chaotic in nature.

Think of it that way - There will always be tyranny and oppression in the world. Anarchists exist to oppose it with the polar opposite, which is the absence of all forms of law and government with no oppression given by a governmental body.

Miles Invictus
2007-12-20, 01:18 AM
I view Chaotic characters as pragmatic and individualistic. In a legal context, Chaotic people consider the spirit of a law, rather than the letter. In a social context, Chaotic people pay heed to rules and tradition only when it is agreeable. In a political context, Chaotic individuals try to minimize laws and aggressively fight measures that prevent people from living their lives as they see fit. In a religious context, Chaotic people tend to resent the concept of fate or destiny. In a party context, Chaotic individuals evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis, instead of reflexively doing things the way they've always been done.

Chaotic characters are, like most characters, generally trustworthy individuals. They make deals, sign contracts, and work hard to fulfill their end of the bargain...provided they are dealt with fairly. Chaotics tend to retaliate swiftly when they feel they've been betrayed. To them, a contract is little more than a symbol (perhaps a useless one) of the trust two people share; if that trust is broken, the wording of the contract is irrelevant.

So...what is a Chaotic Neutral person? A Chaotic person who isn't quite good enough to be considered Good, and isn't quite evil enough to be considered Evil.

Hallavast
2007-12-20, 01:19 AM
That's my personal understanding of it, yes. Lawful characters trust institutions, chaotic characters don't. Lawful plays by the rules (even if they're dumb rules), chaotic characters don't.

Whoa whoa whoa. It has nothing to do with institutions. It's simpler that that.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 01:21 AM
Whoa whoa whoa. It has nothing to do with institutions. It's simpler that that.Possibly. A CN character can trust people with time, in my reckoning.

Raroy
2007-12-20, 01:25 AM
On the rarity of LN:

LN is the most common? That's strange, I always felt as if it was never used. I don't really see that many LN like character's.

TheOOB
2007-12-20, 01:28 AM
I view Chaotic characters as pragmatic and individualistic. In a legal context, Chaotic people consider the spirit of a law, rather than the letter. In a social context, Chaotic people pay heed to rules and tradition only when it is agreeable. In a political context, Chaotic individuals try to minimize laws and aggressively fight measures that prevent people from living their lives as they see fit. In a religious context, Chaotic people tend to resent the concept of fate or destiny. In a party context, Chaotic individuals evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis, instead of reflexively doing things the way they've always been done.

Chaotic characters are, like most characters, generally trustworthy individuals. They make deals, sign contracts, and work hard to fulfill their end of the bargain...provided they are dealt with fairly. Chaotics tend to retaliate swiftly when they feel they've been betrayed. To them, a contract is little more than a symbol (perhaps a useless one) of the trust two people share; if that trust is broken, the wording of the contract is irrelevant.

So...what is a Chaotic Neutral person? A Chaotic person who isn't quite good enough to be considered Good, and isn't quite evil enough to be considered Evil.

Keep in mind most of those are things that are common among chaotic people, not what makes someone chaotic. Especially the "Chaotic individuals try to minimize laws and aggressively fight measures that prevent people from living their lives as they see fit." that has nothing to do with chaotic people in the first place, chaotic people only bother with laws if they affect themselves or the people immediately around them, they usually won't change a law unless themselves or someone they know has been hurt(or hindered depending on your moral alignment) by it. Changing things that might be a problem in the future, or that affect something far removes from yourself is a lawful trait.

If a chaotic person is honorable, they will honor a contract(especially if the default condition is something they would rather avoid), if they are dishonorable they will not. Lawful people tend to be honest and honorable more then chaotic people, but thats a tendency, not a rule. Chaotic people only tend to break rules because they do not see time or tradition to be a good reason to keep doing something the same way if it doesn't make sense, they are more flexible, feeling things need to be changed as they come up.

Seffbasilisk
2007-12-20, 01:38 AM
I'd like to challange everyone who's stated that Chaotic-Neutral characters are more followers then leaders. They CAN be leaders, just as much as a LG character, or a CE one, it's more as to how they handle things, and if they're willing to let stupidity rule them. In a game on these very boards, I play Hallnsfarth Zukuri, an Elven Warmage. He's Chaotic-Neutral (and very much in both regards), yet leads the group. He has a trusted second in command he often lets dissuade him of the 'evil' course of action, but still is very much in charge.

Chaotic-Neutral is more 'I do things my way' rather then "I follow these rules!' or "Daddy taught me not to speak to strangers." Then again, I guess it is easier to do that when you blast holes through people by merely manifesting your will, and if need be muttering a few words and making a few passes with your hands.

As for leading the party, it seems to me, that that far more often falls to a certain player, regardless of character, as some people are just of the mindset needed to lead, while others are far more content following someone.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-20, 01:43 AM
I'd like to challange everyone who's stated that Chaotic-Neutral characters are more followers then leaders. They CAN be leaders, just as much as a LG character, or a CE one, it's more as to how they handle things, and if they're willing to let stupidity rule them. In a game on these very boards, I play Hallnsfarth Zukuri, an Elven Warmage. He's Chaotic-Neutral (and very much in both regards), yet leads the group. He has a trusted second in command he often lets dissuade him of the 'evil' course of action, but still is very much in charge.

Chaotic-Neutral is more 'I do things my way' rather then "I follow these rules!' or "Daddy taught me not to speak to strangers." Then again, I guess it is easier to do that when you blast holes through people by merely manifesting your will, and if need be muttering a few words and making a few passes with your hands.

As for leading the party, it seems to me, that that far more often falls to a certain player, regardless of character, as some people are just of the mindset needed to lead, while others are far more content following someone.

Oh, I didn't say they're never leaders, I said that most aren't because they lack the discipline to be a truly efficient leader or because they lack the motivation to do so. Some, however, are neither and do become leaders, albeit unconventional ones.

Talic
2007-12-20, 01:44 AM
The bounty hunter who goes out and slays evil things for reward when he can, and invents evil things to "slay" for reward otherwise, is a good example.

Think of the movie "The Brothers Grimm".

Killing inherently evil creatures is normally in D&D considered a good act, unless it is done for selfish reasons, in which case, it's neutral. A character like this wants to be the hero, wants to be adored, and wealthy, and all that jazz, but doesn't want to play by the rules to get there.


Oh, and as for the leader thing. CN can be leaders, but usually only because they're so dang EFFECTIVE. Usually the followers are left afterwards, scratching their heads, and saying, "WTF?"... Think Jack Sparrow.

drawingfreak
2007-12-20, 02:22 AM
Squish Ah, but I wouldn't call Captain Jack Sparrow sane.
Or perhaps he is so insane that his insanity starts to seem sane, savy?

Anywho, I played a CN Level 5 sorcerer last year (with a level in fighter for the HP and BAB). He started off as the silent type, mostly because I hadn't really fleshed him out 100%. He'd do his job quick and easy no matter the cost.
One day, he was studying some enchantments on a map with a colleague, when a cleric of Thall, the fire god, entered into the room. He gave us a little lecture that was pissing my character off. He ended it with a "Understand?" as he forcefully placed a hand on our shoulders, a little magic heating his hand to show he meant business. I attacked.
For a few rounds, nothing much was happening. We would miss each other constantly. I don't recall why i didn't cast a spell yet. Attacking face to face seemed more appropriate. But all the missing got me hating this cleric more. So I thought of something dastardly. I made a touch attack...and cast Light on his eyelids. *starts humming Blinded by the Light* He started going insane. Somehow the bed in the room caught fire (he's a cleric of a god of fire after all) and he made his way to a window. I immediately kicked him out of it. We were on the third story of an inn I believe.

THAT is CN in action. Don't kill them. Make them regret messing with you. You were just going about your own business when they tried to change things. The innkeeper was paid for any damages caused and the poor people on the street got free swag from some guy with glowing eyes who fell out a window. We went about our business from there.

My character was selfish and flashy from then on. He had a job to do and he just wanted it done so he could get paid. Quick and easy is the best way to go. Never think beyond the present. YOU are what is important.

Miles Invictus
2007-12-20, 02:30 AM
Keep in mind most of those are things that are common among chaotic people, not what makes someone chaotic.

How else are you going to define alignment? If most Chaotic people do these things, and this person over here does these things, it's certainly reasonable to assume that this person over here is also Chaotic. From that, it's not a huge logical leap to say "These things make someone Chaotic."


Especially the "Chaotic individuals try to minimize laws and aggressively fight measures that prevent people from living their lives as they see fit." that has nothing to do with chaotic people in the first place, chaotic people only bother with laws if they affect themselves or the people immediately around them, they usually won't change a law unless themselves or someone they know has been hurt(or hindered depending on your moral alignment) by it.

Just to clarify, the context for that statement was a political one -- such as a Chaos-minded person who, say, advises the local governor. Your rank-and-file Chaotic Neutral person is unlikely to be able to do such a thing.


Changing things that might be a problem in the future, or that affect something far removes from yourself is a lawful trait.

What? Chaotic Neutrals can't show anything even remotely like long-term thinking? Doesn't that just encourage more "Chaotic Neutral means I can do anything I want!"?



If a chaotic person is honorable, they will honor a contract(especially if the default condition is something they would rather avoid), if they are dishonorable they will not. Lawful people tend to be honest and honorable more then chaotic people, but thats a tendency, not a rule. Chaotic people only tend to break rules because they do not see time or tradition to be a good reason to keep doing something the same way if it doesn't make sense, they are more flexible, feeling things need to be changed as they come up.

Honesty and trustworthiness are Good traits, not Lawful ones. All other things being equal, who do you trust more, someone who's Lawful Evil, or someone who's Chaotic Good?

Duke Malagigi
2007-12-20, 03:03 AM
Honesty and trustworthiness are Good traits, not Lawful ones. All other things being equal, who do you trust more, someone who's Lawful Evil, or someone who's Chaotic Good?

The Chaotic Good. A Lawful Evil would at best see you as a useful ally/patsy for achieving their ideological goals. At worst he or she would see you as a slow moving speed bump. A Chaotic Good would honor their agreement with you as long did the same and don't try to force them to cause harm to an innocent in following the deal.

Doomsy
2007-12-20, 04:01 AM
To me, Chaotic has always meant more of a selfish or at least, self-centered style kind of outlook. A Chaotic Good character does not care what the rest of society thinks or does, they do what they think is good at the moment, regardless of law. A Chaotic Evil character will do what is best for them at an opportunity regardless of who gets hurt or what the law says.

I think a Chaotic Neutral person is someone who doesn't particularly care for society or its laws, but they're not greedy enough (or are too smart) to go for power for its own sake. But they're also not exactly motivated or perhaps driven enough to act as protectors for other people.

While not evil, there is no problem at all with lying, cheating, or deception for the 'greater good' of their self interest. On the other hand, enough loyalty to stick with their friends. It's kind of a balancing act. Too independent to be a normal part of society, not quite selfish enough to be utterly evil - but you're not going to throw everything away fighting evil directly either, especially for others whom you don't even really know.

Renx
2007-12-20, 10:47 AM
Belphanior, from The Adventurers (http://www.peldor.com/chapters.php?1). He's the very definition of CN.

Saph
2007-12-20, 11:26 AM
We have a player in our group who's the essence of Chaotic Neutral. He likes things to be exciting. When things are exciting, he helps the party loyally to get them out of trouble. When things aren't exciting, he goes to stir up trouble until they are. He'll always do the exact opposite of whatever he's told and will never follow orders, and will go out of his way to annoy you if you try to boss him around. Basically a decent guy, but totally unreliable, and all his characters are the same. Adventures with him tend to be a series of fights and making-ups as he makes everyone angry with him, then makes up for it by helping them, then makes them angry with him again.

He's an anarchist. If you live in Australia, you probably know the kind of guy I'm talking about. :P

As for some fictional characters:

Catwoman from Batman.
Mat from the Wheel of Time (he's actually a really good one).
Olive from Azure Bonds.
Most of the pirate or bandit characters from the Suikoden series.
Vaan from Final Fantasy XII.
Spike and Faye from Cowboy Bebop.
Fred and George Weasley from Harry Potter.

Most criminal, pirate, bounty hunter, thief, bandit, smuggler, scoundrel, and trickster characters from stories tend to be CN. They can be enemies or allies, but first and foremost they do as they please.

- Saph

Alyosha
2007-12-20, 08:54 PM
When I hear Neutral, I think of a person who would on any given day simply sit in the corner of the pub and watch his community unfold around him. He is not involved in any conspicuous way. He does not take sides, does not campaign for ideals, and never places himself in a position where he would have to become entangled in someone else's battles. Or at least, he avoids these things until they become unavoidable. After the situation is resolved, I would expect the Neutral character to remove himself from all association with said battles/conflicts/situations as soon as possible.

As for Law and Chaos:

I see a Lawful Neutral character as the person who sits in the corner and formulates outcomes. The LN character tries to predict an outcome as accurately as possible. This way, if the character is unavoidably pulled into the conflict, he can try to at least land on the winning side.

A Chaotic Neutral character might pick the side he feels is a good choice at the time and then jump from one side of the fence to the other as the mood suits him, or even jump in as a third party if he is forced to participate.

I also tend to think of Lawful Neutral persons as those who would stick around until a conflict is resolved before resuming his spectator position, whereas a Chaotic Neutral person might jump the ship as soon as a solid opportunity presented itself.

Despite the differences, I tend to also view Neutral persons as a whole to be opportunistic.

mockingbyrd7
2007-12-21, 01:49 AM
I'm going to include several DnD examples and examples of people I've actually known in this post.

The first real person I think of is a guy at my old private school named Rick. Straight black hair, slicked up in the front. A skater boy, and a rebel. His number one phrase was, "I don't care." He disrespected authority and people who tried to control him, and hated school. He was a good student, but only because he was 12 and enrolled in a private school, thus didn't have much of a choice. Morals meant little to him; he wasn't evil, but he was manipulative and didn't care about other people's feelings. All in all, Rick was a jerk. He doesn't give "Chaotic Neutral" a very good name.

Here's a hypothetical character for you: a party girl. She lives for excitement, danger, spontaneity, socialization, and the opposite sex. She doesn't go out of her way to break rules, but doesn't care much for them either. She's very frivolous, fun, fashionable, flirty (holy alliteration Batman!), etc. All she wants is a good time, and her idea of a good time is going to a party with awesome music, getting drunk, finding an attractive guy to spend the night with, rinse-repeat.

I'm going to post more later, this is a really cool thread, but I'm getting to the danger sleepy zone, the point where my writing becomes repetitive, simplistic, and inconsistent, and I can't find the point I'm trying to get at. More later. Yeah, sounds good. Night all. :smallsigh:

Yami
2007-12-21, 01:49 AM
"I'll kill a man in fair fight. Or if I think he's gonna start one. Or if there a woman involved, or for money. Mostly for money. But cuttin' on yourself? Now where's that get fun?"

Speak as someone who plays mostly CN, I'd have to say it's not so tough an alignment to be. I do play the occasional LE or LN, but truely CN is what I lean towards. Its the True neutrals I just cannot do.

The trick behind playing a Chaotic Nuetral well is to play whatever other alignment your used to, but to shrink your view of what is important. You'll have one or two things your really care about, often yourself and a goal, sometimes the party. All else is expendable, and often not worth your time.

If you take the LG paladin martyr mindset and shrink it's world down to your travelling companions, you have made a CN character that your party would love to have on the team. You then expand your veiws to incorperate things that managed to catch your attention at times, and letting them fall by the wayside when they bore you.

If you want examples, I have below and excerpt from an old forum game.

Finished stripping the bloody mess of anything he valued, Grizig gathers his backpack and sheathe, cleaning the blade on what clean cloth he can find. That done he scampers over to the lady he dropped earlier. Keeping his large blade within reach and keeping an eye on his surroundings, the wounded goblin gently sets down the potion Theril gave him and pulls a knife from his belt. Sitting alongside his foe Grizig beings chatting with the body as if they were old friends.

"You. You were a good opponent." Grizig consoles the body as he begins loosening the armour to paw through her belongings. "Striking from behind while I was distracted, and fleeing when you realized you would lose." Discarding a few undesireable items the goblin continues unabated. "You chose your companions poorly though. They should have all struck at once, you were too slow. Too slow to strike, too slow to run, and too slow when you did." Nodding to his own wisdom Grizig starts cutting strips of cloth out from under the brigadine.

Patting the poor woman the goblin warrior tries to comfort the downed warrior before leaving. "Do not blame Grizig, you just did not choose your foe well. Grizig had more experience is all. No doubt you made a fine bandit before this."

In the end, said character found out his enemy had managed to stabalize, so he gave her a potion that another player had meant for his own wounds.
Now, why give an expedable resource to someone else? Heck, most LG characters wouldn't do such a thing, especially after they had just backstabbed you.

The answer; the CN character has a small selection of things they care about, and the way this NPC played managed to impress the character. Healing potions? Eh. Money was not important to this character, another potion could be bought.

Oh and it just so happens that of all my characters it seems only the CN ones happen to become party leaders.


Also...


Squish Ah, but I wouldn't call Captain Jack Sparrow sane. :smallwink: Otherwise, yeah good one.

I just have to point out the CN is also where your supposed to put the crazies.