Chaotic stupid, random equals funny. Story time!

[Mastikator]

A player that decides "I'll play a chaotic neutral character" and proceeds to do random and stupid things.

Does that actually happen? I've literally never seen it, not even in my teen years (back then emo and moody was in fashion so evil characters was where it was at).

Please, tell stories of players who've played a chaotic stupid character.

[nedz]

Well I did once have a guy, years ago, turn up to a session whilst tripping on acid. But that was more Chaotic Strange. He didn't last long.

[Mastikator]

Well I did once have a guy, years ago, turn up to a session whilst tripping on acid. But that was more Chaotic Strange. He didn't last long.

He didn't last long... in the group or as a functional member of society?

[Arbane]

One group I was in had a Chaotic Stupid Neutral character in it, whose player's goal seemed to be 'how far can I push my luck before the GM finally brings the hammer down on me?' He did things like go off solo (killed a 2-headed troll solo while it was asleep), ask friendly NPCs what their blood was like, constantly go on about the imaginary knightly order he was in, snort mushroom-creature spores, and try to sneak into a secure room in a friendly castle while tripping on hallucinogenics. This guy's luck was freakish.

OOC he was a lot of fun to watch, even with my certainty that he was going to get us all killed with his idiocy. IC, he was a source of massive aggravation to the two sane(r) characters.
Amazingly, the GM ended up calling off the game not due to his antics, but because it was hard to plan around two level 10+ spellcasters.

[Douche]

I play chaotic stupid (not evil or "neutral" though)

I'm a low-int half-orc so I basically play the half-orc from OotS. It's pretty fun. I just do what I'm told, it's pretty hilarious.

Our team leader is a super vengeful paladin, claims to be good but threatens to kill people for not being polite when we just burned down their village. I just follow his lead. I whipped a hostage into unconsciousness multiple times over the course of days.

But then last week I got left behind and ended up joining the church of Pelor because the bad influence is gone. Now I am a good man. Praise the sun! Until I rejoin with the party again and probably become evil when the bad influence comes back.


My character is also a great babysitter and had changed factions about 6 times

[ellindsey]

We have one, maybe two, in a game I'm playing in now. Both are teenagers. One seems to just do the most random and violent thing he can think of, and is currently on his second character after his first was ejected from the party. The other is playing a drow assassin who wants to kill every important NPC we meet and refuses to do anything without being paid. I am very close to dropping this game, the only thing keeping me in it are several good friends who I don't really get to see outside of the game anymore. Also, the two teenagers don't show up for about half the sessions, and the ones without them are quite nice.

[Douche]

We have one, maybe two, in a game I'm playing in now. Both are teenagers. One seems to just do the most random and violent thing he can think of, and is currently on his second character after his first was ejected from the party. The other is playing a drow assassin who wants to kill every important NPC we meet and refuses to do anything without being paid. I am very close to dropping this game, the only thing keeping me in it are several good friends who I don't really get to see outside of the game anymore. Also, the two teenagers don't show up for about half the sessions, and the ones without them are quite nice.

That does get annoying at times. The whole "mercenary" shtick, it's like... shut up. I don't care how much of a BAMF you think your character is - we're trying to progress the story over here.

Random acts of violence are annoying too. Just don't back them up the next time and watch them get captured/killed. At some points, you gotta ask yourself "Why are we allied with this guy, exactly?"

[Geddy2112]

My group is full of them.

One player in my group always plays the chaotic something BSF, regardless of class or mechanics. He is there to hit things with a sword, or axe, or whatever is the largest weapon he can get his hands on. If he has magic, he will certainly use it to blast or mind control enemies into attacking each other. He might channel negative energy, just to be sure nothing around him is alive. The good thing is that so long as somebody points him towards the things that needs hitting, he can keep it under control and not burn down taverns or go full murderhobo.

Then there was Dr. Roxxo, the rock and roll clown. A monk based off the Metalocalypse character of the same name. But he took it too far, and died the first session he was played. The party was wandering a hostile desert, and came across a trade caravan. The first thing he did was threaten to kill them unless they gave him all of the cocaine they had. He was killed instantly.

In our last campaign, a relatively sane player was going through some serious work stress and took it out on the game. His first character was an outright insane ranger. He thought chimneys were toilets(and used them as such), separated humanoids into "those who make cheese and those who don't"(the latter were seen as evil) and basically jumped the shark every session with outright insane actions. his death was swift when he tried to befriend a werewolf so he could have it as a mount.

His next character was a tree druid, who did a LOT of drugs. Ran around naked, was always high for no particular reason, and talked to his tree. He had strong opinions about corn and other meaningless things that he would argue from a point of lunacy, but otherwise did not care.

Then there was the kleptomaniac rogue, who thought it was cheeky to steal literally everything he could get his hands on. The swords on the guards belt, everything in the treasure horde, from other PC's, furniture, anything that had value. He eschewed buying other items so he could obtain multiple bags of holding. He also refused to work with the party unless they paid him/promised him all the gold(he would just take it anyways)

The greatest blood may be on my hands, as my con artist bard was constantly blurring the line between thinking outside the box and chaotic stupid. Disguises were a good idea, but a gender bending elven prince(ss) was probably not needed. He cooked and ate a fallen party member(ratfolk), and was capable of diplomancing the party out of almost anything. Had he not been there, the party would not have been in 95% of those situations to begin with. Creating problems that only he could solve, then solving them and proclaiming himself the hero.

[CombatBunny]

I think chaotic good is the best and more common option among beginner players.

It basically lets you break the rules of society at your will, without being compromised to a specific moral code.

I see Chaotic neutral as pretty standard in most games.

Someone who acts totally random I believe that will tend more to evilness.

[Âmesang]

The last chaotic-neutral character I can remember probably should have been more chaotic-good; a free-spirited barbarian who wanted to see the world outside of her tribal village; bit of a "survival of the fittest" mindset that made her over-eager for battle (so of a hyper-active rage than an angry rage), but friendly enough and willing to help.

Random acts of violence are annoying too. Just don't back them up the next time and watch them get captured/killed. At some points, you gotta ask yourself "Why are we allied with this guy, exactly?"

Heck, I've a vain, conceited, selfish, self-centered chaotic-evil character with slightly below-average Wisdom and I'd say even she knows that's a bad idea. Being abrasive and domineering is one thing, but random violence? All that's going to do is give you more and more enemies; work with the (clearly-not-plot-reason-villainous) NPCs, trick them into thinking you're on the up-and-up (hooray for Bluff!), and at the very least it could lead them to aiding you… and grow less suspicious of you, making it easier to do criminal acts in private. Theoretically, anyway.

I guess no matter what my character's alignment/attitude I, personally, try to be helpful and "play nice" simply out of a desire to see the party succeed. If I want to go kill crazy, I have plenty of single-player video games to do that with.

His next character was a tree druid, who did a LOT of drugs. Ran around naked, was always high for no particular reason, and talked to his tree. He had strong opinions about corn and other meaningless things that he would argue from a point of lunacy, but otherwise did not care.

Is anyone else reminded of the Jhonen Vasquez comic-in-a-comic, Happy Noodle Boy?

[goto124]

Disguises were a good idea, but a gender bending elven prince(ss) was probably not needed.

"Elven" already means "gender bending", no need to state both adjectives

[Spojaz]

A while ago I played in a fairly straightforward dragonlance campaign with someone who played a chaotic wizard (a gnome with whatever kinds of wildmagic he could his his grubby little hands on) and then would roll to see what his character would do. Rolls a D100 and consults his homemade charts to find out what he does in any and every circumstance. He would lick things (I think that was 1-20), run away, start screaming, try to climb someone or intimidate something at random times. lolrandom.

He also had each of his spells mapped to a dice roll. Ooh, will he cast charm person, dancing lights or fireball? And on whom? Nobody knows! Made it very hard for our DM to balance encounters, and he "hilariously" killed a group of hostages we were trying to rescue. What was his reaction to this murder and failure of the mission? I (roll) lick the (roll) front door, then (roll) fall asleep! HaHaHaHA!

[FlumphPaladin]

We had one... I'll call this kid "Plucky." Plucky started off good enough, but then he began hanging out with the wrong crowd in a different group. Over time, he went from wide-eyed eager noob to a wannabe Mirdon from Doraleous and Associates. One session he literally used "But I'm Chaotic Neutral!" to justify his shenanigans... I can't think of any good stories, though. What made Plucky really annoying was the fact that unless he was the star (I think his occasional stupid outburst was meant to hijack focus onto him/his character, along with the constant "I'm attacking the darkness!" and "Roll to see if I'm getting drunk!"), he was checked out of the game. One time, while we were getting our asses handed to us on platters in a bandit hideout and all appeared lost, Plucky said "Wait!" Everyone stopped, thinking he had some great plan or power he'd forgotten about, only to watch him turn to the player next to him, look at his character sheet, and ask "Do you have Appraise?" I have never seen our DM come so close to upending the table.

Also, emo was in vogue in Sweden, one of the happiest countries in the world? I learn something new every day!

Dr. Roxxo, the rock and roll clown.

Kuh-kuh-kuh-YEAAAH! Man, that takes me back... where do the years go?

[wumpus]

If any of these are remotely current, you (hopefully) have the chance to introduce someone to OOTS. Just point out that both Elan and Belkar are both chaotic and stupid (Halley is chaotic smart. I've yet to see any difference in V's "true neutral" and "chaotic neutral", but the official alignment is "TN").

I'm pretty sure that this was all created with the intention of pointing this out when Rich first created a D&D comic. The focus may have changed but the characters (and alignments) have not.

[The Fury]

A while ago I played in a fairly straightforward dragonlance campaign with someone who played a chaotic wizard (a gnome with whatever kinds of wildmagic he could his his grubby little hands on) and then would roll to see what his character would do. Rolls a D100 and consults his homemade charts to find out what he does in any and every circumstance. He would lick things (I think that was 1-20), run away, start screaming, try to climb someone or intimidate something at random times. lolrandom.

He also had each of his spells mapped to a dice roll. Ooh, will he cast charm person, dancing lights or fireball? And on whom? Nobody knows! Made it very hard for our DM to balance encounters, and he "hilariously" killed a group of hostages we were trying to rescue. What was his reaction to this murder and failure of the mission? I (roll) lick the (roll) front door, then (roll) fall asleep! HaHaHaHA!

I've been Chaotic Stupid before and I... I just can't compete with that.

[Honest Tiefling]

You have not encountered this phenomenon? I weep for your lost innocence as you gaze into the stupidity contained within these stories. No longer shall you be blissfully ignorant of such lolrandom.

Most of the types I've seen basically attacked the closest NPC on sight, so tended to get booted out or bored quickly enough.

[goto124]

Also, emo was in vogue in Sweden, one of the happiest countries in the world? I learn something new every day!

To be honest, I think that makes perfect sense.

[Traab]

What you do with people like this is, you get a computer print out that says nothing but,

Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!
Chaotic Neutral doesnt mean stupid and crazy!

Then you attach it to his forehead with a soldering iron. Repeat as needed till the rest of the players in your group understand this basic rule.

[Nifft]

In my games, I've changed Chaos to be more like "Individualist", and Lawful to be more like "Collectivist".

Madness is a different thing altogether -- and insanity is a plague for either Ethic.

This seems to curtail most of the Chaotic Stupid archetypes.

[Âmesang]

I can agree with that. Or as an alternative, "chaotic" = "freedom/free spirt" // "lawful" = "community-minded?"

To be honest, I think that makes perfect sense.

Honestly doesn't most death metal come from Northern Europe?

[Traab]

Oh man, I thought the drawing style was familiar, thats the foamy the squirrel site!

[GreatWyrmGold]

That does get annoying at times. The whole "mercenary" shtick, it's like... shut up. I don't care how much of a BAMF you think your character is - we're trying to progress the story over here.
Random acts of violence are annoying too. Just don't back them up the next time and watch them get captured/killed. At some points, you gotta ask yourself "Why are we allied with this guy, exactly?"

He also had each of his spells mapped to a dice roll. Ooh, will he cast charm person, dancing lights or fireball? And on whom? Nobody knows! Made it very hard for our DM to balance encounters, and he "hilariously" killed a group of hostages we were trying to rescue. What was his reaction to this murder and failure of the mission? I (roll) lick the (roll) front door, then (roll) fall asleep! HaHaHaHA!

If Belkar would roll his eyes at your character's murderous antics, you're doing something wrong.

[H]is death was swift when he tried to befriend a werewolf so he could have it as a mount.

Geez, at least take it out to dinner first.

Then there was the kleptomaniac rogue, who thought it was cheeky to steal literally everything he could get his hands on. The swords on the guards belt, everything in the treasure horde, from other PC's, furniture, anything that had value. He eschewed buying other items so he could obtain multiple bags of holding.

If your kleptomania would make a kender gasp—whether in envy or horror—you're doing something wrong.

The greatest blood may be on my hands, as my con artist bard was constantly blurring the line between thinking outside the box and chaotic stupid. Disguises were a good idea, but a gender bending elven prince(ss) was probably not needed. He cooked and ate a fallen party member(ratfolk), and was capable of diplomancing the party out of almost anything. Had he not been there, the party would not have been in 95% of those situations to begin with. Creating problems that only he could solve, then solving them and proclaiming himself the hero.

Okay, that's kinda awesome. Probably not that much fun to play with, though.

[goto124]

his death was swift when he tried to befriend a werewolf so he could have it as a mount.

At least he didn't try to do this!

[Nifft]

I can agree with that. Or as an alternative, "chaotic" = "freedom/free spirt" // "lawful" = "community-minded?"

The trouble with that is that when you get into philosophical debate, it's quite easy to find the position that only within a stable ("lawful") society can one truly be free.

For example:

Sure, nobody likes paying taxes, but taxes are how you buy civilization -- and without the Six Legions on the border and the Kingsguard patrolling the granite paveway, you'd likely get murdered by Hobs, or caught by some Akkuan slaver, or eaten by a fire-bear, or worse.

Those so-called free spirits are only able to enjoy the freedom from slavery (or worse) because of the large, stable society in which they choose to avoid contributing and instead beg, borrow, or steal to survive.

In a way, it's like they remain children -- wards of the state, living off the largess of their productive neighbors or relatives. And that's fine, for a while. We do want to support our children, so that they can join the ranks of productive society some day. It does not trouble me if some take longer than others to find themselves, and to find where they can contribute.

What does trouble me is the idea that this phase of development, this unproductive stage of growth, is somehow a thing worthy of emulation and perpetuation.

Seriously, consider what it would mean to perpetuate this state of "free-spirit"-ness. How would you avoid the obligations that fall upon every member of society? You'd either become a criminal, or you'd leave society.

What would it mean if everyone left society? Every man would need to become entirely self-sufficient: a soldier, a priest, a hunter, a stonemason, a surveyor, a farmer, a wainwright, a weaver, a tailor, a shepherd, a falconer, a stallion-breaker, a hound-trainer, a carpenter, and a potter. And what would he gain from such a departure, assuming he could indeed fill all of those roles?

He'd gain nothing but poverty. He would have no time for the higher culture that is the milk of a stable civilization: no art, no wine, no music, no dances, no poetry, no theater, no circus, no carnival, no temples nor pagodas nor cathedrals -- nor would he have anyone to share this culture with, if by some miracle he did find time to pen a verse or strike a tune in some lonely meadow.

We have the freedom to pursue the higher arts specifically because we each shoulder some of the burden of bare survival for each other.

There is no freedom without Law.

[daremetoidareyo]

The trouble with that is that when you get into philosophical debate, it's quite easy to find the position that only within a stable ("lawful") society can one truly be free.

Chaotic Intellectual wildmage demon replies:

One gripe with this line of argument: It presupposes agriculture and an environment that doesn't supply the whole of a population's needs. A foraging society of people using adobo/thatch/ceramics can be free as ****. The average workday in the modern world for foraging peoples maxes out at about 4.5 hours of work a day. That leaves the rest of the day devoted to pure freedom and coalition building. Once a society exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, that is when they tend to develop agriculture. With agriculture comes property rights. With property rights comes direct trade and capitalism based on arbitrage of inequalities. To make any of that work you need laws that force compliance for the good of the many at the expense of the individual.

The pernicious side effect of this trend is that once population invents agriculture and property rights, it also invents other things like alphabets and writing and then records and history. Agreements become compulsory laws. A population under the duress of exceeding the carrying capacity of its environment becomes war-like to alleviate the friction and pain of having to work excessive hours just to survive. And thus war is invented. And to wage those wars in ways that guarantee that these unfree societies will survive to wage all future wars, they make rules of war to at least protect the reproductive abilities of the population.

Rules are what allows people from keeping themselves in check and thus laws beget war, slavery and misery. Is the progress still worth it? Is there an end goal, or do you just extract every bit of life from the land like a giant mold with a distributed consciousness and then move on to new resources to repeat the cycle of destruction?

[Honest Tiefling]

This discussion only gets more hilarious if the theory that most people flocked to early cities because of beer. Chaotic Stupid, making the first civilizations. Yay beer!

[Nifft]

A foraging society of people using adobo/thatch/ceramics can be free as ****. The average workday in the modern world for foraging peoples maxes out at about 4.5 hours of work a day. That leaves the rest of the day devoted to pure freedom and coalition building.

Lawrence McPaladin: "Sure, you can abide by the Law of your tribe, and rely on their support, and support their community. You won't survive a bad drought, nor a visit from Thesirral's plague-crows, and your history shall perish like words scratched in beach-sand -- but there is no particular sin in living as part of such a small community."

Once a society exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, that is when they tend to develop agriculture. With agriculture comes property rights. With property rights comes direct trade and capitalism based on arbitrage of inequalities. To make any of that work you need laws that force compliance for the good of the many at the expense of the individual.

Or vise-versa: it might be that only agricultural societies have low enough infant mortality that they start to put a strain on the environment.

Also, it's interesting to note that agriculture allows a society to create a mobile army, which they can then use to displace (or enslave) any happy-go-lucky hunter-gatherers they come across. Without agriculture, you're making yourself vulnerable to enslavement by a neighboring agricultural civilization (unless you are the Mongols).

This discussion only gets more hilarious if the theory that most people flocked to early cities because of beer. Chaotic Stupid, making the first civilizations. Yay beer!

Lawrence McPaladin: "Therefore, beer was the result of careful planning, stationary dwellings, and the labor of a whole community. Enjoy the cold, frothy mug of deliciously hoppy Law, citizen."

[Arbane]

Also, it's interesting to note that agriculture allows a society to create a mobile army, which they can then use to displace (or enslave) any happy-go-lucky hunter-gatherers they come across. Without agriculture, you're making yourself vulnerable to enslavement by a neighboring agricultural civilization

That's not exactly a _moral_ argument in favor of agriculture, though.

[Honest Tiefling]

Also, it's interesting to note that agriculture allows a society to create a mobile army, which they can then use to displace (or enslave) any happy-go-lucky hunter-gatherers they come across. Without agriculture, you're making yourself vulnerable to enslavement by a neighboring agricultural civilization (unless you are the Mongols).

I thought it was usually the opposite problem, since all of the hunter gatherers are trained in combat (or skills that can be applied to hunting and combat) and are in way better health then the guy on an all-grain diet. Not to mention, the valuables are all usually outside of the walls, so that isn't going to help with raiders.

[nedz]

Chaotic Intellectual wildmage demon replies:

One gripe with this line of argument: It presupposes agriculture and an environment that doesn't supply the whole of a population's needs. A foraging society of people using adobo/thatch/ceramics can be free as ****. The average workday in the modern world for foraging peoples maxes out at about 4.5 hours of work a day. That leaves the rest of the day devoted to pure freedom and coalition building. Once a society exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, that is when they tend to develop agriculture. With agriculture comes property rights. With property rights comes direct trade and capitalism based on arbitrage of inequalities. To make any of that work you need laws that force compliance for the good of the many at the expense of the individual.

The pernicious side effect of this trend is that once population invents agriculture and property rights, it also invents other things like alphabets and writing and then records and history. Agreements become compulsory laws. A population under the duress of exceeding the carrying capacity of its environment becomes war-like to alleviate the friction and pain of having to work excessive hours just to survive. And thus war is invented. And to wage those wars in ways that guarantee that these unfree societies will survive to wage all future wars, they make rules of war to at least protect the reproductive abilities of the population.

Rules are what allows people from keeping themselves in check and thus laws beget war, slavery and misery. Is the progress still worth it? Is there an end goal, or do you just extract every bit of life from the land like a giant mold with a distributed consciousness and then move on to new resources to repeat the cycle of destruction?

There are plenty of examples of war like hunter gatherers even today. These often occur where the resources are finite.