When "it's what my character would do" is actually true.

[MoiMagnus]

What's more chaotic neutral than that? Please validate me so my DM can see and doesn't change my alignment.

For alignment questions, please refer to your GM. Every GM has some different opinion on what alignment means. And as you can see in this thread, some peoples would classify this behaviour as Chaotic Evil, if not Lawful Evil.

And to be fair, it doesn't matter if your GM's vision of alignment matches what the designers of D&D intended. They can decide that necromancy is not fundamentally evil if their universe if they want to. The GM is the one crafting how the metaphysics of alignment works, and internet strangers are unlikely to make them change their mind about it, so "validation" from us is pointless.

Getting pretty sick of people judging my CN in character actions when my IRL alignment is chaotic neutral.

I'd strongly discourage you from identifying too much with the morality of your D&D character, and argue with the GM about real life morality, otherwise you might end up realising that your GM would consider you evil IRL too, should you ever put in practice what your vision of "chaotic neutral" is.

[KorvinStarmast]

This kind of reads like a fake letter to an advice column.

I note that the OP has not come back to respond to the responses, so you may be on to something here. (Or it may have been a case of venting after a frustrating session at the table ...)

[Cygnia]

I know when I play CN (especially in PBP), I go out of my way to stress to the GM & other players that I'm going for chaotic selfish rather than chaotic psychotic or chaotic a****** and that if I go too far please tell me.

Right now, I'm running a duskblade who's CN who could have easily gone edgelord if I was being a jerk. Instead, he's found a way to be a viable party member (and begrudgingly is protective of the party mage because the little guy was willing to pay him 3 gold -- which was more than what the so-called "good" party members did!) while I let him snark.

[Batcathat]

I think this is yet another potential downside of using alignments. If someone says "My character is CN" (or whatever other alignment, really) other people are going to make a lot of assumptions about how the character is going to act. They might be exactly right (in which case alignments are helpful) but odds are they are somewhere between a little and a lot wrong (in which case it's not so helpful).

[LibraryOgre]

can we please get past the prejudice that chaotic neutral means unhinged?

This is one of the three great sins of 2e's alignment descriptions, IMO.

1) Evil and good are culturally relative.
2) True Neutral means a philosophical devotion to neutrality (this one was inherited from 1e)
3) Chaotic Neutrals are erratic because they are crazy.

[wilphe]

When I was told by some 3.x ers that CN was sociopaths (having played a few CN in AD&D 1e) I was appalled at that lack of understanding. Since you could not have a good alignment and be a Thief in AD&D 1e, you had to pick something else. (CG rogues/thieves were more acceptable in 2e).

What you are advising me is that this is a product of the game morphing over time due to devs not grasping what was going on with the original two axis scheme. Aha, thanks, that makes sense. The other problem is that it's a continuum along two axes, there are Not Nine Boxes.

The other problem was players choosing "Chaotic Neutral"

When they really wanted to play Chaotic Evil but the GM banned evil alignments or they did not want to ping to Paladins or tip off the rest of the party what they were about


The other other problem was people taking the 2E definition and deciding they were going to Fishmalk around the place hitting people with rubber chickens and acting wacky


The alignment has never quite overcome the resulting stigma

[Catullus64]

I'm curious, are there still many DMs out there who actually demand a player change their alignment to reflect their behaviors? I'm all for the DM creating accountability to reflect on a player's actions, but alignment no longer really has the mechanical bite to make such a required change anything but grandstanding. Change NPC relationships, mess with class features from Patrons, Deities, Sacred Oaths, introduce consequences for a character acting inconsistent with their stated moral outlook, I can see the value of all of that. But saying 'you've got to change what it says on your sheet' seems to serve no real purpose other than being an aggressive flex by said DM.

Anyways, the notion of having an "IRL alignment" seems pretty absurd to me. Alignment is a thing for D&D characters, and its applicability pretty much ends there. Putting aside the OP's strange ideas about the CN alignment itself (heck, everybody's ideas about the alignments look wacky to somebody), trying to make an appeal to to your own alignment doesn't exactly make this look like a very seasoned argument.

[Psyren]

"IRL morality," to the extent that we can even discuss such a concept here, does not fit very well into D&D's 9-box alignment grid.

Theft is evil.

Robin Hood is evil?

Recruiting and training orphans to break the law is evil.

Sherlock Holmes is evil?

(Actually, those two could probably be 50-page debates themselves, never mind.)

[LibraryOgre]

Theft is not wrong because it is against the law, theft is against the law because it is wrong. If you try to take a bone from a dog it will tell you that you are doing a wrong to it despite it having no concept of man made laws. Apart from predator-prey theft is the primary source of conflict in the animal world - attempted kill stealing by scavengers; territorial disputes to prevent other animals stealing your stuff as there are no territorial disputes with animals who do not for the same resources. Theft is a direct harm to another person and is evil, as is coercing others to steal.

Animals do not have an alignment (or are true neutral, depending). Using animals as an example falls down on that front.

By defining theft as evil, you are saying that the only non-evil theft is survival theft... i.e. stealing bread to feed the starving. I maintain that stealing from those who have more than enough is not evil; it is considered wrong, it violates the idea of property, but it does not harm another in any appreciable way, so it is not evil.

Coercing others by force to follow rules is lawful behavior. Criminal organizations based around the use if children use savage violence to enforce their rules, nor are the children allowed to keep anything they steal. The children are not free to choose which rules they will follow.

The Abyss is Chaotic Evil. Using force to coerce others into doing things is the essence of a Demon. Devils will trap you and trick you... they're not beyond force, but their method is based on agreements and rules. Demons threaten to destroy you if you don't follow THEIR rules. Both are evil, because they seek to harm you for their own gain... they just prefer different methods.

My definitions of the axes are pretty simple. Good and Evil are about Ends; Law and Chaos are about Means.

Good is helping people; sometimes at the expense of yourself, but not always without recompense; you're not going to take their last cow, but you've got to eat, too, and being paid for your work and risk isn't selfish or evil in and of itself.
Evil is hurting people solely to further your own ends; good may hurt people, but it furthers another end... fighting evil foes to protect the good. Evil is not caring if your actions hurt people, even if your goal isn't to hurt people.

Law is respecting ideas and property. A lawful person may not AGREE with your particular code, but they respect that you have one, and won't force you to violate it capriciously (i.e. they won't force you to eat a food you are forbidden to, but a LG person will oppose slavery, because of the harms it inflicts).
Chaos is about respecting no ideas and property but your own. They do not necessarily break the law for funsies, because they fear punishment, but they don't respect it for itself.

Thus, starting an orphanage to make a thieves guild can reasonably fall into CN. It is pure disrespect for property, which is chaotic, without, necessarily, the indifference to the suffering of others (again, a distinct "rob from the poor" ethos would edge it towards evil, as taking from those who have little creates harm). As this orphanage does take care of the children, it alleviates some suffering, but it also does so to meet the ends of its chief thief, rather than out of altruism.

The exemplar of CG is really Robin Hood... he robs from the rich (chaotic) to give to the poor (good), taking what he needs to support his men out in the middle (folks gotta eat, including good guys). Some versions interpret him as more LG, through a personal devotion to Richard and a interpretation of Nottingham and Prince John as illegitimate, but that doesn't account for his theft being used to help people... one cannot be lawful and a thief, but one CAN put theft to good ends. Also, a personal devotion to an individual doesn't make something Lawful.

"IRL morality," to the extent that we can even discuss such a concept here, does not fit very well into D&D's 9-box alignment grid.

I've always maintained it works fine, once you properly define the terms. D&D has a tendency to not clearly lay out the terms, though.

[Satinavian]

Theft is in essence harming others for your own benefit. It would be not strange at all to be classified as evil. Sure, you can construct situations where the harm is negligible or the stolen good are used for a good cause etc, but you couls similarly construct extraordinary excusing situations for every other classically evil behavior : murder, poisoning, slavery etc. Theft would fit with those quite well.

Now historically theft is rarely called out as evil in D&D because people want to allow the thief class and its successors in "no evil allowed" groups. And because dungeon delving usually implies a very lax attitude to property of other sentient beings. But both do not change that most instances of thievery should be classified as evil acts.

Now, of course theft is chaotic as well considering both the braking of laws and the disregard of pillars of civilized society and its norms based on nothing but your own whims.

[Pex]

The exemplar of CG is really Robin Hood... he robs from the rich (chaotic) to give to the poor (good), taking what he needs to support his men out in the middle (folks gotta eat, including good guys). Some versions interpret him as more LG, through a personal devotion to Richard and a interpretation of Nottingham and Prince John as illegitimate, but that doesn't account for his theft being used to help people... one cannot be lawful and a thief, but one CAN put theft to good ends. Also, a personal devotion to an individual doesn't make something Lawful.

You can be lawful and a thief, such as a criminal family or organization. There's a distinct pecking order and acceptable means of advancement. Respect and Honor within the Organization is paramount. An Organization can have a Big Boss whose word is law or there may be a Ruling Council who vote and share equally in the spoils. Maybe there are both where the Council is a mutual concern and benefit of a Meeting among Big Bosses. The Bosses agree not to compete and deal with matters that threaten them all, such as those annoying Heroes and Superheroes.

[RazorChain]

I hate alignment and I think it's stupid.

So when people ask me I tell them: How your character acts defines your characters alignment. Your characters alignment does not define how your character acts!

[LibraryOgre]

Theft is in essence harming others for your own benefit.

Only if you consider possessions to be an inalienable part of a person, such that removal is harm. It is not a "constructed scenario" to say that taking something someone doesn't need is not harm to them.

[TaiLiu]

This kind of reads like a fake letter to an advice column.

I note that the OP has not come back to respond to the responses, so you may be on to something here. (Or it may have been a case of venting after a frustrating session at the table ...)

Yeah, I read this as like a joke thread. Maybe that's being too generous.

[MoiMagnus]

Only if you consider possessions to be an inalienable part of a person, such that removal is harm. It is not a "constructed scenario" to say that taking something someone doesn't need is not harm to them.

It's still harming them.

If you take something that I consider as belonging to me, you're harming me, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about it belonging to me. Whether or not I'm right or wrong will determine whether or not it is legitimate and reasonable to harm my feelings over it, but it doesn't change whether it harms me or not.

Thief can be justified by legitimacy (by arguing that the property didn't belong to them in the first place) or by the end (by arguing that you're doing a greater good with this property), or both like in the case of Robin Hood, where the robbed persons were evil peoples abusing their power to extract more taxes, and the money robbed was given back to the poor.

But thief itself is still harming peoples. In the same way that killing is harming peoples, but can be justified by legitimacy or by the end.

[Vahnavoi]

Theft is in essence harming others for your own benefit. It would be not strange at all to be classified as evil. Sure, you can construct situations where the harm is negligible or the stolen good are used for a good cause etc, but you couls similarly construct extraordinary excusing situations for every other classically evil behavior : murder, poisoning, slavery etc. Theft would fit with those quite well.

D&D is fantasy though, so extraordinary situations abound. This why there can be non-evil thieves and champions of Lawful Good can be armed zealots who go around cutting off heads of evildoers.

[Cluedrew]

I have my own options on alignment (which are slightly higher than average) but here I think actually hammering it out it actually kind of a red haring here. In that whether you use the "proper" definition or not it kind of doesn't matter as long as your group knows what you are talking about. Alignment is a two word overview of a character so other people at your table kind of know who to expect in the party, if you are achieving that then other things, like how this maps onto morality for your life, doesn't matter as much.

[Vahnavoi]

The OP is directly asking for an argument to convince their game master that their action is of specific alignment. That is impossible to discuss without discussing definitions.

If the OP was clear on and in agreement with how their game master is running alignment, there'd be no point in even asking us that.

[Fiery Diamond]

It's still harming them.

If you take something that I consider as belonging to me, you're harming me, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about it belonging to me. Whether or not I'm right or wrong will determine whether or not it is legitimate and reasonable to harm my feelings over it, but it doesn't change whether it harms me or not.

Thief can be justified by legitimacy (by arguing that the property didn't belong to them in the first place) or by the end (by arguing that you're doing a greater good with this property), or both like in the case of Robin Hood, where the robbed persons were evil peoples abusing their power to extract more taxes, and the money robbed was given back to the poor.

But thief itself is still harming peoples. In the same way that killing is harming peoples, but can be justified by legitimacy or by the end.

Wait. Are you really lumping "causes physical harm" and "hurts my feelings" together as equivalent "harms me" things? And saying that they're both evil because they cause harm? Regardless of whether they're justified or not? That's... uh... let's go with "controversial."

[LibraryOgre]

If you take something that I consider as belonging to me, you're harming me, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about it belonging to me. Whether or not I'm right or wrong will determine whether or not it is legitimate and reasonable to harm my feelings over it, but it doesn't change whether it harms me or not.

So, if you stole something, but I then took it back from you, I'm harming you by taking it back?

[Tanarii]

Killing isn't even D&D Evil.
So trying to argue that stealing is D&D Evil is a non-starter.

[False God]

Well, ideally everyone should be doing "what their character would do", because ya know, that's role-playing. That's what we're all here for.

BUT, we are also playing a cooperative game both in and out of character and we all want to have fun*. Our characters need to have reason to cooperate other than "John, Sue, Tim and Jo all sat down at the same table" and our play-group needs to have reason to cooperate beyond "we all want to play D&D".
*Definitions of fun may vary please see side label for possible side effects.

To that end, whatever you do, whatever your character does should facilitate those needs. Sometimes characters, like people, can be jerks, but for the party to function, for the IRL group to function, neither players nor characters can always be jerks, or even by-and-large be jerks. Or at least not be jerks to each other IRL. An entire party of jerks can function with the right group, jerkishness focused away from the party that advances the party's goals can work, but generally speaking, a group of people who are jerks to each other do not remain a group for very long.

And as a group game, having a group is pretty necessary to continued play*.
*Exact numbers may vary, please see your DM to ensure group size is right for you.

IMO: Alignment is a terrible addition to any game without strict definitions of what is actually means. They cannot be willy-nilly wishy-washy ideas that vary from table to table. If they're part of the game, they should have definition. If a DM wants to ignore those definitions, it should be made clear that DM is deviating from the rules. No different than if they made changes to any other portion of the game.

Regardless, if "what your character would do" causes problems with the party and the players, it's a problem. It doesn't matter if you're Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Murderhobo or Mother Theresa. The group as a whole has a general idea of how it wants to operate and if your behavior causes trouble with that, it is well within the purview of the group to remove you, if you don't realize you're not a good fit for the group and leave yourself. Worse is of course when a player knows they're causing trouble for the group and that's why they're doing it. Trolling is only acceptable when you're on a boat and you're fishing. Or maybe living under a bridge.

[KorvinStarmast]

So when people ask me I tell them: How your character acts defines your characters alignment. Your characters alignment does not define how your character acts!

That seems to a reasonable approach.

Killing isn't even D&D Evil.
So trying to argue that stealing is D&D Evil is a non-starter.

+1

[Cluedrew]

The OP is directly asking for an argument to convince their game master that their action is of specific alignment. That is impossible to discuss without discussing definitions.

Let me put this a different way: They should probably discuss definitions, at least in broad strokes, with their group so everyone is on the same page. But being in complete agreement with a bunch of other people they are not playing with is not as important.

On Stealing: The discussion is starting to remind me of the quote from Kill 6 Billion Demons: "How can I live in peace with my fellows." "Nonexistence."

[Liquor Box]

I disagree on pretty much every point.

Theft is chaotic; it only becomes evil if the foreseeable consequence is harm to another person (i.e. stealing money from the poor, causing them starvation, is evil; stealing money from the rich, who are mildly inconvenienced, is simply chaotic).

This is a big call - that stealing from someone is only evil if it causes starvation (or some similar degree of harm). Even stealing what we think of as poor wouldn't usually cause them starvation, so it would mean almost all theft is not evil.

Only if you consider possessions to be an inalienable part of a person, such that removal is harm. It is not a "constructed scenario" to say that taking something someone doesn't need is not harm to them.

Even if you do not consider possessions to be an inalienable part of a person, stealing those possessions is harmful. Someone had something that gave them positive utility, and you took it from them so they lose that utility and that's almost the definition of harm.

Whether the money you took would cause the person to forgo bread to stave off starvation or caviar because it's yum is just a matter of degree. So in a good/evil context, stealing from the very poor may be worse than stealing form anyone else, but it doesn't make stealing from those who would not starve ok.

There may still be exceptions - and you could interpret Robin Hood that way if you think that his looking after the poor more than offsets his theft. But I agree with those who say that the starting point is that stealing is at least somewhat evil.

[Satinavian]

So, if you stole something, but I then took it back from you, I'm harming you by taking it back?

You can find circumstances where you steal from others and it is not evil. But in the same way you can find circumstances where you kill your fellow humans(or sentient beings) and it is not evil.

But without such excusing circumstances both are wrong and evil. And that theft has a component of self.enrichment attached and is thus usually motivated by selfishness does make it even harder to excuse.

[Tanarii]

But I agree with those who say that the starting point is that stealing is at least somewhat evil.

Given that even under actions-hold-alignment-weight D&D editions, killing is not automatically evil, and requires a specific set of circumstances to become an evil action, how do you justify this point of view on the act of stealing?

Meanwhile in the current edition, individual actions do not carry alignment 'weight'. Alignment only has an associated typical but not consistently required overall behavior. As in "a good person normally will not steal from those it particularly harms, although exceptions may apply" might be a a statement that at least fits the paradigm of the current alignment system based on the associated general behaviors of the three good alignments, as might "an evil person might not hesitate to steal, even from those it harms", but "(the act of) stealing is at least somewhat evil" can not be an accurate statement due to the way the system works.

[Murphy80]

I note that the OP has not come back to respond to the responses, so you may be on to something here. (Or it may have been a case of venting after a frustrating session at the table ...)

....and this was his only post...

[Liquor Box]

Given that even under actions-hold-alignment-weight D&D editions, killing is not automatically evil, and requires a specific set of circumstances to become an evil action, how do you justify this point of view on the act of stealing?

Killing does not require "a specific set of circumstances" to be evil. There are lots of circumstances where killing is evil. I'd say most circumstances, with the times killing is not evil being the exception. Much like stealing (just worse in terms of degree because the harm you are doing is greater).

[Chronic]

Theft is evil.
Recruiting and training orphans to break the law is evil.
Creating a guild that follows your rules is lawful.

Nothing about what you’re doing is chaotic or neutral.

Arguable. In a society where social mobility is non existent and orphan have no consideration and prospects, this could be a chaotic good endeavor as long as the orphaned are well treated and loved in the orphanage. Crime is more often than not a consequence of the environment, more than an evil doing.
Also he's creating a guild to break the established law, this is clearly a chaotic act. Chaotic alignment is not necessarily doing random things, it's refusing to abide by the established law and custom of a place. Technically you could be considered lawful in a place and chaotic in another if you followed the law and customs of the first place in both places.

Moral is relative and contextual.