I'm Chaotic Neutral!

[Hallavast]

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]

Jack sparrow. That's pretty much the only chaotic neutral I've ever seen really work out well.

[Fax Celestis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Chaotic Neutral leaders are awesome. See: Kaneda, from Akira.

[JackMage666]

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]

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. 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]

I don't have any examples other than characters I've played, unfortunately.

[Hallavast]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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 alignment

I'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]

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]

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]

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]

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.