I'm Chaotic Neutral!

[Fax Celestis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Belphanior, from The Adventurers. He's the very definition of CN.

[Saph]

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]

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]

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.

[Yami]

"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.

Spoiler

Show

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. Otherwise, yeah good one.

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