[D&D3.5E] What does chaotic neutral mean to you?

[doppelganger]

I recently played a 'pickup' game at the FLGS. It was a sprawling affair with 11 people (10 players and the DM). Everyone rolled up new characters and made up a little bit of background and we then started playing. All but 2 (myself and one other fellow) chose to play chaotic neutral characters. Asking around for their reasons for the choice, I found most players told me that they chose CN because that alignment would allow them to do whatever they wanted with no regard to consistency or lack of consistency and was in effect the 'no alignment at all' alignment. My previous experiences with CN PCs were more as kind of 'screwball' characters that had a lot of comedy in the play experiences.

Has anyone else seen people use chaotic neutral as a 'no alignment' alignment? Most of the players in the Sunday game had never met before (that I know of, at least), and it struck me as odd that so many unconnected players thought CN was different to what I thought it was like.

[NeoSamurai]

I equate CN as looney tune characters at best, dysfunctional psychopaths at worse.

IMO, NG and NE are more attuned to being broad ranges of behavior.

so, the answer to your question is "No, not me."

[admiralducksauce]

My group sees CN as having the morality and judgement of a 15-year old boy. So basically what NeoSamurai said; looney tunes or psychopaths. :)

[Mr. Golden Deal]

CN to me means that the character is essentially self-interested. They don't mean anyone else harm unless they have harm inflicted upon them first, and they resent the encroachment of their freedoms from outside forces. I don't think that it's a psychopathic or looney alignment at all, just an extremely selfish one.

[Jerrythehun]

Another perspective is treating CN as sort of a proto-Objectavism. That's how I've played a CN character in the past and it seemed a lot more interesting than Chaotic Stupid or Crazy Neutral.

[NeoSamurai]

CN to me means that the character is essentially self-interested. They don't mean anyone else harm unless they have harm inflicted upon them first, and they resent the encroachment of their freedoms from outside forces. I don't think that it's a psychopathic or looney alignment at all, just an extremely selfish one.


you just described Neutral Evil.

[wingedcoyote]

There's no reason for CN characters to be comedy relief, any moreso than other alignments. CN is exactly what it says on the label.


Neutral -- not especially inclined to do good deeds for other people, but also not actively or outrageously malign. Like the vast majority of people in the real world, IMO.

Chaotic -- disinclined to accept rigid codes of behavior or respect external authority.

CN could be the guy you work with who's basically normal but complains a lot about paying his taxes and goes to anti-government rallies. It could be a thief who disrespects the law but doesn't kill people or take from the especially needy. It could be Conan -- he fights evil sometimes but not really because it's evil, and he also steals stuff and sometimes kills people who don't strictly need killing, but he definitely doesn't let anybody tell him what to do.


Chaotic Neutral characters don't act randomly destructive, that's Chaotic Evil (and crazy). And a character who acts like Daffy Duck isn't weird because he's CN, he's weird because his character decided to play Daffy Duck.

[Brian888]

On a slightly tangential topic...

I've always considered neutral good to be the alignment most conducive to acting in a truly "good" fashion, whatever that is, unhampered by any potentially competing considerations caused by being lawful or chaotic. However, it seems to me that D&D consistently portrays lawful good as the most "good" of the good alignments, so I must be wrong somehow. Can anyone clarify this for me?

[C.W.Richeson]

Free spirits, thieves who are in it for themselves but don't mean anyone ill, anarchists, etc.

From the SRD:

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

[CADmonkey]

CN to me means that the character is essentially self-interested. They don't mean anyone else harm unless they have harm inflicted upon them first, and they resent the encroachment of their freedoms from outside forces. I don't think that it's a psychopathic or looney alignment at all, just an extremely selfish one.
See, that would be a mature way of playing CN; I think I've seen it played that way once. I've seen CN played ChaoticLooney/ChaoticPsycho often enough that I'd think twice before joining a game that allowed CN alignment.

[NeoSamurai]

On a slightly tangential topic...

I've always considered neutral good to be the alignment most conducive to acting in a truly "good" fashion, whatever that is, unhampered by any potentially competing considerations caused by being lawful or chaotic. However, it seems to me that D&D consistently portrays lawful good as the most "good" of the good alignments, so I must be wrong somehow. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Actually that makes sense considering that NG balances the axis of means (Order vs. Chaos). It's not so limiting--these characters have some sense of structure in their lives and respect structure, but will look to the greater good and ignore structure if necessary.

[Jerrythehun]

you just described Neutral Evil.

Nope. NE characters are cruel and self-serving, not just selfish. They certainly mean others harm. Freedom is meaningless to a NE character, you either have the power to do something, or you don't.

[NeoSamurai]

Nope. NE characters are cruel and self-serving, not just selfish. They certainly mean others harm. Freedom is meaningless to a NE character, you either have the power to do something, or you don't.

I guess I could (barely) see that in regards to CN. Except NE doesn't emphasize cruel more so as providing for one's own interests.

Editted to add:

NM. I take that back. CN and NE are fairly close thematically except for a few words.

[doppelganger]

[

[Agent Oracle]

worst thing about playing pickup games: the CN players...

Well, that and the one guy who insists on playing evil. he's a regular ass too.

[Jess Heinig]

Means I'm gonna have a problem player.

[M_Sinistrari]

So far anyone I've seen play CN tend to take it as whatever suits whim even if it makes no sense by any stretch of logic.

And on the side discussion on NE, I have played NE characters and gone the route of 'It's all about me and my goals and if I have to burn down an orphanage or go help the village against the gnoll bandits to get to that goal, then that's what I do.'

[Mr. Golden Deal]

So far anyone I've seen play CN tend to take it as whatever suits whim even if it makes no sense by any stretch of logic.

And on the side discussion on NE, I have played NE characters and gone the route of 'It's all about me and my goals and if I have to burn down an orphanage or go help the village against the gnoll bandits to get to that goal, then that's what I do.'
See, that's Neutral Evil, whereas a Chaotic Neutral character would think, "Man, I really want this, but c'mon, burning down an orphanage? That's going too far."

[bergec]

Has anyone else seen people use chaotic neutral as a 'no alignment' alignment? Most of the players in the Sunday game had never met before (that I know of, at least), and it struck me as odd that so many unconnected players thought CN was different to what I thought it was like.

True Neutral is the "no alignment" alignment. It represents people who act according to their own wants and desires without any sort of overarching dedication to good, evil, law, or chaos. Most folks should fall into that alignment. True Chaotic people are dedicated to freedom as a principle. They will challenge laws and traditions just because they are static and restricting, without regard to the good or ill they do. Whereas a True Neutral person will break laws when it is convenient and the don't think they'll be caught, a True Chaotic person will do so on principle.

So, if you want to play a character who isn't concerned with morality, go True Neutral. That's what it is for.

[NeoSamurai]

See, that's Neutral Evil, whereas a Chaotic Neutral character would think, "Man, I really want this, but c'mon, burning down an orphanage? That's going too far."

See--that line of thought also supports True Neutral. The only really differential is that notion of inherent randomness of the character.

[Maedhros]

For most people, choosing CN as one's alignment is the best way to make sure that the character has absolutely no "tags" that might compel him to act in a certain way. Which is pretty damned bland, IMHO - characters with drives, ambitions, fears, morals, etc. are much more interesting than Pure Self Interest Boy.

[bartkusa]

Libertarian

[Jerrythehun]

Libertarian

Yup, that seems to be the consensus.

[Springaldjack]

I would say that CN is usually just someone who has no particular devotion to good or evil (like most people) but has a significantly stronger than average dislike of rules, structure and authority.

It is also the alignment, of course, which contains those devoted to Chaos as a Principle or who are creatures of Chaos. Slaad, Xasoitects, etc...

[Mr. Golden Deal]

See--that line of thought also supports True Neutral. The only really differential is that notion of inherent randomness of the character.
There's nothing inherent in the actual alignment that requires the character to be 'random', though, that's either people not understanding the alignment or your players using it as an excuse to be dicks. Someone can have decidedly fixed goals and motivations and still be classified as 'Chaotic', it simply means that they disregard Law.

[NeoSamurai]

Yup, that seems to be the consensus.

Except for the bit that Libertarians support organizational structure of some type :D

I think we can all agree that the libertarian ideals is closer to how they should be played--not how they tend to be popularly played en mass.

[NeoSamurai]

There's nothing inherent in the actual alignment that requires the character to be 'random', though, that's either people not understanding the alignment or your players using it as an excuse to be dicks.

ah...misread. it said "unpredictabe"--not totally "random".


Someone can have decidedly fixed goals and motivations and still be classified as 'Chaotic', it simply means that they disregard Law.

actually--they disregard "order" and "structure" more so than law. but that's just semantics at this point.

[TRR]

You know, CN didn't make any sense to me back in the AD&D days until my old DM came up with a brilliant example on a CN character - Patrick Swayze's Bodie in Point Break.

Think about it - not an evil character, in some ways a likeable and generous character, but definetly had a self-serving sociopathic thing going on that wasn't based in "evil" per se.

The whole CN thing made alot more sense after that example, and really served to provide an example that was drastically different than what I thought NE or CE would be.

thanks

TRR

[Wolfwood2]

How come Chaos gets defined purely in the negative, as "rejecting Law"?

In its more positive aspect, chaos embraces creativity and flexibility rather than getting bogged down in the past and irrelevant precedent. Chaos is open to new possibilties and solutions. Chaos pushes frontiers and tests limits.

[NeoSamurai]

How come Chaos gets defined purely in the negative, as "rejecting Law"?

In its more positive aspect, chaos embraces creativity and flexibility rather than getting bogged down in the past and irrelevant precedent. Chaos is open to new possibilties and solutions. Chaos pushes frontiers and tests limits.

that's a good way to put it that puts it on an equal perspective. For some reason, however, thefocus does go to the extreme side of the spectrum for a lot of people.

interestingly enough, people do the same by asserting the rigidity of the Law access.

[mrlost]

Chaotic Neutral = A "Don't Tread on Me" freedom lover.

[Deekin]

I see CN as I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me.

[Christopher V. Brady]

How come Chaos gets defined purely in the negative, as "rejecting Law"?

See, I never understood this. Chaotic characters don't always fight the 'Law', they will do what they want (If Good, what they think is right) and if the law agrees with them, so what? They were going to do it whether or not it did.

In its more positive aspect, chaos embraces creativity and flexibility rather than getting bogged down in the past and irrelevant precedent. Chaos is open to new possibilties and solutions. Chaos pushes frontiers and tests limits.

This I agree on, and I'm a more lawful type of person.

[Mr. Golden Deal]

See, I never understood this. Chaotic characters don't always fight the 'Law', they will do what they want (If Good, what they think is right) and if the law agrees with them, so what? They were going to do it whether or not it did.
Would that not make them Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis?

[Halloween Jack]

True Neutral is the "no alignment" alignment. It represents people who act according to their own wants and desires without any sort of overarching dedication to good, evil, law, or chaos. Neutrality doesn't mean a complete lack of conscience, however.
Would that not make them Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis?In that case, I think a neutral person would be more likely to say "I want to do that, but it's against the law/custom, so it's probably not worth the trouble."

Chaotic characters don't necessarily fight against law and tradition "on principle," but they're more willing to risk/accept the consequences, and they may in fact enjoy doing certain things because other people disapprove.
You know, CN didn't make any sense to me back in the AD&D days until my old DM came up with a brilliant example on a CN character - Patrick Swayze's Bodie in Point Break.

Think about it - not an evil character, in some ways a likeable and generous character, but definetly had a self-serving sociopathic thing going on that wasn't based in "evil" per se.
Just because someone is capable of being likeable and generous, and even loyal, doesn't mean that they're disqualified from being Evil. Sadists, mass-murderers, bandits who rob and kill to get what they want-all those people typically have a circle of friends.

[NeoSamurai]

Neutrality doesn't mean a complete lack of conscience, however.

doesn't it indicate a personal morality rather than societal one?

[Christopher V. Brady]

doesn't it indicate a personal morality rather than societal one?

Actually, ALL the Alignments are personal morality, as I understand the SRD. It's defined as 'good to evil' and 'lawful to chaotic' because it's easier for players to put it together. There's no objectivity to it, because it's all personal belief.

Now admittedly the NE CHARACTER may not see 'themselves' as 'evil', but the PLAYER will or should understand that the way he's playing the character is evil by the 'gameworld's' standards, which varies between DM/GMs and other agreed upon rules.

[Jerrythehun]

doesn't it indicate a personal morality rather than societal one?

You're talking about moral relativism, which doesn't work in the alignment system. Alignment isn't a ideology, it's an index. If your personal morality is evil, then your alignment is evil.

[Halloween Jack]

doesn't it indicate a personal morality rather than societal one?It doesn't mean 100% of one or the other. In fact, none of the alignments are like that. Even a brutish Chaotic Evil brigand might have misgivings about doing certain things. You can be any kind of Evil without being an utterly sadistic psychopath (although it helps).

[Jerrythehun]

It doesn't mean 100% of one or the other. In fact, none of the alignments are like that. Even a brutish Chaotic Evil brigand might have misgivings about doing certain things. You can be any kind of Evil without being an utterly sadistic psychopath (although it helps).

That's an excellent explanation, much better than mine - alignment doesn't measure motivations, it measures actions.

[M_Sinistrari]

I see CN as I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me.

So they're a Maury Povich guest?

[doppelganger]

I see CN as I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me.

This is basically what the players I was talking about said, in so many words. That CN was the alignment to allow player characters to act as the players wanted, beholden to nothing at all. They could save a village one day and rob it blind the next, as their whim and the needs of the adventure dictated. Basically a variable morality so that they could perform any action and then the opposite of that action and claim that there was no discrepancy in their behavior or alignment.

[Unka Josh]

By the book, it would seem to mean either "Freedom Lover" or "Random Guy."

Based on my experiences in the game, it means "I'll play my character as a random, self-centered ass, and fall back on the 'I'm CN' defense whenever anybody complains."

[Phigment]

Chaos vs. Law is a matter of right and wrong.

Imagine we have the magical kingdom of HappyLand. Everyone in Happyland is happy.

The Happyland Legal Society proposes a new law, to the effect that everyone in Happyland must be happy.

The lawful neutral person thinks this is a great idea. Everyone is happy, and everyone wants to keep being happy, so it's fundamentally right that the laws reflect and reinforce this. If we pass the Pro-Happiness Act, then not only are we happy now, but we'll be happy in the future, too, because anything that prevents our happiness can be dealt with by the law! Hooray!

The true neutral person doesn't really have a problem with the Pro-Happiness Act, but he's not that excited about it either. I mean, it isn't really changing anything. It's not going to have any effect on his day-to-day life. Unless it looks like it's going to cause his taxes to go up, he thinks it's probably a good idea, but not so much that he'll take to the streets in favor of it.

The chaotic neutral person knows that the Pro-Happiness Act is a terrible idea. He's as much in favor of happiness as the next guy, but this law is totally useless. Everybody is already happy, aren't they? This law isn't going to increase the happiness of the population, and it's deeply, morally wrong to go around restricting people for no reason. What right does the government have to tell people they must be happy? Why can't they be morose, or perhaps phlegmatic, when the mood strikes them? Boo! Worst law ever! Down with the thought police!

[RSC]

CN and LN are the only alignments that really resemble real human being to me. Real humans are basically neutral - they might be predisposed to be nice to people on occasion, but not at any big risk to themselves and they might feel like being a dick to someone on occasion, but aren't too likely to actually take joy in the suffering of others. Some are big on freedom and others are big on order and safety.

[Maedhros]

CN and LN are the only alignments that really resemble real human being to me. Real humans are basically neutral - they might be predisposed to be nice to people on occasion, but not at any big risk to themselves and they might feel like being a dick to someone on occasion, but aren't too likely to actually take joy in the suffering of others. Some are big on freedom and others are big on order and safety.

I know many "Good" people, but no "Evil" ones (except for those I see on the news).

Most people ascribe to the sanctity of life (Good).

[wml]

CN and LN are the only alignments that really resemble real human being to me. Real humans are basically neutral - they might be predisposed to be nice to people on occasion, but not at any big risk to themselves and they might feel like being a dick to someone on occasion, but aren't too likely to actually take joy in the suffering of others. Some are big on freedom and others are big on order and safety.

My CN characters are basically CG... except good is a dumb alignment - helping anyone, anywhere, all the time? Unrealistic, or at least rare. Most people... or at least, most of my characters have some weakness, blindspot, rashes of cruelty, occassional desire for revenge, etc. So my CN's try to be good people, but fall short sometimes, and hence are CN.

Firefly spoiler:

At the end of Shindig, after Mal has beaten the noble punk, having just risked his life for Inara, he says something to the effect "Mercy is the mark of a great man" and then stabs him again "Guess I'm just a good man." and then stabs him again. "Guess I'm OK." That's neutral on the good/evil axis.

[Wratts]

Most of my players regard the CN alignment as the "free pass" alignment, in other words, the alignment that gives them the most freedom without too many restrictions in character actions.

Chaotic -- disregards laws (any laws) whenever it pleases him/her
Neutral -- neither good nor evil.


As alot of players may tend to be inable to fathom a serious break between the character and their own personality, the CN is thus the most "realistic" match-up to the personality of your average modern-day human in our world.

I mean, come on, you can't play a lawful character without even remotely and accidentally breaking a law. The implications of self-flagellation that would be the most logical consequence to such actions of a lawful character made alot of players in my games consider such alignment to be the "naive" alignment. And neutral without chaotic or lawful being a lack of any conviction.

Mind you, these are things I've heard from players.

[NeoSamurai]

I mean, come on, you can't play a lawful character without even remotely and accidentally breaking a law.

that's actually a misnomer. Lawful is just as much as following structure and order and discipline as it is just abiding by the law.

[Vigorous Ape]

I played an orphaned street-rat as CN. He was a petty crook and con man who would stick by his friends, as long as he thought it was useful.

He wasn't stupid enough to fuck people over for no reason, but if he thought he smelled money he would. I thought that he basically lacked any moral fortitude to really stick by true friends, and so would wander through life commiting petty crimes in the gutter.

I think chaotic doesn't mean unpredictable, although it can mean unpredictable to outside sources. Everybody justifies their actions one way or another, only the truly deranged do evil things 'just because' (the bad guy in the Warriors is an example). So a CN will try to get things or goals that only he understands. A LG PAladin who strictly follows chivalry and his church's laws is pretty predictable. Is he going to respond to an honorable challenge, yeah of course.

[Old Geezer]

It means to me that I won't play with anybody who says those words.

[Kaiu Keiichi]

WOTC and TSR before them has always been schizophrenic in regards to how to implement the Law/Chaos axis in D&D.

The notions of both law and chaos have been used to justify individuals who have no respect for authority and for truly dedicated anarchists on a political level. Likewise, Lawful Nuetral has been used to justify both exceedingly rigid political leanings as well as individuals who have strong internal self discipline.

But what about people who zealously obey a politically anarchist and indivdiualist creed? Or individuals who literally piss on social authority, but possess extreme self discipline and coherent, elaborate codes of personal behavior?

The law-chaos axis of D&D Alignment is busted. It has stayed in D&D strictly due to nostalgia and inertia. This is how you get jerks who play only Chaotic Nuetral, aka, Evil But I don't Have To Take Responsibility For It.

It's really a half baked set of ideas, curdled from notions taken from Moorcock, Zelazny and other sources. I suggest to anyone who runs D&D - Take the Slaad and all those guys and fold them into the various Hells, since in my experience the Slaad behave more or less like demons anyway. Strip Law and Chaos out of your games, and use only Good and Evil as the basis for your magical physics.

I never understood the horror that people express when I suggest eliminating Law and Chaos from Alignment. This makes Chaotic Neutral characters simply self centered jerks, and Lawful Nuetral types merely obsessive tight asses. Nothing stops people from playing this way - it's just that now there's no magical or divine backing for playing an ill-thought out stance on societal ethics that the D&D Law-Chaos axis tries to express, nor is there game rule sanction for jerky behavior.

Operatively, I've never seen that much of a different between True Nuetral and Chaotic Nuetral playstyles, except that CN players tend to have a streak towards more ill thought jerkish self interest, as opposed to a TN character's either enlightened self interest or abstract philosphical neutrality (which Gygax tried to express as a psuedo-taosim through the Druid class.)

I remember when I was a kid, trying to sell RQ2 to my D&D gaming buddies, and how you didn't need Alignments or anything like them in fantasy games, instead relying on culture to determine morality and behavior. "What do you mean, neither Orlanth nor the Red Goddess have Alignments? How can you tell who's good or evil?"

EDIT - Also, when running any kind of serious D&D, you need to have all the players on board as to what Good and Evil actually constitute in the game setting. This isn't as easy or apparent to understand as it may seem at first glance in many settings. Players may have wildly divergent ideas as to what good and evil mean.

CB

[Quintin Stone]

To me, Chaotic Neutral means that in all probability, some jerk player made a psychotic character (PC) as a justification for the player doing all kinds of ridiculous stuff.

In real terms, I'd associate it more with Anarcho-Syndicalism or Individualist Anarchism than Libertarianism, the latter of which I feel is more inclined towards LN or TN.

[DDogwood]

I know many "Good" people, but no "Evil" ones (except for those I see on the news).

Well, most of us see ourselves as Good, even if we're Evil. Even con artists normally justify their crimes by saying things like "I only ripped off dishonest people"; rapists have been known to justify their crimes by saying that the victim was "asking for it".

I agree with Kaiu Keiichi that the alignment system is half-baked, and it is probably one of the biggest sources of player/DM conflict in the game. I don't think there's any realistic way to "fix" the alignment system, but that's JMO.

I preferred the old WFRP alignment system, which was simply a continuum that read Law-Good-Neutral-Evil-Chaos. "Neutral" was the normal alignment for most PCs, and represented pretty much everybody - people who care about themselves, and people and causes that are close to themselves. "Good" was for the saints and martyrs (and Elves) - people who are extreme goody-two-shoes and will casually go out of their way, even harming themselves, to help strangers. "Law" was for the people who believe in an absolute moral code, and are willing to harm other people for their own good (inquisitors, witch hunters, etc.). "Evil" was for real bastards, like murderers, assassins, and other sociopaths. "Chaos" was for those who had sold their souls to the Chaos Powers, and were willing to do anything to gain personal power. The beauty of this system was that players could do pretty much whatever the hell they felt was appropriate without changing alignments. Only the goodest of the good were "Good", and only the worst of the worst were "Evil". "Law" and "Chaos" were intentionally diametrically opposed in their motivation (selfless vs. selfish), and intentionally identical in their actions (devoted to the Cause beyond all other moral considerations).

In our games, Chaotic Neutral is usually the alignment that we move Chaotic Good people to after they start killing prisoners, but before they start killing bystanders.

[loseth]

It means Conan*.



*From the pulp stories, not from the movies--I think he's more CG in the movies.

[Halloween Jack]

In real terms, I'd associate it more with Anarcho-SyndicalismA system where people cooperate as part of a big union? That's CN?

[Josh Inno]

What it means to me is that a person isn't going to sacrifice themselves for people they don't know, and they don't recognize authority and law as being a good thing in general. I work with a CN contractor and he's not some psychotic jerk. He just doesn't see why government exists and why he should have to bow to it.

[Narshal]

As for alignment, I always use the Planescape description of petitioners.

So for Chaotic Neutal, I look at the petitioners of Ysgard, Limbo and Pandemonium.

Ysgard petitioners: They are a rowdy lot of warriors and quite fearless.

Limbo petitioners: They are individual beings with its own personality and usually its own distinctive feateres. Unfortunately, they don't have one particular personality and thus they change based on their mood.

Pandemonium petitioners: They are neurotic, have a form of madeness to some degree. It's nothing totally serious though.

[Xenu's Paradox]

Ethical scale:

Lawful: Follows a strict code, whether self-imposed or societal.

Neutral: Decides on a case-by-case basis whether to follow a law according to his own conscience.

Chaotic: Thinks the law is a handy thing for keeping society from falling apart, but doesn't feel bound to follow it himself.

Moral scale:

Good: Believes in helping others, self-sacrifice, the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, mercy, and all that stuff. Someone who follows the same philosophy that Jesus of Nazareth advocated.

Neutral: Has a sliding scale for morality. May not even believe in moral notions of good and evil as absolutes.

Evil: Believes in survival of the fittest, culling the weak, might makes right, do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.

[Antithesis]

it means never having to hear the words "that action is contrary to your alignment"

[Jonathan Moyer]

It means Conan*.



*From the pulp stories, not from the movies--I think he's more CG in the movies.
Yeah, I think CN is a good description of Conan (from the books).

I think the Conan of the first movie is pretty close to CN. In the second movie he's more CG IMO.

[Jonathan Moyer]

I see CN as I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me.
I think CN would draw the line at killing innocents. While they won't go out of their way to help people they don't know, I don't think they have the cruelty to kill babies because they think that would be fun. What you describe ("I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me") is closer to CE IMO.

[Callad]

On the one hand, I've seen the crazy idiot effect with CN, but I prefer more mature takes on the alignment. Nor need it represent a single archetype. My only constraint on alignments is that it takes a sort of dedication to really move away from Nuetral. CN might be an anarchist, but not the guy who just dislikes authority as he pays his taxes. It might be the mystic whos had a few vision inducing mushrooms too many, but not the airheaded new age witch.

[Furcifer]

I don't really 'get' chaotic alignments. I avoid playing them.

[Maedhros]

I think CN would draw the line at killing innocents. While they won't go out of their way to help people they don't know, I don't think they have the cruelty to kill babies because they think that would be fun. What you describe ("I do what I want, when I want, and nothing is going to stop me") is closer to CE IMO.

CN is the alignment that is chosen so as to minimize the amount of actual roleplaying the character is forced to do. Other alignments, even CE, require that the character actually have an ethos; CN is the absence of ethos (at least in these players' minds).

[Halfjack]

The Chaotic Neutral character is perfectly autonomous -- he is not driven by the stated ideals of others and instead strives to do exactly as he pleases. This neither precludes nor prescribes moral or amoral choices, but rather require only that the character always follow his heart without regard for the expectations of others, whether those expectations are laws, conventions, or religious dicta. This does not mean the character deliberately violates laws etc., but rather that he ignores them in favour of his own preferences. Neither does this mean that the chaotic neutral character always acts in his own benefit (though it may) -- he may readily act to the benefit of others if it suits him but never because it is expected of him.

[randomgamer8466]

I think there are some actions out of character for a CN type. Obedience, for example. Subsuming your natural/instinctual behavior in order to comply with regional laws or terms of a contract is a violation of CN ethos, IMHO.

Side note -- I hate D&D players who believe that "Chaotic" is a euphemism for "a little bit evil" or even "I can do what I want". A passionately CG character is obligated to help those brutalized peasants against their oppressive landlord. He is every bit as good as a LG character -- but he deems that law and social structure is more commonly a device to institutionalize evil than good.

Of course, I also believe that some characters are not passionate about their alignments. You can be LG, never break laws, be kind to strangers but not necessarily commit your life to fighting tyranny. Paladins and clerics are the exception.

[RSC]

My CN characters are basically CG... except good is a dumb alignment - helping anyone, anywhere, all the time? Unrealistic, or at least rare. Most people... or at least, most of my characters have some weakness, blindspot, rashes of cruelty, occassional desire for revenge, etc. So my CN's try to be good people, but fall short sometimes, and hence are CN.
Hell, I'd say that describes any character who's not an angel or demon or insane. Everybody thinks they're doing the right thing. It's just a question of how far they fall from completing their goals and often how much they think they have done correctly.

Firefly spoiler:

At the end of Shindig, after Mal has beaten the noble punk, having just risked his life for Inara, he says something to the effect "Mercy is the mark of a great man" and then stabs him again "Guess I'm just a good man." and then stabs him again. "Guess I'm OK." That's neutral on the good/evil axis.
Going with Firefly, Jayne is a great (and rare) example of a CN who doesn't shy away from the C. He's a man who was almost brought to tears by a riot held in his honor.

[Quintin Stone]

A system where people cooperate as part of a big union? That's CN?

If only because:
Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations — the organizations that struggle against the wage system, and which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society — should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.

[Afshin]

It means that I don't really care for an alignment system and that I can play my character in a non-disruptive manner without one, but because you're requiring me to put something in front of the alignment descriptor, I'm going to put 'CN' there.

[Jonathan Moyer]

CN is the alignment that is chosen so as to minimize the amount of actual roleplaying the character is forced to do. Other alignments, even CE, require that the character actually have an ethos; CN is the absence of ethos (at least in these players' minds).
Well, IMO the alignment they "should" be playing is True Neutral. TN serves well as the ultimate "I have no ethos." :) The "Chaotic" part of CN implies to me a strong tendency to challenge authority, usually incidentally IMO (like when town guards come by and start barking orders), so if the players aren't doing that on a consistent basis I'd say they are "doing it wrong" (as much as anyone can do alignment wrong - there's a lot of variation from player to player and DM to DM :D )

[NeoSamurai]

In the end, if the group doesn't want to be confined alignment strictures and choose CN because of it--they really should just do away with it and focus on Good and Evil in regards to magic metaphysics in that game just like was suggested earlier.

[Spike84]

Yeah, I think CN is a good description of Conan (from the books).

I think the Conan of the first movie is pretty close to CN. In the second movie he's more CG IMO.

I agree on the books, but to be a little more detailed...

Chaotic Neutral = "young" Conan, from "Queen of the Black Coast", "The Frost Giant's Daughter", etc.

Chaotic Good = "older" King Conan, from "Phoenix on the Sword", "Scarlet Citadel", etc.

It's been so long since I've seen the movies, I can't really comment on them.

[Lothorus]

Regardless of what the rulebooks and good players might say, I've found that a lot of CN players think of it as the "new evil", and just an excuse to do whatever without any of the downsides of actually having an evil alignment. That's what it means to me, and has recently become one of my many pet peeves.

Has anyone else had horrible experiences with problem players selecting Chaotic Neurtal as "cruise control for awesome"?

[Blizzardborn]

Plenty. I think it's one of the main arguments people have for eliminating alignment altogether.

But I find the combination of a bored slaad and a cleric with Order's Wrath solve many issues.

BB

[mhacdebhandia]

I think that chaotic neutral characters tend to do their own thing, without worrying too much about the welfare of others.

Note that I draw a line between "do their own thing" and "do whatever they want". Likewise between "without worrying too much about the welfare of others" and "no matter who gets hurt".

A chaotic neutral guy will probably avoid getting involved in other people's business - after all, he doesn't feel lawful social obligations apply to him or that it's his job to look out for other people. He's concerned with being allowed to do his own thing, with not being forced to follow other people's rules.

He's the sort of guy who will just quit a job when the boss starts riding him too hard about the way he dresses, because it's not worth the hassle to conform to his employer's expectations. He wouldn't beat someone up to steal their wallet, but neither would he intervene if he saw someone being mugged in an alley. It's not his problem. Hell, he may not even expect people to come to his aid if he's being mugged.

A chaotic neutral guy (to use a real world example, because I know a guy who does this) is probably unlikely to have an e-mail address or a mobile phone unless he has a good reason to need to use one - it's not his job to make it easier for other people to contact him. Besides, privacy is probably a big concern for such a self-focused individual. He wants people to accept him on his own terms, not to conform to other people's expectations in order to gain acceptance.

You might characterise a really extreme chaotic neutral individual as an extreme libertarian - fully concerned with the absolute rights of individuals even if it makes society operate in a really schizophrenic fashion or puts a great number of people at a severe disadvantage because they don't have property/guns/friends. The "rugged individualist" in the survivalist sense of the word - not cruel or exploitative of others, but not in the least bit interested in helping those who won't help themselves. The kind of guy who will put a "Trespassers will be shot" sign on his property and mean it.

Chaotic neutral characters would probably be common as adventurers, even if they're parsimonious with their respect and assistance until they feel others have fully earned it, because they wouldn't fit in well with more structured, lawful societies and would probably prefer, in any event, to go out and make their own way by their wits and skill.

[Trombone4Hire]

My understanding of Chaotic is the philosophical stance that individuals and groups should be allowed to persue their interests. Being CG means the character that preservation of this right is worth defending, with one's life if necessary. Being CE means the character believes that he (and anyone else) has a right to do whatever he wants, and to hell with anyone who gets in his way. Being CN means while the character believes self-determination is ethically correct, he does not wish to impose this belief on others either by fighting forces of tyranny or allowing his acts of self-determination to harm others.

Anyone who tries to pass off CN as either an excuse to do whatever at whatever time (to the possible detriment of other PCs or players) or an excuse to play an insane character should be beaten with the core books until he agrees to just play TN from now on, or call his alignment "Batshit Neutral" and not pollute what is already a controversial concept.

[Tiran]

Free spirited and selfish.

[TristanH]

Anyone who tries to pass off CN as either an excuse to do whatever at whatever time (to the possible detriment of other PCs or players) or an excuse to play an insane character should be beaten with the core books until he agrees to just play TN from now on, or call his alignment "Batshit Neutral" and not pollute what is already a controversial concept.

Except there's the part in the 1st ed AD&D book that says about CN: "Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. (emphasis mine)

It may say different things in later editions, but it seems like that's a pretty good reason you get the type of play you do with CN sometimes.

[Deviant Juvenile]

I've always seen the view of 'the stupid law says it has to be done that way... so I'm going to do it this other way because I can' as the chaotic view on the law/chaos axis.

A lawful, to me, would have the 'the law requires it to be done this way, so that's how I'll do it' view.

I see the neutral view as 'I'm going to do it this way. if it follows the law, great. if not... oh well.'

[BASHMAN]

I see CN as complete lawlessness, not insanity as it was so often depicted in 1st and 2nd AD&D. Conan could be described as CN (but is more often true neutral). A lot of barbarians are likely CN, as are a lot of thieves.

I don't see CN as a roleplayer's loophole to allow their character to do whatever the heck they feel like with no accountability. If the CN character picks up some guy's wallet and gives it back to him he should be penalized XP or something for acting out of character-- a CN character would totally steal it.

Likewise True Neutral is not the "druid who helps the town fight the orcs, then changes sides to help the orcs fight the humans all in the name of balance" the way it was in 1st and 2nd ed. TN is one of 2 things. For roleplaying purposes, TN is the alignment that lets you play a scoundrel, who looks out for himself, and keeps his word only when it suits his interest. It is also ok for druids because of balance... nature... yada yada. For munchkins, True Neutral is the alignment that gives the most bonuses, as holy, unholy, axiomatic, or chaotic weapons will not do extra damage to you, but you can use them to do extra damage to others. Likewise, protection from evil, protection from good, and various other spells that have penalties for people of certain alignment will never affect you.

One day, I am going to make a magic item of neutrality bane, that becomes a +3 weapon and does 2d6 extra damage to true neutral sentient beings (it'd be unfair for it to affect animals, who have no choice of alignment).

[mhacdebhandia]

The problem with that, Deviant Juvenile, is that Lawful alignment has nothing to do with obeying laws per se. It has to do with social order, consistent structure, respect for tradition.

Conversely, Chaotic alignment isn't about breaking laws per se. It's about individualism, self-determination, ignoring tradition when it no longer serves a purpose.

A chaotic society can still have laws. They will be few and limited in scope, applying only to the few principles on which most can agree and leaving everything else up to individuals to determine. I am reminded, for instance, of Robert A. Heinlein's novel The Puppet Masters, where it's mentioned that there are multiple different kinds of legal marriages, from the traditional "until death do us part" commitment to a year-and-a-day trial contract.

Libertarian, in other words. Allowing individuals to determine their own interactions with society, admitting into effect only those laws which protect universal principles and freedoms.

[Samaritan]

This will sound funny, and you might scoff.

But CN? I picture that 'template' as being like Danny DeVito's character from Twins (yeah, opposite Arnie). In part, due to his conversation about returning the money at the end: "Oh... you mean the four million dollars." I'm spoiling this, because the amount that had fallen into their hands was actually five million dollars. :) But he's also kind of portrayed as a con artist/sleazy sort, generally out for himself... yet he can form a meaningful relationship.

I never took CN to mean that the person utterly refuses to care for anyone or anything but himself, but rather, that just happens to be his/her 'default' means of dealing with a situation.

[Mozart]

Except there's the part in the 1st ed AD&D book that says about CN: "Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. (emphasis mine)

It may say different things in later editions, but it seems like that's a pretty good reason you get the type of play you do with CN sometimes.

QFT. The definition of Chaotic, and in particular Chaotic Neutral, has changed from edition to edition. The current 3.5 definition makes specific reference to a CN not being as likely to jump of a bridge as act in another fashion preceisely because one AD&D edition said that a CN was as likely to jump off the bridge as not.

A lot of the problems come from players applying outmoded concepts of alignments, but at the end of the day, an asshat player is going to be an asshat player whatever alignment he is alledgedly playing.

[Halloween Jack]

Except there's the part in the 1st ed AD&D book that says about CN: "Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. (emphasis mine)

It may say different things in later editions, but it seems like that's a pretty good reason you get the type of play you do with CN sometimes.1st ed. AD&D makes all the alignments pointlessly stratified.

[loseth]

Although Eberron isn't standard D&D, I like its take on alignment:

L - great respect for order, societal structure, etc.
N - moderate respect for order, societal structure, etc.
C - disrespects order, societal structure, etc.

G - Genuinely altruistic
N - Neither especially selfish nor altruistic
E - Genuinely selfish

So, Cx would be someone who has a healthy disrespect for authority and social order. xN would be someone who will probably do the right thing when it matters, but will otherwise look out for himself. Mix for CN.

IMHO, that's a very playable character.

[RSC]

I don't see CN as a roleplayer's loophole to allow their character to do whatever the heck they feel like with no accountability. If the CN character picks up some guy's wallet and gives it back to him he should be penalized XP or something for acting out of character-- a CN character would totally steal it.
Depends on who's wallet it is. If he just saw a poor man drop his wallet on the way to buy food for his starving family, then it might be evil to not return it.

CN should no more be a straight jacket than (non-paladin) LG should be.

[011121]

So is there interest in a Neutral themed book that explores the law-chaos axis particularly?


I'd previously gotten input about a book of neutrality along the good-evil axis and it seemed like there was very tepid interest:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=291988


Personally I find the alignment system to be very clunky, but if we're going to use it we might as well use it well.

[Zato-2TWO]

The alignment system was always meant to break D&D into a black and white world, but careful interpretation can make characters more than just that.

Neutrality doesn't necessarily have to mean 'flat in the middle of the spectrum', it can simply mean that you look towards aspects of both ends of the spectrum without dipping too far into one to be considered one or the other.

Chaotic Neutral takes on the Chaotic aspect in that it's an open-minded way of thinking, looking to forsake tradition in favor of whatever benefits the situation best. The Neutral aspect means that their interests aren't necessarily in the well-being of others; a Neutral character may very well be concerned with their own self-interests, but this doesn't make them Evil because they don't necessarily disregard others' well-being either. Selfishness itself is not Evil, but the disregard to others' being out of selfishness is.

So let's sum up what we have:

Chaotic Neutral = Open-minded free spirit + Self-interest without disregard for others.

"A mindset capable of thinking and acting outside of convention, with interest for oneself, but without flagrant disregard for others."