Chaotic Neutral: the Lazy Gamer's Tool?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Alignment: The Lazy Gamers Morality. Morality doesn't exist on a grid and, even if objectively measurable (which I am already completely skeptical of) is not something that can be adjudicated by a GM. Even then, morality usually shifts based on the very particularized facts of a situation. The alignment system is the lazy part, in fact, the need to conform to alignment usually leads to characters acting out to fit a dumb game imposed moral stereotype than it would without an alignment system.

AMEN, BROTHER.


Zhayne wrote:
Dork Lord wrote:


What restrictions are there for a CN character?

None whatsoever ... just like every alignment.

Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. The only consequence would be an alignment shift.

No players determine their alignment. No GM is so superior as to understand complex moral question better than a player and their own character. Alignment is a function of character, not GM rationalization.

Shadow Lodge

I heartily agree with Mr Pitt. I hate the alignment system. People are way to complex to be simplified into chaotic, lawful, good and evil. We all perform actions that fall into each of those categories at some point. And they are subjective. What one person did based upon what they strongly believed to be good morals, may be perceived as evil to another. Making these alignments a hard quantifiable thing is stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Mistah J wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Any alignment can be played Stupid. No sense singling out Chaotic Stupid.

Very true.

..but you don't see many threads about the issues with "Neutral Stupid"

Neutral stupid is ...

"Well, I helped save this orphanage from burning down, now I have to go find another one to burn down so I stay neutral"

If druids still had to be true neutral like they did back in The Old Days, we'd see a lot more Neutral Stupid threads.


Zhayne wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Alignment: The Lazy Gamers Morality. Morality doesn't exist on a grid and, even if objectively measurable (which I am already completely skeptical of) is not something that can be adjudicated by a GM. Even then, morality usually shifts based on the very particularized facts of a situation. The alignment system is the lazy part, in fact, the need to conform to alignment usually leads to characters acting out to fit a dumb game imposed moral stereotype than it would without an alignment system.
AMEN, BROTHER.

So. Much. This.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it a Chaotic Neutral character hates conformity, traditions, restrictive laws, authoritarian styles of governance. Note that this does not necessarily mean acts like a jerk to their friends or adventuring companions. A CN character will generally try to assert their independence from society in general. They will try to do things OUTSIDE the law where reasonably convenient due to disdain, distrust, or because they simply can't be bothered. Placed in a position of authority a CN character will try to keep their hands off as much as possible because they tend to believe that society functions best that way. Chaotic Neutral tends to correlate with counterculture, anarchism, and dislike of such practices as slavery, mind control magics, hierarchies, or imprisonment.

CN does NOT mean that a character is undisciplined, that they have no moral code (although it does presume that they are not prone to excessive altruistic urges toward individuals who are not their close friends/loved ones as that would make them CG), does not mean that they are inherently inconsistent or lazy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
I heartily agree with Mr Pitt. I hate the alignment system. People are way to complex to be simplified into chaotic, lawful, good and evil. We all perform actions that fall into each of those categories at some point. And they are subjective. What one person did based upon what they strongly believed to be good morals, may be perceived as evil to another. Making these alignments a hard quantifiable thing is stupid.

Only true if you treat it as an address rather than a zip code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is how you treat people who are not close to you. No matter your alignment, you can be decent and caring to your friends and loved ones. This is how a party with different alignments functions.


Ross Byers wrote:
rando1000 wrote:

I don't generally go in for the alignment as ideology interpretation. Alignment seems to me to be more about how a person INTERACTS with the prevailing ideologies around them.

Lawful Good - Will follow the law unless it's evil, most of the time.
Lawful Neutral - Will follow the law and not care about whether or not it's evil.
Lawful Evil - Will follow the law, but will abuse it for their own benefit even to the point of harming/killing others.

Law is not Legal.

Except when it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Alignment: The Lazy Gamers Morality. Morality doesn't exist on a grid and, even if objectively measurable (which I am already completely skeptical of) is not something that can be adjudicated by a GM. Even then, morality usually shifts based on the very particularized facts of a situation. The alignment system is the lazy part, in fact, the need to conform to alignment usually leads to characters acting out to fit a dumb game imposed moral stereotype than it would without an alignment system.

The thing is, as many others like to consistently and quite vehemently point out, this is a game and not real life. This is a fantasy world where the are real gods that really affect the ways the world works. Those gods are embodiments of particular alignments.

The point of role playing is to pick a role and play it. I can choose the role of a CN barbarian and then do my best to act out my character. I understand many people thoroughly hate the alignment system, that doesn't make it a bad option for people who want to try to play out a particular system of morals that may not match their real life morals.


Alignment doesn't really help with that, though, unless these players utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Alignment doesn't really help with that, though, unless these players utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.

Most people do utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On alignment: I think most people who hates/dislikes the system are too hooked up on the thought that the system only allows nine personalities or that it only represents nine personalitys. As I see it, it doesn't.
It's just a compass to explain the very basics of a persons general behaviour and not a guidline to how a character should act and neither is it a total guide to who a character are.
Ex:
A LN character can be your everyday normal, law abiding, citizen. It can also be a loyal assassin for hire who doesn't necessarily classify as evil.
However, this may also be something that people dislike, since LN would then describe both those, very different people.
It's by no means a close to perfect system, it is very limited in its use. But I don't think you should totaly scrap it either. Also: Some alignment rule restrictions are very poor (Lawful Barbarian could be a cool concept).

On CN: I think some people uses it as a lazy excuse to "be allowed" to do anything and still not have to be called evil while they probably should be. Basicly they've missunderstood the point of CN and play as NE or CE, with the justification being: 'I don't steal unless I "need" to and I don't kill EVERYTHING in/on sight, that's why I shouldn't be called CE'.

Imbicatus wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Alignment doesn't really help with that, though, unless these players utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.
Most people do utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.

A great source to conflict!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Alignment doesn't really help with that, though, unless these players utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.
Most people do utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.

So much this, as demonstrated on this forum on a pretty much hourly basis.

My point is, if I want to play a rogue that worships Calistria and tries to follow her morals, then I can look up her alignment, get a brief description of the basics of that alignment, and try to mold my actions into that frame. It doesn't tell me this is how I must act, it gives me a frame of reference to work within. Sure there are absolutely zero mechanical benefits or penalties if I go outside that frame, it's just something I can use to get into the role I want to play.


Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.

If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Alignment doesn't really help with that, though, unless these players utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.
Most people do utterly lack the ability to conceive of moral/ethical positions other than their own.

I know what you mean! Surprising how many of 'em get radio shows!


Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.
If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

The game would be better served by stripping out alignment and using that page space to actually give hints on how to roleplay. Alignment is at best training wheels, and worst an outright impediment.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

To you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.
If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

The game would be better served by stripping out alignment and using that page space to actually give hints on how to roleplay. Alignment is at best training wheels, and worst an outright impediment.

Eh. Alignment isn't really necessary for PCs, I'll agree (Paladins aside..and their Code pretty well covers that aspect), though I disagree it's an impediment if handled properly (and thus keep it around, since it's easier that way).

Y'know what Alignment is great for? NPCs and monsters. If I want to know a rough outline of what kind of moral code a monster or NPC has, I can just look at their Alignment and there I am. Providing the kind of detailed moral stances you suggest (which, btw, I absolutely believe PCs and important NPCs should have) for every mook is too labor and space intensive to be a good plan. Saying "They're LN." is just so much quicker, easier, and gives an excellent basis for more detail if needed.

Heck, even for PCs, it's often a nice heads up to the GM what kind of general moral framework you're likely to be working with. At least IME. It doesn't give the details, but broad overviews are useful, too.


I've seen Chaotic Neutral played that way yes, and the players have been long forgotten as they didn't stay with the group after a few sessions.

I tend to plan as a player for campaigns so my characters have backstory and narrative, this means most of the time they have a sort of logic to their character and therefore I pretty much have never played 'chaotic stupid' but I have played chaotic neutral.

As a DM I run campaigns, not one shot adventures. This means again a longer term investment in the character story. Each player's character matters. Anyone coming to the group is free to play however they feel but there is an element of 'adding to the group' not detracting from it. I suspect ours is not the only established group that operates on similar principles.


Zhayne wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.
If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

The game would be better served by stripping out alignment and using that page space to actually give hints on how to roleplay. Alignment is at best training wheels, and worst an outright impediment.

So the game would be better served by removing one section that gives tips on how to roleplay and replacing it with a section that gives tips on how to roleplay? That seems a bit ... odd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.
If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

The game would be better served by stripping out alignment and using that page space to actually give hints on how to roleplay. Alignment is at best training wheels, and worst an outright impediment.

As someone who constantly brings people new to RPGs into the fold, I think it's a good thing to have training wheels.

I've had multiple instances where the section on alignments has engendered some great discussions about what role play is and how playing someone with a different world view from the player can be a fun experience.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've run games without alignment (such as Arcana Evolved) and with. While it's true that no two entities of the same alignment have identical personalities, I do find it a valuable shorthand when summing up an NPC. It's been really, really rare for me to have an NPC so well-detailed that mutually contradictory alignments seemed called for.

"NE" - Do not leave your horses or children alone with this person. Do not stand between a paladin and this person unless you want boot-heel prints on your forehead.

"CG" - Use emotional appeals to make a chump out of this person.

"LN" - Use the rules to make a chump out of this person.

"CG" or "LE" - Probably laughs with hands on hips and head thrown back.


In the past, I think part of the problem was that some GMs felt that CN characters had zero attention span or were in some way psychologically unstable. The way I played my CN rogue was that he was willing to deal with everyone (LG, LE, N, etc) as long as he got paid. He adventured with his LG monk buddy because the rogue was somewhat smitten with him and was fascinated by his outlook on life.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.
If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless.

And if you don't need roleplaying guidelines, because you actually roleplay, then it's useless.

The game would be better served by stripping out alignment and using that page space to actually give hints on how to roleplay. Alignment is at best training wheels, and worst an outright impediment.

So the game would be better served by removing one section that gives tips on how to roleplay and replacing it with a section that gives tips on how to roleplay? That seems a bit ... odd.

The game would be better served by leaving the tips in and removing the mechanical effects of the alignment system.


Marius Castille wrote:
In the past, I think part of the problem was that some GMs felt that CN characters had zero attention span or were in some way psychologically unstable. The way I played my CN rogue was that he was willing to deal with everyone (LG, LE, N, etc) as long as he got paid. He adventured with his LG monk buddy because the rogue was somewhat smitten with him and was fascinated by his outlook on life.

Amusingly, this is fairly similar to a character of mine; she's an assassin who will do anything and deal with anyone if the price is right. I had her pegged as Lawful Evil.

Strange how the alignment system puts such similar characters on near opposite sides of the spectrum. It's almost as if our individual interpretations of their actions influenced our perception of what they do more than an objective morality that can be put on a chart...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stop playing an alignment. Start playing a character.

The alignment issue happens because people are doing this backwards. Alignments aren't absolutes, they are a spectrum. You should never have a gamer pick an alignment and then have the player try to adjust they're character to play the perfect example of that alignment. That's not a character.

What I feel should happen is that you should create a character and select the alignment that best fits their general outlook on life. If you're having trouble selecting an alignment discuss with your DM not what has happened to your character, but who your character is. Then discuss and agree on which alignment fits your character.

Now there are classes that force you to pick and play as a certain alignment but it isn't as restrictive as people tend to think. There isn't just one way to play under a certain alignment. Decide what being that alignment means to your character.

It should be very telling that Batman (under different writers) falls under every alignment in the spectrum.


Or just play a character. I understand that it's a game, but it's a game specifically about exploring a character.

There are two sides to alignment the role playing aspect and the mechanic aspect.

Role playing: People don't generally make their decisions based on their general alignment. Individuals we think are "evil" almost universally don't believe themselves to be evil. I bet there's someone out there who would characterize almost everyone on this board as evil. The truth is morality is not on a spectrum; and it serves no useful role playing mechanic to do so. This isn't to say people shouldn't feel the consequences of their actions, just like in real life. But just like in real life, sometimes good things happen to bad people. In fact, frequently they do. So be that barely tolerable rogue, but you have no CN to justify it, you're just the party jackass. Play a character, enjoy how they must be constrained under social conventions, enjoy a rich, complex world where we don't get to and may never get to know the moral consequences of our actions.

Mechanically: There's certainly some flavor that might have to be changed, but nothing awful. You can keep designators for outsiders and spells. Paladins should still have codes, but let them draft them on their own. I suppose at some point you'd need to draw a line between Paladin and Antipaladin, but even that doesn't strike me as essentially to the game. I cannot think of any way alignment enhances the quality of the game as game.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Marius Castille wrote:
In the past, I think part of the problem was that some GMs felt that CN characters had zero attention span or were in some way psychologically unstable. The way I played my CN rogue was that he was willing to deal with everyone (LG, LE, N, etc) as long as he got paid. He adventured with his LG monk buddy because the rogue was somewhat smitten with him and was fascinated by his outlook on life.

Amusingly, this is fairly similar to a character of mine; she's an assassin who will do anything and deal with anyone if the price is right. I had her pegged as Lawful Evil.

Strange how the alignment system puts such similar characters on near opposite sides of the spectrum. It's almost as if our individual interpretations of their actions influenced our perception of what they do more than an objective morality that can be put on a chart...

Too funny. For his part, the rogue would deal with anyone but he might not necessarily keep his word. He once promised the same item to different people (which led to an interesting bidding war when they both came to collect it) and he absolutely rebelled against anyone who tried to manipulate him. Needless to say, he burned a lot of bridges. ; )


Ah, there is a difference that would certainly tip the scales. My character held her contract as the most sacred thing of all; if you've played the Phoenix Wright games* Shelly de Killer would be a good example of the archetype she belongs to.

That being said, I still don't appreciate how the alignment system forces me to squeeze a character into a slot that she may not necessarily fit. I have another I slotted in as Lawful Neutral; not because she has any allegiance to any system, but because it was the closest I could get to someone who lacks any moral fiber due to crippling self-esteem issues and a willingness to follow anyone just to feel needed. Fortunately my group isn't the type to throw a fit over "well that's not really an example of that alignment", but such groups exist and can do more to hurt good storytelling than help.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Mechanically: There's certainly some flavor that might have to be changed, but nothing awful. You can keep designators for outsiders and spells. Paladins should still have codes, but let them draft them on their own. I suppose at some point you'd need to draw a line between Paladin and Antipaladin, but even that doesn't strike me as essentially to the game. I cannot think of any way alignment enhances the quality of the game as game.

I don't necessarily see why Paladins and Antipaladins have to be separated. Someone who derives her power from her oath to uphold the social order for the benefit of all and someone who derives her power from her oath to destroy the social order utterly could very well use the same or similar tools to achieve their ends. As shown by the fact that the Antipaladin is almost entirely the Paladin except every instance of Good/Law is swapped with Evil/Chaos and vice versa.

*if you haven't played the phoenix wright games i recommend you do so immediately


blahpers wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Alignment: The Lazy Gamers Morality. Morality doesn't exist on a grid and, even if objectively measurable (which I am already completely skeptical of) is not something that can be adjudicated by a GM. Even then, morality usually shifts based on the very particularized facts of a situation. The alignment system is the lazy part, in fact, the need to conform to alignment usually leads to characters acting out to fit a dumb game imposed moral stereotype than it would without an alignment system.
AMEN, BROTHER.
So. Much. This.

How did Lex Luthor put it in Smallville?

Becoming Evil isn't a door you step through...it's a journey.

In any case, the only real excuse for a CN character is a rogue or mercenary. It's really hard to not take sides in the battle between good and evil, and sometimes "Not taking a side" is a side.

After all, There are evil actions...but the alignment system doesn't take into account evil INACTION. Can your character stand back and watch as a helpless NPC is killed by an orc without trying to help?


Arachnofiend wrote:

Ah, there is a difference that would certainly tip the scales. My character held her contract as the most sacred thing of all; if you've played the Phoenix Wright games* Shelly de Killer would be a good example of the archetype she belongs to.

That being said, I still don't appreciate how the alignment system forces me to squeeze a character into a slot that she may not necessarily fit. I have another I slotted in as Lawful Neutral; not because she has any allegiance to any system, but because it was the closest I could get to someone who lacks any moral fiber due to crippling self-esteem issues and a willingness to follow anyone just to feel needed. Fortunately my group isn't the type to throw a fit over "well that's not really an example of that alignment", but such groups exist and can do more to hurt good storytelling than help.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Mechanically: There's certainly some flavor that might have to be changed, but nothing awful. You can keep designators for outsiders and spells. Paladins should still have codes, but let them draft them on their own. I suppose at some point you'd need to draw a line between Paladin and Antipaladin, but even that doesn't strike me as essentially to the game. I cannot think of any way alignment enhances the quality of the game as game.

I don't necessarily see why Paladins and Antipaladins have to be separated. Someone who derives her power from her oath to uphold the social order for the benefit of all and someone who derives her power from her oath to destroy the social order utterly could very well use the same or similar tools to achieve their ends. As shown by the fact that the Antipaladin is almost entirely the Paladin except every instance of Good/Law is swapped with Evil/Chaos and vice versa.

*if you haven't played the phoenix wright games i recommend you do so immediately

That isn't lawful neutral. That's neutral with self esteem issues.

"True Neutral characters are indifferent to Order Versus Chaos, and their only interest is in living their own lives. They simply live their lives, whether that means tearing down a code of laws, following a code of laws, creating an orderly society, causing the breakdown of some kinds of order, or staying away from society altogether. They have no particular objective."

The fact that the person has a weak ego and follows others to feel needed isn't displaying some sort of strong philosophical allegiance towards law and order. They aren't showing particularly strong philosophical allegiance to anything. Hence, plain neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah see that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about

I thought Lawful Neutral because she bends to authority very easily and doesn't consider how following those orders affects herself or others. You disagree. The debate over which label to slap on her doesn't make a damned difference as to the character's personality and I'd rather skip it entirely.


*facepalm*

Alignment is a reflection on the character's actions, not the dictator of them.

Alignment is not immediately changed based on one or two actions. A Man who murders when he catches a man sleeping with his wife is not immediately reprehensibly corrupt and vile suddenly.

If you want an easy alignment to roleplay, I recommend Neutral Good and the guidelines of "Just do what you think would be best in such a situation and try to be a good person, though understandable slip ups happen."


Arachnofiend wrote:

Yeah see that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about

I thought Lawful Neutral because she bends to authority very easily and doesn't consider how following those orders affects herself or others. You disagree. The debate over which label to slap on her doesn't make a damned difference as to the character's personality and I'd rather skip it entirely.

So skip it, but don't determine that that makes the system unusable for everyone.

By the current alignment rules, a person who is morally flexible to the point that he/she will follow a stronger personality regardless of their moral outlook is neutral. A misunderstanding of the alignment system does not mean that the alignment system is useless.


Arachnofiend wrote:

Yeah see that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about

I thought Lawful Neutral because she bends to authority very easily and doesn't consider how following those orders affects herself or others. You disagree. The debate over which label to slap on her doesn't make a damned difference as to the character's personality and I'd rather skip it entirely.

If it's any condolence, I think Lawful Neutral is a perfectly fine alignment for her. Follows orders, doesn't care how those orders affect herself or others. Seems pretty Lawful Neutral to me. Deferring to authority when possible and seeking it out is certainly Lawful. I don't believe that can be argued. =)

I actually had a really cool site bookmarked a while back that had these nice walls of texts on each of the alignment. It was quite good. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: Found it.

I found it to be a good read, so maybe some other folks will enjoy it too. Of course keeping in mind that characters can have quirks while still maintaining their alignment. One example being that Torag doesn't take prisoners.


Scavion wrote:

If it's any condolence, I think Lawful Neutral is a perfectly fine alignment for her. Follows orders, doesn't care how those orders affect herself or others. Seems pretty Lawful Neutral to me. Deferring to authority when possible and seeking it out is certainly Lawful. I don't believe that can be argued. =)

I actually had a really cool site bookmarked a while back that had these nice walls of texts on each of the alignment. It was quite good. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: Found it.

I found it to be a good read, so maybe some other folks will enjoy it too. Of course keeping in mind that characters can have quirks while still maintaining their alignment. One example being that Torag doesn't take prisoners.

Nice, thanks for the link. There's some pretty interesting philosophy worked in there.


Just thought of another CN character: Harley Quinn (at least when she's not around The Joker).


What alignment is utter practicality? A person willing to do the action the promotes the best overall outcome for all, but doesn't care what actions are required to get there save for any attending harm in those actions?


angelic.spectra wrote:
I know, way old thread, but seemed worth me making a comment. ...

IT WASN'T.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
What alignment is utter practicality? A person willing to do the action the promotes the best overall outcome for all, but doesn't care what actions are required to get there save for any attending harm in those actions?

Practicality is usually the Neutral *blank* depending on the goal.

If saving the world was the goal, you can depend on the Neutral Good character to take the best possible path regardless of societal constrictions. They're not worried about simple concepts like chaos or law, only that good is done overall for everyone.

Apply to Evil, Chaos, and Law accordingly.


Dork Lord wrote:

Oh my god! So it's so common they have a trope about it? *Facepalm*

Wow... so I'd love to hear some of the absurdity you've all experienced at the hands of Chaotic Stupid characters at your tables.

My last chaotic neutral character was the most in-depth and enduring character I have ever had. Really built up a lot of personality and his world-view over a few years of play. Caught between great forces, he was a rather flawed hero, and a coward (but not when it counted), but not at all absurd... Although he did believe in personal freedom, and that did cause some problems early on with a suspicion of cavorting with dark forces (after all by his alignment he could be CN and worship CE) and he was arrested twice, Once on the charges of being a serial killer, but of course he was innocent (of that crime anyway). *whistles*

:}

CN can be pretty baller, reckless and heroic without being soft or vulnerable. Some people really like that, it gives them the freedom and release they crave (and we shouldn't have a go at that), but CN isnt' always chaotic stupid. If people are playing chaotic stupid, they want to vent and have a comedy session, they are ready for ridiculous monty python play, or are bored. CN can be like a bada** Wolverine like character. Chaotic stupid, I haven't seen much of it since childhood.

Way back in the day, I do recall my CN mage did once detonate a fireball on himself inside a bar, due to bad service and some insults. Turns out he guessed right, and he was tough enough to survive, whereas the rude bartender most certainly wasn't. Then he finished his drink and hobbled outside victorious.

If someone was being too stupid in game, they would mess with the wrong people or a trap would end them. Traps are the world police on Chaotic stupid, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

Yeah see that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about

I thought Lawful Neutral because she bends to authority very easily and doesn't consider how following those orders affects herself or others. You disagree. The debate over which label to slap on her doesn't make a damned difference as to the character's personality and I'd rather skip it entirely.

So, my question would be ... What happens if you put that character with a strong willed jack sparrow type, chaotic neutral as it were? Would they start acting pirates out of their desire to be loved?

What if no one were watching or would ever know, would they go for following a strict set of codes or laws by instinct?

Vast majority of people are neutral and don't end up adding a descriptor to it. Little high, little low, any way the wind blows - doesn't really matter to them.


How are people like electricity?

They take the path of least resistance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have seen CN run the gamut from characters who are philosophically opposed to structure in any form (anarchists) to characters who are on the verge of insanity to players who need a good talking-to, because they don't understand that CN does not mean evil. I am reminded of the player from "Dorkness Rising" who felt that Chaotic Neutral was an excuse to lob fireballs at clusters of peasants.

Grand Lodge

I am coming in to this discussion late, and while I haven't read all the comments, but I have read The Way of Kings. I like to picture Wit as the best example for a well run CN character. I think I may play someone like Wit in the future . . . A bard, most certainly.

Liberty's Edge

The Shining Fool wrote:

I love playing Chaotic Neutral, but yeah, I get cross when people play "Chaotic Stupid". Sadly, I think this trope has its roots in second edition. The description for CN in 2nd ed said

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook wrote:

Chaotic Neutral characters believe there is no order to anything, including their own actions...Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die...Lunatics and madmen tend toward [CN} behavior

So people like me who started playing in those days had to go through years of "CN = Completely reasonless random behavior", and I would guess - though I have no data to back this up - that a lot of the "younger generation" of gamers inherited this definition of CN behavior from the more experienced members in their gaming troupes.

I play CN when I want to play concepts that are anarchic or anti-establishment and who have no real strong opinions about the good/evil axis. Hans Solo-esque rogues or Setzer Giabanni style gamblers are prime examples of what I consider to be Chaotic Neutral.

Second Edition AD&D contained a lot of really stupid changes to go with the few "innovations" it introduced. Some of it had to do with making the game more "accessible" (translation: dumbed down and sanitized). Making CN an unplayable alignment with the absolutely "CN as mentally challenged regardless of intelligence or wisdom score" alignment description.

The 2e core rules were a complete dog. Thank goodness some decent work was done in the 2e settings (FR, Planescape, etc), the rules were stupid.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Gilfalas wrote:
Dork Lord wrote:

Oh my god! So it's so common they have a trope about it? *Facepalm*

Wow... so I'd love to hear some of the absurdity you've all experienced at the hands of Chaotic Stupid characters at your tables.

Sadly I have run into this a well, almost constantly, over my 3 decades of gaming. ALMOST invariably if I see a character with Chaotic Neutral as their alignment it means that character is going to be utterly annoying, nonsensical (and not in an entertaining way) and totally bad for RP.

Invariably people who play CN think it means 'Chaos Incarnate with no Conscience'.

I would love to see an article about how to run a CN character in a thoughtful and intelligent manner within the listed description of the alignment without it always degenerating into playing a 'Kender on coccaine'.

CN Inquisitor of Calistra, she was petty, fickle and vindictive, not healing or antagonizing people who did not treat her with respect. She would seize treasure items that suited her fancy, and do to extreme mistreatment as a child basically trusted no one. She didn't act out, or disrupt society, she just reacted like a brat, and in combat tended to act with poor tactical judgement, pursuing enemies that attacked her, and attempting to embarrass and demean them, even if it meant putting herself in tactical risk. She eventually took a cursed artifact and became CE, at which point she took what she saw as disrespectful treatment by one of the other PCs followers to the point of murder and the induing PVP nearly destroyed the gaming group. Again the characters mistrust saw them as trying to gang up on her. Sadly it was a great character that following its own development led to some really unfortunate side effects.

So can a CN character be role-played, yes, can that still be ruinous, yes.


I think my favorite CN character I've played was Freddy Wifflebat, a literally mentally retarded (5 intelligence) Commoner 1/Ranger X. His basic story was that he was a very kind-hearted guy and just wanted to be an Average Joe, but he was bullied frequently because of cultural ignorance towards his mental illness. Eventually he had to give up on hoping for a normal life because of this. He resigned himself to working at his parent's farm and spent a lot of time with the chickens in particular, growing attached to them since they didn't share the same social stigmas as the townsfolk. One day, through divine providence, Freddy was gifted with the ability to summon chickens out of thin air. The townsfolk thought he was a freak and drove him out of town, thus starting his adventuring career.

Freddy had the Chicken Invasion flaw and had a horde of chickens following him around wherever he went. He started out Chaotic Good, but when he gave his animal companion (obviously a chicken) a headband, he quickly found out that "Colonel Clucksworth" was actually an emissary of She Who Clucks, Goddess of Chickenkind, a Chaotic Evil deity who wanted nothing more than the destruction of mankind for industrializing the murder of her children but didn't have the time to actually interact with the mortal planes.

The Colonel forced Freddy to do a lot of bad things on threat of losing his power to summon chickens, and Freddy slowly slid from Good to Neutral, trying his hardest to be a good person, but ultimately when push came to shove, his chicken friends came first. He was fantastic to play as, had a ton personality and had this intricate balance of good and begrudging evil thrown on the back of a person who could barely understand the complexities of basic math, let alone his own moral dilemmas. He provided one of the most interesting and powerful side stories my DM had ever ran and everyone loved him.

---------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: Just because a character is CN doesn't mean that the player will only play them as Chaotic Stupid or "not TECHNICALLY evil" murder hobo; Chaotic Neutral can be portrayed in a variety of effective ways like any other alignment, but like any other alignment, you have to actually play your role to role-play well.

101 to 150 of 263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Chaotic Neutral: the Lazy Gamer's Tool? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.