Chaotic Neutral: the Lazy Gamer's Tool?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 263 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apologies if someone already did a thread like this one before, but I never saw it if there was one and I really want to discuss this.

I'm sure we've all seen it... the player who thinks Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment because they don't have to do good things but they don't register as evil to Paladins and they can pretty much do whatever they want whenever they want without that pesky alignment system really bothering them, right? Right? I hate Chaotic Neutral to the extent that when a player wants to play a character as CN I immediately begin to suspect that they want to take it to avoid the alignment restrictions. I've seen everything from "I'm Chaotic Neutral because I'm insane!" to "I must be the embodiment of Chaos itself so you never know if I'm going to jump off a cliff, attack the party or dance a jig while the party is trying to do a stealth mission... because I have to do -everything- completely at random". It's enough to drive a (semi) sane gamer insane!

What restrictions are there for a CN character? I'd like to hear what folks think Chaotic Neutral should truly be all about.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it's commonly termed Chaotic Stupid. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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 first character was chaotic neutral, and I think I largely played him as chaotic stupid as TOZ would say, but as long as it isn't disrupting the game at large let a player have fun. If it is, then talk to him. But for the record any alignment can cause conflicts in-game, to me it's usually LG and LN characters trying to keep other players from thinking outside the box.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, there is no doubt about that.

I had a one-shot with a Kender Paladin once. He and the CE Warlock did not get along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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'.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've always thought that a good CN character is Han Solo at the start of the movies. Doesn't care what he has to do as long as it gets him where he wants to be. He'll kill if he needs to, but he'd rather avoid trouble in the first place.


I've seen it mostly as a crutch for players new to this whole RPG thing. It lets them act without having to think about it all that much. But like any crutch where the person doesn't have to think I've seen some players never get beyond needing that crutch. It gets in the way of their ever becoming good role players because they've decided they need this crutch where they never have to think or plan, only act.

I've been known to watch for when "Chaos" turns into "peeing on beggars as target practice before using them as practice for my falchion! But I eat them afterwards so that's okay, right?" At that point CN falls to CE and I clamp down on that $#^&.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of my 'social contract' is that the players have to agree to make characters that will work together. I'm ok with a little friction and melodrama. They don't have to make the party into a lovefest. But, if one of them is going to play a Paladin and one of them is playing a cleric of Asmodeus, they need to work out-of-character to find some way to get those characters to work together BEFORE they're introduced in the game. If they can't, someone has to make an adjustment. I don't even need to be a part of the discussion until they've figured it out and want to insert the characters (and the nice plotline they've probably created) into the game.

As a DM, I don't feel compelled to let players play everything they can cook up. In lieu of a contract with your players (not always possible, particularly with pick up groups), simply telling him, "That's a cool concept and it might be interesting but its not going to work for the story I'd like you to be a part of." He has the option to adjust his thinking a little... or take his character elsewhere.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

i only let people play CN if they can not be a jackass. i hate people who try and abuse cn as an excuse to be evil, and they get slapped with an alignment change quick. Also monks and paladins tend to hate chaotic people. I play up law vs chaos just as much, if not more than good vs evil. A LG and a LE charater are more likely to work together than a LG and a CN in my games


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the games I run we treat lawful as loyal or disciplined, chaotic as independent, good as selfless, and evil as selfish. We use an alignment point chart to let the players actions move their alignment. That said, chaotic stupid usually ends up chaotic evil. Just my 2 cents. If anyone wants a copy of the chart, let me know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing a Chaotic Neutral character now; a fighting skald out of the Northlands. (Bard-Barbarian gestalt).

His clan was destroyed by a militant cult of druids while hunting elk, and the only survivors of the battle were Cailte (my character) and a Druid named Yriel (the druid in our party!). He swore a blood-oath to end her life, but now that it has been revealed that she lost her memory (yeah, Yriel's player is a terrible roleplayer, I know) Cailte has decided not to fight her... but the bloodoath must be fulfilled. If Yriel is ever in danger of dying, Cailte will not leave her side: he will be the one to land the final stroke, no matter what.

The reason he is CN rather than CG is that he is only with the group in order to be close to Yriel in order to kill her, and if she were not there he would have no part in whatever they were doing. In all likelihood, he would be out hunting druids.

Sovereign Court

Kilbourne wrote:

I'm playing a Chaotic Neutral character now; a fighting skald out of the Northlands. (Bard-Barbarian gestalt).

<snip> He swore a blood-oath to end her life, but now that it has been revealed that she lost her memory (yeah, Yriel's player is a terrible roleplayer, I know) Cailte has decided not to fight her... but the bloodoath must be fulfilled. If Yriel is ever in danger of dying, Cailte will not leave her side: he will be the one to land the final stroke, no matter what.

I can see a CN character swearing an oath. I can even see him wholeheartedly intending to keep it. He would be as likely to go out of his way to fulfill the oath as he would to abandon it when it became convenient... as in using her amnesia as an excuse not to kill her. So that's pretty cool.

It could actually be a cool plotline for a Lawful character, too. If she truly became someone else and has no memory of who she was, then the criminal may already be gone and killing this newly formed person would be equal to killing an innocent. I'm sure people will have their opinions about this, one way or the other, but there's drama in them that hills that shouldn't be hit with the black or white brush too hastily, I think. I may use something like this in my own campaign...


roccojr wrote:
If she truly became someone else and has no memory of who she was, then the criminal may already be gone and killing this newly formed person would be equal to killing an innocent.

Yes, and Cailte knows this. The 'new' Yriel is innocent, and certifiably has no memory of the massacre/battle. However, this is not going to stop him from killing her... it just makes it easier to get close to her in a dire situation.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In my first 3.0 game I played a CN fighter. After stating him up and thinking up a quick background. I was told by the DMthat I could pretty much throw it out the window. That a CN character's story wasn't important, just that I observe the one rule about CN. EVERYTHING IS RANDOM!

I asked what he meant. Well all my choices, actions had to be made at the spur of the moment. I HAD to roll a % to do anything. If I wanted to attack, who I attacked, etc. Anything you could thing of I pretty much had to roll for it.

Because of this I wound up attacking or turning on the party alot of the time. Suffice it to say I didn't stay with that group for too long. But this idea of playing still seems to linger, even in my current group.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always play chaotic neutral because when I look at it, I am CN the best alignment.


I agree with the whole 'playing CN so as to avoid the stigma of evil but have teh freedom to do what you want' theory.

Of course, a good DM would ensure that the character can't get away with everything and would also be sure to slide their alignment into the evil depths if needs be..

//

One of the most enjoyable characters I've ever played was based on Dory from 'Finding Nemo' - he had the memory of a.. well, goldfish..

...he was a gnome sorcerer (3.5 ed) and was a real laugh!

Great example of a workable chaotic neutral character.

Dory


If a player uses Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to get away with any action and these actions are often harmful or destructive should not this shift them to a Chaotic Evil alignment? Randomness is still a conscience effort on the behalf of an intelligent creature and the repetition of the same acts represents a behavioral pattern. To remain neutral it is a balancing act of doing equivalent acts of opposing alignments or to refrain from making choices involving within that area. If the player uses the Chaotic Neutral alignment as an excuse to get away with anything, as exampled in the previous posts then they are premeditating an evil act.

From my experience most people just get carried away with the mischief of Chaotic Neutral and end up Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil very quickly. I have never been a fan of the neutral alignments as players sticking to one of the alignment edges are punished in the way of spells like Unholy Blight or Axiomatic weapons where there is nothing equivalent to the Neutral axis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's OK to be lazy...

I am fine with some characters "just not giving a damn," just as some people in real life just don't give a damn. I shift them to evil if they commit too many evil acts (most evil people don't think they're "evil," they always have self-justification for many of the things they do) but I don't see any reason that every character has to be overwrought over higher concepts all the time.

Frankly, it's mainly because people (harmfully) play alignment as prescriptive rather than descriptive that people feel the need to have a "leave me alone why don't you" alignment. "Oh you can't do that you're Lawful." I tend to respond "I'm a unique personality, not an alignment, and I do what I think is right. If you're the DM and think it should shift my alignment we can talk about it but otherwise shut your fool mouth." But many people don't want that hassle so go for the "everything's justified alignment" so they can play without people telling them their business all the time.

Scarab Sages

Kakarasa wrote:

In the games I run we treat lawful as loyal or disciplined, chaotic as independent, good as selfless, and evil as selfish. We use an alignment point chart to let the players actions move their alignment. That said, chaotic stupid usually ends up chaotic evil. Just my 2 cents. If anyone wants a copy of the chart, let me know.

I'd very much like to see your chart Kakarasa, if you don't mind posting, linking, or emailing it, whichever lends itself best to the format you have it in.

I typically rely on storylines and character backstory to maintain some sort of moral compass for the more wild characters in my game, it has proven more reliable that trying to pigeonhole PCs based on alignment, esp CN or N, which of which cover a large spectrum of personalities and character types.


Gilfalas wrote:
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'.

Without retyping a lot of action that already happened -- I'm playing a CN Human sorcerer on a different site. I'm providing a link if you like to read up on him and the campaign (it's a play by post, and we have room if you decide you like/want in on it):

Paths Least Traveled


Chaotic Neutral is not the problem it's the player. No matter what you play you need to remember it is not the "insert your name"'s game. The game involves all the players and the GM. Does a CN character act unusual? Sure. Might the character cause some trouble from time to time? Some times. But that is the key, some times. If you are acting up and players are complaining and rolling their eyes. Your doing something wrong.
I've played CN plenty of times. No one ever complains about my characters. I got a lot of laughes from my halfling sorcerer with a pention for kids toys. In particular a boxing nun puppet. I got a lot of laughs with the character but never distracted form the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lazaro wrote:

In my first 3.0 game I played a CN fighter. After stating him up and thinking up a quick background. I was told by the DMthat I could pretty much throw it out the window. That a CN character's story wasn't important, just that I observe the one rule about CN. EVERYTHING IS RANDOM!

I asked what he meant. Well all my choices, actions had to be made at the spur of the moment. I HAD to roll a % to do anything. If I wanted to attack, who I attacked, etc. Anything you could thing of I pretty much had to roll for it.

Because of this I wound up attacking or turning on the party alot of the time. Suffice it to say I didn't stay with that group for too long. But this idea of playing still seems to linger, even in my current group.

Wow that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I could understand why you didn't last long there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My solution is to create a tenth alignment called "Psycho".

When the CN player does irrational, psychotic things, you can say: "That's not chaotic neutral. That's psycho." CN is actually alright for a number of character concepts. Psycho is just irritating. Better to create a new alignment you can outright ban than to ban CN and lose many classic (and perfectly okay) character types at the expense of disruptive players.

I am fortunate in that CN is rarely asked for at my table, and those who play it understand what it means instead of using it as permission to be irritating and selfish.

It is unfortunate that so few here have had my luck with it, I think.

Sovereign Court

Kilbourne wrote:
Yes, and Cailte knows this. The 'new' Yriel is innocent, and certifiably has no memory of the massacre/battle. However, this is not going to stop him from killing her... it just makes it easier to get close to her in a dire situation.

Very CN of him. :)

Arguably evil particularly since you acknowledge Yriel's innocence.

You might wanna consult with the DM. Seeing as I'm not a fan of characters being unable to work together (more than just temporarily as part of a scheme), I would appreciate a player coming to me on something like this. The added plotline and story drama are worth their weight in xp's


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I too, have seen more Chaotic Stupid than CN over the years. However, I have seen a few characters in fiction and film that I use as representative examples of CN that avoids the Chaotic Stupid trap.

Jack Sparrow - the quintessential CN character, Jack is motivated primarily with maintaining his freedom. While he arguably has good tendencies, he betrays & schemes to his advantage even if it puts his friends or allies in precarious situations.

Garret the Thief- Garret, if asked, would portray himself as Neutral Evil. However, he has his own moral compass and acts in an altruistic fashion in a fairly consistent basis. He can be spiteful and quash his conscience on a whim, however, which is why I think of him as being CN rather than true N.

Conan- Again, a character with his own moral code. Conan breaks the law when it suits him, sometimes only for the glory of stealing a prize and he subverts the chain of command if his commander is weak. Yet he will honor his word when given, and protect women & children (mainly women). I can't put him in the evil bracket comfortably as his "good streak/heroic streak" surfaces far too frequently. Yet clearly, he's too selfish to be amongst the ranks of CG.

Long John Silver - Another pirate. Long John has evil tendencies where Sparrow has good ones. A lot of it is bluster b/c he knows his fellow pirates would turn on him the instant he shows weakness, yet he isn't totally without morality as evidenced by the kindness & quasi-fatherly role he takes with Jim Hawkins. Although much more strongly influenced by greed than Sparrow (hence the evil tendencies), Long John is also motivated by maintaining his freedom to control his own destiny.

As shown above, in my view, CN works best when the character IDs what's most important to the character above all else. If the character is solely consumed by greed & selfishness, they're NE. If they're violent sociopaths, CE. But if they're n'er-do-wells that value their freedom (but not necessarily anyone else's) above all else, I tend to put them in the CN camp.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Chaotic Neutral quite a lot actually.

I think some people may take the "chaotic" in Chaotic Neutral too far. I have never heard of Chaotic Good character being called completely random or insane, and they are just as chaotic as a Chaotic Neutral character.

And of course Neutral doesn't mean random, it could be one who looks at both a sides or more Buddhist that there is no side to choose.

I think it's weird that CN is pigeonholed as the pick the alignment if you want to be crazy and mess with the party of course that should be nipped in the bud.

I would put some of great movie characters as CN, The Man with No Name, Inigo Montoya, and I think the perfect answer Ash from Evil Dead.

Three characters that could plan, follow through on the plan with action, and weren't insane.

They weren't really good, all though their actions helped people. They weren't really evil, all though they each did what best served their needs not considering the cost. Yet, each is dramatically different.

So if you have a player that wants to play CN so he can be a jerk have him extrapolate more on what type of neutral he is aiming for.

Because bat guano insane, is just that. If you could ask a insane character what alignment they are they would give an answer like banana.


BPorter wrote:

I too, have seen more Chaotic Stupid than CN over the years. However, I have seen a few characters in fiction and film that I use as representative examples of CN that avoids the Chaotic Stupid trap.

Jack Sparrow - the quintessential CN character, Jack is motivated primarily with maintaining his freedom. While he arguably has good tendencies, he betrays & schemes to his advantage even if it puts his friends or allies in precarious situations.

Garret the Thief- Garret, if asked, would portray himself as Neutral Evil. However, he has his own moral compass and acts in an altruistic fashion in a fairly consistent basis. He can be spiteful and quash his conscience on a whim, however, which is why I think of him as being CN rather than true N.

Conan- Again, a character with his own moral code. Conan breaks the law when it suits him, sometimes only for the glory of stealing a prize and he subverts the chain of command if his commander is weak. Yet he will honor his word when given, and protect women & children (mainly women). I can't put him in the evil bracket comfortably as his "good streak/heroic streak" surfaces far too frequently. Yet clearly, he's too selfish to be amongst the ranks of CG.

Long John Silver - Another pirate. Long John has evil tendencies where Sparrow has good ones. A lot of it is bluster b/c he knows his fellow pirates would turn on him the instant he shows weakness, yet he isn't totally without morality as evidenced by the kindness & quasi-fatherly role he takes with Jim Hawkins. Although much more strongly influenced by greed than Sparrow (hence the evil tendencies), Long John is also motivated by maintaining his freedom to control his own destiny.

As shown above, in my view, CN works best when the character IDs what's most important to the character above all else. If the character is solely consumed by greed & selfishness, they're NE. If they're violent sociopaths, CE. But if they're n'er-do-wells that value their freedom (but not...

Ahh Conan the might very well be CN at it's best.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The last Chaotic Neutral character I saw in one of my games was a wizard who was polymorphed into a hamster in a lab accident at the wizard school he learned form, and just never decided to change back. He was very odd, kept postage stamp sized spellbooks and had to rework every spell he learned to use somatic components he could do as a hamster, and was most definitely chaotic, although his alignment was slowly shifting towards Good in the game.

Ironically, I have seen more players attempt to use this exact reasoning to have Chaotic Good characters act as sociopaths. ("I'm just being chaotic, the ends of saving the village justifies the means of killing every child in the orphanage. Besides, they enforce laws in the orphanage!") Of course, this was a player who thought that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good were the same alignment.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

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.

The Exchange

I agree that it is a problem with the player, not the alignment. A person that plays a CN character as a loon will also play a Paladin as an unflinching "beacon of justice" (read: will kill a child for jay-walking). I like making CN characters because in reality I am very lawful, and RPG's are a fantastic escape. I tend to do a lot of good acts throughout the character's career, but mostly because they further my cause rather than for the feeling of helping someone less fortunate.

Of course, I also shy away from any class that has an alignment restriction, so that if anyone says "you can't do that, you're XX!" I can say, "Not anymore!"


roccojr wrote:

Very CN of him. :)

Arguably evil particularly since you acknowledge Yriel's innocence.

You might wanna consult with the DM. Seeing as I'm not a fan of characters being unable to work together (more than just temporarily as part of a scheme), I would appreciate a player coming to me on something like this. The added plotline and story drama are worth their weight in xp's

Cailte is a character that came into the campaign a little late, replacing my deceased fighter, so his backstory is kosher with the GM and overall world-plot.

Something I didn't mention was that the loss of his tribe left the man emotionally destitute, and so all he had left for many years was the pursuit of revenge. Now that it has come to light that the last living person who killed his tribe doesn't remember doing it, it robs him of his purpose. He is still bound to kill her by his religious beliefs, but he's not doing it now to satisfy himself, but merely because he promised his primordial god that he would.

Even if he achieves this, though, he has to stay; one of The Seven Artifacts has bonded itself to him, and is forcing him to carry out the mission that the rest of the party is on. (An enchanted fullblade is permanently chained to his wrist, and is imperceptibly drawn towards the other Artifacts. He's in for the ride whether he likes it or not. Which he doesn't.)


I have had a problem with alignments for as long as I've played D&D. It was in the 90s, I first played AD&D2, and I found the definition of True Neutral interesting, even though a little strange.

Now, this old-school thing is gone, but the concept of "balance" still lingers at the back of my mind. To the external eye, a character could be Chaotic Neutral, while in his mind he's playing a constant battle to bring balance to the Good/Evil axis. For instance, playing Evil in Good settlements, and Good in Evil countries. Alternatively, he could play Good in Good cities and Evil in Evil ones. That would made him appear to be Lawful, mind.

On the Law/Chaos axis... this character is chaotic. Does that mean that he do as he wishes all the time, or that he actively pursues the improvement of Chaos around him (which would be Lawful since he obeys a moral contract)? That could add more depth to the old Alignment: Extreme Lawful - Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic - Chaotic Extremist. Or not.

Well, everyone plays as they want, too. It doesn't mean all players are anarchists :-)

Liberty's Edge

I tend to view my character's alignment as relative to my own. In real life, I'd say I'm pretty True Neutral, so I work from there.

If I play a character that's NG, he just focuses a little more on being 'good' than I do.

If I play a CN character, he just worries less about restrictions than I do. That doesn't mean he doesn't SEE the CONSEQUENCES for his ACTIONS, he just doesn't always "do what he should".

Alignment's all opinion anyways: why worry so much over it?


A good example of a real CN Player is my wive:

She should have delivered a important message that would have free the rest of the party from the clutches of the local crime lord. However she saw a rich evil merchant while half way and simply couldn't resist picking his pockets. Long story short she got herself arrested.

Another example:

When the party was granted one wish she instanly yelled "a hell lot of money"!

These examples portray a truely CN char. She didn't mean any harm to the party, she just couldn't withstand temptaion and impulse. This has nothing to do with stupidity and I hate the term applied for CN or LG or really Players of any alignment who sometimes don't do the "best" thing.

However many Players that are picking CN for their char in order to have maximum freedom are actually playing NE (selfish with little regard for the well being of others).

What these players do not respect is that you can't turn chaos on and off as it suits you (being only chaotic when it favors you and resorting to lawful when this is best)!


"I'm CN, why can't I just kill whoever I like"

That's an actual quote, though it is important that the player's alignment is A.

A for against. He's against. Not against anything in particular, just against everything that is important to the campaign or every other player or character. And he's like that in real world, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the list of characters who portray CN well, I would like to add Jamie Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire. Jamie is known for his reckless, hasty, and impulsive actions. He isn't a moral monster like Gregor Clegane or Joffrey (both of whom I would peg as CE), but he is also capable of unquestionably "non-good" acts; such as throwing Brandon Stark, a child, out of a window, actually to his maiming but presumably to his death, to cover-up Jamie's own illicit acts with his sister (see below).

At the same time, Jamie demonstrates the roundness of his character through his unwavering loyalty to his family. He even honors the family code, "A Lannister always pays his debts." Rather than disqualifying him from CN, I would argue this demonstrates a very believable way in which a CN character may occasionally act "Lawful." Even within the bounds of that family loyalty, Jamie demonstrates Chaotic attitudes. He defies the authority of his father, Lord Tywin, (as well as the laws of the land and code of every known religion) by carrying on a long-term incestuous love affair with his sister; and eventually defies his father again

Spoiler:
by freeing his brother Tyrion the night before execution.
All in all, a great model for a well-done CN character.


I think there is room for ACTUAL chaotic neutral character, but I agree that often its picked because its the 'no-strings' alignment. In my opinion you can have interesting characters who are not good or evil, but have a dislike for authority or tradition. I have played characters that would not have made sense in other alignments.


Mr. Fishy's character Remy is a CN pirate. He's not the good but he doesn't see the point of hurting people for no reason. He leapt over board to finish off an opponent that tried to run. But he also jumped down a hole to cover his friend Cumal. Then he laughed at Cumal when he set off a trap.

Remy is a selfish smartass, a shameless womanizer and a thief. He dislikes the group's paladin and patron and is vocal about it in front of them, but he has also covered the paladin flank. "If she's paying I'm staying."

Remy has done some questionable things. On the other hand he's been loyal to the party and their goals. Chaotic Neutral is what the player makes of it.

Mr. Fishy reminds the OP the Pathfinder Book states that alignment is under DM's perview.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two points I'd like to add from a DM perspective (most of the useful stuff about the PC side of it has already been said: don't be stupid).

First, when players create their characters, I ask them for their alignments on a 1-100 scale (stolen shamelessly from the Neverwinter Nights computer game). 100-67 is law and good, 66-34 is neutral and 33-1 is evil/chaotic. This allows the players to really define how they look at life (a paladin or monk who has law of 70 is vastly different from one who has law of 100; I played a halfling paladin with a Law of about 70, who was reluctantly taken into his order and always had to make conscious decisions to stave up his chaotic racial nature), and it allows me to see how close characters are from slipping into another alignment. Chaotic characters who slip below about 15 are dangerous to the party. You really are getting into mental instability (if played well) and recklessness that can end the party up in serious trouble. This holds true for every facet of chaos. The Chaotic Good (5/75) ranger who can't keep himself from striking down the land-grabbing baron in his own hall is far more dangerous to the party then the Chaotic Evil (20/15) thief who amuses himself by killing beggars in the street.

I recently played a very long, fun campaign with a chaotic neutral (with slight evil tendencies) gnome psion who was ancient and senile. The character was always roleplayed well, so when he decided that the best idea to get back at someone who'd pickpocketed him was to burn down his favorite bar with him -- and about 30 other NPCs -- inside of it, we knew two things: This was perfectly in character for the gnome, and it was time to get the heck out of Dodge.

The other thing from a DM's point of view, is that I will allow any alignments in the party, but if you're CE, or CN with evil tendencies (which most people at the table will be able to see, even if you can't), I will not step in on your behalf in any way if the party decides it needs to deal with you. Knowing that they have to maintain their usefulness to the party will keep a lot of CN and CE PCs from drifting into the dangerous levels of chaos.

Scarab Sages

I think you're making a large generalization here, which is common for these boards.

I play a CN Shoanti Barbarian/Bard named Vaelik, and he's not crazy or stupid. I resent the implication that I chose this alignment because I am lazy.

From the Core Rulebook:

"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...etc."

Vaelik is practical, but doesn't feel tied to good or evil. He values his decisions and freedoms, and doesn't seek to impose his values on others. He's not as likely to bash an old lady's head in as he is to help her across the street, but he doesn't feel the need to help everyone he comes across. He works well in a group, imparting wisdom and advice in non combat situations whenever he feels he can contribute, and "hit it with my axe" is NEVER his first solution to a problem. He doesn't believe in terms like "good" and "evil," he thinks they are childish. He believes in "them" and "us."

What alignment would you say he is?

The same players that pick CN and act like idiots will act like idiots when they are NG as well. CN doesn't mean "stupid" any more than LG means "naive."

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Chaotic Good character who sometimes borders on CN is Malcom Reynolds from Firefly. The moral quanderary that in the begining of Firefly after he shoots the man trying to get on the escape boat and Zoe's questioning afterwords is a great example of a character on the edge between CG and CN.

The one they call Jayne Cobb is a true CN. On the surface he doesn't care about anything but the money and his loyalty is always in question. However he does eventually value friendship and also, has some rather unpredictable excentrities, like trying to buy a wife, naming his guns, etc.

At times his behavior is genuninely evil, like his betrayal of Simon and River. On the other hand, he was willing to fight to the death at in the movie. All said, it evens out.

All the Best,

Kerney

Silver Crusade

I just started playing Pathfinder a few months ago. (I played D&D back in the days when "Elf" was a class!) and to save time, I started with a pregenerated character, the CN rogue. I thought it would be fun to play the character exactly as she was created. I am not chaotic (or female) by nature, so the CN alignment is not a "crutch" for me; it is a challenge. Pure freedom is all-in-all - whether someone else chooses to do good or evil is not important to her. She does have a tendency to think short-term and not plan ahead. She is as likely to hand a stranger a bag of gold as to pick his pocket.

Anyway, there is my 2¢ worth.

I will be glad when school starts again, so my job exists again. I seem to have too much time on my hands right now.


Saern wrote:

To the list of characters who portray CN well, I would like to add Jamie Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire. Jamie is known for his reckless, hasty, and impulsive actions. He isn't a moral monster like Gregor Clegane or Joffrey (both of whom I would peg as CE), but he is also capable of unquestionably "non-good" acts; such as throwing Brandon Stark, a child, out of a window, actually to his maiming but presumably to his death, to cover-up Jamie's own illicit acts with his sister (see below).

At the same time, Jamie demonstrates the roundness of his character through his unwavering loyalty to his family. He even honors the family code, "A Lannister always pays his debts." Rather than disqualifying him from CN, I would argue this demonstrates a very believable way in which a CN character may occasionally act "Lawful." Even within the bounds of that family loyalty, Jamie demonstrates Chaotic attitudes. He defies the authority of his father, Lord Tywin, (as well as the laws of the land and code of every known religion) by carrying on a long-term incestuous love affair with his sister; and eventually defies his father again ** spoiler omitted ** All in all, a great model for a well-done CN character.

+1. GREAT example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
I think there is room for ACTUAL chaotic neutral character, but I agree that often its picked because its the 'no-strings' alignment. In my opinion you can have interesting characters who are not good or evil, but have a dislike for authority or tradition. I have played characters that would not have made sense in other alignments.

+1

Your first sentence puts it all on the table.

There is nothing inherhently wrong with CN characters, if played correctly. Its just that most gamers I've met who play CN do so to get the "no strings attached" benefits.

Scarab Sages

Kakarasa wrote:
In the games I run we treat lawful as loyal or disciplined, chaotic as independent, good as selfless, and evil as selfish. We use an alignment point chart to let the players actions move their alignment. That said, chaotic stupid usually ends up chaotic evil. Just my 2 cents. If anyone wants a copy of the chart, let me know.

Kakarasa, I would also like to see a copy of your chart, whether you want to PM/post a link or whatever.

I have a friend who is really into playing CN characters. He is currently playing a neurotic CN Alchemist in my homebrew campaign. The char escaped from a mental asylum and all of his experiments have led his mental stability even further downhill.

His character spices things up and gets the party in quite a bit of trouble (he's been arrested 3 times over the past 4 sessions) but it doesn't seem to disrupt the game too much, and it provides fodder for the other players. His actions are both supported and constrained by his backstory, and this keeps him from getting out of hand.

I have to agree that most or all CN problems originate with the player. Generally these players don't know how to play *any* alignment, and/or are immature RPers or people in general. LG, CN, NE, doesn't matter. I've played with several people who are simply there to test everyone's limits, or use the game as some sort of adolescent catharsis. Those people are always going to be there; you just have to figure out whether or how you want to deal with them.


Redcelt32 & Taffe_Lord_Of_Crypts:

Just send me an email at WickedKGames@gmail.com.

This was going to come out as a free product after the spell cards are released, but I haven't written the formal instructions yet (I'll include them in the email though). No harm in sharing... :)

Anyone else that wants a copy just email me too. ^_^


Dork Lord wrote:
What restrictions are there for a CN character? I'd like to hear what folks think Chaotic Neutral should truly be all about.

"Mercy? You want MERCY?!? I'm Chaotic Neutral! YAAAAARG!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgLOKRl5J0

But in all seriousness, while CN is the the usual cop-out for the person who doesn't want to have to think about their alignment, role play it, or have to interact with it in any way, the slightly smarter power-gamer will often go true neutral, if only to avoid anti-chaotic spells and the like.

As a DM I generally make my players be non-evil and non-true neutral. Evil is for monsters and undead and NPCs, and true neutral is reserved for animals, constructs, plants, and anything else without the capacity for forming an opinion. This still allows CN, but I try my best to let everyone know that CN alignment is not an excuse to just do whatever you want, or worse, to just do random stuff for no reason, or worse than that, just do random stuff to intentionally aggravate me/the other players.

Best of luck to you.


In many games, I think NG is a more "generic" and easy alignment. Of course you'll help save the town/kill the marauding undead/rescue the captives; you're the heroes, it's why you exist. Also, most people are reasonably NG in real life. I know that personally, the less role I'm playing, the more likely I am to write down "NG" on my charsheet.

My most annoying, rp-wise, character that I currently -- possibly ever, but we'll see, I'm only two sessions in -- play is probably my Lawful Neutral Displacer Beast. "No, I can't help you search for treasure right now. I have to eat this dead kobold." Just because you believe in following rules doesn't mean that the rules you follow have to make much sense to anyone else. >^.^<

Characters pulling too much against -- or sideways to -- the team are annoying whether they're evil, overly prone to non sequitur, or both. Bad players are bad!


Trader2699 wrote:

I play a CN Shoanti Barbarian/Bard named Vaelik, and he's not crazy or stupid.

From the Core Rulebook:

"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...etc."

Vaelik is practical, but doesn't feel tied to good or evil. He values his decisions and freedoms, and doesn't seek to impose his values on others. He's not as likely to bash an old lady's head in as he is to help her across the street, but he doesn't feel the need to help everyone he comes across. He works well in a group, imparting wisdom and advice in non combat situations whenever he feels he can contribute, and "hit it with my axe" is NEVER his first solution to a problem. He doesn't believe in terms like "good" and "evil," he thinks they are childish. He believes in "them" and "us."

Your Vaelik and my Cailte should hang out.

1 to 50 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.