| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think true neutral is the easiest to play. Many alignment based parts of the game either dont affect you or always have a lesser affect.
I have played very very few CN characters in my gaming career and almost all of them were back in the 80's. Not my normal cup of tea and besides, as a GM I've seen way too much of what some in this thread complain of. It tends to turn you off the idea. But as to what I think is the way to "properly" describe or act out the alignment, as I have said elsewhere, I don't think I could do any better than to let two songs I don't very much like do it for me.
Chaotic Neutral's two theme songs:
I've Gotta Be Me
Whether I find a place in this world or never belong
I gotta be me, I've gotta be me
What else can I be but what I am
I want to live, not merely survive
And I won't give up this dream
Of life that keeps me alive
I gotta be me, I gotta be me
The dream that I see makes me what I am
That far-away prize, a world of success
Is waiting for me if I heed the call
I won't settle down, won't settle for less
As long as there's a chance that I can have it all
I'll go it alone, that's how it must be
I can't be right for somebody else
If I'm not right for me
I gotta be free, I've gotta be free
Daring to try, to do it or die
I've gotta be me
I'll go it alone, that's how it must be
I can't be right for somebody else
If I'm not right for me
I gotta be free, I just gotta be free
Daring to try, to do it or die
I gotta be me
My Way
And so I face the final curtain
My friend I'll say it clear
I'll state my case of which I'm certain
I've lived a life that's full
I traveled each and every highway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Regrets I've had a few
But then again too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Yes there were times I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out, I faced it all
And I stood tall and did it my way
I've loved, I've laughed and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now as tears subside
I find it all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say not in a shy way
Oh no, oh no, not me
I did it my way
For what is a man what has he got
If not himself then he has not
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way
Yes it was my way
Chaotic Neutral, AKA Chaotic Psychotic!
I know, this is only one version of chaotic neutral and an extreme one at that. I just thought it was cool and wanted to show it to anyone who hasn't encountered it yet.
I DO tend to play CN a lot because I don't want to bother with playing an alignment, and this alignment has the least restrictions.
With many of my characters I would rather play that characters personality than try to fit into an alignment.
I've had exceptions though where I have really enjoyed a LG charater.
The vast majority of people are neutral evil (the neat trick being able to convince oneself that one is good).
So, the lazy alignment is neutral evil. It takes a lot of effort to really be something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of people are neutral evil (the neat trick being able to convince oneself that one is good).
So, the lazy alignment is neutral evil. It takes a lot of effort to really be something else.
That sure is an ... interesting assertion, to say the least. That's the kind of assertion that really says something about the person making it.
That sure is an ... interesting assertion, to say the least. That's the kind of assertion that really says something about the person making it.
Ad Hominem told me about that.
I think true neutral is the easiest to play. Many alignment based parts of the game either dont affect you or always have a lesser affect.Problem I run into with TN is a lot of players trying to play some sort of "Master of balance" super neutral in everything character, which usually ends up being kind of awkward, rather than just a player who isn't particularly evil or good or chaotic or lawful.
I have never had anyone try to stay within a certain alignment unless it was good, but I can see how someone could have that happen.
|
That sure is an ... interesting assertion, to say the least. That's the kind of assertion that really says something about the person making it.The vast majority of people are neutral evil (the neat trick being able to convince oneself that one is good).
So, the lazy alignment is neutral evil. It takes a lot of effort to really be something else.
Absolutely true, Simon. Most people are most definitely NOT neutral evil. That would imply that most people would have no issue lying, cheating, stealing, and killing to get what they want. I don't know what circles you run with, SRS, but that doesn't fit at all with my experience. My experience is that most people are neutral to neutral good. Most people won't necessarily go out of their way to help someone else, but they also won't ignore someone injured or dying because it's expedient to do so. Nor would most people, upon seeing an injured and dying person, approach that person and rob them blind. Most people, upon seeing someone injured will either do something to help (some manner of Good), or do nothing at all (neutral all the way). Definitely NOT neutral evil.
However, back to the question regarding CN alignments...I think a lot of the confusion is legacy crap from 2nd Ed (and earlier). A certain rulebook from a certain system published by a certain company with a copyright date from 1989, 1995, and 1996 indicates that CN "characters believe there is no order in anything...the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon!" 3.X and PF have explicitly done away with this concept. Anyone playing a CN character this way is playing, as someone eloquently put it earlier, a Psycho. So, while many lunatics may have a CN alignment, they also (probably) lack the drive and cognitive ability to master a PC class. Ergo, anyone playing a CN character as if their every action is random needs to have their actions addressed by the GM. If it's all part of everyone's enjoyment, by all means; but, usually, it's just distracting and the player doesn't really understand what's going on.
I have played many CN characters, from rogues, to fighters, to clerics. I view them as having very loose morals. They do good things when they want to do good things, and then only because they choose to. They don't perform good actions because some rule told them to. They may have quite a strong sense of right and wrong, which may vary wildly from societal norms. (That can easily get into CG territory, though.) A CN character may not rob someone blind given half a chance, but they won't NOT rob someone because it's "illegal" or because other people think it's wrong. They won't commit a crime if they make that choice on their own. On the other hand, they have absolutely no issue committing a crime if it seems like a good idea, or if they have a good reason [in their own mind, at least] for doing so.
A perfect real-world example of CN behavior is people's treatment of speed limits. Most people speed at some point. Some people speed almost always. Some people very rarely speed. Some people only speed in certain circumstances. Of all the people who choose NOT to speed, how many do you suppose make that choice because speeding is illegal? Few. That would be a Lawful activity. How many people choose not to speed because they may hurt someone else? Probably a few more, but still not many. That would be a Good activity. How many people consistently speed simply because it is illegal to speed? Even fewer. That is an extremely Chaotic activity. How many people speed hoping to hurt someone else? That would be an Evil activity. Most people, however, speed when they want to regardless of any other circumstances. Each decision to speed is made on the spur of the moment, and there is no real pattern to it. Maybe you're late to work and need to make up some time. Maybe you just want to get home after a rough day at the office. Maybe it's just too sunny out and you want to go faster. Maybe the music you're listening to is really upbeat. Tomorrow, on the same stretch of road, at the exact same time, in the exact same set of circumstances, you may drive 15 mph slower. For no good reason. That, to me, is the essence of Chaotic Neutral behavior. And that's how I try to play CN characters. It's also the reason I don't play CN characters often, because in my personal life, I'm pretty much solid CN. I like to stretch myself when I RP.
EDIT: Spelling fix.
The vast majority of people are neutral evil (the neat trick being able to convince oneself that one is good).
So, the lazy alignment is neutral evil. It takes a lot of effort to really be something else.
No. Just as it says in the books, the majority of people are neutral. Many of these neutrals are under the impression they are good because they approve of good principles in the abstract and when those principles are acted upon by others. And, at least in theory, they disapprove of evil. But for sentient beings capable of a range of alignments, it is less about what you say you believe and much more about what your actions prove you truly stand for. I have seen players invoke the faith vs works argument in this regard, but it does not apply to alignment because even in our world that argument isn't about who is or is not good, but is a doctrinal dispute about what beliefs/behaviors are or are not sufficient for salvation (not the same thing at all, especially in any religion that places importance on the concept of "grace").
However, pointing to specific actions or inactions as proof that humans have an inherent tilt toward evil is unconvincing, and I say that as someone who battles the demon of cynicism on a regular basis. Your examples are mostly of the inhabitants of a single nation. First, in the real and game worlds, human beings are malleable and their behavior is often informed by their surrounding culture. Cultures are not created morally identical in all respects. Some are more prone to certain types of evil than others. This is why in the world of Golarion there are a few human areas that trend to some alignment other than pure neutrality. Second, you didn't look at the other side of the coin. Evil cannot be recognized without a standard of good and there are good people in every land.
Evil isn't especially rare, but it is a rare place and time where it could be considered the norm. Athough evil-aligned people not infrequently have repellent beliefs, belief alone will not set off a paladin's evildar. Neutral-aligned people will usually do little or nothing to stop said evil if it doesn't directly impinge on their lives (if they "don't have a dog in this fight") because opposing evil because it is evil is not part of the neutral worldview. Note: By opposing evil, I do NOT mean killing evil people. Except in defense, violent war is at best a necessary lesser evil.
I'd class Teatime as LE or NE any day of the week - he is part of the guild, after all. That may not be how you played your character, of course.
|
I hate that Chaotic Neutral gets such a bad rap. Most people that claim chaotic neutral are clearly evil as "I don't care about other people" is NOT neutral, it is evil. A crazyman running around gutting anyone he feels like is THE JOKER, he is chaotic-frickin' evil.
One time I played a cleric of the god of travel. She was CN because she believed, with all her heart, in liberty. The ability to go where the winds took you, the ability to make your own choices, the ability to 'walk your own path.' She was neutral because she accepted that people could CHOOSE to be evil, and that was a valid choice, but that's not what SHE chose to do. She only ever flipped out if she found totalitarian regimes or slavery. Granted, they could CHOOSE to be slavers, but she could CHOOSE to smash their face in with her enchanted quarterstaff.
Why can't that be the archetype for CN?
I could probably get into a whole speech about the alignment system, but the basis is, the alignment system is two words that describe WHERE you are on the cosmic balance board of good/evil and law/chaos. It doesn't describe HOW you got there or WHY you got there, just that you ARE there.
LG does not have to be stupid paladin smiting evil, I've played plenty of LG characters that were just really nice guys that tried to follow a code.
CG are not all crazed fun-loving barbarians.
LN are not all Insane guards that care only about the law of the land and don't take extenuating circumstances or personal tragedy into account.
CN as above.
LE are not all plotting evil wizards who are going to try and take over the world with their master plan.
CE are not all insane drug-crazed looney-toons who kill at the drop of a hat.
The vast majority of people are neutral evil (the neat trick being able to convince oneself that one is good).
So, the lazy alignment is neutral evil. It takes a lot of effort to really be something else.
No. Just as it says in the books, the majority of people are neutral. Many of these neutrals are under the impression they are good because they approve of good principles in the abstract and when those principles are acted upon by others. And, at least in theory, they disapprove of evil. But for sentient beings capable of a range of alignments, it is less about what you say you believe and much more about what your actions prove you truly stand for. I have seen players invoke the faith vs works argument in this regard, but it does not apply to alignment because even in our world that argument isn't about who is or is not good, but is a doctrinal dispute about what beliefs/behaviors are or are not sufficient for salvation (not the same thing at all, especially in any religion that places importance on the concept of "grace").
However, pointing to specific actions or inactions as proof that humans have an inherent tilt toward evil is unconvincing, and I say that as someone who battles the demon of cynicism on a regular basis. Your examples are mostly of the inhabitants of a single nation. First, in the real and game worlds, human beings are malleable and their behavior is often informed by their surrounding culture. Cultures are not created morally identical in all respects. Some are more prone to certain types of evil than others. This is why in the world of Golarion there are a few human areas that trend to some alignment other than pure neutrality. Second, you didn't look at the other side of the coin. Evil cannot be recognized without a standard of good and there are good people in every land.
Evil isn't especially rare, but it is a rare place and time where it could be considered the norm. Athough evil-aligned people not infrequently have repellent beliefs, belief alone...
The bottom line is that outcome trumps intention. People can have all the good intentions (desires) in the world but the outcome is what counts.
The outcome is beyond neutral. That's why we have rivers of garbage and a government-sourced media article touting the benefits of killer smog ("It makes people funny!"). It's why people watch reality TV when there are starving children in the streets. It all comes down to convenience in the end, and plutocratic privilege. One world under Net Worth.
If good people work for a corrupt system "I was just following orders" should be noted in that it didn't work so well at Nuremburg (a show trial, of course, that is completely mocked by ocean body dumping, kid droning, and so on). It has many permutations but it all comes down to "what's in it for me?" It's always a cost-benefit analysis in which people put their myopic interests first.
Second, you didn't look at the other side of the coin. Evil cannot be recognized without a standard of good and there are good people in every land.
Good and evil are specious anyway, aside from simply being a measure of frontal lobe performance (serial killers have faulty frontal lobes so they don't adhere to the typical biological directive to cooperate known as conscience).
There is no objective point to existence. There is no script other than our biological programming that gives us various fantasies to inhabit while we live our short time.
|
|
Well, let me ask this. What alignment would a Ninja most likely fall under that's a member of the PFS society? Evil is out of the question, so I'd assume Chaotic Neutral? How would a ninja act if he were otherwise Lawful, Neutral order, or Good? I understand the basic terms in the Core book but I find it hard to picture a Good ninja but I guess it could be possible?
I'm just going to say that I strongly disagree with SRS's viewpoint. I'm not in the mood to argue and I doubt that anything I said would change anyone's world view in any case, but I see good people everywhere and have encountered maybe 1 or 2 people in my entire life who I'd be willing to classify as evil.
I see good people everywhere and have encountered maybe 1 or 2 people in my entire life who I'd be willing to classify as evil.
Most people have positive beliefs and intentions, at least they think they do. Unfortunately, their behavior feeds entropy. Of course, this isn't surprising since entropy is inescapable.
My alignment?
Chaotic Awesome.
Seriously though, I tend to plat NG. If I run a campaign, most players fall into CN. Oddly, less prone to violence than the LG paladin (she has righteous anger management issues).
Here's an amusing example of my point.
The moral of the story is quite different than people realize. I doubt Serling intended it. It didn't even occur to me until this discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is that outcome trumps intention. People can have all the good intentions (desires) in the world but the outcome is what counts.
It is? That's a valid philosophical position, but hardly the only valid one.
The outcome is beyond neutral.
Is it? Most people probably help more people than they hurt, most days. They're disinterested in the suffering of people they've never met, but they certainly don't go out of their way to hurt others. Or do you mean the state of the world as a whole? Because that's a very different issue...and one I go into below.
That's why we have rivers of garbage and a government-sourced media article touting the benefits of killer smog ("It makes people funny!").
The actions of a few people are a lot of the problem here, really.
It's why people watch reality TV when there are starving children in the streets.
People can't do things to help everyone, all the time, it's too much, and people aren't emotionally capable of focusing all their energy on it at all times. And a lot of people don't have much of any time, energy, or money to focus on such things anyway, not after they, say, work two jobs to keep their own kids from being among the starving.
It all comes down to convenience in the end, and plutocratic privilege. One world under Net Worth.
It doesn't always. Lots of people work hard to make the world a better place in one way or another...but y'know what? Selflessness rarely gets you power and money, and without power and money the amount of good one person can do is minimal. Meanwhile, the real monsters, the ruthles and corrupt corporate CEOs and vicious petty dictators of the world, their attitude gets them lots of money and power, and thus the ability to work their will upon the world.
It's not that most people are Evil. It's not even that there are more Evil people than Good, it's that the system as it stands (and perhaps as it has always stood) gives Evil people a greater scope to work on the world than it does Good people. At least on average.
If good people work for a corrupt system "I was just following orders" should be noted in that it didn't work so well at Nuremburg (a show trial, of course, that is completely mocked by ocean body dumping, kid droning, and so on).
People who do Evil for a corrupt organization are indeed culpable. But that in no way means everyone who works for said entity is, especially if they didn't know the full scope of what was going on. Those tried at Nuremburg were the ones who were either directly responsible for atrocities, or at least knew of them and did nothing. Most Nazi soldiers were not in either category...and consequently weren't tried.
It has many permutations but it all comes down to "what's in it for me?" It's always a cost-benefit analysis in which people put their myopic interests first.
No. It isn't always like that. I, for one, have decided to devote my life to making the world a slightly better place due to my presence (and enjoying myself while I'm at it...this second part isn't selfless, but it's not my only motivation either). I'm not alone in this.
Good and evil are specious anyway, aside from simply being a measure of frontal lobe performance (serial killers have faulty frontal lobes so they don't adhere to the typical biological directive to cooperate known as conscience).
Uh...this is wildly untrue. Most serial killers have brains just like normal people. You're thinking of what are popularly known as 'sociopaths' or 'psychopaths'...and you're correct that their brains are abnormal (though calling them 'evil' is an oversimplification at best), but serial killers don't generally fall into that category.
They're, generally speaking, people whose lives either are so awful or have been in the past (they've pretty universally been horribly abused as children) and which leave them feeling so helpless and powerless, that they want, more than anything, to feel powerful for once, and what's more powerful than taking another person's life? From there, it seems to proceed like any other addictive behavior. In short, according to the current psychological evidence, serial killers appear to be made, not born.
There is no objective point to existence. There is no script other than our biological programming that gives us various fantasies to inhabit while we live our short time.
Objective point? Perhaps not. But we can make it mean something. Don't succumb to pointless nihilism, if you think the world is bad (and in many ways it is) work to change it. It'll never be perfect, but it can be better, and I'd say contributing to a better world is pretty damn meaningful.
As for biological programming...our biological programming is very real, and it effects everything we do to some degree, but that doesn't make it all we are, or mean we can't choose to act against it if we desire to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
our biological programming is very real, and it effects everything we do to some degree, but that doesn't make it all we are, or mean we can't choose to act against it if we desire to.
No one can act against biology any more than someone can not be human.
"Don't succumb to pointless nihilism" is not a directive that anyone can truly follow. We all age and die.
The poet who told people to rage against the dying of the light is dead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one can act against biology any more than someone can not be human.
I disagree profoundly. If this were true, well, I'd probably be some sort of monster.
Scientific evidence also tends to disagree that biology is the be-all, end-all of human behavior (twin studies come to mind...)
"Don't succumb to pointless nihilism" is not a directive that anyone can truly follow.
Sure they can. Nihilism is a philosophy, or a way of looking at the world. Avoiding it is as simple (or as complicated) as changing the way you look at things.
We all age and die.
Sure do. It's what we do between now and then that matters.
The poet who told people to rage against the dying of the light is dead.
Sure, but the message lives on. He didn't go quiet...which is the whole point.
our biological programming is very real, and it effects everything we do to some degree, but that doesn't make it all we are, or mean we can't choose to act against it if we desire to.No one can act against biology any more than someone can not be human.
"Don't succumb to pointless nihilism" is not a directive that anyone can truly follow. We all age and die.
The poet who told people to rage against the dying of the light is dead.
As I said before, the statement you made says more about you than about the world. If you believe the world is irredeemably evil, why do you go on? Do you see yourself as the only voice of reason in a mad world? Why don't you do a little study of the difference between nihilism and absurdism, you might find some interesting information.
Or is your point that since everyone is evil, your evil plan is to make everyone else despair of their lives ever meaning anything to anyone?
I notice its the supposedly tolerant people who believe in 'subjective morality'. Who then go and essentially say 'everyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do is evil'. And seems to directly translate their political beliefs into a question of good vs evil.
I cannot be sure, but that seemed to be a fairly strongly implied dig based on an assumed political affiliation and an assumed stance (tolerance). First, I'm only middling tolerant. Second, my politics are completely irrelevant to this forum. But if anyone wants to claim that the vices endemic to (for example) France, Soviet Russia, the USA (the nation SRS appeared to be most strongly indicting), and pre-revolutionary Mexico are exactly equivalent in all ways...well then I suppose there is a game relevant discussion as to whether it is at all realistic to portray good and evil and law and chaos on a national scale in Golarion, the Pathfinder game setting. Are the people of Cheliax, the vast majority of whom do NOT consort with Infernal forces, morally unaffected by the sins of their rulers? What about the common people of Andoran? Or Galt? Are they all the same? Is it too cartoonish a simplification to assert that such a thing as a national character exists, even while acknowledging the vast variation within the people of every land?
I notice its the supposedly tolerant people who believe in 'subjective morality'. Who then go and essentially say 'everyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do is evil'. And seems to directly translate their political beliefs into a question of good vs evil.I cannot be sure, but that seemed to be a fairly strongly implied dig based on an assumed political affiliation and an assumed stance (tolerance). First, I'm only middling tolerant. Second, my politics are completely irrelevant to this forum. But if anyone wants to claim that the vices endemic to (for example) France, Soviet Russia, the USA (the nation SRS appeared to be most strongly indicting), and pre-revolutionary Mexico are exactly equivalent in all ways...well then I suppose there is a game relevant discussion as to whether it is at all realistic to portray good and evil and law and chaos on a national scale in Golarion, the Pathfinder game setting. Are the people of Cheliax, the vast majority of whom do NOT consort with Infernal forces, morally unaffected by the sins of their rulers? What about the common people of Andoran? Or Galt? Are they all the same? Is it too cartoonish a simplification to assert that such a thing as a national character exists, even while acknowledging the vast variation within the people of every land?
Interestingly enough, the City alignment actually skews things a bit towards it. LE cities draw LE folks to live there, though other alignments can exist in the city as well.
I notice its the supposedly tolerant people who believe in 'subjective morality'. Who then go and essentially say 'everyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do is evil'. And seems to directly translate their political beliefs into a question of good vs evil.I cannot be sure, but that seemed to be a fairly strongly implied dig based on an assumed political affiliation and an assumed stance (tolerance). First, I'm only middling tolerant. Second, my politics are completely irrelevant to this forum. But if anyone wants to claim that the vices endemic to (for example) France, Soviet Russia, the USA (the nation SRS appeared to be most strongly indicting), and pre-revolutionary Mexico are exactly equivalent in all ways...well then I suppose there is a game relevant discussion as to whether it is at all realistic to portray good and evil and law and chaos on a national scale in Golarion, the Pathfinder game setting. Are the people of Cheliax, the vast majority of whom do NOT consort with Infernal forces, morally unaffected by the sins of their rulers? What about the common people of Andoran? Or Galt? Are they all the same? Is it too cartoonish a simplification to assert that such a thing as a national character exists, even while acknowledging the vast variation within the people of every land?As opposed to your constant digs at a particular current day existing country? You are the one brining up various current day things. Not me. If you don't want them in the discussion don't bring them up and don't use current day examples.
Constant digs involving politics? Bringing up current events? Maybe, just maybe, if you searched all my past comments, you might find one such dig, although I cannot now call any such to mind. However, I believe you are conflating me with some other poster, as I did not raise ANY current events in my posts in this thread. That was someone else. Read more carefully.
That last was a bit of a dig, but not even slightly political.
I really do loathe the alignment system...
Hey, look at that, amateur philosophy hour is over and we can return to the actual thread topic!
Personally I think Chaotic Neutral is the hardest alignment to play well. The reason we have the Chaotic Stupid trope is because so many people don't do it very well.
Chaotic Neutral, by it's very nature, can describe a larger range of behaviors and personality types than any other alignment. Chaotic Neutral is hard to nail down, so it becomes the handy catch-all for the kind of gamer who finds it entertaining to derail stories and cause conflicts.
In actuality, Chaotic Neutral can be incredibly rich and deep. When a character is defined by a deliberate lack of rules, codes or beliefs, then finding out what they really do believe and why can make for incredible character arcs.
Scroll down to the examples section of This Link for a great list of chaotic neutral characters in media.
|
I am a huge fan of Chaotic Neutral and tend to play it a lot. I'm not Johnny Depp or anything, but I'd like to consider myself at least a decent role-player.
Chaotic Neutral fits much better if you have a character whose motives are not actually altruistic, but not malicious, either. For instance, my goblin alchemist who had an obsession with becoming human - he wasn't really adventuring to improve the world or serve others, but he wasn't hurting anyone, either.
The 'chaotic' part simply comes in when the character lives on a whim. Where else do you fit the mercenary that takes jobs for the adventure? Or the drunken lout who means no harm but can't seem to stay out of trouble? How about the wizard who's just a bit too eccentric for his own good?
As for real world morals - well, I should know better than to engage in flame bait, but I think about 90% of the world would be neutral, myself included. We do some good, some bad, but very few of us go out of our way to hurt others, but nor do we greatly inconvenience ourselves to help others. A mercifully small percentage are actively evil - though none of them would say so - and an unfortunately smaller percentage are actually capital-G 'Good'. Your MLKs, your Gandhis, your Eleanor Roosevelts, your Malalas. (And yes, before you say it, I know they all had skeletons in their closet. Good is not perfect.)