Dealing with CN Player characters

[TOZ]

Wait, you think these guys were Chaotic Neutral?

[MattR1986]

This thread wouldn't be complete without the actual quote of CN:

Quote:

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

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

A.K.A Chaotic Not-a-Single-F***-Given. It's basically a self-absorbed dick, so the line between neutral and evil gets blurred a lot with this alignment.

Many players see this as a hall pass to do whatever they want in a game regardless of what the other players or DM want for the game.

[VoltySquirrel]

MattR1986 wrote:

This thread wouldn't be complete without the actual quote of CN:

Quote:

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

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

A.K.A Chaotic Not-a-Single-F***-Given. It's basically a self-absorbed dick, so the line between neutral and evil gets blurred a lot with this alignment.

Many players see this as a hall pass to do whatever they want in a game regardless of what the other players or DM want for the game.

Which is why I pretty much restrict it in my games. If I know the player can play the alignment with some semblance of "responsibility", then sure, go ahead. That I have no issue with. My problem are the people who do crap like randomly stab people or become arsonists, for their retort to be "Hey man. It's what my character would do! Chaotic Neutral!" Stop that. Quit lying to us and just say you wanna play The Joker. At least you're being honest.

[Static Hamster]

Stop playing an alignment.

Start playing a character.

[Apotheosis]

The Beard wrote:

It appears the quote feature messed up without me noticing. If you'll look up a few posts, you will be able to see the one I was responding to. Namely the person that decided, "Well, they aren't obeying my campaign to the letter; time to DM lightning."

As for the OP, well... he might have to cut it if he isn't willing to accommodate the wishes of his players (assuming of course that they do genuinely want a savage, vicious sort of campaign).

You're right, and I missed that you weren't replying to the OP. Things make much more sense now, as I was rather surprised trying to match that response up with the OP's comments! Thanks for pointing that out, The Beard.

[Kittenological]

Static Hamster wrote:

Stop playing an alignment.

Start playing a character.

Hear hear.

Chaotic Neutral is like the Dude from the Big Lebowski. All he wanted was a rug :(

[blahpers]

Alignment banning is pointless. A player that wants to play a jackass will play a jackass whether his character sheet says "Lawful Good", "Chaotic Neutral", or "Somewhat Moist". The GM has no rules recourse other than to change the character's alignment to match the character's behavior.

Toss alignment. Most players will stop trying to break it once it's gone. Paladins miraculously stop falling, antiheroes can just be antiheroes, and everybody has a good time.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Tossing alignment is sometimes an option. I've done it. It can work.

But (1) it's a minor PITA because alignment is hardwired into the game; spells and items and whatnot work differently depending on alignment, so you'll have to either go through and change stuff or do a lot of adjudicating on the fly; and (2) a surprising lot of players *like* alignment. Not all, but many. Either they like it because it's part of the game they love, like having levels and hit points and Vancian magic, or because, or they like it because it gives them a framework that makes playing their character easier and/or more interesting. Those are really common things IME.

Doug M.

[Douglas Muir 406]

MattR1986 wrote:

Players coming in disguised as CN so they can suddenly and unexpectedly go on murder sprees and play Pathfinder the Masquerade is not just detouring from railroading, it's dickish behavior.

^ Once again, this. It may not be *deliberately* dickish; the player may be just goofing around. (Although IME a surprising number of players will do this sort of thing to test boundaries -- what exactly will this DM let me get away with?) But in any event, the outcome is almost always bad: a trashed, plotless campaign with PCs on the run from the law.

Quote:

A lot of (not all) people never seem to think about the DM and what he wants for HIS game. It's all about "me" and how I can be entertained regardless of whether you pooched months of preparation and a whole campaign without asking the DM first if he's ok with this type of behavior in his game.

I wouldn't go overboard on that point. My position is that the DM is a "player" in the sense that s/he's one of the people sitting at the table. S/he doesn't deserve any less consideration than the other people at the table, or any more. I mean, as DM, sometimes things aren't going to go my way. Sometimes my feelings may even be bruised. Them's the breaks.

But it's my experience that the "Daaaah I kill the princess!" CN player ends up making things less fun for *everyone*. When I was a young and new DM, very long ago, I went through a period when I prided myself on sandbox worlds where the players could go anywhere and do anything. That was fun and great in some ways, but it also allowed a couple of my campaigns to be taken over -- and ruined -- by these sorts of players. I thought, well, I'll let the players do what they want... that's the fun of this game, right? You can do whatever you want?

Well, yes. But also, no.

Doug M

[The black raven]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

How do you veteran DMs handle parties like this? :O

Rock falls, everyone dies :-))

[The black raven]

MattR1986 wrote:

This thread wouldn't be complete without the actual quote of CN:

Quote:

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

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

A.K.A Chaotic Not-a-Single-F***-Given. It's basically a self-absorbed dick, so the line between neutral and evil gets blurred a lot with this alignment.

Many players see this as a hall pass to do whatever they want in a game regardless of what the other players or DM want for the game.

Problem really lies with a GM who is unwilling, or even unable, to say NO to his players. This leads to huge problems whatever the game and its system. The alignment part is just the player being a smart-ass and trying to leverage the rules against the GM.

GM is a position of AUTHORITY. Authority means being able and willing to say NO.

[MattR1986]

And I'm sorry but I disagree with your second paragraph, Douglas (or at least what I think you are saying).

In the RPG boardroom in terms of who's opinion and fun matters, the DM is the majority share holder. It's not an equal split between all participants. Why you may ask? RPGs are a leisure activity that you do for fun on your free time. It is not a job, thus you don't owe people to do something you don't enjoy doing. If a DM has to concede his ability to have fun far enough that he is no longer enjoying the game, why should he continue spending his free hours making the effort to prepare and run the game? If the game is no longer fun anymore, it's time to finish off the session or section of the campaign, and step down as DM or part ways with a player(s).

If one player wants to run an evil campaign and the DM doesn't, guess who's opinion and fun matters more? The DM doesn't owe this player anything for the DM to spend his time running a game he doesn't enjoy playing. If all the players want to play GURPS and the DM doesn't, he doesn't owe them his time and effort to run that game.

"But I've had DMs go on powertrips and...". It doesn't matter. If a DM will only run a game if the Players refer to him as "Your Lordship" and play the game as a Clerics-only 1e game, that's what he's going to run (if he can find anyone to play it). He doesn't owe you a game he won't enjoy playing no matter how jerkish and inflexible he is as a person.

"But there aren't many games in my area and.." It doesn't matter. No one owes you a game they don't want to run no matter how difficult they are.

For these reasons the DMs fun frankly is more important because the game doesn't run without him, and if he's not enjoying the game in general, it's time for him to end it.

Now in terms of a gaming group in general? If there's a discussion of who is going to DM next and what then obviously that *should* be an even vote, but usually is affected by factors like who's been friends with who a long time, who's house it's at and other social factors.

And it depends on what you mean by saying no. You can obviously say no to alignments, but it's part of the RPG dynamic that you don't say no to a PC and what he's allowed to decide. "Ok, I go into the 10x10 room" "No" "What do you mean no? There's a wall or a magic barrier when I walk over?" "Just no. You don't go over there". A DM can give players a hundred warnings, but once they've made a decision all you can do is react to the decision and clean up the mess. The OP should have paused the game as it was getting out of control and talked to his players. After the fact, OP you have to ask yourself what you want. Will you enjoy continuing to playing this game with these PCs? With these players? If so, then depending on how you run a game either forget about it and they never return to that area or bounty hunters show up sometimes and they should RP out their remorse. If you aren't prepared to switch to an evil campaign tell them no more of that crap in your games.

[The Beard]

The black raven wrote:

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

How do you veteran DMs handle parties like this? :O

Rock falls, everyone dies :-))

I adapt the campaign to fit the new direction it's going. :P

MattR1986 wrote:

For these reasons the DMs fun frankly is more important because the game doesn't run without him, and if he's not enjoying the game in general, it's time for him to end it.

Or the DM could choose to be a good host and accept that the player's opinions are important. Guess what? They have no game to DM if they piss their players off into leaving due to constant hardass behavior. Compromise is the buzz word, not "dominance." For this reason (among others) it's important to get a bit of social contract going between players and GM before the game. That way it's less likely for someone to quit due to strong disagreements with the DM's policies and mindset.

[Sub_Zero]

The Beard wrote:

Or the DM could choose to be a good host and accept that the player's opinions are important. Guess what? They have no game to DM if they piss their players off into leaving due to constant hardass behavior. Compromise is the buzz word, not "dominance." For this reason (among others) it's important to get a bit of social contract going between players and GM before the game. That way it's less likely for someone to quit due to strong disagreements with the DM's policies and mindset.

If this was a game the GM was making by the fly I would be more inclined to agree. However, I do think it's really bad form if the players agree to play a AP and then go off the rails. They're not the ones who spent money buying an adventure to follow, and acting like sociopaths is a good way to ruin any AP. That said, I do agree that communication is key, but if players knew they were running an AP and decided to do this, I'd say that this is already an implicit breaking of a non-spoken player contract.

The same way if I brought a board game over and my friends dismantled the pieces to play a new game, it wouldn't be overreacting on my part to say they're being jerks if they agreed to play the game.

[The black raven]

Actually, the key part is overall fun. Not the fun of one or two people, but the collective one. Now, if someone never gets his fun, he is likely to leave. And if that person is the GM, playing will become more complicated. All these consequences have to be taken into account when playing a game. It is a constantly evolving balance really.

[MattR1986]

The players are no more obligated to play at the DMs than he is obligated to run a game for him.

I've seen this discussion come up several times in various forms and the gist of it usually is a very player-centric consensus that if a Player leaves a game because he doesn't get to play a class (in this case alignment) he wants, that's A-ok. If a DM doesn't to allow a class he's inflexible and a tyrant.

And the DM gives way more than any Player does to the game. The Player shows up and plays his character. The DM spends hours of his week prepping the game and then running it for everyone. Everyone contributes their part and is important to making sure it's a fun game, but it is not an equal relationship.

[Tholomyes]

MattR1986 wrote:

The players are no more obligated to play at the DMs than he is obligated to run a game for him.

I've seen this discussion come up several times in various forms and the gist of it usually is a very player-centric consensus that if a Player leaves a game because he doesn't get to play a class (in this case alignment) he wants, that's A-ok. If a DM doesn't to allow a class he's inflexible and a tyrant.

Well, gee, it could have something to do with the fact that one of the two is actually playing the class, and the other isn't. It doesn't affect the DM much whether a player is allowed to play a class they want, beyond balance or setting issues, but it certainly affects the player a great deal.

MattR1986 wrote:

And the DM gives way more than any Player does to the game. The Player shows up and plays his character. The DM spends hours of his week prepping the game and then running it for everyone. Everyone contributes their part and is important to making sure it's a fun game, but it is not an equal relationship.

I tend to DM more than I play, and yes, the DM puts in a good deal of work into making the game run, but if you think that makes the DM entitled to have his fun count more than the rest of the group, then you're seriously misunderstanding this whole hobby.

[MattR1986]

A class could affect the DM's fun a great deal. He could have to adjust every encounter for someone's mega Synthesist/Master Summoner build. Maybe he doesn't play with a digital device and doesn't want to have 4 books sitting out to keep checking every class type. He may hate guns in his D&D games and would have to adjust his setting And how does it affect a player that much to lose one class? He picks another of the 150+ options. Who does it affect more?

Btw, this conversation is still relevant to OP since the word class and alignment could easily be interchangeable.

edit: Also, I'm not saying a DM should come in with a "I'm more important" mentality, but speaking from an outside perspective he is. 4 Players want to play an evil campaign set on an Ocean ship. DM does not want to run that game. They are outvoted, thus his fun outweighs theirs. Obviously someone else could run it, but that particular DM isn't going to do it.

[Vamptastic]

MattR, what if we just said that the player/DM relationship is a symbiotic one, and without one, the other is pointless? Without a DM, the players might as well play Magic or Monopoly or "Bath Salt Surprise", and without the players, the DM is basically talking about his "cool book idea" to his family while they secretly hate them but don't say that.

[Serious Frog]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

So the party rogue got caught stealing from a nobleman's store. After she was arrested, the party Paladin decided to try and bribe an official. After that plan fell apart (along with the Paladin, heh) Things got really unhinged. The party had the barbarian break into the city jail, killing six guards and slitting the throat of the jailkeeper in the process and killing an NPC allied with the party. The party Barbarian has 24 strength when he's raging and hits for an average of 20 damage in a round. On a critical hit he did 47 damage to the captain of the guard, killing him immediately and then intimidating the remaining guards. After breaking the Rogue out, they went to the guard house over and killed the sleeping guards (all of whm failed their perception checks :/)

To cover their escape, the party's Monk started a bar fight and then burned the bar down, chaining the doors shut. Everyone inside died, including three NPCs relevant to the entire adventure path.

They fled from town and killed the remaining horses so the guards couldn't give chase. I actually had to end the session early, because the plot was entirely wrecked and derailed. I mean these were veteran players, and TBH I could see these characters actually doing "evil" actions in an unfair, corrupt LE town.

How do you veteran DMs handle parties like this? :O

Oh the Paladin's atonement would be to hunt down his party and bring them to Justice!!!!! The mayhem...

[MattR1986]

It's not an either or. What you put is true and they do need each other and should listen to each other's opinion. At the end of the day though, if he's going to run it, he should enjoy it and not just be told he should be more flexible and go with whatever a Player(s) whims are regardless of whether he's dealing with 1 player or he's "outvoted" by 4 players.

[Dosgamer]

When you drink alcohol while playing tabletop games, you are likely to get inebriated.
When you get inebriated, you think things are funny that may not be.
When you think things are funny that may not be, you make bad decisions.
When you make bad decisions, you burn down taverns full of goodness.

Don't burn down taverns full of goodness.

[aboniks]

Dosgamer wrote:

When you drink alcohol while playing tabletop games, you are likely to get inebriated.

When you get inebriated, you think things are funny that may not be.
When you think things are funny that may not be, you make bad decisions.
When you make bad decisions, you burn down taverns full of goodness.

Don't burn down taverns full of goodness.

But...if the goodness in the tavern is inebriated...

[The Beard]

MattR1986 wrote:

A class could affect the DM's fun a great deal. He could have to adjust every encounter for someone's mega Synthesist/Master Summoner build. Maybe he doesn't play with a digital device and doesn't want to have 4 books sitting out to keep checking every class type. He may hate guns in his D&D games and would have to adjust his setting And how does it affect a player that much to lose one class? He picks another of the 150+ options. Who does it affect more?

Btw, this conversation is still relevant to OP since the word class and alignment could easily be interchangeable.

edit: Also, I'm not saying a DM should come in with a "I'm more important" mentality, but speaking from an outside perspective he is. 4 Players want to play an evil campaign set on an Ocean ship. DM does not want to run that game. They are outvoted, thus his fun outweighs theirs. Obviously someone else could run it, but that particular DM isn't going to do it.

There is a difference between someone outvoting you and the GM taking his ball and going home. Again, this is why people need to agree to some terms; it makes everything go a lot more smoothly. It's also a good way to find out if your DM is willing to do evil campaigns or not, and if they aren't, you've got time to find a less disagreeable DM.

[Dosgamer]

aboniks wrote:

Dosgamer wrote:

When you drink alcohol while playing tabletop games, you are likely to get inebriated.

When you get inebriated, you think things are funny that may not be.
When you think things are funny that may not be, you make bad decisions.
When you make bad decisions, you burn down taverns full of goodness.

Don't burn down taverns full of goodness.

But...if the goodness in the tavern is inebriated...

...and playing tabletop games?

[aboniks]

Then they would have locked themselves in and burned it down anyway.

Looks like the monk is in the clear.

Case closed!

[MattR1986]

The language you're using is making it the DMs fault. He has to run a game he wants to play. He is not taking the ball home or being disagreeable. To use a more apt analogy, if you have a board game night once a week and EVERY time the other people insist on playing a game you can't stand (no matter how many times you've brought it up), why would you continue to do host that event after you set up the games and food or whatever and then had a crappy time? The world does not revolve around the players with the DM being their monkey to dance and do whatever they please. If the Players insist on taking the game in a long term direction the DM does not want to go, he is not "taking the ball home" by not spending his free hours prepping for a game he does not want to play.

[rorek55]

Dosgamer wrote:

When you drink alcohol while playing tabletop games, you are likely to get inebriated.

When you get inebriated, you think things are funny that may not be.
When you think things are funny that may not be, you make bad decisions.
When you make bad decisions, you burn down taverns full of goodness.

Don't burn down taverns full of goodness.

Dont use cable, get Direct M.V. (magical vision!)

[Gauthok]

MattR1986 wrote:

The language you're using is making it the DMs fault. He has to run a game he wants to play. He is not taking the ball home or being disagreeable.

I agree. I've run many a game, and I have found that I just don't like running evil campaigns. When I've had players take things that direction, I just let them know they'll need to find someone else to run their game for them. No hard feelings, but I'm not going to waste my time.

[Adjule]

Ah, Chaotic Neutral, or as I like to call it: the Donkey-hole alignment. People like to play it as close to the thin line of CE that there really is no difference between the 2. I have never met a player who can play CN as anything other than an a+##@*~ sociopath. It is honestly more annoying that "Lawful Stupid" paladins.

As for the OP: I would have the authorities after the characters. And don't toss easy people at them. Go for tough enemies in large groups. And switch that (presumably lawful neutral) monk to lawful evil or even neutral evil (as what he did was neither lawful nor neutral), and same with the other characters. And then have them roll up new characters and tell them "no chaotic neutral", and enforce the rules set up for whatever city/country they are in (I am assuming Cheliax or Irrisen?)

[rorek55]

I never use "rocks fall, you die" unless its an AP if its my world.. let's have fun. I send bounty hunters/law/paladins/mercs and the like after them. (Exp) they formed a bandit gang and survived surprisingly well. Until they caused enough trouble to get military involved.

[Master of the Dark Triad]

Sub_Zero wrote:

PC's always use an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes it's too little, sometimes too much, but it's almost always inappropriate....

Protesters? Nuke them.

[MattR1986]

I'm not sure how long a campaign full of murder sprees can go before A) everyone gets bored and wants to play the "right" way B) it catches up to the PCs and they have to go out in a blaze gunfire against the authorities or C) they all just kill each other like a scene from Reservoir Dogs.

[Vamptastic]

MattR1986 wrote:

I'm not sure how long a campaign full of murder sprees can go before A) everyone gets bored and wants to play the "right" way B) it catches up to the PCs and they have to go out in a blaze gunfire against the authorities or C) they all just kill each other like a scene from Reservoir Dogs.

B and C sound more fun, because they're more thematic and appropriate to the campaign that they've been playing.

[HarbinNick]

CN should be used by characters with mental problems, gnomes who think setting people on fire with fake flames, or half-orcs with low INT. who think people are being mean to them...
-An example of a CN act. Someone cheated at cards in a game, half-orc responded by cutting his head off. To him it seemed a logical response. Cheating is bad. You do something bad, to me, you die.

[Atarlost]

TOZ wrote:

Wait, you think these guys were Chaotic Neutral?

The tavern was in a lawful evil town. Depending on where you stand on the sliding scale of idealism and cynicism someone who burns down evil towns without suffering angst are good or neutral.

If it helps imagine that it was a town of hobgoblins. Would you really drop a CN character to CE for lighting a fire in a hobgoblin camp?

[blackbloodtroll]

It Chaotic Stupid that's a problem.

Not Chaotic Neutral.

[MattR1986]

The above by HarbinNick is a perfect example of where you start have problems with the CN alignment. Players interpret CN as ftw and f*** your couch and things go downhill fast.

I would interpret the above as Chaotic Evil. Killing (beheading to top it off) someone over a card game is pretty extreme. Had he flipped the table and started beating the crap out of people without any regard to the law or the establishment that it was held in, I would call that CN. CN is not a free pass to Murdertown. At least, not in my book.

[rorek55]

Atarlost wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Wait, you think these guys were Chaotic Neutral?

The tavern was in a lawful evil town. Depending on where you stand on the sliding scale of idealism and cynicism someone who burns down evil towns without suffering angst are good or neutral.

If it helps imagine that it was a town of hobgoblins. Would you really drop a CN character to CE for lighting a fire in a hobgoblin camp?

for no real reason? yes. If only because he did it because he wanted to.

[MattR1986]

And you could say that Washington D.C. or Mexico City is a Lawful Evil city where there are corrupt officials and a lot of bad people. Would you applaud someone for going through and running people over and shooting the survivors? I hope not.

[HarbinNick]

-Actually it was fairly common in the wild west to kill card cheaters.
-Evil refers to the killing of innocents. Burning down a building is arson, which is always an evil act, since you don't know if women and children are inside, or the elderly.
-In addition a CN character should be doing a mixture of evil and good actions, as it strikes him. If everything is evil, then he is evil.

[MattR1986]

Something being common in the wild west doesn't mean it was legal or remotely considered moral then or now. In fact, I'm not even sure if that's really that accurate or just something that's become common knowledge from movies and TV shows.

Even in the strictest legal systems of today, you get your hands cut off for stealing/cheating, not your head.

[aboniks]

rorek55 wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Wait, you think these guys were Chaotic Neutral?

The tavern was in a lawful evil town. Depending on where you stand on the sliding scale of idealism and cynicism someone who burns down evil towns without suffering angst are good or neutral.

If it helps imagine that it was a town of hobgoblins. Would you really drop a CN character to CE for lighting a fire in a hobgoblin camp?

for no real reason? yes. If only because he did it because he wanted to.

So, the bit about starting the bar on fire in an evil town (presumable full of evil npcs) in order to provide a distraction for the party to escape...That I'd totally accept as CN. No problem.

It's the fact that he chained the doors shut first. That's just gratuitous murder. I just can't find an angle to view that particular action from that doesn't scream "Evil".

[TriOmegaZero]

Atarlost wrote:

If it helps imagine that it was a town of hobgoblins. Would you really drop a CN character to CE for lighting a fire in a hobgoblin camp?

Probably.

[HarbinNick]

-slavery was legal, certainly not moral.
But I think it depends on what you mean by "disruptive" if a character is repeatedly doing things that are evil, and says no "I'm CN" he is just being a jerk. A CN character should be mixing it up, being kind to children one day, and throwing men out windows the next. In addition, a slow witted character, especially one from a violent culture (orc) is far more likely to think excessive force is a good idea. Violence cures things in fantasy settings far better than real life. Intimidate is a class skill. How well does intimidate work in modern life? Do you intimidate cops? teachers? your boss? your wife?
-real world examples are never to helpful in a cliche fantasy world.

[MattR1986]

We could go on for days about how alignment doesn't fit the gray of the real world. Bringing up slavery is but one of a million examples. At some point though a DM needs to draw a line where most people would agree on. Most people would agree that killing someone over something trite is an evil act regardless of what culture you were raised in.

Quote:

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

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

It seems pretty random to be helping children and then throwing people out windows the next day. Chaotic Neutral is not intended for you to be mentally insane btw. I've seen a number of times where people thought CN meant schizophrenic murder hobo.

[rorek55]

CN is my favorite alignment, one day I can help people I like out, the next I can swat the prick that attacked me and is now trying to surrender without any worries.

What It DOESN'T do is let me go on a killing spree of children and be like, "lawlz, CN bro, don't ruin meh weekend buzz bro."

[Sub_Zero]

When I think of Chaotic Neutral the iconic character that comes to mind is Han Solo.

Han doesn't go out of his way to help anyone. he's in for whatever it takes to get his paycheck, whether that come from Hutt's, or rebels. He'll even shoot first (before his PC decides that in fact he didn't) to maintain his liberty. What we don't see is him going on random murder sprees for no reason whatsoever. He also was loyal (eventually) to those closest to him.

[rorek55]

well, later on I would say he leans towards CG. I mean.. he DOES come back for NO REASON really.

[Sub_Zero]

rorek55 wrote:

well, later on I would say he leans towards CG. I mean.. he DOES come back for NO REASON really.

True, though you could say that's his chaotic nature kicking in, or that it's the fact that he actually valued the friendships he made. Or it could be that he had some character growth and became good.

Still prior to meeting luke, Han definitely swayed the CN line.