| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least you can trust the LE villain to backstab at the end.
You have no idea what consequences the idiotic plans of the CG hero might cause in the end.
Eh, they're good at bailing out the idiotic plan of the LG guy at least. Really the only alignment that should be planning stuff is NG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...Lawful Alignment and intelligence or ability to plan things are not actually the same thing. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other.At least you can trust the LE villain to backstab at the end.
You have no idea what consequences the idiotic plans of the CG hero might cause in the end.
That is not really the point of my post, which might be because I was joking around a bit.
In context that LG allies with either side and that partner uses its methods to solve a problem the way they see fit.Chaotic consequences is something that is not often explored by alignment stories. Probably because they are harder to come up with than just "well the evil guy ate souls and got power or some'hing".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do say this about chaotic evil,"Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do say this about chaotic evil,"Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized."
Sure, but that is more of a commentary on the kind of people who tend to be CE, and the kind of groups they tend to form than anything about chaos as a rule.
And it's also more a tendency than a hard and fast rule. I mean, look at succubi, or the Demon Lord Baphomet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can find all kinds of weird contradictions in lore regarding alignment though. Pharasma is rather lawful in my opinion, even being a judge of the dead, and having a code of things that are arbitrarily wrong, like undead. And there is always that chaotic good deity of tradition and racism.
|
|
You can find all kinds of weird contradictions in lore regarding alignment though.
Alignment is a bit nebulous to say there are real contradictions, IMO. It's more like no statement of what a particular Alignment is will ever be 100% accurate, since the concept is ill-defined.
Pharasma is rather lawful in my opinion, even being a judge of the dead, and having a code of things that are arbitrarily wrong, like undead.
Eh, Pharasma is all about the 'philosophical neutral' where you aim for balance in all things. Undead disrupt said balance, which is why she doesn't like 'em. Her behavior seems pretty consistent with that to me.
And there is always that chaotic good deity of tradition and racism.
People have a weird tendency to think of Pathfinder deities as somehow being perfect exemplars of their Alignment, and of their areas of interest being likewise tied to their alignment. That's not how it works.
Deities are powerful beings with the 'things they are a deity of' determined by what kind of person/being they are and their interests, which includes Alignment but is by no means limited to that. There's a Daemonic Harbinger with 'candy' as one of their interests for example. There's a reason for that, mind you, but the pair of NE and 'Candy' is at least as weird as CG and 'Tradition'.
As for racism, I'm going to assume you're referring to one of the Elven Gods? Because they aren't gods of racism. They're Gods who are debatably racist. There's a difference between the two. And, as I mention above, Gods are imperfect. Racism, sexism, bad temper, and so on, are all flaws Gods can have as easily as mortals. Even Good ones (though if they're Good, the flaws are probably there to a lesser degree than they would be in, say, an Evil deity).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think LG might despise LE more. Think about it, LG typically believes the law is a tool to help and protect others, and to have justice. LE believes it's a tool for control and hurting others. It's like finding out someone uses your favorite ice cream flavor for murder.
I mean, think of all the anti-Cheliax Paladins out there! (I will personally smite anyone who brings up Paladin Hellknights)
Also, all the Empyreal Lords are pretty good at working together. They disagree on some stuff, but when it comes to kicking Evil ass they seem to do just fine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin Hellknights
*ducks*
I think LG might despise LE more. Think about it, LG typically believes the law is a tool to help and protect others, and to have justice. LE believes it's a tool for control and hurting others. It's like finding out someone uses your favorite ice cream flavor for murder.
I mean, think of all the anti-Cheliax Paladins out there! (I will personally smite anyone who brings up Paladin Hellknights)
Also, all the Empyreal Lords are pretty good at working together. They disagree on some stuff, but when it comes to kicking Evil ass they seem to do just fine.
and CG ALSO thinks law's a tool for control and hurting others. Seriously, the LG guy is going to think both of them are crazy.
Well, let's look at Captain America as an example. To me, he is Lawful Good. During the Civil War story arch he was the head of the rebellion because he believed that the society that he supported turned Lawful Evil.
Torag and Calden Cayden are buddies.
I don't think there are any LG LE friends are there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torag and Calden Cayden are buddies.
I don't think there are any LG LE friends are there?
Does Asmodeus and Iomadae's Hate-Hate reluctant teamwork count?
Of course, from LG to CE, anyone who magically can make beer is a friend in my book.
^I wonder if Iomedae is heading for a fall . . . and now I am reminded that I want to see a Fall of the Righteous AP . . . .
Since I have my own ideas on alignment I'll use those as a launching point. Law and Chaos are collectivism versus individualism while Good and Evil are compassion versus brutality. Using only fictional examples these are who I'd tie the Evil alignments to.
Lawful Evil: Hydra and its membership, the League of Shadows and its membership (including Ra's al Ghul), Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, MCU Wilson Fisk and possibly MCU Loki.
Neutral Evil: Lex Luthor, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Craster, Walser Frey, Thanos and the Four (Planetary).
Chaotic Evil: The Joker, the Purple Man, Eric Cartman, Nicodemus Archleone, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey, Petyr Baelish and V from V for Vendetta.
Now using these alignment definitions how well can you imagine a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil character getting along?
Well, let's look at Captain America as an example. To me, he is Lawful Good. During the Civil War story arch he was the head of the rebellion because he believed that the society that he supported turned Lawful Evil.
The Captain is Chaotic Good, he constantly resists people's freedoms being removed and in general dislikes working for an agency in general.
he has STRONG chaotic tenancies even if he is the best tactician on the avengers. (he constantly disobeys orders to try to bring about the most good)
he left because his slogan is "never compromise".
Torag and Calden Cayden are buddies.
I don't think there are any LG LE friends are there?
I think that's because all the LE gods purposefully don't make friends. bunch of loners.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there are any LG LE friends are there?
I don't know if "friends" is exactly the right word, but there's at least one example I can think of.
^Okay, now I'm curious . . . .
Since I have my own ideas on alignment I'll use those as a launching point. Law and Chaos are collectivism versus individualism while Good and Evil are compassion versus brutality. Using only fictional examples these are who I'd tie the Evil alignments to.
Lawful Evil: Hydra and its membership, the League of Shadows and its membership (including Ra's al Ghul), Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, MCU Wilson Fisk and possibly MCU Loki.
Neutral Evil: Lex Luthor, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Craster, Walser Frey, Thanos and the Four (Planetary).
Chaotic Evil: The Joker, the Purple Man, Eric Cartman, Nicodemus Archleone, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey, Petyr Baelish and V from V for Vendetta.Now using these alignment definitions how well can you imagine a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil character getting along?
HOOLD IT...
Nicodemus Archleone, chaotic?!
Seriously, can I snort some of what you're on?
Meticulous and methodical, with plans spanning centuries, and you're plopping him into chaos?
YMMV, I guess?
^Also, I wouldn't put V from Vendetta in Chaotic Evil -- probably best fit into Chaotic Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Okay, now I'm curious . . . .
Oh, I'm being obnoxiously coy. But that's a large part of what my Pathfinder Tales novel Hellknight is about, because I'm easily entertained by that sort of thing and I thought it would be fun to write a LG/LE relationship (paladin/diabolist, no less, because I figure if you're going to play with alignments anyhow, you might as well dial them up to 11, amirite?).
Anyway, I'm unsurprisingly of the view that the answer to the question originally posed in this thread is that it depends on the characters involved and what you want to have happen for your story. You can have LG/CG characters who get along beautifully or hate each other's guts. You can have LG/LE do the same too, depending on the extremity of their views and how readily they act in accordance with their alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I have my own ideas on alignment I'll use those as a launching point. Law and Chaos are collectivism versus individualism while Good and Evil are compassion versus brutality. Using only fictional examples these are who I'd tie the Evil alignments to.
Lawful Evil: Hydra and its membership, the League of Shadows and its membership (including Ra's al Ghul), Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, MCU Wilson Fisk and possibly MCU Loki.
Neutral Evil: Lex Luthor, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Craster, Walser Frey, Thanos and the Four (Planetary).
Chaotic Evil: The Joker, the Purple Man, Eric Cartman, Nicodemus Archleone, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey, Petyr Baelish and V from V for Vendetta.Now using these alignment definitions how well can you imagine a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil character getting along?
HOOLD IT...
Nicodemus Archleone, chaotic?!
Seriously, can I snort some of what you're on?
Meticulous and methodical, with plans spanning centuries, and you're plopping him into chaos?
YMMV, I guess?
Nick's goal is a Hobbesian state of nature, a perpetual war of all against all. In essence, anarchy at its worst. This would be a condition under which the collapse of all governance and society allows for the powerful to thrive by exploiting the weak and defenseless. Basically Nicodemus wants the freedom to deny others their freedom. That's one of the classic tenants of Chaotic Evil, the idea that freedom is a zero sum game. Has nothing to do with meticulous planning.
|
|
Honestly, I would probably have settled on NG overall.
Robin Hood definitely works as NG, too, yeah.
Well, let's look at Captain America as an example. To me, he is Lawful Good. During the Civil War story arch he was the head of the rebellion because he believed that the society that he supported turned Lawful Evil.
I actually tend to agree that Cap is LG. The difference between him and Robin Hood, for me, is in methodology and attitude as much as anything. Robin Hood, in most portrayals, is inclined towards actual disrespect towards authority in general, while Cap is usually very respectful even while actively fighting against it. And their tactics reflect those differences in focus.
HOOLD IT...
Nicodemus Archleone, chaotic?!
Seriously, can I snort some of what you're on?
Meticulous and methodical, with plans spanning centuries, and you're plopping him into chaos?
YMMV, I guess?
You can be meticulous and still be Chaotic. But that said, I tend to agree. Nicodemus has always seemed straight up NE to me. He breaks his word whenever convenient, and is willing to use whatever means are most efficacious to achieve his goals.
^Also, I wouldn't put V from Vendetta in Chaotic Evil -- probably best fit into Chaotic Neutral.
From the movie? Nah, he tortured an innocent woman to get her on his side. He's pretty damn evil.
From the movie? Nah, he tortured an innocent woman to get her on his side. He's pretty damn evil.^Also, I wouldn't put V from Vendetta in Chaotic Evil -- probably best fit into Chaotic Neutral.
I also agree that V is CE. He's still the protagonist, but that's largely because he's fighting against a superior LE enemy. He also *knows* he's evil.
The question is the premise itself. Do you personally believe that the difference between Chaos and Law is as important as that between Good and Evil?
I'm actually reading a book about one of my favorite Chaotic Neutral characters—Clariel, the Lost Abhorsen, by Garth Nix. That's what Chaotic Neutral should be, in my opinion. Clariel isn't randomly destructive, or "evil-but-not-exactly". She's a free spirit who doesn't want to bother anybody and doesn't want to be bothered. She has a sense of right and wrong, and feels a sense of conscience that constrains her, but she really just wants to be left alone. Her independence is the thing she prizes above all else.
Things don't go too well for her, but she's one of my favorite characters in that series.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the movie? Nah, he tortured an innocent woman to get her on his side. He's pretty damn evil.^Also, I wouldn't put V from Vendetta in Chaotic Evil -- probably best fit into Chaotic Neutral.
I dunno. That specific instance was debatably motivated by more idealistic (and much crazier) goals than 'get her on his side' (he debatably did it to make her stronger) and is pretty much the only Evil thing we see V do, or indeed have any evidence of him doing, with just about everything else falling pretty firmly under a CG set of actions.
I mean, the torture is still clearly horrifically Evil, but an argument can definitely be made that he himself is an especially dark and messed up example of CN.
From the movie? Nah, he tortured an innocent woman to get her on his side. He's pretty damn evil.^Also, I wouldn't put V from Vendetta in Chaotic Evil -- probably best fit into Chaotic Neutral.
I dunno. That specific instance was debatably motivated by more idealistic (and much crazier) goals than 'get her on his side' (he debatably did it to make her stronger) and is pretty much the only Evil thing we see V do, or indeed have any evidence of him doing, with just about everything else falling pretty firmly under a CG set of actions.
I mean, the torture is still clearly horrifically Evil, but an argument can definitely be made that he himself is an especially dark and messed up example of CN.
It's the kind of complex story that's not well served by what is meant to serve as a gaming tool only.
In my opinion, neutrality isn't "I sometimes do horrible evil things, but usually not". It's, "I sometimes do some questionable things."
A neutral character allows evil to prosper, but I do not believe a neutral character would actually kidnap and emotionally and physically torture an innocent woman. Sure, it's "one act", but it's "one act" sustained for quite a long time. It's not one errant choice. It's a long series of choices he makes to repeatedly abuse her. I wouldn't let it slide for a "Lawful Neutral" dictator who tortures innocent people to keep the peace, either.
Also, I honestly don't see V as the movie's protagonist. Evey is. But that doesn't matter for alignment, of course.
And just to bring this back around, I think a Chaotic Good character would quite possibly get along better with V than with the detective guy of that movie. The detective is arguably a Lawful Good character stuck within an evil system. V is arguably a Chaotic Evil character trying to destroy that system.
It's the kind of complex story that's not well served by what is meant to serve as a gaming tool only.
I never really get this attitude. The alignment system is simple, but it's only as constraining as you make it.
In my opinion, neutrality isn't "I sometimes do horrible evil things, but usually not". It's, "I sometimes do some questionable things."
A neutral character allows evil to prosper, but I do not believe a neutral character would actually kidnap and emotionally and physically torture an innocent woman. Sure, it's "one act", but it's "one act" sustained for quite a long time. It's not one errant choice. It's a long series of choices he makes to repeatedly abuse her. I wouldn't let it slide for a "Lawful Neutral" dictator who tortures innocent people to keep the peace, either.
Also, I honestly don't see V as the movie's protagonist. Evey is. But that doesn't matter for alignment, of course.
And just to bring this back around, I think a Chaotic Good character would quite possibly get along better with V than with the detective guy of that movie. The detective is arguably a Lawful Good character stuck within an evil system. V is arguably a Chaotic Evil character trying to destroy that system.
It's the kind of complex story that's not well served by what is meant to serve as a gaming tool only.I never really get this attitude. The alignment system is simple, but it's only as constraining as you make it.
The alignment system is too simple. Whenever it's used to discuss a story, the discussion becomes totally about the mechanic instead of the story itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because people choose to allow alignments to constrain them. Instead of saying, "What would my character do?" they ask, "What would my alignment do?"
Not the fault of the system. It's the fault of people's rigid interpretations of it.
Incidentally, some players can't handle alignment. I'm legitimately considering removing it from one of my games. I like the ruleset plenty, but my players obsess way too much over, "A Chaotic Good character would never do this!" And they argue about it.
I'm actually reading a book about one of my favorite Chaotic Neutral characters—Clariel, the Lost Abhorsen, by Garth Nix. That's what Chaotic Neutral should be, in my opinion. Clariel isn't randomly destructive, or "evil-but-not-exactly". She's a free spirit who doesn't want to bother anybody and doesn't want to be bothered. She has a sense of right and wrong, and feels a sense of conscience that constrains her, but she really just wants to be left alone. Her independence is the thing she prizes above all else.
Things don't go too well for her, but she's one of my favorite characters in that series.
One of the great peculiarities about the way alignment is presented is that philosophically, 'neutral' is kind of nonsense. There's having some kind of moral compass - or at least trying to - and then there's not. There are very, very few 'evil' characters outside of straight-up cartoons that are actually motivated by hurting others as an end in itself. 'Evil' is simply: "I want X, and I don't care about moral restraint". X can be money, power, fame, vengeance, ideology, or a million other things. "My neighbor viciously beats his family without cause, but I prefer not to get involved" is ultimately either 'good, but with moral/physical cowardice', or simply 'evil, out of convenience'.
One of the great peculiarities about the way alignment is presented is that philosophically, 'neutral' is kind of nonsense. There's having some kind of moral compass - or at least trying to - and then there's not. There are very, very few 'evil' characters outside of straight-up cartoons that are actually motivated by hurting others as an end in itself. 'Evil' is simply: "I want X, and I don't care about moral restraint". X can be money, power, fame, vengeance, ideology, or a million other things. "My neighbor viciously beats his family without cause, but I prefer not to get involved" is ultimately either 'good, but with moral/physical cowardice', or simply 'evil, out of convenience'.
not really, since cowardice and intelligent fore thought aren't the same thing but can be thought as such.
you could be good and a coward, neutral: because you know intervening will most likely benefit very few people(none of them being your family for instance who might actually get worse off if you do this), or evil and not care at all.
You can also think that morally you have no right to interfere with other people's lives unless they ask you, etc etc. ad absurdum.
for instance, what if you simply know that getting involved will make him come after you and your family, or that getting the police involved may make him worse on his family?
If you did try to do something and one of the family members ends up dead or maimed in the end can you truly believe that that mode of thought is completely good? And i don't mean you thinking what could have happened, i'm saying if this did happen, could it objectively be called good?
no, because this stuff ain't binary.
One of the great peculiarities about the way alignment is presented is that philosophically, 'neutral' is kind of nonsense. There's having some kind of moral compass - or at least trying to - and then there's not. There are very, very few 'evil' characters outside of straight-up cartoons that are actually motivated by hurting others as an end in itself. 'Evil' is simply: "I want X, and I don't care about moral restraint". X can be money, power, fame, vengeance, ideology, or a million other things. "My neighbor viciously beats his family without cause, but I prefer not to get involved" is ultimately either 'good, but with moral/physical cowardice', or simply 'evil, out of convenience'.not really, since cowardice and intelligent fore thought aren't the same thing but can be thought as such.
you could be good and a coward, neutral: because you know intervening will most likely benefit very few people(none of them being your family for instance who might actually get worse off if you do this), or evil and not care at all.
You can also think that morally you have no right to interfere with other people's lives unless they ask you, etc etc. ad absurdum.
for instance, what if you simply know that getting involved will make him come after you and your family, or that getting the police involved may make him worse on his family?
If you did try to do something and one of the family members ends up dead or maimed in the end can you truly believe that that mode of thought is completely good? And i don't mean you thinking what could have happened, i'm saying if this did happen, could it objectively be called good?
no, because this stuff ain't binary.
While there can be endless complexity to a given situation, it's always going to boil down to:
A) I care about right/wrong and the suffering of others (good), even if I'm not going to act because X. X can be correct or mistaken or stupid or careless etc, etc, etc, but the only ultimate criteria is intent.
B) I don't care about right/wrong and the suffering of others (evil).
Everything else is just an often colossal complication to that fundamental dichotomy. You can come up with endless paradoxes and gotcha situations and moral complications and all that noise, but ultimately there's the intention to do right and avoid harm - however screwed up or compromised it may be - or there's not. Other than that, 'good' and 'evil' just become endless arguments or abstractions based on whatever the moral code is supposed to be. Which of course is what fuels all this endless business.
|
|
In my opinion, neutrality isn't "I sometimes do horrible evil things, but usually not". It's, "I sometimes do some questionable things."
I actually agree that you can't remain Neutral if you do Evil stuff on any regular basis. But that's not actually what V does, we see him do one utterly awful thing ever. I don't think one act done with good intentions usually makes you Evil. It definitely makes you not Good, and is certainly an Evil act, but one terrible thing doesn't make you Evil in most cases.
A neutral character allows evil to prosper, but I do not believe a neutral character would actually kidnap and emotionally and physically torture an innocent woman. Sure, it's "one act", but it's "one act" sustained for quite a long time. It's not one errant choice. It's a long series of choices he makes to repeatedly abuse her. I wouldn't let it slide for a "Lawful Neutral" dictator who tortures innocent people to keep the peace, either.
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. V was very probably CG, and certainly on the Good side of CN, before kidnapping Evey. Then he did that, and was certainly not Good, and IMO on the shady side of CN after that...but saying 'A neutral character wouldn't do that' isn't how Alignment works. I'm pretty sure a Good character did that...and in doing so, was no longer Good.
Also, I honestly don't see V as the movie's protagonist. Evey is. But that doesn't matter for alignment, of course.
That's probably fair.
And just to bring this back around, I think a Chaotic Good character would quite possibly get along better with V than with the detective guy of that movie. The detective is arguably a Lawful Good character stuck within an evil system. V is arguably a Chaotic Evil character trying to destroy that system.
I'd argue the detective as LN. Someone LG would sorta need to somehow oppose the system as a matter of principle. I agree that someone CG would get along better with V than him, though.
It's the kind of complex story that's not well served by what is meant to serve as a gaming tool only.I never really get this attitude. The alignment system is simple, but it's only as constraining as you make it.
Agreed.
The question is the premise itself. Do you personally believe that the difference between Chaos and Law is as important as that between Good and Evil?
On a cosmic level, it seems that the Law-Chaos axis is less important than the Good-Evil one.
While for the LN and CN is still a damn serious business, Archons and Azatas are still heavily specialized in fighing evil rather than the opposite in the other axis (DR/evil and regeneratiopn/evil, constant decetct evil rather than chaos/law and so on), and Devil and Demons show the same against Good, hating each other only because every evil group want to prevail on the others.
Basically beside the obvious interactions of having a subtype, the Law/Chaos axis counts only in that some lesser Demons and Azatas are weak to Cold Iron while corresponding Devils and Archons are weak to Silver
|
|
The question is the premise itself. Do you personally believe that the difference between Chaos and Law is as important as that between Good and Evil?On a cosmic level, it seems that the Law-Chaos axis is less important than the Good-Evil one.
While for the LN and CN is still a damn serious business, Archons and Azatas are still heavily specialized in fighing evil rather than the opposite in the other axis (DR/evil and regeneratiopn/evil, constant decetct evil rather than chaos/law and so on), and Devil and Demons show the same against Good, hating each other only because every evil group want to prevail on the others.
Basically beside the obvious interactions of having a subtype, the Law/Chaos axis counts only in that some lesser Demons and Azatas are weak to Cold Iron while corresponding Devils and Archons are weak to Silver
This is definitely true for the most part, but not inviolably so. Qlippoth are CE but specifically weak against Law rather than Good, for example.
Yoshikage Kira Just Wants to Live QuietlyI'm actually reading a book about one of my favorite Chaotic Neutral characters—Clariel, the Lost Abhorsen, by Garth Nix. That's what Chaotic Neutral should be, in my opinion. Clariel isn't randomly destructive, or "evil-but-not-exactly". She's a free spirit who doesn't want to bother anybody and doesn't want to be bothered. She has a sense of right and wrong, and feels a sense of conscience that constrains her, but she really just wants to be left alone. Her independence is the thing she prizes above all else.
Things don't go too well for her, but she's one of my favorite characters in that series.
stuffWhile there can be endless complexity to a given situation, it's always going to boil down to:
A) I care about right/wrong and the suffering of others (good), even if I'm not going to act because X. X can be correct or mistaken or stupid or careless etc, etc, etc, but the only ultimate criteria is intent.
B) I don't care about right/wrong and the suffering of others (evil).
Everything else is just an often colossal complication to that fundamental dichotomy. You can come up with endless paradoxes and gotcha situations and moral complications and all that noise, but ultimately there's the intention to do right and avoid harm - however screwed up or compromised it may be - or there's not. Other than that, 'good' and 'evil' just become endless arguments or abstractions based on whatever the moral code is supposed to be. Which of course is what fuels all this endless business.
or C) I care, but I care about other things more, and moving upon it will disrupt these things.
this is effectively A and B at the same time.
or D) believing you shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the balance of things is also a neutral view point. (many cultures, like Confucius, Believe you should always respect your father, even if he doesn't respect you, thus interfering in his family is a disruption of their ability to respect him. The idea is in time this should get through to him and he should become a model father eventually.)
or E) I don't care, but the law says I need to intervene and am happy to, I am a police officer.
These aren't gotchas, they're view points beyond revolving around how much you care about good or evil, hence, neutral.
** spoiler omitted **Yoshikage Kira Just Wants to Live QuietlyI'm actually reading a book about one of my favorite Chaotic Neutral characters—Clariel, the Lost Abhorsen, by Garth Nix. That's what Chaotic Neutral should be, in my opinion. Clariel isn't randomly destructive, or "evil-but-not-exactly". She's a free spirit who doesn't want to bother anybody and doesn't want to be bothered. She has a sense of right and wrong, and feels a sense of conscience that constrains her, but she really just wants to be left alone. Her independence is the thing she prizes above all else.
Things don't go too well for her, but she's one of my favorite characters in that series.
he still wants to be social, but normal men/women are too loud.
besides later it's shown that he's just compelled to kill things.
Kira is the real CE.
Neutrality is almost all about apathy.
It is about being selfish without doing it at other people's expense.
Or helping others without it happening at the expense of yourself.
None of this fifty fifty save orphan on saturday, eat it on sunday.
{. . .}
Basically beside the obvious interactions of having a subtype, the Law/Chaos axis counts only in that some lesser Demons and Azatas are weak to Cold Iron while corresponding Devils and Archons are weak to Silver
I've noticed that as well -- I have wondered about (in a somewhat different campaign setting due to historical discrepancies) Azatas having originated from Demons that went Good, and Archons having originated from Devils that went Good. After all, in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting as it is, Erinyes are often made from fallen Angels . . . .
