Chaotic Neutral

[Pseudonym]

Was having an interesting chat last night with Carillon (whom I greatly respect as a thoughtful and commendable roleplayer) about Chaotic Neutral alignment. How does one play CN on a server where the vast majority of quests are designed for characters of good motivations she asked? My initial thought for a response was along the lines of 'Sure, you can demand a reward whereas the LG paladin will do it pro bono' but as I pondered it all seemed a little ... I don't know ... contrived way to recommend someone approach CN?

Got me to thinking about how I play Arkolio, my CN rogue. What made him CN? Why was he CN as opposed to CG? I think it's good to have these ponderings every so often. How does Ark view the world? What is it about his perspective that makes me stick the label of CN upon him?

My take on CN (for him anyways) is that he is very good at putting his actions (and those action's consequences and his feelings about them) in little sealed boxes within his mind and then carrying on with his business. His mind is filled with little sealed experience boxes - the time I did 'X', the time I did 'Y', that day I did 'Z'. These experience boxes record the experience but bear very little relevance to what he might do, how me might react, when he encounters a similar situation in which he will be involved in the future. HE, as a CN, is more subject to whim and fancy, more subject to all sorts of variables that impact his behaviour than if he were CG.

Does he feel bad when he remembers one of his actions that another (or the standards of society) might judge as thoughtless ... random ... CN? Nah, honestly, he couldn't tell you 90% of the time why he did what he did. He might do the same again. Maybe not. Couldn't tell you the reason why he rescued the little boy for no reward .. couldn't tell you the reason why he robbed the little old lady of her pension cheque .. that'd involve opening up the thousands of experience boxes in his head. He's CN -  he can't even find that box you are referring to! It's floating around up there amidst all sorts of sensory inputs and base wants and needs that more strongly demand his immediate attention.

Thanks to Carillon for the chat last night. These types of ruminations help flesh out my character, make him more 'alive' to play and ultimately more fun. She also asked why Ark tries to seduce every woman he meets - that one you'll have to find out through RP - that one I don't give away for free.

Anyways, enough thoughtfulness from me. Just wanted to share my take on one of the alignments - please note, in no way an official take on the alignment, just my musings. I like reading this stuff from others. Hope you're having a good day!

[Tanman]

HE, as a CN, is more subject to whim and fancy....

That very much fits in with the "Chaoticness" aspect of his character. Whenever he feels like it he'll do it and usually for his own 'gain'. That's how I see Ark from a third person POV.

Does he feel bad when he remembers one of his actions that another (or the standards of society) might judge as thoughtless.....

And this is where the CN as a whole comes in. I see that as a person who puts themselves at number 1. Whatever they do has to benefit them to some degree whether that is materialistic/ego or what ever. Its some gain for them.

I see Ark doing that quite well. *winks*
I can still remember when he ruffled his own sister's pockets when she was laid strewn across the battlefield! Talk about being selfish!

For me, difference between CG and CN is their intentions. For my halfling, her behaviour is erratic, I try to play her unpredictable. One minute she is all sweet the next she could go flying off the rails at anything small. Thats an extreme example I know but I guess its me having fun with the halfling race. I think what is important is the randomness of the behaviour...she still has good intentions. She is caring and all that but just in a chaotic way!

[miltonyorkcastle]

I definitely think part of the chaotic nuetral alignment is being predictably unpredictable. And that the agenda of the CN vs the CG is more self oriented. I think another aspect is how far a character is willing to go to accomplish their goals. Also, CN, though perhaps not outright devious (and perhaps so), can appear one way on the surface, but have quite another thing going on inside, which is part of what makes them unpredictable.

Steel is my CN character. His appearance can be very disconcerting for the uninitiated, but often he is thoughtful and respectful. He is ever calculating, but still just as prone to toss the calculations out the window if the right opportunity presents itself.

The CN character may look and feel like your friend, yet be your worst enemy. Likewise, you may think he/she is your enemy, but he/she saves your rear when it counts.

Some folks play CN as outrageous and maybe a little loopy or just sheer crazy, but that's giving the alignment less credit than it's due. That's squishing it into a two-dimensional box, while I tend to think that CN is the most complicated alignment available, that most real humans fit the closest to True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral.

That's my take, anyways.

[Polak76]

Some folks play CN as outrageous and maybe a little loopy or just sheer crazy, but that's giving the alignment less credit than it's due. That's squishing it into a two-dimensional box, while I tend to think that CN is the most complicated alignment available, that most real humans fit the closest to True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral.

This statement sums up my views as well.

I don't neccessarily think its the most difficult alignment to play, only that its usually not played in full due to keeping the peace during quests.  

I find LG as an alignment that is not properly played and in that token maybe one of the harder ones.

Polak76

[Eorendil]

There's a bit more room to play CN than some alignments and LG isn't nearly as pigeon holed as some might think.  They both have a certain amount of interpretation allowed to them.

CN is often played as crazy/unpredictable but can also be the result of internal strife or a simple need for ultimate personal freedom, not wanting to be tied to anything or limited or caged;  A real free spirit if you will or someone who values their own personal freedom above all else.  This wouldn't make that person unkind or turncoat or a mercenary but those are ways to approach it.  It just means that if push comes to shove that that person (my example person, not all CN characters) might tend to steer away from personal sacrifice or loss of freedom of choice, etc.  

CN has quite a large repertoire to pull from, I feel.

The way you play LG can be generally similar but the approach depends completely on the philosophy and origins of the character as well as the class/faith.  Lawful does not necessarily equal "obeys all laws of all lands".  Furthermore, it could be argued and won that a strict personal code of conduct is all that is needed for a lawful character, good or otherwise.  Those codes may come into conflict with and win out over regional governance.  I could probably write a five page essay on each of the alignments, easily.

[Fatherchaos]

Whenever I think of CN I first think of the two components that compromise the alignment. First you have the Chaotic side, thus a character who dislikes rules, restrictions, red-tape, etc. For them life is all about personal freedom in life without some iron-fisted overseer. Then I consider the Neutral aspect of the alignment. The character is positioned to do both good and evil in equal measure based on whatever works best in the situation. Obviously they can not be purely good or evil at all times or the character would be CG or CE.

So the character uses whatever means are most efficient for their particular situation while making sure to maintain their scofflaw approach.

My own character Dur'Thak has been approved to slide to CN, and what this means to me is that the paranoid-xenophobe (or prime-o-phobe to those who know him ) is seeking answers in what would otherwise be considered evil sources. His intentions are simply knowledge for his own gain, and he has little to no intention to unleash a wave of demons on the nearest orphanage nor does he care to spend every cent he has feeding the poor. Good and Evil to him have become a steady shade of grey.

So in the end he remains a rather honorable individualistic scofflaw who sees that any action, as long as it is not grossly overboard (good or evil), is simply a tool and nothing more.

[jrizz]

I play a CN half giant. Being a HG and of low int helps a lot with the chaotic side. He is apt to change his mind on a subject dramatically based on current sensory input or lose his temper quite quickly. He has friends that he protects and works well with but they are few and it is not easy to get there with him. His neutral position is more a not caring about the bigger picture of the world. He is almost totally living in the here and now.
As close as CN is to CE on the alignment scale they are truly miles apart. Some have played CN as a mild form of insanity, I just dont see it that way, I see it much like was stated above a TRULY free spirit living in the moment and dealing with what is at hand now.

[Gulnyr]

And this is where the CN as a whole comes in. I see that as a person who puts themselves at number 1.

I disagree with this, though not entirely.

The ethical Law-Chaos axis doesn't really have anything to do with who comes first.  A CN character may be totally focused on their own personal freedoms, say, or they may look more broadly and be concerned with everyone's personal freedoms to some fanatic degree.  The first wouldn't care if someone else was being oppressed, while the second would ride to the rescue like some crazy Paladin.  Similarly, a LN character may have a rigid set of personal rules that he alone follows, or he may run around trying to make everyone else follow his preferred set of rules.  There's nothing about self-vs-others on the Law-Chaos axis.

The moral Good-Evil axis does include a component of who comes first, though.  Evil characters are all about themselves and Good characters look to others first, generally speaking.  Milt is right about TN being the typical person, and the whole moral alignment axis often gets skewed by our everyday perception of what 'good' is.  In D&D alignment terms, Evil is out for Number One, Good is concerned with the well-being of others first and foremost, and Neutral will look to themselves first and then consider the people around them.  

Obviously, that's very generalized and there will be different degrees of each alignment (and different amounts of each facet of each alignment) in any character.

[jrizz]

Many other aspects of the PC need to be taken into account as well. What I mean is the a PCs alignment is not a stand alone thing. you have to consider other things like:

Intelligence
Wisdom
Religious stance (A CN cleric is a very different person then a CN fighter)
Race
Background

So you come out with a great number of variations on CN

Religious CN
Dumb/Smart CN
Freedom CN
Crazy CN

I am sure there are many more. The point is that any alignment is a framework that you build a view of the world, a personality, and temper actions within. Some of those frameworks are "tighter" then others. CN is a larger one and so you will end up with a greater number of variations within it.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

I have to disagree, Jrizz. While I agree with the idea that there are many different personalities that could be described as CN, I disagree that "any alignment is a framework that you build a view of the world, a personality, and temper actions within."

Rather, I would say that an alignment is nothing more than a description of a character's various personality traits. It's not someone's STR score that makes them strong; they are strong, so they have a high STR score.

Gulnyr, on the other hand, is spot-on. Chaos/Law describes the consistency of a person's actions, thoughts, etc. Good/Evil describes their inherent empathy for others.

A Good character, for example, would help when he or she is able.

An Evil character would only help if it served him or her.

A Neutral character... Well, it generally depends on the character, but in essence, it's a coin toss, and you can usually look to their Lawful or Chaotic tendencies to figure if they'll help or not.

However, both Lawful and Chaotic characters have their own sets of influences... Chaotic characters are typically more inclined to take each situation as separate and unique, while Lawful characters are typically more inclined to tie each situation in with a whole.

[jrizz]

I love when Stephen disagrees with me I feel complete today

[Polak76]

At the end of the day I hate picking alignments as much as I hate picking classes.  

Both should only be descriptions from the perception of others, not a rigin framework that one works to stay within, or strives to change over time.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

And Polak hits on my main argument about the systems of D&D themselves... <3

While, for simplicity's sake, one can discuss characters and builds as if their stats, feats, alignments, etc., were actualities, in truth they are abstractions, and merely descriptions of the abilities that they develop.

The progression of abilities, attacks, etc. are used only as guidelines for the sake of balance in the game; never do the stats define the character, but rather the other way around.

<3 <3 <3

[jrizz]

Hmm I have to now disagree with you although I wish what you state was true. But the fact is that the numbers/class/alignment do partly define the PC. Of course there is also personality that transcends the numbers. So a PC is defined by:

1. Personality that you give it which is heavily based on the alignment you choose
2. Class that you choose
3. The numbers.

There are many many fighter PCs that are defined by (I choose the fighter class due to the variations in builds):

how hard they hit
how much damage they can take
how well they can avoid damage

These things are all build and number issues.

How many times have you heard "if we are going there we need to take x, y, and z with us cause they are the best". They are the best because their builds and numbers make them the best not because their RP is the best or their depth of character is the best.

So what I am saying is that things like stats, feats, alignments, etc., are not abstractions but are actualities. they drive much of what the PC is and how the PC is looked at. Of course no one goes "hey x has a str of 40 so she is strong* but many players look at the right side of the screen and take note of 100+ points of damage or how hard it is for the monsters to hit PC x.

Much of this if off course of the alignment discussion but it still fits. All of the above things go into how you play your PC. So I will stick with the statement that alignments are frameworks that you define your PCs personality and actions within. If this was not true we would not have them and we would not have those nice lists that act as guidelines for the actions of each alignment type.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

What I was saying is rather that even the numbers that pop up for a hit are just descriptions of how much damage was done. A person's hit points -represent- (and leaving out the abstract quality of D&D combat for simplicity's sake) how much damage they can take.

My viewpoint is that none of these numbers or descriptions actually define the character, but rather the other way around. All these numbers are just descriptions of aspects of the character.