Chaotic what?

[ozziewolf]

I have a character I’ve been working on for a long time in my head but the only piece I can never figure out is his alignment wether he’s Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral or not even chaotic at all. (I’m pretty sure its one or the other.)

The rundown is the character is a Halfling Rogue but he doesn’t consider himself a Rogue at all more so he’s a Rogue because he’s a Halfling.  You could say he is himself which is Roguish in nature(Roguish personality)

He’s a bit of a thief always into some sort of get rich quick scheme which usually involves something that might be considered shady.  Granted he’s not going to steal from some one if they’re going to starve to death because of it as he’s not malicious.
If some one is going to die his believe is its always better some one else die than him. After all he has to look out for number one above all else.  While he doesn’t get buddy buddy with every one when he does call some one a friend it generally means something and that he’ll do what ever he can to help some one and if the price for that friendship becomes to high he always has the option to cut and run leaving the person high and dry although he would prefer not to do that.
He’s quite the chatterbox with a quick tongue and an overly curious personality so he often finds himself in trouble which according to him is through no fault of his own.
He’s not what one would really call a killer as he would prefer to avoid killing when he can cut and run but if it comes down to him or them he has no hesitation with getting his hands bloody.

If my thinking is right I would say he’s border line chaotic good/chaotic neutral but I’m not sure which I would really call him.  He’s not really a good guy but he’s not a bad guy either some where in between with more good tendencies and a lack of any truly evil tendencies.

I’d just like some feedback on what kind of alignment you guys think he would be.

[miltonyorkcastle]

reminds me of Tomi from the single-player game (who I always used as my henchman because I never ceased to laugh at, "Here comes halfling death!!!")  Because he would >prefer< not to leave a friend high and dry, but would do so to save his own hide, I see the character as Chaotic Neutral.  At least starting out.  Who knows, the poor sod might finds friends he is willing to die for.    The question is, have you played on the server long enough and met the RP req's with the DM to be allowed to submit a Chaotic Neutral character?  If not, wait to submit this character or submit him as Chaotic Good (since you claim he is borderline, I don't think it would compromise his character too much).  I suggest waiting, or revising the character to make him slightly more good.

[ozziewolf]

miltonyorkcastle - 10/31/2005  11:27 AM  reminds me of Tomi from the single-player game (who I always used as my henchman because I never ceased to laugh at, "Here comes halfling death!!!")  Because he would >prefer< not to leave a friend high and dry, but would do so to save his own hide, I see the character as Chaotic Neutral.  At least starting out.  Who knows, the poor sod might finds friends he is willing to die for.    The question is, have you played on the server long enough and met the RP req's with the DM to be allowed to submit a Chaotic Neutral character?  If not, wait to submit this character or submit him as Chaotic Good (since you claim he is borderline, I don't think it would compromise his character too much).  I suggest waiting, or revising the character to make him slightly more good.

 Tomi Undergallows sums him up perfectly if some one wanted a comparison.  As for playing long enough yes I have but I still need to get Tokkel to level 10 if I decide to go that route. At any rate I can't change the halfling that's not an option but I could submit him as Chaotic Good with the understanding he's border line Chaotic Neutral or I could wait as I mostly plan on playing my halfling when I need a break from my Dwarf. (I love RPing halflings did it for about 3 years made a dwarf for something different.)

[Talan Va'lash]

I'd say the character you described could be more chaotic good.

CN can be a dichotomy of good and evil - When considered as a whole can even be contridicatory.  The conditions you put on how he would act (caring if who he was stealing from had enough hits me as a CG flag) make me think more CG than CN.

One of the things thats on a lot of definitions of CN is that they would torture someone if neccessary.  Not for pleasure (as that slaps you down to evil right off the bat) but if they needed to for some purpose.  Basically, if I'm having trouble deciding whether a character concept is CG or CN, I see if this point fits, as its one where CG and CN are quite divided.

-TV

[miltonyorkcastle]

interesting....  what do you consider torture, Talan?  And do you think someone can torture and still be good?  I ask because I have played CG barbarian types in PnP who have no beans about ripping off a few fingers to extract information....  no pain, no gain...  

[Talan Va'lash]

I'd probably call them CN then.

[Zen]

I don't think he sounds Chaotic at all! I would submit him as "TN" and RP the rest.

He has a carefree kind of thought pattern and doesn't like to kill no matter what. So I would say "TN"

[miltonyorkcastle]

actually, Zen, it's the carefree aspect that I consider Chaotic.  When it comes to the first part of an alignment, Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful, I view Chaotic as having a lesser or little regard for laws, hence a chaotic person will tend to be more 'carefree.'  Neutral, on the other hand, I see as much more law abiding, in that they are seldom as blatant about the times they do disregard the 'laws.'  Or, put another way, True Neutral will follow their king so long as the king treats them the way the want to be treated.  Chaotic Neutral never follows the king, no matter how good the king is to them; not that they always break the law, but that they don't ever feel obliged to respect the king's authority.  
Mind you, these are all just my opinions on the matter.

[miltonyorkcastle]

oh, and to Talan:  so, good people never torture then?....hmmmm.... guess I'm not a good person...  

[Doc-Holiday]

Uh.. CN WOULD accept certain rulings of a king so long as they fit with what world view the character had. I mean.. if you character agrees with the King over some matter it doesn't mean he's suddenly LN or TN. CN doesn't mean you rebel at every possible moment and just because. If a group leader says "don't touch the traps, let so-and-so do" it would be a group law.. and you character wouldn't start leaping on each trap just because he can't follow rules because he HAS to be CN. He deos what strikes his fancy and is in own best intrests and does not adhere to anyones rules but his own (which change to each situation). He's not suicidal or stupid... he simply does as he pleases without reguard to other peoples pre-concieved notions of what to do in each situation. If he doesn't want to disarm the trap he won't ... if he the King makes a rule he likes he'll abide it until he feels it doesn't fit his situation any more. Not the "you say stop so I will go" thing.

Don't make me induct you into the "Hall-of-those-smited-by-the-stick-of-a-thousand-smitings"

[miltonyorkcastle]

heh, come on, Doc, read what I said:  "Chaotic Neutral never follows the king, no matter how good the king is to them; not that they always break the law, but that they don't ever feel obliged to respect the king's authority."  I never said that a Chaotic Neutral person won't follow a King's (leader's, captain's, etc) >orders

[Talan Va'lash]

miltonyorkcastle - 11/2/2005  1:26 PM

So let me clarify my comparison of True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral:
 
True Neutral: King says lick the floor. TN person doesn't want to, but will lick the floor, considering the consequences of disobedience to the king worse than the disobedience to their will.  

Chaotic Neutral: King says lick the floor.  CN person doesn't want to, so he doesn't, considering the consequences of disobedience to their will worse than the disobedience to the king.

Is said king standing over them with a sword or soldiers ready to enforce this?  If yes, I bet the majority of everyone would.  If not, I dont think anyone would.


Re: Torture
This is usually one of the fundamental defining factors of the good alignment.  I don't want to get into an RL discussion of what circumstances would be necessary to allow torture while still being a "good person" but in the alignment system whether they would consider torture or not, is something that defines whether a character is good, or neutral/evil and for what reasons they would determine whether they're neutral or evil.

-TV

[miltonyorkcastle]

To me, there is a very high possibility that a CN person would not 'lick the floor,' despite the number of swords and guards.  In other words, they would fight to the death rather than submit their will to the will of another.  Part of this, of course, would depend on the wisdom and intelligence of said CN person.... and how stubborn they are.  In my opinion, CN beings are by far the most dangerous of all the alignments, because they are the least predictable.  It's hard to tell what they'll do until they are in the situation, because they seldom think that far ahead, and then react with their gut.  So, I see, no matter the amount of threats, that there is just as much of a chance that they'd rebel as not.

As for the torture bit, I could probably go with what you say about it Talan.  It simply means I have played fewer 'good' characters than what my character sheets might suggest.  

[Doc-Holiday]

my point is that just because your "CN" doesn't mean your character lacks common sense. I've seen far to many people play "CN" where they go and do the opposite of what everyone else is doing, even when doing that gets everyone killed because they are a "rebel." That's what I'm talking about, personal well being is highest on the priority list of a CN person. And if it's death or life they would take life even if it's licking a floor, lieing, stealing, cheating, helping old ladies cross the street, ect.

[lonnarin]

The kind of torture too also plays a factor in its goodness or evil.  Snapping fingers is certainly the evil and direct approach, but a neutral one would be to continually annoy a person via strange things like tossing pebbles at the back of their necks and 20 questions that never end.  That little boy who lived next door to Macauly Culkin in Home Alone is a prime example of this, also Mudd from Gothic.

There IS goodly torture though, and it is smug and overbearing.  A cleric who takes a mass murderer to prison, for example, and visits him every day to try to save his soul by continually reading verses of his gospel.  That smug, shirt and tie, clean cut holy man fromt he glass temple who blesses you out of the blue, the old granny who points and whispers that her god is watching you... insidious in that they tug your strings to make you torture yourself.

so basically, the ethics of torture...

Evil: snap, crackle, pop.  Strap em down and make em bleed. Can Torture for sadistic pleasure, wealth, practically any reason at all. Examples: Goldfinger, Dr. Doom, Magneto, Lex Luthor

Neutral: Continually pester or annoy the person, but do not cause physical harm unless it's a last resort.  Will only break bones and such if the target has proven himself accordingly vile, or innocent lives are in danger.  Beating somebody up tied to a chair so that they'd tell you where they hide their gold though is pretty evil.  Can torture for mild amusement, so long as such is an annoyance and not lasting harm.
Examples: Wolverine, Batman, Punisher, Those guys from Big Lebowski with the bathtub ferret

Good: cannot bind somebody against their will if they've not commited a crime or not a danger to themselves or others, cannot cause direct harm, must instead focus on making the subject torture himself via introspection and living by example in plain view.  The goal for such torture is for the subject to willingly give up his ways and follow your lead.  "Kill them with Kindness" so to speak.
Examples: Superman, The Tick, Pastor Dave, That old lady who hands out prayer leaflets on Halloween, Mormons

[miltonyorkcastle]

lonnarin, pretty good explanation of "Torture for the alignments: How to torture someone without changing your current alignment."  I buy it.

As far as common sense goes, what defines common sense, Doc?  

And I don't buy that a chaotic neutral person's only regard is for their life.  I say their only regard is for their will, their passions, and that the only thing that keeps them from going evil is that several of their passions coincide with 'good.'  I do agree, however, that a Chaotic Neutral person is not rebellious just to be rebellious.  They will, however, fight any percieved threat to their autonomy.

[Doc-Holiday]

Yeah.. but how autonomous can you be when your dead?

[miltonyorkcastle]

Lots of ways to answer that question, Doc.  Such as, you're the >most< autonomous when you're dead...  but I don't think that's what you're getting at.  I think it's more that you are working off the assumption that all creatures'  primary concern is for their physical well-being.  Part of what makes us Human (sentient) is our ability, and, often, our desire to disregard our physical well-being.  I would suggest then that to a choatic neutral person, it doesn't matter whether or not what they do will kill them.  What matters is whether or not it will make them feel good.  It makes him/her feel good to punch the king that insulted him/her, nevermind that it means certain death.  Still, this is just my take on it, and a hardy thanks to those involved in this discussion.

[Doc-Holiday]

No that's Chaotic Evil.. Punching the King to make youself feel good is NOT neutral... it's evil. You would be deriving your satisfaction by inflicting pain on someone else. CN wouldn't do that.. Chaotic is doing as you please without reguard to established laws or taboos. Neutral wouldn't attack the man cause he doesn't like what he said.. he would however argue with him till he was blue in the face, so long as he didn't die for something unimportant.

The "Guild of the Many Bonked" likes what it hears... Will they accept your membership?

[miltonyorkcastle]

ha!  if that's the case, every single character I have ever played was/is evil (except for maybe that albino half-orc paladin I played once...).

The way I view Chaotic Evil is not that they react according to their whims, as a Chaotic Neutral person does, but rather, they act out of a sheer and unmitigated drive to destroy.  A Chaotic Evil person would not simply try and punch the king in the face for insulting him/her- he/she would try to eat the king; in fact, the CE person wouldn't even care that they were insulted.  They would simply try to destroy the king and everything belonging to the king with little regard for anything the king says or does.