Alignment Question - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?
Mad Hamish
First Post
I believe the forum approved approach is to charm him and make him give it to you
KiloGex
First Post
I think this is the biggest misinterpretation with "neutral": Players believe that they can commit any evil/chaotic act so long as they balance it out with something good/lawful. Not true. Neutral simply means that you don't perform overtly good/lawful acts (such as stopping a crime or saving a kitten in a tree) as well as performing evil/unlawful acts (such as dumping your radioactive waste into the local pool or stealing from an old lady). IMHO your barbarian performed an unlawful act by purposefully stealing from you, breaking his "neutral" status.
You're equating Good with Lawful there. This may be fine for your games, and your personal out-of-game convictions, but it's not what the rules say.
By the rules, what the Barbarian did was neither Good nor Evil, but it certainly did break the expected rules of social conduct and therefore was Chaotic beyond any doubt.
So yeah, Chaotic Neutral. And yeah, I would also do something about the player in question on the side, probably. Though I must admit, I usually play Chaotic Good myself, and if this happened to one of my characters in a game I'd therefore have no problem with beeyotch-slapping the Barbarian into next week (or otherwise doing unpleasant things to get revenge). Good does not mean you never do things other people don't like, and it especially doesn't mean you never harm them; it just means you don't harm them unless and until they harm you first.
Playing Lawful Neutral, the OP's character very likely would have gone to some sort of authority to make trouble for the Barbarian later. That would be perfectly within character, provided there is some sort of authority or contract or laws for you to appeal to. Also, being Neutral on the Good/Evil axis means that said character would have no qualms whatsoever about harming the Barbarian for revenge, if it could be done legally. Lawful Neutral is all about Law and Order; they don't care one bit about who exactly is helped or hurt by the laws in question. The Law Is The Law.
RedTonic
First Post
Theft is (generally) an evil act, IMO, and certainly evil when you're stealing (out of selfishness) something from a teammate or good-aligned individual.
That's not to say that a rogue picking locks for the party is evil, nor is he evil for lifting the key (and purse) of the dreadful prison warden in the adventure, nor is he really evil for stealing from evil NPCs, nor is he evil for stealing a dangerous artifact or item from a good NPC, etc. But stealing from a teammate to satiate one's own avariciousness and ego is an expletive Eric's grandma wouldn't like, and it's evil.
That's not to say that a rogue picking locks for the party is evil, nor is he evil for lifting the key (and purse) of the dreadful prison warden in the adventure, nor is he really evil for stealing from evil NPCs, nor is he evil for stealing a dangerous artifact or item from a good NPC, etc. But stealing from a teammate to satiate one's own avariciousness and ego is an expletive Eric's grandma wouldn't like, and it's evil.
I would disagree here. Theft is a certainly not a Lawful act, but it is not necessarily an Evil act. Even in a society of evil creatures stealing is against the "law", against the "order", however tenuous, of the society.
Making Theft, in 9-point Alignment terms, a non-Lawful act. Now, how non-Lawful must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Stealing from a party-member, I would say, could go either way.
Was the barbarian just being selfish, he just wanted that item for himself? That is completely within the realm of CN (or NE and possibly, in some specific situations, even get away with it as a True N or NG). Making the theft a Chaotic (against the "order" or "rules" of fair/even distribution) act with Neutral intentions (just selfish, not looking to benefit-"good" or malign-"evil" anyone else. Just out for himself) .
OR was he being purposely malicious in his selfishness, purposely desiring to created dissent and inflict misery on his fellow teammates, which I would attribute to more in line with an "Evil" (the unconcerned harming of others) bent. In this case, the theft isn't really the point, it isn't Lawful, but it really isn't Chaotic either. It is simply the mode for "getting at" one or more of the party members. So a Neutral act but with decidedly Evil intentions.
A CN character who is overtly "evil" in their actions, runs the risk of alignment shift/change, as are characters of any alignment, Not necessarily/automatically to Chaotic Evil, but to Neutral Evil first...then if the acts continue to be chaotic and evil, then the next Alignment slide is from NE to CE.
At least they would in my game. Unless, of course, the action was so heinous and disturbing (strutting into the Jedi temple and slaying all of the student children in cold blood, for example) that they would just vault over/beyond the pale of NE and straight into CE.
This case with the Barbarian does not seem to be such a case and does sound more like the player wanting to screw with your head than any serious-play alignment-based actions.
IN CLOSING (I know, this was long), I would submit to you that you submit to your DM a written out set of guidelines, not hard and strict "rules" mind you, but a well thought out set of Alignment definitions. All of the players get them. Everyone's on the same page and can't pull the "but I was acting in alignment" card out to justify whatever they want...at least in many cases. I highly recommend the definitions set forthe by cperkins in the pdf link in my previous post. Short, sweet, and covers all of the main "points" of each alignment. They'd be a great starting point for you, I think, and saves the DM having to examine and philosophize and come up with everything on his own.
Good luck with the new group. I think you'll have much more enjoyable experiences without the jerk. But do understand, getting along with (or at least tolerating) different game styles, personalities and personalized definitions/rationale for actions and alignments is one of the...let's say "joys" of table top (or really any) RPGing.
--SD
Steel_Wind
Legend
The OP is confused and so are many (though not all) of the posters here who have followed into this discussion of rules and alignment. The OP's question is misguided and a trap because his question is irrelevant and has no application to the underlying facts which gave rise to the controversy.
This is not an alignment question or a rules question. This is a gaming etiquette question and the rules for determining what is allowble or not are not to be found within a book.
If you were to ninja an item from a boss after, say a WoW raid or quest and purported to rely upon your "alignment" as justification of why you did something which was in every respect a breach of the social contract that governs gamers who play that game, there is no doubt at all what would happen in every WoW guild in the game: you would be summarily kicked out of the guild and you would never be permitted to raid/quest with that guild again.
That's because the rules which operate in these circumstances and govern players acts are so important that they have migrated from tabletop to video games and trump all other rules of any game system, no matter how or where the game is played.
So you see, this isn't about the character involved or his actions, this is about the players involved and their actions. THIS IS PERSONAL.
If the GM won't fix this and prevent another player from being an ass at the table and breaching the social contract among gamers, get up, NOISILY and walk away and never come back to their game again. It is not a negotiable matter and there is no rule which will support, sustain or condone the acts of those involved. At all. Ever.
These guys are asses and you should not play D&D with them. That's it; we're done.
There is no right of appeal, no gloss to be placed upon the above comments or anything else within the game rules whatsoever which is germane to this discussion other than the social contract between gamers.
My guess is that the people involved here are relatively younger players who are inexperienced in the social nuances and rules which actually govern these circumstnaces. Adult men and women don't act like this at the table.
People play like that or allow others at their table to play like that? You walk away and you don't EVER return. That's the rule which governs:
Thou Shalt not be an Ass to your Fellow Players at the Table.
You won't find that rule in Original D&D, Basic D&D, 1st Ed, 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG. But I assure you that in every instance of every version of the game that has ever existed, that rule was present at the table during gameplay at every session since 1974 and will continue to trump every other rule or other consideration from now to the year that RPGs stop being played.
That's it: walk away and don't come back.
This is not an alignment question or a rules question. This is a gaming etiquette question and the rules for determining what is allowble or not are not to be found within a book.
If you were to ninja an item from a boss after, say a WoW raid or quest and purported to rely upon your "alignment" as justification of why you did something which was in every respect a breach of the social contract that governs gamers who play that game, there is no doubt at all what would happen in every WoW guild in the game: you would be summarily kicked out of the guild and you would never be permitted to raid/quest with that guild again.
That's because the rules which operate in these circumstances and govern players acts are so important that they have migrated from tabletop to video games and trump all other rules of any game system, no matter how or where the game is played.
So you see, this isn't about the character involved or his actions, this is about the players involved and their actions. THIS IS PERSONAL.
If the GM won't fix this and prevent another player from being an ass at the table and breaching the social contract among gamers, get up, NOISILY and walk away and never come back to their game again. It is not a negotiable matter and there is no rule which will support, sustain or condone the acts of those involved. At all. Ever.
These guys are asses and you should not play D&D with them. That's it; we're done.
There is no right of appeal, no gloss to be placed upon the above comments or anything else within the game rules whatsoever which is germane to this discussion other than the social contract between gamers.
My guess is that the people involved here are relatively younger players who are inexperienced in the social nuances and rules which actually govern these circumstnaces. Adult men and women don't act like this at the table.
People play like that or allow others at their table to play like that? You walk away and you don't EVER return. That's the rule which governs:
Thou Shalt not be an Ass to your Fellow Players at the Table.
You won't find that rule in Original D&D, Basic D&D, 1st Ed, 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG. But I assure you that in every instance of every version of the game that has ever existed, that rule was present at the table during gameplay at every session since 1974 and will continue to trump every other rule or other consideration from now to the year that RPGs stop being played.
That's it: walk away and don't come back.
Last edited:
Starbuck_II
First Post
Sorry, even good aligned can do that stuff. Good does not mean = not a jerk.
So he is not CE. He is just a jerk.
Similar Threads
