Pathfinder 1E Is Chaotic Neutral the Good Man's Evil?

[Crucius]

In my recent campaign, Carrion Crown, I'm beginning to see a pattern with Chaotic Neutral.

Let me back up a bit.

As I said, I've been playing the [PF][/PF] AP Carrion Crown with 6 other guys. I'm a NG Inquisitor, and we have the following:

Human LG Paladin of Iomedae (Knight of Ozem Initiate)
Human NG Inquisitor of Iomedae (Me)
Human NG Monk of Iomedae
Human CG Cleric of Iomedae
Half-elf N Druid of Foresty Stuff
Previously Human, now Lizardfolk CN Sorcerer of Pharasma

As you can probably tell, we tried to rock the whole Iomedean party. Unfortunately, The Sorcerer saw fit to not get on board. Which is fine, I understand not wanting to go along completely with the group. Inter-party conflict is often loads of fun.

Side-note: The Druid was originally another Paladin of Iomedae, but was killed in Harrowstone (The first book's final dungeon). The Sorcerer was human but died, and was reincarnated as a lizardfolk.

Now, my question is: Is the Chaotic Neutral alignment a free pass to do as one pleases (Within the boundaries of sanity)?

This Sorcerer and my Inquisitor do not get along. The Sorcerer is really shady, and likes to do the whole 'I'm a creepy sorcerer, my magicks are not for those of weak heart' which is cool in it's own right. But he desired a book from my character, and to get it, used an illusion spell to create a dead version of my character on the floor, and whilst my character was having a panic attack he stole the book with an invisible servant.
After this escapade, there was a time where we were running like hell from a very angry ghost whilst we had low health. He was ahead of us, and knew that the doors ahead of us had a haunt that caused damage on them. He closed the doors behind him, justifying that he did not want the ghost following the other members of our party.

Are these acts evil? Because his character, although not of evil alignment, has screwed each party member over at some point for his own personal gain. Is this not the definition of evil alignments?

Any input is appreciated.

 

[Wolf72]

I'm thinking more Neutral Evil, you have friends and work in an adventuring party, ... but dang, it's hard not to think about your self at these times.

I try to put a spin on CN: Bat-crazy on decisions; Reckless, Can't stand being told what to do, Total Free spirit/won't be tied down, No inside voice.

I've never been to much of a hard-liner on Alignment as long as the PC's work together and not spend to much time to trying put each other over a barrel.

 

[Ramaster]

In my games I ban all Evil alignments AND CN. I rather have PCs be LE or even NE before CN.

 

[billd91]

The player may just be a dick. A lot of players who are of the dickish variety take CN as an alignment so they can basically be jerks and say "I'm just playing my character."

On the other hand, I have a hard time really saying either of the two examples you've described are evil. Plus, why is an inquisitor having a panic attack for seeing an illusion of themselves dead? Inquisitors should be pretty tough-minded about deceptions. You know you aren't dead, so it's clearly a deception of some sort, so why freak out?

 

[delericho]

Now, my question is: Is the Chaotic Neutral alignment a free pass to do as one pleases (Within the boundaries of sanity)?

Depends how important it is to you to not change alignment. If you don't really care (as, frankly, most characters probably shouldn't) then any alignment is purely a matter of description. Do what you think your character should, and let the DM assign an alignment change, or not, as appropriate.

IMO, the only characters who should worry about alignment are those who have some sort of mechanical reason to care: those with classes tied to a particular alignment, those with aligned magic items, and the like.

And, incidentally, "within the boundaries of sanity" isn't necessarily a limit either - it's not entirely unreasonable to think that the character might be insane.

But if, for whatever reason, you do care about maintaining that CN alignment, then the character has to be both Chaotic and Neutral to do so. That generally means working against established orders, and structures, and the like... but also being neither overly Good nor overly Evil.

This Sorcerer and my Inquisitor do not get along. The Sorcerer is really shady, and likes to do the whole 'I'm a creepy sorcerer, my magicks are not for those of weak heart' which is cool in it's own right. But he desired a book from my character, and to get it, used an illusion spell to create a dead version of my character on the floor, and whilst my character was having a panic attack he stole the book with an invisible servant.
After this escapade, there was a time where we were running like hell from a very angry ghost whilst we had low health. He was ahead of us, and knew that the doors ahead of us had a haunt that caused damage on them. He closed the doors behind him, justifying that he did not want the ghost following the other members of our party.

Are these acts evil?

They don't seem to be, no. That said...

Because his character, although not of evil alignment, has screwed each party member over at some point for his own personal gain.

If another PC at the group pulled something like that, and especially if the player justified it by saying "I'm only playing my character" (or similar), I would promptly have my PC eject that other character from the group. Because adventuring is a hugely dangerous occupation and nobody in their right mind would do it in the company of someone they didn't trust implicitly.

And if that other complained, well... "I'm only playing my character."

 

[Crucius]

The player may just be a dick. A lot of players who are of the dickish variety take CN as an alignment so they can basically be jerks and say "I'm just playing my character."

While most of the time this would hold some merit, the people in this group are long time players I trust and enjoy playing with. He's not acting that way purely for his personal gain, but because he actually is playing his character.

You know you aren't dead, so it's clearly a deception of some sort, so why freak out?

My character is mentally unstable. It adds a ton of role playing fun. That said, it makes it easy for other players to mess with him.

 

[Celebrim]

Is the Chaotic Neutral alignment a free pass to do as one pleases?

No. A CN person must avoid as much as possible actively doing evil (or good for that matter). If the CN person consistently actively advocates for evil or good, they should adjust their alignment accordingly.

For example, it is CN to live according to the maxim: "Harm no one; do as you will." A CN person tries to avoid putting himself in anyone's debt, or putting anyone in debt to him. He sees life as best lived as a series of freely entered personal agreements that are ideally mutually beneficial to all involved. On the other hand, he believes he has unlimited right to redress any invasion of his personal freedoms.

But he desired a book from my character, and to get it, used an illusion spell to create a dead version of my character on the floor, and whilst my character was having a panic attack he stole the book with an invisible servant.

So, this is an evil act, but might be in character for a CN person if he believed that you were wrong to withhold the book and that he was doing you know real harm in taking it. However, that sort of self-justification of committing harm (theft, terrorizing others) quickly will veer into CE if it becomes habitual.

After this escapade, there was a time where we were running like hell from a very angry ghost whilst we had low health. He was ahead of us, and knew that the doors ahead of us had a haunt that caused damage on them. He closed the doors behind him, justifying that he did not want the ghost following the other members of our party.

Leaving aside the question of morality, this is just a jerk move. But again, note that he's actively engaged in committing harm here. As a CN, he was under no obligation to sacrifice himself to protect or save other party members, but to actively take an action that harmed them (closing the doors) in order to save himself veers into CE territory.

If the player in question wishes to continue in CN, he should recognize that these actions were a departure from his character and show contrition (in character) about them. Specifically, he's incurred debt toward other party members that he needs to repay to balance the accounts. (Conversely, a good person does good to others with no expectation of repayment, and an evil person does evil to others with no expectation of repayment.) Each of these evil acts now demands a corresponding act of generosity towards his victims for the harm he's down to their personal freedom. Note this contrition and feeling of guilt is somewhat different than what a good person would experience in the same situation.

Is this not the definition of evil alignments?

Sorta. It's the definition of Chaotic Evil alignment. A Lawful Evil person isn't screwing people over for personal gain, but instead screwing people over for the gain of others (specifically the community he believes he belongs too). A Neutral Evil person doesn't need a reason to screw people over - creating misery and destruction is reason enough unto itself.

A basic rule of thumb:

Good: constructive, joy
Evil: destructive, power
Law: community, external
Chaos: individual, internal

Each of those stances is an active stance that requires the character to engage in actively promoting and advocating for the thing he believes in. By contrast, the neutral component of either axis is the passive component which avoids actively engaging in either behavior. For example, observing an injustice being performed or suffering occuring, the good/evil axis responds:

Good: This is wrong; I must put a stop to this.
Evil: This is an opportunity for advancement; I must participate in this.
Neutral: This isn't my concern; I must not get involved.

 

[Celebrim]

If another PC at the group pulled something like that, and especially if the player justified it by saying "I'm only playing my character" (or similar), I would promptly have my PC eject that other character from the group. Because adventuring is a hugely dangerous occupation and nobody in their right mind would do it in the company of someone they didn't trust implicitly.

And if that other complained, well... "I'm only playing my character."

Indeed.

The proper response to IC jerk moves is to respond IC to them. The sorcerer is an outlier in the group. His relationship to the rest of the group is basically that of a mercenary. He doesn't agree with their methods or their goals, and his own beliefs are distasteful to them. He's in this for his own benefit. He's made it abundantly clear just how limited his sense of loyalty, attachment, and concern for the other PC's is. It would be incredibly surprising if the party didn't reevaluate whether to boot the sorcerer off the island.

I personally would consider that a good scene, with the CN sorcerer being forced to evaluate what value he has in continuing with the group (presumably larger than he's been willing to admit). The thing is, even from a CN perspective, the party has a valid complaint. If the relationship isn't mutually beneficial, why should it continue? Aren't they free to go their own way? It's not like the party is angry at him for not throwing himself in front of the charging dire rhino. The party might not have a right to ask him to sacrifice himself for their interests, but they have a reasonable expectation that he won't be actively working against their interests.

And if the player really feels the character is like, "Screw you. My interests and needs are more important yours.", then maybe it's time to mark down CE... and possibly retire the character and start a new one that fits in more.

 

[billd91]

While most of the time this would hold some merit, the people in this group are long time players I trust and enjoy playing with. He's not acting that way purely for his personal gain, but because he actually is playing his character.

I think that's really a poor excuse. He may be playing the character he made... but he made a character who's a dick. Is there a reason he did that? Clearly you're not entirely cool with what he's doing or you wouldn't be questioning it in your post.

And, as others have pointed out, why would your characters be adventuring with an unreliable dick? Shouldn't they be looking for someone who is a better fit or they trust?

 

[Crucius]

Thanks for your help, guys. I'm pretty new to this forum, and it's cool to see people take such an interest.

And, as others have pointed out, why would your characters be adventuring with an unreliable dick? Shouldn't they be looking for someone who is a better fit or they trust?

That part is true. We all know that it's going to come to a head at some point, and he's going to get killed or booted out.

The proper response to IC jerk moves is to respond IC to them. The sorcerer is an outlier in the group. His relationship to the rest of the group is basically that of a mercenary. He doesn't agree with their methods or their goals, and his own beliefs are distasteful to them. He's in this for his own benefit. He's made it abundantly clear just how limited his sense of loyalty, attachment, and concern for the other PC's is. It would be incredibly surprising if the party didn't reevaluate whether to boot the sorcerer off the island.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'll have my character bring it up at the next IC roundtable discussion.

And if the player really feels the character is like, "Screw you. My interests and needs are more important yours.", then maybe it's time to mark down CE... and possibly retire the character and start a new one that fits in more.

I don't think anything that drastic is needed. Perhaps there will be an alignment change in the near future, but characters not getting along is the basis for some of the best RP I've ever had. I'm okay with my characters getting screwed over as long as it's completely in character.

Sorta. It's the definition of Chaotic Evil alignment. A Lawful Evil person isn't screwing people over for personal gain, but instead screwing people over for the gain of others (specifically the community he believes he belongs too). A Neutral Evil person doesn't need a reason to screw people over - creating misery and destruction is reason enough unto itself.

That's...actually a pretty awesome quote.