Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!

Charlaquin said:

By a natural language definition, you’d be right. But by D&D’s definitions, where chaotic seems to mean not caring about the rules, rather than being actively opposed to rules, chaos is just more extreme neutrality.

Click to expand...

No, not by natural language. By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral. Below are some of the definitions.

5e: CN: creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

N: is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

Whims are chaotic and impulsive, not neutral in any way. Steering clear of moral questions and not taking any sides, even chaotic and impulsive ones is more neutral.

3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random.

N: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.

The prior editions are the same. At no point has any edition which had both CN and N as alignments, had CN as more neutral than neutral.

I have to agree with Morrus here. There is a lot white room discussion about CN, but from my observations, the players that pick it tend to be the most disruptive. They take it as a license to be douchebags. These are the players that steal from the party, get other party members killed, etc. When called on it they claim they were just playing their alignment. IRL (as opposed to the white room), there is generally no difference between CE and CN when played.

5e should have ditched the alignment system. For the most part in 5e it doesn't make much difference (mechanically) what alignment a player picks because almost no spells or items are tied to alignment -- at least to the extent in previous versions. Alignment might be useful for character creation to help a pick traits, ideals, bonds, flaws and then ignored afterward.

It is either used to justify punishing a player or used by a player to torture their group. It can lead to tedious in game discussion as well. Not a fan of it at all.

IMHO, the best way to deal with alignment is to simply ignore. Substituting the optional Honor/Sanity stats would be much more meaningful. Or the Taint stat from Heroes of Horror.

Back in AD&D days, we had a large group of players -- like 15. Our main fighting character was a LE fighter that had an intelligent, powerful LE aligned flail. We were fighting tons of undead and he was the powerhouse of the group. A character dies and has to roll up a new 1st level character. He chooses a paladin and as his first act detects evil on the fighter. The game then devolved into a 2 hour alignment discussion among the players. Eventually, we booted the paladin player because 1st level vs 7th level fighting hordes of mummies and because he wouldn't let it go. We chose survival as a group.

After playing many different RPGs since then, none of which have anything like alignment in them, it became clear to me that alignment just needs to be thrown in the ash heap of RPG history.

Maxperson said:

No, not by natural language. By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral. Below are some of the definitions.

5e: CN: creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

N: is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

Whims are chaotic and impulsive, not neutral in any way. Steering clear of moral questions and not taking any sides, even chaotic and impulsive ones is more neutral.

Click to expand...

In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.

3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random.

N: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.[/quote]
Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f**^ you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.

Maxperson said:

Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.

Click to expand...

Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.

Maxperson said:

No, not by natural language. By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral. Below are some of the definitions.

5e: CN: creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

N: is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

Whims are chaotic and impulsive, not neutral in any way. Steering clear of moral questions and not taking any sides, even chaotic and impulsive ones is more neutral.

Click to expand...

In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.

Maxperson said:

3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random.

N: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Click to expand...

Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f*** you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.

Maxperson said:

Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.

Click to expand...

Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.

Charlaquin said:

In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.


Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f*** you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.


Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.

Click to expand...

That's not conceptually correct. CN does pick a side more than Neutrality does - it picks the side of individualism rather than the pragmatic approach between social expectations and individual choices a Neutral might take. It is not more neutral between social/order and personal/disorder than Neutral. It definitely favors a side.

*Deleted by user*

But what else are you supposed to put down as the alignment of a petty criminal or gentleman thief who pisses on the law, but neither gives back to the poor or slits the throats of innocents in the night? They ain't good, they ain't evil, but they're definitely chaotic, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

I didnt read every post but the ones I read are discussing neutrality and the consensus seems to be that neutral characters dont care one way or the other. I disagree. The common man or woman might have this attitude, but most likely not an adventurer because depending on their personal goals theyre probably looking to establish or maintain some form of balance. For example, embarking on and completing quest "A" will bring balance to "B". Or faction "X" is growing too large and powerful wouldnt a neutral character or group try and intervene to restore balance in civilization? I think they would. Too many players play True Neutral for two reasons, 1) Im just along for the ride, and 2) My character does whatever he/she wants because they dont perceive their actions as lawful, chaotic, good or evil. Lastly most people fail to realize that a TN character will act in accordance of one of the other alignments until some important situation/decision presents itself and thats when their TN convictions will force them to act according to their alignment.

I'll try one more time.

Charlaquin said:

In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.

Click to expand...

No. Chaotici Neutral is not committed to not taking a side. In fact, it emphatically DOES take a side. It's committed to the side of the desires of the individual who is Chaotic Neutral. It is committed to whim and flights of fancy. And in 3e, it's also committed to resisting authority, tradition and restrictions. Those are all things that the more neutral True Neutral does not commit to.

It is interesting how alignment comes up in games. I was playing a LG paladin in a game and another was a CG bard. We came across a town where most of the population had fled or were captured by another force. The bard decided to help himself to to some chainmail we found in someone's home which had only been abandoned for a day or two at most. My character argued that he was stealing, his character argued that the place was abandoned and the owner forfeited any right to it, and we went round and round like this for a few minutes.

I let it go for the sake of maintaining a pleasant atmosphere in the game but for me it does illustrate how differently people interpret alignment. I wouldn't have a CG character of mine take the chainmail unless there was an immediate need for it. i.e. An emergency situation of some kind. But "I'm just playing my character" wasn't a good enough reason for me to be disruptive.

I know people often complain about paladins being Lawful Stupid and that's certainly true at times. On the other hand I've seen many groups treat the paladin as if he's an utter moron and try to engage in thievery, torture, or murder right under his nose.