Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!

5ekyu · Jun 18, 2019

Hussar said:
The problem is, we're not mind readers. We don't know why this character did X. All we know is that he did X. And, really, while there might be all sorts of reasons, reliability isn't one of them.

Ok, now, let's use Jayne. Would you consider Jayne to be reliable? Is loyal, reliable, or anything similar be a proper descriptor of that character?

I'd probably put Han Solo as just neutral. He's not actively opposing the empire, after all. He might not like it, but, he's also not going to do anything about it. That's about as neutral as it gets.

Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time.

"He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most.

Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.

Oofta · Jun 18, 2019

Hussar said:
So, to amend my question slightly:

Can you come up with an example of a chaotic neutral character that is trustworthy and responsible?

So far, the examples have been Q from Star Trek and Jayne from Firefly. Neither would be described as trustworthy or responsible I think. If CN is entirely plausible to be trustworthy and responsible, then there should be many examples we can point to where obviously CN characters are trustworthy and responsible. Seems a fairly easy task given how everyone keeps telling me how it's perfectly normal for CN characters to be trustworthy and responsible.

I'll be over here at the bar waiting if you need me.

I take it my PC, Ulkar the Barbarian doesn't count? I'm also assuming you'll just say "Han Solo wasn't really CN". Which is the problem. We don't always know what motivates fictional characters, and you've decided that CN means someone who is irresponsible, unreliable, lazy, has no friends or loved ones they'd sacrifice for, etc.

So there's no point.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 18, 2019

Hussar said:
Who said anything about "intentionally"? The character is unreliable. Falling asleep on watch is pretty much textbook unreliable.

You literally repeatedly described a character deciding to sleep instead of keeping watch. Not trying but failing to stay awake, you explicitly described a decision.

Celebrim · Jun 18, 2019

Current American culture is heavily skewed to individualism. Since ~80% of players can only play themselves, this means most players will only play a character that is highly individualistic, which means in practice not only do they tend to pick CG/CN but as a DM I prefer that they do so, since most will find the precepts of being lawful baffling and won't be able to play the character.

In my experience, most CG characters tend to be in practice CN, while most CN characters tend to be in practice CE. CE is rarely played, but when it is played it is played as a gross caricature of the ideology, and for that matter LG tends to be played that way as well. In 30 years of gaming, I can't recall one PC choosing to play LE or NE except in a 'evil campaign'. However, while the vast majority of players choose "Good" of some sort, only a fraction of players actually play that way. The majority are good only in so far as it gives them some advantage, and will justify acting in an evil and ruthless manner whenever that gives them some perceived advantage. I've found that majority which play this way can be easily tempted to change alignment to evil if you suggest some minor reward for doing so instead of a penalty.

I've never really decided if this accurately reflects peoples morality, or whether it is the nature of it being a game that encourages a ruthlessness dog-eat-dog mentality in most people.

I really curious to see how this would vary by culture. When I was working as a research assistant, there was a grad student from Korea in the lab. One day at lunch I was talking with her, and she confessed to me that she was lonely and wanted to go back to Korea. She wanted her parents to pick out a good Korean boy for her to marry, and then return to the states. This struck me at the time as both incomprehensible to the average American, and the very essence of being "Lawful" in the D&D sense - you trust someone else's judgment concerning your own life more than you trust your own. To her this was a quite natural and logical arrangement, but almost every American I've described this to finds it unfathomable.

Staffan · Jun 18, 2019

I thought of another representative of Chaotic Good: the Philantropist.

This is a person that has a lot of power. In the real world, this is usually financial power, but in an RPG it could refer to some form of personal power instead (mighty warrior, great wizard, etc.). They use this power to help people. But they strongly resist any attempt at having others control their power - they believe that they themself knows best how to use that power. They might even be right in their own case, though those restrictions on their own power would also bind others that are similarly powerful and less beneficient.

In the real world, this would mean things like taxing that wealth and putting it to use for the public good. In a more fantastic context, it could refer to the Super-Hero Registration Act in Marvel Comics, or the Chantry overseeing the Circle of Magi in Dragon Age.

coolAlias · Jun 19, 2019

5ekyu said:
Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time.

"He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most.

Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.

I think Jayne is probably the best example of how I would play a CN character in D&D.

However, while I firmly believe CN is maligned, it seems to always be the go-to alignment for people that tend to be more disruptive than the average player.

On another note, someone mentioned demons earlier - I think they actually provide a great example of how Chaotic is NOT random, but instead describes the dichotomy between collectivism and individualism.

The Abyss is ruled by demon lords with literally armies of demonic followers. Each individual demon is a scheming, back-stabbing embodiment of CE, and yet they still are able to form armies, follow orders, etc. - when it suits them. If they think a different course of action is more likely to provide a bigger benefit (or lesser consequence) to themselves, they have no problem disobeying whatever orders they may have had.

The key here is that they are not acting randomly - if one had access to all the same information and insight into their situation that the demon did, one might be able to imagine a scenario from their point of view, weigh the options and figure out what that demon might decide to do, assuming one also understood the demon-in-question's individual motivations.

Maxperson · Jun 19, 2019

5ekyu said:
Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time.

"He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most.

Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.

Um. Sometimes giving in to your own desires to the detriment of your comrades and selling them out is the definition of unreliable. Even if he did one single time, they could never trust him again.

Maxperson · Jun 19, 2019

coolAlias said:
The Abyss is ruled by demon lords with literally armies of demonic followers. Each individual demon is a scheming, back-stabbing embodiment of CE, and yet they still are able to form armies, follow orders, etc. - when it suits them.

This is a very bad example. It only suits demons to do so because they'll be destroyed if they don't. They aren't choosing to be in an army. They are forced to by fear of death. CE, "Might makes right."

billd91 · Jun 19, 2019

coolAlias said:
I think Jayne is probably the best example of how I would play a CN character in D&D.

I would rather favor Conan as a model, myself.

coolAlias · Jun 19, 2019

Maxperson said:
This is a very bad example. It only suits demons to do so because they'll be destroyed if they don't. They aren't choosing to be in an army. They are forced to by fear of death. CE, "Might makes right."

Just like it only suits a Chaotic character to not break laws or betray their friends, either of which might very well result in a death sentence?