CN: the enabler

[gyor]

I was trying to think of ways to have a CN character in a game that wasn't chaotic stupid and disruptive, and I came up with the Enabler.

This character has many traits that can be very good, like loyalty to friends, courageous, generous, but its balanced out by the fact that they enable the vices of those around them, often to destructive consquences.

So they might buy a homeless person a meal, but also booze feed their alocholism and a night at a brothel that is rumoured to be a cover for a cult of Fierna, Bael, or Glaysa, with out worry about the consquences, as long as the person has fun it worth it.

Or help summon a Succubus or Incubus at someone's request, because what are friends for.

No trying to betray or murder your own allies, but encouraging them to endurance their dangerous, yet fun ideas, or commit evil for pleasure, sure why not, you can atone for it later.

What do you think, does this seem a practical way to do CN.

 

[Grognerd]

It looks viable to me. CN is really, ultimately, a Libertine. So I could see a fair number of CNs as being enablers. "Do what thou wilt."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There's nothing wrong with it, but it seems to me like you might be trying a little too hard. I mostly just let 3e explain it (because it does it best):

Description:
"Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A 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. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal."

Component Further Description:
"“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

 

[gyor]

There's nothing wrong with it, but it seems to me like you might be trying a little too hard. I mostly just let 3e explain it (because it does it best):

Description:
"Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A 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. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal."

Component Further Description:
"“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."

I actually don't like that definition, it's too inflexible, in fact I like the idea that alignments can manifest in very different ways, especially when that alignment is shaped by a Gods alignment.

Like one CN character could be a Dexter type figure. Another an Enabler. Another is merely delusional and incapable of telling the difference between good and evil. Another believes themselves to be CG, but they keep rationalizing their own selfishness and so in truth are CN. Another gets off on dangerous risks, but doesn't worry about putting others in danger in the process. Another is a drug addict and wants to be LG, but keeps failing and behaving CN, or even CE st times. Another worships CN gods and tries to emulate their Gods behavior and ethos, with different Gods having a different relationship to chaos and neutrality. So many choices and I barely touched the possibilities.

This is true of Lawful Good and every other alignment. One character who is LG decides that the moral law is higher then the law of an illegitimate tyrant and ironically become a well organized revolutionary. A different LG character decides that the path of good resides in respecting and laws of the state, but that endepth understanding of said laws is required, so they work for the tyrant, but uses the tyrants own laws via a keen wit to have people being abused by said laws. Both end up viewing each other as CN or even CE, especially when rumours misrepresent their deeds to the other. One believes the other endangers the law by ignoring divine laws against tyrants, and other believes the first is an anarchist who will get innocent people killed when the right legal arguement can use even badly designed laws to help those in need.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I actually don't like that definition, it's too inflexible, in fact I like the idea that alignments can manifest in very different ways, especially when that alignment is shaped by a Gods alignment.

I think alignments should manifest differently, but the main point I think that becomes problematic with CN, is that it just needs to be acknowledged that you can't be "part-time evil". A character who is sometimes good and sometimes evil, is really just evil--perhaps with some sort of psychosis. Rational people don't commit cold-blooded self-serving torture and murder on Tuesday, and give to the widows and orphans fund out of the kindness of their heart on Wednesday.

 

[gyor]

I think alignments should manifest differently, but the main point I think that becomes problematic with CN, is that it just needs to be acknowledged that you can't be "part-time evil". A character who is sometimes good and sometimes evil, is really just evil--perhaps with some sort of psychosis. Rational people don't commit cold-blooded self-serving torture and murder on Tuesday, and give to the widows and orphans fund out of the kindness of their heart on Wednesday.

In the right kind of situation actual yes they do, it's usually cause by various factors like ideologies, they can commit murder and torture and other horrors because they believe that the enemy is evil or not human or less then them, but they then help say orphans or the poor, because they believe their evil act wasn't evil, they have rationalized it and the rationslization is reinforced by their society, or their religion, or others with an influence on them, and so feeling like they've done a heroic good deed (they've instead committed act of evil), perhaps telling themselves they were protecting something of value and to reinforce the idea that they are a good person and doing needed good deeds they go and do genuinely good things like helping the poor and so on. There have been research into why rational, otherwise good people end up participating in great evils like genocides.

 

[gyor]

Another possible CN character Jeckyle and Hyde, one is good the other evil, and the tension between the two makes them chaotic because it's impossible to maintain a sense of order in the struggle between them and its led them to become outlaws.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm playing a CN character right now. His background is a mercenary that's moved companies many times just before the leadership/local authorities took action against him. His philosophy is that you need to be well equipped to be effective, and that the others guys aren't his problem (he looks after his own, even if it means stealing from his own organization to get the best for his squad). His experience with "officer types" is such that he believes them to be merciless, conniving bastards willing to use you as a pawn to further their own ends -- glory or righteousness it's all the same -- your dead and they're not. This extends to anyone with more authority than a sergeant. He's helped enough lads that his solider background trait works out well as he's been a noncom in 10 different mercenary companies, city guards, and noble's armsmen that someone knows him or has heard of him, and, hey, none of the charges ever stuck, right?

Point is, I'm highly motivated to aid the party not screw them over, but I argue strongly against helping the authorities (for whatever reason - good or bad). If the party decides to anyway, I grumble about it a lot and get to gleefully crow "I told you so!" when/if the betrayal comes.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In the right kind of situation actual yes they do, it's usually cause by various factors like ideologies, they can commit murder and torture and other horrors because they believe that the enemy is evil or not human or less then them, but they then help say orphans or the poor, because they believe their evil act wasn't evil, they have rationalized it and the rationslization is reinforced by their society, or their religion, or others with an influence on them, and so feeling like they've done a heroic good deed (they've instead committed act of evil), perhaps telling themselves they were protecting something of value and to reinforce the idea that they are a good person and doing needed good deeds they go and do genuinely good things like helping the poor and so on. There have been research into why rational, otherwise good people end up participating in great evils like genocides.

Yes, that would be representing psychological complexity. However, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm intentionally being precise in my language: "cold-blooded self-serving torture and murder". I'm not aiming for ambiguity. I'm talking about doing evil, knowing you're doing evil, knowing you can't even justify it, and then switching into good mode every other day. That's what some people think CN is, and it's completely absurd, unless they intent is actually to label CN as "insane", which itself is absurd.