D&D General Worlds of Design: Chaotic Neutral is the Worst

In my articles from the early 1980s I often characterized the typical D&Der as a hoodlum (hood). You may know them by many other names: ruffian, bully boy, bully, bandit, mugger, gangster, terrorist, gunman, murderer, killer, hitman, assassin, hooligan, vandal, and more. Has anything changed?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

According to D&D Beyond, as reported by Morrus, the most popular alignment after Chaotic Good is Chaotic Neutral. I doubt the preponderance has changed much since the 80s; it might even be more common today in an Age of Instant Gratification thanks to the Internet. Even 40 years ago, most players wanted their characters to act like more or less Chaotic Neutral hoods, doing whatever they wanted but not responsible for what they did, able to act like hoodlums but not suffer the consequences of being of actual evil alignment. And they wanted to be called “Good” at the same time.

Fundamentally, this is a desire to avoid all constraints. Which is fairly natural for people, in general, though rarely attainable. But a game is an agreed set of constraints on behavior within the “magic circle” of the game. And some games have constraints that ought to affect the chaotic neutral character's behavior.

The typical hood wants to be able to do whatever he wants to, to other people. Occasionally killing one, or something just as evil, that’s OK as long as it isn’t excessive. In another context, I saw someone ask why so many people disliked a certain person as a liar, because after all he told the truth more often than he lied! That would be ideal standard for a hoodlum, but most people don’t see it that way. Key to this behavior is a desire to avoid responsibility, very common in the real world too - people wanting to do things without facing the consequences (taking responsibility).

The question is, how does “the game” see it? Taking D&D as the obvious example, we have alignment as a guide to behavior. The alignment system in D&D was designed (I think) to provide constraints on character behavior, so that games wouldn’t devolve into a bunch of murderers having their way with the game-world. Certain alignments have advantages in civilized society, some don’t. In uncivilized society, other alignments might be preferred. Chaotic Neutral (the alignment hoodlums gravitate to) should be a disadvantage in civilized contexts because it doesn’t include/condone permission to kill people whenever you feel like it (as long as you don’t do it often!). Yet that’s how players want to treat it. That’s Evil, and if you behave “evilly” you’re going to be in an Evil category, which makes you fair game for a lot of adventurers.

I’m not saying killing is necessarily evil, e.g. in wartime it’s expected that you kill the enemy if they won’t surrender. It’s the “senseless killing,” killing for sheer personal gain or enjoyment, that sets apart the hood (who wants to be called Chaotic Neutral, or better, Chaotic Good), and of course the “officially” Evil characters as well.

D&D GMs who feel that constraints make the game better, will enforce alignment and make clear to Chaotic Neutral types that they can easily slide into Evil alignment. Those who aren’t interested in constraints, will let the C/N types do just about everything they want to do without consequences. In other rule sets, who knows . . .

Of course, Your Mileage May Vary. If everyone wants to be a hood rather than a hero, and the GM is OK with that, so be it. It’s when you run into players who think (as I do) that these characters are the worst -- certainly, not someone you would want in your party! -- that we encounter problems.

 

[Derren]

As we are talking movies now, my favourite CN character is V (V for Vendetta). Sadly I don't see this interpretation for CN very often.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The opinion by somebody is chaotic means anarchism, other think chaotic may be closer to minarchism, the idea about the state should have got a low level to controll.

If chaotic means individualism then chaotic groups can't survive serious challenges. Two examples from History is the fitna of Al-Andalus, a civil war among Spanish Muslims who end with the Omeya Caliphal dynasty and the division into taifas (little kingdoms) or the Cagayan battles, Philippines in the year 1582, Spanish forces against Japanese and Chinese pirates. Theses only wanted a easy loot and Spanish defenders had got really more will to sacrifice for honor.

In the serious crisis the individualism has to be forgotten to work as a team.

My opinion is chaotic characters can obey some rules and an authority, but only if this is their allegiance.

The Garou tribe of the Silver Fangs from "Werewolf: the apocalypse", they have got a strong sense of honor, as a paladin. Are they chaotic (they fight against the Weaver and its frozen order) or lawful?

 

[Oofta]

From dictionary.com definition of anarchist: "a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

While I see that an anarchist would probably be chaotic, I see no reason that someone who is chaotic must be an anarchist. They may just be happy going on their own merry way not worrying too much about anyone else.

Along the same lines, someone that is chaotic can form deep bonds with others and work as part of a cohesive team. They probably won't automatically follow orders simply because someone else has higher rank. Respect and trust must be earned, it doesn't come because of someone's title or position. But it can be earned.

I don't play CN PCs all that often but when I have they've had a philosophy of letting everyone decide for themselves, not tear everything down. In addition, just because the PC didn't believe laws, rules or other societal structures were beneficial they did understand the consequences of breaking the law and destroying the current structure.

Chaotic does not mean insane or anti-social.

 

[Staffan]

While I see that an anarchist would probably be chaotic, I see no reason that someone who is chaotic must be an anarchist. They may just be happy going on their own merry way not worrying too much about anyone else.

That's a good point. There's a lot of squares/rectangles talk in this thread. Just because a certain behavior fits within a particular alignment it doesn't mean that that behavior is definitive for that alignment.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Of course, in the actual Leroy scenario the rest of the party could always have just stayed put and left him to it...

The problem is that with serious raiding guilds, the fact that the did what he did screwed them all over. (I've heard that the Leeerroy Jenkins story was staged, too, not sure I know the truth.) In many respects, it's like a player in a TTRPG who seriously violates the norms of the table. If, for instance, the group has players who are casual players and then someone comes along and wants hardcore semi-military tactics or hardcore RP or, vice versa, a casual gamer joining a group that's the opposite.

An alignment like CN is often a problem for the same reason loner type characters often are. They simply don't work with group play, even if they are played well and aren't just an excuse for murder hobo-ism.

 

[Ratskinner]

To me, alignment should be descriptive. Your character did x, y and z, so, this alignment best describes your character.

I think a lot of people see alignment as prescriptive. You are this alignment, so, you should do x, y and z. And this is where a lot of friction between players and DM's come in, especially if that prescription doesn't match with their own personal understandings.

To be fair, I think this is a holdover from the Paladins in 1e. "You should do x,y, and z, because if you don't, the DM will take away your stuff." People just extended that to all alignments, especially since some of those old school rulesets included penalties for anybody switching alignments. From what I understand talking to my kids, hardly anybody young actually uses alignments at all.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

We need some alignment archetypes and then we may see better what society they would have if they have one.

I still got problem who will be true neutral? Eventually only animals or other beings who cannot comprehend morale.

As a friend of mine described his cat once, I think "beneath good and evil" captures that. However, I'm not sure that's what True Neutral is. TN requires a choice whereas most animals don't actually make a choice. 4E added the idea of "Unaligned" as being a reasonable alignment for sentient creatures and I do think that's not a crazy alignment for many people IRL.

So for me Lawful evil, true neutral and chaotic good are most hard to come up with examples.

Lawful Evil isn't hard to come up with. The characteristic is a belief in a hierarchy but focus on dominance and cruelty. Organized criminals are a very good example. There are plenty of others, though. I think many people in the era of chattel slavery in the United States would have qualified and I'm also very sure that that type of person shows up in the right kind of bureaucratic organization pretty often.

Chaotic Good is also not especially hard to come up with. I've met folks I think qualify. They're the types who "commit random acts of kindness" but really can't abide being in an organization.

It's tricky perhaps to find an example of True Neutral IRL but one way to think of it might be in the concept of "Balance of Power." For example, during the 18th and 19th Centuries British diplomacy in Europe was very oriented around the notion that no Great Power should become too powerful on the continent. (I'm not saying "Perfidious Albion" wasn't seeking their own advantage. Clearly they were.)

Someone who's TN in a world with transcendent, supernatural powers might consider that the victory of any aligned power would be horrible for humanity. In the World of Greyhawk, the Circle of Eight represents this notion as they are actively concerned with seeing any of the powers get too big and start off a continent-wide war. It also fits well with a Moorcock-ian kind of notion of the Cosmic Balance. I'm currently playing a character who's aligned to the Balance in a now fairly high leveled game, having seen the consequences of what happens to worlds when either Chaos or Law become too powerful.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

To be fair, I think this is a holdover from the Paladins in 1e. "You should do x,y, and z, because if you don't, the DM will take away your stuff." People just extended that to all alignments, especially since some of those old school rulesets included penalties for anybody switching alignments. From what I understand talking to my kids, hardly anybody young actually uses alignments at all.

Yes, the DMG 1E has a long description of the negative consequences of changing alignment. I think it was getting at the notion of the difficulties one experiences when dealing with a serious crisis of faith or conscience, but, like a lot of things in Ye Olde Days, it got a whole lot of punitive rules slapped on.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I agree, but the old GP XP system allowed you to kill, steal, negotiate, lure, trick your way to getting GP/XP... The new XP system is pretty straight forward... it's kill, kill, kill for XP... So murder hobo'ism is encouraged.

A whole lot of folks have long abandoned the XP system for varieties like milestone advancement or the like---I've not been tracking XP too closely for decades as I recall---so I don't know that's the reason for it or that it's even all that much more common.The new XP system doesn't say you have to kill enemies. You need to effectively deal with them. However, D&D has pretty much always indicated that combat is the most important "pillar" of the game. The DCs are high for convincing adversaries to surrender, for instance, where they're even provided at all.

The truth was there was a lot of Murder Hobo-ism back in the day. It was very strongly built into the premise of many of the old modules. It's a long read and I'm not sure I buy all the author's points, but this article argues that much of the "Crush Your Enemies" orientation of D&D is pretty squarely on Gygax's design.

 

[Ministry of Truth]

A whole lot of folks have long abandoned the XP system for varieties like milestone advancement or the like---I've not been tracking XP too closely for decades as I recall---so I don't know that's the reason for it or that it's even all that much more common.The new XP system doesn't say you have to kill enemies. You need to effectively deal with them. However, D&D has pretty much always indicated that combat is the most important "pillar" of the game. The DCs are high for convincing adversaries to surrender, for instance, where they're even provided at all.

The truth was there was a lot of Murder Hobo-ism back in the day. It was very strongly built into the premise of many of the old modules. It's a long read and I'm not sure I buy all the author's points, but this article argues that much of the "Crush Your Enemies" orientation of D&D is pretty squarely on Gygax's design.

Thanks for the article, I'll check it out.