D&D General Slaads are failures as exemplars of Chaotic NEUTRAL

[MechaTarrasque]

I think it is easiest just to think of lawful types as "joiners"--given the opportunity to join something that fits their morality, they will jump in. Chaotic types are "resisters"--even in an organization that they like, they will either actively bristle at things they don't like or try to sneak around them. Neutrals are "coasters"--they don't have strong feelings towards any organization they are in, except maybe for the hope that no one looks at them too closely....

Thus, easy role playing advice that probably doesn't mess up anything in the dungeon (no organization to join or rebel against), but adds opportunities when you get back to town.

For outsiders, lawful types want you join and join hard, to dip a toe in organized religion, baptism isn't enough, you got to go through confirmation too.

If chaotics want you to join, they will make it fun or give you no choice (slaadi) until you are so far in, there is no getting out, because they assume you will cause trouble if you can (or even if you get bored).

Neutrals are more about ease: if you want to do good, the Guardinals will find a spot that seems like a good fit, and if you like it, will leave you to it. Yugoloth organizations are strong on carrot and sticks with little need (or desire) for buy-in.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm beginning to think that he's offended by Paladins because they are so seldom done well.

So many people have been!

I will however give what I think the distinction between the three Chaotics actually is.

I somewhat subscribe to them, but I find your definitions to be examples of "alignment first, personality second", which I think is a fundamentally flawed approach that is the absolutely direct cause of 99% of problems experienced relating to alignment in D&D.

Also, neither Amos nor Miller fit well into any of those, because they're too extreme and abstract-alignment focused yet both are clearly Chaotic characters by any standard, which to me, proves my point. Real people, hell, even trope-y characters who are far more simple than real people, rarely have their moral and ethical ducks in a line anywhere near as well your examples, all of which seem like philosophical ideals, not ways people actually act.

Another way to put is that a person with the beliefs you outline would most certainly be that alignment, but there are tons of people with that alignment, who don't have those beliefs. This is particularly true re: CN - not every CN person will be the sort of anarchist (in the true sense) you describe. Indeed, a CN person may well THINK society should be run in some extremely orderly way, but simply ACT in a way that is extremely individualist. Not everyone matches up their ideal society, or the society they say they value, or believe they value, with their own behaviour.

This is incredibly obvious IRL I would suggest. Everyone knows people who have wonderful ideas for how society should be, but who behave terribly, or are have a horrifying vision of individualist anarchy as their ideal, but are an extremely kind, social, and organised person. If you don't believe this try working in the charity sector, especially with protest-oriented charities (on either the left or the right, I should note).

I think it is easiest just to think of lawful types as "joiners"--given the opportunity to join something that fits their morality, they will jump in. Chaotic types are "resisters"--even in an organization that they like, they will either actively bristle at things they don't like or try to sneak around them. Neutrals are "coasters"--they don't have strong feelings towards any organization they are in, except maybe for the hope that no one looks at them too closely....

There's some truth in this but I think Neutrals aren't necessarily coasters, but equally people who feel like the organisation should probably do what they suggest, rather than doing what it normally does. They'll go along until the organisation conflicts with their G or E (and/or personal stuff, particularly for N). They may well think they can reshape the organisation - which is almost the opposite of coasting and hoping no-one notices them.

 

[generic]

Nope. Not at all.

It means that many people who choose to play CG, CN, or CE (aka, one of the Chaotic alignments in the nine-point system) choose that because they believe that chaotic = freedom = no constraints on their choices.

Hence, CN = IMA DO WHATEVS, MAN, U CAN'T STOP ME!

Ah, I see. Good point, as CAPSLOCK-phrased as it was.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which is why (to me) it's always foolish to try and ascribe D&D alignments to real, or even most fictional, characters. WHAT ALIGNMENT IS BATMAN??!!??

I think you're conflating two different issues.

"What alignment is Batman?" is not a problem to do with "real or fictional characters".

It's a problem that's the result of a character being written inconsistently over decades by a huge number of different writers in different media, all trying for different "takes" on the same character, some actively trying to portray him as a monster, some as a saint, and so on.

Yes, any character written inconsistently over decades is hard to pin down. Or written inconsistently over a shorter period, like, say Janeway, who regularly flopped around the alignment chart.

But well-written, consistently-written characters with a single main vision behind them are much easier to categorize, at least in broad terms. Sometimes that's even true of characters written over decades. "What alignment is Batman" is the punchline to a joke. "What alignment is Superman" is, at least 90% of the time, a simple matter of "LG, duh" (and most of the rest of the time it'll be NG).

Which is why (IME) the vast majority of bad RPing comes from chaotic characters. Because that's chosen by people who don't want to worry about creating a complex character, or having (and this is the key) any type of consistent characterization.

My experience is different - I've seen equal amounts of bad RP from Lawful and Chaotic characters. Principally Lawful Stupid and CN. The leading cause, in my experience, what what I outlined above - people putting the alignment in PLACE of the personality and background of their character. Effectively treating every character as a fanatic, irrational devotee of their alignment. A cultist, practically. Whether than cult is "Diceman" (CN) or "Lawful Stupid" (LG - or occasionally LN).

I do agree that if you see a CN character from a person you don't know, the odds that they're going to basically RP Diceman or some kind of weird take on Rorschach (who isn't really CN but whatever) are very good.

Whereas LG has been so discussed and meme'd re: Lawful Stupid that the odds of Lawful Stupid actually being the case are lower. But this is talking about now, not my entire experience, which saw a heck of a lot more Lawful Stupid than Diceman/Rorschach. Lawful Stupid was alive and well, well into 3E. It was the the removal of mechanical consequences to alignments that was part of the decline in Lawful Stupid, because a ton of Lawful Paranoid Paladins and Clerics loosened their chastity belts, took off their sackcloth robes and hair-shirts, and went "Phew!" when that happened.

 

[Celebrim]

I somewhat subscribe to them, but I find your definitions to be examples of "alignment first, personality second", which I think is a fundamentally flawed approach that is the absolutely direct cause of 99% of problems experienced relating to alignment in D&D.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. My experience is that the second leading cause of rejecting alignment is getting confused into believing that alignment is personality, thus believing that alignment dictates that people only have 9 personality types.

So, things that alignment is not:

a) Alignment is not personality. It's quite possible to conceive a basic personality for a character, and then differentiate that basic personality into 9 different characters each with the same personality but a different alignment.

b) Alignment is not intelligence. Intelligent characters will have more developed and more philosophical descriptions of their beliefs, and unintelligent characters will sound like idiots when they try to explain what they believe, but fundamentally those two characters will have the same alignment just different words to describe it. Similarly, while we need to make some appeals to philosophy to describe alignment, for any given alignment there will be multiple different ways to describe the same basic belief. Likewise, an alignment isn't so narrow of a thing that there won't be a diverse range of related philosophies inhabiting the same bucket.

c) Alignment is not wisdom. Wise characters will be better able to behave according to their beliefs, both because they will understand better what the belief dictates in a particular circumstance, and better able to live out what they believe when doing so would be difficult. But everyone with less than perfect wisdom will sometimes stray from the best interpretation of their beliefs, and occasionally will act contrary to their stated beliefs. A lot can be discerned by how they respond to those errors when they become aware of them.

d) Alignment is not charisma. We can't define good by how sympathetic or likable someone is. Perfect sociopaths can be entirely charming. Villains can have relatable motives and can make their actions seem reasonable.

Also, neither Amos nor Miller fit well into any of those, because they're too extreme and abstract-alignment focused yet both are clearly Chaotic characters by any standard, which to me, proves my point. Real people, hell, even trope-y characters who are far more simple than real people, rarely have their moral and ethical ducks in a line anywhere near as well your examples, all of which seem like philosophical ideals, not ways people actually act.

I'm somewhat handicapped by having only read the first book of the Expanse and only once, but I'd generally agree with your Chaotic assessment. However, my simplified version of Chaotic doesn't mean that every chaotic will explain what they believe in exactly those terms, or is able to explain what they believe in any terms, or is cogent of their own motives, or will always adhere exactly to that internal standard. But I will maintain that however much complexity we have, if you boil down the standard that they are behaving too, it will come to some close agreement with that are else they just aren't Chaotic.

For example, does Amos or Miller act as if he was himself the best judge of what is right or wrong, or is either a man prone to deferring judgment to others?

Another way to put is that a person with the beliefs you outline would most certainly be that alignment, but there are tons of people with that alignment, who don't have those beliefs. This is particularly true re: CN - not every CN person will be the sort of anarchist (in the true sense) you describe. Indeed, a CN person may well THINK society should be run in some extremely orderly way, but simply ACT in a way that is extremely individualist. Not everyone matches up their ideal society, or the society they say they value, or believe they value, with their own behaviour.

Again, this has to do with how personality, background, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma interact with alignment to produce a diversity of characters. So not every CN character is going to say that they ascribe to CN beliefs. They may well spout LG verbiage. The proof though is in the choices they make. Likewise, not every CN character is going to verbalize their beliefs in the same way - you'll get various sorts of Anarchists, Libertarians, Objectivists, and so on and so forth. Put them in a room and you can get some wonderful arguments. And heck, a CN character with 7 Int isn't going to be able to describe what they believe and probably hasn't given it much thought.

However, the more complexity you add like this, the closer you get to an approximation in character of real people. There really are people who believe things that fit well with this definition of CN, and there really are people who though they espouse all sorts of other things tend to in practice act as if what they really believed was this definition of CN (or something else). I don't have to believe 'Chaos' is a thing in the real world for that to be true.

This is incredibly obvious IRL I would suggest. Everyone knows people who have wonderful ideas for how society should be, but who behave terribly, or are have a horrifying vision of individualist anarchy as their ideal, but are an extremely kind, social, and organised person.

How does one conflict with the other? You can totally be an extremely CN person and have a high Charisma. Or you could totally be an CG person, but (wrongly?) believe that people are inherently good, and the best way to ensure the expression of their inherent good nature would be the removal of authoritarian constraints on their actions, and provide for a minimally intrusive government, and therefore you were all the time (naively?) espousing a philosophy of CN simply because you yourself would in that circumstance behave according to your deep underlying CG conviction. Either would fit the description of the person that you give. How "organized" someone is has nothing to do with whether they are chaotic or lawful - that's the old "alignment is personality" canard.

If you don't believe this try working in the charity sector, especially with protest-oriented charities (on either the left or the right, I should note).

I work in the "charity sector" from time to time, but I don't have much truck with the protest-oriented ones and do not for the most part consider them actual "charities" - left or right, regardless of their stated intentions.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

My take on the Slaad has been that they're not Chaotic Evil, they're Chaotic-something-worse-than-evil. Basically, it's the standard Lovecraft shtick: something so weird and alien and incomprehensible that ordinary morality can't even be applied to it. So they're not Good or Evil on the moral axis, they are "Neutral", just a Neutral that is too weird and alien for us to comprehend

The Slaad are also part of a family of monsters--also including Aboleths, Beholders, Ilithids, and on the sub-sapient end Displacer Beasts and Phase Spiders, as well as others--that I think would work MUCH better as alien species in a science fiction or science fantasy game than as straight D&D fantasy monsters. Just my opinion.

Virtually every PC I've GMed for in the last couple of years, long term, short term, or medium term has been Chaotic. A majority of them were Chaotic Neutral (and the few that weren't CN were N). I don't know what this means. But it's definitely thrown me as I've generally expected a solid core of L and G PCs in my campaigns. My gradual assumption has been drifting from D&D being a game about the adventures of heroes to D&D being a game about the adventures of agents of chaos (like Rico Rodriguez from Just Cause, or the Joker from The Dark Knight).

 

[Celebrim]

My take on the Slaad has been that they're not Chaotic Evil, they're Chaotic-something-worse-than-evil.

This actually has a measure of truth to it I think, and it's a deep problem with how Slaad are portrayed and how CN is concieved that goes to the heart of why Slaad fail as exemplars of it.

In my own write up of the Slaad, in the link above, I tried to somewhat rectify this problem by altering the way Slaad were conceived at some fundamental levels while still trying to explain and incorporate all the diverse bizarre and rather unchaotic things that have been written about them. And to some extent, I think I did a pretty good job and some of the Slaad Lords and Slaad Cults do better capture the essentials of CN than the canonical write ups and depictions. I'm rather proud of it.

But there is still a problem in some of the write up that occasionally I'm confusing Chaotic Neutral, with that more evil than even Chaotic Evil philosophy - Neutral Evil. Examples of this can I think be found in the write up of Quag, Ssendam and even Breasdefea. The problem with viewing Chaotic as meaninglessness is it is very easy to slip from that into equating Chaotic with Nihilism. Real chaotic find meaning in everything because they think that they can actually invent meaning, and so for example the problem with my Quag write up is that Quag as presented is much closer to Nuetral Evil than it is Chaotic Evil, because the Quag of the write up doesn't balance his ignorance with creativity. He really ought to be more the embodiment of Triviality than the is, and be less destructive than he is.

Likewise, it's easy to make the mistake of assigning insanity to CN as if insanity was a single narrow spectrum of behavior. Actual sociopathy and violent psychopathy belongs more to NE and things near to it, than it does to CN, which is more like the alignment of harmless eccentrics and things near to that. NE and not CN is the alignment of serial killers and people who destroy without clear cause. CN is more the alignment of just not doing things the way anyone else would.

The problem is that I think when the Slaad were originally conceived, this distinction between CN and NE wasn't really made, and they were in part conceived as mindless engines of destruction and merely a better class of demon in the sense of being better designed to perform D&D combat than the rather weak demons of Gygax's original conception. And people still confuse and lump the whole bottom right hand corner of the square together as if they were a single philosophy.

Virtually every PC I've GMed for in the last couple of years, long term, short term, or medium term has been Chaotic. A majority of them were Chaotic Neutral (and the few that weren't CN were N). I don't know what this means. But it's definitely thrown me as I've generally expected a solid core of L and G PCs in my campaigns. My gradual assumption has been drifting from D&D being a game about the adventures of heroes to D&D being a game about the adventures of agents of chaos (like Rico Rodriguez from Just Cause, or the Joker from The Dark Knight).

It's a reflection of the overall shift in beliefs of the larger society.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How does one conflict with the other? You can totally be an extremely CN person and have a high Charisma.

That you mention Charisma tells me either I'm explaining poorly, or you're missing my point. Probably the former!

The person who says a lot of utopian amazing stuff, ideas which may genuinely be good, but behaves reprehensibly, taking any advantage he can, and having no moral centre, probably has high CHA, but that's incidental to things. He could also have very low CHA. It's irrelevant. What's relevant is that he expresses one worldview, and values that worldview in others, but behaves in a contrary manner to that.

As an aside, in my experience NG-style people who espouse full-CN beliefs most often. There are people willing to put their lives, health, safety, freedom and livelihoods on the line to do what is right, and by D&D standards, in some cases, that's solid G, that's really their only goal and one they are true to. They work well in organisations, follow rules well, and believe in rules in a practical, day to day sense, even if they say otherwise. But the beliefs they are espouse are indeed that naive CN view - just set everyone completely free, no laws, no nothing, and everyone will behave well (and funny thing is, I don't doubt that if the world were solely these people, forever, that might even work out - trouble is isn't).

Weirdly you also get people who, in terms of their actions and desires, probably count as LE, espousing this same sort of situation, but that's a whole other discussion maybe.

So not every CN character is going to say that they ascribe to CN beliefs. They may well spout LG verbiage. The proof though is in the choices they make. Likewise, not every CN character is going to verbalize their beliefs in the same way - you'll get various sorts of Anarchists, Libertarians, Objectivists, and so on and so forth. Put them in a room and you can get some wonderful arguments. And heck, a CN character with 7 Int isn't going to be able to describe what they believe and probably hasn't given it much thought.

Agreed. But I think this isn't "not every", it's "virtually no" (a difference of degree I note - there is considerable agreement here). And the few that DO say precisely what you said, they're the ones who are most likely to be terrible RPers and/or derail the game into alignment shenanigans, because people who espouse visions of alignments that clear and extreme for their characters usually are the people who replace personality with alignment.

So my position is that vaguer, less reductive, less precise visions of "What CN is" and so on are much more helpful to the game, to understanding alignments, and to good RP than starting with this extreme viewpoint and trying to work backwards to "What an actual person might think".

For example, does Amos or Miller act as if he was himself the best judge of what is right or wrong, or is either a man prone to deferring judgment to others?

Miller unquestionably and repeatedly acts as if he is the best judge of what is right and wrong (that's like, "his whole deal"), and applies both deontological and utilitarian approaches to right and wrong (not that he could even spell either, let alone define them, god bless him!), resulting in him straight-up killing people and so on. I'd lean towards CG though, because no-one he kills didn't at least strongly arguably benefit the world by being dead, and he's not doing it for his own benefit (indeed the consequences are... never good for him, but he keeps doing what his nebulous and vague but powerful idea of what is "right").

Amos, left to his own devices, literally has no morality (Dexter style) and sees no real value in rules in general. He is intelligent enough to understand that this is a problem and may lead to his death, and that it doesn't make him happy to be this way, though it gives him insight into other amoral people. He has learned to make his decisions based solely on what one person he loves (largely platonic-ly, it seems, at least where I am) and respects thinks. If she told him to kill, he would do so without mercy, question or regret, and when she is threatened, he takes immediate lethal action without having the slightest qualm (even though the situation could likely have been resolved otherwise and the person killed was clearly basically decent). He also expresses personal beliefs about how the world work that are pretty clearly CE by the description you gave ("the churn" as he puts it).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I also think Slaads are a poor design. Aside from their chaotic evil behaviour, I just think they don't seem "chaotic" physically - they are too predictable. They ALL look like toads - why? What's chaotic about a toad? Why should chaotic creatures look similar to each other at all? And they are colour coded. That smacks at ORDER to me.

Now anything approaching "pure" chaos should be extremely hostile to life as we know it - even if purely by accident "oops, your arms just floated off into the sunset". I find things like Star Spawn (perhaps with a bit of tweaking) are better representatives of "pure" chaos. Fey are better for the "help or hinder you on a whim" type of moral chaos.