AIEEE!!! CN is not insanity!!!!

[Mercule]

IMC, Chaotic Good people don't hate government, they just see it as being there to ensure the rights of the individual. Chaotic people IMC are individualists.

. . .

Chaotic Good: would sacrifice self for specific loved person
Lawful Good: would sacrifice self for organization

I don't think I'd say CG people hate the gov't. Distrust is probably a better way to put it -- for some, not all. An organization like a gov't can be a major instrument. A CG person could look at the gov't (or any other organization) the way some people look at guns (ho boy, please don't go there -- it's the only example I can think of). In the right hands, it can be a tool for good. In the wrong hands, it can be a tool for evil. (In the CG mind) gov'ts tend to fall to evil more often than not -- some might even say it's inevitable.

I don't entirely agree with your examples, either. Even a neutral person would sacrifice himself for someone he loved enough. A CG person is just as likely as a LG person to sacrifice himself for "the greater good", although I agree that he wouldn't likely give a rip about any organization. Both LG and CG are good. They will still value others, in a general sense, over themselves.

IMO, the only real difference is that when a LG sacrifices himself, he's thinking about everyone. When a CG sacrifices himself, he's thinking about each one. It's a very fine line, but important.


I saw a Stargate SG-1 last(?) season that make me realize one of the divisions between Law and Chaos as I see it. I don't remember the whole setup, but there was a planet that, for whatever reason, needed a child of each generation to sacrifice herself and become a vegitable after spending some time as a genius (had something to do with the way their technology was handed down). Sounds lame, I know, but it was actually entertaining.

The planet's elders had chosen this girl and she wasn't given any choice in the matter. O'Neil was horrified that anyone could even consider this. Much diplomatic tension ensues.

Bottom line, the civilization would collapse if the child didn't do this. If this girl doesn't go through with things bad events ensue. Eventually, the girl tells Jack that it's her choice and she's okay with it. He says that it sucks, but lets her go.

Jack is CG. Once the girl, herself, decides to sacrifice, he's "okay" with it. The elders are LG. They know something needs to be done, so they choose the best path.

In short, a CG won't choose to sacrifice someone else. A LG will sacrifice whoever it makes the most sense to sacrifice. Both will stick by that decision even if bad things come to pass because of it. How bad of things they will let happen depends on how Lawful or Chaotic they are compared to how Good they are.

Of course, not everything attitude or set of morals can be thrown into nine little boxes and sometimes people play against type.

 

[Elf Witch]

Chaotic Neutral is not insane (insanity could inflict any alignment). I must admit that I don't play CN very well; I suppose it play it more like NE where the individual is out for his/her own gain without restriction of laws.

According to the SRD, Chaotic Neutral is a free spirit, "He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom." Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time conceptualizing that kind of character. Anyone have an example for me?

((as an aside, I think most people are either Neutral Good or Neutral. Insitutions are more Lawful Neutral))

It also says that they usually will only put themselves out for someone they know not strangers.

So I see a CN person doing things basically because he wants to not because it is the right thing or the good thing.

My roommate did a perfect CN in a game we played twin sisters the only person she would go out of her way to protect was her sister. She was not willing to lay her life down for the rest of the party. But she fought well because that helped keep her sister safe and when she need so called good acts like spare kobold babies she did it because her sister wanted it and in the end when she died nobly she did it mainly to save the life of her sister and the man she loved the fact that she saved an entire city well that was just a side effect.

CN does not have to played like a crazy it can be played like a self absorbed out for himself kind of person. He may help a person because he wants to but he does not feel the need to he is not evil because he does not feel the need to cause pain either.

CN can be a pain in the game if the player does not make an effort to find a reason to work with the party. A character like that is just a pain in the rear for everyone else in the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

As much I want to jump in and answer some of this debate on taxes, charities and universal health care this is not the forum for it. So i am going to add my 2 cents in and ask all of you to drop this before the thread gets closed.

Is there another board it could be taken to if there let me know I will join you for some good ole debate.

 

[Nifft]

IMO, the only real difference is that when a LG sacrifices himself, he's thinking about everyone. When a CG sacrifices himself, he's thinking about each one. It's a very fine line, but important.

I agree with this. It's a fine line indeed.

The [Good] part is really what the self-sacrifice is all about, since D&D puts a lot more emphasis on the Good/Evil axis than it does on the Law/Chaos axis.

(BTW: IMC, I've removed Slaad from being the Ultimate Chaos People, and replaces Limbo with the Land of Faerie -- IMC the Fey are Chaos incarnate, and the Slaad moved south to Pandemonium. To me, the Fey are far better representatives of Chaos: they come in Good and Evil flavors, and they are unreliable.)

-- N

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I happen to be CN myself. I'm indifferent to the concept of morality and I have a disrepect for the law, especially for the people who enforce it. I'm hardly an insane person, and I don't go around randomly hurting people. I'm certainly one who advocates flexibility over rigid adherrence to the rules. I try do what interests me at the time. If given the choice I'd only care about helping myself and people I care about, everyone else as far as I'm concerned can all screw themselves. Thus I would say I'm someone who understands the alignment well.

 

[Jakathi]

CN is not insanity

insanity is described as beyond alignment.
Chaotic neutral is just being unpredictable.
here is some rather realistic alignments
Chaotic Fashionable
Chaotic Unhappy
Cheap Evil

Lawful Artistic
Lawful Cuddly
Lawful Unhappy

Neutral Affectionate
Neutral Unambitious
Stingy Good

Unenthusiastic Evil
Chaotic Hungry
Cheap Good

Lawful Narcissic
Lawful Unhappy
Lawful Wannabe

Miserly Neutral
Neutral Gossipy
Neutral Lazy

Peppy Evil
Sloppy Neutral

 

[Mercule]

(BTW: IMC, I've removed Slaad from being the Ultimate Chaos People, and replaces Limbo with the Land of Faerie -- IMC the Fey are Chaos incarnate, and the Slaad moved south to Pandemonium. To me, the Fey are far better representatives of Chaos: they come in Good and Evil flavors, and they are unreliable.)

That's an interesting idea. I rather like it. The Slaadi were always made out to be a bit more ominous and threatening than a true CN should be.

As another example of CN, I played a CN Sorcerer right after 3E came out (and right before, actually).

This character had picked up the spell Item/Shrink Item. He made it the cornerstone of his spell list, including having a couple of variations of different levels -- even one that worked on living creatures. Well, when I created the character and knew where he was headed, I asked myself, "What sort of person would turn a living creature into a card (personal variation from the scrap of cloth) and stick them in his pocket? And what would that ability do to someone's mind?"

The answer I came up with was someone who wasn't really malicious, but didn't draw a real distinct line between people and things. I mean, hey, from sword to club to stick to bone and from apple to steak to cow to ape to person are both reasonably clear paths to follow. Where do you draw the line? Sure, he placed more value on people than on cattle, but he was willing to sacrifice them to save his own skin, most of the time.

Every now and again, he'd actually get attached to people and risk his neck to bail them out or aid them. But, they were few and far between. He also wasn't a sociopath. He enjoyed being around people. Mostly, he just viewed others as separate from himself, and placed the most value on his own skin.

Again, not malevolent, but certainly not benevolent, either. Neutral, morally.

He definitely didn't buy into any organization. In fact, he tended to avoid them. He liked to be responsible for himself and let others do their thing. Organizations don't do that, though. Thus Chaotic, ethically.

 

[Nifft]

The answer I came up with was someone who wasn't really malicious, but didn't draw a real distinct line between people and things.
[...]
Again, not malevolent, but certainly not benevolent, either. Neutral, morally.

That's pretty much how I play Fey, so we agree about the over-arching nature of Chaotic Neutrality.

-- N

 

[The Spectrum Rider]

More, I think, on topic:

In AD&D 1, I had a CN gnome fighter/illusionist character named Jaspar Chance. Faced with any moral decision, he would literally roll dice to decide where he was currently on the alignment spectrum (both G/E and L/C), and act accordingly. Some may argue that he was thus really NN, but the randomness of his actions made him CN to me.

The DM knew about this, but none of the other players did. I was constantly describing my character as shaking a little box and looking inside before he acted. The nature and contents of the box became a subject of much interest and discussion among both characters and players. Most came to the conclusion that Jaspar was using some unusual magic item - although I never consulted with the DM to discover the "results" of that item.

Ultimately I found myself in a position to give aid to a near-dead comrade, off where no one could see us. I rolled CE. By the standards I was imagining at the time, I interpreted this as saying that I had to kill him and take any of his stuff that wouldn't be noticed. But he was a much-beloved character of a rather sensitive player, so I caved. Jaspar poured a cure potion down his throat, and shortly thereafter I retired Jaspar Chance to the postion of NPC in my future campaigns.

Nowadays - many years later - I have a completely different interpretation of CN, and all the other alignments. I see it as a description (however imprecise) of what the character would be willing to do in order to achieve his goals. But first and foremost the character must HAVE goals, regardless of his alignment. I don't think you can role-play a character directly from alignment - you need a context, personality, goals, and so on.

The Spectrum Rider

 

[Mercule]

But first and foremost the character must HAVE goals, regardless of his alignment. I don't think you can role-play a character directly from alignment - you need a context, personality, goals, and so on.

Heh. I wish I could get more of my players to have goals for their characters. The most frustrating thing I've ever had happen was turning to the players and saying, "So, what are the characters interesting in doing?" and having a unanimous response of "React to events." (All paraphrased, of course.)