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

[Olive]

Most of this thread is really really bad, even the posts i agree with. That said, the thread concept is interesting, and my main DnD character was chaotic neutral. She wasn't insane. She was primarily interested in her own freedom to pursue her own desires regardless of what ever anybody else thought, or the legality of it. She was concerned with others freedom, but usually not enough to do anything about it. She was willing to help people who needed it, but she was also willing to hurt innocents to get what she wanted. She didn't hurt innocents out of a sense of pleasure, but because it was not a priority for her to avoid hurting them.

Basically she was neutral in the 'not good but also not evil' sense of the word, not neutral in the 'i must preserve the balance' sense. She was dedicatedly chaotic however, not just seeing laws and honour as inconvenient or unnecessary, but as stupid and wrong. However, she was willing to participate in governement for her own independence, as it was, ironically, the only way to live her life relatively free of interference from church and state.

 

[Olive]

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.

Well said!

 

[Jakathi]

well. on the subject of chaotic neutral. this pretty much sums it up.

well. on the subject of chaotic neutral. this pretty much sums it up.

Ros: Fire!
Guil: Where?
Ros: It's all right -- I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech. To prove that it exists.
~~~Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

this might be even better

Guil: What a shambles! We're just not getting anywhere.
Ros: Not even England. I don't believe in it anyway.
Guil: What?
Ros: England.
Guil: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, you mean?
~~~Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

 

[Hardhead]

TAXES. TAXES are backed by FORCE. You perpetually refuse to admit that this is a major difference. If you want to say everythign you have about organizations that get ALL (not some but ALL) of their money from people who freely provide it, then I have no dispute.

But, if you are talking about government mandates, then you are talking politics

OK, then you see what I'm saying, but think I'm wrong. You think police enforcing taxes negates the goodness. But OBVIOUSLY, you see what I was talking about. Why did you say I wasn't talking about it?

Anyway, I think you're projecting. For most people, taxes aren't police-enforced. I, for one, have no problem paying taxes, knowing it goes to my roads, police force, ect. Hell, I'd rather taxes be raised for some things (for instance, I'd like Police departments to make *no* money off of speeding tickets, and I'd like a modest tax increase to make up the balance - that way Police officers wouldn't have incentives to create speed traps that end up costing me moeny any way when I get pulled over). Most people are, if not happy, then willing to pay taxes. That's why we elect officials that tax us!

I think you're a bit to chaotic to see the lawful side of the coin.

 

[Hardhead]

- everything by Hardhead and others snipped since I havn't much been paying attention to this thread -

So, is it politics if I make mean negative statements about the Harmonium? *plays with razorvine tiara*

Oh, no. You'll get scraged for sure. We'll book you for disrespecting an officer, and you'll be hanging from the leafless tree by next week.

 

[Jakathi]

shiver me timbers and a bucket full o bread

life. dem's da kicks.
you go with the flow
and take your tickets.
cuz if you were'nt watchin dem signs,
you deserve whatcha get.
next time, pay attention.
jiminy crickets and shiver me timbers.

she who makes out of place comments strikes again....

 

[Nifft]

Even a neutral person would sacrifice himself for someone he loved enough.

See, in my conception of alignment, this is one of the major ways to change from Neutral (or even Evil) into Good. If you sacrifice yourself out of love, you've committed a very good act.

Love can make you a better person.

-- N

 

[Dirigible]

I'm amazed the moderators haven't descended on this thread like a tone o' bricks. Perhaps it's an experiment?

I tend to view CN as an independent character that lacks compassion and a sense of charity, so is perceived as selfish, but without the will to causes great harm to further their goals.

 

[Mercule]

See, in my conception of alignment, this is one of the major ways to change from Neutral (or even Evil) into Good. If you sacrifice yourself out of love, you've committed a very good act.

I can certainly see that argument, and don't necessarily disagree with it. The willingness to make that sacrifice could be a step toward "redemption", but I don't think that it is enough in itself.

If it were then any soldier who died in battle would be Good. Especially those who did so for love of country, etc. Even non-good people can have causes they are willing to die for.

 

[Nifft]

The willingness to make that sacrifice could be a step toward "redemption", but I don't think that it is enough in itself.

Yes, certainly. IMC there's no specific, single act you can perform to suddenly and reliably change from one alignment to another.

Self-sacrifice for love would be a large token on the Good side of the scale, though. Perhaps enough to tip it.

-- N