Chaotic alignments and roleplaying… what’s your take?

[Mistah J]

My group uses a slightly different approach to the ones I'm seeing here I think..

For us, the Law/Chaos axis refers to consistency. As an example, take the classic question "Would you kill 1 person to save 10?"

A Lawful person would answer "no" (assuming a good or neutral character let's say). They would answer "no" even if the question changed to "kill 1 save 100" or "kill 1 save 1,000" or "kill one murderer to save 1,000,000 babies" etc. They do this because the principal behind these questions is the same: would you kill to save?

A Chaotic person will answer "no" to the first question, maybe the second but they'd start to change their mind after that.

So for me, it's about compromise. At what point do you let the circumstances change your ideals? A 100% Lawful Lawful character (if one could exist) would never ever compromise. Ever. Their Chaotic Chaotic counterpart however, would always compromise, all the time.

Anyway, just how I think of it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

These days, it's a simple view for me:

The axis of Evil (. . . and Good, and Neutrality) determines (to some degree) what you may do, and what you may not do. Ultimately, there's probably a 'why' somewhere there too, but that's for philosophers and other crazy types to sort out. Anyway, a moral code, or in some cases the lack of one, is the thing here. The vast majority of people are Neutral, as it so happens.

The axis of Chaos (. . . and Law, and uh, the other Neutrality) has a strong effect on how you most likely will (and also, how you most likely won't) go about doing the things you do. Oh, and guess what - yep. . . by far, most people are stuck in Neutral along this line too.

I guess the first one is more caught up in effects (maybe causes too), and the second, processes.


However, some good folks have written a deal more about their own perspectives on alignments, for example here and here. And there are plenty of other posts, sites, articles, etc. But that's a start.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

However, some good folks have written a deal more about their own perspectives on alignments, for example here and here. And there are plenty of other posts, sites, articles, etc. But that's a start.

Thanks for the links - I will check them out.

Honestly, this thread has started me thinking about roleplaying alignments in general, not just for this upcoming character. I'm getting interested in the topic, especially with the character examples from literature, movies and real life that people have been mentioning.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

if some people get hurt or possibly even killed along the way to that "greater good", they don't worry too much about it.

I don't know if that can still be called "good".

Certainly it can, depending on your ethical outlook. A Pragmatist or Utilitarian could view that greater good in a positive light.

For us, the Law/Chaos axis refers to consistency. As an example, take the classic question "Would you kill 1 person to save 10?"

I don't see that as a Law/Chaos question, but a Good/Evil question.

See this thread for part of the reason why (it contains a discussion of a Paladin and "Lifeboat Ethics"):
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/217020-ethics-paladin.html

IOW, under certain circumstances, forces of Law may even demand that you sacrifice one for the many...and as long as you do it in the proper manner, you won't do any time.

 

[Mistah J]

I don't see that as a Law/Chaos question, but a Good/Evil question.

Absolutely, how one answers the question relates entirely to the Good/Evil axis.

What I am saying is that the Law/Chaos axis determines how often you deviate from your own moral code due to circumstances, situational factors, and the like.

If you answer "no" or "yes" every time, no matter who or what the 1 or the 10 might be, that's Lawful behaviour. If you say "no, unless the 1 is my friend" or "yes, but only if the 10 are criminals", that's more Chaotic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

wouldn't it be easier to come up with a character concept first and then pick the alignment that best fits that character concept? Using alignment to drive character interpretation seems like the hard and problematic way to roleplay.

It's like the difference between choosing stats and rolling for stats. The game can certainly inspire you to play a certain character -- character needn't come first.

I don't see it as any harder or more problematic than any other way, since in the end you wind up with the same thing: a fully realized character.

 

[Phat Lute]

Yeah, but that's falling back into the stereotype of Chaotic Impulsive.

You can be wise and chaotic also.

Indeed. I was a lifelong player of chaotic characters, and being something of a 'method actor' I draw from my own experiences. If real people fit into alignment categories, I'd consider myself having something of a chaotic bent.

But my characters (and myself) aren't really impulsive. They'll do unconventional things and will question why everyone is going one way rather than the other, but they almost always have a plan. My favorite Lewis Carrol quote: "No good fish does anything without a porpoise."

For instance, if there's a procedure for getting a task resolved and an issue comes up that I feel needs taken care of right away, I'm just as likely to get up, go over to the person who knows the answer or has the power to resolve it, and talk to them as I am to fill out a bunch of requests or forms and wait for them to get back to me. I don't do it on a whim. I do it to get things done. Not everyone likes it, and I've been accused of 'getting all up in someone's face' because I walked over to get something done instead of waiting for a half dozen e-mails, but if it gets the job done and no one is hurt, I don't see the point in following a wasteful procedure.

If everyone starts doing something one way, I'll do it my own way if it makes more sense to me or I can do it more efficiently. If I walk into a room and everyone is doing the same thing, I'll ask them why. I won't disobey the rules if it will hurt someone else, and I'll think about the rules objectively to see if I can find a good reason to follow them, but if there's a way to that I can do it faster or better doing it my own way, I will.

I think a more lawful person would be inclined to follow the rules, and ask questions (maybe) if something comes up. A chaotic person would be thinking about whether or not to follow the rule the second someone told it to them.

By the same token, nothing annoys me more than those people who wait until the last minute to merge into traffic. They just waste everyone's time selfishly. Rushing up to the end of the lane that's ending is going to make you stop, and everyone else stop. That's not chaotic, it's selfishly retarded.

It's not a 'do whatever I want thing' so much as a 'do what seems most sensible in the current situation regardless of what everyone else is doing' thing.

If I can come up with an effective plan and do something that the other guy wasn't expecting, I'm in happy-fun land. But I do plan. A lot.

There's a lot of room within the individual alignments in the alignment structure.

Think of it this way: Dumbledore is probably chaotic good. (Pragmatically chaotic.) But so is Luna Lovegood. (Impulsively chaotic.) Captain Kirk is chaotic good. He plans. He just doesn't follow the rules if they don't make sense to him or it isn't working. If Spock can explain the point of the rule, he might follow it, though. Regardless, there's always a point to what he's doing. If he was completely impulsive or never followed rules, he wouldn't last long in Starfleet (or in life in general.). Even chaotic people need to choose when to follow their own instincts and sensibilities rather than someone else's.

I tend to think of the "pragmatically chaotic" people a lot like the way Three-Dog in Fallout 3 describes the protagonist: "There's something in your eyes that says, 'I'm the guy that knows how to get **** done.'" People may not like you, but they don't have to. You'll probably suffer some along the way because of it. But there's no point following a crooked path that everyone else is on when a straight line will do.

That's my take on it, at least.

 

[Vegepygmy]

And there are plenty of other posts, sites, articles, etc.

Here's one I think is good: Lawful and Chaotic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Absolutely, how one answers the question relates entirely to the Good/Evil axis.

What I am saying is that the Law/Chaos axis determines how often you deviate from your own moral code due to circumstances, situational factors, and the like.

If you answer "no" or "yes" every time, no matter who or what the 1 or the 10 might be, that's Lawful behaviour. If you say "no, unless the 1 is my friend" or "yes, but only if the 10 are criminals", that's more Chaotic.

Ah! Gotcha...and agree!