Chaotic alignments and roleplaying… what’s your take?

[Dannyalcatraz]

That type...I call them "Headstrong."

They're aware of rules, but may not abide by them if they think they know better...or if they think the rulesmakers had ulterior motives, were idiots, etc.

They may even seem to be fairly law abiding and easygoing until they find one aspect of society they don't agree with- like a straightlaced guy who happens to do low-level illicit drugs, or drive 100mph+ on the nearly barren interstates of certain states.

If pressured to conform, they may even become "Crusaders" to change that law.

 

[lkjopajdowma]

Depends on the flavor of Chaotic.

To me, a CG character looks at the final outcome, and wants it to be Good, but if some people get hurt or possibly even killed along the way to that "greater good", they don't worry too much about it.

 

[Sordath]

I think Baron Opal put it really well. Chaotic characters are less willing to subsume their aims to those of others. This doesn't mean that they will plan less or are less intelligent. In fact, they will be likely to force other people to adhere to a plan if they think it's a good one, rather then behave democratically.

But I get a bit confused when I try to articulate where chaos and law fit into my take on things. Especially when I try to define Good as being selflessness to other individuals, and Lawful being selflessness to society/community as a whole. The more I thinkabout it that way, I tie myself into knots trying to come up with behavioural examples!

Would a CG character believe in free medical insurance? Or would he rather donate money to medical charities than pay higher taxes? Does this mean that their can be alignment conflict between law/chaos and good/evil?

For any fans of the Wire: would you say McNulty be a good example of Chaotic Neutral law enforcement?

I reckon 80% or more of the population in a game world are likely to be neutral with regard to good and evil. Chaotic/Lawful alignment variation just seems to me to be a lot more common, and interesting!

 

[Mercutio01]

My favorite Chaotic character was a 2E CN Lizardman I played in a one-shot. I played him as Chaotic random, going so far as to use items of chance (dice, coins, etc) to determine actions. Pretty far from how I'd ever play a CN character now (I'd go more for a Conan feel), which is to say, I'd do CN like I would do 4E Unaligned, but the complete randomness was both fun and funny.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Would a CG character believe in free medical insurance?

Its certainly possible...but he'd probably question the way its funded and may not agree to pay the taxes!

Or would he rather donate money to medical charities than pay higher taxes?

He might not believe in medical charities at all...and may even believe that the sick and injured are on their own, or are the responsibility of their parents (and anyone who gets suckered into giving money to charities). Just because one is CG does not make one universally altruistic.

Does this mean that their can be alignment conflict between law/chaos and good/evil?

Absolutely: Law≠Good, Chaos≠Good, Law≠Evil, Chaos≠Evil, and obviously, none of them are Neutral.

 

[MichaelK]

I generally play Lawful characters when I'm playing, with my take on lawful being that they follow an established code of some sort. This kind of code is usually from something outside of them, such as an order they belong to, a holy text or just the plain laws of the land. Sometimes all of the above.

I rarely play Chaotic characters but when I do, I play them as not being afraid to contradict a previous statement or to make themselves a hypocrite to live up to the other half of their alignment. If they follow a code it's usually something they've made up themselves and are probably willing to break under the right circumstances. They tend to be less about 'fitting in' and don't try to conform to society (though they'll usually try to fit in with friends/family/other pcs).

 

[Thanee]

Depends on the flavor of Chaotic.

To me, a CG character looks at the final outcome, and wants it to be Good, but 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".

Bye
Thanee

 

[MichaelK]

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

I'd say with that one it all comes down to how you play it. That could range anywhere from LG to CE depending on the spin and feel of what they do.

Most people in the world believe in reaching for some 'good' goal (though their idea of good may not in fact be terribly good) and to varying degrees are willing to do something that may hurt someone or cause little problems along the way in order to reach that 'good' goal.

Perhaps your LG idea is a crusade against the nine hells, some of your soldiers may die but it's a risk they accepted when they signed up and you all agree it's worth the price.

Perhaps your CE idea is to rid the world of all the people you consider weak by bringing about some sort of apocalypse that will kill most people, but it's okay that those people die because they're weak and could weaken the human race.

Either way it still fits within that range of description.

 

[Desdichado]

As an aside; 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.

Although... maybe I'm an outlier here. I don't have any use for alignment.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

As an aside; 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.

I agree. In fact, I almost always come up with a character concept, including backhistory, and then try to find a class, feats, abilities, skills, etc to match the concept. (Sometimes I can't find the abilities to give the character that makes it live up to my concept and have to drop or change it, which is frustrating. It's the main reason I prefer to play a system that has been around a while and has a lot of supplements I can mine for abilities - thus why I am playing 3.5 as opposed to 4e.)

I did more or less the same for this character, located a class, abilites, etc that fit the concept, and picked a true neutral alignment as the closest to her outlook on life...

...and then discovered that the class had a chaotic or evil alignment requirement (Warlock).

So, since she's not an evil character, I wanted to get other people's input on chaotic alignments to get a greater understanding of the different ways to play chaotic, to see if they would match her personality as opposed to just scrapping the build I have and starting over. As I mentioned, the way I usually play chaotic boils down to impulsive, and this character isn't impulsive.

So far, a lot of the advice that has been given has given me a lot of insight on the different types of chaotic, and I plan to have a conversation with my DM tonight on the same - but this is all great food for thought!