Psion: I think that the biggest disagreement we have stems from the fact that I'm trying to give advice to a DM who is apparantly losing control of his party, and I want to make firm harsh suggestions for reigning them in. However, do note that I suggested that minor violations and variations of any couple of points is probably fine, but I do maintain that any CN will adhere to something close to many of the points I make.
"That may fit a specific CN character, but not all. The essence of a CN character is a free spirit, a character that does not respect social convention."
Then we are in agreement on both points, though I might state the case more strongly in that a chaotic should by and large _disrespect_ social convention. If he is only ambivalent to it, that points to pure nuetrality.
I think it would be hard to elaborate extensively on any alignment without quickly running into special cases in which two sincere members of that alignment can disagree on a point. That would seem especially true of CN (but I think it is also especially true of LN as well).
However, I continue to maintain that a Chaotic Neutral person considers him or herself consciously or unconsciously the center of the universe and the most important thing in the universe. (And ultimately if he is strongly CN the ONLY important thing in the universe. Heck, ultimately, a CN paragon needn't believe the rest of the universe exists.)
"That sounds dangerously close to evil and not on the law/chaos axis. A CN character would lie if they felt justified, because they don't feel compelled to follow the social convention of honesty. But if they are exceedingly wanton and greedy, they are CE not CN."
Agreed, it _is_ dangerously close to evil (by definition almost). To my (NG) mind, it _is_ evil. And yes, if you are excessively wanton and greedy, then you are CE and not CN. But, I think that the critical word there is 'wanton'. You can be greedy and be CG, provided your greed is not so excessive that it consistantly and clearly harms someone. (Ayn Rand argues from the Chaotic when she suggests that altruism is the root of evil, and that enlightened self-interest results in good for all.) But if you are 'wanton', that is, if your actions are clearly and consistantly destructive, then you are evil no matter what your motive.
I look at it this way. A CN and a CE both feel that they are the most important person in the universe, and perfectly justified to act however they like. However, the CN believes that his best interests are not necessarily served by inflicting harm on other people, and in fact, all and all, inflicting harm is unimportant and probably undesirable (though justifiable to protect his own interests). The CE however believes that the only way to insure success is by climbing over everyone else by whatever means present themselves.
"And individualist or free spirit can have perfectly self-consistent."
I'd much prefer my choatics to follow an inner set of rules that are actually inconsistent or out of touch with reality (as it is generally preceived), but again, I won't deny that some need not.
I don't feel entirely comfortable divorsing CN from the notion of change and randomness. Nor am I going to suggest that chaotics mostly see the world as a sane, reasonable, orderly, predictable place - although it could be fun to play a particular CN that did and saw himself as needed spice in the world.
"No. First off, saying a chaotic character "must" do something is somewhat contradictory."
Ok, yes, granted BUT... Although in theory Chaotics have the right to conform if they wish too, none of them are of the inclination to do so, and if they did would they still be Chaotic?
But getting back to my point, Chaotic is in opposition to Law. Can a chaotic good person allow even a lawful good agency to fluorish if it means the sacrifice of individual liberties. How much more so will a chaotic neutral oppose the growth of a lawful agency that will ultimately threaten his personal liberty?
"A CN character may be perfectly content to avoid the agency when he doesn't have a compelling reason to do so."
Yes, but my point was not about avoiding/not avoiding, but about the active working for such an agency. At the very least, the CN should feel guilty about 'working for the man', loath the ridiculous regulations, restrictions, and paperwork, and the lawfuls should feel like they have a 'loose cannon' on thier hands. The working relationship should be difficult at the least, and ultimately, I should be very skeptical of a chaotic who allowed any lawful agency to force him to conform no matter what the size of the lure.
"Chaotic =/= stupid." Good grief when did I say it did? I played a CN for five years and noone accused my character of being stupid OR predictable (except that he was predictably unpredictable and devious). Chaotics are creative (an aspect of intelligence just as logic is), and unpredictablity can be a great boon especially against a lawful opponent.
"A wise CN character knows better than to piss in the cheerios of a powerful agency."
Err... would you say that a wise good character knows better than to 'piss in the cheerioes' of a group of powerful evils? I agree that one simplification of the CN philosophy is 'live and let live', but if the stated goal of the agency is 'everyone has to play by our rules' can the CN honestly back it (except as its head)? And if it say 'you have have to play by our rules', can he do less than rebel and still stay true to his nature? Sure, he can be a coward, but so could a NG faced with an overwhelming evil.
"A character could form a friendship because he respects or trusts a certain character; that does not mean he feels it important to be part of a community. Again, you seem to be describing a specific subset of CN behavior, not CN philosophy as a whole."
Again, I'm not sure that you can shift the line between one and many and say 'several is ok'. What is the minimum size of a community? Two perhaps if they can agree to some rules. Once you make the connection that two people can work together for thier mutual benefit, at what put do you say 'ahh, n-1 people can work together, but n people cannot work together'. At some point you stop being a group of dissidents and become a culture of people working together. If that culture is supposed to be chaotic, it is less a matter of working together and more a matter of infinite splintering (and recombining) into subcultures who more or less share the same goals but don't necessarily get along and certainly not on any permenent basis however much respect they might have for each.
The less betrayal and strife we are talking about, the more we are tending toward a CG culture (or personality) over a CN one.
Finally, yes, taken as a whole, everything I'm talking about is some subset of CN behavior. However, hopefully it encompasses a very large subset of the behavior. Its primary intention was to forcefully show that CN alignment has violatable tenants. Ideally these are laid out at the time of character creation by the player (with the approval of the DM), but if not the DM is (I feel) free to interpret the alignment as strictly as he pleases especially in situations in which the player is making an @$$ of himself with his alignment as an excuse.
PS: Cool sig.
