Chaotic Neutral Alignment should be against the rules!!!

[Pielorinho]

Find a copy of Steal This Book, by Abbie Hoffman, for a good view of a chaotic neutral personality. Read up on the Yippies, or on the French Situationists ("It is forbidden to forbid!" was one of their slogans).

Forbidding certain character-types is certainly within the DM's right; I do it myself all the time, because I'm interested in telling certain types of stories, and certain types of characters won't work with my campaign ideas. People that don't like the restriction are free to start their own damn game; the folks I play with generally appreciate having a focus to the campaign, and don't object.

Consider having a paladin-led group of enforcers in your world who find out about abusive PCs, track them down, and bring them to justice. Do this a few times, and hopefully the tweakers will stop tweaking out. These paladins should be pretty high-level and have a wizard who works with them, a wizard who can cast scry and teleport. Justice can be swift.

And never, never let someone (or require someone) to use their alignment as an excuse for their in-game behavior. Actions have consequences, and paladins who are dispensing justice could care less about the professed alignment of a criminal.

Daniel

 

[Alcamtar]

There's one thing a Chaotic Neutral can't do: be Lawful.

If he is Lawful even half the time, he is Neutral rather than Chaotic.

That means he won't keep promises, won't fulfill contracts, won't obey laws or rules, won't respect authority. He is going to get himself into trouble with governments, and is going to make enemies when he breaks contracts. He is going to develop a reputation for unreliability; people won't hire him, won't trust him, won't want to have dealings with him.

He will also put his own selfish interests above those of the group, and won't do things purely for the sake of the group. This is going to get him into trouble with his fellow adventurers. He's not a team player -- in fact he's not even cooperative. (Cooperative would be at least Neutral.)

If he were Good he would earn a few points for good intentions, and for the fact that at least his selfish interests are generally beneficial. But as a Neutral, he does evil as often as he does good. This makes his unreliability dangerous and highly undesirable.

Someone will of course argue that "he can do anything he wants, even do lawful or good acts." That is true, but he cannot do them habitually. If he does, his alignment changes accordingly; your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I will note however that unlike previous editions, 3E explicitly allows characters to do anything they want regardless of alignment. There is no penalty for alignment change, and the DMG even goes so far to say that a character who constantly changes alignment is really Neutral -- essentially unaligned. So unaligned characters can exist.

If you want to discourage non-aligned behavior, you could include more aligned magic: aligned magic weapons, items that can only be used by people of a certain alignment and damage all others, allies that refuse to deal with people of the wrong alignment (and have the ability to verify it).

Mike

 

[takyris]

I disagree. A chaotic person can be lawful 90% of the time TO OUTWARD APPEARANCES and still be completely chaotic.

Saying that if he doesn't do something stupid or revolutionary half the time, he's neutral, is ascribing Chaos the same discipline as Law. There's a reason that Paladins and Monks have to be lawful, while Bards and Barbarians can be either chaotic or neutral. Law and Good, by their very natures, are limiting ethical sets. Chaos and Evil, by their natures, are enabling ethical sets. Law and Good stop you from doing chaotic or evil things. Chaos and Evil don't STOP you from doing lawful and good things. They just let you do them or not, as you choose.

Yes, if you ALWAYS chose to do the good and lawful thing, with good and lawful motivations, a DM would be right to question you. But you can play a CE character who is brave, noble, friendly, and affable, but has a horrible temper -- and once he gets angry, he kills. He feels bad about it later, in a distant way, but he doesn't turn himself in, because the people DID get him angry. He usually just finds a new town and goes to live there for awhile, being friendly and helpful and fighting off orcs or whatever until someone makes him lose his temper again.

By your definition, a chaotic neutral character locked in a white room with nothing to break, steal, or liberate would eventually become neutral, and then lawful. While it's an interesting prisoner dilemma -- does incarceration really change your alignment? -- it confuses action with philosophy.

But then, most players confuse action with philosophy, too.
So maybe in practice, your way works out alright.

-Tacky

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

But you can play a CE character who is brave, noble, friendly, and affable, but has a horrible temper -- and once he gets angry, he kills. He feels bad about it later, in a distant way, but he doesn't turn himself in, because the people DID get him angry. He usually just finds a new town and goes to live there for awhile, being friendly and helpful and fighting off orcs or whatever until someone makes him lose his temper again.

-Tacky

That's not Chaotic Evil, that the Incredible Hulk.

(TV version) Bruce Banner is a decent fellow, just making his way in the world. He takes odd jobs, he stays out of people's way, he helps people he likes but doesn't go out of his way to "save the orphans". He doesn't go out of his way to break the law but, conversely, he doesn't turn himself in to the authorities either, though that would put an end to his alter-ego's rampages. Pretty much a Neutral fellow.

But when he gets angry?

When Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk, he becomes an animal. A big, green, angry animal. And like any angry animal, he lashes out at whatever made him angry. When the offender is incapable of making him angry any more, the Hulk leaves the scene. The Hulk, like any barely intelligent animal, is Neutral.

Cue the next morning. Banner wakes up in the forest somewhere. He gets up, dusts himself off, then walks to the next town, where he is a decent fellow, staying out of people's way and helping those he likes.

But when he gets angry?

And so on, and so on, and so on........

Patrick Y.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Some folks have a seriously radical view of the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

I play a Chaotic Neutral barbarian. He is nothing like some of these people say a Chaotic Neutral should be, but he is still Chaotic Neutral. For example, his word means something to him. He may not follow a liege lord or the laws of others, but he follows the laws aka culture of his own people and in his culture, his word means something. He must adhere to it or lose his honor amongst his people. He will not do this. If my barbarian says he will help or do as he has said, you can be damn sure he will live up to his word.

Chaotic Neutrals in my campaign generally must play within the following guidelines:

1. Willing to do a heroic deed for free on occassion should he or she deem it worthy, but be just as willing to do a deed for no more reason than receiving a good amount of gold. They are not beholden to good or evil, but generally don't engage in evil because it can give them a bad reputation and it is harder to trust evil people. They definitely have mercernary sensibilities, just not evil sensibilities. For example, a chaotic neutral might be hired to help raid a village or town to plunder it, but they would not hire on to collect babies for sacrifice to Cyric.

2. Not follow the laws of a place unless they are enforced by people strong enough to enforce them. Chaotic Neutrals don't respect the laws of others just because they are there. They follow the laws of the strong or their own code or nothing at all.

3. Travels often and is restless and ill-at-ease with the same surroundings. They dont' like sitting idle and have a great deal of trouble with order and routine.

4. Doesn't abide servitude or slavery for himself, but feels no obligation to free others unless he or she was raised to dislike slavery or servitude.

I just don't see Chaotic Neutral people as total wild people who can do what they wish. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that is actually one of the easier alignments to play and DM. A chaotic neutral person is very individualistic with no loyatlies to good nor evil. They do not engage in indiscriminately good or evil acts aka they don't kill smiths for shoeing their horse wrong. Murder is evil. Murder without cause is Chaotic, murder with cause is lawful. That is the only difference.

If you are playing a Chaotic Neutral person, you are most likely some free wheeling, mercernary type individual who is always looking out for number one. You don't enjoy lawful towns or societies, and probably love to adventure. Chaotic Neutral is a great alignment that is perfect for mercernary adventurer types.

If you are playing a person who would kill smith for shoeing your horse wrong, you are chaotic evil, not neutral. If you try to blame it on a murderous rage, then your character has serious mental problems not alignment problems. Chaotic neutrals don't fly off the handle. They are just as likely to murder or not murder as anyone else if they are not psychotic, but have not qualms about killing a man who has personally wronged them though they law might not agree. Just not for something so unbelievably trivial.

 

[Bragg Battleaxe]

I second what some folks have already said: alignment isn't the real issue here. Murder in my campaign world is going to be dealt with IN my campaign world. Remember, these people don't know what alignment is, they only know that someone killed the blacksmith in cold blood. Once the guards have captured and executed the PC in question, then he can worry about his alignment.

 

[The_Gneech]

Conan was Chaotic Neutral but ended up as king of Aquilonia. Snake Plisskin is practically a character study on the CN alignment. It can be done, and done well.

-The Gneech

 

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

There's one thing a Chaotic Neutral can't do: be Lawful.

If he is Lawful even half the time, he is Neutral rather than Chaotic.

That means he won't keep promises, won't fulfill contracts, won't obey laws or rules, won't respect authority. He is going to get himself into trouble with governments, and is going to make enemies when he breaks contracts. He is going to develop a reputation for unreliability; people won't hire him, won't trust him, won't want to have dealings with him.

He will also put his own selfish interests above those of the group, and won't do things purely for the sake of the group. This is going to get him into trouble with his fellow adventurers. He's not a team player -- in fact he's not even cooperative. (Cooperative would be at least Neutral.)

If he were Good he would earn a few points for good intentions, and for the fact that at least his selfish interests are generally beneficial. But as a Neutral, he does evil as often as he does good. This makes his unreliability dangerous and highly undesirable.

Someone will of course argue that "he can do anything he wants, even do lawful or good acts." That is true, but he cannot do them habitually. If he does, his alignment changes accordingly; your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I will note however that unlike previous editions, 3E explicitly allows characters to do anything they want regardless of alignment. There is no penalty for alignment change, and the DMG even goes so far to say that a character who constantly changes alignment is really Neutral -- essentially unaligned. So unaligned characters can exist.

If you want to discourage non-aligned behavior, you could include more aligned magic: aligned magic weapons, items that can only be used by people of a certain alignment and damage all others, allies that refuse to deal with people of the wrong alignment (and have the ability to verify it).

Mike

You make a fundamental mistake by thinking in absolutes, an average CN person isn`t a Chaos incarnated. He might not like regulations and contacts but sometimes one has to compromise. I think of myself as a Chaotic, I often change my mind, and even mood, I am a rebel by heart, yet I often have to obey authority, for alternative would be much worse.

 

[Henry]

...I am a rebel by heart, yet I often have to obey authority, for alternative would be much worse.

Yet, to me, this is more of a "True Neutral" stance - someone who does not obey laws out of a sense of duty or belief that society would fall, but ONLY out of fear of punishment.

Remember: Lawful characters do not obey every law just because they believe in them - they obey because they rather fear the consequences of anarchy.

A truly Chaotic Neutral character IMO would only do good by sheer accident - not out of any sense of compassion, but because it was the best option available to him.

To the poster who said Chaotic Neutral was "enabling" - I don't agree, because true chaotic behavior would preclude enjoying some of the benefits of living in a lawful society. The belief that law was better at ANYTHING would suggest that the character was more Neutral than Chaotic.

 

[alsih2o]

edit: why don't they have a filter for a**, if they don't want us saying it?

people who ride them?