Chaotic Neutral Alignment should be against the rules!!!
- Thread starter Kargin el Tomath
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
While I concur that no one is absolutely thier alignment, I nonetheless have to agree completely with Henry.
As a general rule, it is pure nuetrals who are motivated by convienance. To suggest that you are not chaotic in your behavior because the consequences would be inconveinent is to suggest that you are neutral and not chaotic. If a chaotic doesn't do rebelious and defiant things even though he knows it would be unwise, then probably he isn't strongly chaotic or even chaotic at all. A true chaotic wouldn't think about things; he would simply respond with his viceral emotional reaction - nor could he conform for long without exploding.
The basic test to me is to always compare such alignment tests with similar (and less contriversial) alignment tests for Good. If a neutral good character fails to show compassion because it is inconveinent (he might not be able to buy that +3 sword), or fails to assist the helpless because it might draw unwanted attention to himself, or fails to stand up for his beliefs because it might be dangerous - no one is going to allow him to claim goodness for long. A character might be allowed to weasel around one test or the other by claiming some higher purpose or other special defence, but eventually one notes that the character is all the time trying to evade the strictures of his alignment and therefore must not believe in them that strongly. For such people, I always recommend pure neutrality.
Alignment tests which we make for one alignment, must have equivalent alignment tests in every other alignment, else we are ourselves showing preference for an alignment. The various people who make claims of superiority (X alignment is enabling) are saying more about thier own alignment views than they are about the alignment system. I don't find evil to be enabling at all, instead I find it enslaving and indeed mentally disfiguring. Nor do I find either chaos or law enabling. Tell me how much free will a serial killer or a pedaphile or a heroin adict has left? Wanna guess what alignment I believe most closely conforms with my own beliefs?
At their hearts, each alignment system causes a person to stop doing certain things because they lose the desire to do them.
Melkor may wish to think that he is a rebel, as our chaotic leaning post 1968 society glorifies the deviant, the avantgard, and the disident - but there is not alot of evidence of Melkors chaoticness from the limited information we recieved.
And there is even less evidence that a character in an RPG with Melkors mode of behavior could claim they were Chaotic. At least we have Melkor's testimony that he internally feels rebellious and mentally struggles with the confines that society put around him. He might possibly be slightly chaotic in nature. But in most RPG's we can't spend alot of time quantifying mental anguish (we could but it would mean an entirely different sort of game), and we can't rely on the players claims that his player is experiencing emotion because it is a VERY VERY different thing to have your reason clouded by emotion, and to say that in abstraction your character's reason is clouded by emotion while all the while maintaining your emotional distance. For RPG's, especially those of the heroic mold, we have to rely on the characters actions to display thier internal states. A good RPer who is in touch with his characters emotional state tries to bring this out strongly in his character's actions - even if this percludes playing the game like a tactical wargame.
And it is hardly convincing to make the claim that the character is motivated to restrain his natural inclination to law or chaos because he is a coward and fears the consequences, if he is also the sort of person who (as most adventurers do) seeks out danger and adventure. Not that it couldn't be done, but it would require playing the character far differently than most people who shrug off thier characters philosophical outlook play their characters.
As a general rule, it is pure nuetrals who are motivated by convienance. To suggest that you are not chaotic in your behavior because the consequences would be inconveinent is to suggest that you are neutral and not chaotic. If a chaotic doesn't do rebelious and defiant things even though he knows it would be unwise, then probably he isn't strongly chaotic or even chaotic at all. A true chaotic wouldn't think about things; he would simply respond with his viceral emotional reaction - nor could he conform for long without exploding.
The basic test to me is to always compare such alignment tests with similar (and less contriversial) alignment tests for Good. If a neutral good character fails to show compassion because it is inconveinent (he might not be able to buy that +3 sword), or fails to assist the helpless because it might draw unwanted attention to himself, or fails to stand up for his beliefs because it might be dangerous - no one is going to allow him to claim goodness for long. A character might be allowed to weasel around one test or the other by claiming some higher purpose or other special defence, but eventually one notes that the character is all the time trying to evade the strictures of his alignment and therefore must not believe in them that strongly. For such people, I always recommend pure neutrality.
Alignment tests which we make for one alignment, must have equivalent alignment tests in every other alignment, else we are ourselves showing preference for an alignment. The various people who make claims of superiority (X alignment is enabling) are saying more about thier own alignment views than they are about the alignment system. I don't find evil to be enabling at all, instead I find it enslaving and indeed mentally disfiguring. Nor do I find either chaos or law enabling. Tell me how much free will a serial killer or a pedaphile or a heroin adict has left? Wanna guess what alignment I believe most closely conforms with my own beliefs?
At their hearts, each alignment system causes a person to stop doing certain things because they lose the desire to do them.
Melkor may wish to think that he is a rebel, as our chaotic leaning post 1968 society glorifies the deviant, the avantgard, and the disident - but there is not alot of evidence of Melkors chaoticness from the limited information we recieved.
And there is even less evidence that a character in an RPG with Melkors mode of behavior could claim they were Chaotic. At least we have Melkor's testimony that he internally feels rebellious and mentally struggles with the confines that society put around him. He might possibly be slightly chaotic in nature. But in most RPG's we can't spend alot of time quantifying mental anguish (we could but it would mean an entirely different sort of game), and we can't rely on the players claims that his player is experiencing emotion because it is a VERY VERY different thing to have your reason clouded by emotion, and to say that in abstraction your character's reason is clouded by emotion while all the while maintaining your emotional distance. For RPG's, especially those of the heroic mold, we have to rely on the characters actions to display thier internal states. A good RPer who is in touch with his characters emotional state tries to bring this out strongly in his character's actions - even if this percludes playing the game like a tactical wargame.
And it is hardly convincing to make the claim that the character is motivated to restrain his natural inclination to law or chaos because he is a coward and fears the consequences, if he is also the sort of person who (as most adventurers do) seeks out danger and adventure. Not that it couldn't be done, but it would require playing the character far differently than most people who shrug off thier characters philosophical outlook play their characters.
Last edited:
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Celebrim said:
Specifically, it would mean White Wolf's Wraith, in which Angst is (I kid you not) a character stat. Wotta game.
I still think you could do worse than reading Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book if you want to understand chaotic neutral. I'm reminded of an interview he did once, in which he espoused total freedom of speech.
"Surely," asked the interviewer, "you don't think people should be allowed to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, do you?"
Abbie Hoffman's answer?
FIRE!
Daniel
Last edited:
Melkor Lord Of ALL!
First Post
Well if you take Chaotic Neutral to such an extreme( can`t have lasting realtionships, cannot follow regulations), than other alignments should be treated like this as well: LN character must obay ANY law, even those created by CE goverment, all Good beings must act like Mother Theresa, and Evil means destroying any Good on sight.
Celebrim
Legend
"than other alignments should be treated like this as well: LN character must obay ANY law, even those created by CE goverment"
Well, yes, assuming that there is such a thing as CE goverment, and that those laws encourage people to obey the goverment, and that means of altering the goverment or not within the legal rights of the LN individual. Specifically, if the LN is a servant of an absolute monarch with a (percieved) legitimate claim to the throne, then the fact that the monarch is CE or insane or anything else is bothersome but unimportant compared to his duty to obey his leige. He cannot act against his ruler unless some higher law (and what law is higher than an absolute monarch?) is broken.
"all Good beings must act like Mother Theresa..."
Well, more or less. All good beings must act good, though there are a range of actions which fall under the general category of compassionate.
"...and Evil means destroying any Good on sight."
Well, I don't know about that. Evil means evil. Killing and destroying can be part of that. Who you kill and destroy probably isn't all that important to you if you are truly evil.
Sure there are complications. No one follows thier own alignment perfectly for a variaty of reasons: tempatation, cowardice, and lack of wisdom for example. Each alignment can have a variaty of valid philosophical interpretations. (For instance, some NG's may be pacifists and others may be police officers - but if they are both nuetral good, both share in varying degrees distaste for (but not a fear of) violence.)
However, too much dwelling on the complications tends to be attempts to weasel out of the philosophical beliefs that supposedly motivate your character. In such case, the real motivation of the player/character tends to be something other than the stated, and it would be better if the alignment was altered to reflect that. Most of the time, those beliefs are neutral (the most relativist moral system) - that is to say, the belief that there is a time and place for every sort of behavior (and that the deciding factor is generally minimizing the hardship such a behavior causes the individual).
I don't find that suprising, since moral relativism is the most commonly taught social code in modern Western civilization. Most people have a hard believing that anyone believes that there is anything that one should always do.
Well, yes, assuming that there is such a thing as CE goverment, and that those laws encourage people to obey the goverment, and that means of altering the goverment or not within the legal rights of the LN individual. Specifically, if the LN is a servant of an absolute monarch with a (percieved) legitimate claim to the throne, then the fact that the monarch is CE or insane or anything else is bothersome but unimportant compared to his duty to obey his leige. He cannot act against his ruler unless some higher law (and what law is higher than an absolute monarch?) is broken.
"all Good beings must act like Mother Theresa..."
Well, more or less. All good beings must act good, though there are a range of actions which fall under the general category of compassionate.
"...and Evil means destroying any Good on sight."
Well, I don't know about that. Evil means evil. Killing and destroying can be part of that. Who you kill and destroy probably isn't all that important to you if you are truly evil.
Sure there are complications. No one follows thier own alignment perfectly for a variaty of reasons: tempatation, cowardice, and lack of wisdom for example. Each alignment can have a variaty of valid philosophical interpretations. (For instance, some NG's may be pacifists and others may be police officers - but if they are both nuetral good, both share in varying degrees distaste for (but not a fear of) violence.)
However, too much dwelling on the complications tends to be attempts to weasel out of the philosophical beliefs that supposedly motivate your character. In such case, the real motivation of the player/character tends to be something other than the stated, and it would be better if the alignment was altered to reflect that. Most of the time, those beliefs are neutral (the most relativist moral system) - that is to say, the belief that there is a time and place for every sort of behavior (and that the deciding factor is generally minimizing the hardship such a behavior causes the individual).
I don't find that suprising, since moral relativism is the most commonly taught social code in modern Western civilization. Most people have a hard believing that anyone believes that there is anything that one should always do.
Melkor Lord Of ALL!
First Post
Celebrim said:
Sorry but my interpretation of LN means a person that strongly follows a Code of Conduct, not necessary Law Of The Land. Won`t you consider a Mafia man like Don Corleone from Godfather lawful? Oh, and you wouldn`t like me, I believe in moral relativism almost to the point of nihilism.
I've recently come across a neutral character that has been doing many "possible" evil acts.
And he keeps using the "I'm neutral, I can do whatever I want" as an excuse.
So I established a pattern and if I consider it an evil act, I give him a point of evil.
10 points before he "reaches" the dark side, he would then have shifted One category to evil. IN this case Neutral becomes Neutral Evil.
Then keep going. Next phase would be to reach lawful evil (20 ponts), then chaotic evil (30 points).
To be come righteous again, he would need to start gaining good points. So good deeds that are geared towards the populace, NOT the pc's or NPC's that are with the party. And each evil point they have, they need 2 good points to expunge. So for them to come back from CE they need 60 good points.
Eventually they will start showing up in detect evil spells and if they ask, all I'm saying is, by your actions you have evil on your soul. It is up to you to do what you want with the character.
Then if they continue, eventually any npc that can cast detect evil will not trust him.
I have decided to add a reaction adjustment that affects any NPC interaction with the player. for every 5 points of evil, he gets a -1 reqaction penalty. so 1 evil point doesn't incur it until he reaches 5, then 10, then 15, then 20, then 25, then 30 for the max of -6.
This is more of a house rule thing, but I thought I'd share it with you guys.
Kyramus
And he keeps using the "I'm neutral, I can do whatever I want" as an excuse.
So I established a pattern and if I consider it an evil act, I give him a point of evil.
10 points before he "reaches" the dark side, he would then have shifted One category to evil. IN this case Neutral becomes Neutral Evil.
Then keep going. Next phase would be to reach lawful evil (20 ponts), then chaotic evil (30 points).
To be come righteous again, he would need to start gaining good points. So good deeds that are geared towards the populace, NOT the pc's or NPC's that are with the party. And each evil point they have, they need 2 good points to expunge. So for them to come back from CE they need 60 good points.
Eventually they will start showing up in detect evil spells and if they ask, all I'm saying is, by your actions you have evil on your soul. It is up to you to do what you want with the character.
Then if they continue, eventually any npc that can cast detect evil will not trust him.
I have decided to add a reaction adjustment that affects any NPC interaction with the player. for every 5 points of evil, he gets a -1 reqaction penalty. so 1 evil point doesn't incur it until he reaches 5, then 10, then 15, then 20, then 25, then 30 for the max of -6.
This is more of a house rule thing, but I thought I'd share it with you guys.
Kyramus
Melkor Lord Of ALL!
First Post
Kyramus said:
While I agree with you changing N to NE, why do you think LE is more Evil than NE but less than CE?
Celebrim
Legend
"Sorry but my interpretation of LN means a person that strongly follows a Code of Conduct, not necessary Law Of The Land."
That's exactly my interpretation of the alignment, which is why is explicitly stated in the example that the character considered him part of the government heirarchy. If his loyalty was to a different heirarchy then the same things would be true only with respect to that heirarchy.
"Won`t you consider a Mafia man like Don Corleone from Godfather lawful?"
Possibly. Hollywood can be very romantic about disidents. But specifically, if Don Corleone had LN retainers, then those LN retainers would follow the Godfather's instructions regardless of whether those instructions were 'lawful' or whether the Godfather was actually CE (though if both the retainer and Don Corleon were subject to some higher code of honor, Don Dorleone's continued violation of it would be grounds for the rebellion of his retainers).
"Oh, and you wouldn`t like me, I believe in moral relativism almost to the point of nihilism."
I gathered your moral position from your first post, but you should note that my moral position is NOT relativistic, and therefore I don't have the right to 'not like' you - however much I may detest moral relativism and nihilism or however easily you may try to make it for me to not like you.
That's exactly my interpretation of the alignment, which is why is explicitly stated in the example that the character considered him part of the government heirarchy. If his loyalty was to a different heirarchy then the same things would be true only with respect to that heirarchy.
"Won`t you consider a Mafia man like Don Corleone from Godfather lawful?"
Possibly. Hollywood can be very romantic about disidents. But specifically, if Don Corleone had LN retainers, then those LN retainers would follow the Godfather's instructions regardless of whether those instructions were 'lawful' or whether the Godfather was actually CE (though if both the retainer and Don Corleon were subject to some higher code of honor, Don Dorleone's continued violation of it would be grounds for the rebellion of his retainers).
"Oh, and you wouldn`t like me, I believe in moral relativism almost to the point of nihilism."
I gathered your moral position from your first post, but you should note that my moral position is NOT relativistic, and therefore I don't have the right to 'not like' you - however much I may detest moral relativism and nihilism or however easily you may try to make it for me to not like you.
BBrendolfus
First Post
I have never suffered a silly player masquerading as CN. On occasion I've played a light session with a lot of silliness all round and there have briefly been problem players (no more).
CN, the free spirit alignment, I have no problems at all with.
As long as the players can work together, or agree that they won't for that particular adventure
.
Wrecking my friends fun is not cool and I'm certain they feel the same.
CN, the free spirit alignment, I have no problems at all with.
As long as the players can work together, or agree that they won't for that particular adventure
.Wrecking my friends fun is not cool and I'm certain they feel the same.
Similar Threads
