Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The old LG vs CN problem….
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6688398" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I do think there are two to three other groups of people jostling to take up the Chaotic Neutral alignment--on the whole it's rather a busy place (which is why it comes up so often):</p><p></p><p>"Mischievous Rascals" - I see these people as coming at it from the opposite direction that the "I (perhaps unknowingly) want to write 'Evil' but can't because that's a no-no" group. Labelling yourself as "Good" makes it sound like there are too many strings attached--this person wants to have some self-interested fun now and then. Expect playful pranks (but rarely/never ones that would be permanently hurtful), nicking non-essential shiny things for personal enjoyment or to sell off later, and a sassy attitude toward anyone in an "official" position of power (unless, as with most Chaotic alignments, that official has personally earned the Mischievous Rascal's respect). These will be generally easy to deal with, because as long as they can crack some jokes and have a good time, they're up for basically anything, though a crackdown on dissent or dispassionately carrying out punishment regardless of whether it is "deserved" will probably rub them the wrong way.</p><p></p><p>"Actually Chaotic Neutral!" - The rare few who are more like, say, Garret from the original Thief series. He's really not an especially "good" person, and with rare exceptions he really is in it for himself. Even his efforts to save the city are easily attributed to avenging wrongs done to him or those he immediately cares about, or trying to prevent apocalypse (which is terribly bad for business). This kind of person is amoral (not immoral) and motivated primarily by "looking out for number one." First, survival; second, a comfortable living; third, excitement and entertainment. Ironically, this person is actually much <em>easier</em> to deal with than the previous one. In general, their motivations will be pretty clearly stated, and often merely the promise of excitement, adventure, and <em>really shiny money</em> is enough to get them motivated; they're also very rarely cruel, because it's stupid to make unnecessary enemies, and because having <em>that</em> kind of reputation is bad for business. Those that do engage in violence--e.g. bounty hunters, rather than thieves--will tend to preserve that professionalism, and either way, a job's a job, though their methods for completing it may be...unorthodox.</p><p></p><p>"Maximum Badass" - This is the one that's sort of half-there. Unlike the "I want no strings" of MR, MB is about wanting nothing to "tarnish" your tough-guy reputation. This is the kind of thing Han Solo would do; he's carefully constructed an image of himself as a thoroughly "moral grey area" character, but when push comes to shove, he's really just "white that's got grubby" (as Granny Weatherwax would put it). In a sense, they're sort of midway between the above two; they see themselves as the 'not especially good person' but are easily convinced to go along with Team Good. While they might not turn down a secret theft, in a "character is what you are in the dark" moment, they'll do the good/noble thing before doing the amoral-self-interest thing.</p><p></p><p>When you add in the people who (knowingly or not) really want to play CE but can't, that's four fairly distinct (or three distinct plus a meaningful midpoint) archetypes all bundled into the same alignment square. I'm not sure there are nearly as many nicely-distinct variations for most other squares, and pretty dang sure they won't be as <em>popular</em> as the four above.</p><p></p><p>Really, though, I'm more surprised that the majority of the group is Lawful; the vast majority of people I've played with favor either CN (usually not the "I reeeeaaally want to be Evil!" version) or CG, and see Lawful anything as a fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue :P" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6688398, member: 6790260"] I do think there are two to three other groups of people jostling to take up the Chaotic Neutral alignment--on the whole it's rather a busy place (which is why it comes up so often): "Mischievous Rascals" - I see these people as coming at it from the opposite direction that the "I (perhaps unknowingly) want to write 'Evil' but can't because that's a no-no" group. Labelling yourself as "Good" makes it sound like there are too many strings attached--this person wants to have some self-interested fun now and then. Expect playful pranks (but rarely/never ones that would be permanently hurtful), nicking non-essential shiny things for personal enjoyment or to sell off later, and a sassy attitude toward anyone in an "official" position of power (unless, as with most Chaotic alignments, that official has personally earned the Mischievous Rascal's respect). These will be generally easy to deal with, because as long as they can crack some jokes and have a good time, they're up for basically anything, though a crackdown on dissent or dispassionately carrying out punishment regardless of whether it is "deserved" will probably rub them the wrong way. "Actually Chaotic Neutral!" - The rare few who are more like, say, Garret from the original Thief series. He's really not an especially "good" person, and with rare exceptions he really is in it for himself. Even his efforts to save the city are easily attributed to avenging wrongs done to him or those he immediately cares about, or trying to prevent apocalypse (which is terribly bad for business). This kind of person is amoral (not immoral) and motivated primarily by "looking out for number one." First, survival; second, a comfortable living; third, excitement and entertainment. Ironically, this person is actually much [I]easier[/I] to deal with than the previous one. In general, their motivations will be pretty clearly stated, and often merely the promise of excitement, adventure, and [I]really shiny money[/I] is enough to get them motivated; they're also very rarely cruel, because it's stupid to make unnecessary enemies, and because having [I]that[/I] kind of reputation is bad for business. Those that do engage in violence--e.g. bounty hunters, rather than thieves--will tend to preserve that professionalism, and either way, a job's a job, though their methods for completing it may be...unorthodox. "Maximum Badass" - This is the one that's sort of half-there. Unlike the "I want no strings" of MR, MB is about wanting nothing to "tarnish" your tough-guy reputation. This is the kind of thing Han Solo would do; he's carefully constructed an image of himself as a thoroughly "moral grey area" character, but when push comes to shove, he's really just "white that's got grubby" (as Granny Weatherwax would put it). In a sense, they're sort of midway between the above two; they see themselves as the 'not especially good person' but are easily convinced to go along with Team Good. While they might not turn down a secret theft, in a "character is what you are in the dark" moment, they'll do the good/noble thing before doing the amoral-self-interest thing. When you add in the people who (knowingly or not) really want to play CE but can't, that's four fairly distinct (or three distinct plus a meaningful midpoint) archetypes all bundled into the same alignment square. I'm not sure there are nearly as many nicely-distinct variations for most other squares, and pretty dang sure they won't be as [I]popular[/I] as the four above. Really, though, I'm more surprised that the majority of the group is Lawful; the vast majority of people I've played with favor either CN (usually not the "I reeeeaaally want to be Evil!" version) or CG, and see Lawful anything as a fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud. :P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The old LG vs CN problem….
Top